When someone tells you "good job guys", is that offensive to you?

CH (CPT) Heather Davis — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 07:28:37 -0400

Yesterday I was corrected by a SFC (EOA) when he heard me say "Good job guys" I was speaking to both male and female.

His comments were I should have said good job guys and girls. Your thoughts.

Response by CPT Richard Riley made Jul 12 at 2014 7:37 AM

CPT Richard Riley — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 07:37:03 -0400

I don't think you emphasized "guys", and most likely said it as a parting comment - so it in no way was voiced as a sexist comment. It seems we are in a world that is hyper-sensitive to many comments and some prefer to look at literal meaning rather than colloquial, leaving them to believe it's offensive.

My take ..... no harm, no foul. It was meant as an "at-a-boy" type comment and should be taken as such. In the same manner, my descriptive at-a-boy could be taken the same way I suppose .....

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2014 8:18 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 08:18:22 -0400

I react strongly to being called "girl" outside of friends (a friend, male or female, can say, "that's my girl," or whatever). It's diminutive. I'm an adult. I would expect the same reaction from using the word "boy."

Guys is generic. I use it too. "Hey guys, listen up!" Yep, I do it all the time. We have a Soldier who is very reactive to things like this and pointed it out to me. And I asked her if she felt if I in anyway didn't intend to include her. Meaning, did she truly think I intended to address only male Soldiers? She admitted that I had communicated my meaning but that she felt that people need to "clean up" the language to be more gender neutral. We had a good conversation about the difference between addressing people using exclusionary language and jumping on every single thing that gives a shade of offense. One approach is welcome, and the other would damage her credibility preventing her from being effective at anything.

Keep in mind, at one point, the term "Soldier" only meant men. Rather than demand a separate term, we proudly claimed Soldier.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Jul 12 at 2014 9:17 AM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 09:17:20 -0400

No.

It is reality apparent by context that you where referring to a group by that pronoun. It is a well understood norm in the english-speaking world that you may do so by using a male pronoun.

That may be "cultural" this or that, and may be in the process of changing (which I won't comment on here -due to blood pressure issues...), but is still an accepted norm. There was clearly no intent to discriminate, nor do I believe any reasonable person could believe that it would create a hostile work environment.

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2014 9:30 AM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 09:30:12 -0400

I have seen soldiers get uptight about it for one reason or another. I don't see a problem with it, but there is a better choice: soldier.

Response by SFC Lamont Womack made Jul 12 at 2014 9:44 AM

SFC Lamont Womack — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 09:44:17 -0400

Yes the EOA was right by making the correction. The Army EO policy covers exclusionary language. TC 26-6 The Commander's Equal Opportunity Handbook specifically uses the example of over using masculine pronouns such as "he," "his," or "guys" when referring to no specific person or everyone in the organization. I'm also an EOA and we are taught to discourage and correct all Soldiers from using exclusionary language.

What I don't understand is why leader's make a big deal about being corrected on this issue. It is written in the Army EO program to not use exclusionary language. When has it ever been ok for leaders to pick and choose what standards they follow? I also find it hard to believe our vocabulary is so limited that we have to use "guys" to address a group of Soldiers. How about using everyone, everybody, Soldiers, you all, people, Troops, warriors, all of you, so on and so forth.

This is an easy issue to fix. Be aware of exclusionary language and just don't use it. Plus if its not a big deal like everyone says, it should be that much easier to stop doing it.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2014 9:50 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 09:50:00 -0400

Maam, I have to partially disagree with the EOA. The term "guys" in the context you used is not designed to be offensive but to make the compliment, or in some cases correction, more personal. I'd like to ask this. What would be better to say? "Good job, group" or "Good job, guys". The former seems so uncaring, so impersonal and generic while the latter has a bit more emphasis and effervescence in it. Yes, the word "Soldiers" can be used which is definitely much better than "group" but I think it's too impersonal also. Just my 3.57 cents worth.

Response by CH (CPT) Heather Davis made Jul 12 at 2014 10:08 AM

CH (CPT) Heather Davis — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 10:08:58 -0400

Due to I need to address this and have a safe place to share my heart. The SFC addressed the situation, I shared with him when I said "Good job guys" I did not see anything offensive.

He replied Ma'am I have 19 years in.

I replied great I have thirty years in.

Needless to say he wrote my name down and went straight to my Senior Chaplain.

I had to listen to an hour of why did you have to one-up him. I repented and now I am at a cross-road. I of all people promote equal opportunity, and that is why I am asking all of rally point to comment. I want to hear from the junior enlisted your thoughts.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Jul 12 at 2014 10:46 AM

SSG Robert Burns — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 10:46:12 -0400

He is wrong. Even according to the EO Policy that is pointed out. Look up the definition of guys on dictionary.com.
2. Usually, guys. Informal. persons of either sex; people:
"Could one of you guys help me with this?"

It is not exclusionary because it refers to both sexes. People who are offended by this want to be.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2014 10:48 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 10:48:13 -0400

CH (CPT) Heather Davis - I think many women may find the word 'girl' condescending and I agree with the use of male and female. Otherwise the idea of. "she is just a girl". It is probably hard enough for ladies as it is. So females or ladies even is a better description.

Response by CH (CPT) Heather Davis made Jul 12 at 2014 11:19 AM

CH (CPT) Heather Davis — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 11:19:40 -0400

I graciously thank all of you for your feedback and my prayers are for all of you. I have learned so much this week, and yes I will correct my language.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2014 11:38 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 11:38:33 -0400

That guy is someone who sees his position as a power pulpit to enforce his own ideals on other people. That sort of soft-handing would go over like a fart in church in my unit. I have the Brigade's MICO attached to me and we have a ton of females in the Cavalry Squadron and I want to bring more in. Holding women out of the Cavalry has hurt our numbers. That being said, I will still say "guys" often. I try to say "ladies and gentlemen" when in meetings and the like or just say "Troopers," but often the language doesn't fit the situation, and in talking with the female Troopers, they just want to be treated like a SOLDIER...not a female Soldier...so that's what I do. I don't go out of my way to change my mannerism, and they don't expect me to. They expect me to be a damn fine officer, and I expect them to do their damn jobs in a most excellent fashion. No better or worse than somebody with a stack and swivel between their abdomen and their thighs. That guy's a dumbass, and everyone thinks so...his superiors just haven't put him in his place like they should.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2014 11:40 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 11:40:28 -0400

Short answer: Dude's a moron.

Long Answer: With 19 years in, he *shouldn't* fall under the "was coddled too much by helicopter mama and daddy and politically correct" mumbo jumbo, but he sounds like he has serious issues.

I have NEVER gotten offended in a mixed group of men and women being referred to as "guys." I look at it like University Alumni: Co-ed schools have Alumnus (single male), alumna (single female) or Alumni (plural men or mixed group men and women). Single Sex Female organizations such as Sororities are Alumna or Alumnae. When I am referred to as an Alumni member of my university, I don't get mad because it's predominantly male word.

*If, however, one of my young sorority sisters refers to us as Alumni, I DO correct her because as an all female organization, it IS important to know when it's appropriate to use alumnae (sorority) versus alumni (university).

Dude needs to grow a pair and quit worrying about stuff that doesn't matter.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2014 11:42 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 11:42:12 -0400

As stated in Merriam Webster.

b : person —used in plural to refer to the members of a group regardless of sex

There is English and then there is Army English. Nonetheless, I think team is a better term anyway.

Good talk.

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Jul 12 at 2014 11:45 AM

SSG Trevor S. — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 11:45:27 -0400

I understand his idea and direction but we must as a nation identify the point were political correctness takes over from the well meaning goals of the various EO programs out there. In this case the net effect of correcting you for something that can easily be argued to be generally inclusive might have the effect of tempering your natural tendency to praise good work in fear of rebuke for an imagined slip of inclusiveness.

Response by Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2014 11:48 AM

Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 11:48:58 -0400

Ma'am,

Guys is pretty gender-neutral. Shouldn't be an issue with it and if there is, I'd ask what the issue is.

Response by MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P made Jul 12 at 2014 12:20 PM

MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 12:20:43 -0400

How about we all just grow up and stop being so thin skinned over every little thing??

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2014 12:21 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 12:21:29 -0400

As an EOA it is that NCOs responsibility to make on-the-spot corrections that may deal with equal opportunity. However, the methods used to correct the so called problem may not have been right. We in the Army need to be aware of our language regardless of how a particular term is defined in a dictionary.

If a soldier perceives that the word "guys" is exclusionary then they have a right to approach a EOL or EOA and make a complain. We must remember that it is how words are perceived by the individuals being addressed.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jul 12 at 2014 12:27 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 12:27:00 -0400

I try to remember to use "folks" or "people" in mixed company. If I do slip at home, I have 2 sons and a daughter, I get an , "excuse me, dad", from guess who.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jul 12 at 2014 12:42 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 12:42:50 -0400

I grew up with "guys", as far as I knew, being a non gender-biased term. Case in point. One my favorite PBS shows after "Sesame Street" was "The Electric Company", who's famous alumni include Bill Cosby, Mel Brooks, Morgan Freeman, Rita Moreno and Zero Mostel. In the show opening, Rita Moreno loudly yells, "Hey you guys..." to wake up the cast and audience. Never heard of anyone fussing over the point and it just became part of my vernacular for "guys" to mean group of people. And for those of us in the northeast, "yous guys".

Response by CW2 Ernest Krutzsch made Jul 12 at 2014 1:56 PM

CW2 Ernest Krutzsch — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 13:56:58 -0400

We have become politically correct pawns...The EO A needs to stop being so sensitive, if he (oops or she :-) dis not get the gist of the conversation, then I would say she/he is not very bright

Response by SSG Todd Halverson made Jul 12 at 2014 2:30 PM

SSG Todd Halverson — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 14:30:57 -0400

He is just on a power trip thinking his title gives him the power to control how people interact with each other. I would not worry about it and keep doing things like you have been, unless someone actually complains about it.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2014 3:54 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 15:54:30 -0400

Here's my .095 cents. Being only a SSG of just shy of 24 years, I would have come back to the SFC, in the most tactful way possible and tell him I find his statement intimidating and almost harassing in nature and perhaps with a bit of hostile work environment thrown in there and he can let his brain digest that.

I'm sure that most everyone here can figure out where my line of thinking is going. Kind of hard to imagine a nearly 6ft 235lb mexican be actually intimidated, but I'll play along.

Response by SFC Jerry Humphries made Jul 12 at 2014 6:04 PM

SFC Jerry Humphries — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 18:04:37 -0400

Being an ex company EO rep myself I think some one has a chip on their shoulder. Keep encouraging your soldiers as you see fit Captain. They know if you respect them and their job well done.

Response by SSgt James Stanley made Jul 12 at 2014 6:50 PM

SSgt James Stanley — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 18:50:35 -0400

CPT Davis, you were correct in your use of "guys" in speaking to both male and female troops. The SFC should never have challenged you. He must have been having feelings of grandeur for his 19 years in service and couldn't help himself! Don't let it worry you, we all meet this type of PC mentality every once in a while.

Response by MSG Wade Huffman made Jul 12 at 2014 6:53 PM

MSG Wade Huffman — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 18:53:24 -0400

Gave my two cents early on in this discussion and have now gone back and read the entire thread through with all the new comments posted.
All I can say is that I AM GLAD I'M RETIRED.
If THESE are the issues that our Armed Forces are expending time and energy on, then I'm glad that I'm no longer an active part of it. I don't particularly like saying that, but it is how I'm feeling right now. ***sigh***
Someone please tell me this is one VERY off the wall incident and this isn't the norm out there.
Sorry all... just had to vent a bit here.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2014 9:54 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 21:54:09 -0400

In my honest opinion ma'am that is just dumb. All the time I use the word "guys" when addressing a group of soldiers and have never had one issue with female soldiers coming up to me telling me they were offended. And on the flip side I've been in a group where we were all addressed as "guys" and I never felt offended by it. It may just be my opinion but I have to say that's just going a little overboard by the EO rep in your circumstance.

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2014 10:09 PM

2LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 22:09:00 -0400

Some people just love to stir up trivial stuff, no? Good job guys sounds just fine to me. If you were to say "good job boys and girls", I immediately think of someone treating people like kids who just cleaned up their room. I really don't understand the logic of some people...

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Jul 12 at 2014 11:35 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 23:35:10 -0400

I mean really; can you imagine how hard it is to use that term and actually intend for it to be offensive? You'd almost have to spell it out.
"Good job guys!.....and I specifically mean the men, not you ladies out there." Yea then maybe that'd be offensive. But you'd have to explain it in order for it to be. Which means....it's not.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Jul 12 at 2014 11:41 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 23:41:34 -0400

Oh wait better yet!....what if it's room full of folks like Bradley/Chelsea Manning? And I assume that because I'm in a room full of dudes it's ok for me to say "guys." But Bradley doesn't consider himself a man, he considers himself a woman. Who am I to assume that just because he's got man parts that he's a man?
Maybe I should just use the term earthling, although sometimes I'd even question the validity of that claim. Because some of these "guys" must be from another planet. ;-)

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 13 at 2014 1:33 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 13 Jul 2014 01:33:34 -0400

In this day and age apparently one must be careful, even when giving an attaperson.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 13 at 2014 2:07 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 13 Jul 2014 02:07:52 -0400

OMG! Give me a break already. How about we start using 'Good job ladies'. I'm all for EO and using the system as it was intended. But it seems like when someone doesn't get their way the first thing they do is cry to EO that they were discriminated against, harassed etc. I guess they no longer issue a spine to go along with Sergeant stripes.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 13 at 2014 7:15 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 13 Jul 2014 07:15:06 -0400

CH (CPT) Heather Davis, I was raised in the south most of my life. I reckon "y'all" ain't as gender biased as "you guys". SFC needs to take a chill pill with some Luzianne sweet tea. Darn them Yankees!

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 13 at 2014 11:50 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:50:11 -0400

I think that they should button that girl scout shirt back up n go cry abt it to mama. This.is.the.military. I know, women should always b respected I get that completely. But guys is like saying y'all. Your addressing a group. It may have a male connotation but it doesn't have to be taken like that. Plus I think calling a female in the military avgirl is way more offensive.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 13 at 2014 12:00 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 13 Jul 2014 12:00:28 -0400

It's always been my opinion that "guys" is acceptable vernacular when in mixed company. I don't even care that much when the Co says "Gents". If I spend my time getting offended everytime those phrases are used I'd be continuously offended. It's not ment to demean me or be a jab or even not make me part of the group. There are more important things in life. Usually if someone tries to toss an apology my way for those expressions I tell them that if and when I get offended I'll let them know until then CM

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 13 at 2014 12:51 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 13 Jul 2014 12:51:48 -0400

I'm being considered for a command opportunity. This topic, as well as some of the SARC issues - ie, a push to reduce the role of due process, as well as some policy directives that imply "freedom of religious expression" does not extend to "freedom of conscious" are worrying to me. What I have noticed over the course of my career, is that by the time civilian society gets around to questioning the latest received wisdom on certain topics, including business management fads, is the time when the military goes whole hog on them (in particular, I'm referencing articles, from both the left end and right end of the spectrum, that are questioning the "one in five" campus sexual assault statistic), but if such was done right now in DoD, I have a feeling you'd be run out on a rail. There is way, way too much group think on these topics right now, and it's across all ranks, all service components. There is far too much taking the word of academia and the media at face value, rather than using it in its proper role, which is to research, question, and debate, and not push received wisdom on field commanders and their staffs like it's pure dogma.

Response by TSgt Tim Templeton made Jul 13 at 2014 7:51 PM

TSgt Tim Templeton — Sun, 13 Jul 2014 19:51:28 -0400

No I did it a lot of times. I think the sincerity of the message is what counts.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 13 at 2014 11:03 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 13 Jul 2014 23:03:04 -0400

This is completely ridiculous, but then again, it should be expected in this new PC military. I say this all the time, and none of my Sailors have ever complained to me about it, and they are pretty open with me.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jul 14 at 2014 10:39 AM

LTC Paul Labrador — Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:39:19 -0400

I think someone needs to get a life.... Just another example of PC running rampant without a shred of common sense.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 14 at 2014 10:53 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:53:16 -0400

this is PC at it's best(worst?)

Response by PO3 John Jeter made Jul 14 at 2014 9:20 PM

PO3 John Jeter — Mon, 14 Jul 2014 21:20:46 -0400

It's a generic term, not specifically gender driven. If it will make the PC Police happy, consider using the word "folks" instead. You could point out that by specifying "guys and girls" they are defeating the purpose of the teamwork concept by dividing the group with gender labels.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Jul 15 at 2014 1:47 PM

SGT Ben Keen — Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:47:46 -0400

This is what I consider "E-splittiing-hairs-O". Yes, certain words do carry certain unintended meanings behind them but when CH (CPT) Heather Davis said "Good job GUYS", I see it as the collective use of the word. She wasn't trying to exclude anyone from the kudos. It is much of the same as when you use the collective "you" when talking to a group of people. If I'm standing in front of a group of people and say "You did a great job" am I excluding someone because of the word I used? No. It is ridiculous to think that someone would have to be pointed out in order to feel included. When you work as a team, you celebrate or fail like a team. You are included in all the "guys", "you", "them", or whatever wording used.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2014 10:23 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Sep 2014 22:23:41 -0400

Heck no. I wasn't even thinking about the "guys" part of it. Not offensive (to me) in the least! Haha...in some folk's view, though, "good job guys and GIRLS" would actually be kinda awkward.
The word "guys" has never registered on my radar as sexist. CH (CPT) Heather Davis, outstanding for acknowledging a job well done, Ma'am!

Response by SGT Richard H. made Sep 10 at 2014 10:29 PM

SGT Richard H. — Wed, 10 Sep 2014 22:29:18 -0400

CH (CPT) Heather Davis, Ma'am, the terms "Guys" "you guys"and "Y'all" are pretty much interchangeable and accepted almost universally as a form of generic group address, except by only the most ridiculously socially oversensitive among us.
The good news for your SFC is that if that's the biggest thing he has to worry about, his stress level should be pretty low.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 11 at 2014 6:45 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 06:45:34 -0400

Colloquially speaking, "guys" is an acceptable term to refer to both males and females. That's not how it started but that is how it has been used for at least a couple of decades. I suppose if someone is truly offended by this they can tell you about it. I don't see how this affects equal opportunity so I think you're fine and the SFC who corrected you was simply taught to be overly sensitive to not offend the maximum number of people. We do often go too far in this regard as is the military's way.

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made Sep 12 at 2014 12:15 AM

1SG Michael Blount — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 00:15:28 -0400

I've always taken that as a figure of speech and not paid much attention to it, especially in the circumstances you described. It also depends on who's saying it. "Good job guys" coming from a senior means something different than a subordinate. To me, "Good job guys" from a subordinate is an unwelcome term of familiarity and gets my immediate attention.

Response by Cpl Murray Estes made Sep 12 at 2014 12:35 AM

Cpl Murray Estes — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 00:35:55 -0400

The terms "guys" and "guys and girls (gals)" has absolutely no difference. The word guy is in of itself gender neutral. While it is commonly used to refer to males, it ALSO accurately refers to females. It is just as accurate to point to a group of gentlemen and say "Those guys" as it is to point to a group of ladies and say "Those guys". It really is just semantics. And maybe feminism, but let's not get our panties in a twist here.

Response by SGM Thomas Manders made Sep 12 at 2014 10:38 AM

SGM Thomas Manders — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:38:50 -0400

Come on --- really -- look to the dictionary. person —used in plural to refer to the members of a group regardless of sex . That was old school of thinking guys being a male term only. The SFC needs to get with the future. A compliment is always received positively.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Sep 12 at 2014 8:22 PM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 20:22:04 -0400

Go to your EO office and get a copy of the "offensive word" list. You will be shocked at some of the stuff off it.

Response by PO2 Corrin Keeler made Sep 15 at 2014 3:48 PM

PO2 Corrin Keeler — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 15:48:40 -0400

I would rather have some use the word "guys" in general terms than refer to me as "girl". In my entire adult life, there was only one person who insisted on addressing me differently or treating me differently because I was a "girl" and he sported a black eye for two weeks because of it.

Response by PO2 Rocky Kleeger made Oct 24 at 2014 4:39 PM

PO2 Rocky Kleeger — Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:39:22 -0400

Seriously? What if one of the "girls" took exception to that? She doesn't consider herself a "girl", she is a "woman". The term "guys" isn't just male when it encompasses a group of people. This politically correct stuff is really getting out of hand

Response by PO2 Timothy Brotsch made Nov 10 at 2014 7:54 PM

PO2 Timothy Brotsch — Mon, 10 Nov 2014 19:54:15 -0500

Absolutely not when not in Uniform, but when in Uniform Call by rank

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 12 at 2014 3:51 PM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 12 Nov 2014 15:51:07 -0500

guys in that case is CLEARLY a generality and very common use. sounds to me like the SFC was being an ass, but apparently couldn't help it.

Response by CH (LTC) Robert Leroe made Nov 6 at 2015 2:36 PM

CH (LTC) Robert Leroe — Fri, 06 Nov 2015 14:36:31 -0500

I'm from NJ where "guys" is generic. BTW An MP once said to me, "Chaplain, getting praise is like getting paid."