Toxic Officer Thread

Discussion in 'Officers' started by Busterdog, Jul 5, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Hmm.... Interesting to see the main topics on this forum are; what brand of gin one should drink, type of woman one should marry, car one should drive or whether or not an officer may wear a signet ring or become a Freemason (not all written with tongue in cheek). We've had discussions on shirts, ties, acceptable number of vents on coats and some even body slammed a young American lady for having the temerity to actually write something positive about Sandhurst.

    There's a great thread running on the Current Affairs forum; 'Toxic Officer'
    which, hopefully, is more germane to the Officer Corps (present and future) than the froth currently under discussion on this forum. Is it? Or is all good and Stonker and Co simply being alarmist?
  2. That's a pretty piss poor attempt to get a bite out of someone here Busterdog.
  3. Froth, there is a good word. Is it permissable to discuss beer or is that to down market for the Officers' Board. (other than for LEs who like to sneak back into the Sgts' Mess for an occasional one or two)
  4. TP. Not trolling for bites - merely thought the topic was worth discussing on this forum.
    Dev. Beer's been discussed ad nauseum on other forums, particularly the US forum. Now if you want to recommend some good pubs....! Where's the Ship Inn for starters?

    Nah.. Just thought the topics on this forum were getting a little mundane and some a shade affected.
  5. Busterdog,

    Well to be fair to the posters of those topics it sure beats the hell out of the "I am not yet in and wondering about ..." which never seem to make it into the Regular Officer Recruiting thread that was set up to answer these posts. Anyway, Busterdog, stump up a suitably high brow thread and lets get discussing.
  6. Well I guess I could tell you where I have my shirts made, the cars I drive, the gin I drink, how many vents my coats have and the types of women I married - and perhaps describe the logo on my signet ring?

    Though you're right WHF - I should put up or shut up!

    Gas or charcoal? Mesquite or Maple? It IS summer after all!
  7. It does seem a little odd to infer anything about a particular group of people based on what is posted on a forum such as this: whilst the title on the door of the forum is "Officers" there is no restriction on those who post here.

    There's no guarantee posters are serving officers, they could be retired officers, other ranks in any of the other services or for that matter have absolutely no association with the armed forces whatsoever and just stumbled accross the forum via google!

    Not only that but perhaps those who post here do so as a bit of fun in the dull moments of the day or as a way to blow off steam by chatting about some of the less serious things?
  8. HH_2. What inference are you alluding to?
    Think you'll find serving officers are in the minority on this forum (I'm retired BTW) more's the pity as they keep us current.
  9. My point was simply that you seemed to suggest the topics in this forum are a little inane and that the more pressing subjects for discussion are being ignored.

    My response to this was not necessarily to disagree just to say firstly you don't know who it is posting on an open online forum, could be anyone, so there's no way of saying "this forum is full of this or that topic, so the people who it is meant to be for must only be concerned with that", and secondly maybe those people don't want to discuss those topics they probably talk about with the people they work with anyway and just want to have some less serious banter!
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. I thought it was pretty crystal, but perhaps I am mistaken. Either way I will stop wasting your time with further pointless explanation.
  13. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    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.
  14. 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!

  15. 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.