Banished from mil.com for 20 days!

#21
Who's this Fletch0000_0?

He seems to have borrowed my old signature.

Have people no original thought?
 
#22
Iolis said:
What an extraordinary site!

So much for free expression, freely expressed in the land of the free!

In all fairness though, I have not seen (unless I have been less than diligent) any of our American friends on the multi-national forum or elsewhere saying rude things about our Commander in Chief, Her Majesty, and I wonder how we would feel if any of them did!
I appreciate your manners. The world needs more mannerly conduct. Thank you.
 
#23
Fcuking hell, what a bunch of choppers. And that mod sounds like a right geek.

Contact him in 20 days for "reinstatement". Fcuking hell, talk about unable to let go.
 
#24
#25
Iolis said:
What an extraordinary site!

So much for free expression, freely expressed in the land of the free!

In all fairness though, I have not seen (unless I have been less than diligent) any of our American friends on the multi-national forum or elsewhere saying rude things about our Commander in Chief, Her Majesty, and I wonder how we would feel if any of them did!
I can see what you're getting at, Iolis, and I agree with you to a certain extent. But the point is that nobody criticises The Queen because she's such an exemplary figure. They may, from time to time, ridicule the fact that the UK still has a monarchy, but that's not a reflection on Her Maj. Indeed, the incredible dedication and sense of duty exhibited by all of the Royals towards the Armed Forces is beyond reproach. They've all done far more than enough to earn true respect.

However, Bush the Berk is something completely different. It's like comparing apples and pears (or more aptly, like comparing diamonds and dogshite). The man has no interests outside his own. How Septics can stomach the cünt is a complete mystery to me. And there's simply no way I could even think of respecting such a gormless, gurning buffoon. In fact, I'd like to meet him personally, just so I could get close enough to drop the nut on the useless fücker!

MsG
 
#26
Bugsy said:
Iolis said:
What an extraordinary site!

So much for free expression, freely expressed in the land of the free!

In all fairness though, I have not seen (unless I have been less than diligent) any of our American friends on the multi-national forum or elsewhere saying rude things about our Commander in Chief, Her Majesty, and I wonder how we would feel if any of them did!
I can see what you're getting at, Iolis, and I agree with you to a certain extent. But the point is that nobody criticises The Queen because she's such an exemplary figure. They may, from time to time, ridicule the fact that the UK still has a monarchy, but that's not a reflection on Her Maj. Indeed, the incredible dedication and sense of duty exhibited by all of the Royals towards the Armed Forces is beyond reproach. They've all done far more than enough to earn true respect.

However, Bush the Berk is something completely different. It's like comparing apples and pears (or more aptly, like comparing diamonds and dogshite). The man has no interests outside his own. How Septics can stomach the cünt is a complete mystery to me. And there's simply no way I could even think of respecting such a gormless, gurning buffoon. In fact, I'd like to meet him personally, just so I could get close enough to drop the nut on the useless fücker!

MsG
Yes, but to all serving members, he's the boss. The same can be said of Clinton and Reagan. In a few years, when he's left office, he'll be fair game to those who wear the US uniform. I'd just let it go. I think Virgil has mentioned mil.com quite a bit (and his view on Bush's abilities have been less than flattering)

Also, mil.com is not simply the US military's equivilent of ARRSE. It's not meant as a "steam release" to the degree this place is, and it cators to a certain audience (as does ARRSE).
 
#27
Chief_Joseph said:
putteesinmyhands said:
Actually, I can kind of see their point. They compare POTUS (was he a pilot a long time ago, mentioned in the Bible?) with Liz, rather than with Tone. We'd probably have a go at one of theirs making discourteous remarks about the Supreme Commander of the British Army, Empress of what's left of the Commonwealth etc.
This is true, and something that does need to be made note of. Of course it's made easy for you becuase the Queen is such a likable figure anyway :wink:
theres a big diff between the positions of POTUS and Liz.

Liz occupys her position as symbolic head of state with no executive power.
she and her family have a job, if they dont perform or upset our elected assemblys they get the sack,(Edward 8th) or thier head chopped off,(Chuck numbar uno) depending on how much they have pissed off the people.

unlike bush who is all powerful, who is trying to extend his powers without oversight from the elected assembly, and of course claims to hear voices in his head from god telling him what to do.

if Tony the executive head of the UK tried to consolidate power without recource to the electrote, and detained hundreds of people for years on end without trial like bush and his cronies, i personally would join the resistance.

'V'
 
#28
Corporal said:
I question the sanity of anyone who goes to Mil.com. Bunch of *******.
Seconded. I used the link to wander about the rest of the forum. Every forum has, I suppose, need of a NAAFI BAR to cater for erm er cater for those who need one but that place is just one big collection of NAAFI Bars.
 
#29
Nehustan said:
the_matelot said:
tomahawk6 said:
Lucky you only got 20 days. Could have been permanent.
And that would be a bad thing? It's a fcuking gash site.
I'm hoping this was humour? Tomahawk, you were joking, right?
Actually I was serious. The mod's there and on a couple of other sites I know of would have banned him permanently. Our mil sites tend to attract our leftist anti-military types and the mods make short work of them. Is it fair, possibly not, but those forums are populated by very committed people who take pride in the military and President Bush. You may not like him, but its unwise to bash Bush on US mil sites. Now if you are out to stir the pot a bit which is why I suspect you went to mil.com then your tenure there will be brief. If you actually want to have an exchange of ideas on military subjects then you will be cordially welcomed. Trolls are no more welcome at mil.com than they are here. Can you imagine that some folks here at arrse actually thought I was a troll. Go figure. :D
 
#30
tomahawk6 said:
. If you actually want to have an exchange of ideas on military subjects then you will be cordially welcomed.
And just how are you going to 'exchange ideas' when everyone is furiously agreeing with each other? Or are some military subjects 'off limits'?
 
#31
Attacking the President is not discussing a military subject. Discussing patrolling, MOUT, the squad in the attack are subjects where all views are welcome. Stray into the political and you run the risk of mod action.
 
#32
I started reading the linked thread on mil.com and quickly became so bored I thought I might have to eat my own head.

Some yanks seem to think that open critiscism of a Government is unpatriotic. They don't understand that it is the sign of a healthy democracy, and the very thing that they should defend.
 
#33
tomahawk6 said:
Attacking the President is not discussing a military subject. Discussing patrolling, MOUT, the squad in the attack are subjects where all views are welcome. Stray into the political and you run the risk of mod action.
So much for freedom of speech. Bush is a grade A draft dodging, convinced drink driver who has sent thousands of troops to their death in a misguided war to avenge his fathers shortcomings who shouldn't have been elected in the first place but got through on a technicality and having a brother as the governor of Florida.

Apart from that, I don't see why anyone would want to have a pop at the shaved chimp.
 
#34
President Bush is head of the Military and is therefore de facto a 'military subject'. Are you saying he is now infallible? How can one not discuss his actions, right and wrong, as a legitmate military subject?

Sorry just don't buy it.
 
#35
tomahawk6 said:
Nehustan said:
the_matelot said:
tomahawk6 said:
Lucky you only got 20 days. Could have been permanent.
And that would be a bad thing? It's a fcuking gash site.
I'm hoping this was humour? Tomahawk, you were joking, right?
Actually I was serious. The mod's there and on a couple of other sites I know of would have banned him permanently. Our mil sites tend to attract our leftist anti-military types and the mods make short work of them. Is it fair, possibly not, but those forums are populated by very committed people who take pride in the military and President Bush. You may not like him, but its unwise to bash Bush on US mil sites. Now if you are out to stir the pot a bit which is why I suspect you went to mil.com then your tenure there will be brief. If you actually want to have an exchange of ideas on military subjects then you will be cordially welcomed. Trolls are no more welcome at mil.com than they are here. Can you imagine that some folks here at arrse actually thought I was a troll. Go figure. :D
I, too, am a little puzzled by this one, T6. When I referred to Dubya as “Bush the Berk”, it was from sheer habit. It wasn’t meant as a wind-up (funny that nobody pulled me up on “Phoney Tony”).

It appears that the difference between mil.com and ARRSE is that the majority of ex and serving personnel on this site (including the Mods) have retained their critical faculties, whereas on mil.com anybody who regards Bush the Berk as less than sainted is guilty of sedition of the highest order and even the death sentence is too mild for such a transgression. Just as a thought; the Nazi party in Germany had much the same sort of beginning – which is rather unsettling, to say the least.

So my question is: how could such a totally incompetent, shallow and boorish poseur maintain this almost mythological status within the Septic Armed Forces? The only thing he’s really proved is that if you continually fail in every business endeavour but your daddy’s loaded, you can be as thick as a whale’s foreskin and still become president.

The Wops allow me to criticise their politicians; the Krauts do to, and even the Brits (on ARRSE) give me a comparable leeway and disagree with me or not. In all these countries, there are people who are willing to criticise, but also willing to praise. But this, it appears, isn’t possible on mil.com. Why?

There can be no real discussion if all opposing views are ruthlessly suffocated from the get-go and only agreement is allowed.

I have nothing but abject contempt for a dangerous clown like Bush the Berk, but I’d also include Phoney Tony and the bung-grabber supreme Bertie Ahern in that category. I simply cannot respect, in any way, such dreadful examples of the human race. So why aren’t I allowed to say that on mil.com? Why is mil.com trying to create an alternative (Bush the Berk) reality?

MsG
 
#36
what a spastic website - our own Bugsy sounds off about the boss-man, and gets a load of bizarre comments about English women and fish and chips

what happened to freedom of speech?

they can come on here and slag off the Queen if they want - they may get shedloads of abuse in return, but no-one's going to ban them for doing it
 
#37
That site makes me yawn..... BORING springs to mind!
 
#38
As many have discovered, most if not all American civilian military websites, do not tolerate polictical discussions, especially negative comments on leaders, foreign policy, etc. and other purely polictical matters.

These military websites were not designed to discuss politics, there are many American websits that welcome, such discussion. The military websites were designed to discuss military subjects and matters.

As someone pointed out here on this board, such behavior is quickly reacted to by the Mods, on these boards. Why? If this behavior was tolerated by the Mods, the board would be quickly turned in to a vehicle for the 'New' left liberals, and Bush haters, who love to bash the countries leaders, foreign policies and the military, etc. They like to turn the existing discussions, into flame wars and use personal attacks on other users.

As I said, there are many boards and forums, on the internet that invite this type of discussion, I see no need to turn boards and forums on a military board into such crap.

If one wants to discuss these types of things, there are as I said, many boards for such discussions. IMHO, the person that was banned, knew very well, that such BS would not be tolerated there and was attempting to bait people and get a rise out of them .... well you did!

Actually, I find Mil.com is pretty boring, for many reasons; however, not for the reason being discussed here.

I get enough polictial propaganda, from the media, the 'new' left liberals, Bush haters, etc. I really don't need to read such trash on a board supposedly set-up for military subjects, etc.

This type of behavior and discussion is tolerated on ARRSE and seemingly encouraged. Many here love to bash America and some seem to actually hate, both our Country and its citizens. I notice many military subjects here, are eventually turned into slags on our leaders, foreign policies, etc.

I have no doubt that if your country had an earthquake tomorrow a small majority of the users here would find a way to blame President Bush or the Americans.

If this is ARRSE's policy, thats fine, I can and do live, with it. Sometimes I do address some comments; however, most of the time I just ignore such behavior and chalk it up to Brit behavior and Brit's strange sense of humor, etc.
 
#39
Trip_Wire said:
I have no doubt that if your country had an earthquake tomorrow a small majority of the users here would find a way to blame President Bush or the Americans.
What utter bollox. The French would get the blame instead! :D

Trip_Wire said:
If this is ARRSE's policy, thats fine, I can and do live, with it. Sometimes I do address some comments; however, most of the time I just ignore such behavior and chalk it up to Brit behavior and Brit's strange sense of humor, etc.
Having spent several months working in a US Military Cell as the sole 'Brit' (and I'm from Southern Ireland), I can safely say that a good proportion of the US Military have got NO sense of humour. Cracking people to work with but NO sense of humour.

Oh and we can spell, unlike the spams..... :wink:
 
#40
This type of behavior and discussion is tolerated on ARRSE and seemingly encouraged. Many here love to bash America and some seem to actually hate, both our Country and its citizens. I notice many military subjects here, are eventually turned into slags on our leaders, foreign policies, etc.
But we love to bash our country, our own leaders and our foreign policy too!

If any overseas visistors want to join in and have a go at the UK's crime rates, health services, imperialistic adventures and the Celestial Navigator too, then be our guest!

PS. You can even be rude about the Royal Family if you want. :)
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top