Email to the fanatics, from Larry

[T.V. Diener 34]

yea you're the anti dentite right??

[chren21]

Really proud of them too.  Figured they would not do it. 

[GoldenZebra]

yea you're the anti dentite right??

yeah, dentists suck! I just wanna parttaaaayyyyy!

[Mr. Nielsen]

Yep.  Students pointed to lw box and chanted "Larry you suck"

They were doing at the DePaul fans in section 425.

[wadesworld]

yeah, dentists suck! I just wanna parttaaaayyyyy!

Let's leave 4ever outta this discussion please.

[4everwarriors]

Thank you my brother. Actually there's some merit to the statement.

[GoldenZebra]

Thank you my brother. Actually there's some merit to the statement.

I meant no offense sir, this goes deeper than you realize though.

[keefe]

Yep.  Students pointed to lw box and chanted "Larry you suck"

I knew they had it in them. An anxious nation exhales. Where do we get such fans?

[TVDirector]

Capt Kangaroo "83 was there for that one!

ditto

[4everwarriors]

Back in the day, Al requested the band and cheerleaders respond to questionable calls against the Warriors by yellin', "Eat it Ref, eat it Ref, ....raw!"
Guess it was different times and era.

[AZWarrior]

Capt Kangaroo "83 was there for that one!

I was there as well.  Jeeze, Bob Keeshan, AKA Capt. Kangaroo.  Receiving an honorary doctorate of laws.   

Throwing the ping pong balls was fun.  Didn't pop a champagne cork, though I wish I had.  (In another ten years I'll probably think I did)

[keefe]

I was there as well.  Jeeze, Bob Keeshan, AKA Capt. Kangaroo.  Receiving an honorary doctorate of laws.   

Throwing the ping pong balls was fun.  Didn't pop a champagne cork, though I wish I had.  (In another ten years I'll probably think I did)

There was champagne galore at our commencement. As the Bishop from the Philippines droned on in some unintelligible language the corks were flying. A couple actually landed on the stage and that elicited cheers from the bored to tears assemblage. Buck threw daggers at the crowd but the corks kept flying. I guess we figured what could he do, expel us?

[slingkong]

the "sucks" after being introduced still happens and still is classless.

Sports fandom has turned into the "look at me scream #1 (despite my team being 4-25)" every time the camera is on and the "I can yell anything I want if I think it is funny"

Civility, respect your opponent is long gone these days...

You must carry your fainting couch with you wherever you go, huh? Shame to be so easily offended.

[slingkong]

I guess since I am over 50 that may make me an old fart.

That said, I really do not care for the "you suck" cheer. It's neither clever or MU specific". As someone who has been to many MU road games and heard other team's fans, I really our fan base could come up with something unique.

Such as "I believe we will win" or something completely unique and MU specific.

[Newsdreams]

There was champagne galore at our commencement. As the Bishop from the Philippines droned on in some unintelligible language the corks were flying. A couple actually landed on the stage and that elicited cheers from the bored to tears assemblage. Buck threw daggers at the crowd but the corks kept flying. I guess we figured what could he do, expel us?

Guess we were cheap in '83 our row only had a couple of cases of beer we purchased at a bar across the street, can't recall the name.

[klyrish]

The language used in this thread is deplorable and will not be tolerated.

[bradley center bat]

It's hard to come up with unique things when everthing is on youtube and over 340 D1 schools.

[Pakuni]

It's hard to come up with unique things when everthing is on youtube and over 340 D1 schools.

Students could throw a dead bat on the floor, but somebody would probably accuse them of ripping off the Red Wings.

[klyrish]

I'm all about the student section throwing rubber bats around.

[keefe]

C'mon Colonel. It's called a chain of command.

If they asked him to write it, he might just have to write it. That doesn't mean he lacks balls.

I'm sure you have been ordered to do things you didn't want to do, right?

Sometimes it's not your place to judge, but rather to execute.

It is always expected that you to look at orders judiciously and to question as appropriate. Let me illustrate through a real life example:

We were at Al Asad but operating out of Al Taqaddum (TQ) air base supporting USMC ground ops in Anbar. Following USAF procedures we had turn rates in excess of 50 minutes. Given the critical shortage of CAS assets this was unacceptably long, especially during the Fallujah campaign. A couple of us wondered if that turn time could be reduced, after all the airlines turn tails a lot faster and that involves de-planning 200 passengers, off-loading baggage, trash and sanitation then reconstituting for the next flight. I took a page from the GE Capital Asset Utilization play book and got a group of us together - airline drivers from UA, SWA, AA, NWA, FedEx and Delta. We outlined the continuum of ground activities, aggregated many and got turn times below 25 minutes by being less linear, similar to how the American flag carriers turn on-deck airborne assets. We effectively created a second squadron through more efficient asset utilization. Working with the MX squadron and ground services Marines at TQ we implemented our new check lists and were able to increase our sortie rate by 70% (there was increased Preventative Maintenance given the higher sortie rate, hence we reduced cycle time by 50% but were not able to double sorties to the same degree.) We did this for about a week when a USAF one star noticed the sortie rate for our group had spiked by 70% and that call signs were reappearing on the ATO too frequently. I was the squadron DO (Dir of Ops) at the time so the three squadron DO's put together a Combat Power Point and briefed His Highness. His concern was safety issues, both on the ramp as well as airborne. We assured him we had Six Sigma protocols in place, had embedded them in the MX & USMC ground services laptops, and that everything was done in accordance with promulgated safety standards. We were just being less linear than the USAF wanted us to be but the net effect was increased sorties and more bombs on insurgent Hajis. The USMC loved us for providing more Death on Call Air Power at their command and I like to think we enabled a lot of Hajis to get their 79 virgins in Paradise. The general told us to carry on but that we had to stop that airline sh1t once we got back to Al Asad, an AF base. Anyhow, we challenged existing standing orders and were able to defend it in terms of increased combat capability without jeopardizing safety. If he had told us to knock it off we would have but not before going to the mat with him, which he would have expected us to do. The best organizations ask their people to challenge assumptions without fear of retribution. Many people think the military is extremely strict and does not encourage such openness. In the USAF your manhood is questioned by superiors, peers, and subordinates if you do not challenge.

To answer your question, the USAF always expects its members to judge/evaluate/and question. Perhaps your organization does not. And that is unfortunate for you.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

It is always expected that you to look at orders judiciously and to question as appropriate. Let me illustrate through a real life example:

We were at Al Asad but operating out of Al Taqaddum (TQ) air base supporting USMC ground ops in Anbar. Following USAF procedures we had turn rates in excess of 50 minutes. Given the critical shortage of CAS assets this was unacceptably long, especially during the Fallujah campaign. A couple of us wondered if that turn time could be reduced, after all the airlines turn tails a lot faster and that involves de-planning 200 passengers, off-loading baggage, trash and sanitation then reconstituting for the next flight. I took a page from the GE Capital Asset Utilization play book and got a group of us together - airline drivers from UA, SWA, AA, NWA, FedEx and Delta. We outlined the continuum of ground activities, aggregated many and got turn times below 25 minutes by being less linear, similar to how the American flag carriers turn on-deck airborne assets. We effectively created a second squadron through more efficient asset utilization. Working with the MX squadron and ground services Marines at TQ we implemented our new check lists and were able to increase our sortie rate by 70% (there was increased Preventative Maintenance given the higher sortie rate, hence we reduced cycle time by 50% but were not able to double sorties to the same degree.) We did this for about a week when a USAF one star noticed the sortie rate for our group had spiked by 70% and that call signs were reappearing on the ATO too frequently. I was the squadron DO (Dir of Ops) at the time so the three squadron DO's put together a Combat Power Point and briefed His Highness. His concern was safety issues, both on the ramp as well as airborne. We assured him we had Six Sigma protocols in place, had embedded them in the MX & USMC ground services laptops, and that everything was done in accordance with promulgated safety standards. We were just being less linear than the USAF wanted us to be but the net effect was increased sorties and more bombs on insurgent Hajis. The USMC loved us for providing more Death on Call Air Power at their command and I like to think we enabled a lot of Hajis to get their 79 virgins in Paradise. The general told us to carry on but that we had to stop that airline sh1t once we got back to Al Asad, an AF base. Anyhow, we challenged existing standing orders and were able to defend it in terms of increased combat capability without jeopardizing safety. If he had told us to knock it off we would have but not before going to the mat with him, which he would have expected us to do. The best organizations ask their people to challenge assumptions without fear of retribution. Many people think the military is extremely strict and does not encourage such openness. In the USAF your manhood is questioned by superiors, peers, and subordinates if you do not challenge.

To answer your question, the USAF always expects its members to judge/evaluate/and question. Perhaps your organization does not. And that is unfortunate for you.

When Col. Jessep orders a code red, you perform a code red.

[🏀]

When Col. Jessep orders a code red, you perform a code red.

Sorry Goose, but it's time to buzz the tower.

[akmarq]

When Col. Jessep orders a code red, you perform a code red.

Unless you're in the middle of a Volleyball game.

[madtownwarrior]

no, just amazed that the "everybody receives a ribbon, don't keep score" generation has turned into the "look at me, I am so important I must post I ate peanut butter toast for lunch on Facebook and feel self worth by yelling you suck at Division 1 athletes who put their accomplishments to shame"

You must carry your fainting couch with you wherever you go, huh? Shame to be so easily offended.

[Pakuni]

It is always expected that you to look at orders judiciously and to question as appropriate. Let me illustrate through a real life example:

We were at Al Asad but operating out of Al Taqaddum (TQ) air base supporting USMC ground ops in Anbar. Following USAF procedures we had turn rates in excess of 50 minutes. Given the critical shortage of CAS assets this was unacceptably long, especially during the Fallujah campaign. A couple of us wondered if that turn time could be reduced, after all the airlines turn tails a lot faster and that involves de-planning 200 passengers, off-loading baggage, trash and sanitation then reconstituting for the next flight. I took a page from the GE Capital Asset Utilization play book and got a group of us together - airline drivers from UA, SWA, AA, NWA, FedEx and Delta. We outlined the continuum of ground activities, aggregated many and got turn times below 25 minutes by being less linear, similar to how the American flag carriers turn on-deck airborne assets. We effectively created a second squadron through more efficient asset utilization. Working with the MX squadron and ground services Marines at TQ we implemented our new check lists and were able to increase our sortie rate by 70% (there was increased Preventative Maintenance given the higher sortie rate, hence we reduced cycle time by 50% but were not able to double sorties to the same degree.) We did this for about a week when a USAF one star noticed the sortie rate for our group had spiked by 70% and that call signs were reappearing on the ATO too frequently. I was the squadron DO (Dir of Ops) at the time so the three squadron DO's put together a Combat Power Point and briefed His Highness. His concern was safety issues, both on the ramp as well as airborne. We assured him we had Six Sigma protocols in place, had embedded them in the MX & USMC ground services laptops, and that everything was done in accordance with promulgated safety standards. We were just being less linear than the USAF wanted us to be but the net effect was increased sorties and more bombs on insurgent Hajis. The USMC loved us for providing more Death on Call Air Power at their command and I like to think we enabled a lot of Hajis to get their 79 virgins in Paradise. The general told us to carry on but that we had to stop that airline sh1t once we got back to Al Asad, an AF base. Anyhow, we challenged existing standing orders and were able to defend it in terms of increased combat capability without jeopardizing safety. If he had told us to knock it off we would have but not before going to the mat with him, which he would have expected us to do. The best organizations ask their people to challenge assumptions without fear of retribution. Many people think the military is extremely strict and does not encourage such openness. In the USAF your manhood is questioned by superiors, peers, and subordinates if you do not challenge.

To answer your question, the USAF always expects its members to judge/evaluate/and question. Perhaps your organization does not. And that is unfortunate for you.

Paragraphs are your friend.