What are someone's options after a wrongful termination from ADOS?

SSgt Joseph Baptist - so what you’re saying is that third party relay wasn’t fully accurate or told in its entirety?
It seems we agree.

SSgt Joseph Baptist - please note that, “so what you’re saying is that third party relay wasn’t fully accurate or told in its entirety?“ is a question. I wasn’t attempting to put words in your mouth.

By stating that by’decent’, you inferred that the post could have been referring to the NCOs religious stature, even though that is not remotely what the tone of the post stated. That was simply a possibility that you thought, “well maybe that could be it.”

I simply pointed out that by a third party not relaying the story fully or entirely accurately, it leaves too much room for interpretation from others. While our conclusions may be different, our reason for having different conclusions is the same.

Don’t let anonymity, or the lack thereof, fool you. As you’ve aptly demonstrated in this particular thread, even with a name and photo readily availble, it’s quite possible to add absolutely nothing of value to a conversation.

Apparently, you disagree with my original thought, that third party retelling of stories generally don’t paint the whole picture. If so, I’d generally be interested as to why.

Best of luck.

SSgt Joseph Baptist - While I certainly appreciate your fine definition of the word ‘decent’, it’s ultimately irrelevant.

Also, as the original poster is indeed a third party to the actual events described, I fail to understand why used quotes around “third party”. By doing so, you’re either implying something about the third party without stating it, or demonstrating your lack of understanding the appropriate use of quotes. I’ll bet on the latter.

I’m not quick to dismiss his comments. I originally stated “It’s generally been my experience that in situations where information is relayed by a third party, the full story is rarely told fully, or accurately”, and I then I simply reiterated that sentiment. I’ll again stand by that statement. In layman’s terms, when people start playing the telephone game, ill take it with a grain of salt.

Moving along, you now write, “though some would consider a witness as having more potential objectivity than either of the two parties directly involved.” Thats quite interesting. Because even though he didn’t state one way or another, I highly doubt the original poster was a witness to every action of the soldier involved. As they’re not Siamese twins, it’s impossible to be together at all times. Who knows what that guy was up to when only his first line was watching. Could have have been been doing all sorts of lousy, bad soldiering type of stuf.f. We’ll never know. So what is very likely is that the NCO in question relayed the story to the poster (with the best version of events, no doubt), who in turn relayed the story here.

Further, many more would not consider witnesses objective. In fact, eyewitness accounts have been studied for years and have been repeatedly proven to be less than accurate and reliable. I’ve attached just a few links if you care to read up on the topic.

I’ll also point out, you haven’t disagreed that third party retellings of events are rarely told fully or accurately. Again, if you disagree with that premise, I’d be curious as to what your life experiences are that would lead you to such a conclusion. However, no amount of trying to be clever (failing spectacularly) by giving word definitions (with syllable breaks. Jesus, be more creative) and inappropriately using quotes can detract from that fact that still haven’t disagreed with my original thought.

Best of luck.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/
https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm
https://www.simplypsychology.org/eyewitness-testimony.html

SSgt Joseph Baptist - you now write, “If you had said something about questioning the validity and accuracy of hearsay evidence, particularly of hearsay from a friend of one of the parties involved, I would agree.”

I originally wrote, “It’s generally been my experience that in situations where information is relayed by a third party, the full story is rarely told fully, or accurately”.

I would seem that while I didn’t choose the exact words that you chose, I had the same meaning you currently have. So again, it seems we agree. I’m glad we could hash this out.