(08-15-2017, 11:51 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I'm confident I'm probably the only person here who has ever initiated medical seperation action against military service members. The entire process demands evidence. Without evidence you can't seperate a service member and you can't block their enlistment, induction, or re-enlistment based upon unsubstantiated claims.

A request to read the military studies which allegedly indicate transgender individuals are not compatible with military service is not an unreasonable request. Especially when those alleged studies are in direct contravention to the current regulation and I have provided AR 40-501 for others to reference.

Additionally, there comes a point when such refusals to provide sources of evidence under cover of unreasonable moderation no longer becomes meaningful conversation, but rather just another dog whistle to discriminate against an already marginalized and maligned minority. I'm not going to sit passively and watch it happen again.

(08-15-2017, 04:26 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I understand where you are coming from. But consider this as well: There is a point where an entire thread becomes unmeaningful conversation when two or three members constantly bickering and carrying grudges across different threads. If this is what the P&R forum has become, then perhaps it is time to close it down.

(08-15-2017, 04:26 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I understand where you are coming from. But consider this as well: There is a point where an entire thread becomes unmeaningful conversation when two or three members constantly bickering and carrying grudges across different threads. If this is what the P&R forum has become, then perhaps it is time to close it down.

(08-12-2017, 04:13 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I have been all for cars not stopping when protest mobs block roadways.

(08-18-2017, 01:16 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Here's the thing: what do you think someone is up to when they repeatedly make false claims, deliberately spread misinformation, refuse to divulge evidence to substantiate their claims, and make statements like the following after a pedestrian was fatally struck by a motor vehicle?


I have a difficult time believing meaningful conversation was a motivating factor.

But, I readily admit I'm biased against bullshit based upon my science and clinical background.

(08-18-2017, 11:33 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: And clinical science should also tell you that following other board members from thread to thread to argue with them and pulling old posts of theirs is obsessive behavior.

(08-18-2017, 11:57 AM)GMDino Wrote: This probably needs to go in the sticky thread about suspensions.  But...

I think pulling out quotes is fair when there has been an obvious lie/distortion/flip flop/hypocrisy.  As long as they are within the scope of the topic of discussion.

(08-18-2017, 12:03 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: In and of itself, not a problem. But it depends upon how often and what other types of behavior accompany.

(08-18-2017, 11:33 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: And clinical science should also tell you that following other board members from thread to thread to argue with them and pulling old posts of theirs is obsessive behavior.

(08-18-2017, 01:41 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If they are active in 82% of the first page threads and I'm active in only 41%, am I following them or is someone making another false claim?

Silly me using math and quotes as data to support my conclusions. Or in this case to dispel the false narrative I'm following someone who posts twice as much as me.

Which is more likely; I'm following Lucie around or there is an 82% chance I'm going to comment on a thread he is also commenting in?  Statistically, there is less than a 1 in 5 chance I can comment in a thread he isn't commenting in. And if I were following him obsessively wouldn't I also be commenting in 82% of the front page threads?  After all, I'm "obsessive" now although I'm ignoring half the shit he posts. As the numbers indicate, literally half.

(08-18-2017, 03:32 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: It is true that we are not a very big community. But you two (and BMore) always seem to be drawn together like magnets when you are in the same threads.  I rarely have any interactions with Lucie when we post in the same threads.

I realize that you value logic and pedigreed sources. I can appreciate that. But if I were to take a 2000 page government study on the health effects of playing with poo to the zoo with me and hand it to the gorilla, he is just going to tear it up in front of me. Maybe he'll throw poo at me too, I don't know. He doesn't understand it and probably never will. I'm not saying that Lucie or anyone else is a gorilla. My point is that humans are like that too.

(08-18-2017, 03:32 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: It is true that we are not a very big community. But you two (and BMore) always seem to be drawn together like magnets when you are in the same threads.  I rarely have any interactions with Lucie when we post in the same threads.

I realize that you value logic and pedigreed sources. I can appreciate that. But if I were to take a 2000 page government study on the health effects of playing with poo to the zoo with me and hand it to the gorilla, he is just going to tear it up in front of me. Maybe he'll throw poo at me too, I don't know. He doesn't understand it and probably never will. I'm not saying that Lucie or anyone else is a gorilla. My point is that humans are like that too.

(08-19-2017, 12:44 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I understand your point here and I wanted to add that a message board format just doesn't allow for deep dives into detailed information.

No one is here to spend their time writing ridiculously long and detailed posts. It's suppose to be fun and if you can't make a point in short format then maybe you should find a way to make your points in a way that promote quick back and forth that is substantive without being a book.

(07-26-2017, 08:09 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Ehh, could be...but then again there are still people out there who think being left-handed and being attracted to a person of a different race are still "mental issues" too.

(08-19-2017, 08:59 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Quite different from your mind telling you that you're something that you're biologically not.

(08-19-2017, 01:47 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: False.

Plus I specifically asked that you not go into detail. Just give me the source of the military studies.

(08-20-2017, 12:28 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You should probably have a word with yourself. You are better than this ...

(08-20-2017, 08:49 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: This isn't Twitter. You're not limited to 140 characters. You can give as much or as little detail as you choose. Including a link.

Once again, what you claimed is false.

(08-20-2017, 12:06 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Your still posting? For the love of Pete man move on.... your infatuation is incredible.

Quote:President Trump signed a presidential memo Friday instructing the Defense Department to stop accepting transgender people who want to enlist in the military.


The memo details Trump's previous Twitter announcement last month that he would reinstate a ban on transgender people serving in the U.S. military, and officially requests the Pentagon begin implementing the ban.

Trump’s memo bars transgender people from enlisting, but instructs Secretary of Defense James Mattis to further explore how to handle transgender people currently serving in the armed forces.


The memo also orders the Pentagon to stop paying for gender reassignment surgeries, except in cases that are already in progress to “protect the health of an individual.”

It also requests that the Pentagon develop an implementation plan for the ban by Feb. 21 2018, to be put in place on March 23, 2018.

On a call with reporters prior to the memo’s release, a White House official said Trump “spoke passionately” about the freedoms of the LGBT community, but based the policy on a “series of national security considerations,” according to reports.

Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White said in a statement that “the Department of Defense has received formal guidance from the White House in reference to transgender personnel serving in the military.”

More information on the guidance will be provided early next week, Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col Paul Haverstick told The Hill.

The news follows Trump’s tweets last month announcing his abrupt decision to reinstate a ban on transgender people serving in the U.S. military.

Trump wrote on Twitter that transgender troops could no longer serve “in any capacity."

Among his reasons, Trump wrote that the Pentagon “cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption” brought by transgender service members. 

The new guidance reverses an Obama administration policy implemented in July 2016 that allows transgender people to serve openly in the military.

Trump’s memo frames Obama’s policy — which was crafted after a working group spent a year to hammer out the details and implementation — as dismantling the Pentagon’s “established framework.”

It also claims the previous administration did not “identify a sufficient basis to conclude that terminating the Departments' longstanding policy and practice would not hinder military effectiveness and lethality, disrupt unit cohesion, or tax military resources,” therefore requiring further study.

Former Defense Secretary Ash Carter in June 2016 ordered the Pentagon to spend a year to study how to allow transgender individuals to join the military.

Mattis in June extended the study through January 2018, but it was abruptly thrown off after Trump announced the ban in July. 

The presidential memo immediately drew outrage from LBGT advocacy groups.

The GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) – which jointly filed a federal suit on Aug. 9 on behalf of five transgender troops contesting the ban – in a Friday statement called the memo a “senseless and unprecedented attack on dedicated service members who have played by the rules.”

“Our military already has standards and systems in place to ensure our troops are qualified and fit to serve,” said Shannon Minter, NCLR Legal Director. “Trump's ban is about politics, not military policy, and it will make our country less secure.”
GLAD Transgender Rights Project Director Jennifer Levi said the policy is “a shameful slap in the face to people who put their lives on the line everyday to defend our country.”

”Our military is strongest when all people who are fit to serve have the opportunity to do so. This unprecedented policy amounts to a purge of qualified, contributing troops, and will serve only to undermine unit cohesion and weaken military readiness,” Levi said.

The two groups also plan to file a motion in D.C. district court.

The transgender ban policy already faces intense opposition from top Republican senators, dozens of retired generals and admirals and advocacy groups.

We'll see you in court, @realDonaldTrump. https://t.co/LjGWu7gU5J

— ACLU National (@ACLU) August 25, 2017