You don’t consider mass communications (the Navy rate for what other services call public affairs) to be military duty?  I know some mass communication specialists that might disagree.

I would certainly expect that a mass communications specialist who was found to be deficient in their mass communications duties would be assigned EMI.

It's not about how anyone, including me, considers the importance of any particular job skill in a military career.

Facts are facts.  I was a Command-Control-Communications-Computer-Intel (C4I) officer.  My missions were directly related to the warfighters doing their jobs -- i.e. military duty.  But, my job could have also been contracted out to a civilian company with the same skillset and capabilities that, when I became a civilian contractor, I was doing the same type of job with the same types of operational units for twice as long as i was on active duty -- including deploying for exercises overseas.

The difference is, as active military, I could be ordered into a combat zone, made to work 24/7/365 without any overtime pay or compensatory time off, and i'd also still have to train for NBC (Nuclear-Biological-Chemical) weapon survival, firearms proficiency, vehicle operation (I had a military license for up to 2-ton trucks), and so on.

So, you can debate the necessity or benefits of public affairs training as it relates to military missions, but there's simpler way to look at it.  Not all Navy are trained in  mass communications, but they are all trained in basic weapons handling, UCMJ, gas masks, and other duties that are exclusively military in nature.  The line between the two is what you're debating.  That line is fixed and not up for debate.

It's not about how anyone, including me, considers the importance of any particular job skill in a military career.

Facts are facts.  I was a Command-Control-Communications-Computer-Intel (C4I) officer.  My missions were directly related to the warfighters doing their jobs -- i.e. military duty.  But, my job could have also been contracted out to a civilian company with the same skillset and capabilities that, when I became a civilian contractor, I was doing the same type of job with the same types of operational units for twice as long as i was on active duty -- including deploying for exercises overseas.

The difference is, as active military, I could be ordered into a combat zone, made to work 24/7/365 without any overtime pay or compensatory time off, and i'd also still have to train for NBC (Nuclear-Biological-Chemical) weapon survival, firearms proficiency, vehicle operation (I had a military license for up to 2-ton trucks), and so on.

So, you can debate the necessity or benefits of public affairs training as it relates to military missions, but there's simpler way to look at it.  Not all Navy are trained in  mass communications, but they are all trained in basic weapons handling, UCMJ, gas masks, and other duties that are exclusively military in nature.  The line between the two is what you're debating.  That line is fixed and not up for debate.

I'm not debating the line between common military tasks and knowledge such as small arms marksmanship, drill and ceremonies, customs and courtesies, etc., and specialized duties like mass communications or C4I.

You said "Since when is public affairs considered 'a phase of military duty?'' which led me to believe that you did not consider public affairs to be a military duty.  I pointed out that public affairs (or mass communication) specialists would likely disagree with you about that, and that mass communication is an area where a sailor might be assigned EMI.  I didn't say a single word about the relative importance of Photoshop proficiency vs. small arms proficiency or CBRN or anything else...  you brought that up as a straw man.

My point, in case you missed it: Public affairs is a military duty; it's not exclusively a military duty, but neither is shooting or wearing a gas mask.  As a military duty, public affairs is an area within which a sailor may be assigned EMI if they are found to be deficient in their proficiency/duty performance.

Thank you for your service, sincerely.

I'm not debating the line between common military tasks and knowledge such as small arms marksmanship, drill and ceremonies, customs and courtesies, etc., and specialized duties like mass communications or C4I.

You said "Since when is public affairs considered 'a phase of military duty?'' which led me to believe that you did not consider public affairs to be a military duty.  I pointed out that public affairs (or mass communication) specialists would likely disagree with you about that, and that mass communication is an area where a sailor might be assigned EMI.  I didn't say a single word about the relative importance of Photoshop proficiency vs. small arms proficiency or CBRN or anything else...  you brought that up as a straw man.

My point, in case you missed it: Public affairs is a military duty; it's not exclusively a military duty, but neither is shooting or wearing a gas mask.  As a military duty, public affairs is an area within which a sailor may be assigned EMI if they are found to be deficient in their proficiency/duty performance.

Thank you for your service, sincerely.

i never said shooting and wearing a gas mask is exclusive of military training.  I said those are areas that all members in the military learn regardless of their specialty skill set. 

Public affairs can be a person's job in the military, but that doesn't make it a "phase of military duty."  in the Air Force, enlisted are trained in "ancillary duties," meaning that regardless of whether they are programmers, comm techs, intel analysts, cooks or mechanics, they may also be assigned to guard duty, duty drivers, ...

Note: AFSC means Air Force Specially Code, similar to the Navy MOS code (Military Occupation Specialty).

7.1. Program Description. Ancillary Training is universal training, guidance or instruction,
regardless of AFSC, that contributes to mission accomplishment. It does not include functional,
occupational or additional duty training.

This includes more than war fighting training.  It also includes physical fitness, operational security, ... pretty much every mandatory training require for every member is ancillary to their primary function.

In fact, many primary jobs in the military, including the Navy, has their training performed by private contractors or SPAWAR civilians -- both ashore and afloat.  I've attended and presented training classes for lots of sailors while working at CINCPACFLT for 10 years as a contractor.

Yes, their jobs are the duties needed to perform their military missions.  No, I don't consider that "military" training.

Maybe I lived it for so long on both sides of the active duty/military contractor sides, I have a more definitive understanding of the differences.  If I haven't conveyed my understanding in the right words, it's because the line is ambiguous at the treetop level.  It's hard to explain how someone like that Navy Commander who might have been a pilot (I didn't research him, but so many in command are former pilots in all branches), doesn't have the basic training to know what he's doing for an M4 demonstration.   That's not something he would have been taught in flight school.  It would have been a separate day of training and qualifying unrelated to his flying duties.

That's just an example of how I see the division.  Not saying he's a pilot.  He could just be some admiral's son who worked in public affairs.   

I think Diddy had 2pac murdered

I think Diddy had 2pac murdered

I heard 2PAC is alive.  He's living in Vegas with Elvis and Howard Hughes.

if it were photoshopped, there would have been a post saying so.  Instead, the official Navy IG account deleted it with no explanation, even though it was getting lots of attention.  No "Oops!", no "This was a trainee who messed up," and no "It was a photoshopped pic that we failed to catch."

That's your assumption.

So, you can try and do your standard "Not necessarily" BS all day, but facts are facts.  Nobody has offered definitive proof it was faked, so why are you so sure it was?  Are you a photoshop expert?

I didn't say it was definitively fake but you haven't shown it is definitively real either. The only "fact" is that it was posted and got taken down. I don't need to be a photoshop expert to see irregularities and use common sense to understand there is reason to believe the photo may have been altered.

I've seen one semi-plausible explanation that suggested the Navy actually edited the scope digitally after the photo was taken for some reason -- maybe to make it look cooler?  Maybe because there's no rear sight?  Maybe because it was supposed to be there but wasn't?

Thats possible.

if anyone did edit it, it had to be the Navy.  So, I reiterate my earlier question. is it really any better that they photoshopped the pic to add a backward scope with the lens cap on, and nobody noticed before publishing?  The reason I find it semi-plausible is because, if the Navy did alter the image, that in itself is worthy of ridicule, both from an incompetence standpoint and an integrity standpoint by failing to own up to their mistake.  it might explain why they haven't offered an explanation one way or the other.

Do you not think it possible someone did it to prank their commander?

That's your assumption.

I didn't say it was definitively fake but you haven't shown it is definitively real either. The only "fact" is that it was posted and got taken down. I don't need to be a photoshop expert to see irregularities and use common sense to understand there is reason to believe the photo may have been altered.

Thats possible.

Do you not think it possible someone did it to prank their commander?

Guess it would be too easy for the Navy to say that there was unauthorized use of photoshop by the individual.  And instead go into what Flapp posted above. #nuance #obejctive #whataboutism.

Guess it would be too easy for the Navy to say that there was unauthorized use of photoshop by the individual.  And instead go into what Flapp posted above. #nuance #obejctive #whataboutism.

I must have missed the memo that made it okay for Navy PR personnel to publicly prank their commander.

Only someone with no military experience would think that's likely.  Any pranking is done in-house, not for all the Global Internet to see.

I must have missed the memo that made it okay for Navy PR personnel to publicly prank their commander.

Only someone with no military experience would think that's likely.  Any pranking is done in-house, not for all the Global Internet to see.

Yes, that's another layer to add to the easy "it was unauthorized photoshop usage" excuse.  Which is why I find EEF's objective hypothetical unlikely.  So unlikely, that to even suggest it would be a waste of time.

Plus, said excuse would also be a good cover for the Captain as he knows how a scope works and if 1 is installed backwards. "It's on BACKWARDS" ~ Spaceballs reference.

Here's a plausible hypothetical:

PR person: "Captain, can you shoot this rifle because we need an action shot for the Navy's IG page"

The sight thru the scope doesn't matter as he's just shooting at the ocean and needs a pic of doing so.

Another plausible hypothetical:

The armorer is fucking with his buddy's rifle and luck of the draw, it was used.  No way the armorer would have known this.

Another one:

Sailor/Marine just installed the optic, but didn't zero it yet.  PR photo op was needed and he was standing closest to the captain. 

inB4 "i never said it was likely or plausible, i just saying it's *possible*"

Yes, that's another layer to add to the easy "it was unauthorized photoshop usage" excuse.  Which is why I find EEF's objective hypothetical unlikely.  So unlikely, that to even suggest it would be a waste of time.

Plus, said excuse would also be a good cover for the Captain as he knows how a scope works and if 1 is installed backwards. "It's on BACKWARDS" ~ Spaceballs reference.

Here's a plausible hypothetical:

PR person: "Captain, can you shoot this rifle because we need an action shot for the Navy's IG page"

The sight thru the scope doesn't matter as he's just shooting at the ocean and needs a pic of doing so.

Another plausible hypothetical:

The armorer is fucking with his buddy's rifle and luck of the draw, it was used.  No way the armorer would have known this.

Another one:

Sailor/Marine just installed the optic, but didn't zero it yet.  PR photo op was needed and he was standing closest to the captain.

inB4 "i never said it was likely or plausible, i just saying it's *possible*"

It's possible that scope was the only one that bypassed QA inspection at the plant and had the lenses installed on the wrong ends.

It's possible that the Navy purposefully installs their scopes backwards.  They are such good shots, they do that to make seeing the target more challenging.

It's possible the Navy trains shooters the "chicken wing" stance, instructs placing the butt stock way above the shoulder, and setting fore grips close to the mag well for extreme close quarters use (not much room to maneuver below deck).  Therefore, there MUST be a logical explanation for intentionally mounting the scope wrong.  No way they are doing all of those things wrong.

I must have missed the memo that made it okay for Navy PR personnel to publicly prank their commander.

Only someone with no military experience would think that's likely.  Any pranking is done in-house, not for all the Global Internet to see.

Hence the EMI.  Could be that a Mass Communications sailor f-ed around with Photoshop, and found out with some corrective extra duty.

inB4 "i never said it was likely or plausible, i just saying it's *possible*"

I know he will say that, which is why I said it's a stupid hypothetical.

Guess it would be too easy for the Navy to say that there was unauthorized use of photoshop by the individual.  And instead go into what Flapp posted above. #nuance #obejctive #whataboutism.

If you want to believe that it is more likely this commander is an idiot who doesn't know how scopes work than the more likely scenario that someone modified the photo then be my guest.

I must have missed the memo that made it okay for Navy PR personnel to publicly prank their commander.

Only someone with no military experience would think that's likely.  Any pranking is done in-house, not for all the Global Internet to see.

I think you just can't admit the photo looks altered because that would mean admitting you were wrong and I was right.

Not sure why you are so threatened by me pointing out the photo looks altered that you won't even admit is possible.

I think you just can't admit the photo looks altered because that would mean admitting you were wrong and I was right.

Not sure why you are so threatened by me pointing out the photo looks altered that you won't even admit is possible.

You have no evidence the photo was altered like the embedded metadata or a file checksum from the original.

You have your layman's opinion, which is supported by no actual reports.

Go argue with a brick wall.  Then you'll see how it feels trying to talk sense to you.

You have no evidence the photo was altered like the embedded metadata or a file checksum from the original.

You have your layman's opinion, which is supported by no actual reports.

Go argue with a brick wall.  Then you'll see how it feels trying to talk sense to you.

I have no more data to show it was modified than you have data to show it was not modified. We are equally at a loss to be able to prove anything.

All I did was provide my observations and my suspicions. I didn't say it was fact, I didn't say you have to agree with my suspicion either. The problem here is with you because you can't help but pick fights. You could have easily ignored my post or replied saying that you didn't arrive at the same conclusion but thats not what you did is it? You have to get on a high horse and start a fight, you just want to argue. Every regular on this forum knows that is what you do

I have no more data to show it was modified than you have data to show it was not modified. We are equally at a loss to be able to prove anything.

All I did was provide my observations and my suspicions. I didn't say it was fact, I didn't say you have to agree with my suspicion either. The problem here is with you because you can't help but pick fights. You could have easily ignored my post or replied saying that you didn't arrive at the same conclusion but thats not what you did is it? You have to get on a high horse and start a fight, you just want to argue. Every regular on this forum knows that is what you do

I don't have to prove a negative. 

The fact you think that's a realistic and fair comparison for your failure to prove the opposite is not surprising.

If you want to believe that it is more likely this commander is an idiot who doesn't know how scopes work than the more likely scenario that someone modified the photo then be my guest.

You've obviously never seen  commanders type have to qual for their weapons. 

I don't have to prove a negative. 

The fact you think that's a realistic and fair comparison for your failure to prove the opposite is not surprising.

Maybe the entire rifle was photoshopped and the commander was holding a broom to see if the wood is straight.  See, I can make stuff up too. It's plausible as no denial of holding a broom was given.