Harassment training (was Expres Test)

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Cloud Dreamer

unread,
Jul 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/17/00
to
Okay, look at it this way.

My Sgt put a Mr. Big chocolate bar on my desk once and then went
on to make an insinutation as to what he would like to do with
it.

How would you take that?

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know what he is
referring to. The same applies to Gord's irrelevant comment that
was made to MY post. Given that Gord has attacked me in the past
and in the absence of a :) I took the comment for what it was
worth.

I invited him to expand on it - that it didn't bother me and he
came back with "it's only a joke" response. That hit a chord with
me so I tried to explain to him why the 'joke' was not as
harmless as one might think - it's as simple as that. I invite
discussion and get accusations instead.

Why do you think SHARP training exists? Seriously, do you think
it's a result of a few militant feminist (which I am not) who
have 'sensitive' feelings? Or do you think it's because people
were getting harassed to the point of suicide?

Seriously....what do you think? We obviously look at this
through totally different sets of eyes because mine are loaded
with six years worth of experiences I'd just as soon forget. And
I'd love to at least provide enough information so that one less
person rolls their eyes when they are scheduled for SHARP or
sensitivity training. Fair enough?

.


>
> I might also suggest that attitudes and actions like yours of >
late have done nothing to further the cause of those
> who have undergone, are undergoing, and will undergo >
inappropriate treatment. It's sort of a "crying wolf"
> thing, sorta like what rabid, militant feminists have done for
> their movement: Nothing but create resentment.

> Think about it.

> Cheers!

> Gary


-----------------------------------------------------------

Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com


LA

unread,
Jul 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/17/00
to
Check the thread "Abuse Report".....

> What a frigging silly and nonsensical statement...sorry to be
> so harsh but your product deserves no better treatment.

> Show me ANY force that's capable of defending against a
> superior force.

> Why do some people so love that meaningless statement?...please
> use your head for more than keeping your ears apart.

I'd call that an attack, so when you replied directly to my post
and made the "insinuation" that even you said was of a 'smutty'
nature....my experience was to take it seriously especially
considering the absence of a :).

Your comment was "frigging silly and nonsensical" too.

Simple as that. I'd say we're even.

.

Gord Beaman

unread,
Jul 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/18/00
to
Cloud Dreamer <clouddream...@excite.ca.invalid> wrote:

> Given that Gord has attacked me in the past
>and in the absence of a :) I took the comment for what it was
>worth.
>

I really have no idea what 'comment' you're referring to here,
but I have to address one of your blatant lies...that's the one
above about me 'attacking' you...bullshit lady...show
me....cite...cite...

--
Gord Beaman
PEI Canada.

Gary

unread,
Jul 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/18/00
to

"Cloud Dreamer" <clouddream...@excite.ca.invalid> wrote

> Okay, look at it this way.

<Fair example and good points snipped>

> I'd love to at least provide enough information so that one less
> person rolls their eyes when they are scheduled for SHARP or
> sensitivity training. Fair enough?

Your example of the Mr Big was a good one, and one which would, in today's
military land your Sgt's ass in a sling. (I prefer to deal with things
myself, but understand that not everyone is inclined, or able, to do so.)

Gord's joke, on the other hand, was just that: A joke. And one, might I add,
that was aimed squarely at *men.* His remark was making light of a *man's*
non-functioning plumbing. You, as a woman, had no cause in my opinion (which
amounts to nothing) to take offence.

Your statement about people rolling their eyes when confronted with SHARP
training is *exactly* what I'm talking about. When people see other people
get upset over a harmless joke that wasn't aimed at anyone in particular,
they associate *that* behaviour with SHARP training, and forget about the
*real* destructive behaviour. The same goes for people that don't know what
to think about, say, articles in Macleans magazine: They may be less
inclined to believe that there is a problem when people make frivolous
claims, or get excited over nothing like I think you did over Gord's
comment.

Maybe you were having a bad day. Maybe you just don't like Gord. Maybe you
hate jokes about non-functioning penises. Maybe you're pissed off at the
world. Who knows? My point is that it's is painfully obvious that Gord had
neither malicious nor sexual intent when he posted, and to try to take him
to task over an imagined slight does a disservice to those who have
legitimate complaints.

I gotta tell ya, those eyes you see rolling are being rolled because people
think they're sitting through SHARP training because of some people not
being able to handle an honest-to-goodness joke. Recent events here serve to
support that attitude.

Last, don't think I'm unsympathetic to the real problems still faced by some
women in the military. In fact, I am more so than you could possibly
imagine, and it's this fact that compelled me to speak up over this
nonsense. I honestly think it trivialises a real problem.

Cheers!

Gary

Neill McKay

unread,
Jul 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/18/00
to
> and in the absence of a :) I took the comment for what it was
> worth.

Don't read too much into that. Writers were able to convey humour for a
very long time before some senseless illiterate decided it was necessary
to beat people over the head with their humour by including a silly
little icon. If you have to flag a joke as such, it's probably not that
funny to begin with.

Neill McKay


--
Neill McKay, BScE, EIT, ASCSCE
Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada

Gunner

unread,
Jul 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/18/00
to
Hmm...after an extremely quiet day on this newsgroup, all of a sudden
everyone is coming to blows (there's a joke in the making) over the
issue of political correctness.

To summarize the arguement is based on these comments:

Cloud Dreamer wrote:

>Jason....it's a device that you squeeze and a needle moves and
>indicates the strength of your grip. It's not that hard.

To which Gord Beamon responded:

>The gritting teeth you hear is just me trying to avoid making a
>smutty comment...

In the past Gord Beamon has never been bashful about making comments on
any topic. Some can't even be classed as politically incorrect rather
they were very derogatory in nature and I've often found them offensive
(and stated as such). However, it is his right to make whatever
comments he feels is justified as that is the purpose of the newsgroup.
As such, I don't think Cloud Dreamer was justified in "jumping" all over
him. Gord's comments were fairly tame and he probably stated what most
of us thought (sorry, we're only men!).

Derogatory jokes, etc are really only harmful when they start to take
the form of harassment. Over the years I've heard all types of jokes
directed towards me as a man, as a young man, as a white man, as a
christian, as a soldier, as an officer, as a graduate student, as
reservist, as a stay at home "mom", etc, etc, etc. Are they harassment
according to military criteria, of course they are. Am I personally
offended? No, of course not (although I do get offended when natives
call me a White Man in a derogatory tone - how far do ya think that will
go in our politically correct institutions?). Women (and men) who are
in the military and have thin skins are going to have problems no matter
how much SHARP, LDA, etc, etc we have.

Can't we all just get along?

CK

unread,
Jul 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/18/00
to

.
>
> I gotta tell ya, those eyes you see rolling are being rolled because
people
> think they're sitting through SHARP training because of some people not
> being able to handle an honest-to-goodness joke. Recent events here serve
to
> support that attitude.
>

I have rolled my eyes more than one time cuz of SHARP. You just have to
watch *some* of the videos they show you. It shows people being pissed off
for simple jokes. SHARP trains you to become non tolerant (is that a word
in english?) to jokes. And that's why many eyes are rolling. In my
experience, I haven't seen many people completely accept what SHARP tells
ya. Usually, people laugh at it after, but I still think they remember the
"meat" of it : don't push it too far...

CK

unread,
Jul 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/18/00
to
good point....

--
CK
"Gunner" <ran...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3973D8DD...@home.com...

Gord Beaman

unread,
Jul 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/18/00
to
"Gary" <ada...@deathtospam.home.com> wrote:

>I gotta tell ya, those eyes you see rolling are being rolled because people
>think they're sitting through SHARP training because of some people not
>being able to handle an honest-to-goodness joke. Recent events here serve to
>support that attitude.
>

>Last, don't think I'm unsympathetic to the real problems still faced by some
>women in the military. In fact, I am more so than you could possibly
>imagine, and it's this fact that compelled me to speak up over this
>nonsense. I honestly think it trivialises a real problem.
>
>Cheers!
>
>Gary
>

EXCELLENT!...very well put Gary...I could not bear to cut any of
this out, you did a helluva good job and because the whole god
damned thing started over a fart in a mitten made by me I can
truthfully confirm that you have the meat of the situation down
exactly...well done sir.

Gord Beaman

unread,
Jul 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/18/00
to
LA <pkvetN...@mail.com.invalid> wrote:

>Check the thread "Abuse Report".....
>
>> What a frigging silly and nonsensical statement...sorry to be
>> so harsh but your product deserves no better treatment.
>
>> Show me ANY force that's capable of defending against a
>> superior force.
>
>> Why do some people so love that meaningless statement?...please
>> use your head for more than keeping your ears apart.
>
>I'd call that an attack,

But, you'll notice that the criticism was of your 'statement',
not of you right?...I would never criticize a person who I don't
know, how could I?...they are an 'unknown item' to me...I'm
fairly confident that you have normal intelligence, why not
exhibit it here?.

> so when you replied directly to my post
>and made the "insinuation" that even you said was of a 'smutty'
>nature....

But, my dear Cloud Dreamer/LA/?/whomever, how can you be sure
that what I was thinking was indeed 'smutty'?...after all, you
don't know what the 'joke' was do you?...so it's only my
evaluation that you're going by, and I must admit, I am not
officially checked out in the fine art of smut you see. If, at
some future date (if I should live so long), I may indeed get my
group three in smut, at which time I'll post the Trade Board's
results.

Now, so as to conform to all requirements as indicated very
recently to me to be the proper procedure I'll indicate that
this forgoing was in a joking vein by the addition of this
symbol :-). There. Sure wouldn't want anyone to take the
above as gospel truth. No-siree-bob.

>my experience was to take it seriously especially
>considering the absence of a :).
>

Gee...

>Your comment was "frigging silly and nonsensical" too.
>

Ok...and I'm sure that some will think the foregoing is
'frigging silly' too, but then, it was meant to be so. Your
results may vary.

>Simple as that. I'd say we're even.
>
>.

Whaaaaaaaaatever...<yawn>

Cloud Dreamer

unread,
Jul 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/18/00
to
> please use your head for more than keeping your ears apart.

That's not personal?


I took the comment as smutty, not only because the word 'smutty'
was there but as my example above shows, it doesn't take a rocket
scientist to figure out what you mean - and you were saying it in
direct response to ME -- nobody else -- ME. Doesn't that permit
me to respond as I saw fit like you did above?

Remember - I said to "go ahead" and expand on your comment - that
it DID NOT bother me. What bothered me was your "don't get your
panties in a twist" reply.

All I did was try to explain to you why "it's only a joke" excuse
doesn't hold water with me. Unfortunately I have the experience
to go with people harassing me only to get away with it because
"it's only a joke".

So, how many "jokes" make up harassment? One? Two? Ten? How
many "jokes" before someone goes home and hangs themself?

I'm not getting uptight over one comment - it's just throwing six
years of horrendous abuse at the hands of several Snr NCOs in my
face that has been for nothing because comments such as yours are
accepted.

You made the post to ME and I responded as my experiences have
shaped me. Problem is until you face the harassment you'll think
it's just a bunch of uptight blondes getting their 'panties in a
twist" that is the reason for all this harassment training when
it goes alot deeper.

okay. You can go back to bed now.

.

P.S. I changed my nick because one of the guys that attacked me
posted on this ng and I wanted to avoid having a nick that might
identify me.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Rick Collins

unread,
Jul 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/18/00
to

"Cloud Dreamer" <clouddream...@excite.ca.invalid> wrote in
message news:030cb76c...@usw-ex0101-005.remarq.com...

> Okay, look at it this way.
>
> My Sgt put a Mr. Big chocolate bar on my desk once and then went
> on to make an insinutation as to what he would like to do with
> it.
>
> How would you take that?

I guess it would depend on what he wanted to do with it. If he wanted
to eat it (what else would you do with a chocolate bar?) then ask him
why he put it on your desk.

> You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know what he is
> referring to.

I guess I'd have to be a rocket scientist. What did you think he was
referring to? Since you didn't say what he said, how are _we_ to know
what you thought he meant?

> Why do you think SHARP training exists? Seriously, do you think
> it's a result of a few militant feminist (which I am not) who
> have 'sensitive' feelings? Or do you think it's because people
> were getting harassed to the point of suicide?

It exists because the system saw it had to do _something_. My opinion
is that it will not accomplish its aim - people who think like the
people depicted in the scenarios are unlikely to think any differently
after the "training". It's not "training", BTW - it's simply exposure.

Now I'll let you in on a big secret - the views expressed by the
yokels in the SHARP scenarios are found in all walks of life, not just
the military. So these people are constantly coming into contact with
people who think and act the way they do, and therefore they think
it's "normal". I guess, in reality, it _is_ "normal" for the simple
reason that it's so prevalent. Is it right? No. Is it fair? No. Is it
going to go away? Not in our lifetimes.

> Seriously....what do you think? We obviously look at this
> through totally different sets of eyes because mine are loaded
> with six years worth of experiences I'd just as soon forget. And

> I'd love to at least provide enough information so that one less
> person rolls their eyes when they are scheduled for SHARP or
> sensitivity training. Fair enough?

I'll "roll my eyes" because I don't have the problem they're trying to
correct.

Dave

unread,
Jul 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/18/00
to
"Cloud Dreamer" <clouddream...@excite.ca.invalid> wrote in message
news:1561472e...@usw-ex0101-005.remarq.com...

<Snip>

> P.S. I changed my nick because one of the guys that attacked me
> posted on this ng and I wanted to avoid having a nick that might
> identify me.
>


Changing it after the fact won't be of much use to you. There is at least
*one* newsgroup archiving service that has a memory longer than any of us,
and is free to search. Best thing to keep in mind when using Usenet, is not
to say anything you don't want remembered.

Dave


Roger Wiertz

unread,
Jul 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/19/00
to
I was going to stay out of this one, but, against my better judgement, I'd like
to make a point or two.

I'll begin with an illustrative story:

CFB Kingston, during a drill session in preparation for a parade. A
suitably snarly WO is barking commands and criticizing the results where and
when he deems it appropriate. A Cpl in the ranks fouls up a movement in
particularly spectacular fashion, and the WO gives off "For the love of Christ
*Bloggins* PLEASE tell me your mother had children that lived!"

I've heard a lot worse on the drill square. I'm sure most here have. What was
unfortunate here was that the WO didn't know that *Bloggins*' mother was dead -
she died giving birth to his baby sister, who also died just a few hours later.
When the WO was released from hospital, he demanded that *Bloggins* be charged.

Was *Bloggins*' reaction reasonable? Would anyone else have done the same, or
would that reaction be expected only from people who had been in that particular
set of circumstances? Was the WO's comment acceptable or unacceptable? Can it
be concluded from only this one example that the WO didn't deserve to be
respected for the abilities which had advanced him to that rank? Can anyone
with a shred of humanity really be surprised that *Bloggins* reacted as he did?
Should *Bloggins* have been charged?

I'll let the readers consider their own answers.

In our modern times, death by childbirth is rare - but not unheard of.

Sexual harassment in the CF is rare - but not unheard of.

A rapid fire quip from a WO on the drill square does not necessarily mean that
said WO is an irreparable asshole (in fact I worked for him at a later posting
and found him to be a fine supervisor).

Likewise, a sidelong reference to a potentially "smutty" comment (which, in the
final analysis wasn't even expressly stated) is not necessarily an indication
that an individual in any way supports those who abuse (in any fashion) the
troops assigned to their command.

As I see it, there has been more than enough hyperbole and over-reaction on both
sides of this thread.

*Bloggins* had a problem spot regarding dead children, and given his history,
nobody would realistically expect it to be otherwise. The WO unintentionally
hit that spot dead centre.

Cloud Dreamer has a problem spot with harassment and the attitudes which permit
it to exist. Not too long ago she posted a thumbnail biography to this group.
In the context of this discussion, it's worth re-reading. Given the situations
she had to deal with during her service, and the resulting effects on her career
and her life, no one should be surprised that this topic provokes the kind of
reaction from her that some would consider extreme. Gord's comment, intended
for harmless humour (and executed in a most gentile manner), unintentionally
nailed her sensitivities dead on.

Gord: You mean no offence to anyone, and have stated such. The reaction you
faced was far in excess of any that you might have expected, and far in excess
of any that you would have received from anyone who had not been through the
wringer that Cloud Dreamer has experienced. Chalk it up as an accidental faux
pas, and be big enough to let it drop.

Cloud Dreamer: Your reaction is not unexpected, given your history, and is
understandable in that context. On the other hand, I suspect that had you and
Gord been in the same unit, the Sgt you mentioned in your example would have
been sorted out in damn short order. Gord is a bulldog in the realm of
eliminating factors which diminish unit cohesion, and there is no doubt in my
mind that he would have been a formidable ally to anyone suffering the kind of
harassment that you endured. It is likely very difficult for you to examine
issues like this with a detached eye, but I'm asking you to try. I think you'll
come to recognize Gord's comment as a rapid-fire quip that is really a very poor
indication of the kind of man he is, and be big enough to let it drop.

I'll shut up now.

Best Regards

Roger Wiertz

SPAMBLOCK ALERT: Remove THIS from the addy to reply by email

Carter Lee

unread,
Jul 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/19/00
to

Hi Roger;

An excellent post, your advice is well worth considering by both parties
involved. You asked a lot of questions, most of which you answered
yourself. I would like to answer the one you did not answer, "...should
Bloggins be charged?..." I understand from your story that Bloggins
struck the WO and if that is so yes he should be charged. I think a
more appropriate question would be "..should Bloggins be convicted?.."
You may not agree but I believe the answer to that question is also yes,
if the only defence he could offer is that he had a problem spot
regarding dead children. While that fact may mitigate his punishment I
don't think it is sufficient defence to excuse such an offence as
striking a superior officer.

Cheers

Carter

Gord Beaman

unread,
Jul 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/19/00
to
Roger Wiertz <wie...@THISthezone.net> wrote:

--cut--


>
>Gord: You mean no offence to anyone, and have stated such. The reaction you
>faced was far in excess of any that you might have expected, and far in excess
>of any that you would have received from anyone who had not been through the
>wringer that Cloud Dreamer has experienced. Chalk it up as an accidental faux
>pas, and be big enough to let it drop.
>

Precisely...very well put...thank you sir...I consider it
dropped...

Avril Schmidt

unread,
Jul 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/19/00
to
Quite beautifully put...are you in PR by chance?

Avril

> Gord: You mean no offence to anyone, and have stated such. The reaction you
> faced was far in excess of any that you might have expected, and far in excess
> of any that you would have received from anyone who had not been through the
> wringer that Cloud Dreamer has experienced. Chalk it up as an accidental faux
> pas, and be big enough to let it drop.
>

> Cloud Dreamer: Your reaction is not unexpected, given your history, and is
> understandable in that context. On the other hand, I suspect that had you and
> Gord been in the same unit, the Sgt you mentioned in your example would have
> been sorted out in damn short order. Gord is a bulldog in the realm of
> eliminating factors which diminish unit cohesion, and there is no doubt in my
> mind that he would have been a formidable ally to anyone suffering the kind of
> harassment that you endured. It is likely very difficult for you to examine
> issues like this with a detached eye, but I'm asking you to try. I think you'll
> come to recognize Gord's comment as a rapid-fire quip that is really a very poor
> indication of the kind of man he is, and be big enough to let it drop.
>
> I'll shut up now.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Roger Wiertz
>

Sparky

unread,
Jul 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/19/00
to

"Avril Schmidt" <warmf...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3975EEB5...@home.com...

> Quite beautifully put...are you in PR by chance?
>
> Avril

Avril;

The PR response would have clouded over the issue or created another one to
move the spotlight to something less controversial.

I would suspect that Mr Wiertz is involved with conflict resolution.

PR is about image and appearance, not about problem solving.

Sparky

Cloud Dreamer

unread,
Jul 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/19/00
to
Funny, I thought the same thing. He's right on the mark.

The example of the WO is pretty good. Actually to answer the
question as to how many comments constitute harassment - the
answer is two.

If you leave out the part about him striking the WO, Bloggins
would have to tell the WO that what he said bothered him. If the
WO repeated it again, knowing the it bothered Bloggins, then the
WO would be harassing bloggins.

So, really, there is no need for every man in the CF to watch
every single word he says - it's up to the individual that is
bothered to let him know. If it is repeated, then it's
harassment.

I can't remember if I ate the chocolate bar after....I think I
gave it away for a coke (it was in Bosnia where caffeine and
sugar was a must :). I took his comment as sexual in nature
because this sgt talked about nothing but sex for the whole six
months - for the most part it wasn't a problem but the Mr Big bar
was directed at me specifically and was one step over the line -
I just gave him a look that said "that's enough" and he didn't do
it again.

.

P.S. I changed the nick so that someone couldn't go into the
archives and find posts where I left my website addy and
therefore know who I am.

whittier

unread,
Jul 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/19/00
to
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Cloud Dreamer wrote:

> Funny, I thought the same thing. He's right on the mark.
>
> The example of the WO is pretty good. Actually to answer the
> question as to how many comments constitute harassment - the
> answer is two.

I don't believe it's that simple, I'm afraid. To paraphrase the
definition of harassment: "Conduct that offends, demeans or belittles, or
that should have _reasonably been known_ to have done so." Once is
enough, and the "harassee" doesn't even have to tell the "harassor" that
the conduct is unwelcome for the complaint to stick. Ideally, we would
all sit down and try to sort the problem out amongst ourselves before the
machine kicks in, but it hasn't always worked that way.

> If you leave out the part about him striking the WO, Bloggins
> would have to tell the WO that what he said bothered him. If the
> WO repeated it again, knowing the it bothered Bloggins, then the
> WO would be harassing bloggins.

In this case, probably. I don't think it's reasonable for the WO to
expect that his comment would be as painful as it was. However, I can
think of a lot of things he could have said which would have counted, by
CF policy, as harassment right off the bat.

>
> So, really, there is no need for every man in the CF to watch
> every single word he says - it's up to the individual that is
> bothered to let him know. If it is repeated, then it's
> harassment.

Again, 'fraid not, IMHO. If I hear Bloggins make an offensive comment
about you behind your back, the harassment policy allows me to complain on
your behalf, whether or not you think it's harassment or even know it happened.
People, watch every single word you say!

Dave


Gunner

unread,
Jul 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/19/00
to
Good post whittier!

For everything you wanted to know about harassment within DND, but were
afraid to ask, please click on the following URL:

http://www.dnd.ca/eng/archive/1998/feb98/harass_b_e.htm

The CF policy on harassment is such a broad definition, that everything
can be construed as a form of harassment. The definition of harassment
according to the CF is "an individual commits harassment by
exhibiting conduct once or repeatedly, that offends, demeans, belittles
or humiliates another person while knowing, or reasonably ought to have
known, that action to be unwelcome." Now, to be fair, although the CF
policy is zero tolerance, that does not mean a harasser is to be drawn
and quartered. It simply means that the CF will "do" something about
it.

Three Cheers for the social engineers of our country!

Gary

unread,
Jul 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/19/00
to

"Cloud Dreamer" <clouddream...@excite.ca.invalid> wrote

> So, really, there is no need for every man in the CF to watch
> every single word he says - it's up to the individual that is
> bothered to let him know. If it is repeated, then it's
> harassment.

Wrong.

Cheers!

Gary

Rick Collins

unread,
Jul 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/19/00
to

"Cloud Dreamer" <clouddream...@excite.ca.invalid> wrote in
message news:024ac12e...@usw-ex0101-005.remarq.com...

> Funny, I thought the same thing. He's right on the mark.
>
> The example of the WO is pretty good. Actually to answer the
> question as to how many comments constitute harassment - the
> answer is two.
>
> If you leave out the part about him striking the WO, Bloggins
> would have to tell the WO that what he said bothered him. If the
> WO repeated it again, knowing the it bothered Bloggins, then the
> WO would be harassing bloggins.
>
Oh me oh my. God spare me from saying anything that may "bother"
someone. I suppose someone who is "bothered" because I tell him his
work is below par can tell me he is "bothered" by that, and therefore
should I say to him later that his work is below par, then I have
"harrassed" him. Oh me oh my.


> So, really, there is no need for every man in the CF to watch
> every single word he says - it's up to the individual that is
> bothered to let him know. If it is repeated, then it's
> harassment.

Heaven help us!

I suppose you can't see that a bald statement like that claptrap is
precisely the reason many think this whole "harrassment" business is
nonsense? No, I suppose not.

> I can't remember if I ate the chocolate bar after....I think I
> gave it away for a coke (it was in Bosnia where caffeine and
> sugar was a must :). I took his comment as sexual in nature
> because this sgt talked about nothing but sex for the whole six
> months - for the most part it wasn't a problem but the Mr Big bar
> was directed at me specifically and was one step over the line -
> I just gave him a look that said "that's enough" and he didn't do
> it again.

I'm glad you admit that you considered the comment sexual in nature
not because it was, overtly, but because you thought it was based on
God knows what you heard from him before.

Don't you see that sort of thing is part of the reason many feel the
whole "sexual harrassment" business is nonsense? It would appear to
matter not what one says, but rather what someone _thinks_ the person
meant, based on God knows what evil from the hearer's past.


Cloud Dreamer

unread,
Jul 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/19/00
to
"Rick Collins" <ab...@debbs.ndhq.dnd.ca> wrote:
>
>Oh me oh my. God spare me from saying anything that may "bother"
>someone. I suppose someone who is "bothered" because I tell him
his
>work is below par can tell me he is "bothered" by that, and
therefore
>should I say to him later that his work is below par, then I
have
>"harrassed" him. Oh me oh my.
>

Oh me oh my..JFC..do you think guys are out there putting in
harassment complaints for that? They'd be laughed out of the
harassment advisor's office.


>I suppose you can't see that a bald statement like that claptrap
is
>precisely the reason many think this whole "harrassment"
business is
>nonsense? No, I suppose not.


It was a generalized point made with the WO example in mind. In
theory the definition of harassment quoted by others is one
thing, in the real world it's not so cut and dry - but what is?
So - in my experience when I was harassed by my sgt I had to go
through the process which basicly was: he harassed me for about
two months - I talked to him and told him stuff he said and did
to me that I found offensive and hurtful. He said 'okay, fine, I
won't do it again'. Two weeks later he's back at it full time -
now it was harassment. It took another year before I finally put
in a complaint that found he had threatened me, abused his
authority, verbally harassed me, intimidated me as well as
attempted to affect my career. Ottawa has since agreed that he
did not "affect" my career, but was responsible for destroying
it. Is this nonsense?


>Don't you see that sort of thing is part of the reason many feel
the
>whole "sexual harrassment" business is nonsense? It would
appear to
>matter not what one says, but rather what someone _thinks_ the
person
>meant, based on God knows what evil from the hearer's past.
>

That's why the harassment process involves a meeting of the two
parties concerned - to ensure that it's not something taken out
of context. With enough time a pattern (of evil) will emerge -
which is why my complaint was successful.


Now, I've never actually attended SHARP training so I don't know
if what they present there really represents the process in a
real situation - that could be the source of the differing of
opinions here. I'm obviously not going to change any minds -
all I wanted to do is offer a view from the "other" side. (I
think the definition mentioned in another post has changed abit
since I laid the complaint).

Sorry if you guys think you have to watch every single word you
say, but if you treat people the way you want to be treated you
shouldn't have anything to worry about. Besides, 98% of you are
decent, respectful people - it's those 2% that make it hard for
everybody. (BTW, I never complained or laid a complaint against
any of the guys that 'talked' sex all the time - just the one
that couldn't keep his hands to himself).

Gord Beaman

unread,
Jul 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/20/00
to
"Rick Collins" <ab...@debbs.ndhq.dnd.ca> wrote:
--cut--

>Don't you see that sort of thing is part of the reason many feel the
>whole "sexual harrassment" business is nonsense? It would appear to
>matter not what one says, but rather what someone _thinks_ the person
>meant, based on God knows what evil from the hearer's past.
>
>
>

Jesus H Flying Carpets...
The gritting teeth you hear is just me trying to avoid thinking
any nasty thoughts. Oops!...thinking any thoughts...

Avril Schmidt

unread,
Jul 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/20/00
to
I was thinking more along the lines of how clearly he put the sentences
together and his word structure and grammar, it was very
beautiful...completely off onto a different tangent I know, but I
thought I would say something! I didn't mean to offend.

Avril

Sparky

unread,
Jul 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/20/00
to

"Avril Schmidt" <warmf...@home.com> wrote in message
news:397695A9...@home.com...

> I was thinking more along the lines of how clearly he put the sentences
> together and his word structure and grammar, it was very
> beautiful...completely off onto a different tangent I know, but I
> thought I would say something! I didn't mean to offend.
>
> Avril

There was absolutely no offence taken- I too thought it was a very well
worded statement.

Sparky

Siggy

unread,
Jul 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/20/00
to
If anyone is interested, being a SHARP Trainer/HA & HI, I can attatch the
complete
SHARP Sensitization Trg package in PowerPoint format.

On a point of clarification; One can be nailed for harrasment by issuing a
comment/action only "once", if that comment/action, -ought reasonably to
have been know to be offensive- ......This takes away the "it was only a
joke", "Don't be offended"
defense on the part of the harrasser/respondent.

Siggy


"Cloud Dreamer" <clouddream...@excite.ca.invalid> wrote in message

news:030cb76c...@usw-ex0101-005.remarq.com...
> Okay, look at it this way.
>
> My Sgt put a Mr. Big chocolate bar on my desk once and then went
> on to make an insinutation as to what he would like to do with
> it.
>
> How would you take that?
>

> You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know what he is

> referring to. The same applies to Gord's irrelevant comment that
> was made to MY post. Given that Gord has attacked me in the past


> and in the absence of a :) I took the comment for what it was
> worth.
>

> I invited him to expand on it - that it didn't bother me and he
> came back with "it's only a joke" response. That hit a chord with
> me so I tried to explain to him why the 'joke' was not as
> harmless as one might think - it's as simple as that. I invite
> discussion and get accusations instead.


>
> Why do you think SHARP training exists? Seriously, do you think
> it's a result of a few militant feminist (which I am not) who
> have 'sensitive' feelings? Or do you think it's because people
> were getting harassed to the point of suicide?
>

> Seriously....what do you think? We obviously look at this
> through totally different sets of eyes because mine are loaded
> with six years worth of experiences I'd just as soon forget. And
> I'd love to at least provide enough information so that one less
> person rolls their eyes when they are scheduled for SHARP or
> sensitivity training. Fair enough?
>

> .
>
>
> >
> > I might also suggest that attitudes and actions like yours of >
> late have done nothing to further the cause of those
> > who have undergone, are undergoing, and will undergo >
> inappropriate treatment. It's sort of a "crying wolf"
> > thing, sorta like what rabid, militant feminists have done for
> > their movement: Nothing but create resentment.
>
> > Think about it.
>
> > Cheers!
>
> > Gary

Gary

unread,
Jul 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/20/00
to

"Siggy" <reas...@home.com> wrote

> If anyone is interested, being a SHARP Trainer/HA & HI, I can attatch the
> complete
> SHARP Sensitization Trg package in PowerPoint format.

Siggy,

Thanks; I'd be interested. If you have the bandwidth, I have the time.
(grin)

Cheers!

Gary (ada...@home.com)
--
Public Service Announcement: The use of the word "grin" enclosed in
parentheses (hereafter referred to as a "word smiley") is meant to denote an
attempt at humour. The word, and associated parentheses, may be replaced by
an appropriate smiley thusly: :) (or even :-) ) The presence of the "word
smiley" shall be deemed to constitute valid humor, and nobody shall construe
any comments preceding the "word smiley" as offensive in any way. Persons
who insist on taking offence at any statements preceding the "word smiley"
are invited to realize that if you can't laugh, then you're doomed to a life
of crying. They are further invited to get a life. Thank you. And now we
return to our regularly scheduled programming....

Rick Collins

unread,
Jul 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/20/00
to

"Cloud Dreamer" <clouddream...@excite.ca.invalid> wrote in
message news:032c4b1d...@usw-ex0101-005.remarq.com...

> "Rick Collins" <ab...@debbs.ndhq.dnd.ca> wrote:
> >
> >Oh me oh my. God spare me from saying anything that may "bother"
> >someone. I suppose someone who is "bothered" because I tell him
> his
> >work is below par can tell me he is "bothered" by that, and
> therefore
> >should I say to him later that his work is below par, then I
> have
> >"harrassed" him. Oh me oh my.
> >
>
> Oh me oh my..JFC..do you think guys are out there putting in
> harassment complaints for that? They'd be laughed out of the
> harassment advisor's office.
>
Then don't post such nonsense. I simply took what you said as "gospel"
and applied it.

>
> >I suppose you can't see that a bald statement like that claptrap
> is
> >precisely the reason many think this whole "harrassment"
> business is
> >nonsense? No, I suppose not.
>
>
> It was a generalized point made with the WO example in mind. In
> theory the definition of harassment quoted by others is one
> thing, in the real world it's not so cut and dry - but what is?
> So - in my experience when I was harassed by my sgt I had to go
> through the process which basicly was: he harassed me for about
> two months - I talked to him and told him stuff he said and did
> to me that I found offensive and hurtful. He said 'okay, fine, I
> won't do it again'. Two weeks later he's back at it full time -
> now it was harassment. It took another year before I finally put
> in a complaint that found he had threatened me, abused his
> authority, verbally harassed me, intimidated me as well as
> attempted to affect my career. Ottawa has since agreed that he
> did not "affect" my career, but was responsible for destroying
> it. Is this nonsense?

Yup. It was nonsense that you let him "harass" you for two months. It
was nonsense that you then waited a year to lodge a complaint. From
this, you have to bear some of the responsibility for what happened to
you. In some ways you let it happen.


Ken Bendelier

unread,
Jul 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/20/00
to
In article <UuKd5.75744$7I1.1...@news1.rdc2.on.home.com>, "Siggy" <reas...@home.com> wrote:

>On a point of clarification; One can be nailed for harrasment by issuing a
>comment/action only "once", if that comment/action, -ought reasonably to
>have been know to be offensive- ......This takes away the "it was only a
>joke", "Don't be offended"
>defense on the part of the harrasser/respondent.

It also challenges the leader's ability to tell some slug he is a slug. Of
course, with a 19 pushup "standard"..no worries I guess ;-)

Ken

>
>Siggy
l


It is the soldier, not the reporter
That gives us freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet
That gives us freedom of expression.

It is the soldier, not the campus organizer
That gives us the right to demonstrate.

It is the soldier, not the lawyer
That gives us the right to a fair trial.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag.
It is the soldier who serves under the flag.
It is the soldier who has the flag draped on his coffin
So that protestors may burn the flag.

- Province

Cloud Dreamer

unread,
Jul 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/20/00
to
From
>this, you have to bear some of the responsibility for what
happened to
>you. In some ways you let it happen.


Actually, from this particular example, it was the system that
let it happen. I complained when it started and was told to do
the 'process'. ie...talk to him to sort it out and try again.

I did that and it worked for about two weeks then he started on
me again - I told my MCpl and my doctor but nothing was done.
Anything they said got answered with "it's a personality
conflict" and nothing was done. (None of this "one" thing said
is all that's needed stuff).

Then his harassment almost put me over the edge and I spent six
weeks in hospital on a suicide watch. For those six weeks I
repeated over and over that I could not work for him. (There were
plenty of other places on base that I could of worked).

Despite this, they still made me go back to work for him! Two
weeks later he repeated the same action that got me hospitalized
and still they said it was a "personality conflict". So, I got
moved to a different department and thought it was over. I
worked in two departments for three different supervisors who all
said my work and attitude were exemplary and at the same time two
others complained about the sgt (so much for "personality
conflict"). Then he tried to stop my re-engagement. That was
the last straw and when that happened my new supervisor urged me
and helped me to put in a formal complaint.

They still did not want to 'investigate' it - still trying to say
it was a 'personality conflict'. I had to demand an
investigation at the base level which was done and found he had
verbally harassed, threatened and intimidated me and abused his
authority.

Still, what did they do? "Talked" to him and sent him on a
sensitivity course - which did nothing. (And this is even more
outrageous given at least two others had submitted written
complaints about him).

So, I take no responsibility for this at all. It's not like I
sat around for a year and let him do it. But it was rediculous
that I had to fight just to get them to look past the
"personality conflict" attitude. Either way it cost me my health
and career which has in return cost the government alot of money
in medical care and pensions etc - not to mention what they put
into my training in the first place.

Is this not reason enough for a harassment policy to be
implemented? (Money always talks in the end). It's new and will
take time to iron out problems but I believe that if the
'process' is followed - it can work. And if people treated each
other with basic human decency and respect - then there wouldn't
be a need in the first place.

.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Richard Quinn

unread,
Jul 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/21/00
to
Dave,

Your are right on the money as to what it takes to be harassed and what you can do
about someone speaking about another person behind his/her back.

Quinner

whittier wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Cloud Dreamer wrote:
>

> > Funny, I thought the same thing. He's right on the mark.
> >
> > The example of the WO is pretty good. Actually to answer the
> > question as to how many comments constitute harassment - the
> > answer is two.
>

> I don't believe it's that simple, I'm afraid. To paraphrase the
> definition of harassment: "Conduct that offends, demeans or belittles, or
> that should have _reasonably been known_ to have done so." Once is
> enough, and the "harassee" doesn't even have to tell the "harassor" that
> the conduct is unwelcome for the complaint to stick. Ideally, we would
> all sit down and try to sort the problem out amongst ourselves before the
> machine kicks in, but it hasn't always worked that way.
>

> > If you leave out the part about him striking the WO, Bloggins
> > would have to tell the WO that what he said bothered him. If the
> > WO repeated it again, knowing the it bothered Bloggins, then the
> > WO would be harassing bloggins.
>

> In this case, probably. I don't think it's reasonable for the WO to
> expect that his comment would be as painful as it was. However, I can
> think of a lot of things he could have said which would have counted, by
> CF policy, as harassment right off the bat.
>
> >

> > So, really, there is no need for every man in the CF to watch
> > every single word he says - it's up to the individual that is
> > bothered to let him know. If it is repeated, then it's
> > harassment.
>

> Again, 'fraid not, IMHO. If I hear Bloggins make an offensive comment
> about you behind your back, the harassment policy allows me to complain on
> your behalf, whether or not you think it's harassment or even know it happened.

> People, watch every single word you say!
>
> Dave


Dave Whittier

unread,
Jul 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/21/00
to
Priceless! Thanks for that, Gary!

Dave


Gary <ada...@deathtospam.home.com> wrote in message
news:9nLd5.9492$k5.1...@news1.rdc1.mb.home.com...

Dave Whittier

unread,
Jul 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/21/00
to
Rich,

You only say that because of all the shitty things I've said about you ;-)

Dave


Richard Quinn <quin...@hmnet.net> wrote in message
news:3977D6CA...@hmnet.net...

Dave Whittier

unread,
Jul 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/21/00
to

Ken Bendelier <kenn...@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:8l81e4$uk_...@nb.sympatico.ca...

>
> It also challenges the leader's ability to tell some slug he is a slug.
Of
> course, with a 19 pushup "standard"..no worries I guess ;-)
>
> Ken
>

It's a challenge, but I believe it's attainable whilst still allowing us to
get the job done. For example:

"Bloggins, come with me. Now, this is the standard. This is where you have
failed to meet the standard. This is the corrective action required for you
to meet that standard. I am giving you until this date to complete that
corrective action and meet the standard. If you cannot or will not do so,
this is what will happen. Sort yourself out. Get back to the group."

No harassment there, IMHO, and should be applicable to 90% of the situations
we run into from day to day. Granted, there are some times where a more
forceful approach may be necessary: "Bloggins, get down off that church
tower now or I will KICK YOUR ASS!!!" But hey, we're supposed to be trained
to tailor the approach to the situation, right?

In another post, I said for people to watch every word they said. I believe
that is good advice. I also don't think that watching every word I say is a
bad thing, especially in a work environment. Instead of yapping off on
whatever floats to our minds, however it manages to get there, what's wrong
with taking a second to engage in a little internal monologue and just think
about what effect our words will have on others, especially subordinates.

On the other hand, I am quite convinced that the Department Of National
Defence Policy on Harassment in the Workplace has absolutely _no_ relevance
on Usenet. That's what the killfile is for.

Just my two cents worth.

Dave

Gunner

unread,
Jul 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/21/00
to
A Harassment policy does not mean you can't yell and swear at your
soldiers. However, there is a time and place for it to occur. If you
are a clerk and your chief clerk comes in the office every morning
yelling about the smallest thing and swearing up a blue streak...this is
not acceptable behaviour. If an Infantry Sergeant is leading his
section conducting a house clearing exercise, it is not unreasonable for
him to swear and curse to motivate his soldiers.

My two cents...

Ken Bendelier

unread,
Jul 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/21/00
to
In article <3977BD4B...@home.com>, Gunner <ran...@home.com> wrote:

>A Harassment policy does not mean you can't yell and swear at your
>soldiers. However, there is a time and place for it to occur. If you
>are a clerk and your chief clerk comes in the office every morning
>yelling about the smallest thing and swearing up a blue streak...this is
>not acceptable behaviour. If an Infantry Sergeant is leading his
>section conducting a house clearing exercise, it is not unreasonable for
>him to swear and curse to motivate his soldiers.

Unless, of course, the soldier is offended.

Ken

Roger Wiertz

unread,
Jul 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/22/00
to

Carter Lee wrote:

> Hi Roger;
>
> An excellent post, your advice is well worth considering by both parties
> involved. You asked a lot of questions, most of which you answered
> yourself. I would like to answer the one you did not answer, "...should
> Bloggins be charged?..." I understand from your story that Bloggins
> struck the WO and if that is so yes he should be charged. I think a
> more appropriate question would be "..should Bloggins be convicted?.."
> You may not agree but I believe the answer to that question is also yes,
> if the only defence he could offer is that he had a problem spot
> regarding dead children. While that fact may mitigate his punishment I
> don't think it is sufficient defence to excuse such an offence as
> striking a superior officer.
>
> Cheers
>
> Carter

It wasn't mentioned in my post, but *Bloggins* was charged, and pled guilty. (BTW, I
left this out of the original post on purpose <grin> I like to tease people </grin>.

On a charge such as this, cell time of some sort would usually be in order, but IIRC,
it wasn't part of *Bloggins*' punishment. I wasn't present at the proceedings, but my
assumption would be that *Bloggins*' personal history was treated as a mitigating
factor in sentencing.

Best Regards

Roger Wiertz

SPAMBLOCK ALERT: Remove THIS from addy to reply by email


Roger Wiertz

unread,
Jul 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/23/00
to

Sparky wrote:

> "Avril Schmidt" <warmf...@home.com> wrote in message

> news:3975EEB5...@home.com...
> > Quite beautifully put...are you in PR by chance?
> >
> > Avril
>
> Avril;
>
> The PR response would have clouded over the issue or created another one to
> move the spotlight to something less controversial.
>
> I would suspect that Mr Wiertz is involved with conflict resolution.
>
> PR is about image and appearance, not about problem solving.
>
> Sparky

Thank you for the compliment, Avril.

No, I'm not in PR, but I have always fancied myself as being able to write.
I'm glad to see the responses to my post, as I think the discussion has
returned to a somewhat more productive level.

As for conflict resolution, Sparky, <grin> I think it's a hobby we should all
engage in </grin>!

Seriously though, anyone in the military is involved in conflict resolution, in
a number of different ways. War is a form of conflict resolution, so is
peacekeeping, so is the harassment complaint process - and so is leadership.
Any leader worth the cost of their rank insignia needs to know how to resolve
conflict.

Without the ability to resolve internal conflicts as they arise, leaders risk
losing cohesion among the troops, with possibly disastrous consequences for the
individuals involved, the unit in which they serve, and the mission to which
they are assigned.

BTW, anyone who tells you that internal conflicts don't happen is full of it.
I don't care how well you monitor the selection process, 60,000 human beings
are NOT all going to get along without some intervention from time to time.

Just a few random thoughts...

Best Regards

Roger Wiertz

SPAMBLOCK ALERT: Remove THIS from the addy to reply by email


Siggy

unread,
Jul 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/23/00
to
It in no way takes away a supervisors right to council a subordinate on bad
work performance.....the lad/lass may not feel to good about it.....tough !
It's not harrasment.

Siggy

"Ken Bendelier" <kenn...@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:8l81e4$uk_...@nb.sympatico.ca...

> In article <UuKd5.75744$7I1.1...@news1.rdc2.on.home.com>, "Siggy"
<reas...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >On a point of clarification; One can be nailed for harrasment by issuing
a
> >comment/action only "once", if that comment/action, -ought reasonably to
> >have been know to be offensive- ......This takes away the "it was only a
> >joke", "Don't be offended"
> >defense on the part of the harrasser/respondent.
>

> It also challenges the leader's ability to tell some slug he is a slug.
Of
> course, with a 19 pushup "standard"..no worries I guess ;-)
>
> Ken
>
> >

> >Siggy
> l

Siggy

unread,
Jul 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/23/00
to
Technically.....today, it would be very wrong (Harrrasment) in garrison, but
one has to put it in context as you have.....and it could be very reasonable
under your described conditions , for a Sgt to swear under adverse (in-
coming fire) working conditions in
an operational theatre. Thereby being very reasonable and therefore not
Harrasment.

Siggy


"Gunner" <ran...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3977BD4B...@home.com...


> A Harassment policy does not mean you can't yell and swear at your
> soldiers. However, there is a time and place for it to occur. If you
> are a clerk and your chief clerk comes in the office every morning
> yelling about the smallest thing and swearing up a blue streak...this is
> not acceptable behaviour. If an Infantry Sergeant is leading his
> section conducting a house clearing exercise, it is not unreasonable for
> him to swear and curse to motivate his soldiers.
>

> My two cents...
>
> Dave Whittier wrote:
> >

> > Ken Bendelier <kenn...@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:8l81e4$uk_...@nb.sympatico.ca...
> > >

> > > It also challenges the leader's ability to tell some slug he is a
slug.
> > Of
> > > course, with a 19 pushup "standard"..no worries I guess ;-)
> > >
> > > Ken
> > >
> >

Siggy

unread,
Jul 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/23/00
to
The soldier may not be offended. But I may be offended by having to witness
a display of such poor leadership tenchnique.....and then I could proceed
down the harrasment lane...

The occassional burst of profanity could be very understandable under very
adverse conditions......But....the old guard method of dealing with every
situation in garrison and the field with profantiy and insulting Bloggins
intelligence 10 time in the next 10 minutes is not called for.....

Let the same Sgt be dressed down the same way by his Major...and we'll see
how he feels about this style of leadership ?

Siggy


"Ken Bendelier" <kenn...@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message

news:8l9hl2$i0_...@nb.sympatico.ca...


> In article <3977BD4B...@home.com>, Gunner <ran...@home.com> wrote:
>

> >A Harassment policy does not mean you can't yell and swear at your
> >soldiers. However, there is a time and place for it to occur. If you
> >are a clerk and your chief clerk comes in the office every morning
> >yelling about the smallest thing and swearing up a blue streak...this is
> >not acceptable behaviour. If an Infantry Sergeant is leading his
> >section conducting a house clearing exercise, it is not unreasonable for
> >him to swear and curse to motivate his soldiers.
>

> Unless, of course, the soldier is offended.
>
> Ken
> >

Siggy

unread,
Jul 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/23/00
to
Done.

"Gary" <ada...@deathtospam.home.com> wrote in message
news:9nLd5.9492$k5.1...@news1.rdc1.mb.home.com...
>

> "Siggy" <reas...@home.com> wrote
>
> > If anyone is interested, being a SHARP Trainer/HA & HI, I can attatch
the
> > complete
> > SHARP Sensitization Trg package in PowerPoint format.
>
> Siggy,
>
> Thanks; I'd be interested. If you have the bandwidth, I have the time.
> (grin)
>
> Cheers!
>
> Gary (ada...@home.com)
> --

Rick Collins

unread,
Jul 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/23/00
to
It can be. Depends how it is done.

"Siggy" <reas...@home.com> wrote in message
news:4gJe5.79462$7I1.1...@news1.rdc2.on.home.com...


> It in no way takes away a supervisors right to council a subordinate
on bad
> work performance.....the lad/lass may not feel to good about
it.....tough !
> It's not harrasment.
>

> Siggy
>
> "Ken Bendelier" <kenn...@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message

> news:8l81e4$uk_...@nb.sympatico.ca...
> > In article <UuKd5.75744$7I1.1...@news1.rdc2.on.home.com>,
"Siggy"
> <reas...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On a point of clarification; One can be nailed for harrasment by
issuing
> a
> > >comment/action only "once", if that comment/action, -ought
reasonably to
> > >have been know to be offensive- ......This takes away the "it was
only a
> > >joke", "Don't be offended"
> > >defense on the part of the harrasser/respondent.
> >

> > It also challenges the leader's ability to tell some slug he is a
slug.
> Of
> > course, with a 19 pushup "standard"..no worries I guess ;-)
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > >

> > >Siggy
> > l

Gary

unread,
Jul 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/24/00
to

"Siggy" <reas...@home.com> wrote

> Done.

Thanks a lot Siggy; it's time to re-SHARPen myself ;)

Cheers!

Gary

Carter Lee

unread,
Jul 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/24/00
to
Rick Collins wrote:
>
> It can be. Depends how it is done.

Yep, that's true of any action not only counselling for bad work
performance.

Carter

Richard Quinn

unread,
Jul 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/25/00
to
Well....maybe it is because I feel guilty about what I might have said about
you (like....)

Dave Whittier

unread,
Jul 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/25/00
to
LOL! You win! No need to get into details!

Dave

Richard Quinn <quin...@hmnet.net> wrote in message

news:397D27D2...@hmnet.net...

Roger Wiertz

unread,
Jul 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/26/00
to
I agree with you on this Siggy!

In the vast majority of circumstances, the use of such "motivation" strikes me
as simply unprofessional. In most cases, it's unnecessary, and if a leader has
to resort to such tactics on a regular basis, then clearly they are not making
proper prior use of other motivators.

Okay, there are some situations in which it is important to discriminate between
something that has to be done "NOW!" and something that has to be done "RIGHT
EFFING NOW!!!". Those are few and far between, and a well-trained and
well-motivated soldier is going to recognize those situations without needing
anyone to swear at him.

Best Regards

Roger Wiertz

SPAMBLOCK ALERT: Remove THIS from the addy to reply by email

Siggy wrote:

> The soldier may not be offended. But I may be offended by having to witness
> a display of such poor leadership tenchnique.....and then I could proceed
> down the harrasment lane...
>
> The occassional burst of profanity could be very understandable under very
> adverse conditions......But....the old guard method of dealing with every
> situation in garrison and the field with profantiy and insulting Bloggins
> intelligence 10 time in the next 10 minutes is not called for.....
>
> Let the same Sgt be dressed down the same way by his Major...and we'll see
> how he feels about this style of leadership ?
>

> Siggy
>
> "Ken Bendelier" <kenn...@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message

> news:8l9hl2$i0_...@nb.sympatico.ca...
> > In article <3977BD4B...@home.com>, Gunner <ran...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > >A Harassment policy does not mean you can't yell and swear at your
> > >soldiers. However, there is a time and place for it to occur. If you
> > >are a clerk and your chief clerk comes in the office every morning
> > >yelling about the smallest thing and swearing up a blue streak...this is
> > >not acceptable behaviour. If an Infantry Sergeant is leading his
> > >section conducting a house clearing exercise, it is not unreasonable for
> > >him to swear and curse to motivate his soldiers.
> >
> > Unless, of course, the soldier is offended.
> >
> > Ken
> > >
> > >My two cents...
> > >
> > >Dave Whittier wrote:
> > >>

> > >> Ken Bendelier <kenn...@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > >> news:8l81e4$uk_...@nb.sympatico.ca...
> > >> >

> > >> > It also challenges the leader's ability to tell some slug he is a
> slug.
> > >> Of
> > >> > course, with a 19 pushup "standard"..no worries I guess ;-)
> > >> >
> > >> > Ken
> > >> >
> > >>

Siggy

unread,
Jul 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/28/00
to
Agreed Rick. My point was that the basic dressing down for poor performance,
which may cause Bloggins to feel bad about himself or trash his self-esteem,
is in itself no grounds for a harassment claim; Now how you conduct the
session, cud very well be.

I had an individual last year that I (without profanity/yelling) called in
and trashed him on his complete lack of performance, leadership, initiative
and motivation, in addition to his complete lack of ability to inspire his
subordinates. But, I had the goods to prove every point I raised. I took
these drastic measures because in addtion, the member had/was/is and will
continue to shown a complete abscense of integrity, honesty, deportment,
bearing, etc...This was a very extreme case and as the SHARP book
says......My actions were those that could be "reasonably expected". The
unfortunate part of all of this...I most likely was wasting my time and
energy trying to get this mbr to see the error of thier ways.

Siggy.


"Rick Collins" <ab...@debbs.ndhq.dnd.ca> wrote in message
news:8lg236$eks$1...@gps4.ndhq.dnd.ca...


> It can be. Depends how it is done.
>

> "Siggy" <reas...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:4gJe5.79462$7I1.1...@news1.rdc2.on.home.com...
> > It in no way takes away a supervisors right to council a subordinate
> on bad
> > work performance.....the lad/lass may not feel to good about
> it.....tough !
> > It's not harrasment.
> >

> > Siggy
> >
> > "Ken Bendelier" <kenn...@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message

> > news:8l81e4$uk_...@nb.sympatico.ca...
> > > In article <UuKd5.75744$7I1.1...@news1.rdc2.on.home.com>,
> "Siggy"
> > <reas...@home.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >On a point of clarification; One can be nailed for harrasment by
> issuing
> > a
> > > >comment/action only "once", if that comment/action, -ought
> reasonably to
> > > >have been know to be offensive- ......This takes away the "it was
> only a
> > > >joke", "Don't be offended"
> > > >defense on the part of the harrasser/respondent.
> > >

> > > It also challenges the leader's ability to tell some slug he is a
> slug.
> > Of
> > > course, with a 19 pushup "standard"..no worries I guess ;-)
> > >
> > > Ken
> > >
> > > >

> > > >Siggy
> > > l

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages