37132RE: [civilwarwest] Re: "Peremptory" orders
- Feb 1, 2006
There was no stooping involved. This was SOP.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Bob Taubman
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: "Peremptory" orders
Well, I suppose that's one way of looking at it. I think if it were me, I'd be more upset that they had to stoop to that level just for optics.
“Quando omni flunkus, mortati”
"James F. Epperson" <Jfepperson@...> wrote:
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Bob Taubman wrote:
> Why was it necessary to change the date of
> Rosecran's promotion in order to give him
> seniority over Thomas? If it was as cut-and-dried
> as you make it appear, why the subtrefuge?
I don't see any subterfuge at all. Officers could be
notoriously sensitive about serving under juniors;
changing the date of Rosy's promotion avoids this
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>