I'm glad my response triggered such insightful discussion
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Did someone say sizzling bacon? Thought I smelled something... Hmm. Maybe just my imagination, or I could just be disillusioned
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.
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?
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.
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.
Matt's decision is backed 100% by the rest of the moderators...
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?????