Repercussions of calling your pants "trousers" when you got to Basic.....

[Major Carrales]

I think its well-documented that people have been "making stuff up" in CAP for decades, there have been distinctive uniforms for years, and bozo moves at encampments since day one.

It has nothing to do with an emerging trend, nor will assigning some kind of USAF-Stazi "fix" the problem.

Oh...I'm not saying it' new.  And I am no advocate of the USAF coming in and establishing the "US CAP Ministry of Love" (that is our old deployed friend DNALL who advocates for that)

I recall at CadetStuff a huge deal was made because some persons were violating uniform regs...to the point of being rude, incredulous and down right unbecoming.  Yet, a NY Wing tradition of Cadets and CAP Officers exchanging insignia was proudly posted...blatantly wrong and much more ridiculous than any of the "offending posts" in the other thread...went unchallenged?

Traditions...unique CAP traditions.   Of the type mentioned here and common place at encampments, local units and (sometimes) systemwide.  Is that part of US CAP culture?

[Hawk200]

Remarkable?!  Now, where can a new bloke find all these conventions? What are these conventions? How is one to judge?  Who is going to make those judgements?  And how are you going to enforce it all?

They should find them at the squadrons. Your squadron, my squadron, other members squadrons.

It doesn't require a whole lot of judgement to sit down, read a pub, and use what's in it. Show me in 39-1 where it says a BDU top is referred to as a "blouse". You can't. If you can, I expect page, paragraph and line number. Same with a "cover" as headgear. And show where it says that service dress is a "Class A" or a "Dress Alpha". Those aren't in there. And then there's the issue of cadets that think that they have to starch their hats to a cardboard stiffness. I only know of one place in the US military where that's not just a practice, it's expected (at least as far as those personnel have told me). But it's not a requirement for our members.

I have just re-read the manual. It does call blue slacks "trousers". My mistake, and now I have been a perfect example of things being done the wrong way. Yes, I'm saying I was wrong. I didn't read it thoroughly.

As far enforcing it? I should enforce it within my sphere of influence. As should you.

And Major Carrales, you have a signature line that says: "We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!". I'm not asking you to do anything that you don't already want.

We have standards, we have publications, we have specific criteria on how to do things. What's so strange about expecting people to follow the directives that they claim to uphold?

[Major Carrales]

And Major Carrales, you have a signature line that says: "We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!". I'm not asking you to do anything that you don't already want.

Reality...reality is what limits all.  In reality there are Senior Squadrons where USAF style uniforms are not even seen once a year in favor of golf shirts and grey pants.  Where the idea of "trousers" or "pants," "covers" or "BDU caps,"  and "Class A" or "minimum service dress" means nothing.

In reality, CAPM 39-1 is not as important as CAPR 60-1 and 60-3.  In reality, CAP units on the frontier with no USAF culture and a stack of regs are not going to be able to implement USAF culture as you see it.

In reality...units run as informally as they can.

I would love to attend a "high speed low drag" unit where we began with formation and did all that.  But, most units that are not CADET SPECIFIC units do not operate that way.

We do have the power to change CAP, and shame on you for insinuating that I don't do my part. 

In reality, most units that meet far from USAF bases do not have that "culture" and, if I may be so bold, those they try to maintain it are pariahs for "playing soldier."  Now, what do you want me to say? 

[Hawk200]

In reality, CAPM 39-1 is not as important as CAPR 60-1 and 60-3. 

Ahh, selective integrity. Sure, why not? So who makes the judgement on which pub is more important than any other? I guess that makes you the judge in your sphere of influence.

In reality...units run as informally as they can.

Agreed. I've known a few that only met one Saturday a month. Kinda defeats the purpose of a reg that states that "The local unit normally meets weekly for approximately 2½ hours."

But it doesn't really matter, does it? Since 60-1 and 60-3 are more important.

I would love to attend a "high speed low drag" unit where we began with formation and did all that.  But, most units that are not CADET SPECIFIC units do not operate that way.

The few senior units I've attended had a roll call. Not necessarily a formation, but same purpose. Then again, 52-16 doesn't actually call for a formation, the word isn't even in the manual. Maybe it's time to write it in, eh?

We do have the power to change CAP, and shame on you for insinuating that I don't do my part. 

I made no such insinuation. I pointed out that you were already doing what I suggested. I'm fairly certain that you chose to be offended, and claim injury.

In reality, most units that meet far from USAF bases do not have that "culture" and, if I may be so bold, those they try to maintain it are pariahs for "playing soldier."  Now, what do you want me to say? 

"Pariahs"? I've been in a couple units that are away from bases, and they've never been treated as pariahs. Quite the opposite. The communities I've ever dealt with have never had any problems with CAP units, and seem to think that it's an excellent program "for the kids".

What do I want you to say? Nothing. What would I like you to do? Follow all the regulations. Enforce them uniformly (to include uniforms).  Or leave.

I can honestly say I was bit surprised on what I found typing your name into a search engine. And not all of it reflected well on someone that's a CAP Public Affairs officer.

[Major Carrales]

Well, Well, Well...what can I say? 

I have no real idea what your "angle" is, and I really don't care.  Often, I make certain observations and state points that are not my own.  The idea is to spur on debate for the purpose of solving problems.

Occasionally, there is a Threadster that will take the ad hominem personal attack route; most likely for the purpose of of "off setting" that person's emotional state...or maybe cause they ran out of legitimate arguments and attacked "the man" instead of the "idea."

I'm just going to chalk this up to misunderstanding and apologize for any offense or perceived offense I may have caused you.  I will likely not reply to any more of your posts, I will read them...they will make me think.  But I grow tired to the "salvos" people exchange here and at other places.  I will leave you with this apology and hopefull as friends.

Be well...SEMPER VIGILANS!!!

[ADCAPer]

Occasionally, there is a Threadster that will take the ad hominem personal attack route; most likely for the purpose of of "off setting" that person's emotional state...or maybe cause they ran out of legitimate arguments and attacked "the man" instead of the "idea."
Be well...SEMPER VIGILANS!!!

I believe that if you'll re-read your original post that there is no room for misunderstanding. You claim that some regulations are "not as important" as others, and now someone has called you on your miscue.

If there is a misunderstanding here it appears to be with your assumption that some regulations rate higher than others, which is nothing more than your personal opinion.

[floridacyclist]

Occasionally, there is a Threadster that will take the ad hominem personal attack route; most likely for the purpose of of "off setting" that person's emotional state...or maybe cause they ran out of legitimate arguments and attacked "the man" instead of the "idea."
Be well...SEMPER VIGILANS!!!

I believe that if you'll re-read your original post that there is no room for misunderstanding. You claim that some regulations are "not as important" as others, and now someone has called you on your miscue.

If there is a misunderstanding here it appears to be with your assumption that some regulations rate higher than others, which is nothing more than your personal opinion.

I think Maj Carrales was responding to the remark about typing his name into a search engine at this point.

As for treating some regs as more important than other, isn't that how most people treat the law itself? Follow the laws they like and ignore or bend the ones they don't?

Funny how most people wear a seatbelt ("Because it's the law") which I see as a victimless crime, yet some (not most, but a sizable few) think nothing of blowing past the speed limit like it's "merely a suggestion".

I remember my 5yo asking me how I knew what laws to break and which ones to follow....I asked him what he meant and he said that I was doing 65 in a 55. I had no asnwer for him so I slowed down....for good.

[Major Carrales]

Occasionally, there is a Threadster that will take the ad hominem personal attack route; most likely for the purpose of of "off setting" that person's emotional state...or maybe cause they ran out of legitimate arguments and attacked "the man" instead of the "idea."
Be well...SEMPER VIGILANS!!!

I believe that if you'll re-read your original post that there is no room for misunderstanding. You claim that some regulations are "not as important" as others, and now someone has called you on your miscue.

If there is a misunderstanding here it appears to be with your assumption that some regulations rate higher than others, which is nothing more than your personal opinion.

The idea was as floridacyclist states it.  However, that issue is resolved between myself and HAWK via PM, thus it is ended.

However, if you read my original post as a whole instead of "out of context" it says...

Reality...reality is what limits all.   In reality there are Senior Squadrons where USAF style uniforms are not even seen once a year in favor of golf shirts and grey pants.  Where the idea of "trousers" or "pants," "covers" or "BDU caps,"  and "Class A" or "minimum service dress" means nothing.

In reality, CAPM 39-1 is not as important as CAPR 60-1 and 60-3.  In reality, CAP units on the frontier with no USAF culture and a stack of regs are not going to be able to implement USAF culture as you see it.

In reality...units run as informally as they can.

I would love to attend a "high speed low drag" unit where we began with formation and did all that.  But, most units that are not CADET SPECIFIC units do not operate that way.

We do have the power to change CAP, and shame on you for insinuating that I don't do my part. 

In reality, most units that meet far from USAF bases do not have that "culture" and, if I may be so bold, those they try to maintain it are pariahs for "playing soldier."  Now, what do you want me to say? 

This was an observation of practices see in CAP units of which I am familiar,  not my personal opinion or paradigm.

[ADCAPer]

However, if you read my original post as a whole instead of "out of context" it says...

In reality, CAPM 39-1 is not as important as CAPR 60-1 and 60-3.  In reality, CAP units on the frontier with no USAF culture and a stack of regs are not going to be able to implement USAF culture as you see it.

OK, I re-read it, and your statement is perfectly clear. You said that CAPM 39-1 is not as important as CAPR 60-1 and 60-3.

The fact is that unless you have something in writing that makes a particuler exception, no particular national regulation rates any higher than any other national regulation, you are supposed to be following them all.

If you don't like what a regulation says you can follow the process to have it changed, but you don't get to simply ignore it.

[Major Carrales]

If you don't like what a regulation says you can follow the process to have it changed, but you don't get to simply ignore it.

Who said I ignore it?  Who said I advocate ignoring it?  No one. 

My point is that many people do find the subjects of CAPR 60-1 and 60-3 to be more important than "where one puts pins on a mess dress uniform."    What we debate is "supposed to be does" not alter the REALITY that there are those that think that way.

The REALITY is that there are people that believe that way...I didn't say I did.

You're just being argumentative...

This was an observation of practices see in CAP units of which I am familiar,  not my personal opinion or paradigm.

[Pumbaa]