Allen B. Skye
- 95 Followers
- 178 Following
- 807 Posts
I started my microblogging ‘career’ as a liberal troll on Twitter to mess with the conservative pundits & their sycophants. It’s time to (mostly) retire that part of this persona. I’m here to learn & have good conversations. #dodgers #broncos #lakers #liberal #altcountry #americana
Warning: Thread reader link (via Twitter for those that abstain). This guy explains the NG stuff better than I could.
He used the "broke his contract", praise for Walz's replacement "stepping up", and the last statement. Just based on his diction, I am not going to lend any credence to his post. It's very biased and light on facts.
10/10
10/10
"Similarly, when the demands of service and leadership at the highest level got real, he chose another path."
I don't care how you slice it, this dude is accusing Walz of cutting tail and running. That's essentially 3 times that he did that.
9/10
There is more about the in and outs of rank advancement that isn't my area, so again, I'm not here to debunk that shit. I'm just looking at phrasing.
8/10
8/10
When it eventually comes out that he and Walz never served together in that battalion, he's inevitably going to say "I only told you what I heard and read".
7/10
7/10
His statement about Walz is totally couched in "plausible deniability" phrasing. He's basically saying the stories he heard and the reports he read were positive, but he doesn't actually report any first hand knowledge.
6/10
6/10
"By all accounts and on the record, he was a competent Chief of Firing"
I am fairly certain that this guy never actually served in the battalion at the same time as Walz. If you look earlier at how he praises Behrends, it is much more detailed and confident.
5/10
He later says of Walz's replacement "Like a great leader he ran toward and not away from the guns." This is couched to look like praise for his replacement while in reality, it is a cheap shot aimed at Walz.
4/10
4/10
He uses that "I have no opinion" phrase to give readers the perception that he is just giving an unbiased accounting of Walz's separation when in reality he accuses Walz of breaking his enlistment contract.
3/10
3/10
The language is very hostile, but also kind of contradictory.
He says "I have no opinion of Mr. Walz's decision to leave service at the time he did."
But earlier he said "broke his enlistment contract". That is hostile phrasing. He very much does have an opinion about it.
2/10