Hi,

I received the following suggestion/request from a fellow alum:
__________________________________________________________
"" There were many who served as DOD employees, and even some who served as civilians in combat zones ( some were known as "tech reps"), while others served along side troops but dressed as civilians. I recognize this is NOT the same as being "in the military" in the strictest sense, but are those who served in secret ( such as for the CIA) destined to go unrecognized for their service?

Even though, I am reluctant to make a suggestion that would result in extra work for someone,I would like to offer this idea.( I will even volunteer to lend whatever assistance I can provide.)

What would you think of adding a few icons and a brief key explaining them. Specifically, I think many would enjoy ( I know I would) seeing after each individuals name in the class list one or more additional icons such as:

1. Nurse...icon undetermined, unless the military symbol were used
2. MD.....either just that or a caduceus
3. PHD
4. Attorney
5. Police Officer
6. Fireman
7. DOD.....Dep't of Defense
8. NASA
9. Teacher
10. Professor
11. Author, etc.
12. year retired

What do you think? Bad idea, OK idea, not worth the effort, redundant since it may already be possible to deduce if the entire "bio" is read. It would provide ,at a glance, a capsule view of what the class did professionally. I am interested in your thoughts, please reply if you have time. ""

__________________________________________________________________
It may be the easy way out, but I promised that I would put pass this idea on to "the powers that be", so would appreciate any comments that I may pass back to this 'good-that-he-is participating in the Website' Classmate.

Thanking you ahead of time for your comments,
Blessing, N

While I appreciate the good intent here, it seems to me that there are two basic problems.

First, there would be no end to the requests to include anyones favorite area as a new icon. There are hundreds of valuable services that could be recognized and who is going to be the judge and jury on what is added and what is not "worthy".

Second, I don't think we want to water down the intent to keep the military service as a very special recognition. It is singled out now, but could be one of many if this approach is taken.

I personally would rather read the profiles of the folks and get a sense of their careers that way.

Well said, Howard. I totally agree with your response.

There will be an ICON SYSTEM coming up this fall. You will be able to add your own icons for any group you want. These icons won't be associated with the "Military" question, but can be associated with any of your other Profile Generator questions. For example, you can have an icon for "Cheerleader", another for "Football", another for "Basketball", etc.

I think that this Icon System should fit your need very well.

Kyle Erickson wrote:

I agree Kyle, as long as it is an "Option". Too many icons/catgories could become a very cluttered screen in my opinion. Also, having 20 years military myself, and recognizing that there were many others in civilian capacity in the combat zone; it still remains that the Military has a very special place. I think reading the Profile is a nice thing that anyone should do often.

I agree Howard.

Brad, Kyle, you might feel the need to delete this, and I would understand, but I felt the need to respond to the following remark.

"I recognize this is NOT the same as being "in the military" in the strictest sense, but are those who served in secret ( such as for the CIA) destined to go unrecognized for their service?"

"strictest sense, my derriere"! I would venture to guess that "person" posing the question to the admin did not serve in the military. It doesn't matter in which branch of the military one served, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, nothing is equal to that service and should not be in any way equated to it as has been suggested. In other quarters, even service in the Peace Corps, etc., has been equated with military service.

DOD civilians making 3, 4, 5 times as much as military personnel, other civilians pulling in tens of thousands more than military personnel, some even far more for being in danger areas, do not equate to military service. I was one of those civilians and was well paid for my work unlike our military men and women.

CIA, only "wannabes" and clerks/typists would talk about being CIA. Real CIA operatives would not.

Other icons, as suggested, might be a nice idea but to back handedly equate civilian jobs with military service is an insult to every one who ever wore a military uniform.

We very rarely delete things here unless it's in some fashion deragatory or simply inaccurate. You're certainly entitled to your "my derriere" opinion.

I get to play the politician card here because in the end every Admin gets to make the decisions he or she feels are best for their site. If you haven't already done so check out this thread regarding the upcoming Make Your Own Icon System.

When this launches Admins can do whatever they want. I suspect when this is done we'll probably also put in some commonly used icons that people might like to turn on or off. Still, what icons to use and how best to use them will be up to each Admin here.

Thanks Brad! I have no problem with the icons, actually think it's a good idea, it's just when someone wants to equate civilian service with military service that gets me on my hobby horse.

And "long live the CIA", our unsung heroes, but that's the way it has to be.

Ditto...I think icons for every type of occupation will start to clutter your profiles. It's fun to read what everyone became after graduation.
The Icons aren't important.
The Military should be recognized..most CIA agents are gonna toot their own horns.
I luv a good debate!!!!