View Single Post
Old 5 August 2006, 12:08
Veracity Veracity is offline
Probationary User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 4
Someone is pissing on your legs and calling it Darkrain

As I said in my first post, I was sent a link to this board by a friend who had been a Hackathorn student. He knew that I am a long time friend of Hacks and asked me for clarification.

My second post was to answer Silverbullets question and to explain something about how to read SF DD214s of the 1971 vintage.

"So are you saying he went through the Q course and was awarded an 18 series MOS?"

"I am absolutely NOT saying that Hack attended the Q course or got an 18 MOS during his term of service.

His term of service was from 1966-1971 and both the Q course and the 18 MOS did not exist until the 1980's."

I did not sign on because I had no intention of participating in this list any further. While I have the greatest respect for SEALS, I am not a SEAL, wannabe or otherwise. I was just trying to help keep a friend from being maligned. I'm jumping in one more time, because the moderator seems to be misinterpreting my lack of response.

In my first post, I said that Hacks MOS ends in "S" and TRIP WIRE verified my statement that a 1971 "S" indicates "SF" not support as it does in more recent DD214s. I thought that the issue was settled.

Darkrain responded to my post: admitting that he misread Hacks DD214, that Hack was indeed an E6 as I claimed and not an E2 as he had claimed. In Darkrain's first post he made a big deal out of Hack being in six years and only being an E2. In response to my post, Darkrain admits that he attacked the reputation of a serviceman without even getting the rank straight. Darkrain then made two more mistakes, he ignored what TRIP WIRE and I said about a 1971 SF DD214 "S" meaning "SF" qualified. Darkrain repeated his claim that Hack was not SF qualified.

How about it Darkrain - you say you have Hacks 1971 DD214, the MOS ends with an "S", doesn't it?

Doesn’t this invalidate your claim in both posts that Hack was not SF qualified?

If a document of that period ended in SF - like you want, it would be phony. Is that what it takes to satisfy you?

As to Darkrains last remaining accusation -that Hack was not a small arms weapons specialist, but crew served specialist only. Darkrain doesn't grasp the SF concept of cross training. Hacks DD 214 has a "C" indicating crew served weapons specialist. Please be advised, that in 1971, Hack was a SF weapons specialist, the "C" indicates all weapons up to and including crew served. That is the way it was in SF, even if it was not that way in the Navy.

The Moderator and Silverbullet want my credentials. OK. I am what I said I was, a friend of Ken Hackathorns. I am not ex military. I know something about SF of that era because I worked for LTC Anthony Herbert of "Soldier" fame in a company called Herbert and Associates. I was one of the associates, the in house gun guy/ firearms instructor. I got to know and spend quality time with several extraordinary early SF guys. Many years ago, I introduced LTC Herbert and several other early SF folks whom I admired very much to my friend Ken Hackathorn and they all got along just fine. Herbert added Hack as one of his Associates.

In my profile I said that I have never done anything. This is the only statement made by me that is not absolutely true. I produced a fine son who is presently serving in the Army with a combat MOS, of whom I am very proud. I will relate one other accomplishment. I became friends with Richard L. Childers SGM, E-9, AKA "Blanket Ass". Childers figured prominently in Herbert's book "Soldier". He had been awarded the DSC in Vietnam and retired. He then reupped for one more tour which is the tour mentioned in Herbert's book. Childers retired again, only to be deprived of the 10% pension bonus that is supposed to be awarded to DSC recipients. Seems there was an "unpublished regulation" that the 10% bonus was only awarded to recipients of the CMH and DSC IF they got the citation during their last period of service. Childers had tried for decades to get this fixed and could not. He was told that the regulation didn't impact enough recipients to justify changing regulations. It took me almost a year, but I got it fixed and Childers got the 10% he deserved. That is something.

I know a lot of people, but have few friends because I choose my friends very carefully. I don't like people screwing with my friends. That applies to the government screwing with SGM Childers pension or Darkrain screwing with Ken Hackathorn's reputation.

Hack has earned a superb reputation as a trainer and in that capacity has saved many lives. He deserves better than what he got here.

You cannot unring a bell on the internet. There was no need for Darkrain to jump the gun and post anything that could harm or defame until he was in full possession of the facts.

I can't fault the rest of you for asking follow up questions, and I appreciate those who jumped in with facts instead of speculation.

Darkrain may have the best of intentions, but that does not excuse the fact that he caused undue harm by opening fire on a friendly even though he had plenty of time to verify and get the facts before shooting. Until Darkrain develops more self-control, I wouldn't want to be around him when he is armed with a gun or knife instead of a keyboard.

The moderator uses the word "Deafening". This reminds me of something. If any of you have information on how specific types of amplified electronic earplugs (not muffs) have worked in a military setting, please let me know. I'm getting time urgent requests for this information and cannot find anything. The problem is that in noisy environmnetsd, the issue plugs drown out too much voice communication and the best amplified muffs are uncomfortable for extended periods even under the new MSA helmet and the non electronic sonic plugs only provide about 7 db noise reduction.

Last edited by Veracity; 5 August 2006 at 12:59.
Reply With Quote