All Things Socks (merged)

[j_drews105]

Very good point.. kitchen vs mess.

this is true. the rule i posted before allowing socks or no socks was for the jr ranks mess. i posted that because it's the only rule i could find. the only rules i've seen for the dining mess are posted outside that mess. in my interpretation, and the interpretation of anyone else with logical sense, would allow for shoes without socks.

You don't know the rules and the NCO is enforcing them. Get off your *** and read the Base Standing Orders/ Routine Orders.

my point is that the NCO doesn't know the rules and was making them up because that's what he feels the rules should be. the rules posted outside the dining hall contradict what he thinks. now if it is in the BSO's, then i'm a tool. but i don't think it is, and he never mentioned that it was. i'm going to have a read through them.

---------------------------

Wearing shoes without socks in unhygenic? Not at all.
I can see why they want people to wear socks with their sandals. But with shoes, why?

Do they check everyone's combat boots upon entry to make sure they are wearing socks? No.

This is more about principle than anything. Considering I've worn the same shoes without socks into that dining hall at least 30 times this summer, and one duty nco decides it's not allowed is what pisses me off.

Thank you to the posters on here that have a level head. Too many people on here internet-jack others when they merely ask questions. I find that humourous.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I find that humourous.

As we do you.

 

[Jammer]

Perhaps you might take the the time to READ all relavant Base Orders....if you're not satisfied with that, take a trot over to see a PMed tech...(feel free the weigh in). Other than that, just do as your told by the duty dude or don't eat in the mess.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Do they check everyone's combat boots upon entry to make sure they are wearing socks? . . . . . .

Don't give them ideas!  The next thing you know, there's a ggggeneral hiding behind the potted plants making sure you're wearing the correct underwear.

 

[Jammer]

...or checking that your socks in fact do match.

 

[aesop081]

i'm a tool.

I suspect this is the case but, i will offer a simple piece of advice: Pick your battles.

 

[j_drews105]

I suspect this is the case but, i will offer a simple piece of advice: Pick your battles.

Agreeing to leave after asking why, when the rules outside the dining hall state socks are only required for sandals, isn't much of a battle.

If the crutch the duty NCO chooses to rest on is to try to threaten me by saying he can bring it up with the RSM, I will gladly accept that.
He was trying to use it as a scare tactic. I'm pretty confident he won't even bring it up with the RSM. After I read the BSO's, I may bring it up my chain of command myself.

 

[Pusser]

I suspect this is the case but, i will offer a simple piece of advice: Pick your battles.

I would agree for the most part.  On the other hand, there are many examples in the CF where rules get out of hand (call it "rule creep" if you will) and things get incredibly asinine as each level of authority decides to add its own interpretation and "clarification" of the original intent.  Sometimes somebody has to stand up and say this is stupid and should be changed.  Note that the OP is not defying an order.  He did as he was told at the time.  He is questioning and researching the reasoning behind an apparent policy that may  not actually exist anywhere other than in a particularly zealous duty NCO's mind.  There is nothing wrong with questioning policies, as long as it is done properly.  I see nothing in the OP's postings to indicate he is doing anything to the contrary. 

I think the OP makes a valid point and perhaps it is that duty NCO who should have picked his battles.

 

[aesop081]

After I read the BSO's, I may bring it up my chain of command myself.

Hey, whatever floats your boat. You can make a huge deal out of this if you like. Or you could just move on to more important things.

"The toes you step on today might be connected to the *** you'll have to kiss tomorow".

I see nothing in the OP's postings to indicate he is doing anything to the contrary. 

This may or may not be, as he himself is unaware of what the rules actualy are. All that being said, sometimes it not worth creating a shitstorm over socks. Its sometimes better to just smile and nod, you might want something ( usualy at a much later time) from the people you piss off in the process. Memories tend to be long.

I'm all for rocking the boat and standing up to stupid rules, i've made a career of it. But i always ask myself what its worth before i do it.

 

[Pusser]

This may or may not be, as he himself is unaware of what the rules actualy are. All that being said, sometimes it not worth creating a shitstorm over socks. Its sometimes better to just smile and nod, you might want something ( usualy at a much later time) from the people you piss off in the process. Memories tend to be long.

I'm all for rocking the boat and standing up to stupid rules, i've made a career of it. But i always ask myself what its worth before i do it.

Fair point.

 

[Franko]

Agreeing to leave after asking why, when the rules outside the dining hall state socks are only required for sandals, isn't much of a battle.

If the crutch the duty NCO chooses to rest on is to try to threaten me by saying he can bring it up with the RSM, I will gladly accept that.
He was trying to use it as a scare tactic. I'm pretty confident he won't even bring it up with the RSM. After I read the BSO's, I may bring it up my chain of command myself.

Maybe it isn't quite clear enough to you there Pte.

The Duty NCO IS the Base RSM's representative when placed in that position. He is not threatening you. He is enforcing a directive one of which I've known about for the better part of 23 years.

I've ejected troops for doing the same and also wearing PT strip, wife beaters, unshaven, flip flops, wearing earphones, wearing hats etc etc.

If this happened when I had the duty, you could be rest assured the Base RSM and the Base Duty Officer would receive the facts from the Duty NCO, along with any and all comments from the individual.

If you were in my CoC and you brought it up you'd be receiving some extras for wasting my time and being condescending to a superior.

Regards

 

[OldSolduer]

Can one of us make this soldier shut his trap?> Jeeeeezzz :rage:

 

[j_drews105]

The Duty NCO IS the Base RSM's representative when placed in that position. He is not threatening you. He is enforcing a directive one of which I've known about for the better part of 23 years.

I've ejected troops for doing the same and also wearing PT strip, wife beaters, unshaven, flip flops, wearing earphones, wearing hats etc etc.

what you fail to consider is that this was unlikely the directive from the RSM. it was something the duty nco felt was the directive.

ya pt gear, flips, hats, etc. are all quite standard reasons not to be allowed in, and in fact they are even included in the rules. shoes without socks is not one of the directives, which is why i am pissed off.

i'm done with you people on here. you turn a simple question about whether socks are required with shoes into a huge tirade. get a life. go outside and enjoy the weekend rather than constantly trolling this forum.

 

[OldSolduer]

what you fail to consider is that this was unlikely the directive from the RSM. it was something the duty nco felt was the directive.

ya pt gear, flips, hats, etc. are all quite standard reasons not to be allowed in, and in fact they are even included in the rules. shoes without socks is not one of the directives, which is why i am pissed off.

i'm done with you people on here. you turn a simple question about whether socks are required with shoes into a huge tirade. get a life. go outside and enjoy the weekend rather than constantly trolling this forum.

Are you still here? I'm glad you're done....check your in box. You can't take simple direction.....I'm sure I'd trust you with a C7 next to me....not.

Good bye and good riddance.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

i'm done with you people on here. you turn a simple question about whether socks are required with shoes into a huge tirade. get a life. go outside and enjoy the weekend rather than constantly trolling this forum.

You're joking right? You asked, were told, and it was YOU who couldn't follow direction or let it go. Go look in a mirror. I don't see a long career of service in your future, thank goodness.

Go take your own advice. Sign off and go outside.

 

[Maxadia]

Honestly, this is what you have to do right now?  Complain about socks?


Maybe it's me being older and cranky, but I'd be running you until you couldn't speak the word "socks".  Some senior citizen thought about you not having enough to do right now.....and you're accusing US of being trolls.  :facepalm:

 

[the 48th regulator]

Hey,

I have a serious question.  What about those really short sports socks, are they acceptable?

dileas

tess

 

[j_drews105]

Hey,

I have a serious question.  What about those really short sports socks, are they acceptable?

depends on who the duty nco is. with 99% of duty nco's they are acceptable. with 1% of duty nco's they are not.

 

[Maxadia]

99% of junior officers  are reasonable. 1% of junior officers they are not.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Strike]

Agreeing to leave after asking why, when the rules outside the dining hall state socks are only required for sandals, isn't much of a battle.

The reason the sock thing is likely stated wrt sandals is because most people don't wear socks with sandals.  Much the same reason why they don't specifically state that you have to wear socks with shoes...because MOST people already do this.

Using your same argument, I guess I could conceivably go in to the mess wearing a sheer top that is see-through depending on how the light hits, without a bra.  After all, i bet the regs at the door don't say I have to wear one, right?  Can I get away with walking around without a bra under my clothes under normal circumstances?  You bet.  But would it be appropriate in this case?  Most certainly not.

(And for the record, I would NEVER wear a see-through top without said undergarment, so don't anyone think of asking for photographic proof!)

Seriously, use some common sense!