New guy here, confused

[Rogi]

Did someone say sizzling bacon? Thought I smelled something... Hmm. Maybe just my imagination, or I could just be disillusioned

I'm glad my response triggered such insightful discussion heheheh Do I not deserve some Bacon for that ! haha!

 

[Lucky13]

I know that my memory is short but distinct, what did I do to deserve a seat in the round corner??

 

[mikewint]

More like a round in the seat

 

[Airframes]

Yep, it's Jan's round !

 

[Aaron Brooks Wolters]

 

[vikingBerserker]

Jan's buying?????????????????

 

[Matt308]

As a person who readily admits a lack of tack, and while I definitely do not agree with how mike1c conveyed his message, it does raise a good point. We have posted a number of manuals for aircraft that are currently in front line service today such as the B-52, F/A-18, B-1, and A-10, would the argument for pulling the F-117 manual cover these as well?

We can argue whether or not a post of sensitive material is proper (SUO) based upon historical timeline, but what we cannot argue is a member confronting a moderator over a benign moderation of a post.

"Mike, while the F-117 is no longer in operational service, they have been mothballed in a readiness state and these documents were labeled as Sensitive Use Only (SUO) and are marked for internal gov't distribution only. Please don't post similarly classed docs in the future. Thanks. "

What many may not realize is that I was asked to be friended by Mike. I accepted after a couple of PMs on unrelated matters and subsequently saw his other posts that made me realize my mistake. I "unfriended" him. Days later, I saw his response below. Hurt feelings perhaps? A confrontational response physically challenging forum administration is juvenile and unacceptable.

"Greetings Matt;

Up until now, for the last couple of days, I have made no comment about your message. Mostly because you have pissed me off,
and you have degraded my charter. In the old days I would break your nose for this type of breach of conduct.

I know you have a need to let others know that as a moderator you are doing your job, but in the future, please pick some other
A** hole to use for your example. I an not sure that you realize who you are F****** with.

After I got out of the US Navy I went to work for the United States Government. And, you want to give me a lecture on US Security
protocol. Come on guy, cut a dome ass a little bit of slack.

Mike"

Mike was cut from membership at the decision of all moderators primarily based upon this post and his bizarre responses to PMs. Therefore we cut this "dome ass a little slack".

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Agreed Matt.

If someone does not like the "clubhouse", find a different one.

Nuff said...

 

[Lucky13]

Look at them purple cows, growing wee bacons in the field.....and unicorns....pieces of juicy ham playing leapfrog, bottles of beer dancing around naked, while others, whisky, rum, gin, vodka is singing Kumbaya around the fire..

 

[N4521U]

Flamables around an open fire????????

 

[vikingBerserker]

We can argue whether or not a post of sensitive material is proper (SUO) based upon historical timeline, but what we cannot argue is a member confronting a moderator over a benign moderation of a post.

Matt, I think you have misunderstood what I was saying or perhaps I did not word it properly. I'm not asking to argue, I'm just asking what the guideline is as I do not understand it. The logic applied would require us to remove a number of other manuals. I have no problem following the clubhouse rules but I need to understand them to do so.

Mike threatened a fellow member (moderator or not) with violence so his banning to me is a no brainer.

 

[Matt308]

We don't have a hard and fast rule on the subject. Therefore, I did not admonish Mike for his post, just mentioned that the manuals were SUO and were clearly labeled for internal gov't use only. If we were talking about the F-14 or F-111, I would have ignored them. But the F-117s are not mothballed and remain in a readiness state of some sort, thus I felt it wise not keep them on the forum. What are some examples that you think might cross the line of sensitive information on active/semi-active weapon systems?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

We don't have a hard and fast rule on the subject. Therefore, I did not admonish Mike for his post, just mentioned that the manuals were SUO and were clearly labeled for internal gov't use only. If we were talking about the F-14 or F-111, I would have ignored them. But the F-117s are not mothballed and remain in a readiness state of some sort, thus I felt it wise not keep them on the forum. What are some examples that you think might cross the line of sensitive information on active/semi-active weapon systems?

Matt's decision is backed 100% by the rest of the moderators...

I don't think you scare anybody, but you do take yourselves way too seriously, and there is a definite flavor of a bunch of little boys running a treehouse club. The recent brouhaha over the F-117 manual that mikec1 posted is an excellent case in point. I'm not going to defend mike's reply to the moderator, it was a bit too raw for my taste as well, but the moderator was wrong, all the same. That manual has been all over the Internet, including Avialogs and Scribd, that's where mike got it. It is not regarded by HQ USAF as classified or sensitive in any way, if it were they would have taken action to see that it was removed from the sites I mentioned. As to it being restricted to internal government use, just about all of the NATOPS manuals on this site say the same thing on their first page. Shouldn't those be erased, too? I also note that while mike got banned, the site kept all of his other contributions, which struck me as a bit specious at best. But then, it's your clubhouse, folks, and I leave you to it for greener and more productive pastures.

See Matt's post - no we WON'T erase his earlier posts. You don't like it, don't let the door hit you on the @ss as you depart into cyberspace. I hope this is the last time we have to address this silliness and the stupidity of Mikec1!!!!!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Matt, I think you have misunderstood what I was saying or perhaps I did not word it properly. I'm not asking to argue, I'm just asking what the guideline is as I do not understand it. The logic applied would require us to remove a number of other manuals. I have no problem following the clubhouse rules but I need to understand them to do so.

Mike threatened a fellow member (moderator or not) with violence so his banning to me is a no brainer.

My clubhouse post was not directed at you.

 

[Njaco]

Matt's decision is backed 100% by the rest of the moderators...

Just so this is clear...when you attack or pick a fight with a Mod/Admin, you are picking it with ALL of us. And we will respond in kind.......

 

[mikewint]

Like parents you must present a united front and like anyone in authority you have a job to do which stands outside of your personal beliefs/thoughts/feelings.
So I don't always agee with your decisions but I respect the thankless job you do and love this forum you preserve.
In passing, it gives me a twinge everytime I read "Mike" in this thread

 

[N4521U]

Had a gade school chum named Frank. The things he did were so bizzzaar, we used to use his name instead of swearing.........

Why doesn't this box pick up misspelleings like it used to?????

 

[Njaco]

because its Franked....................

 

[Matt308]

Had a gade school chum named Frank. The things he did were so bizzzaar, we used to use his name instead of swearing.........

Why doesn't this box pick up misspelleings like it used to?????

 

[N4521U]

He could Frank up anything!
Most of the time we never gave a Frank.