Banished from mil.com for 20 days!

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
Trip_Wire said:
Cutaway:

I think you are beating a dead horse here.
If by that you mean that I'm unlikely to get an answer here, then I'm sure you're correct, although I thought that you of all people might be able to explain the reason.

Trip_Wire said:
You say you understand that the board can set and enforce the rules, etc. The rules apply to all that want to use the board.
Yup. That's what I said.

Trip_Wire said:
As to why, such rules are in place, you would have to ask that question to the people that finance and run that particlar board.
Yup, but I'm not sure an explanation would be forthcoming there either.

Trip_Wire said:
The board is not run by the American Government, the military, etc. It is apparently run, by private American citizans, who have every right to run things the way they want to. If one doesn't like the way the board is run, don't go there and use it.
Nothing wrong with that, it just doesn't tell me why the position is so.

Trip_Wire said:
Perhaps, they don't want to deal with the 'flame wars' that this type of posting always starts, as well as personal attacks, that are caused by such posting.
I can understand that flame wars are a right royal pain for the moderators , but I thought that Bugsy was quite even-handed in his original post - he hit the elected political leader of both countries, neither of which is he a citizen.

I don't remember his post on the condolence thread that was mentioned by another poster, but I'd obviously have been against any offensive remarks regarding the loss of allied soldier's lives.

Trip_Wire said:
In anycase, the board owners and MODs do not have to answer to anybodies whys, or whatevers, who may use the board. If the user, fails to follow the posted rules he/she is banned.
True. As I said it does make me wonder why the rules are like that.

Trip_Wire said:
So, your answer to why, is thats the way they want it io be!
It's definitely an answer, just not one applicable to my question.

Trip_Wire said:
They owe you or I no explaination for why, etc.
Nope, but if they did have an explanation they'd be holding the 'polite high ground' in any exchange with the poster.

Trip_Wire said:
You say you don't like the rules, then don't log on the board! Keep in mind that this board is open to the public; however, it is run by private individuals, who can and do limit posts on it, as they see fit. As I said before pretty damn simple!
I don't recall saying I didn't like the rules, but that I'd like an explanation.
We're back to the 'my house, my laws' again.
I reiterate that I understand it's the owners decision on what their guidelines are, I was looking for some reasoning behind it.

Trip_Wire said:
Now whats so complicated about that Cutaway!
Nothing at all T_W, but it's an answer to a different question to the one I posed.
 
Bugsy said:
I've been handed a 20-day ban by "dmuehler" for "disrespecting the CiC" by calling him Bush the Berk. However, I do that all the time on ARRSE, as I habitually refer to Bliar as "Phoney Tony".

So my question to our resident Septics is: why am I expected to respect such a lying, selfish, vindictive, incompetent, cowardly and hopelessly stupid grumble and grunt?

In my book, respect has to be earned, and Bush the Berk has done quite the opposite. So was this ban justified?

MsG
The thing is you treat people with respect like you would like to be treated with respect back
just because you have this opinion does not mean every one else thinks the same on this subject
 
Trip_Wire said:
We in the Seattle area have been having a series of windstorms. I lost power on Thursady 14 Dec and regained power on Sunday, 17 December. I was very happy to get some heat and hot coffee! The Outside Temp was 28' anf the inside of the house 42.'

On Trursday 12/21 at 10AM we lost both cable internet service and TV until today (Friday, 12/22) at 12 Noon.
...
I was in West Seattle on Alki Beach. Lost power Thursday and got it back late Saturday night. I drove thirty blocks down California--a bit past the W Seattle High School area--on Friday and no power anywhere. Of course the mayor's house in W Seattle never lost power!

Nasty weather, reminded me of hurricane season in the Carolinas except I think the power crews there are a bit more used to it than in the Puget Sound.
 
mil.com is just a website for slack jawed gun freaks to high five each other and bullshit about how special they may have been whilst serving in the 69th Auxillary Mess Tin Repair Regt. I've seen more freedom of speech and independant thinking on the Chairman Mau appreciation website. I don't think mil.com echos a nations opinion but it certainly has it's quota of likeminded people who firstly do not have a sense of humour and secondly fit into the cliche of what the world percieve to be a 'typical yank'; arrogant, narrow minded pick up truck owning hicks.

We sometimes complain about the standard of moderation on here but mil.com is akin to the Stasi.

'Typical yanks'? Possibly. But I would say typical yanks who use the internet.




codeword said:
The thing is you treat people with respect like you would like to be treated with respect back
just because you have this opinion does not mean every one else thinks the same on this subject
Fuck off and die Chubb.
 
PassingBells said:
And one final point that hasn't yet been raised. Bugsy got very upset a few weeks ago when someone made, IMHO, a very innocuous comment about his avatar - See Link - and now he gets upsets again when someone objects to their boss being called a berk - dual standards young man!

PB Out (for now)
Dual standards indeed, PassingBells! However, my particular beef concerning my avatar was that it’s been there for yonks, as it’s the national flag of my country, and suddenly it became highly questionable – as if I was using it deliberately to upset folks.

In the case of military.com, it seems to have been conveniently forgotten that not only have I used the expression “Bush the Berk” on numerous occasions on that website, but also “Bush the Bewildered” and various other combinations to show my disdain for the man. That’s why I was so surprised to be handed a 20-day ban for something I only used in passing. Quite apart from the fact that not once were the issues in my original post (on military.com) addressed. Double standards indeed!

The Septics on military.com seem to be past masters at moving the goalposts when it suits them, and no, I’m not Septic-bashing. I spent more than four years in the USA and overall I met a great crowd of people. I’ve nothing against the Septics in general; I just wish they had better leaders, that’s all.

MsG
 
Virgil said:
Trip_Wire said:
We in the Seattle area have been having a series of windstorms. I lost power on Thursady 14 Dec and regained power on Sunday, 17 December. I was very happy to get some heat and hot coffee! The Outside Temp was 28' anf the inside of the house 42.'

On Trursday 12/21 at 10AM we lost both cable internet service and TV until today (Friday, 12/22) at 12 Noon.
...
I was in West Seattle on Alki Beach. Lost power Thursday and got it back late Saturday night. I drove thirty blocks down California--a bit past the W Seattle High School area--on Friday and no power anywhere. Of course the mayor's house in W Seattle never lost power!

Nasty weather, reminded me of hurricane season in the Carolinas except I think the power crews there are a bit more used to it than in the Puget Sound.
We had intense wind down in Portland as well. I spent the night watching what I thought was lightning lighting up the sky, only to learn the next day that it was not lightning, but powerpole transformers exploding in the distance. I was lucky enough to maintain power, but the Mosque I've been tutoring at has lost power, as well as the surrounding neighbourhoods.

Off topic I know, but this thread has drifted far off topic and turned into a mega-slagfest. We seem to have these monthly here at the MNHQ.
 
Fugly said:
Just ruined my evening by reading through that thread.

Fcuking pathetic spams, I try to have sympathy for then, then sh1t like this happens.

1: Tony Blair was VOTED into power. He is a cnut. End of.

2:George Bush was VOTED into power. He is a cnut. End of.

3:HM Queen Elizabeth II is the formal head of Her Army. We rightfully respect her because of this. Bush and Blair, although they pull the strings, deserve the utter contempt that any serving soldier heaps uppon them.
...
Almost right Fugly.

George Bush was voted into power by his fellow Americans. QEII was selected to lead our country by God. In my book that puts her a bit higher than a mere elected head of state (of course she's still comes a bit below those world leaders who are gods).

PB
 
PassingBells said:
Fugly said:
Just ruined my evening by reading through that thread.

Fcuking pathetic spams, I try to have sympathy for then, then sh1t like this happens.

1: Tony Blair was VOTED into power. He is a cnut. End of.

2:George Bush was VOTED into power. He is a cnut. End of.

3:HM Queen Elizabeth II is the formal head of Her Army. We rightfully respect her because of this. Bush and Blair, although they pull the strings, deserve the utter contempt that any serving soldier heaps uppon them.
...
Almost right Fugly.

George Bush was voted into power by his fellow Americans. QEII was selected to lead our country by God. In my book that puts her a bit higher than a mere elected head of state (of course she's still comes a bit below those world leaders who are gods).

PB

Passingbells:

Even if all the above was accurate, I fail to see, what it has to do with people from here logging on to a forum/board and violating the rules of that particular board.

The fact, that your personal opinion of various leaders, is as you describe them, has nothing to do with people using language, or making remarks, etc. that are specifically banned on a particular board/forum.

The fact remains, that 'Bugsy' unknowingly or knowingly, violated the boards/forums rules and regulations. Then others here, rushed right over to the board and knowingly, violated the rules and regulations of the board, so they could brag, about being banned from that board here. (Which IMHO is pretty juvenile.)

The board in questions is run as a private board, open to the public. Users are asked, to abide by the boards rules and regulations, inorder to use the board/forum. Thoses who do not abide by the regulations set forth by the board are subject to being banned, etc. Which is what happened. Right?

There is no gurrantee to users of that board, of complete freedom of speech, particularly when use of certain terms and/or language is prohibited.

A private board/forum open to the public, has every right to set their own rules and regulations. The fact that you, or others do not like parts of the rules set by them is immaterial! If one doesn't like the rules, don't log on or use the board!

I really, think this whole tread is a waste of bandwidth. I can't understand why people here, want to make such a BIG issue with this incident. When one examines the facts involved, the whole incident is blown way out of proportion.

To me it's pretty simple. If you're going to use a board/forum on the internet, follow the rules or regulations and other requirements of that board or don't use it! If you fail to follow the rules you'll be banned or be subject to some other type of punisment, etc.

Now, what part of if you can't follow the rules you'll be banned don't you understand? :roll:
 
A lot of the members of military.com are Vietnam vets. A group, including me, who have bitter memories from those days.

Johnson (D) and to a greater degree Nixon (R) were vilified by the press and a large segment of the population over the war. It didn't happen overnight, but resulted from the constant criticism emanating from the nations press. As the furor increased the tenor rose.

A lot of the folks there (military.com) see the same thing happening, ergo the rule forbidding denunciation of the CIC. A very small step, but....

jmho.

Debate over war time tactics should not be in news casts or editorials.
 
JDLong said:
A lot of the members of military.com are Vietnam vets. A group, including me, who have bitter memories from those days.

Johnson (D) and to a greater degree Nixon (R) were vilified by the press and a large segment of the population over the war. It didn't happen overnight, but resulted from the constant criticism emanating from the nations press. As the furor increased the tenor rose.

A lot of the folks there (military.com) see the same thing happening, ergo the rule forbidding denunciation of the CIC. A very small step, but....

jmho.

Debate over war time tactics should not be in news casts or editorials.
Debate over war time tactics should not be in news casts or editorials.
Why? That is a very fasict sounding statement. I guess in your view such debates belong only in the 5 sided puzzle palace right? And what about the people in who's name the war is fought? Don't they get to have an input or at least a glimpse into what is being done in their name? Debate everywhere is healthy it is just too bad that the press was not ballsy enough to call BS on this charade in Iraq when it could have made a little difference. INMHO the debate was and is till not enough after all this is a Democracy that many people have fought for. Even before you i dare say so....
 
JDLong said:
...

Debate over war time tactics should not be in news casts or editorials.
It's not a debate over war time tactics, it's a debate over the legitimate reasons to go to war and perhaps more importantly, the fcuk ups in planning and occupation that led to the current entanglement.

Note the irony of fighting for the Constitution a serviceman swears to uphold and arguing that first amendment rights should be curtailed.
 
Red Shrek

JDLong wrote:
A lot of the members of military.com are Vietnam vets. A group, including me, who have bitter memories from those days.

Johnson (D) and to a greater degree Nixon (R) were vilified by the press and a large segment of the population over the war. It didn't happen overnight, but resulted from the constant criticism emanating from the nations press. As the furor increased the tenor rose.

A lot of the folks there (military.com) see the same thing happening, ergo the rule forbidding denunciation of the CIC. A very small step, but....

jmho.

Debate over war time tactics should not be in news casts or editorials.
Debate over war time tactics should not be in news casts or editorials.
Why? That is a very fasict sounding statement. I guess in your view such debates belong only in the 5 sided puzzle palace right? And what about the people in who's name the war is fought? Don't they get to have an input or at least a glimpse into what is being done in their name? Debate everywhere is healthy it is just too bad that the press was not ballsy enough to call BS on this charade in Iraq when it could have made a little difference. INMHO the debate was and is till not enough after all this is a Democracy that many people have fought for. Even before you i dare say so....
Tactical debates should be performed by those required to carry the burden and responsible for the outcome. Who else knows the situation?

Sorry I don't know what "fasict" means.

War's ugly, debate good, uh? Who gets to declare the winner of the debate? Popular vote? Reckon we could have had a democratic vote for/against the June 6, 1944 landing at Normandy?

Virgil

JDLong wrote:
...
Debate over war time tactics should not be in news casts or editorials.
It's not a debate over war time tactics, it's a debate over the legitimate reasons to go to war and perhaps more importantly, the fcuk ups in planning and occupation that led to the current entanglement.

Note the irony of fighting for the Constitution a serviceman swears to uphold and arguing that first amendment rights should be curtailed.
I think most of the MSM debate is over tactics. The decision has been made, we are at war - fact.
The debate is now how to proceed - tactics , changing objectives - strategy. Strategy as a debate is cool, how we fight - not cool. Do we run for the nearest exit, as we did in RVN or do we finish the job?
Concur on the planning and occupation. Some wrong assumptions, but that goes with the territory in planning. If everything can be for seen, planning would be a snap, it ain't.

I didn't and don't argue for curtailing anyones first amendments rights. I do argue against narrow or one sided view point(s) expressed as news. Case in point - Tet 1968 viewed as a lose for US Forces as well as the country. Widely accepted by the MSM of the time.
 
Is there anything wrong with having an opinion, no matter how wrong or misguided other beleive it to be?

Many men have died for the freedom to have your own opinion.

One of the drawbacks of democracy is that people CAN criticise, in public.

Of course there are those who believe freespeech is bad a few are listed below.

Adolf Hitler.
Stalin.
Mussolini.
Pretty much every leader of China since Mao Tse Tung.
You get the point.

PS I reckon George W. is thick as mince.
 
Trip_Wire said:
PassingBells said:
Fugly said:
Just ruined my evening by reading through that thread.

Fcuking pathetic spams, I try to have sympathy for then, then sh1t like this happens.

1: Tony Blair was VOTED into power. He is a cnut. End of.

2:George Bush was VOTED into power. He is a cnut. End of.

3:HM Queen Elizabeth II is the formal head of Her Army. We rightfully respect her because of this. Bush and Blair, although they pull the strings, deserve the utter contempt that any serving soldier heaps uppon them.
...
Almost right Fugly.

George Bush was voted into power by his fellow Americans. QEII was selected to lead our country by God. In my book that puts her a bit higher than a mere elected head of state (of course she's still comes a bit below those world leaders who are gods).

PB

Passingbells:

Even if all the above was accurate, I fail to see, what it has to do with people from here logging on to a forum/board and violating the rules of that particular board.

The fact, that your personal opinion of various leaders, is as you describe them, has nothing to do with people using language, or making remarks, etc. that are specifically banned on a particular board/forum.

The fact remains, that 'Bugsy' unknowingly or knowingly, violated the boards/forums rules and regulations. Then others here, rushed right over to the board and knowingly, violated the rules and regulations of the board, so they could brag, about being banned from that board here. (Which IMHO is pretty juvenile.)

The board in questions is run as a private board, open to the public. Users are asked, to abide by the boards rules and regulations, inorder to use the board/forum. Thoses who do not abide by the regulations set forth by the board are subject to being banned, etc. Which is what happened. Right?

There is no gurrantee to users of that board, of complete freedom of speech, particularly when use of certain terms and/or language is prohibited.

A private board/forum open to the public, has every right to set their own rules and regulations. The fact that you, or others do not like parts of the rules set by them is immaterial! If one doesn't like the rules, don't log on or use the board!

I really, think this whole tread is a waste of bandwidth. I can't understand why people here, want to make such a BIG issue with this incident. When one examines the facts involved, the whole incident is blown way out of proportion.

To me it's pretty simple. If you're going to use a board/forum on the internet, follow the rules or regulations and other requirements of that board or don't use it! If you fail to follow the rules you'll be banned or be subject to some other type of punisment, etc.

Now, what part of if you can't follow the rules you'll be banned don't you understand? :roll:
I refer the honourable gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

PassingBells said:
Where's a mod when you need one? Some of these comments are getting out of hand and are verging on the derogatory.

Unusually I find myself agreeing with Trip_Wire and others. This is their playpen, they make the rules. If anyone's got a problem with that take it up with their mods or go somewhere else. Coming to Arrse to complain was a cheap tactic. you could be guaranteed to stir-up the usual crowd of Spam-bashers who would go off and flame mil.com in various semi-humourous ways.

What most Brits forget about Americans is that they get their sense of humour from the Germans, hence Steve Martin is generally considered funny (actually he is funny, but in a completely different way), and tends to be much more obvious "You vill laugh now!"

And one final point that hasn't yet been raised. Bugsy got very upset a few weeks ago when someone made, IMHO, a very innocuous comment about his avatar - See Link - and now he gets upsets again when someone objects to their boss being called a berk - dual standards young man!

PB Out (for now)
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top