Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Geo.plrd

2008-03-26T21:08:40Z

SashaT: /* priest values */

{|class="table"
<center><big>Geo.plrd</big> 
Archives
 
[[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive1|1]] [[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive2|2]] [[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive3|3]] [[User:Geo.plrd/Archive4|4]] [[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive5|5]]
</center>

|
<center>('''geoplrd''' on AIM/'''geo.plrd At yahoo.com) 
Current messages</center>

== Linus ==

Thank you. I had missed the page of his parole. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 05:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

P.S. Thank you also for deleting the page I had created by mistake! [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 07:20, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Notice ==

Please read this: [[New Sysops Training Page]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:25, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
==You're not conservative==
How come you are on here, your political compass indicates that you are center to center-left. I didn't think other moderates were allowed on here. --[[User:UncleJalapeno|UncleJalapeno]] 10:47, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

*Check out his subtle vandalism here, Geo: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Iran-Contra_affair&curid=6481&diff=166849&oldid=118172] Nice, sly changes, Jalapeno, and you being so "new" to CP! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:53, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

== Pleistocene ==

I see that you gave this a definition coming from "evolution". I would have put it down as a term from "geology". I don't want to edit it in case you think I pushing a POV. I would like to know what you think. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 12:23, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

== Sci-Tol ==

It's not possible - the article has been put in a deleted articles category or something to prevent subsequent re-creation. Dunno why, I guess they have their reasons.[[User:Fantomas|Fantomas]] 12:52, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

:I was just adding on that I saw you're a SYSOP. With a big "Ooops!" to go with it! :-) [[User:Fantomas|Fantomas]] 13:17, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

== test ==

[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[Conservapedia:Sysop|Site Sheriff]] 14:08, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
Site Sheriff(Sysop)[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 14:10, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

== Felicitaciones ==

GRACIAS

== Your template(s) ==

{{TemplateDocRqd|ClayPin|sysop=true|done=yes}}
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:58, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, please ask me to delete it for you, or Philip, Geo...if your hands are broken! :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:04, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:(The message previously said to ask a sysop to delete unwanted templates, but I've altered the message to no longer say that.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:34, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
*Yes, I saw the earlier ones, and got my humor in before you caught it! ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:19, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
Geo, thanks for putting them on the template list, but they also need to be documented on each template's page. I've done {{tl|ClayPin}} for you as an example, although I'm not sure of a couple of points, so please review that one as well. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

== AIM? ==

Aim! Please message. Read my posts there. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:33, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
:Apologies, but I am not near a IM client right now. I will hopefully be able to IM you when I get home in a few hours. Site Sheriff(Sysop)[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:53, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

::*Paint ball? ;-) I will forward on to you a recent email about all this. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:55, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

== blah ==

--[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 17:49, 18 June 2007 (EDT)<center><big>Copyright Violations</big></center>

== Moon and the Times ==

This fact is clearly stated in our entry for the paper - why shouldn't it be in the Moon entry? [[User:Guitarplayer|Guitarplayer]] 21:02, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Sorry - my bad. [[User:Guitarplayer|Guitarplayer]] 21:03, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

== Uncyclopedia ==

Look, can you unlock the [[Uncyclopedia]] article? There's hardly anything on there and more is needed, but we can't edit it because you've protected it! Why did you protect it for? There's no reason to. Please unprotect '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 18:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

When and if you make it back, Scorpion, Geo might be able to answer you, or not. This isn't WP. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:13, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::Uh, I don't know what "When or if you make it back" means. I'm still on here. Any Geo, here's the material I'd like you to add:

''Uncyclopedia, despite being a parody of Wikipedia, supports much of the same material that Wikipedia does. They take an obviously liberal stance, and much of their humor is directed at Christian and Conservative values. In particular, their article on Conservapedia is composed mostly of hate speech, labelling Conservatives as "retards". In addition, they attack creationism via a "pro-creationist" article, which mocks creationism by phrases like "evolution will get you sent straight to hell" and "Darwin was a **** Satanist". At any rate, it is clear that Uncyclopedia hates Christians and creationism, and aims to destroy Conservativism.'' '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 09:50, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==Scorpio==

User:Scorpio has been blocked for one week for twice removing discussion page comments from RSchlafly'es page.

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RSchlafly&diff=217145&oldid=216629

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RSchlafly&diff=prev&oldid=217848

I believe we have evidence of a meatpuppet attack on me after a "chat" with TK. The removal of comments from RSchlafly's page were critical of TK.

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:TK&diff=prev&oldid=211850

Geoffrey, you can begin examination of the facts right here, and determine if User:Scorpio has become a meatpuppet of TK. TK offered to block Scorpio on the discussion list (available in the Search engine) and privately. Since the Conley email, it appears TK contacted Scorpio, and TK has further intiated other actions that have no transparency.

In the meantime, I await you forwarding me any and all transcripts of discussions on processes. Scorpio will remain blocked for information destruction from RSchlafly's page. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:41, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

:Geo, you're approved as our first judge for the contest. There will be additional judges also. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:57, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

== Greetings, fellow judge! ==

Hi, Geo. I have accepted the team captains' appointment as a [[Conservapedia:Team contest|judge]].

Thus far, I've put in for the consideration of having our own namespace so that we can "retire to chambers" as we weigh the "evidence."--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:31, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Welcome, Geo, as a Judge! I've created a new namespace that only Judges can access. I can't even access it. You might create a page in it like [[Judges:Contest]] (note that I cannot even create that page).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:36, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:Geo, as you can see, the [[Judges:Contest|chambers]] is now open. Thus far you and I are the only two Judges. I assume that that will soon change.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:47, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

== McCarthy mediation ==

Geo, I invite you over to the McCarthy Discussion page for a mediation issue that I'm hoping you can resolve. Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 22:56, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

:I agree 100%. The disturbing thing is that Rob removed this from the intro paragraph:

::''He was noted for claiming and subsequently proving that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government.''

:It was fine the way it was but Rob changed it without discussion. I have no problem changing to what you suggested. How should we proceed? Do you want to make the change or me or Rob? Your call. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 23:22, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, I'll do it but please be prepared to unblock me and the McCarthy page after Rob gets upset. :p [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 23:34, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

:Geoff, Rob has reverted the work I did as per your orders. I informed him that he is in contempt of your status as Mediator. I await your further instructions. Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 00:25, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Geoff, thanks for making the change but there is an extra "period" in the new sentence so I'm going have to fix that. Also, I don't think there was a need for a new section for the "Moynihan" info since it's essentially related to the Venona info and should be included in that parapraph. Would you mind terribly if I simply reverted back to the latest changes which you authorized me to do last night? It would make the flow of the article more concise. I would appreciate that. Please let me know. Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 10:24, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

::The key word we need to place in the Intro is "conspiracy." For one half century (and still today) teachers in classrooms at all levels, junior high school through Graduate School, maintain McCarthy was a right-wing paranoid conspiracy theorist whose crusades produced nothing. The U.S Government Secrecy Commission in its Final Report in 1995 gave McCarthy a clean bill of health with "The first fact is, there was a conspiracy..."

::So, we have two statements. Scorpio has inserted extensive quotes from what is commonly known as McCarthy's "conspiracy of infamy so black" speech, which needs to be contrasted with the exoneration from the Secrecy Commission findings.

::A big concern I have with Venona documents is, that in no way they be misrepresented to say something other than what they say. Hence, we need to place exoneration from the Secrecy Commission in the Intro, and not represent Venona as something other than what it is.[[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:28, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Rob, again, you refuse to address MOS which forbids what you propose. The new intro as placed by Geo does in fact do what you say needs to be done without going into elaborate detail. The detail is in the appropriate sub-section. The current format is more in line with MOS than what you had there before and does the job adequately. The only thing I suggest is that the new section be changed from "Declassified Soviet Files" to "Declassified Soviet files & McCarthy vindication". There are still many things that need to be done to this article in order to present pertinent info but as you may have noticed, I have stopped adding anything further until these ridiculously simple matters are resolved. I've got lots of great stuff to add but we are getting bogged down in procedure. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 15:33, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

::::I'm involved with the contest right now (as Geo is too), so I haven't really been able to engage all that needs to be discussed. As per the MOS, I need to discuss with the MOS author what historiography of dead persons vs bios living polticians should be, because that recommended format you cite is intended for living persons.

::::As to the substance of "conspiracy', this is in keeping with your original idea in the opening which was edited out, "subsequently proving"; McCarthy didn't prove conspiracy, but the Secrecy Commission did. As to the new subtitle, we should probably discuss the overall structure once I'm available after the contest is over, cause I'm a bit uneasy about putting ==Venona== under ==US Senate==. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:46, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== Full IP address? ==

I am concerned about the publishing of the full IP address of users. Does this conflict with [[Conservapedia:Privacy policy]]. Is [[Conservapedia:Shame]] in conflict with sharing private information with the world? I am not sure if that page is what is being used to report vandalism to the authorities. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:54, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

*There is no expectation of privacy on the Internet, we are constantly told. Also, an IP address doesn't narrow down a user's location to such a point where they are easily identified anyway. So what is this concern? Is someone forced to come here and vandalize? Please stop with the Red Herrings. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:14, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== contest ==

Who is winning at this time? Or are you not allowed to say? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 01:12, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

*It is sad, is it not, that you don't have anything funny in your signature, no? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:20, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:Me? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 01:21, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

:*No, the other, he should have something fun in it....I am thinking. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:22, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::Click here for ban!

Hahaha! But I can unblock myself! :P --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:35, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

==Scores==

Just wondering if you know and could tell me the final scores of Team1 and Team2...Aschlafly and I are trying to figure out how close we came, and it would be a lot easier to just have the final numbers! Thanks, [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 17:42, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for the response! And yes, Aschlafly definitly deserves that honor...he was on constantly contributing for his team! [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 23:27, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

== categorizing articles ==

Hi! :)

Thanks for adding a new article. Please, though, categorize your articles when you create them; while there are those of us who will go through and clean-up the uncategorized articles, you know your subject better than we do.

For a list of categories, go here: [[Special:Categories]]. To add a category to your article, type two open brackets, then "category:" followed by the category you want. Just add two closed brackets and you're done! You can add as many categories as you feel are appropriate. Thanks! [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:41, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

*Geoffrey is on vacation, so just let me know what is needed. Thanks. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:23, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

:I categorized the article for him; this is just a boilerplate reminder I leave people to help encourage them to categorize their own stuff. I don't necessarily mind doing it, but often times the author will have a better idea of the appropriate category than I will. Das all. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 21:29, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

*Actually, they usually have a worse idea of where to put it than you do, but hey, I understand your tact. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:16, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

:Well yes, exactly. ;) I could be hit by a bus or something... [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:44, 17 August 2007 (EDT) ''<-look out!!!''

Well, "accidents" do happen.....[[Image:Schoolbusaccident3_011907.jpg‎ ]]

--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 22:19, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

== New McCarthy article block ==

Geo, is there any way that you can arrange it so that these blocks do not prevent me from working on the McCarthhy article? I realize that the the newest block was put into place to protect against vandals but unfortunately this also affects my ability to add to the article and I don't think my additions are an issue. Can you please work with me to find a solution to this matter? I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 10:30, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

:Geo, one thing that would be great is if changes and edits to the McCarthy article be limited to those done by SysOps. Which would require me to ask if someone would please elevate me to that level. Any thoughts on that? [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 13:50, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

== Flanders role on McCarthy Page ==

The talk page is locked on the [[Joseph McCarthy]] page. So, it's difficult to address any issues pertaining to the page. To wit, there are unsubstatiated statements ''in italics'' referring to Senator Flanders's initiative to censure the Senator from Wisconsin:

:While, over the past few years, Senator McCarthy withstood countless biased and unsubstantiated attacks by Liberals, Communists, etc., the organized effort to remove McCarthy from his Chairmanship and officially condemn him began in the Spring of 1954. It was started by fellow Republican Senator Ralph E. Flanders of Vermont ''at the behest of a coalition of Communists, Liberals, and Eisenhower Administration officials''. Flanders told the Senate that McCarthy's "anti-Communism so completely parallels that of Adolf Hitler as to strike fear into the hearts of any defenseless minority"; accused McCarthy of spreading "division and confusion" and saying, "Were the Junior Senator from Wisconsin in the pay of the Communists he could not have done a better job for them."[97] ''Flanders had obtained his list of charges against McCarthy from a left-wing group named the National Committee for an Effective Congress.''

The citable literature suggests that Flanders felt that McCarthy's emphasis on possible Communists within our borders distracted us from a much greater menace of Communist encroachment abroad. The literature shows Flanders to be a conservative marching to his own drummer and not supported (except for one note from Eisenhower after his March speech) by the administration. Given Flanders's professed enmity towards the Roosevelt administration, it is remarkable to suggest that he would be in collaboration with the National Committee for an Effective Congress. Instead, he consulted with Senators Cooper and Fulbright to develop articles of censure that were consistent with previous actions.

I request that the italicized statements be either deleted or substantiated with proper references.

[[User:Norwich]] 10/21/07

*I demand you post to the main editor there, [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]. If you do not, I will block you for being a coward. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:44, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

*My goodness, a little friendly advice would have sufficed before threatening a new member with names. I have followed your helpful advice. Sincerely, [[User:Norwich|Norwich]] 13:57, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

== Judging ==

I will be traveling today and I'm not sure when and if I'll have internet connection, but I should be back by 10pm (as long as I don't spend another night in an airport...). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:11, 25 November 2007 (EST)

: Any comment? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 20:24, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::Ok, Geo, I wrote our agreed ruling on the [[Contest3]] page. Look over it to make sure I didn't mess anything up and sign it, then we can tell all the players that we are done. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:57, 29 November 2007 (EST)
==Contest4==
Hey - I have created [[Conservapedia:Contest4]] and I've set up the [[Conservapedia talk:Contest4|talk]] page to discuss everything that you guys mentioned in your analysis of Contest3 (everything besides what I had already done to the scoring itself). If you don't mind it would be a great help to me if you took a look and made any changes you thought necessary.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:44, 7 January 2008 (EST)

== [[Uncyclopedia]] ==

Hi, I'd like to add a bit to that article including other examples of Uncyclopedia's attacking conservatives. The page is protected and you were the protecting sysop. Could you please temporarily unprotect it so I can work on it? Thanks! [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 19:04, 17 January 2008 (EST)

: Thanks! All done now. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 21:53, 18 January 2008 (EST)
==Unlock==
Hey Geo, can you unlock [[Saddam Hussein]] for me? Thanks--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:46, 5 February 2008 (EST)

== Could you please? ==
Could you please unlock the Phyllis Schlafly article for editing, if you haven't noticed it is rather incomplete.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 12:36, 17 February 2008 (EST)

== priest values ==

What Commandments did this article breach?

Also, how was it a parody? It was well-cited with accurate information.

Don't censor something simply because you don't like the truth. That's what Andy says. --[[User:SashaT|SashaT]] 16:42, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

SashaT created a duplicate of that article called [[some priest values]] -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 17:02, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:Nobody likes a [[narc]]. --[[User:SashaT|SashaT]] 17:03, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Shut up you are vandalizing this encyclopedia, that is why I am telling on you-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 17:05, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

This user just vandalized my user page can he/she be blocked?-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 17:07, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:Deborah would like a little [[cheese]] with her [[whine]]. --[[User:SashaT|SashaT]] 17:08, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Women in the Military?

2008-03-26T21:06:58Z

SashaT: /* Yes */

{{debate}}

== No ==

It is estimated that it takes eight people in supply to keep one man out in combat. Also, there are some jobs that by their nature are better suited to the female's mind, such as Air Traffic Controlman. I suppose it's pretty obvious where I come down on this issue. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 20:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'd like to see some support for that fairly sweeping generalization. I know some gents who do a bang-up job of being ATCs, and likewise some ladies who are as gung-ho crazy combat types as would make any drill sergeant's heart swell with pride - probably after cussing them out for being filthy little maggots, etc. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:34, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't really see where you are going with this. Are you for women in the military doing jobs that they are already doing? or is there something more? Please be more specific. Thanks --[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 13:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sure the fifty+ female soldiers who have died in Iraq and the thousands others who serve will be glad to hear how unsuited they are for combat. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
*Women should not be in combat or combat support, where there at risk of being captured or killed by the enemy. Male soldiers will, by nature, want to rescue them from danger, even at the cost of neglected strategically more important missions.
*We can try to train this protective masculine nature out of men, but it can only backfire. Israel and one European country tried using Women to fight, but it didn't work. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::I used to work for the Isreali army, and I would not like to fight against those female soldiers? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:: We don't have that problem in Canada; we allow our women in front-line combat roles. It is very likely that the [http://www.forces.gc.ca/ Canadian Forces] simply has superior training. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Does anyone remember the phenomenon of the 9-11 mom, who was the Dodge Caravan driving soccer mom on September 10, but turned into a war monger after the events of the following day? She put the Pubs back in control of the Senate in 2002 after that Jeffords nonsense, and started signing up in droves to trade in her purple SUV for an olive-green HMMWV. Woe to the intruder who discounts the she-bear and molests her cubs. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 10:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, I'm not a sociologist or a feminist or an anti-feminist, so none of what I say comes from being bigoted or from any discriminatory agenda. I was Marine Corps infantry (all male) for two combat deployments and "support"(mixed gender, no direct combat) for a surprise of a third deployment. I would have to say across the board that women should not be allowed in direct combat roles like 03, 08, etc.
When I was in the Pogg unit I couldn't believe how what percentage of women were sitting out of training ops on crutches, etc. In line units, probably 15% of us (males) got injured in some way shape or form during pre-deployment workups. I'd say out of about 250 Marines, 6 got injured to the point where they were considered non-deployable. Everyone else sucked it up and went anyway. Back in the support unit where the training was considerably (laughably) easier, twenty percent of the females were injured. These injuries were mostly due to stress fractures and heat injuries (caused by women not drinking enough water because they were too embarrassed to urinate). Another 50% (that makes 70% of our total) made themselves non-deployable by either getting pregnant or complaining of migraines or some other ailment. Now I will allow that there is a percentage of women on the high end of the scale who surpass some of the men even at the middle in physical training. But on the average, the top quintile of females in the military are even with the bottom quintile of males as far as physical training is concerned.
I'm not against women of any fitness level being in any support unit, but that's not for me. Some people can do it, but I can't. The macho mentality which I think is so necessary to create the aggression and violence of action could be held by some women in infantry roles, but it would diminish that mentality in many of the males, whether that's right or wrong. Male infantrymen are not, for the most part, enlightened social engineers. Their agenda is fighting and killing and taking care of each other. In the support unit I was surprised and disgusted at how much of my time was spent trying to stop people from sleeping with each other in a combat zone. Male-female bonds were causing stress, resentment of leadership, favoritism, and fights between the males and sometimes even the females. Sex in combat zones is strictly forbidden (even if your spouse is there) because it diminishes cohesion. But the command always turned a blind eye because it was a messy issue and no one wanted to "get involved." And that's in the units that I think can be mixed gender and succeed. I couldn't even imagine what would happen in a line unit where cohesion is perhaps the most important thing a unit can possess.

== Yes ==
(YES) If Deborah and Jael could fight for Israel and win God's favor then I'm all for any woman willing to serve her country to be allowed to do so without resistance or unnecessary sexism, provided she is physically able to serve. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 03:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply:''' Actually... Jael certainly did not fight for israel and I don't get the impression that Deborah did either. (it is't quite clear: she accompanied Barak to Kedesh but seemingly did not follow him to the battle) At any rate, Jael killed Sisera while he slept in her tent-- not exactly fighting. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 22:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm female myself, and I have just this side of nothing bad to say about my experiences in the Navy.
It's rather difficult to find information about how many people are in a given Military Occupation Specialty (MOS); even for the sake of argument saying that every MOS has the same number of people would skew the numbers wildly. However, most MOSes are in support of one kind or another; I've counted 12 out of easily 100+ MOSes for the US Army (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjobs/a/arjobs.htm) that are closed to women -- that is to say, these are the jobs that if you're deployed, you'll almost certainly see some kind of action.
I'm personally not for seeing women in combat situations, not because I don't think they can do it, but because there's quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that male service members are reluctant to both pull the trigger on a woman or leave a wounded woman behind. I would not want a mission compromised because the men felt more obligated to save a woman than to complete the mission.
I feel I've babbled enough for now. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 17:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Yes''': One of the objections is that women don't have the upper body strength to lug an overloaded pack into combat. Well, this is the 21st Century, and no one should be lugging the kinds of packs they've made them lug around since World War One. Someone's got to lay that misguided tradition to rest. We've got Stryker brigades and uparmored humvees, you live in your vehicle and get out now and then to lay some hurt on the enemy. And you get women ready for that part by making the same physical test requirements for both genders. Same kind of pushups, same time on the 2.5 miles. Any woman who can't do what a man does, physically, washes out. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 23:33, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Why not. Every person has the right to do what he/she feels. If a women wants to join the military beside the men, they should.

Women should be in. No straight guy would ever shoot a real hot chick across the battlefield, providing attractive female combatants with a sort of impenetrable armor. --[[User:SashaT|SashaT]] 17:06, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

== I don't care, but... ==
Sorry to be quoting from a suspect source, but this part of their article is actually referencing a Department of Defense report (and I'm too lazy to go straight to the source):

A 2003 report financed by the Department of Defense revealed that nearly one-third of a nationwide sample of female veterans seeking health care through the V.A. said they experienced rape or attempted rape during their service. Of that group, 37 percent said they were raped multiple times, and 14 percent reported they were gang-raped. Perhaps even more tellingly, a small study financed by the V.A. following the gulf war suggests that rates of both sexual harassment and assault rise during wartime. The researchers who carried out this study also looked at the prevalence of PTSD symptoms - including flashbacks, nightmares, emotional numbing and round-the-clock anxiety - and found that women who endured sexual assault were more likely to develop PTSD than those who were exposed to combat.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/magazine/18cover.html?pagewanted=5&ei=5087%0A&em&en=dc68bc2f1dbc9825&ex=1174449600

A woman could end up a in a unit where everyone's a gentleman and they look after her, or they could have experiences like those described in the article. I wouldn't make any blanket statements that women aren't suited for military jobs, there's always exceptions (I've got a friend who's bigger and stronger than most men and she could handily beat up most anyone. Although she's a lesbian so I guess don't ask don't tell would apply), but I think in most cases people are better off steering clear of serving. You've got to be a really tough, dedicated person to be in there.
[[User:Barnetto|Barnetto]] 12:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:"women who endured sexual assault were more likely to develop PTSD than those who were exposed to combat" Well, duh. Rape is a personal assault; it's one-on-one, or many-on-one, it singles the victim out. Combat, for all its horrors, is usually fairly impersonal and doesn't single out individuals (I'm leaving out snipers etc., who do go looking for individual targets, but even then it's because their targets are enemy combatants, not as an exercise in power over another person). As for what kind of unit a woman could end up in, how about we expect the members of the unit, regardless of their sex, to act like adult human beings and respect the other personnel of their unit as fellow members of the profession of arms? And further, how about we expect and require the chain of command to take prompt action against those who view women in uniform as a source of free sex or second-class citizen to be intimidated, instead of what all too often happens — the grin, the chuckle, the snide remarks in the mess, the speculation about her sexual preferences, proclivities and prowess; the complaint (if one is lodged) being quietly round-filed? Servicewomen don't want and shouldn't have to be 'looked after', other than the way in which any member of a unit watches out for other members. They do want, and deserve, to be treated with the same respect for their rank, experience and person as servicemen. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 22:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, how much is 37% of 1/3? Around 12% I reckon. But that's only of those seeking VA help - not a representative group. I hate this kind of cherry-picking of statistics.

On the other hand, fighting men are a surly lot, and I would not be surprised if military rape rates were significantly higher than civilian rates.

A more professionl article (not a sensationalist news story) cited different statistics:
*researchers found that 79 percent of participants reported experiences of sexual harassment during their military service; 30 percent of the women reported an attempted or completed rape. [http://www.news-releases.uiowa.edu/2003/march/031103military-rape.html Iowa University]

The odd thing is that I think it's the same study! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Lets just remember Joan of Arc. Yeah, women should be in the military and we need to stop being so sexist.[[User:FDRismyhero|FDRismyhero]] 7:03, 31 June 2007

To tell you the truth I don't care who is in the military as long as they get the job done. But if they can't, man or woman, they should not be there.

Fact is women are in the military. They just aren't specifically put in positions where they might see offensive combat. However, without front lines and with terrorists hitting support troops (supply, medical), women are in units more likely to be attacked. I've served with many of them and I've never seen a task they could not accomplish. My opinion is about the draft (selective service) If women are going to be in the military (and even run for president) they should be registered for the draft just like every man between 18 and 45. We haven't used it in 40 years and I'd guess 60% of all 18 year old males would be 'unfit' if we did, but women should be ''registered'' just like men. It'll never happen though because theres no political benefit to it.--[[User:Mitrebox|Mitrebox]] 19:33, 26 January 2008 (EST)

User talk:Geo.plrd

2008-03-26T21:03:36Z

SashaT: /* priest values */

Lord Chief Justice (UK)

2008-03-26T21:02:05Z

SashaT: wikify!!!!!!!!!

The Lord Chief Justice is an Officer of State and the highest ranking judge in the [[United Kingdom]].

SSBN

2008-03-26T21:01:14Z

SashaT: spelling

'''SSBN''' stands for '''S'''ubmersible '''S'''hip '''B'''allistic Missile '''N'''uclear. It is the designation for [[submarine]]s that carry [[nuclear]] missiles.

User talk:Geo.plrd

2008-03-26T20:42:53Z

SashaT: /* Could you please? */