Farewell General McChrystal

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yes, calling your boss, while in the military, disparaging names in the open public especially is a sign of a great military leader.

Got quotes?

Yep, right above

Interesting theories you have on what is considered insubordination.

Wrong, but interesting.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yes, calling your boss, while in the military, disparaging names in the open public especially is a sign of a great military leader.

Guess you never read the actual article, only others opinions of it.

Or you could provide the quotes where McChrystal said anything like you claim.

He has been asked the same more than once
Cant be done so he ignores the query

This whole issue is pretty prima facie; who isn't aware of the disparaging remarks made, I've cited a few above. Another 1-article cowboy. Remember, this was more about his career than his career-ending fuck ups; think outside the box every now and then.

THINKING will provide a clear context
Something that is not seen from you

This is about getting ones head out of the box, not thinking outside the box

And you still can not provide any comment made by McChrystal, cause there are none

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

His first slip up came when he said during an autumn review of the strategy in Afghanistan that he felt that the war would fail unless they were provided thousands of addition troops to tackle different sections of the country. This put additional pressure on the White House before Barack Obama had decided on a strategy.


"That's called insubbordination; undermining yhour superior's authority".

Weak even with your standards. Saying what you need is not insubordination.

Quote

Now, his career appears to be in jeopardy once again,for telling Rolling Stone that he was “disappointed” after his first meeting with Mr. Obama, and that the new US chief executive seemed intimidated by top military brass.

Notice which is in quotes and which is not....

You are not doing well here.

Quote

Last October, McChrystal was also involved in a public argument with Vice President Joe Biden over war strategy in Afghanistan. Biden had said that he hoped that the US would be able to adopt a narrow counterterrorism strategy. McChrystal responded to the comments made by Biden by saying that he believed that they were “short sighted.”


They means Biden and Obama, the administration. That isn't calling someone a name?

Biden != the President.

You have now struck out.

You claim to have been in the Military, but it is pretty clear you have no idea what you are talking about here.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

And you still can not provide any comment made by McChrystal, cause there are none

Right, which is also completely immaterial to the issue. He was present when the comments were made. He was allowed to proof read the piece before it went to press and was offered to make changes. He knew exactly what would happen and what he was doing. He wasn't caught by surprise, he actually gave a "heads up" just before the article went public.

The interesting part isn't if he actually said something himself. What is interesting is what would let him allow this to happen. What was he trying to accomplish.

There is no doubt in my mind that this was a "mistake". It was deliberate and I am sure was supposed to have some purpose.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

He was allowed to proof read the piece before it went to press and was offered to make changes.

You know, I can't seem to find any mention in the RS article where McChrystal proofread it - can you point it out to me?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Bates, in the "Morning Joe" interview, said that the magazine had fact-checked the piece over the previous week and that there were no objections from McChrystal before publication.

from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100622/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2759

Quote

McChrystal and his staff "became aware" that the Rolling Stone article would be controversial before it was published, Hastings told CNN Tuesday.

from http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/22/general.mcchrystal.obama.apology/index.html

Proof read may be too strong. But it sure sounds like he had the opportunity to retract and didn't.

[mnealtx 0]

Looks like McChrystal didn't, in fact, see the article before it ran, according to the editor:

Link

Quote

Rolling Stone Managing Editor Will Dana told TPM in an interview this morning that the fact-checking process for the magazine's profile of Gen. Stanley McChrystal went extremely smoothly and the magazine has "utter confidence and faith in the reporting."

Dana said that, contra a report in Politico, neither McChrystal nor anyone else was shown the article before it ran.

"We don't read the quotes back directly. If there's any assertion made that's factual in a quote, we check that independently, and we talk whenever possible with the person who said the quote to make sure they said that. We don't let them retract the quotes," Dana explains.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SkyDekker 1,465]

so we have a he said, she said about one small portion of my post. Doesn't take anything away from the rest.

I find it extremely hard to believe this was a mistake on the General's part.

[Andy9o8 3]

All this semantic sleight-of-hand is being used to smokescreen the reality of the situation, and it's the reality that got McChrystal canned:

McChrystal presided over a culture among his senior staff, emanating from himself on down, of disrespect and scorn toward the civilian leadership of the United States: the president, the president's civilian administration, the vice president, the Ambassador to Iraq, etc.

No amount of jerking-off with amateurish, intellectually-dishonest parsing of semantics changes that basic fact. And that basic fact is why McChrystal's out of his job today.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

I agree with you (wasn't that clear already?)

I just further believe that there was a reason why it played out like this from the General's perspective. I will likely never know what that reason is.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

I agree with you (wasn't that clear already?).

Yes; I was supporting your position.

[nanook 1]

Quote

All this semantic sleight-of-hand is being used to smokescreen the reality of the situation, and it's the reality that got McChrystal canned:

McChrystal presided over a culture among his senior staff, emanating from himself on down, of disrespect and scorn toward the civilian leadership of the United States: the president, the president's civilian administration, the vice president, the Ambassador to Iraq, etc.

No amount of jerking-off with amateurish, intellectually-dishonest parsing of semantics changes that basic fact. And that basic fact is why McChrystal's out of his job today.

This is by far the most accurate post on the situation in my opinion. Even in the lower NCO ranks, we are responsible for the culture of respect to our superiors and orders. This type of transgression is looked at as weak leadership traits and will get you replaced anywhere up and down your Chain of Command. There is no lack of up and coming talent to not risk chopping for unfavorable command environment.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

All this semantic sleight-of-hand is being used to smokescreen the reality of the situation, and it's the reality that got McChrystal canned:

McChrystal presided over a culture among his senior staff, emanating from himself on down, of disrespect and scorn toward the civilian leadership of the United States: the president, the president's civilian administration, the vice president, the Ambassador to Iraq, etc.

No amount of jerking-off with amateurish, intellectually-dishonest parsing of semantics changes that basic fact. And that basic fact is why McChrystal's out of his job today.

This is by far the most accurate post on the situation in my opinion. Even in the lower NCO ranks, we are responsible for the culture of respect to our superiors and orders. This type of transgression is looked at as weak leadership traits and will get you replaced anywhere up and down your Chain of Command. There is no lack of up and coming talent to not risk chopping for unfavorable command environment.

That what some of these geniuses in this thread don't get; you don't have to call your superior a stupid POS, merely suggesting he's incompetent is sufficient to get fired, demoted, etc.

And saying to biden:

Last October, McChrystal was also involved in a public argument with Vice President Joe Biden over war strategy in Afghanistan. Biden had said that he hoped that the US would be able to adopt a narrow counterterrorism strategy. McChrystal responded to the comments made by Biden by saying that he believed that they were “short sighted.”


He believed they were short sighted, means Biden and Obama to rerasonable people. See, the drones here on DZ.COM call out a veiled and obvious insult, yet telling the VP, "they are short sighted" calls for semantic denials since Obama's name wasn't specifically called. Any reasonable person will get it.

And this:

His first slip up came when he said during an autumn review of the strategy in Afghanistan that he felt that the war would fail unless they were provided thousands of addition troops to tackle different sections of the country. This put additional pressure on the White House before Barack Obama had decided on a strategy.


You don't undermine the CIC's decisions. This kind of candor must be made in private, NEVER TO THE PUBLIC.

If a lib military man said the same to GWB or Reagan, they would be crucified by the R's. Either way, in a nonpartisan sense, there is no wiggle room to even give a hint of impropriety or any kind of mutiny, NON WHATSO-FUCKING EVER, and that ass-clown did just that and has to go. Amazing how the conservatives feel all this patriotism and demand for rank until it's them on the floor, then fuck the rules. WHat a joke.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yes, calling your boss, while in the military, disparaging names in the open public especially is a sign of a great military leader.

Got quotes?

Yep, right above

Interesting theories you have on what is considered insubordination.

Wrong, but interesting.

From a guy who's never been in the military or to university, you even get the periphery of military protocol? Please.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yes, calling your boss, while in the military, disparaging names in the open public especially is a sign of a great military leader.

Guess you never read the actual article, only others opinions of it.

Or you could provide the quotes where McChrystal said anything like you claim.

He has been asked the same more than once
Cant be done so he ignores the query

This whole issue is pretty prima facie; who isn't aware of the disparaging remarks made, I've cited a few above. Another 1-article cowboy. Remember, this was more about his career than his career-ending fuck ups; think outside the box every now and then.

THINKING will provide a clear context
Something that is not seen from you

This is about getting ones head out of the box, not thinking outside the box

And you still can not provide any comment made by McChrystal, cause there are none

Any of these define military insubordination:

http://news.spreadit.org/...ling-stone-comments/

1) His first slip up came when he said during an autumn review of the strategy in Afghanistan that he felt that the war would fail unless they were provided thousands of addition troops to tackle different sections of the country. This put additional pressure on the White House before Barack Obama had decided on a strategy.


That's called insubbordination; undermining your superior's authority.

2) Now, his career appears to be in jeopardy once again, for telling Rolling Stone that he was “disappointed” after his first meeting with Mr. Obama, and that the new US chief executive seemed intimidated by top military brass.

Calling him intimidated is a name.

3) Last October, McChrystal was also involved in a public argument with Vice President Joe Biden over war strategy in Afghanistan. Biden had said that he hoped that the US would be able to adopt a narrow counterterrorism strategy. McChrystal responded to the comments made by Biden by saying that he believed that they were “short sighted.”

They means Biden and Obama, the administration. That isn't calling someone a name?


Actually, let me stand corrected. WHat the good McTurd did was called, "contempt toward officials."

“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

See, president or vice president, so his words to Biden were as qualifyable as if they were to Obama. Now you kids go home, you just had your ass handed to you.

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/56176

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

His first slip up came when he said during an autumn review of the strategy in Afghanistan that he felt that the war would fail unless they were provided thousands of addition troops to tackle different sections of the country. This put additional pressure on the White House before Barack Obama had decided on a strategy.


"That's called insubbordination; undermining yhour superior's authority".

Weak even with your standards. Saying what you need is not insubordination.

Quote

Now, his career appears to be in jeopardy once again,for telling Rolling Stone that he was “disappointed” after his first meeting with Mr. Obama, and that the new US chief executive seemed intimidated by top military brass.

Notice which is in quotes and which is not....

You are not doing well here.

Quote

Last October, McChrystal was also involved in a public argument with Vice President Joe Biden over war strategy in Afghanistan. Biden had said that he hoped that the US would be able to adopt a narrow counterterrorism strategy. McChrystal responded to the comments made by Biden by saying that he believed that they were “short sighted.”


They means Biden and Obama, the administration. That isn't calling someone a name?

Biden != the President.

You have now struck out.

You claim to have been in the Military, but it is pretty clear you have no idea what you are talking about here.

What McChrystal did is covered under Article 88 and is called "contempt toward officials."

“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Run along now, you used to be entertaining.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yes, calling your boss, while in the military, disparaging names in the open public especially is a sign of a great military leader.

Got quotes?

Yep, right above

Interesting theories you have on what is considered insubordination.

Wrong, but interesting.

You're right, wrong relationship to be insubordination. This is what it was under the UCMJ article 88. It was the equivalent, "contempt toward officials."

“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

It wasn't insubordination, but still a prosecutable offense for which he took the smart road and quit. Bye now.

[nanook 1]

Quote

That what some of these geniuses in this thread don't get; you don't have to call your superior a stupid POS, merely suggesting he's incompetent is sufficient to get fired, demoted, etc.

Yeah. . .
but I wasn't calling him McTurd. Chill out there.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

From a guy who's never been in the military

4 years active (USAF), 20 years providing direct communications support.

You were saying?

Quote

or to university

University of Texas alumnus, vs the Devrie Process Server Institute.

You were saying?

Quote

you even get the periphery of military protocol?

QED - see above.

Quote

Please.

Yes, please - DO quit trying to talk about the military like you know anything - you're already proven over and over again that you don't.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

That what some of these geniuses in this thread don't get; you don't have to call your superior a stupid POS, merely suggesting he's incompetent is sufficient to get fired, demoted, etc.

Yeah. . .
but I wasn't calling him McTurd. Chill out there.

Wasn't saying you were.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

From a guy who's never been in the military

Quote

4 years active (USAF), 20 years providing direct communications support.

You were saying?

Ya never seem to talk about it or your current job much, waasn't sure you had either. BTW, what do you do?

So if you have former military svs, why no understanding of military disrespect-based offenses to superiors? You should have known what McTurd did was, "contempt toward officials." Basically the officer's version of insubordination. Also, why no comment to this?

“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Kinda got shut down, huh? Maybe send DaVinci a think you for pushing the issue for an answer, making a few of you and yours look silly.

Quote

or to university

Quote

University of Texas alumnus, vs the Devrie Process Server Institute.

You were saying?

Now that I severly question. What major, what degree? Finished? I don't expect the truth here. BTW, BS justice, ASU.

Quote

you even get the periphery of military protocol?

Quote

QED - see above.

Reiterated, why no understanding that what McTurd did was, "contempt toward officials?" Why? It was the officer's version of insubordination. Riiiiight.

Quote

Please.

Quote

Yes, please - DO quit trying to talk about the military like you know anything - you're already proven over and over again that you don't.

Oh, how so? In your mind how do you conjure that? I actually had a real job in the weather, in the grease, not a cushy job talking on a radio in a room somewhere. We usually got girls for that job.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

From a guy who's never been in the military

Quote

4 years active (USAF), 20 years providing direct communications support.

You were saying?

Quote

Ya never seem to talk about it or your current job much, waasn't sure you had either. BTW, what do you do?

What part of 'direct communications support' gives you the problems?

Quote

So if you have former military svs, why no understanding of military disrespect-based offenses to superiors? You should have known what McTurd did was, "contempt toward officials." Basically the officer's version of insubordination. Also, why no comment to this?

“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Not agreeing with higher command doesn't equal insubordination. It doesn't equal 'disparaging words', either.

This is the same old "you don't agree with Obama so you must be a racist" crap that we've seen for the last 2 years translated to military terms.

Quote

Kinda got shut down, huh? Maybe send DaVinci a think you for pushing the issue for an answer, making a few of you and yours look silly.

Hardly. You've done a STELLAR job of showing everyone that you have no clue about what insubordination actually is or what the meaning of Art. 88 is.

Quote

Quote

or to university

Quote

University of Texas alumnus, vs the Devrie Process Server Institute.

You were saying?

Now that I severly question. What major, what degree? Finished? I don't expect the truth here. BTW, BS justice, ASU.

Major was EE, didn't graduate after the scholarship collapsed.

Quote

Quote

you even get the periphery of military protocol?

Quote

QED - see above.

Reiterated, why no understanding that what McTurd did was, "contempt toward officials?" Why? It was the officer's version of insubordination. Riiiiight.

No, it's not. An officer can disagree without it being insubordination or contempt.

Quote

Quote

Please.

Quote

Yes, please - DO quit trying to talk about the military like you know anything - you're already proven over and over again that you don't.

Oh, how so? In your mind how do you conjure that? I actually had a real job in the weather, in the grease, not a cushy job talking on a radio in a room somewhere. We usually got girls for that job.

You're batting about, oh, .000 on your ASSumptions - at least you're consistent.

I was EI (that's intallation - everything from ironwork to electrical and comms cabling), antenna contruction/cabling, tactical comms, satcom, telephone switch, data circuits. Doing the same for the support, now, although it's more desk time than install time.

That BS degree is helping you lots with being 'in the grease', isn't it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

From a guy who's never been in the military

Quote

4 years active (USAF), 20 years providing direct communications support.

You were saying?

Quote

Ya never seem to talk about it or your current job much, waasn't sure you had either. BTW, what do you do?

Quote

What part of 'direct communications support' gives you the problems?

I don't have a problem with anything, Mike. Just keep on with your office job, playing tough.

Quote

So if you have former military svs, why no understanding of military disrespect-based offenses to superiors? You should have known what McTurd did was, "contempt toward officials." Basically the officer's version of insubordination. Also, why no comment to this?

“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Quote

Not agreeing with higher command doesn't equal insubordination. It doesn't equal 'disparaging words', either.

As I CLEARLY ILLUSTRATED, insubordination isn't charged against officers, the charge is "contempt toward officials." It is the equivalent to insubordination for officers. Either you didn't read what I wrote or you just can't understand.

Furthermore, disagreeing isn't the issue, the issue is this: McChrystal responded to the comments made by Biden by saying that he believed that they were “short sighted.”


Calling a superior, in this case at least VP Biden, "short sighted" does qualify as contempt toward officials. Would McCrystal meth have resigned otherwise? Is he a fighter or a pussy? He's a fighter and if he had a chance he would have fought rather than bowed and retired. Regardless of that, you cannot publicly call the VP, short sighted w/o being considered guilty for contempt toward officials per UCMJ Art 88. So instead of this game of hide the sausage as per, "disagreeing with superiors" let's come to the reality that publicly calling Biden, "short sighted" is the very least of the issues here.

The rest of your cronies apparently have the sense to walk away from this thread, I admire your tenacity, it's just starting to look desperate.

Quote

This is the same old "you don't agree with Obama so you must be a racist" crap that we've seen for the last 2 years translated to military terms.

Nice strawman, this is clearly a case of calling the VP, "short sighted." Try to stay on track and quit denying the truth.

Quote

Kinda got shut down, huh? Maybe send DaVinci a think you for pushing the issue for an answer, making a few of you and yours look silly.

Quote

Hardly. You've done a STELLAR job of showing everyone that you have no clue about what insubordination actually is or what the meaning of Art. 88 is.

One more time, an officer can't be charged with insubordination as per my research, it's called contempt toward officials and once again an excerpt from Art 88: “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Quote

Quote

or to university

Quote

University of Texas alumnus, vs the Devrie Process Server Institute.

You were saying?

Now that I severly question. What major, what degree? Finished? I don't expect the truth here. BTW, BS justice, ASU.

Quote

Major was EE, didn't graduate after the scholarship collapsed.

So you attended for 1 or 2 semesters and call yourself alumni

Quote

Quote

you even get the periphery of military protocol?

Quote

QED - see above.

Reiterated, why no understanding that what McTurd did was, "contempt toward officials?" Why? It was the officer's version of insubordination. Riiiiight.

Quote

No, it's not. An officer can disagree without it being insubordination or contempt.

Disagreeing and calling someone short sighted are very different. Maybe in the Texas handbook they are one in the same, but the rest of the civilized world recognizes that as utter contempt. Seriously, you claim to have been in the AF, could you see calling your superior, short sighted as he issues commands? No sit down and quit looking silly.

Quote

Quote

Please.

Quote

Yes, please - DO quit trying to talk about the military like you know anything - you're already proven over and over again that you don't.

Oh, how so? In your mind how do you conjure that? I actually had a real job in the weather, in the grease, not a cushy job talking on a radio in a room somewhere. We usually got girls for that job.

Quote

You're batting about, oh, .000 on your ASSumptions - at least you're consistent.

I was EI (that's intallation - everything from ironwork to electrical and comms cabling), antenna contruction/cabling, tactical comms, satcom, telephone switch, data circuits. Doing the same for the support, now, although it's more desk time than install time.

I don't really care. BTW, what do you do now, never see you brag of your vocation. Probably on disability or something.

Quote

That BS degree is helping you lots with being 'in the grease', isn't it?

I do what I have to do. All these turds assuming I'm on welfare is laughable, considering some of them are probably on some form of welfare and those who work have beautiful manicured fingernails.

Now see if you can defend that publicly (or privately for that matter) calling the VP, short sighted is not contempt toward officials.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Disagreeing and calling someone short sighted are very different.

Calling someone shortsighted and calling someone's *COMMENTS* shortsighted are very different.

Quote

Maybe in the Texas handbook they are one in the same, but the rest of the civilized world recognizes that as utter contempt.

Maybe in the DeVrie handbook it is utter contempt, but the rest of the civilized world recognizes the difference between people and comments.

Quote

Seriously, you claim to have been in the AF, could you see calling your superior, short sighted as he issues commands?

Once again you show your lack of knowledge - comments aren't commands, Lucky.

Quote

No sit down and quit looking silly.

Yes, please do.

Quote

BTW, what do you do now, never see you brag of your vocation.

Again, what part of "direct communications support" gives you the problem? For someone that doesn't care what my job is, you're certainly interested in it.

Quote

Probably on disability or something.

I'm sorry to hear that - I hope your therapist clears you back to work soon - we know how lost you are without that to brag on.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Right to the point:

McChrystal responded to the comments made by Biden by saying that he believed that they were “short sighted.”

UCMJ Art 88:
“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”


Again: McChrystal responded to the comments made by Biden by saying that he believed that they were “short sighted.”

That is considered contemptous in military protocol, esp to say them to the entire world. If said in private, it could be let go upon the discretion of the superior. I really, really care that you don't consider them contemptuous, it's just that military protocol does consider them contemptuous. Now do as the rest of the neo-cons and run along; you've been beaten here.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contempt

Main Entry: con·tempt
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈtem(p)t\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin contemptus, from contemnere
Date: 14th century

1 a : the act of despising : the state of mind of one who despises : disdain b : lack of respect or reverence for something

2 : the state of being despised

3 : willful disobedience to or open disrespect of a court, judge, or legislative body