Brigadier General Olds

I should like to draw your attention to the fact that Robin Olds was a
Brigadier General in the United States Airforce.

It is appropriate to refer to him as Brigadier General Olds. Not 'Mr' Olds.


Colonel Beverly Carmichael
US Airforce (Retired)

Beverly Carmichael wrote:

It is appropriate to refer to him as Brigadier General Olds. Not 'Mr' Olds.

Well Bev.... We have all met people like that.

Pompous people who even when retired insist that every one from
children to their parents address them by their title.

Why I'll bet a plugged nickle that on a saturday night down at the
lodge you insist that everyone call you Colonel instead of just plain
old Bev. And I'll bet the more beers you have in your belly the more
you insists on being called Colonel.


Colonel Beverly Carmichael
US Airforce (Retired)

General Olds is a triple ace who earned his title many time over, from his
service in World War II through Vietnam.

You, on the other hand, are a petty little twit who cannot possibly conceive
of what it is to serve one's country and lead a meaningful life. Otherwise,
you would not try to degrade those who are obviously better than you.


"shiver" wrote in message
...
Beverly Carmichael wrote:

It is appropriate to refer to him as Brigadier General Olds. Not 'Mr'
Olds.

Well Bev.... We have all met people like that.

Pompous people who even when retired insist that every one from
children to their parents address them by their title.

Why I'll bet a plugged nickle that on a saturday night down at the
lodge you insist that everyone call you Colonel instead of just plain
old Bev. And I'll bet the more beers you have in your belly the more
you insists on being called Colonel.


Colonel Beverly Carmichael
US Airforce (Retired)

David Pride wrote:
General Olds is a triple ace who earned his title many time over, from his
service in World War II through Vietnam.

You, on the other hand, are a petty little twit who cannot possibly conceive
of what it is to serve one's country and lead a meaningful life. Otherwise,
you would not try to degrade those who are obviously better than you.


"shiver" wrote in message
...
Beverly Carmichael wrote:
It is appropriate to refer to him as Brigadier General Olds. Not 'Mr'
Olds.
Well Bev.... We have all met people like that.

Pompous people who even when retired insist that every one from
children to their parents address them by their title.

Why I'll bet a plugged nickle that on a saturday night down at the
lodge you insist that everyone call you Colonel instead of just plain
old Bev. And I'll bet the more beers you have in your belly the more
you insists on being called Colonel.


Colonel Beverly Carmichael
US Airforce (Retired)


What's "degrading" about mocking the pompous? If you'd read the message
the man is mocking the "Colonel", not the the subject of the title.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

David Pride wrote:

You, on the other hand, are a petty little twit who cannot possibly conceive
of what it is to serve one's country and lead a meaningful life.

Your personal comments about me have nothing to do with the issue at
hand.

Many of us have met people under social settings where some priggish
asshole demands the respect due them by insisting that they be refered
to as Doctor, or Colonel, or even Brigadier General.

Today some (retired) Colonel came into this group to not only tell us
what was the appropriate salutation for this man, but to make sure we
all knew that they themselves were a Colonel (retired) in the
US Air Force.

Who the **** cares.

TO THE GROUP - CORRECT ME ( AS USUAL ) IF I AM WRONG.

I don't believe that anybody in this group spoke about
Mr. Olds recent passing with disrespect when various individuals have
made positive comments about him, his career, with posted pictures as
well.

So why today is it necessary for some (retired) Colonel to tell the
adults in this group that some dead General should not be refered to
as Mr.

Are we talking ridiculous here, or just plain stupid.

I'll stand by my bet.

I bet one plugged nickel that Berverly prefers to be called Colonel in
public especially places like the lodge or legion when there's beer
in the belly and war tales on the table.

TO THE GROUP.....

I'm sure that we are all old enough, and mature enough, to figure out
for ourselves what the proper way would be to address this person if
we had ever met him.

shiver wrote in
:

David Pride wrote:

You, on the other hand, are a petty little twit who cannot possibly
conceive of what it is to serve one's country and lead a meaningful
life.

Your personal comments about me have nothing to do with the issue at
hand.

Many of us have met people under social settings where some priggish
asshole demands the respect due them by insisting that they be refered
to as Doctor, or Colonel, or even Brigadier General.

Today some (retired) Colonel came into this group to not only tell us
what was the appropriate salutation for this man, but to make sure we
all knew that they themselves were a Colonel (retired) in the
US Air Force.

Who the **** cares.

TO THE GROUP - CORRECT ME ( AS USUAL ) IF I AM WRONG.

I don't believe that anybody in this group spoke about
Mr. Olds recent passing with disrespect when various individuals have
made positive comments about him, his career, with posted pictures as
well.

So why today is it necessary for some (retired) Colonel to tell the
adults in this group that some dead General should not be refered to
as Mr.

Are we talking ridiculous here, or just plain stupid.

I'll stand by my bet.

I bet one plugged nickel that Berverly prefers to be called Colonel in
public especially places like the lodge or legion when there's beer
in the belly and war tales on the table.

TO THE GROUP.....

I'm sure that we are all old enough, and mature enough, to figure out
for ourselves what the proper way would be to address this person if
we had ever met him.

Olds was a Mr. before he was a Brigadier General. I would submit that it
was the qualities and character of the Mr. that so well filled out the
uniform of the Brigadier General - not the title itself. (Did that make
sense?)

I saw no disrespect in the use of "Mr. Olds" here.

Bob ^,,^

Time for a little (somewhat related) humor -

Years ago I worked for a company that had an interdepartment baseball
league. One Spring it came time to round up the usual suspects to form the
teams, so forms were made available for people to sign up to play. Our
Engineering Dept had recently hired a new VP, who was a pretty decent ball
player. So he signed up.

He put down his name, address, telephone number, etc.
And when he came to the line that was supposed to find out whether he wanted
to play first base, shortstop, left field, etc., it said POSITION?

And he wrote - Vice President of Engineering.

He never lived that down, not that he ever knew it of course!

Some people think of themselves primarily in terms of a title, I guess.

Tom

Tom Hayden wrote
Time for a little (somewhat related) humor -
Some people think of themselves primarily in terms of a title, I
guess.

Copied from a post that I made to a pilot newsgroup a few years back.

:-) :-)

You guys have touched on one of my pet peeves in aviation. Pilots
not knowing who or what they are. :-)

At the fundamental level, there is the "PILOT" as defined in my
"Webster's" as being "the person who operates an aircraft or
spacecraft" and the "COPILOT" as being "one who assists the pilot
in operating an aircraft". Actually, in the case of more than one
pilot, perhaps they both should be "CO-PILOTS" since the prefix "co"
simply means together.


Then came the FAA (or rather its predessor) who insisted that
somebody (preferably one of the pilots) really be in charge of the
whole operation. Thus the "PILOT-IN-COMMAND" concept came about. If
the pilots were equally qualified, the FAA required that the Air
Carrier designate one of them as PILOT-IN-COMMAND (PIC). This left
"SECOND-IN-COMMAND" for the other pilot.


Note....that to this point, PILOT and CO-PILOT go together and PIC
and SIC share context. The CFR for multi-pilot aircraft use the
terms PIC and SIC.....not Pilot and Co-pilot.


Then aircarriers (probably my old carrier PanAm) started flying large
flying boats into foreign ports and in an attempt to gain the
same level of respect for the flightcrews that the crews of visiting
ships received, the concept of flightcrew officers with rank and
title was born. Following the nautical tradition, the PICs were
given the rank and title of "CAPTAIN", but differing somewhat from
shipboard terminology, instead of "First Mate" for the second ranking
officer, he was given the rank and title of "FIRST OFFICER". The
Flight Engineer became the "FLIGHT ENGINEERING OFFICER" much the same
as a ship's Engineering Officer.


When aircarriers started employing pilots to train and serve as
Flight Engineers, even though they held a Flight Engineer
Certificate, they were in many cases given the rank and title of
"SECOND OFFICER". In addition to these and the "RADIO OFFICER", it
was not uncommon on those early flying boats to have a Fifth or Sixth
Officer.


What purpose did "rank and title" serve? First....rank served to
specify the level of responsibility and authority of ones position
within the flightcrew, and second, the title served as a means of
showing respect when addressing one of the aircraft's officers.
After all...in proper society, we are all entitled :-) to the title
Mr./Mrs./Miss if no other title has been bestowed upon us. One does
not bestow a title upon himself nor use his title when referring to
himself. Being PIC of an aircraft does not automatically confer the
rank and title of "CAPTAIN". At PanAm, all of our copilots held ATPs
and Type Ratings for the aircraft that they flew and in the eyes of
the FAA, they were fully qualified to fly as PICs outside of an
aircarrier environment, but the rank and title of "CAPTAIN" was not
bestowed until they had completed the FAA required Initial Operating
Experience (IOE) for PICs and an Initial Command Check.


So now, we have three sets of words used to describe the two people
up front in an airplane. Pilot/Copilot, PIC/SIC, and Captain/First
Officer. These word pairs should be used in the same context. I am
constantly amused by those who write " I was Captain of flight XXX
and my copilot was....... It seems that once a pilot is told that he
is "A Captain", he will never again refer to himself as mearly a
pilot, but First Officer Smith is still just a copilot.


Rank and titles should not be used as stand-alone nouns but rather as
intended, as a title prefaced before a persons proper name.
At least at PanAm, the Flight Attendants got it right in their pre-
takeoff announcements, "Commanding FltXXX today is Xxx Xxxx",
and then Xxx Xxxxx would blow it with his PA announcement by
starting with "Good morning, this is your captain speaking."
Yes, I know that many of you work, or have worked for companies in
whose manuals the terms "Captain" and "First Officer" are used to
describe positions rather than rank and title. My own company, PanAm
did that too, but I also knew the Director of Flight Operations who
prepared the manual and I fully understood that he was no student of
the English language and whose ego would never again allow himself to
be referred to as a "lowly" pilot. How about all those ads in
aviation magazines that offer "Airline First Officer Training"?
Don't they really mean co-pilot training? Notice that the more
professional of the schools do not use this terminology.


How many of you pilots renew your FAA Medical Certificate with one of
your local doctors? I don't. I get mine from a physician.... more
specifically from an Aviation Medical Examiner (AME). I honor his
education, training, and position in life with the title "Doctor".
Some will say, "Well, what about a ship's "captain"? Actually, a
merchant ship has a "MASTER" with the rank and title of "Captain". A
U.S. Naval ship has a "COMMANDING OFFICER", again with the title of
"Captain" regardless of his actual Naval rank.


Ah well....no one ever said that we had to be proficient in language
skills in order to fly airplanes or write TV shows. :-)


Bob Moore

"shiver" wrote in message
...
Beverly Carmichael wrote:

It is appropriate to refer to him as Brigadier General Olds. Not 'Mr'
Olds.

Well Bev.... We have all met people like that.

Pompous people who even when retired insist that every one from
children to their parents address them by their title.

Oh, please. You'd have to climb up on your mother's shoulders just to kiss
Gen. Olds' ass.

Beverly Carmichael wrote:

I should like to draw your attention to the fact that Robin Olds was a
Brigadier General in the United States Airforce.

It is appropriate to refer to him as Brigadier General Olds. Not 'Mr' Olds.

Colonel Beverly Carmichael
US Airforce (Retired)

i'd like to draw your attention to the fact that he's dead, so he's the
"late whatever title you use".....

also, you come across as a pompous lifer pig, so go make a Power Point
briefing and leave the rest of us alone.

redc1c4,
"Officers exist to attend meetings and sign for ****."
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide