military entitlement  

I find this whole kind of thing smacks of severe insecurity, on both sides frankly.  I've got 22 yrs flying in the military and almost as much in the civilian world.  The simple truth is there are just as many lousy pilots and just as many outstanding pilots on both sides of the "training" coin.

That said, two things have stuck with me during my civilian career.  One was the civilian trained pilot who tried telling me military trained pilots were "more dangerous" than he and his fellow civilian trained pilots.  When I tried to explain to him it wasn't that we were more "dangerous," but that we were exposed to a much more varied envelope of flying experiences, and thus had a bigger comfort margin than he probably did, he was having none of it.  Try as I might, I just couldn't get him to see there might be truth in that statement.  

The other was the pilot who needed to tell me that he was a better pilot than me because he was Robinson "rated" (I swear to God, that was his word!) and I wasn't.  I tried to explain to him that there was no such thing as a Robinson "rating," but there was an SFAR (73) that regulated what could and could NOT be done while training and flying an R-22 or R-44.  And, that didn't constitue a "rating" just special rules due to the design of that model of aircraft.  I pointed out that no other helicopter design or model had a special section of the FARs to regulate what could or could not be done with them; and when the Army could have chosen to go with Robinsons for their IERW training wwhen they decided to retire the TH-67s but went with a much more expensive helicopter, he just got angry.  

I don't know what to really make of either guy, except to think there was some insecurity in there somewhere.