Thanks for your continued participation in the thread.

You were saying that they are conditioned to be "militant". You used the word "militant" several times.

When classic posted the dictionary definition of it, did the definition agree with your understanding of the word?

You are saying that the Marines' response to the event was uninteresting because it was a conditioned response. I find the response to be noble even if it is conditioned. Even if it is duty. Especially if it's military. I myself cannot recall having accepted any similar conditioning, in the name of duty, service, or any other thing. In that regard I find myself wanting, and extra thankful that there are people who actually enjoy that sort of conditioning in order to defend my sorry ass.

I just saw regular's post which is why I just responded to it...And thank you for your continued participation in this thread as well. :)

Sorry for the in-process edit :) I'm not finished posting until five minutes after the post is made!

I find your reaction to this very disappointing Cicero. You have every right to respond any way you want but I'm surprised at your condescension in this case. That theatre is made up of individuals who each chose to do something. You may not like the organization, the leadership, or even the very tradition they were observing, but to dismiss their actions as they were simply well trained dogs is just a bit too much.:(

[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin mīlitāns, mīlitant-, present participle of mīlitāre, to serve as a soldier; see militate.]

A militant is a soldier. Which is where the word comes from. Soldiers. Or am I still full of it?

Yes I understand things.

Not so perfectly all the time, but enough. The origin was so cleverly left out of the first definition.

Thus, the head shake.

Militant militant militant...if it is so amusing to hear me say it..... I am not going to explain the word or myself anymore.



Of course, from an emotive standpoint what I said was seriously harsh. But no disrespect was meant, at all. Okay? There.

It was the Pavlov remark that really got me going. But then I guess you could tell.

Disrespect was taken, but now I'm letting it go....see?

I'm like the old monk guy walking with the young monk by the river. I set her down 10 miles ago.

So, to sum up, from a head shake, we were supposed to understand that classic had left out the word origins, which you were using as your definition instead of the definition currently in use.

I gotta tell ya, I'll admit it, I'm just not that intuitive.

Also, the Amazing Fucking Kreskin isn't that intuitive.

I didn't have to use intuition to know the definition. And I usually take into account the origins of words when I am using a current definition. That's just me......I didn't have to look it up. I used no psychic ability when I used the word as I knew it. I am so sorry if it bothers you when I actually know the defintion of a word I am using.

You are just as capable as anyone else to look up a word. It isn't a psychic ability. It's prior knowledge, that can even be cross-checked by google.

Whatever. You thought someone throwing a definition at me, as a check, was sufficient. I knew differently.

Get over it.

I have a knee jerk reaction when someone throws definitions at me I already know, to be cocky, when the word itself is broader than their cut and paste jobby.

It was partly a joke about soldiers being militant. Because it was supposed to be redundant. I can not intuit what others know and what they don't.

Kind of like you.

Okay, guys, settle down. We DO all realize the major issue here is one of misunderstanding rather than deliberate, malice-aforethought disrespect, right? I have to admit I was a bit put-off by Cicero's remark at first as well (no offense, Cic, just hear me out) but after the comment was explained, it made sense. Seems to me everyone's just jumping on everyone for a simple misunderstanding, and y'all need to take a deep breath, step back, and chill.

my two cents. For what it's worth.

Election year cellar.

The answer to your question should have been self evident. The article states that the Marines finished the anthem. They could have started it over again; but, didn't. I've not heard of a protocol that requires them to do so. Playing the anthem over a sound system is a different matter. One may reasonably expect it to be difficult to pick up precisely where the interruption left off depending on the audio media and who's controlling it (those positions can be outsourced). Replaying the anthem was most likely just a practical solution. For a different perspective, from a similar situation during an Olympic US gold medal ceremony, read this short CBSSports.com wire report and pay particular attention to the first reply to the article. ;)

We don't know if it was operator error; or, equipment failure. I concur that someone commendably stepped forward to get the job done; but, that took only ONE Marine. :eyebrow:

It was primarily camaraderie and remembrance figures into that more than you probably realize. When I went through US Special Forces training, unit history was taught and it was testable knowledge. Unit lineage, key people, exceptional missions, and the sacrifices previous members made were included. I even had to memorize the name of the first Special Forces Medal of Honor recipient of the Vietnam conflict [Captain Donlon]. A good example of unit camaraderie spanning time might come from the day that I, a next generation SFer, had Easter dinner with Colonel Donlon (SAA, follow the link). Remind me to tell you about that sometime. :cool:

True words.

I must admit, I wasn't happy with the Pavlov's dog comment. It suggests a mindlessness which I think is unfair to say the least. If you mean they are conditioned to respond in a particular way, well yes and no. I doubt they have an actual policy regarding how to return to an athem if it's been halted, but the army is a culture and those serving within it can be expected to respond in a manner appropriate to that culture. We are all culturally conditioned in many ways.

Why would soldiers in a desert, many miles from home, with their own internal culture and traditions, respond in the same way to an anthem, which for most us has little currency beyond its use in sports and national events?

On the word 'militant': I can see how the dictionary definition might give an unfair bent to Cicero's words, but frankly, I don;t see how it is not immediately apparent what the word's origins are, and how that makes it the appropriate word in this context. They are the military; they are by their choice to serve, and by their inculcation into a military culture, militant. The traditions that the military adhere to are necessarily 'militant', because they of the military.

Because that is their culture. It's basically an insular feeling of camaraderie and superiority, especially when many miles from home.

Exactly, so there's no reason to assume they'll react like one of us when we hear the national anthem. It means something different in that context, and to that internal culture.