Useful

**rickshaw-major** · 13-07-2009, 11:30

Originally Posted by Busterdog

HH_2. Inane? Your word not mine! I said mundane!

My post was (though I dislike having to explain) an attempt to determine the thoughts of the serving or recently retired officers on this site regarding alleged 'toxicity' in the Officer Corps.

Still can't quite comprehend what you're getting at.

I am retired but I find the toxic officer thread highly informative and controversial - which it is supposed to be. It isn't really important where it is (as long as it's not the NAAFI). I posted my piece and read others posts.

Edited for cr@p spelling.

**HH_2** · 13-07-2009, 16:49

Originally Posted by Busterdog

Still can't quite comprehend what you're getting at.

I thought it was pretty crystal, but perhaps I am mistaken. Either way I will stop wasting your time with further pointless explanation.

**BuggerAll** · 13-07-2009, 17:01

Originally Posted by Busterdog

My post was (though I dislike having to explain) an attempt to determine the thoughts of the serving or recently retired officers on this site regarding alleged 'toxicity' in the Officer Corps..

I would have thought that reading the posts in the Toxic Officer Thread would have told you that. I can't see the point of a thread to ask about another thread. After all you won't necessarily know the status of people posting on this thread either.

**Busterdog** · 13-07-2009, 17:16

I think I have an idea of the extent of the toxicity.
BA. Doesn't take the brains of a Japanese Arch-Bishop (sorry AcSM Huggins) to figure out who's served, serving, trolling or a wannabe.
HH_2 Read your posts!

**HH_2** · 13-07-2009, 17:28

Originally Posted by Busterdog

I think I have an idea of the extent of the toxicity.
BA. Doesn't take the brains of a Japanese Arch-Bishop (sorry AcSM Huggins) to figure out who's served, serving, trolling or a wannabe.
HH_2 Read your posts!

You say that "inane" was my word, but you described the topics in this forum as "froth". Now if you didn't mean to at least imply the topics were "inane" or "not very serious" or "frivolous" then you chose your words very poorly!

Your post seemed to be looking for a bite by suggesting that at a time when the issue of "toxic officers" was raised by a former officer all that the officers wanted to discuss were topics you consider to be "froth".

Whether or not it was your intention to imply that, you must see how it could look like you did.

**bitterandtwisted** · 13-07-2009, 17:37

Sorry to butt in here, in your p1ssing contests, but this thread belongs in the ARRSEhole, because its total drivel. No points have been made at all, just a slagging match and you gentleman are leaders??? i worry deeply.....