Kelly Flinn
Philip and Sheri
anymore?
P and S
Bill Silvey
news:v13su81...@corp.supernews.com
> I just read Proud to Be. Does anyone know if Miss Flinn is even flying
> anymore?
>
> P and S
Flinn...she was the one who was ordered to stop fucking a married
subordinate, did so anyway, and then got her ass thrown out of the USAF,
right?
I hope to god she's not flying any more. I sure as hell wouldn't want
someone with such poor judgement skills behind the stick of any aircraft I
was passengering in.
--
http://home.cfl.rr.com/delversdungeon/index.htm
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
Me: "What you have to understand, dear, is that the internet is a global
community...a village!"
My Wife: "And you're the village idiot, right?"
I hate furries.
Gooneybird
"Bill Silvey" <bxsxixl...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:qzmQ9.36833$j8.9...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> "Philip and Sheri" <phi...@savbusiness.net> wrote in message
> news:v13su81...@corp.supernews.com
> > I just read Proud to Be. Does anyone know if Miss Flinn is even flying
> > anymore?
> >
> > P and S
>
> Flinn...she was the one who was ordered to stop fucking a married
> subordinate, did so anyway, and then got her ass thrown out of the USAF,
> right?
>
> I hope to god she's not flying any more. I sure as hell wouldn't want
> someone with such poor judgement skills behind the stick of any aircraft I
> was passengering in.
And you really think the guys driving the airliners you travel in never ever
fool around with somebody else's wife? Of course not.....everybody knows that
all their mothers are terribly proud of them because of their pure behavior.
Personally, I would be more concerned with their flying skills than I'd be with
their alley cat sex lives. They're hardly the same things, you know.
George Z.
C Knowles
have thought she was bulletproof.
Curt
"Bill Silvey" <bxsxixl...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:qzmQ9.36833$j8.9...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Bill Silvey
news:v14092t...@corp.supernews.com
> "Bill Silvey" <bxsxixl...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:qzmQ9.36833$j8.9...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>> "Philip and Sheri" <phi...@savbusiness.net> wrote in message
>> news:v13su81...@corp.supernews.com
>>> I just read Proud to Be. Does anyone know if Miss Flinn is even
>>> flying anymore?
>>>
>>> P and S
>>
>> Flinn...she was the one who was ordered to stop fucking a married
>> subordinate, did so anyway, and then got her ass thrown out of the
>> USAF, right?
>>
>> I hope to god she's not flying any more. I sure as hell wouldn't
>> want someone with such poor judgement skills behind the stick of any
>> aircraft I was passengering in.
>
> And you really think the guys driving the airliners you travel in
> never ever fool around with somebody else's wife? Of course
> not.....everybody knows that all their mothers are terribly proud of
> them because of their pure behavior.
They don't publish books about how proud they are that they can't obey
orders from superiors. Which is what Flinn did. To hell with her, I'm glad
she's gone from the Air Force, but I feel for any women who are attempting
to make headway in that branch of service. Her reprehensible behavior set
them back decades.
> Personally, I would be more concerned with their flying skills than
> I'd be with their alley cat sex lives. They're hardly the same
> things, you know.
I don't care about her sex life either. I care about her ability to obey a
direct order. That seemed to have been a very, very serious problem with
her. To hell with pointy-headed psychology, who she was screwing, or why.
The fact of the matter is that she was ordered to quit fucking a
subordinate. Fullstop. She didn't. Fullstop. What other orders would she
disobey simply because she didn't want to?
> George Z.
Gooneybird
> "Gooneybird" <Gooney...@charter.net.nospam> wrote in message
>
> orders from superiors. Which is what Flinn did. To hell with her, I'm glad
> she's gone from the Air Force, but I feel for any women who are attempting
> to make headway in that branch of service. Her reprehensible behavior set
> them back decades.
Your concern for the progress women are making in the military is touching. But
why do I hear snickering in the background?
>
>> Personally, I would be more concerned with their flying skills than
>> I'd be with their alley cat sex lives. They're hardly the same
>> things, you know.
>
> I don't care about her sex life either. I care about her ability to obey a
> direct order. That seemed to have been a very, very serious problem with
> her. To hell with pointy-headed psychology, who she was screwing, or why.
> The fact of the matter is that she was ordered to quit fucking a
> subordinate. Fullstop. She didn't. Fullstop. What other orders would she
> disobey simply because she didn't want to?
Were you equally concerned when the Delta (I think) copilot showed up to fly and
then, when someone blew the whistle on the fact that he smelled of alcohol, blew
an 0.08 on the Breathalyzer in direct violation of his company's orders
concerning drinking and flying? I'll bet you were making excuses for him. Any
self-respecting anti-feminist would do that if need be. Why aren't you running
at the mouth over his willingness to hazard the safety of his passengers by
boozing it up just before going to work? Why didn't you say anything about it
when it hit the press, over a week ago? Did the fact that the copilot stood to
pee have anything to do with it? Of course not.
George Z.
Bill Silvey
Don't bet on what I do and what I don't do, and save your agenda-painting
for someone else. Flinn refused to obey a direct order. She got what she
deserved - and then had the termetity to whine about it.
I don't talk about "pilots booozing it up" because what civil pilots do or
do not do is off topic for this newsgroup. The behavior of a *military*
aviator, OTOH, is not.
As to pilots being drunk, yes, it's despicable. I hope they never fly
again. Just like I hope Flinn never flies again.
CAM35PILOT
themselves, ya know.....if a woman does something wrong, it must be a man's
fault. Thanks for listening,
Gloria Allred :)~
DBoyd
direct order to stop.....I believe that then Chief of Staff Gen Fogleman,
said the same thing in front of a Congressional. If she cannot follow
orders in this case, who wants to give her control of a nuclear bomber.
Sorry, but I have no pity for anyone in this case, male or female.
David in VA
"Gooneybird" <Gooney...@charter.net.nospam> wrote in message
news:v14092t...@corp.supernews.com...
Mary Shafer Iliff
> It is not so much the f**king around, it was the inablility to follow a
> direct order to stop.....I believe that then Chief of Staff Gen Fogleman,
> said the same thing in front of a Congressional. If she cannot follow
> orders in this case, who wants to give her control of a nuclear bomber.
Didn't she lie as well? Tell her CO she wouldn't see the guy any
more and then drive right straight to him?
> Sorry, but I have no pity for anyone in this case, male or female.
Forget pity. She didn't deserve it. People without honor never do.
Mary
Mary Shafer Iliff
What in the world are you talking about? The world is more
likely to let an adulterous male off by saying the woman
tempted him or his wife drove him to it or some other dumb
excuse. Women get the blame for their own behavior and for
the man's behavior, too.
However, it doesn't matter. Grownups are supposed to be
mature enough to keep their pants zipped, male or female.
If they're not mature enough to manage that, they're sure
not mature enough to fly around with nuclear weapons. And,
even more, they're not mature enough to be officers in the
military.
Mary
Alan Cranston
>
> Flinn...she was the one who was ordered to stop fucking a married
> subordinate, did so anyway, and then got her ass thrown out of the USAF,
> right?
>
> I hope to god she's not flying any more. I sure as hell wouldn't want
> someone with such poor judgement skills behind the stick of any aircraft I
> was passengering in.
Come on now! How many men do you know who's brains are
inside the head of their penis.
Sex is more powerful than just about everything except cocaine, and
some people will deprive themselves of everything except sex.
Only afterwards do they see their disgrace. This women should have
been thrown in the brig, and given two weeks she would have been
able to get on with her life. The only reason the world knows about
her, is her commander lacked even basic leadership skills. His
treatment of her was different then how he would have handled
anyone else in the squadron.
Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal
"Gooneybird" <Gooney...@charter.net.nospam> wrote:
Let me get this straight... You're DEFENDING Kelly Flinn?
--Woody
Bill Silvey
news:ALrQ9.77019$I23.4...@news1.east.cox.net
> Come on now! How many men do you know who's brains are
> inside the head of their penis.
Waitwaitwait. Stop right there, jack. YOU'RE the one who's thinkin' with
the little head. If Kelly Flinn did it with sixty single guys in a night,
wrote an expose, posed for Hustler, did a couple of vids for Vivid and then
got back to base on time to be on station and on duty *I would not care a
single smidge*.
Period. End of story.
However: She disobeyed a direct order. I don't care if the order was to
cut her hair, to not cut her hair, to always eat her dessert first, to get a
nosejob, to recite the alphabet backwards or to take up water polo. SHE WAS
GIVEN A DIRECT ORDER AND DISOBEYED IT. ON PURPOSE. WITHOUT CONSENT OR
REMORSE.
What's that you say? That sex and love overcame her ability to obey an
order since they're such primal things? Okie-dokie - Lt. Flinn also had
standing orders to take her aircraft over enemy cities and release nuclear
weapons, thus exterminating millions of human beings, either immediately or
through agonizing slow death from the aftereffects of her attacks.
Pretty repugnant duty, I'd say. I'd never sign up to sentence that many
people to die if ordered. I thank god there are people who *would* do it -
if it meant saving the lives of *billions* more.
But I'd rank the emotional hangups that go with *that* duty to be a large
factor greater than "oooh oooh he's a good lay".
So if this idiot made up her mind to disobey an order regarding
highschool-girl fucking around, riddle me this: When was she going to choke
at the controls, hmm?
If she couldn't handle the emotional stress of telling one guy "I'm not
doing that any longer.", what in *the hell* makes you think she could handle
the stress of killing a few tens of millions of other people?
Nothing does it for me. She disgraced her colleagues as well as other women
trying to make it in other armed service branches, and got what she deserved
for it.
Maybe if she'd been more concerned with flying a goddamned B52H
Stratofortress for the United States Air Force instead of getting some dick
off of a subordinate, she'd still be flying. More to the point, maybe if
she'd stood up and said "I messed up. I made a decision and I paid for it."
instead of screeching about these imagined "double standards" and blaming
everyone but herself, things would've gone differently. But she didn't.
Flinn knew what the consequences of disobeying an order was - she just *did
not care*.
Mike Dennis
who "lost their wings" for the exact same offense. The media turned this
into a men vs. women situation. It isn't. This is about discipline. I
also disagree that "this set women back decades". That's as insulting to
the men out there as it is to women.
I can only hope Ms. Flinn has grown from her ordeal and has grown into the
kind of person that has the integrity and good judgment that others can rely
on, no matter what she is doing now.
"Mary Shafer Iliff" <mil...@qnet.com> wrote in message
news:3E1246EB...@qnet.com...
Alan Cranston
>
> However: She disobeyed a direct order.
The order would have never been given by an effective leader.
Her squadron commander, and her wing commander were both
relying on the Judge Advocate to handle their personnel problems.
> I don't care if the order was to
> cut her hair, to not cut her hair, to always eat her dessert first, to get a
> nosejob, to recite the alphabet backwards or to take up water polo.
I would hope we wouldn't invest four years in an Academy education,
a women with jump wings and pilot wings on that standard. I have had
several men disobey my orders, and no one above me, or the Judge
Advocate was ever required to assist me. This particular case is
mostly a study in leadership (lack of it), rather than a study in the
sexual escapades of a squadron pilot. I also note, that as a woman
approaching 30, she was entering her sexual prime. Another factor
in on-time leadership.
I've known men who disobeyed my orders go on to become better
leaders than myself. In the Army we had a saying, that when a
person said "the Army is f**ked-up" we would say "I am the Army."
Now it is a personal problem, and leadership is easy when it is a
personal problem.
> Lt. Flinn also had standing orders to weapons, thus exterminating
> millions of human beings, either immediately or through agonizing
> slow death from the aftereffects of her attacks.
I'm saying sex and death are two different things. People who f**k
their brains out in a rush of hormones, are still able to pilot aircraft,
or kill the enemy. Would you say then, that mass murderers who
kill every day would not be able to perform sex properly, that is,
one has anything to do with the other?
This is just my opinion, don't make a federal case out of it.
Brian
> I just read Proud to Be. Does anyone know if Miss Flinn is even flying
> anymore?
Last I heard she was flying in Air Force One when Clinton was in
office...Clinton thought it'd be a good idea if she worked directly below
him....Not sure what happened when he left.
He he he...
Alan Cranston
Read what Trent Lott had to say:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/05/23/schneider/
Then read what Gilbert and Sullivan had to say:
http://www.lightjunkie.org/parody/discharge-gen.html
"Yes still, in matters ethical, amoral or theoretical,
Flinn is the very model of a modern Discharge-General!"
Stop, Stop, my sides are hurting...
Alan Cranston
> > anymore?
>
> Last I heard she was flying in Air Force One when Clinton was in
> office...Clinton thought it'd be a good idea if she worked directly below
> him....Not sure what happened when he left.
>
>
> He he he...
>
>
See now, Clinton pushed the button, Kelly only carried the weapons.
However, Clinton never ejaculated, so he "never" (wag finger) "not
even once," had sex "with that woman."
She she she...
Gooneybird
> "Gooneybird" <Gooney...@charter.net.nospam> wrote in message
> news:v145ua9...@corp.supernews.com
>> Bill Silvey wrote:
>>> "Gooneybird" <Gooney...@charter.net.nospam> wrote in message
(Snip)
> Don't bet on what I do and what I don't do, and save your agenda-painting
> for someone else. Flinn refused to obey a direct order. She got what she
> deserved - and then had the termetity to whine about it.
>
> I don't talk about "pilots booozing it up" because what civil pilots do or
> do not do is off topic for this newsgroup. The behavior of a *military*
> aviator, OTOH, is not.
My, aren't we threading the eye of the needle in our arguments. We were not
talking about anybody boozing it up before going out to fly.....we were talking
about them violating the orders they had not to do it. It doesn't matter if
they're military or civil. And it doesn't matter if they're male or female, if
the treatment's equal, we don't differ on a single point.
Unfortunately, in the Air Force I flew in, men did every single thing that Kelly
Flinn did, and some of them wore a helluva lot more rank than she did, and
nothing ever happened to them that was discernable to the nekkid eye. Equal
treatment was the thing that was missing, and anyone who says that they never
saw it happen on their watch had to have their heads so far up they were where
the moon never shone.
I always wondered why they couldn't see fit to wink her sins away as they had
done with numerous other valuable male sinners who flew and didn't follow orders
that might have pertained to their private lives. I guess the double standard
is still alive and well in the AF if they haven't changed their philsophy since
they ran her off. That's the thing that sticks in my craw.....we spent a pile
of money training her to the level of efficiency she achieved, and then ran her
off before the taxpayers got their moneys worth out of their investment.
> As to pilots being drunk, yes, it's despicable. I hope they never fly
> again. Just like I hope Flinn never flies again.
Being drunk in the cockpit is one thing....screwing around with someone else's
spouse is another. The difference is huge, and I can see it even if you can't.
Both men and women do the latter every day, and nothing is ever going to change
that. And most civil employers won't fire their people for that kind of
stuff.....especially if good replacements are hard to find.
George Z.
Gooneybird
> On 12/31/02 4:18 PM, in article v145ua9...@corp.supernews.com,
(Snip)
> Let me get this straight... You're DEFENDING Kelly Flinn?
>
> --Woody
I suppose that I am to a certain extent. I'm defending her, if that's what I'm
doing, because she was treated differently than other men who have done the same
or worse. If we could live with men like that flying missions with nukes
aboard, or commanding units performing missions of that type, we should have
found a way to handle her problem in the same fashion that we handled men with
that problem.
You and I both know that there are many unfaithful womanizers flying missions as
we speak, with little if any ill effect on the national security. With all due
respect to Gen. Fogelman, picking on a woman under those circumstances was a
slack, tacky performance that did not make me proud to have had a relationship
with the organization dishing out the heat. I can't find any way to justify it
in my own mind, unless you can prove to me that only the sexually pure and
totally obediant crewmembers are capable of acceptable mission performance.
Until then, I guess I'll stick with my biases.
George Z.
Steven James Forsberg
: "Alan Cranston" <acran...@cox.net> wrote in message
: news:ALrQ9.77019$I23.4...@news1.east.cox.net
: However: She disobeyed a direct order. I don't care if the order was to
: cut her hair, to not cut her hair, to always eat her dessert first, to get a
: nosejob, to recite the alphabet backwards or to take up water polo. SHE WAS
: GIVEN A DIRECT ORDER AND DISOBEYED IT. ON PURPOSE. WITHOUT CONSENT OR
: REMORSE.
Of course, this is just a variation on the famous "First times never
count" defense that I saw naval aviators of the male persuasuion use over
and over again. Never mind that there are well known "standing orders"
against sex with enlisted women. Just ignore them.
Then, it goes like this. Go out and find yourself some naive young
enlisted girl (I love you no shit, I'm leaving my wife, etc.) and engage
in a hardly-secret relationship. Then, after a month or two and you get
tired of her, your CO gives you a little counseling and then you tell the
girl "Aw, I really like you and all, but the NAVY says we have to stop
seeing one another. Bye bye."
So the pilot had his fling, wrecking morale and all, but since he
stopped when ordered he is a "Brave Disciplined Warrior". Now he sets his
sights on the next young thang......repeat 'ad infinitum'.
Or, to put it another way, "F**king around is fine. True love,
however, is forbidden." guys who were willing to dump their squeezes when
the Chain-of-command eventually got stirred were 'standup'. It was those
poor dumb saps who actually *cared* that got hammered......
A dream set up for a lot of guys. But when women began flying we
clearly couldn't have sluts in the cockpit.....
Regards,
-----------------------------------------------------------
sjfo...@bayou.uh.edu
BSchiltz
wondered if she could drive the BUFF, could she give me a hummer.
John Keeney
> "Bill Silvey" <bxsxixl...@cfl.rr.com> wrote
> >
> > However: She disobeyed a direct order.
>
> The order would have never been given by an effective leader.
> Her squadron commander, and her wing commander were both
> relying on the Judge Advocate to handle their personnel problems.
Assuming that, how does it exonerate Flinn?
Good, bad or indifferent, the orders given.
Leadfoot
> > Last I heard she was flying in Air Force One when Clinton was in
> > office...Clinton thought it'd be a good idea if she worked directly
below
> > him....Not sure what happened when he left.
> >
> >
> > He he he...
> >
> >
>
> See now, Clinton pushed the button, Kelly only carried the weapons.
> However, Clinton never ejaculated, so he "never" (wag finger) "not
> even once," had sex "with that woman."
If he never ejaculated what was that stuff with his DNA on Ms Lewinski's
dress? Actually I think the principle is since he didn't place his penis in
her vagina it could not be sex.
For the record I never gave a shit about Wild Bill's sex life and think the
people who forced this crap about his sex life on the American people were
lower than Osama Bin-Laden.
In fact I wish Wild Bill could have ran for a third term just so he could
give Frat Boy GWB the asswhipping he so richly deserves.
>
> She she she...
>
>
Leadfoot
>
> Come on now! How many men do you know who's brains are
> inside the head of their penis.
>
> Sex is more powerful than just about everything except cocaine, and
> some people will deprive themselves of everything except sex.
>
> Only afterwards do they see their disgrace. This women should have
> been thrown in the brig, and given two weeks she would have been
> able to get on with her life. The only reason the world knows about
> her, is her commander lacked even basic leadership skills. His
> treatment of her was different then how he would have handled
> anyone else in the squadron.
A women once told me "once I accepted that men were basically shallow
creatures I didn't have problems with them any more"
I think what we men here fail to realize is that for women sex is much more
than physical release, it has an emotional component for women most men
don't understand.
Give this some thought before you judge the "Flinn Controversy"
>
>
Steven P. McNicoll
>Date: 1/1/03 8:07 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <2DCQ9.13809$L61.1...@news1.west.cox.net>
>
>For the record I never gave a shit about Wild Bill's sex life and think the
>people who forced this crap about his sex life on the American people were
>lower than Osama Bin-Laden.
>
That would be the Democratic Party. I agree, they are lower than OBL.
Gooneybird
Really? For some silly reason, I thought there was some relative of Bart Starr
who was feeding all of that stuff to the press, which they couldn't resist
printing. And wasn't there some sexually pure Repug Congresscritter named Hyde
who dished out the stuff that his buddy Starr might have missed?
Your memory might be that flawed....mine isn't.
George Z.
Unknown
>CAM35PILOT wrote:
>> Come now, don't be so hard on her, remember, it's not as if women can control
>> themselves, ya know.....if a woman does something wrong, it must be a man's
>> fault. Thanks for listening,
>
>What in the world are you talking about? The world is more
>likely to let an adulterous male off by saying the woman
>tempted him or his wife drove him to it or some other dumb
>excuse. Women get the blame for their own behavior and for
>the man's behavior, too.
>
C'mon Mary, you didn't detect any sardonic undertones in that
post?, surely you're not that gullible are you?..
-Gord.
Steven P. McNicoll
>Date: 1/1/03 8:51 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <v1602un...@corp.supernews.com>
>
>Really?
>
Really.
>
>For some silly reason, I thought there was some relative of Bart
>Starr
>who was feeding all of that stuff to the press, which they couldn't resist
>printing. And wasn't there some sexually pure Repug Congresscritter named
>Hyde
>who dished out the stuff that his buddy Starr might have missed?
>
>Your memory might be that flawed....mine isn't.
>
No, your memory is definitely flawed. It was the Democrats that said it was
all about sex.
Ed Rasimus
>Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal wrote:
>> On 12/31/02 4:18 PM, in article v145ua9...@corp.supernews.com,
>
You've missed the esssential issue (despite several posters
highlighting it for you). Certainly there are many crewmembers who are
unfaithful to their spouses and many who commit adultery. The issue
with Lt. Flinn was one of flaunting her behavior to the point that she
had to be counseled by her supervisor. The issues were NOT of morality
but of service policy against fraternization and the need to maintain
good order in the organization. She was counseled to clearly
understand the issue. She was then ordered to desist. She chose then
to disobey a series of direct and lawful orders.
Certainly she was probably (although I've heard conflicting evidence)
capable of acceptable mission performance, but she was also a cause of
deterioration of unit cohesiveness. She knew what the outcome would be
and she acted.
As for males, there are more than a few counter-balancing cases to
overwhelm your accusations of sexism. Might I point out the handling
of Gen. Joe Ralston when he was considered for Chairman of the JCS. He
didn't violate orders, he didn't cheat on his wife since he was
separated and he didn't fraternize. He simply dated while single and
got laid. End result, no Chairmanship.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** Coming in January '03
*** from Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN: 1588341038
Brian
"Gooneybird" <Gooney...@charter.net.nospam> wrote in message
> Being drunk in the cockpit is one thing....screwing around with someone
else's
> spouse is another. The difference is huge, and I can see it even if you
can't.
> Both men and women do the latter every day, and nothing is ever going to
change
> that. And most civil employers won't fire their people for that kind of
> stuff.....especially if good replacements are hard to find.
I don't think she'd have nearly the problem she did if she was just screwing
some civilian who was married. In her case she was screwing a dude who was a
mechanic and wasn't the wife in the AF as well? Nothing kills morale more.
It also didn't help that she hired a PR firm to press her case.
cheyenne
"Gooneybird" <Gooney...@charter.net.nospam> wrote in message
>Equal treatment was the thing that was missing, >and anyone who says that
they never
> saw it happen on their watch had to have their >heads so far up they were
where
> the moon never shone.
> George Z.
In the Air Force I flew in (for more than 22 years, and in excess of 9,500
hours), I must have had my head where you described. I knew of it
happening on 3 occasions that I can remember (once in England, Australia,
and the Phillipines). And we flew the entire world as SAC crews and later
airlifters. I guess that crewmembers on the crews to which I was assigned
were either very discreet or stood on much higher moral grounds than the
ones with which you were associated.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
David Lentz
Ed Rasimus wrote:
<snip>
I don't remember the specifics. However former Lt. Eelly Flinn
was facing up to nine and half years in Leavenworth. Of that
nine and half years, only six months pertained to the adultery
itself. The rest was stuff like making a false official
statement, conduct unbecoming and failure to obey.
I was really glad to see that bitch get out of my Air Force.
David
David Lentz
Ex Lt. Kelly Flinn was having an affair with the a, on active
duty and I believe in her own unit. Does not bode well for unit
discipline and morale. Even with that Flinn would have survived
had she simply obeyed orders of her commanding officer.
David
Buck
friends hurt by that stuff. And if you don't think I would do it, just ask
the guy who got sent to jail for this kind of stuff. I was on the Court
Martial board for it. 6 Months confinement, and dishonorable discharge. We
would have done more but HE had a wife and children.
But I have to agree with another poster. To me this was a matter flagrant
disregard for orders. ANYONE who does this kind of thing should be brought
up on charges.
"cheyenne" <chey...@codenet.net> wrote in message
news:3e131...@corp.newsgroups.com...
Gooneybird
>> From: "Gooneybird" Gooney...@charter.net.nospam
>> Date: 1/1/03 8:51 AM Central Standard Time
>> Message-id: <v1602un...@corp.supernews.com>
>> For some silly reason, I thought there was some relative of Bart
>> Starr
>> who was feeding all of that stuff to the press, which they couldn't resist
>> printing. And wasn't there some sexually pure Repug Congresscritter named
>> Hyde
>> who dished out the stuff that his buddy Starr might have missed?
>>
>> Your memory might be that flawed....mine isn't.
>>
>
> No, your memory is definitely flawed. It was the Democrats that said it was
> all about sex.
And how did the Democrats find out about it in the first place? Did Clinton
issue a press release every time he scored? If so, I wonder what happened to
mine.....'cause I never got one. I got my info from what Starr, Hyde or one of
their unattributed flunkies leaked into the 24 hours/day fill-the-time press
with whatever's available.
Yes, Wild Bill did it, and the Repugs leaked it as fast as they found out about
it. And before you start re-creating history for me, it started with Monica's
so-called friend who couldn't wait to share it with her publisher, Madame
Goldberg (she of the right wing ilk) who couldn't wait to spread it around as
fast as she got the details. And all of that happened way before the first lie
about it under oath was uttered.
My memory's fine. Your's is leaking a bit.
George Z.
Steven P. McNicoll
>Date: 1/1/03 11:53 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <v16ao2...@corp.supernews.com>
>
>And how did the Democrats find out about it in the first place? Did Clinton
>issue a press release every time he scored? If so, I wonder what happened to
>mine.....'cause I never got one. I got my info from what Starr, Hyde or one
>of
>their unattributed flunkies leaked into the 24 hours/day fill-the-time press
>with whatever's available.
>
>Yes, Wild Bill did it, and the Repugs leaked it as fast as they found out
>about
>it. And before you start re-creating history for me, it started with
>Monica's
>so-called friend who couldn't wait to share it with her publisher, Madame
>Goldberg (she of the right wing ilk) who couldn't wait to spread it around as
>fast as she got the details. And all of that happened way before the first
>lie
>about it under oath was uttered.
>
>My memory's fine. Your's is leaking a bit.
>
Well, George, either your memory's faulty or your just flat out lying. Cuz
what you write ain't how it wuz.
Gooneybird
> "Gooneybird" <Gooney...@charter.net.nospam> wrote:
>
>> Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal wrote:
>>> On 12/31/02 4:18 PM, in article v145ua9...@corp.supernews.com,
> You've missed the esssential issue (despite several posters
> highlighting it for you). Certainly there are many crewmembers who are
> unfaithful to their spouses and many who commit adultery. The issue
> with Lt. Flinn was one of flaunting her behavior to the point that she
> had to be counseled by her supervisor. The issues were NOT of morality
> but of service policy against fraternization and the need to maintain
> good order in the organization. She was counseled to clearly
> understand the issue. She was then ordered to desist. She chose then
> to disobey a series of direct and lawful orders.
>
> Certainly she was probably (although I've heard conflicting evidence)
> capable of acceptable mission performance, but she was also a cause of
> deterioration of unit cohesiveness. She knew what the outcome would be
> and she acted.
I guess my read on it was and remains different from yours.
>
> As for males, there are more than a few counter-balancing cases to
> overwhelm your accusations of sexism. Might I point out the handling
> of Gen. Joe Ralston when he was considered for Chairman of the JCS. He
> didn't violate orders, he didn't cheat on his wife since he was
> separated ...
I don't recall that anyone ever looked into the reason for the separation, and
if they did, they kept their mouths shut about it. I'm not saying it happened
this way, but it's entirely possible that she had had as much of his catting
around the she could handle and didn't care to take any more. That would not be
an original scenario in the history of sexual behavior.
>.....and he didn't fraternize. He simply dated while single and
> got laid. End result, no Chairmanship.
Yeah.....poor Gen. Ralston. Didn't do a thing wrong other than fail to remain
celibate outside of marriage. Poor fellow had to take his four stars into
retirement with him when he decided that he had had enough. They treated him
just like they treated Flinn. Sure, they did, and the only difference was that
he operated at a higher level. Yeah, sure.
George Z.
Gooneybird
Since I know I'm not a liar, as I am sure you are not (and I'm sure you noticed
that I never suggested that you were), we seem to be two people at odds, one of
whom has a faulty memory.
I guess we'll just have to leave it there.
George Z.
Ed Rasimus
>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> "Gooneybird" <Gooney...@charter.net.nospam> wrote:
>>
>>> Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal wrote:
>>>> On 12/31/02 4:18 PM, in article v145ua9...@corp.supernews.com,
>
>> You've missed the esssential issue (despite several posters
>> highlighting it for you). Certainly there are many crewmembers who are
>> unfaithful to their spouses and many who commit adultery. The issue
>> with Lt. Flinn was one of flaunting her behavior to the point that she
>> had to be counseled by her supervisor. The issues were NOT of morality
>> but of service policy against fraternization and the need to maintain
>> good order in the organization. She was counseled to clearly
>> understand the issue. She was then ordered to desist. She chose then
>> to disobey a series of direct and lawful orders.
>>
>> Certainly she was probably (although I've heard conflicting evidence)
>> capable of acceptable mission performance, but she was also a cause of
>> deterioration of unit cohesiveness. She knew what the outcome would be
>> and she acted.
>
>I guess my read on it was and remains different from yours.
Apparently.
>
>>
>> As for males, there are more than a few counter-balancing cases to
>> overwhelm your accusations of sexism. Might I point out the handling
>> of Gen. Joe Ralston when he was considered for Chairman of the JCS. He
>> didn't violate orders, he didn't cheat on his wife since he was
>> separated ...
>
>I don't recall that anyone ever looked into the reason for the separation, and
>if they did, they kept their mouths shut about it. I'm not saying it happened
>this way, but it's entirely possible that she had had as much of his catting
>around the she could handle and didn't care to take any more. That would not be
>an original scenario in the history of sexual behavior.
We aren't dealing with fact here are we? You're "not saying it
happened this way"??? It seems that is indeed what you are asserting.
You've gone beyond this issue and introduced an "entirely possible"
scenario that has no basis.
>
>>.....and he didn't fraternize. He simply dated while single and
>> got laid. End result, no Chairmanship.
>
>Yeah.....poor Gen. Ralston. Didn't do a thing wrong other than fail to remain
>celibate outside of marriage. Poor fellow had to take his four stars into
>retirement with him when he decided that he had had enough. They treated him
>just like they treated Flinn. Sure, they did, and the only difference was that
>he operated at a higher level. Yeah, sure.
>
>George Z.
Gosh, George, maybe you need to have a clue what you're talking about.
Gen Ralston is SACEUR. Didn't yet "take his four stars into
retirement."
Are you saying that celibacy outside of marriage is now a military
requirement? You do indeed establish a high standard. All that the
rest of us required of Lt. Flinn was that she followed the lawful
orders of those placed in positions of authority over her.
Alan Cranston
[snip]
> All that the rest of us required of Lt. Flinn was that she followed
> the lawful orders of those placed in positions of authority over her.
Especially true in the modern "one mistake" Air Force.
I still think there were ways to get her attention short of the Judge
Advocate. UCMJ proceedings in this case were like step two of
the modern military discipline process:
1) Find evil doers.
2) Get rid of them.
There's no room for low level leadership and management, regardless
of the taxpayer dollars expended.
Alan
Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal
Since we're going with relativism... Let's break it down from bad to worst:
1. There are womanizers.
2. There are those who sleep with others' spouses.
3. There are those who sleep with subordinates.
4. There are those who sleep with the spouses of subordinates.
The last two are particularly damaging to the chain of command and good
order and discipline.
Kelly Flinn's case is about number 4. You keep talking about number 1. If
we have men sleeping with the spouses of their subordinates, they'd be
ordered to cease and desist also. If they refused, they'd be disciplined in
the same way.
I personally find cases 3 and 4 to be the most disgusting. Regardless, an
officer ordered to knock it off is obligated to do so. If they don't, the
alternative is more punishment.
Let's keep the comparisons valid here. Ms. Flinn deserves no defenders.
--Woody
On 12/31/02 10:05 PM, in article v14q7hn...@corp.supernews.com,
KenG
the rule (fraternization) was designed for just this type of situation.
She was screwing the spouse of a maintainer who maintained the birds she
was flying. This maintainer could have decided to show her (Flynn) that
she would get back by sabotaging the Lt.'s plane. While the retribution
on Lt. Flynn, might be deserved (but not warranted), the loss of a
multimillion dollar aircraft with ~5 other souls aboard would be
unforgivable. Not saying this would or should happen, just that human
nature being what it is, it would be foreseeable that it could happen.
The worst case scenario outcome of a half a dozen deaths, as many
destroyed families, plus the loss of a valued maintainer, a multimillion
dollar aircraft, assorted civilian casualties. Given this possible
outcome, the Air Force (actually the DOD) decided it didn't want to take
the risk of these types of situations, and decreed that these types of
relationships were detrimental to unit cohesion and forbade them. I'm
sure she was a good pilot (there were no indications otherwise), but
when her CO became aware of the situation he gave her a DIRECT ORDER to
cease. Instead she went directly form the COs office to her consort's
residence. At this point her CO could not rely on her to carry out
orders given to her by him or other superiors as directed by the
Constitution. Since this trust was not there, she was unfit for duty.
KenG
Steven P. McNicoll
>Date: 1/1/03 12:42 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <v16dl5e...@corp.supernews.com>
>
>Since I know I'm not a liar, as I am sure you are not (and I'm sure you
>noticed
>that I never suggested that you were), we seem to be two people at odds, one
>of
>whom has a faulty memory.
>
Well, if you're sure you're not a liar, then we can be sure that your memory is
faulty.
>
>I guess we'll just have to leave it there.
>
Agreed.
Gooneybird
"Ed Rasimus" <thund...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3e133ba6....@news.earthlink.net...
> "Gooneybird" <Gooney...@charter.net.nospam> wrote:
(Snip)
> >I don't recall that anyone ever looked into the reason for the separation,
and
> >if they did, they kept their mouths shut about it. I'm not saying it
happened
> >this way, but it's entirely possible that she had had as much of his catting
> >around that she could handle and didn't care to take any more. That would
not be
> >an original scenario in the history of sexual behavior.
>
> We aren't dealing with fact here are we? ....
Of course not. I issued a disclaimer right up front. Please don't ignore it or
act like it's not there.
> ....You're "not saying it
> happened this way"??? It seems that is indeed what you are asserting.
Certainly not. I excluded Gen. Ralston in pointing out that the scenario that I
described was probably far from rare.
> You've gone beyond this issue and introduced an "entirely possible"
> scenario that has no basis.
I didn't claim that it had any basis in fact. By the same token, it may well
have, unbeknownst to both of us. But I still don't know that it did and don't
claim it to be accurate.
> >>.....and he didn't fraternize. He simply dated while single and
> >> got laid. End result, no Chairmanship.
> >
> >Yeah.....poor Gen. Ralston. Didn't do a thing wrong other than fail to
remain
> >celibate outside of marriage. Poor fellow had to take his four stars into
> >retirement with him when he decided that he had had enough. They treated him
> >just like they treated Flinn. Sure, they did, and the only difference was
that
> >he operated at a higher level. Yeah, sure.
> >
> >George Z.
>
> Gosh, George, maybe you need to have a clue what you're talking about.
> Gen Ralston is SACEUR. Didn't yet "take his four stars into
> retirement."
Score one for you. I failed to follow his career closely enough. I'll take 20
lashes with a wet noodle for failing to do my homework.
>
> Are you saying that celibacy outside of marriage is now a military
> requirement? ....
Not me. I believe others who have taken part in this exchange have made that
point, but I don't recall making that particular claim.
> .....You do indeed establish a high standard. All that the
> rest of us required of Lt. Flinn was that she followed the lawful
> orders of those placed in positions of authority over her.
A little presumptious in speaking for "the rest of us", aren't you? Obviously,
you can include me out of the group you claim to speak for, and I suspect I am
not the only one who disagrees with you.
George Z.
MSU94
Ron
Gooneybird
"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" <doug...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BA38A42B.4432%doug...@earthlink.net...
> George,
>
> Since we're going with relativism... Let's break it down from bad to worst:
>
> 1. There are womanizers.
> 2. There are those who sleep with others' spouses.
> 3. There are those who sleep with subordinates.
> 4. There are those who sleep with the spouses of subordinates.
>
> The last two are particularly damaging to the chain of command and good
> order and discipline.
>
> Kelly Flinn's case is about number 4. You keep talking about number 1. If
> we have men sleeping with the spouses of their subordinates, they'd be
> ordered to cease and desist also. If they refused, they'd be disciplined in
> the same way.
>
> I personally find cases 3 and 4 to be the most disgusting. Regardless, an
> officer ordered to knock it off is obligated to do so. If they don't, the
> alternative is more punishment.
>
> Let's keep the comparisons valid here.
I like the way you categorized the sins apparently involved. I managed to get
through my entire life without stumbling over any of them. But this was not
about the sins, but rather the way the sinners were treated. Unfortunately, the
way the sinners were treated depended on variables, and they should not have
been. They seemed to be based on the level of command of the sinner as well as
his/her gender.
One size ought to fit all. Unfortunately, that was not the case in my day, nor
was it in Kelly Flinn's day, and that, essentially, is my bitch.
Ms. Flinn deserves no defenders.
Of course she does. In our civilized society, we don't have the hanging until
after the trial is over. I'm not defending her sexual behavior, but she was
entitled to equal treatment, and I don't think she got that.
Stop and think about it. Did you ever hear of any other 0-2 get
courts-martialed and get the Secy/AF and C/S, USAF say something under oath that
applied to that action? It still goes back to unequal treatment as far as I can
see.
George Z.
PS - I think I'm going to drop out of this thread. mostly because it seems to be
pointless in the sense that, regardless of any conclusions we may reach, nothing
much of notice will change. Anyway, thank you for keeping it civil and for
refraining from the name calling and invective that one sees so often when there
are differences of opinion that can't seem to be resolved.
Gooneybird
"Steven P. McNicoll" <spmcn...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20030101154933...@mb-fd.aol.com...
> >From: "Gooneybird" Gooney...@charter.net.nospam
> >Date: 1/1/03 12:42 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: <v16dl5e...@corp.supernews.com>
> >
> >Since I know I'm not a liar, as I am sure you are not (and I'm sure you
> >noticed
> >that I never suggested that you were), we seem to be two people at odds, one
> >of
> >whom has a faulty memory.
> >
>
> Well, if you're sure you're not a liar, then we can be sure that your memory
is
> faulty.
If you say so.
Unknown
>
>I'm saying sex and death are two different things. People who f**k
>their brains out in a rush of hormones, are still able to pilot aircraft,
>or kill the enemy. Would you say then, that mass murderers who
>kill every day would not be able to perform sex properly, that is,
>one has anything to do with the other?
>
>This is just my opinion, don't make a federal case out of it.
>
Don't you see that the argument has nothing to do with sex?...it
has to do with refusing to obey a direct order, she was ordered
to stop doing something that was detrimental to morale and she
refused. Not rocket science at all.
-Gord.
Alan Cranston
> >
> >I'm saying sex and death are two different things. People who f**k
> >their brains out in a rush of hormones, are still able to pilot aircraft,
> >or kill the enemy. Would you say then, that mass murderers who
> >kill every day would not be able to perform sex properly, that is,
> >one has anything to do with the other?
>
I agree up to a point.
> ...it has to do with refusing to obey a direct order
Chicken or the egg. What came first? Her psychological need for
forbidden sex with married men, or her blatant disregard for her
military chain of command? There are volumes written on this
psychological disorder, and I suspect like most women, she
suffered some sexual trauma regarding very close kin.
Her commander could have done some important things:
Removed her from flying status and pay, with surrender of her
flight gear. Reassignment to the wash-rack for thirty days (get her
attention), with a threat of assigning her to the mental health wing
of the base hospital as an in-patient (ending her flying career, civilian
and military).
I think she would have come around, and the Judge Advocate office
would have never been involved.
It was no fun for the victims that this case became a national carnival.
BUFDRVR
>someone with such poor judgement skills behind the stick of any aircraft I
>was passengering in.
Then watch out the next time you fly. Rumor in the B-52 community is that after
getting hired by a small regional just after being allowed to resign, she was
picked up by a major just prior to 9/11.
BUFDRVR
"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
BUFDRVR
>with
>their alley cat sex lives. They're hardly the same things, you know.
>
Then be afraid of her. She had hands of stone and was consistantly at
Destination (B-52 waypoint designation) 12 while the jet was at 16. To make her
a complete "stump" she couldn't even talk well on the radios.
BUFDRVR
>subordinate.
Actually it was a subordinates husband, but thats besides the point.
BUFDRVR
>deserved - and then had the termetity to whine about it.
Actually what she deserved was an "Other than Honorable" discharge, what she
got was permission to resign. After I paid for her to go to college for 4
years, one year of pilot training and 6 months of B-52 training, all we got out
of her was less then one year of mission qualified status...then she was just
allowed to leave! Less then five months after then end of this instance, an EW
in my squadron (a male) was Article 15'd, then Court Martialed and given an
"OTH" discharge after he nearly duplicated the Flinn incident.
BUFDRVR
>done with numerous other valuable male sinners who flew and didn't follow
>orders
>that might have pertained to their private lives.
Because her squadron commander, who was absolutely correct, said he could never
put her back on PRP after the incident. With that being the case, the choices
were few. I don't think you have the complete picture here either. She was
given *several* chances to follow a direct order and passed on it each time.
I'm not sure what guys you served with did that you think compares to Flinn,
but I can nearly guarentee you that if they blew off the direct order the first
time, they followed it the second. Flinn finally got "busted" after the 8th or
9th time.
BUFDRVR
>I'm
>doing, because she was treated differently than other men who have done the
>same
>or worse.
Wrong! See my previous post about a male EW in my squadron who was literally
pounded (Article 15 *and* OTH discharge) after nearly duplicating the Flinn
case...with the exception that he didn't get told 8 times to stop before he got
nailed. He was told once to stop, when it was discovered he hadn't, he was
hanged. And you know what? No one had a problem with it from HQUSAF all the way
down to the squadron crew dogs.
BUFDRVR
>
>I still think there were ways to get her attention short of the Judge
>Advocate. UCMJ proceedings in this case were like step two of
>the modern military discipline process:
>
>1) Find evil doers.
>2) Get rid of them.
>
>There's no room for low level leadership and management, regardless
>of the taxpayer dollars expended.
>
>Alan
Oh for Christ sake! This thing dragged on and hung over the 23rd BS for damn
near a year! She was given more chances than any other human being male or
female would have under similar circumstances. You guys make it sound like she
was told to stop, didn't and was preferred for charges. WRONG! She was
counseled several times, told to end the relationship by her squdron commander
twice and her Ops group commander *at least* twice. She ignored direct orders
from an O-5 and an O-6 *several times*. What more would she have to do to
convince you she was unsuited for military service? Perhaps kill one of them?
Damn.........
BUFDRVR
>have thought she was bulletproof.
>Curt
And here is the only place I will slam the Air Force more then her. If she
thought she was bullet proof, its because that's what the USAF told her. I was
unfortunate enough to be one class behind her at Vance AFB going through UPT
and then one class behind her going through B-52 FTU. She was treated in a more
favorable way going through UPT (as are all females), and when she picked a
B-52 (and she picked it not because she ever wanted to fly it, but because
someone in her class told her she would be the first womam bomber crewmember)
she became a celebrity. Once she got to Barksdale it was a media circus. She
was caught cheating on an academic test and allowed to "slide", she was given
the top academic award, even though her scores were not close to the top
co-pilot student. When she became a defensive, CRM (Cockpit Resource
Management) nightmare in the jet, she was removed from her student crew and
placed with a full instructor crew. She took her checkride with this instructor
crew, was awarded and an Excellent Performance rating and handed the co-pilot
Distinguished Graduate award. When she arrived at Minot, the media again
flocked to her. She flew a 6 hour sortie to the UTTR and back with Shelia
Wittnall (sp??), then Sec. of the Air Force, and was awarded "Global Power"
credit for the sortie. She was given some of the top co-pilot additional duties
(stan/eval) dispite being the most junior co-pilot in the squadron. If she felt
bullet proof, and I'm sure she did, the USAF created that monster.
BUFDRVR
>
>The order would have never been given by an effective leader.
What? And you knew these two officers how? Through Flinn's book?
>Her squadron commander, and her wing commander were both
>relying on the Judge Advocate to handle their personnel problems.
>
You have no idea what the hell you're talking about! Her squadron commander
tried to deal with issue for several months before he handed off to the OG to
handle. When niether could get her to stop when ordered, only then did they
call the JAG. Even Flinn bitched to the media that her squadron commander
treated her badly by telling her she couldn't wear the squadron patch for one
month after she disobeyed his first order to end the relationship. What she
failed to tell the media, was that this was standard practice in the 23rd at
the trime. I've known several people who were "de-frocked" of their Volcano
patch because of a wrong doing under that same squadron commander, and each
thought it was an awsome "personal behavior modification tool". They all felt
the "de-frocking" was far worse then the LOR or LOC. The 23rd BS was led by a
guy who was well respected by everyone except Flinn...and I guess you...how do
you know him again? Oh...you don't huh?
> I have had
>several men disobey my orders, and no one above me, or the Judge
>Advocate was ever required to assist me.
Did they *repeatedly* disobey you? Kelly Flinn would still be in the Air Force
today had she followed any of the numerous orders to stop. Nothing stopped her
relationship with this guy, not even when charges were preferred against her!
>This particular case is
>mostly a study in leadership (lack of it),
I'm curious, where the hell are you getting your info from?
>I also note, that as a woman
>approaching 30, she was entering her sexual prime. Another factor
>in on-time leadership.
YGBSM???!!! So I blew it 3 years ago when I didn't start running around on my
wife when I was in that "7 year itch" period of marrige? Damn!! I always miss
out the good deals.......
>I've known men who disobeyed my orders go on to become better
>leaders than myself.
If they disobeyed those same orders repeatedly (actually refused to obey them),
and you didn't get rid of them, then you were damn lucky these guys didn't get
people killed, and had they, it would have been your fault.
>I'm saying sex and death are two different things. People who f**k
>their brains out in a rush of hormones, are still able to pilot aircraft,
>or kill the enemy.
Actually probably not. You see, if she was sent on a strike mission, there's
going to be a mission commander, and hes going to build the plan, sometimes you
like the plan, other times you don't. Regardless, unless the plan is completely
reckless or un-do-able on your part, you fly the plan as directed. Kelly Flinn
proved she would have been unable to do this and would have been a tremedous
liability in combat.
>Would you say then, that mass murderers who
>kill every day would not be able to perform sex properly, that is,
>one has anything to do with the other?
>
Wow...are you entirely missing the point...
>This is just my opinion, don't make a federal case out of it.
You need to re-look at this case, because your opinion is founded on faulty,
and incorrect facts.
Mary Shafer Iliff
> Oh for Christ sake! This thing dragged on and hung over the 23rd BS for damn
> near a year! She was given more chances than any other human being male or
> female would have under similar circumstances. You guys make it sound like she
> was told to stop, didn't and was preferred for charges. WRONG! She was
> counseled several times, told to end the relationship by her squdron commander
> twice and her Ops group commander *at least* twice. She ignored direct orders
> from an O-5 and an O-6 *several times*. What more would she have to do to
> convince you she was unsuited for military service? Perhaps kill one of them?
> Damn.........
How about Bud Holland? Didn't he go through a lot the same process,
only to finally bring it to an end by killing himself, the squadron
commander, and a couple of other fine people? How many chances did
he get? He too disobeyed more than one direct order, as I recall.
How long from when the command structure realized he was dangerous
to when they might have taken him off flight status?
I mention him not in an attempt to show a lack of equity between male
and female officers but to suggest that managers and supervisors
sometimes spend a lot of time trying to not really deal with a problem
officer.
Mary
Alan Cranston
>
> Then be afraid of her. She had hands of stone and was consistantly at
> Destination (B-52 waypoint designation) 12 while the jet was at 16. To make her
> a complete "stump" she couldn't even talk well on the radios.
Come on now, her supervisor and endorser said she was the next best thing
since spilt milk. Are you saying the USAF evaluation system is bogus?!! :-)
BUFDRVR
>forbidden sex with married men, or her blatant disregard for her
>military chain of command?
LOL...uhh, her "psychological need for forbidden sex" came first, third, fifth
etc. etc. Her blatent disregard for direct orders came in between and 2nd, 4th,
6th, etc.
>There are volumes written on this
>psychological disorder, and I suspect like most women, she
>suffered some sexual trauma regarding very close kin.
Yeah, because its never our fault anymore, its always a trauma or someone not
being loved enough, or not getting that red bike you wanted for your 8th
birthday....ROFLMAO
>I think she would have come around, and the Judge Advocate office
>would have never been involved.
You're kidding right? She didn't come around *after* the JAG got involved !!!
BUFDRVR
>since spilt milk. Are you saying the USAF evaluation system is bogus?!! :-)
Not bogus, just not accurate......I think I dodged that pretty good ;)
BUFDRVR
>only to finally bring it to an end by killing himself, the squadron
>commander, and a couple of other fine people?
Absolutely Mary, in fact, the B-52 community was still "reeling" from that
incident when Flinn was just making her way up to Minot. Yes, Bud Holland
disregarded T.O. and regulatory guidance, was told to "get back in the books"
(a direct order, as if the Tech ORDER and regs weren't enough) and he still
failed to comply. End result...one of 95 B-52H models destoyed along with four
innocent crewmembers including 2 O-5's. Maybe had Flinn not been booted she
would have ended up in the same circumstances around 2006.
Leadfoot
Hey BUFDRVR
What happened to the chain of command after this incidemt? Were they
promoted?
Alan Cranston
> >> However: She disobeyed a direct order.
> >
> >The order would have never been given by an effective leader.
>
> What? And you knew these two officers how? Through Flinn's book?
I've never read her book. I don't know any of the officers involved.
What I am saying, is that the fun of leadership is tempered by the
frustration of serious problems within a unit. I wouldn't give a rats-ass
if she screwed-up eight or nine times, but I do care that at each level
she didn't suffer greater pain. I know there are limits to what you can
do to an officer, as opposed to an enlisted person, but any officer
worth keeping can be re-trained. I think at step three I wouldn't have
her in operations any longer, but I would find some way to get a ROI.
Probably someplace remote.
> Even Flinn bitched to the media that her squadron commander
> treated her badly by telling her she couldn't wear the squadron patch
> for one month after she disobeyed his first order to end the relationship.
This is silly. This is not punishment. This would be like taking away
a coffee mug from a Gunny Sergeant who killed his girl-friend.
> >Would you say then, that mass murderers who
> >kill every day would not be able to perform sex properly, that is,
> >one has anything to do with the other?
>
> Wow...are you entirely missing the point...
People keep bringing up the bimbo with the nukes argument. I find this
ludicrous. Fogelman was a pimp for bringing it up, and I'm sure he was
tweeking Clinton and Widnall when he did it.
Bill Silvey
news:mINQ9.85567$I23.5...@news1.east.cox.net
> People keep bringing up the bimbo with the nukes argument. I find
> this ludicrous. Fogelman was a pimp for bringing it up, and I'm sure
> he was tweeking Clinton and Widnall when he did it.
I'm one of the people who keeps bringing up the issue of device
responsibility. It's a simple equation, really:
Soldier who readily and willingly disobeys a direct order is more suceptible
to disobeying *more* direct orders.
--
http://home.cfl.rr.com/delversdungeon/index.htm
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
Me: "What you have to understand, dear, is that the internet is a global
community...a village!"
My Wife: "And you're the village idiot, right?"
I hate furries.
Alan Cranston
> >Chicken or the egg. What came first? Her psychological need for
> >forbidden sex with married men, or her blatant disregard for her
> >military chain of command?
>
> LOL...uhh, her "psychological need for forbidden sex" came first, third, fifth
> etc. etc. Her blatent disregard for direct orders came in between and 2nd, 4th,
> 6th, etc.
I'm serious. She was charged for disobeying an order not to have sex
with married personnel (or some such). What kind of fricking order is
that?
> >There are volumes written on this
> >psychological disorder, and I suspect like most women, she
> >suffered some sexual trauma regarding very close kin.
>
> Yeah, because its never our fault anymore, its always a trauma or someone not
> being loved enough, or not getting that red bike you wanted for your 8th
> birthday....ROFLMAO
I got the red bike, but the trauma was it was really a green bike that was
secretly painted over by my Uncle. But yes, psychological problems are
personal problems until they affect others. Fault is no longer the issue,
cleaning up the mess is. "It's your fault" is way over-played. Fault in
human relations, is like lack of oxygen, we all suffer.
> >I think she would have come around, and the Judge Advocate office
> >would have never been involved.
>
> You're kidding right? She didn't come around *after* the JAG got involved !!!
Actually, that's when the *real* problems started. It was a picnic before the
carnival that arose out of her playing the press like a trout.
Bill Silvey
> "BUFDRVR" <buf...@aol.com> wrote
>>> Chicken or the egg. What came first? Her psychological need for
>>> forbidden sex with married men, or her blatant disregard for her
>>> military chain of command?
>>
>> LOL...uhh, her "psychological need for forbidden sex" came first,
>> third, fifth etc. etc. Her blatent disregard for direct orders came
>> in between and 2nd, 4th, 6th, etc.
>
> I'm serious. She was charged for disobeying an order not to have sex
> with married personnel (or some such). What kind of fricking order is
> that?
It *doesn't fucking matter* what kind of order it was. Get it? It was *an
order*. Quit screwing (literally and figuratively) with unit
cohesion/morale. She *disobeyed a direct order*. Why can't you understand
that? Why are you defending someone who can't understand that?
Alan Cranston
>
> I was unfortunate enough to be one class behind her at Vance AFB
I thought she went UPT at Columbus AFB (94-95)?
http://www.kellyflinnfoundation.org/military.htm
Alan Cranston
>
> Why are you defending someone who can't understand that?
How can you accuse me of defending her? That would be obscene.
I am merely saying that I think her leadership was as effectively weak.
I think maybe Widnall had something to do with this poster child,
but I have no facts.
JSH517
>Not bogus, just not accurate......I think I dodged that pretty good ;)
>
>
>BUFDRVR
>
Practising you SAM avoidance there BUFDRVR ?
Jim
SAC COP
78-88
Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal
"Gooneybird" <Gooney...@charter.net.nospam> wrote:
>
> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" <doug...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:BA38A42B.4432%doug...@earthlink.net...
>> George,
>>
>> Since we're going with relativism... Let's break it down from bad to worst:
>>
>> 1. There are womanizers.
>> 2. There are those who sleep with others' spouses.
>> 3. There are those who sleep with subordinates.
>> 4. There are those who sleep with the spouses of subordinates.
>>
>> The last two are particularly damaging to the chain of command and good
>> order and discipline.
>>
>> Kelly Flinn's case is about number 4. You keep talking about number 1. If
>> we have men sleeping with the spouses of their subordinates, they'd be
>> ordered to cease and desist also. If they refused, they'd be disciplined in
>> the same way.
>>
>> I personally find cases 3 and 4 to be the most disgusting. Regardless, an
>> officer ordered to knock it off is obligated to do so. If they don't, the
>> alternative is more punishment.
>>
>> Let's keep the comparisons valid here.
>
> I like the way you categorized the sins apparently involved. I managed to get
> through my entire life without stumbling over any of them. But this was not
> about the sins, but rather the way the sinners were treated. Unfortunately,
> the
> way the sinners were treated depended on variables, and they should not have
> been. They seemed to be based on the level of command of the sinner as well
> as
> his/her gender.
>
> One size ought to fit all. Unfortunately, that was not the case in my day,
> nor
> was it in Kelly Flinn's day, and that, essentially, is my bitch.
This is where we disagree. It was not ONLY about her adultery, but about
her refusal/lack of interest in stopping it when caught. Had she stopped, a
slap on the wrist probably would have ended the incident.
> Ms. Flinn deserves no defenders.
>
> Of course she does. In our civilized society, we don't have the hanging until
> after the trial is over. I'm not defending her sexual behavior, but she was
> entitled to equal treatment, and I don't think she got that.
>
That's where we disagree.
> Stop and think about it. Did you ever hear of any other 0-2 get
> courts-martialed and get the Secy/AF and C/S, USAF say something under oath
> that
> applied to that action? It still goes back to unequal treatment as far as I
> can
> see.
I never knew one to continue after being caught. I did know a few that in
the plain old adultery thing were socially ostracized and/or sternly warned
by a CO. I know another who had FITREPS scuttled.
>
> George Z.
>
> PS - I think I'm going to drop out of this thread. mostly because it seems to
> be
> pointless in the sense that, regardless of any conclusions we may reach,
> nothing
> much of notice will change. Anyway, thank you for keeping it civil and for
> refraining from the name calling and invective that one sees so often when
> there
> are differences of opinion that can't seem to be resolved.
Fair enough.
--Woody
Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal
"BUFDRVR" <buf...@aol.com> wrote:
BUDDRVR in HOT! Nice job of handling this with some first hand knowledge.
--Woody
Unknown
>>I always wondered why they couldn't see fit to wink her sins away as they had
>>done with numerous other valuable male sinners who flew and didn't follow
>>orders
>>that might have pertained to their private lives.
>
>Because her squadron commander, who was absolutely correct, said he could never
>put her back on PRP after the incident. With that being the case, the choices
>were few. I don't think you have the complete picture here either. She was
>given *several* chances to follow a direct order and passed on it each time.
>I'm not sure what guys you served with did that you think compares to Flinn,
>but I can nearly guarentee you that if they blew off the direct order the first
>time, they followed it the second. Flinn finally got "busted" after the 8th or
>9th time.
>
>
This sounds a little like the Bud H. saga doesn't it?...
-Gord.
Jack
> (rumor is)...she was picked up by a major just prior to 9/11.
In which case, no sweat, she is probably on the street and will be there for
awhile.
Jack
Jack
> ...she was the next best thing since spilt milk.
This mixed metaphor is driving me banannas. :)
What are you trying to say?
Jack
BUFDRVR
Yep, except Holland, an O-5, had fewer people to order him to quit screwing
around in flight. Flinn as a 1st Lt. and a co-pilot was counseled from her A/C,
to her flight commander, all the way up to the OG. Holland wasn't adressed
below the OG level.
BUFDRVR
>
>I thought she went UPT at Columbus AFB (94-95)?
I guess she wasn't there, could have sworn she was, she was one class ahead of
me, but at Columbus.......hmm, strange.
BUFDRVR
>
>What happened to the chain of command after this incidemt? Were they
>promoted?
To be honest, I don't know. I believe the Wing commander retired, although that
most likely had little to do with Flinn. The OG went to a staff job and I have
no idea about the SQ/CC?
BUFDRVR
>with married personnel (or some such). What kind of fricking order is
>that?
An absolutely legal and imperative order. This relationship with the husband of
a 23rd BS enlisted person was rotting the very fiber of unit moral and in turn
had direct impact on mission effectiveness.
BUFDRVR
>I am merely saying that I think her leadership was as effectively weak.
I'm still waiting for you to say what you would have done. As far as I'm
concerned, everyone in a leadership position over her did absolutely
*everything* they could do to get her to stop. IMHO, they went too far in
giving her chance after chance, and had the Missile Wing helo pilot not been
busted and "spilled the beans" who knows how much longer they would have let it
go on before they prefered charges against her. I guess I must be a shitty
leader, because I don't care who you are, I tell you to stop a unit killing,
illegal relationship just once, the next time you'll be seeing a lawyer.
There's no room for such behavior in a combat unit...end of story.
Alan Cranston
> Alan Cranston acran...@cox.net wrote
>
> > ...she was the next best thing since spilt milk.
>
> This mixed metaphor is driving me banannas. :)
>
> What are you trying to say?
Spilt milk is a cat owner saying. Spill the milk and a
bunch of erect tails comes running...
I guess I could have used "sliced bread" but that is so
cliché :-)
Alan Cranston
> >How can you accuse me of defending her? That would be obscene.
> >I am merely saying that I think her leadership was as effectively weak.
>
> I'm still waiting for you to say what you would have done. As far as I'm
> concerned, everyone in a leadership position over her did absolutely
> *everything* they could do to get her to stop.
There's only one way to get a pilots attention, and that's to have them
turn in their flight gear. I would have shipped her ass to one of the
bed-down bases for a 180 day TDY in fatigues, and give her impossible
jobs to do. I think she would come around. This is off the top of my head,
as in the Army we had all sorts of shit-jobs for Lt's to do, who were
hard-heads. They all came around. Very rarely did we process them
out of the service. As we said: we are a "non-profit" organization, and
money isn't the bottom line. I may have threatened charges, but I never
had to resort to a lawyer unless there was a crime (armed robbery, rape,
murder, etc). If I would have hung out at the JAG office all day with
hard-heads, I would have been the laughing stock of the base.
The bottom line, was we took it personally when we had a hard-head,
and they would get all of our attention until they came around. They
would know they were on their last gasp, and we took pride in turning
them around and saving them.
General Patton had a question: "how long does it take for the pain to
reach your brain when you stub your toe?" The answer is
instantaneously. That's how fast I would have found something for
her to do, than prance around in a zoom-bag over in enlisted housing.
Tarver Engineering
"Mary Shafer Iliff" <mil...@qnet.com> wrote in message
news:3E1246EB...@qnet.com...
> CAM35PILOT wrote:
> > Come now, don't be so hard on her, remember, it's not as if women can
control
> > themselves, ya know.....if a woman does something wrong, it must be a
man's
> > fault. Thanks for listening,
>
> What in the world are you talking about? The world is more
> likely to let an adulterous male off by saying the woman
> tempted him or his wife drove him to it or some other dumb
> excuse. Women get the blame for their own behavior and for
> the man's behavior, too.
Oh come on now, it was common for a secretary to screw heself into a
fourteen slot on the B-2.
> However, it doesn't matter. Grownups are supposed to be
> mature enough to keep their pants zipped, male or female.
> If they're not mature enough to manage that, they're sure
> not mature enough to fly around with nuclear weapons. And,
> even more, they're not mature enough to be officers in the
> military.
When you make a princess the princess will often act like a princess.
John P. Tarver, MS/PE
John R Weiss
>with married personnel (or some such). What kind of fricking order is
>that?
An order fully compliant with the letter of the law (UCMJ Article 134) and the
intent clearly expressed in the Manual for Courts Martial:
UCMJ Art. 134. General article
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to
the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a
nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not
capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken
cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the
nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of
that court.
MCM 1998 edition
Part IV -- Punitive Articles
62. Article 134—(Adultery)
a. Text. See paragraph 60.
b. Elements.
(1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;
(2) That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone
else; and
(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the
prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to
bring discredit upon the armed forces.
BUFDRVR
>turn in their flight gear.
That was done, she was sent to the vault and grounded, this was coincident with
turning in her squadron patch....it didn't work. She continued to maintain the
relationship. According to her, in several interviews, even though no charges
had been prefered, she knew her career was over and thus wanted to hold onto
"the only good thing happening in her life". You just don't get it, she was not
going to break off her relationship with this guy...EVER. It was killing unit
morale and impacting mission effectiveness. I've got quite a few close friends
in the Army, and I don't believe any of their units could afford to play around
with an situation like this. Perhaps your unit was "special", perhaps you
value one human being over the welfare of the entire unit. Regardless, she
wasn't going to end the relationship no matter what. Both the squadron
commander and the ops group commander knew this and when word of the
relationship got out, they had little choice but to pursue a court martial.
Another curious thing about your viewpoint, you seem hell bent to help someone
continously ignoring you orders and carrying on an illegal, morale killing
relationship, but where's your compassion for one of your E-3's whose marriage
is being ruined by one of your O-2's? Your driven by some responsibility to
save Flinn's career, what about your E-3's career? You don't really think she's
going to re-enlist if Flinn's allowed to destroy her marriage and walk away
unscathed? How about your responsibility to set an example to your entire
squadron? After letting Flinn skate how do you treat the E-2 who went to a
party and "hooked up" with one of your E-4's wife while he was working swings?
Your unit has started down a very slippery slope.
Alan Cranston
> You just don't get it, she was not going to break off her relationship
> with this guy...EVER.
I think *that* may be where I don't have a clue, when it comes to how the
Air Force does things, but in the Army it's not a big problem to re-assign
or deploy someone, thus putting a little distance between the problem.
> It was killing unit morale and impacting mission effectiveness.
To get where I'm coming from mostly, in this discussion, is I'm thinking
about solutions *before* it got to this level. I can agree with you here,
that no Lt is worth the morale of a unit. One hammer fits all when it
comes to discipline, I agree.
> Another curious thing about your viewpoint, you seem hell bent to help someone
> continously ignoring you orders and carrying on an illegal, morale killing
> relationship, but where's your compassion for one of your E-3's whose marriage
> is being ruined by one of your O-2's?
My first reaction here, was to try and save a million dollar academy grown
asset, *and* the young airman. This young enlisted woman was the crown
jewel in the whole affair, and showed greater respect for the Air Force
than the zoomie. Looking at the end-game, it's easy to see who was
manipulating the system, and the Lt was lucky not to serve time, as well as
pay back her training costs. So we're not that far off in opinions, if you can
see where I am talking about incident #2 solutions, i.e., not letting it get
this far. It just irks me a bit that a blow to the head at this point wouldn't
be very effective.
I can agree with you, that she probably did throw in the towel, and a
courts martial was the only outcome. Given your assessment that she had
reached her highest level of incompetence, and wasn't getting any respect
amongst her peers, it could be that married men was the only thing she
was good at (sexist I know, but there it is). I've seen pictures of her, but
I don't get it, she's not that good looking. Not a bow-wow, but definitely
not something to divorce the wife over. And the guy she was chasing!
He was a little runt about half her height! I can see him bringing stool to
kiss her goodbye...
Mike Dennis
"BUFDRVR" <buf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030101195845...@mb-cg.aol.com...
> >I hope to god she's not flying any more. I sure as hell wouldn't want
> >someone with such poor judgement skills behind the stick of any aircraft
I
> >was passengering in.
>
>
> Then watch out the next time you fly. Rumor in the B-52 community is that
after
> getting hired by a small regional just after being allowed to resign, she
was
> picked up by a major just prior to 9/11.
>
>
Mary Shafer Iliff
>>How about Bud Holland? Didn't he go through a lot the same process,
>>only to finally bring it to an end by killing himself, the squadron
>>commander, and a couple of other fine people?
>
>
> Absolutely Mary, in fact, the B-52 community was still "reeling" from that
> incident when Flinn was just making her way up to Minot. Yes, Bud Holland
> disregarded T.O. and regulatory guidance, was told to "get back in the books"
> (a direct order, as if the Tech ORDER and regs weren't enough) and he still
> failed to comply. End result...one of 95 B-52H models destoyed along with four
> innocent crewmembers including 2 O-5's. Maybe had Flinn not been booted she
> would have ended up in the same circumstances around 2006.
Even discounting the future, there was a certain commonality betweem
the two cases that is, I suspect, a necessary part of human nature.
People hope for the best, particularly when faced with something
difficult. In both these cases, as well as an infinite number of
other cases both military and civilian, this means that people get
more chances than they really deserve because the people who must
impose discipline find it difficult to really crack down. This is
particularly true in a small community like a squadron, where the
people may have known each other for decades.
I'm not sure how much fault really accrues to the command structure
in either of these cases, to tell the truth. It's easy to say they
should have been tough, not allowed the situation to drag out for
so long, not have tried so many times to change the offender before
taking decisive action, and so on. When you look at the situation
and the culture, I just don't think a facile judgement can really
take into account all the factors.
I might point out that the American culture is very strongly in
favor of redemption, second chances, and so on. Some of this rests
in our perception of our history and some rests in the nature of
the majority religion.
Mary
Mary Shafer Iliff
>>Come on now, her supervisor and endorser said she was the next best thing
>>since spilt milk. Are you saying the USAF evaluation system is bogus?!! :-)
>
>
> Not bogus, just not accurate......I think I dodged that pretty good ;)
No evaluation system can ever be perfectly accurate, so you didn't
even dodge it, you just told the truth.
Admittedly, some are better than others, but ultimately they're
all based on human judgement and we all know that means they
can never be perfect. That doesn't mean a system is bogus, just
that it's not perfect.
Mary
Mary Shafer Iliff
>>How can you accuse me of defending her? That would be obscene.
>>I am merely saying that I think her leadership was as effectively weak.
>
>
> I'm still waiting for you to say what you would have done. As far as I'm
> concerned, everyone in a leadership position over her did absolutely
> *everything* they could do to get her to stop. IMHO, they went too far in
> giving her chance after chance, and had the Missile Wing helo pilot not been
> busted and "spilled the beans" who knows how much longer they would have let it
> go on before they prefered charges against her. I guess I must be a shitty
> leader, because I don't care who you are, I tell you to stop a unit killing,
> illegal relationship just once, the next time you'll be seeing a lawyer.
> There's no room for such behavior in a combat unit...end of story.
Jeeze, this is such a cliché' that I hate to tap the keys to
write it, but I've got to.
You're young and you haven't yet had someone's career riding
on your actions and things look a lot more black and white to
you than they will when you're an O-5 or O-6 with command
experience and things look more gray. The more you know,
the more you see, the less obvious the solution.
I honestly believe that it's better for someone in a leadership
position to have too much faith in the perfectibility of
humanity, meaning that the errant get too many chances, than
for that person to be too hard-over, too ready to solve a
problem with brute force and superstition, particularly when
dealing with a young and immature offender.
That doesn't mean an infinite number of chances, of course, and
once the order is given, that's it, no more chances, no more
options, nada, but sometimes it can be better to hold off on
giving the order, just in case. This is because it's always
better for someone to change behavior from inside (even if
firmly prompted) than to change it because of an order. Besides,
there have to be records of orders and it's a shame to blight
the career of someone who just needed guidance at a critical
juncture.
Yes, I'm guilty of believing in the perfectibility of humanity.
On the other hand, I firmly resisted being made a manager or a
supervisor because I knew I wouldn't be good at dropping the
hammer. When I retired, about half the people younger than me
stood up at my retirement party and praised me for my mentoring
and advising and counseling, saying I'd shown them how to deal
with others and how to behave and what to do when things got
difficult. That's what someone should have done for Flinn.
It's too bad no one did. Or maybe someone did and she didn't
listen. (See what I mean about gray?)
Let me also point out that military officers don't have the
same choices that research engineers do. Promotion paths and
"up or out" means that officers can't avoid jobs they may not
be suited for.
Mary
BUFDRVR
LOL..touche
BUFDRVR
>Air Force does things, but in the Army it's not a big problem to re-assign
>or deploy someone, thus putting a little distance between the problem.
>
The only place she could have been sent is Barksdale, if you want to keep her
flying. Now why would you "pass on" a problem child to someone else? Seems
irresponsible to me, to pass on a problem. So now she's seperated from her
married "friend", what's to say she doesn't find another "friend" at KBAD? Her
involvement with the husband of an enlisted troop was not her first "bad
relationship decision". Odds are very good, that she had had a relationship
with a E-2 who lived in the dorms on base not long after arriving. She was seen
downtown in "inappropriate" circumstances with this young man late one Friday
night. Early Saturday morning she was seen backing her car out of the parking
lot near one of the dorms. Definitive? No, but word did get to the Sq/CC who
asked her if it were true. She denied it, and since there was no proof, the
matter ended, but she was seen several times after in public with this guy. Did
any of this make the news? I didn't watch any of the stories, I should have,
but most B-52 crew dogs just wanted it to go away.
Anyway, I don't feel passing on a problem to another commander is responsible
or right.
BUFDRVR
>on your actions and things look a lot more black and white to
>you than they will when you're an O-5 or O-6 with command
>experience and things look more gray.
That could very well be, but I'm curious as to what's going to happen to me
over the next several years that make me believe disregarding a critical, legal
order falls into some "gray" area???
>Besides,
>there have to be records of orders and it's a shame to blight
>the career of someone who just needed guidance at a critical
>juncture.
Mary, she was counseled by peers and superiors alike from the moment her
*first* illegal relationship was discovered by leadership (and already well
known by the average crew dog) until charges were prefered against her. She
disregarded any and all advice. According to her in numerous interviews; "she
was in love", and the more people told her to back away the more she grabbed
on. I got to know her at Barksdale, she was an every Friday guest at the
O'Club, and if she was dumb enough to fall into this "love thing" with a
married guy, then she sure as hell changed over the course of her one year at
Minot. My first impression of her was that she was a very calculating person
who had a grand scheme for a career that would make her the first female COS,
after I got to know her I realized that first impression was spot on.
>That's what someone should have done for Flinn.
>It's too bad no one did. Or maybe someone did and she didn't
>listen. (See what I mean about gray?)
No gray there Mary, everyone from her Aircraft commander, to her flight
commander, to her Ops officer, to her squadron commander, to the Ops group
commander tried to mentor her, it was no use. We had a guy from Minot PCS to
my squadron just a few months before the whole thing hit the front pages, he
was the Radar Nav. on her crew. They got many good deals, including many
airshows. During one airshow, just after her alleged fraternization incident,
this guy sat down and told her that she was a bomber pioneer who needed to
accept responsibility for that role, that bad behavior on her part would muddy
the waters for those who followed her. Less then one week later she was engaged
in a sexual act in the side yard of a house downtown where a squadron party was
taking place with....you guessed it...the married guy. She was hopeless.
Alan Cranston
>
> Now why would you "pass on" a problem child to someone else?
You guys don't have bed-down bases? Say Anderson?, Fairford?,
DG? I'm sure you must have Detco's there that can help a hard-head
reorient, and maybe cock the jets on alert, or do billeting or some such.
I wouldn't suggest passing the buck. Keep it in the squadron or wing,
just not the home base.
Sounds like she didn't have very many aircrew friends.
BSchiltz
Andrew Chaplin
> Major who?
No names, no pack drill. :^)
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal
<bar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Occasionally, in the brief you'll hear a guy say something like, "Keep your
head on a stick approaching the merge. The conus is on you to visually sort
and kill per the contract. If we blow through lock your left arm and milk
the ponies and we'll get out of Dodge..."
You see, it's all schematics.
Guess there's a new one to add to the inventory.
--Woody