CAPR 900-2 rescinded...

[DoubleSecret]

So there are only two possible options - 900-2 was double-secret rescinded, or people producing and editing
documents and media for NHQ can't be bothered to comply with these regulations.

I haven't rescinded anything.

[Майор Хаткевич]

So there are only two possible options - 900-2 was double-secret rescinded, or people producing and editing
documents and media for NHQ can't be bothered to comply with these regulations.

I haven't rescinded anything.

Nice.

[Ned]

Bob,

You should really consider stepping back for a moment and taking a deep breath.

To go on an extensive rant about a minor editing error seems a wildly disproportionate response.

Look, I get the whole "for the want of a nail the kingdom was lost" argument, but to start talking about "credibility meters" and the rest of it just reflects more on you than the hard working corporate staff at NHQ.

Cuz this really is about the most minor issue I can imagine in CAP.  A bit of a "yawn."

You found an error in an illustration in a 60-page pamphlet issued last year.  You brought to my attention.  I added it to the list of things to fix the next time around.

Why is it never considered how incredibly disrespectful of the rank and file membership it is when staff at any level
willfully disregard simple regulations to their own ends and then pretend no one sees it or ignores?

If the membership feels disrespected every time a typo appears in a CAP publication, then of course we would have a problem.  Thank Goodness the membership is not so unreasonable.

How you manage to leap from a minor editing error to "willful disregard of simple regulations to their own ends" will, I suspect, have to remain a mystery.

This is not an "editing error", unless you are suggesting that the insignia created itself.  This was someone on the staff drafting the
document who took the time to cobble it together, place it in the document, and then any number of other staffers who are responsible
for vetting the indices and insignia within documents either being unaware that it's an issue, or unwilling to change it. 

There's simply no other option.

Really?  No other option.  How about this one:  We used an existing file (that was both common and  perfectly correct before the regulation changed in 2012) as one of the hundred or so illustrations in the pamphlet.  It was not cobbled together for this particular publication.  And "any number of other staffers" turns out to be the number "1," as in the other cadet program manager.  And me, I guess.  And, FWIW, we are not unwilling to change it.  As I said in my first reply, we will change it if it conflicts with existing regulations.

CAP has no issue C&Ding people who they feel violate their own rights, but has no compunction to ignore the situation elsewhere when they do it.

Oddly, no one has contacted us about the issue.  But if anyone does, we will do exactly what we ask anyone else to do:  take a look, and if there is a problem, we will fix it.  No fuss, no muss, no big deal.

Who cares?  No one's going to even notice?  What's the big deal?

Well, at least you and I care.  That's two.

And, apparently out of the thousands of people who reviewed the document before publication, no one else noticed and let us know about it.  If anyone did notice, clearly there were not as upset as you.

And I certainly agree that it is no big deal.

It's all small stuff, but it adds to the entropy and apathy that prevents CAP from fulfilling even a portion of its considerable potential.

Good leaders have to discern between important matters requiring urgent attention, and less important matters that can be fixed at a more leisurely pace.

Peace, my friend.  Let's save the big arguments for policy issues.

Not typos.

[Eclipse]

Nice.

+1

[Eclipse]

Really?  No other option.  How about this one:  We used an existing file (that was both common and  perfectly correct before the regulation changed in 2012)

Thank you for making my point about not knowing the regs.  That insignia was not "common", nor was it >ever< correct by the
regs or the AFIs.  In fact, that version of the "Civil Air Patrol Logo" didn't exist until December 2012 when it was included in the revision of 900-2, the same publication that prohibits the use of the Happ Arnold wings, so whoever created it, did so >after<
the regulation was published that prohibited it.

Ned, this isn't an isolated issue, just one on the pile.  That is the larger point.

[Ned]

Odd.  I thought the larger issue was "typos happen, and do not mean the sky is falling.  Correct them using existing procedures and do so respectfully."



It is interesting how two people can look at the same issue and see it differently.

YMMV.

[Eclipse]

Odd.  I thought the larger issue was "typos happen, and do not mean the sky is falling.  Correct them using existing procedures and do so respectfully."

It is interesting how two people can look at the same issue and see it differently.

YMMV.

There's a difference between a typo and a design decision.

This is decidedly not a typo, and neither is the broader issue.

[Mitchell 1969]

So...summing up...

Discrepancy observed. Discrepancy mentioned. Discrepancy placed in hopper for correction.

Is there really anything else that needs to be added, or can the 26 (now 27) posts on this topic be placed in the "done" file?

[Eclipse]

This discrepancy observed. This discrepancy mentioned. This discrepancy placed in hopper for correction.

FTFY.

Acknowledgment that there is a larger, mostly ignored issue, and that logos don't spontaneously generate themselves due to keystroke errors might be nice, too.

[lordmonar]

So...summing up...

Discrepancy observed. Discrepancy mentioned. Discrepancy placed in hopper for correction.

Is there really anything else that needs to be added, or can the 26 (now 27) posts on this topic be placed in the "done" file?

So...no.   

[Mitchell 1969]

This discrepancy observed. This discrepancy mentioned. This discrepancy placed in hopper for correction.

FTFY.

Acknowledgment that there is a larger, mostly ignored issue, and that logos don't spontaneously generate themselves due to keystroke errors might be nice, too.

Nothing to fix.

Discrepancy. Singular.

I never said discrepancies, plural.

Your fix simply affirmed what I wrote. Therefore, I'll take it that you concur and will hope (against hope) that you will be moving on, resuming your endless quest to fill your life with CAPTALK.

[Eclipse]

Discrepancy. Singular.

The point of this thread, and the broader conversation, is discrepancies plural.

Plenty to fix.

[Mitchell 1969]

Discrepancy. Singular.

The point of this thread, and the broader conversation, is discrepancies plural.

Plenty to fix.

Just curious, what does it cost for a lifetime subscription to "Getting the Last Word" magazine?

[Private Investigator]

Odd.  I thought the larger issue was "typos happen, and do not mean the sky is falling.  Correct them using existing procedures and do so respectfully."



It is interesting how two people can look at the same issue and see it differently.

YMMV.

I agree with you sir.   

[JeffDG]

Discrepancy. Singular.

The point of this thread, and the broader conversation, is discrepancies plural.

Plenty to fix.

Just curious, what does it cost for a lifetime subscription to "Getting the Last Word" magazine?

Free subscription when you're the President-for-Life of the society.

[Storm Chaser]

There are many here that could fall in that category, on both sides of the fence. Why don't we just focus on the discussion and not on the people arguing opposing viewpoints?

[Pace]

Seven years later and we still can't play nice.
*lock*