Quote:
|
Originally Posted by headquarters
you mean to say that you dont pick up on the LAW vs Twilight 2013 situation at all??
?
?
Well then , lets just say that law can be pretty harsh/come across in a certain way in some of his replies -and I would say you commenting on his breach of opsec is along the same line of communicating .
I prefer friendly - or at least neutral tone in the correspondance -but hey - thats just me.
Maybe kato needs to make another seperate thread so that discussion between the two of you can be contained.
yes-I predict that there will be a word-fight .
|
Yes. I am aware of it. Even in the six hours I've been registered here.
There shouldn't be any issue. What he said breached OPSEC. Pure and simple. I gave concrete examples of the information that I pulled from his breach of it. That's not a lot of information for you or me, but combined with the website link he posted, I now know enough to get his full name, his commander's name, and a plethora of other information if I wanted to.
He shouldn't get butt-hurt about it, and if you do, Law, then you know Schofield is about 20 miles from K-Bay, come see me and we'll talk it out. Otherwise, take it for what it was, an azimuth check on a subject that can be a slippery slope.
Now, the one issue I do have with it, is Law's comment about not having a return date. That's just silly. Every unit that deploys has a date that the deployment will end. It's called a timeline. Now that might get changed, for mine, I redeployed 17 days earlier than what was on my orders, and that may be what he meant by his comment, but to an uninitiated person, that carries a much more dire implication than a BN Staff guy is going to encounter.