BUT WHAT’s totally wrong with your test is that the running dog nitwits on our side do crap posts all the time. Take Chaos or similar low-middlebrow Limbaugh listeners.

And alphie actually had a decent point (once I got over my reaction to his over-terseness) that your first “error” is really the weakest. And really more of an error of rhetoric than knowledge of the subject (an error none the less, but still an insight to note differences.)

FREE ALPHIE!!!!

link

BTW, the only reason I think the STB story is important is because of TNR’s mishandling of it. They should have retracted the stories months ago. After the Glass thing, and Lee Siegel, and that other guy whose name I forgot, I’d expect TNR to be super-scrupulous about the accuracy of their content and the reliability of their contributors.

I downloaded the three PDFs from Drudge at 1:53PM CDT 10-24-2007, and still have them.
3.pdf is 3,039,940 bytes in size.
Its properties (as displayed by Adobe Reader have no creation timestamp, and a mod timestamp of 8/24/2007 9:40:51AM.
The contents (indicated by page numbers of the PDF doc) are:
1-2 Memorandum for Commander, signed by William J. Johnson
3-7 Memorandum for Commander, signed by John D. Cross
8-9 Table of Contents
10 Report of Proceedings, DA1574

My guess as to why Drudge took them down: 3.pdf contains the names and unit affiliations of the soldiers interviewed by the investigators.

I may be wrong, it has been awhile, but I think I am correct. I believe that the Commanding officer usually has the discretion to make a MOR permanent, or, as in this case, temporary, but that calling it a Memorandum of Conern versus a Memorandum of Record does not mean anything. What matters is what the Commanding officer decides to do with it.

I could be wrong about them being the same exact thing, but I believe I am correct that people are using the two terms interchangably talking about this specific document. Also, it would make no sense for the acknowledgment page to be a “Memorandum of Record” while the document itself is a “Memorandum of Concern.” It’s not like the acknowledgment page is going to be separately placed in someone’s record w/o the main document. That would make no sense and have no meaning.

Thus, my guess is that it was originally going to be called a “Memorandum of Record” and when the change to “Memorandum of Concern” was made, the typist did not change the heading on the acknowledgment page, the same way typist failed to change the date on the acknowledgment page.

But, ultimately, it makes no difference. The documents have been identified by the Army as legit, and even TNR does not claim they are not authentic. So, TNR’s defenders, such as alphie, are really grasping at straws to avoid the truth in this matter.

The difference, for example, between an LOC & LOR, is that an LOC is removed from your record during the next PCS, but an LOR is forever… but the issuer can pull it.

I know where of I speak, having had these impinge upon my personage [grin*2]

- martin.musculus

- adapted from Robbie Burns,
Up an Waun Them a’ Jamie