Skip to main content

View Diary: Marines block Internet sites (234 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  ALL uppercase is shouting (none)
    Selectively using uppercase letters is NOT.

    And no, considering that you could not even admit that jumping to the conclusion that these sites were blocked because they were liberal sites was illogical and not supported by the evidence, I will NOT take your advice.

    Thanks but no thanks.

    I listen quite well, and do a good job of acknowledging what is said. You are out of line, AND wrong, to suggest that I don't.

    So no, I am NOT tone deaf (not tone death), but I still will not take your advice.

    I said that there was no evidence that these sites were blocked because of their content. YOU tried to say that the Marine's email was evidence, but it is not. You were wrong. And unwilling to admit it.

    That's YOUR problem. You made an error, I was right, and you refused to acknowledge YOUR error and instead falsely asserted that I was wrong.

    ...but not your own facts.

    by slouise217 on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:52:22 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Your opinion (none)
      You are not right. You obviously have no experience in a court room. You don't know the slightest about what can be considered evidence.

      You remain truly an ass. And I see no evidence to the contrary.

      What object is served by this circle of misery and violence and fear? It must tend to some end, or else our universe is ruled by chance, which is unthinkable.

      by Carnacki on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:58:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here are 3 comments from netiquette sites (none)
        Don't type in all uppercase. Doing so implies SHOUTING OR YELLING and should be used only for emphasis.

        Don't send an e-mail in all UPPER-CASE. Use of uppercase words is the equivalent of shouting at the recipient. ONLY use uppercase words when trying to make a point (such as I just did).

        Don't shout at people. Don't use all capital letters, (UPPERCASE) or overdo punctuation!!!!!!. See the example below. This common practice is the on-line equivalent of shouting. Its considered by many to be very rude. If you must use UPPERCASE, use it very sparingly and only to emphasise a particularly important point. Ask yourself, 'if I was talking to the recipient face to face, would I be raising my voice to them?'

        -----------------

        In fact I DO have experience in a courtroom.

        Many people with law degrees teach debate at Universities.

        That's one of the things that makes a good lawyer - their skills dealing with logic and nuance.

        The fact that this soldier says that he THINKS that these sites were blocked for their political leanings is not evidence that they were.

        Yet you still cannot admit that.

        And that's sad. And the fact that you cannot admit that his comments in this email are not evidence as to why the sites are blocked simply displays your inability and your unwillingness to acknowledge facts that are contrary to your initial assertions.

        And that's one of the things that I think can hurt the liberal cause. We rail against rightwingers that only look at some of the facts. We ridicule the rightwingers that still support Bush given all the evidence of his lack of credible behavior and lack of capabilities. It does not help our cause to assert things as facts that are in fact only conspiracies.

        This Marine's statements about why he thinks the sites are blocked are contradicted by the Marine Corps statements. Given that, ONLY evidence of the ACTUAL policy that would be contrary to the stated Marine Corps policy would be proof. His opinion about why the sites are blocked are simply that - opinions.

        And it's really sad that you cannot allow yourself to admit that. Really sad.

        And even sadder that you think you need to make ad hominem attacks in order to try (and fail) to make me look bad.

        ...but not your own facts.

        by slouise217 on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:14:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Statements (none)
          I shouldn't have called you an ass and I apologize for that. But you really need to take it down a notch. It is sad that you even copy and paste the netiquette rules yet still continue to violate them. The point in them about shouting went over your head apparently. If you feel you can't get your point across without using uppercase letters, you should consider rewriting it so you can get your point across without shouting it or consider that writing is not your forte.

          If you think you have
          The Marine is there. He stated his experience. Such statements are made on the witness stand all the time and such testimony is taken into evidence. Show me where the Marine Corps contradicted his statement. Do you have a copy of his unit's policy that went into effect on Feb. 1?

          You don't consider the Marine's experience valid. I do. I consider his statement trustworthy until it is demonstrated otherwise. You were the same way in Nobby's diary where it was pointed out that your comments "lack civility and grace."

          Your repeated emphasis on the word sad says more about you than you probably intended.

          What object is served by this circle of misery and violence and fear? It must tend to some end, or else our universe is ruled by chance, which is unthinkable.

          by Carnacki on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:40:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  This soldier over-reacted and misinterpreted (none)
            The comments I copied and pasted from Netiquette sites says that ALL CAPS is offensive and explicitly say that occasional use of caps is perfectly acceptable to make a point.

            Their message did NOT go over my head.

            In fact it seems to have gone over YOUR head, since you think that it scolded my behavior when in fact it explicitly said that occasional Uppercase was perfectly acceptable.

            ALL CAPS IS SHOUTING. LIMITED caps to make points is NOT shouting, and is perfectly legitimate to use for emphasis according to all three Netiquette sites I visited and quoted.

            Statements such as the Marine's opinion about why the sites were blocked are NOT taken as evidence about WHY sites are blocked all the time in courtrooms. You were wrong the first, second and third times you made this assertion, and you are still wrong.

            Early on in this diary, I DID provide a paragraph that was on the Wonkette site when I went there via your link. I believe that since you simply linked to the Wonkette home page rather than a link to the direct story, as time changes, the page displayed changes, but I included this information in my post ---

            "We were told {by the Marine Corps} it is done to save bandwidth and to prevent people from loafing off at work....If a site gets a lot of traffic and it's not considered necessary for Marine Corps business it gets shut down."

            This very soldier said this. This is HIS comments about what they said. And it is his relating of the Marine Corps position that contradicts his own opinions about why they are blocking sites.

            In addition, there's THIS story from last fall - this is NOT a new policy. http://www.aunty-spam.com/...

            "If you have a loved one stationed overseas in the Navy or with the Marines, you can forget about exchanging email with them if they use any of the commercial services such as Hotmail, Yahoo, AOL or Gmail. According to a report in Stars & Stripes, the Navy and Marine Corps have blocked all access to such services from overseas government computers, including those at libraries.

            The reason, said Neal Miller, a manager with Naval Network Warfare Command, is that "access to such services leaves the unclassified government network too susceptible to hackers and computer viruses."

            And the ban doesn't stop there. Navy and Marine Corps personnel stationed overseas are also now banned from web surfing pornographic or hate sites, and from running an online business."

            So THIS soldier said that the ban began the beginning of February, but I can find a link to the ban back last fall! Hmm, curious.

            As another poster explained, sites are banned based on categories that are determined by computer programs. There is no evidence that sites were banned based upon their political stances. None. The fact that some liberal sites were blocked is NOT evidence that the sites were blocked because they are liberal! Here's some specific information about how sites are blocked and how local people can put some previously banned sites necessary for work purposes back onto the okayed list. http://www.ioerror.us/...

            Here's ANOTHER story from January of this year in Stars and Stripes that describes the restrictions, and goes into quite a bit of detail about WHAT sites are blocked and why. And there is no evidence that it has anything to do with the political slant of the site. http://www.estripes.com/... Some of the sites blocked? eBay - that notorious liberal site. Also theaustralian.news.com.au. It does NOT block the French Communist Party's Web site and the official North Korean government Web site, but it does block websites from South Korea and Japan. And one of the comments in this article was "One of the software tools employed by the Army to block Web sites is called Websense." Didn't that other poster mention this program? Of course he did. And he was right. And here's another link to the story last fall in Stars and Stripes online - http://www.estripes.com/...

            But this soldier's opinion about why the sites were not allowed is only his opinion, and is not evidence.

            ...but not your own facts.

            by slouise217 on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 01:15:10 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It did not (none)
              Did you read those rules you posted? It said uppercase is shouting. You really are just a troll because you lie about even things you post just to argue. From now on you'll be rated accordingly.

              What object is served by this circle of misery and violence and fear? It must tend to some end, or else our universe is ruled by chance, which is unthinkable.

              by Carnacki on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 05:29:39 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Did YOU read the rules? (none)
                It said ALL uppercase is shouting, but using uppercase in a few words sprinkled throughout one's work is okay for emphasis.

                I DID read the rules. YOU suggested I should look up the rules. I already knew the rules, but in fact I did go look up the rules.

                I then posted 3 examples of the rules.

                And the rules ALL said that ALL UPPERCASE IS RUDE AND IS SHOUTING.

                The rules also said that OCCASIONAL uppercase is NOT shouting and is okay for EMPHASIS.

                I am sorry that you did not appreciate the nuances that the rules were discussing.

                At 10:52, I made a post whose subject was "ALL uppercase is shouting", because if one types in all uppercase, one IS shouting. I acknowledged as quickly as I could that if one uses ALL caps, then one IS shouting. I then went on to explain that I was not using all caps, and therefore was not violating Netiquette.

                Then at 11:14 I posted again with examples, like "Don't type in all uppercase....{uppercase} should be used only for emphasis".

                Does THAT comment not say to you that the problem is ALL uppercase, and that selective use for emphasis is okay? That is what that link says - do you not interpret it that way?

                Or this other example, that says do not use ALL uppercase, but also says "ONLY use uppercase words when trying to make a point(as I just did)." The person who gave the example did it in their example - they capitalized the word "only" to show they were emphasizing that word.

                Or this final example, where they say "If you must use UPPERCASE, use it very sparingly and only to emphasise a particularly important point. Ask yourself, 'if I was talking to the recipient face to face, would I be raising my voice to them?'"

                I use uppercase to emphasize points. If I were speaking to another person, I WOULD change the inflection in my voice, and my voice would often become slightly louder when I said those words. And it is because of that reason, that I am trying to emphasis that word, and mimic in written words the emphasis that is easy to notice in spoken language, that I do selectively capitalize words.

                The rules said don't use all caps, but it's okay to use a few capitalized words here and there for emphasis.

                Which is what I do.

                I follow Netiquette rules. I knew them before you pointed them out to me, yet rather than simply tell you that I was following Netiquette rules and you were wrong, I then provided 3 different links that documented that I am following Netiquette rules. I now have tried to explain those Netiquette rules to you about 4 times. I am not sure why this is causing you such trouble, but I believe I have been quite clear.

                There is a difference between typing in all caps and making a few words caps, right?

                Netiquette says that using caps in a few words is okay for emphasis, and using all caps is bad.

                Except in my example above decrying the use of all caps, I have NOT used all caps.

                Capitalizing all of one word is not using all caps. Capitalizing all one paragraph, or ALL of a diary title, or all of a post, would be a violation of Netiquette. Capitalizing one word is not.

                What part of this do you not understand?

                ...but not your own facts.

                by slouise217 on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 12:14:34 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  And not only did I understand the rules (none)
                And explain them to you, I also pointed out in that post the problems with that soldiers assertions about what sites were blocked and why they were blocked.

                I provided links to Stars and Stripes, which documented that these changes occurred last fall, not February 1st. It also documented what sites were blocked and why.

                The soldier held an opinion. Lots of people form opinions based upon anecdotal information. The soldier did so also - he could not access the liberal sites that he wanted to access, and so he drew the conclusion from that evidence that those sites were blocked because they were liberal sites.

                But that is not a conclusion that can be fairly drawn from that information. Even when you add in the fact that the Bush Administration is scrungy when it comes to protecting freedoms and providing a wide array of information to the press, to the President and to the American public, one STILL cannot come to that conclusion. The soldier's statements that he DID come to that conclusion is NOT evidence that his conclusions were facts - only someone that could, as an expert, describe the actual policy of the Marine Corps, or provide evidence that other similar sites with opposing viewpoints were NOT blocked, could one come to that conclusion - this soldier's anecdotal evidence is simply not proof.

                And the Stars and Stripes article and others that I provided clearly demonstrate that the sites that are blocked are clearly often not blocked because of their political content - one is blocked from the state sites from Japan and South Korea, but can see the North Korean government website?

                There is clear evidence that these sites were blocked. There is NOT clear evidence as to why they were blocked. Yet you, this soldier, and many other people have asserted that this is evidence of the Bush Administration's corrupt nature.

                I agree that the Bush Administration has been corrupt and untrustworthy and has done all kinds of things to keep a fair and accurate flow of all the news and factual information to its citizens. And I think their behavior is criminal.

                But this is not evidence of that behavior. There is no evidence that this site (Wonkette) was blocked because of its liberal political content.

                The fact that it's liberal and it was blocked is not evidence that it was blocked because it is liberal.

                And this is another logical fallacy that I will put on my next test in my debate class.

                ...but not your own facts.

                by slouise217 on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 12:30:00 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  slouise (none)
                  You really should read the part where it says:

                  Don't type in all uppercase. Doing so implies SHOUTING OR YELLING and should be used only for emphasis.

                  Don't send an e-mail in all UPPER-CASE. Use of uppercase words is the equivalent of shouting at the recipient. ONLY use uppercase words when trying to make a point (such as I just did).

                  Don't shout at people. Don't use all capital letters, (UPPERCASE) or overdo punctuation!!!!!!

                  If you used all uppercase occasionally, that would be for emphasis. The way you use it -- as others have also pointed out -- is rude.

                  I've got one for your test. Is a roll of quarters a weapon of mass destruction?

                  Here's another: If the WMD team from Ft. Detrick is called to a scene, does that make the dust they found a WMD? By that same logic, if a fire department is called to get a cat out of a tree, the cat is a fire.

                  Will you also point out to your students that a considerable number of people agreed that your comments lack "civility and grace."

                  What object is served by this circle of misery and violence and fear? It must tend to some end, or else our universe is ruled by chance, which is unthinkable.

                  by Carnacki on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 01:34:39 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You keep displaying your prejudices (none)
                    I DO use uppercase occasionally. In many cases, it's one word in a paragraph, and IS used for emphasis.

                    I have read the rules. I follow the guidelines suggested by the first 3 Netiquette sites I found - occasional use of capitalized words to show emphasis.

                    The fact that some people here don't understand Netiquette rules does not mean that I should change my behavior - it means that they should learn the rules, which is why when I was challenged on this I provided the rules to you. I already KNEW the Netiquette guidelines, as I said in an earlier post. I did not need to look them up, as I already know them. I looked them up so I could let you know that in fact I did look them up as you suggested AND to educate you that in fact I was following the Netiquette guidelines.

                    It is you that misunderstood the guidelines. They say don't use all caps. And I don't use all caps. Much fewer than 10% of my words are capitalized. That's NOT all caps, and is within the Netiquette guidelines.

                    And I have explained this to you numerous times. I understood the rules before you brought it up to me. You have had the rules explained to you about 5 times, yet you still seem to be having a problem with that. I capitalize words that I want to emphasize - words that I would say slightly louder, and with a different emphasis, if I was were speaking them.

                    I DO use uppercase occasionally. Less than 10% of the time cannot be described in any terms that imply anything more than occasionally.

                    The WMD team from Ft Detrick came to examine a substance that they suspected might be a WMD. The fact that it was NOT found to be a WMD does not change the fact that ricin is a WMD.

                    Ricin is a WMD. That is why a WMD team was called to the scene, because there was a chance that this was a WMD. If ricin were not a WMD, then they never would have been called.

                    Let's go with your assertion that ricin is not a WMD. Then why would the WMD team come to Austin to collect samples of the powder? Austin police have bio-hazard suits, and have collection kits that would have allowed them to send the material to anyplace in the USA and protect others from any chance of contamination. The WMD team did not have any specialized skills except that they are trained in dealing with WMD's. That's why they came. Because ricin is a WMD.

                    The team knew that it was a small amount of a chunky powder that had been found in a roll of quarters.

                    They knew ALL that evidence, yet they sent a WMD team.

                    Because ricin is a WMD. Unless ricin is a WMD, there is no reason to send a WMD team. A WMD team is sent to review WMD's.

                    Fire Departments are sent to rescue people and cats from all kinds of emergencies because they are first responders with specialized training and equipment.

                    So, IF the Fire Department responds, then it can be safely concluded that their skills were needed. If a WMD team is called to the scene, then they come because their specific skills were needed. We KNOW that a WMD team didn't need to be called for a roll of quarters. We know that it did not turn out to be ricin. We know that the WMD team was called because ricin is a WMD.

                    That's the analogy that fits here, not yours. I teack this stuff, and have practice every semester grading and critiquing students' efforts to make analogies and argue logically.

                    My students know, because I discuss it in the first class of every semester, that just because a group of people may see something all in the same way does not make it a reasonable conclusion. My students know that oftentimes, because of prejudices that groups have, they often see things that are not factual and think they are evidence, or distort reality to fit what they think reality should be, or convince themselves of facts that are not really true.

                    So yeah, based upon the 10 minute 'who I am' part of my first day introduction to the course, my students do know that I am attacked on a regular basis from people of all political stripes and beliefs because I fight for the truth, for honest debate and for respect for the facts no matter where that may lead me. They are my students, so they do NOT get told specific details about my personal life, and if I use personal interactions I have with posters here or elsewhere, I remove all identifying information. I did write a letter to the editor for the local suburban paper after one of my students had seen me at the local dry cleaners, and she asked me if I was the author, but that is the only case I know of where my personal life has bled over into my professional career, and I think that is the way that it should be.

                    One of the big reasons for lawyers and counselors and philosophy majors to take these kinds of classes is to teach them critical thinking skills. And not only am I a skilled teacher in these logic and critical thinking techniques, but I also see the great value in teaching these skills and I practice them in my interactions online.

                    Many people lack those skills.

                    ...but not your own facts.

                    by slouise217 on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 12:41:27 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Ad hominem (none)
          When someone criticized you for jumping on the "ricin" report

          You wrote:

          Now I don't just THINK you are a jackass - I know it.

          That is sad. Really, really sad to see you make ad hominem attacks like that on a site like this.

          ROTFLMAO.

          I'm done with you. You probably don't have better things to do with your life than spend time with me, but I certainly have better things to do with my life than spend it with you.

          Hahahaha!

          What object is served by this circle of misery and violence and fear? It must tend to some end, or else our universe is ruled by chance, which is unthinkable.

          by Carnacki on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 10:08:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not name calling if it's true (none)
            And with this poster to whom I directed that comment, they had made about 6 personal attacks in a row.

            He self-identified himself as a jackass, unwilling to debate facts and full of ad hominem attacks.

            It appears that you do not understand what an Ad Hominem attack is either.

            There are times when describing the person based upon their previous behavior is relevant to the credibility that the person deserves and the respect they deserve as a reasoned and reasonable debater. If one attacks the position or the opinion that a debater presents, and documents that, and then reaches conclusions based upon the actions of that debater, it is NOT an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is attacking the person RATHER than attacking their point. I almost NEVER do that, and did NOT do that in regards to the poster who self-identified himself as a jackass.

            Why don't you look up what an ad hominem attack is? Or take the test I will be giving next week on logical fallacies, during which I have several examples, with names deleted, from the ricin thread?

            Here is the info that I provide in my notes to students about logical fallacies and specifically about Ad Hominem attacks.

            "In order to prove that an Ad Hominem or personal attack happened, you must both identify the attack, and demonstrate that the character or circumstances of the person had nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the ideas and issues being debated and supported. Simply insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational debate is not necessarily a personal attack. It has to be evident that the purpose of the offensive characterization was to debase the person making the argument totally separate from establishing the credibility of the debater."

            ...but not your own facts.

            by slouise217 on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 01:32:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  LOL (none)
              You can't tell the truth. There were no personal attacks. Your opinion that they were personal attacks is not proof that they were. It is proof of your opinion. Several people in that thread -- a jury if you will -- posted that those were not attacks just as a jury of seven rated DCDemocrat's comment that your comments lacked "civility and grace" as excellent.

              I'm done with you. You probably don't have better things to do with your life than spend time with me, but I certainly have better things to do with my life than spend it with you.

              What object is served by this circle of misery and violence and fear? It must tend to some end, or else our universe is ruled by chance, which is unthinkable.

              by Carnacki on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 05:15:24 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  My opinions are NOT facts (none)
                But that does not change the fact that personal attacks and the forms they take are well-documented.

                And those comments were personal attacks rather than discussing the issues raised.

                The comments attacked me rather than my argument. I DID document how they attacked me in a couple of instances, and I would be more than willing to dissect ANY of the others for you. If a comment attacks the person rather than the argument, it's an ad hominem attack. And that is NOT my opinion - that's a fact.

                And the fact that not everyone understands that bothers me, because I would prefer that everyone be logical and reasonable and have tons of common sense, but not everyone does. It does not bother me that some of those same people think that my valid doubts about the assertions in the diary about purported election fraud were not civil, because I know they were.

                I know what happened in Florida in 2004. There were options for Nobby to have reported her claims. There were affidavits taken all across Florida, yet she did not fill one out - she only made a report, and when she found out that it had been thrown away, she did not fill out another one. She claimed she knew fraud happened when she did not. Her claims did not hold water.

                I never said that there was not election fraud in Florida. I objected to her claims that she knew there was, or that she had enough data to even come to that conclusion that her opinion was that there was fraud in that particular case.

                Many people here believe strongly in election fraud having already been proven, when in almost no cases has it been. Because it MIGHT have happened, we SHOULD have election reform. But even Kos had made a rule here apparently that conspiracy theories about election fraud are out of bounds, and that diary was in that same vein - it made the leap from 'this man's behavior raised suspicions in my mind' to 'based upon what I saw, I think election fraud happened.'

                ...but not your own facts.

                by slouise217 on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 11:51:58 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Last one (none)
              You are a rude, obnoxious loser. It's not name calling if it's true.

              LOL.

              What object is served by this circle of misery and violence and fear? It must tend to some end, or else our universe is ruled by chance, which is unthinkable.

              by Carnacki on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 05:20:07 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site