How to Behave on the Internet - A Guide by NHQ

[capn_shad]

Interesting "membership communique" up now on eServices.  https://www.capnhq.gov/news/Documents/Communique_to_the_Membership.pdf

It would appear that someone at NHQ is concerned that you folks are not behaving appropriately on the interwebs (yes, I know about the mystery blogger, but I'm concerned at the rather broad brush strokes being used here).

Discuss!

[Patterson]

^ I am "out of the loop" on this one.  This is my very first forum I have ever been on.  I would like to read what the letter addresses.  Could someone PM me?  The letter has made me more curious as it was filled with suspense! 

I thought anyone could say anything about whatever they wanted as long as it was not a threat or of an illegal nature??

If I said "All Pink Panda Bears are murderers", does that mean the Association for Pink Pandas would write up a counterpoint article calling me a liar and bad person?!?!

So I take it from the letter that any report of Fraud, Waste or Abuse against CAP or its members is a lie, and we should not report such things or we will be an "ex-member", and publicly called out as such?

Well my name is on here, as is my first name, so I guess anyone could look me up then.  I better stop typing or may find myself as the subject of a damage control letter.

Really?!?!  Was that letter really needed?

[Major Lord]

They are most certainly referring to a former, a certainly disgruntled, CAP member who does frequently post defamatory E-mails on his website. On the other hand, his information was responsible for the removal of the past National Commander for cause, so although he is clearly a nut, he is sometimes right on the money. I will have to go a'web surfin' and see what he is saying these days!

What concerns me is this unattributed "Communique" . The author users lawyerly parsing to dance around a bit. Here is one example: "In accordance with our regulations, because allegations were lodged they were investigated by Inspector General inquiries which have absolved the National Commander of any wrongdoing. Likewise, similar personal attacks against other BoG and NEC leaders are without any basis in fact."

The second sentence implies that if the IG found no wrongdoing on the part of the National Commander, "similar personal attacks" are without any basis in fact".  This seems to imply that the matters' accusations were disposed of by the IG, without actually stating this. Were they? Nor does the document dispel the idea that the accusations against the National Commander were baseless, only that the NC was absolved of wrongdoing. By this logic, if the accusations against the NC were factually correct, but did not violate regulations ( or the ones we are really serious about) The accusations against the BOG and NEC must be true.....I think the simile is weak.

In all IG investigations, the IG conducts a preliminary survey to determine if an actual investigation is required. Did the accusations involved rise to the level of an actual investigation, or merely a preliminary survey? Have we seen IG preliminary surveys in the past where the matter was disposed of, but later evolved to a higher level? Or where matters involving clear violations went un-investigated due to level of the subject of the inquiry? Better to keep it transparent.

Major Lord

[RiverAux]

So warn the current members about something a former member is doing? 

[Ned]

^ I am "out of the loop" on this one.   ( . . . )

I thought anyone could say anything about whatever they wanted as long as it was not a threat or of an illegal nature??

Our Constitution guarantees all of us freedom of speech. 

But with rights comes responsibilites.  You have touched on a few - you can't threaten others, pass along classified information, shout "fire" in a crowded theater, etc.

CAP members have an additional responsiblity to abide by our Core Values, including the Core Value of Respect. 

(Obviously non-members are not bound by our Core Values, but must still follow the law and whatever moral compass they possess.)

If I said "All Pink Panda Bears are murderers", does that mean the Association for Pink Pandas would write up a counterpoint article calling me a liar and bad person?!?!

They could, of course.  It is hard to imagine that the Association for Pink Pandas has fewer First Amendment rights than you do.

The point is that organizations get to decide how best to respond to information being posted about them.  If the information is critical, it should probably be evaluated and if it is correct, then the organization should make necessary changes to avoid future missteps.  Even anonymous criticism can be correct and point out necessary changes.

But if malicious information (and by that I would include knowingly posting false information, or posting factually correct information that is deliberately slanted/spun/presented out of context in a way calculated to make it look bad) is posted in an attempt to force a person or organization to take certain actions not otherwise warranted, problems may arise.

So I take it from the letter that any report of Fraud, Waste or Abuse against CAP or its members is a lie, and we should not report such things or we will be an "ex-member", and publicly called out as such?

From an academic standpoint, this is a fairly good illustration of a mild version of the issue.  Nothing in the letter suggests that "any report of Fraud Waste, or Abuse against CAP or its members is a lie, and we should not report such things or we will be an 'ex-member'." 

Indeed, sadly there have been instances of our members committing FWA that was uncovered by other members.  All CAP members have a duty to report FWA, and CAP even has an aggressive Whistleblower's Protection Program in CAPR 123-2.


One way to respond to an allegation to the effect of "CAP considers any report of Fraud Waste, or Abuse against CAP or its members is a lie, and terminates members for making truthful reports"  would be to simply ignore the allegation.  In most cases that is what organizations do, if for no other reason that it is tough to keep track of all of the false negative information that may be floating around the blogosphere.

Another choice is to publicly and truthfully respond to the allegations in an open and transparent way, as I hope I have done in the paragraph above by denying the allegation and pointing out why it is incorrect. 

CAP has simply chosen to respond to some allegations in an open and transparent way, presenting truthful information.

Well my name is on here, as is my first name, so I guess anyone could look me up then.  I better stop typing or may find myself as the subject of a damage control letter.

All of us are responsible for our actions, including all that we do or say.   If you are posting things that are inconsistent with the law and/or our Core Values, you may wish to reconsider your posting style.

Really?!?!  Was that letter really needed?

We'll see.

[RADIOMAN015]

Interesting "membership communique" up now on eServices.  https://www.capnhq.gov/news/Documents/Communique_to_the_Membership.pdf

It would appear that someone at NHQ is concerned that you folks are not behaving appropriately on the interwebs (yes, I know about the mystery blogger, but I'm concerned at the rather broad brush strokes being used here).
Discuss!

Perhaps "The Blogger" has won to a certain extent.   Not positive who they are talking about, but perhaps it is:

http://[bannedurl]/ete_insights/cap_insights.php  :angel:

Surely he does bring up some organizational & personnel intrigue for CAP'ers to try to digest    As an example -- membership statistics are interesting, don't seem to see a monthly posting yet showing totals, category totals, and wing/region totals -- So I guess the intrigue would be what does CAP have to hide    Most squadron members can see for themselves how many cadets & senior members are on their books, and how many real show up on a regular basis for unit meetings.   

I think most CAP'ers have the capability to determine for themselves via their personal experiences in CAP as well as reading the various pro & anti CAP websites/blogs about what's going on in CAP, and I personally don't see the value in CAP posting what they did on their website.  Sort of just believe what's on our website and not anyone elses.

What I find disturbing is the potential that CAP will start employing "correctness" police to visit various website and/or review posting and report to their superiors what they have learned.  Anytime anyone in CAP starts talking "core values" be careful (it's the all inclusive way I got ya now dirtbag member)  I know some CAP'ers that have had personal negative experiences with this already (and it was nothing they said that was negative or an attack on an individual).

I think in the end CAP as an organization is going to have to be VERY careful on how they approach this 'freedom of speech" issue.   It is CIVIL Air Patrol, and frankly unless someone is at a CAP meeting, CAP sponsored function, or signed into a CAP mission, they have absolutely NO authority/control over what a member posts on a website/blog, email, verbally in their "real" life.   

Whatever gets posted, I think the vast majority of the civilian (and military) population really could care less about Civil Air Patrol anyways :angel:

RM 

[FW]

I find it interesting that another "blogger" who also happens to be a "former disgruntled member" published this letter a week before it made it to the CAP website. 

As one who has been attacked by both, I really don't take much credence in either. However, each side seems to get some information correct.  It is our responsibility, as CT contributors and, as CAP members, to research all the information possible before making any opinions or decisions.

As CAP members, as NED says so well,  our core values must take precedence.  There are proper ways of dealing with wrongs in CAP.  As long as the system is not corrupted, we should expect the system to work.  Those "core values" must really mean something or we have nothing at all.

IMHO, this letter should never have seen the light of day.  I have no idea who is the author and, no inclination why, as members, we should be concerned with these sites other than for entertainment purposes.  We can't control their content nor can we influence the decisions of the Board of Governors, NEC or NB by acting in bad faith.  This letter appears to serve no purpose other than the possible threat of adverse actions taken on members who may voice an opinion which may be contrary to the leadership.  I hope I'm wrong in this assessment.

[ZigZag911]

This letter appears to serve no purpose other than the possible threat of adverse actions taken on members who may voice an opinion which may be contrary to the leadership.  I hope I'm wrong in this assessment.

I read the document in the original link several times; I don't find any such threat, explicit or implied.

Could you please cite the passage you consider threatening? possibly I'm missing something.

In any case, one aspect of the Internet is that many users assume it provides total anonymity (which of course is not the case) and so post things that are in fact false, defamatory, or vulgar, often attacking other individuals and groups. They think they are hidden and can post tings that they'd never express face to face (whether out of courtesy or cowardice, it hardly matters which)

Because so many people take everything they find on the web as true, it probably is necessary for organizations and individuals to defend themselves, and to keep members advised of the truth (or,a t least, the other side of the story!)

And, I feel, it is important to hold  accountable those who misuse their freedoms to harm others. We are,a after all, each responsible for our personal words and actions.

[FW]

^"Social media communications strategies, are currently being explored by a committee consisting of members and NHQ staff to determine recommendations designed to assist members in using these resources to our best advantage."

We have been debating this issue for some time.  Our corporate legal counsel and many others have said there is not much we can do, as an organization, with these "bloggers" or social media.  Knowing this puts a slant on this publication which,to me, seems a bit suspicious. Maybe I've become cynical in my old age.  With over 8 years of NB experience spanning over 12 years, I probably am reading more into this than is really there.  However, maybe I'm not....

Note:  In 1999, 2 bloggers (also former disgruntled members and, also from SER) created such a fuss, the FBI, OSI and congress got involved with CAP.  Guess what happened....

[JC004]

It has been some time since I've seen the rantings of the individual's blog in question, but I wonder if he said something in particular that made them decide to release this.  This has, after all, been going on for quite some time.  I guess that he has been after Maj Gen Courter for some time now.

I like how they mention having a committee exploring social media.  *sigh*  Back in February, I met some of the very best experts in this who were involved with 2008 election campaigns and that's not exactly the approach they had to this... BLAH!  I really hope that a revised 110-1 comes out of this committee!  We need that badly.  I also really hope that it's people with good ideas and a grasp of the area instead of just whatever group of people were suckers for more work.  :-)

[NIN]

You can also look at it like this: To some extent, bloggers can conduct the cyberspace equivalent of "asymmetric warfare" against organizations that are not a savvy in the "blogosphere" or "teh Interwebs."   

Think of this in sort of a "new media vs. old media" way:  Organizations, like CAP and others, are accustomed to doing their "PR/PA/public outreach" via press releases, etc.  They don't have their own mouthpiece, per se, and thus tend to move slower, react less, and are less prone to respond "tït for tat" with a blogger.  (another membership organization I belong to has similar issues, however, they've been a little more adroit in addressing these things, with BOD members posting on online forums, etc... That particular organization isn't quite as hidebound by regulations and such as CAP is)   However, any clown with a credit card, an Internet connection and some extra time can suddenly become an "oracle of truth" just because he setup a blog and publishes what appears to be "interesting facts."

CAP isn't going to start up its own blog called "[Redacted blogger's name] is a big fat idiot and a liar." because it just serves to further legitimize the claims made by clearly off-balance people.  Claims have been made, investigated, found to be baseless, and we move on.  Meanwhile these people are out there, garnering a small audience, and attempting to replace fact with opinion, and, well, sad to say, a lot of "media consumers" these days just aren't able to differentiate between the two. 

Just because some guy takes the time to write [poorly] online doesn't mean what he is saying is correct, factual or even remotely based in reality. 

[DogCollar]

I hope that what I am about to say offends no one.  The comments ARE NOT directed at anyone on this forum.

It seems to me that in this age of instant communication (blogs, tweets, IM's, etc...) that people have more opportunities to exercise their constitutional right to free speech with great abandon.  However, with rights comes responsibility.  The first responsibility is to know when to exercise self-censorship.  While I have the right to say almost anything I want...I also have the responsibility to be a member of this society, and if what I say has the possible effect of creating anger or disorder, I should have the wherewithal to pause and think if what I want to say is really worth it, even if it is the unadulterated truth!

I read the website for my local newspaper.  Like a lot of newspaper websites it has a feature where persons can write in a forum about the news stories on the website.  All of it is anonymous.  People write the most vile, angry and disturbing comments on this site, their free speech protected by the newspaper.  However, because it is all anonymous, the writers own no responsibility for self-censorship.

I believe in free speech.  I also believe in civil discourse.  I am fearful that they have become mutually exclusive propositions in our society. 

Again, if I have offended anyone, I apologize upfront.  If I have hijacked the thread towards broader themes and principles, I apologize to the original poster and the moderators.  I thank those of you that have taken the time to read this.

[Майор Хаткевич]

DogCollar,

I agree with what you wrote, and find it true of the reality we live with today.

There was just a big uproar on Blizzard forums, the makers of World of Warcraft, that users on their forums, due to trolling and personal attacks, would have to have their names listed...that proclamation lasted all of 5 minutes...anonymous won again.

[JC004]

People are always going to write nasty things online.  The anonymity available encourages that.   I was reading a news article this morning about the minor DC metro area earthquake.  People were fighting because people from places like CA thought a 3.x earthquake a joke and people from the DC area thought it was crazy.  So people were calling one another "moron," "idiot," etc. over it.  Agh.

People will use their freedoms for all kinds of things - some of them bad.  People kinda suck like that.  What I wonder about is if National has a grasp on all this.  Some organizations stick themselves on Twitter or some such place and think that it is like old media, just on a screen.  It's not.  One thing that I learned from the very best experts in this is that you (as an organization, political candidate, etc.) don't get to decide what is important anymore.  The people on those sites will decide what's important and run with it.  "Message control" as we have been taught in the past is dead.  Stone dead.

It's all about how you play this game now.  You've got to have a deep understanding of this medium in order to win here.  Damage control PR like the Tylenol crisis still gives great lessons, but there is an additional layer to this medium and it will make or break them.

Since I suspect they don't want my experience with this, I can only do as I've done in the past, which is watch in either humor or horror as they implode.  So far, it has only been in horror and frustration, watching them delay, send to committee, attempt to control using PR 1.0, and otherwise not get this medium.  PR as the Boomers and Gen X learned it in college is dead.  But since they want to go this alone without the help of the general membership's incredible talent pool, we'll see how they do, I guess.   

[Eclipse]

You've got to have a deep understanding of this medium in order to win here.

The only way to win is not to play.

[ZigZag911]

Fred, I agree with you & the legal eagles that controlling CAP members' use of social media is going to be a lot like herding cats!

Having said that, though, I also support Dog Collar's point: people need to realize that actions have consequences.

[JC004]

You've got to have a deep understanding of this medium in order to win here.

The only way to win is not to play.

Maybe.  That doesn't seem to have worked so far and now they ARE playing. 

Fred, I agree with you & the legal eagles that controlling CAP members' use of social media is going to be a lot like herding cats!

Having said that, though, I also support Dog Collar's point: people need to realize that actions have consequences.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_MaJDK3VNE

[ZigZag911]

JC004: great video!

[JC004]

JC004: great video!

Thanks.  As you can see, it was shot at a National Board meeting.

[FW]

Fred, I agree with you & the legal eagles that controlling CAP members' use of social media is going to be a lot like herding cats!

Having said that, though, I also support Dog Collar's point: people need to realize that actions have consequences.

Yes, that is quite true.  However, as James' "national board video" plainly shows; it is next to impossible to get control of this; especially using "legacy systems". 

I agree with those who say we need new approaches in dealing with new media.  Members need to be proactive, professional and, provide truthful rebuttal to those who print distortions or lies.  Organizations must allow members to express opinions through social media; providing those opinions are expressed with the same parameters. 

Also, an open, transparent and, "inclusive" governance model of CAP will go far in keeping bad "e-press" from holding us down.  But, that is another topic all together.

[NIN]

The only way to win is not to play.

Sadly, the genie is out of the bottle.

Saying "I'm not going to play" is tantamount to saying "Well, I have this newfangled computerthingy and, well, I don't understand this whole 'computer virus' thing, so I just won't play with it, and if I don't play with it, I won't get a virus, and I won't need 'anti-virus,' right?"

You know how well that works. 

Joshua's approach works for Tic-Tac-Toe and Global Thermonuclear War.  In the movies.

[ZigZag911]

Yes, that is quite true.  However, as James' "national board video" plainly shows; it is next to impossible to get control of this; especially using "legacy systems". 

Why can't wing, group and squadron CCs hold members accountable under our current 'conduct unbecoming' regs?

[AirAux]

What confuses me is the Free Speech issue.  We can use free speech to burn my flag.  We can use free speech to make fun of my Christianity.  We can use free speech to place large, loud, armed (with batons) minorites outside of a voting place, perhaps intimidating voters.  But we can't use free speech to denigrate anyone else's flag, religion, or voter interference..  Why does the tolerance always flow in one direction only??  Why are some given preference by calling some crimes "hate crimes" and others aren't given the same protection.  If some one kills a minority, it becomes a hate crime, if someone kills a 4 year old non-minority girl, it is "only" murder and not heightened to a "hate crime".  This is the problem, there is no more common sense.. Only self-centered interests..  So to monitor the internet and our members, we will have to consider all factions..  IMPOSSIBLE..  Nuf Said..

[Eclipse]

The only way to win is not to play.

Sadly, the genie is out of the bottle.

Saying "I'm not going to play" is tantamount to saying "Well, I have this newfangled computerthingy and, well, I don't understand this whole 'computer virus' thing, so I just won't play with it, and if I don't play with it, I won't get a virus, and I won't need 'anti-virus,' right?"

Not really - clearly we have to insure we are current in regards to communications and technology, that doesn't mean we have to engage in "social media" (which is a new way to say "marketware"), or respond to direct attacks.

Our regs and policies spell out clearly what the path for internal grievances are, and the US court system, Congress, and the USAF have systems to address external complaints, including allegations of the violation of the law.

Allowing anything other than the above to dictate our actions is just the "TMZ'ing" of CAP.

[Lancer]

<snip>that doesn't mean we have to engage in "social media" (which is a new way to say "marketware")</snip>

Ugh. We get it, you don't like "social media", quit already. Besides, this thread has nothing to do with "social media" to begin with, and just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make it bad. Quit being such a 'Chicken Little' about it; the sky is not falling, nor will it anytime soon. "social media" works, prove to me that it doesn't! Hollywood wouldn't have invested millions of dollars in making a movie about how Facebook got it's start if it didn't (http://www.thesocialnetwork-movie.com/).

Besides, the Jackwagon who prompted this thread isn't even using "social media" as a mechanism for his tirade, just some poorly laid out HTML pages and a Yahoo group or two. How 1998-ish of him.

The bottom line is member conduct, period, in person, in print, 'on line', etc. The organization expects you, it's members, to only say wonderfully wonderful stuff about it, because 'it's the right thing to do'. Ok, sure...I've done that, as evident from the posts on my blog, but even that will get you frowned upon by some people, mainly because, and this is entirely my opinion, you made them look bad; but I digress. There have been MANY times I've thought about making posts 'disagreeing' with things in our organization, but, when it comes to my blog, I'm of the opinion of 'if you haven't got anything nice to say, don't say it at all' (thanks, Mom). I love CAP, even with it's faults, through no fault of its own, most issues are brought about by it's members, or in this case, ex-members.

[FW]

Yes, that is quite true.  However, as James' "national board video" plainly shows; it is next to impossible to get control of this; especially using "legacy systems". 

Why can't wing, group and squadron CCs hold members accountable under our current 'conduct unbecoming' regs?

The "Bloggers" in question are not members.  We do not know their sources nor, could we find out.
If a member states an opinion on a blog, discussion group or news page, what would be our options?  "Conduct Unbecoming" can be a slippery slope to witch hunts and pogroms.  I'm not for either and don't think it would help CAP.  All "unacceptable" remarks are made anonymously and impossible to determine authorship.  It's better we deal with this stuff in other ways.
YMMV.

[Pylon]

Is this a draft or something that wasn't supposed to be released?   CAP doesn't have communiqués, we use memorandums for written communication.  It's also not on letterhead, and not signed or from any particular author or office.  That's pretty strange.

[FARRIER]

IMHO, this letter should never have seen the light of day.  I have no idea who is the author and, no inclination why, as members, we should be concerned with these sites other than for entertainment purposes.  We can't control their content nor can we influence the decisions of the Board of Governors, NEC or NB by acting in bad faith.  This letter appears to serve no purpose other than the possible threat of adverse actions taken on members who may voice an opinion which may be contrary to the leadership.  I hope I'm wrong in this assessment.

I felt the same tone in the letter also. Since no one signed the letter, it does beg the question, why was it published. It makes me think of movie "The Last Temptation of Christ", 1988. When it came out the were some protest about it. A member of the Catholic Clergy came out and said perfectly that the protest only hightend the movies visibility. It would have been better just to ignore it. The anology is the former members blog is the movie, this letter is the protest, and all it will do is bring more people to his site who had no clue it existed. I'm not saying that NHQ does not have the right to defend itself, but this particular approach is way off.

Respectfully,

[JC004]

Now that people mention it and I look at his site, I see that it clearly isn't a blog or any other type of social media.  The only thing close that he has is some type of news group.  I don't blame National for not being masters of social media (few people are), but it'd be good if they could recognize the difference.  Otherwise, putting something like this out looks silly once you look at the site in question and realize that it isn't as described.  I get the POINT of the letter, but National should be communicating that they know what this is, what's going on here, and what the members are supposed to do about it.  Of course, the person who typed the letter may also have simply not looked at the site first (as I hadn't).  Since it's unsigned, it'd be appropriate to give them the benefit of the doubt there.

I too wondered why the letter is not in an official CAP format but I've seen a lot of stuff come from various HQ, NHQ included, that didn't meet the correspondence regulations.  So it doesn't strike me as being out of sync with other things that have been done and therefore doesn't by itself make me question its origin.  Many of the memos, letterheads, logos, and the like that I've seen don't follow our written standard format.

[RADIOMAN015]

Hmm, decided to run a Google search  "civil air patrol scandals"
Looks like the former member from FL ain't the only website:

http://[bannedurl]/perl/cap.pl/sky/0292670786.htm
This website has been around for 6 years!!!!

RM

[JC004]

hm.  I never saw that one.  The other two I saw was the one that FW was talking about and one other.  These don't interest me.  I have enough fun following the latest logo trends.

[ZigZag911]

We need to distinguish between defamation, slander, and such and simple negativity.

If someone expresses an unpopular opinion, or one not in keeping with the 'party line', so long as the individual maintains civility and speaks to the issue, this indeed is free speech.

If, however, one engages in personal attacks, invective, disrespect or character assassination, then I believe it in fact becomes a matter of "conduct unbecoming" for a member.

[FW]

^ The keyword is member.  We can only deal with the member who engages in unacceptable conduct.  And, then, we can only deal with members we can identify making unacceptable statements on sites. 

Also, one member's opinion may mean another's "attack".  If there is to be a new "regulation", we need specific guidelines defining such without infringing on our 1st amendment rights.

For non members making such comments, there is little we can do.  Legal action is usually non productive in such cases unless we can prove harm was done.  Since membership is up, missions are up and, business goes on, where is the harm?

If an individual member is harmed, that member may wish to persue legal action however, at the rates lawyers charge, I doubt there would be a financial incentive to follow through with it.

Being at the "top of the heap" carries certain benefits and risks.  Being the target of internet "critique" is one of the risks.  We need to live with this and, learn effective ways to deal with it.  This form of "communique" will simply NOT go away.

[Major Lord]

Hmm, decided to run a Google search  "civil air patrol scandals"
Looks like the former member from FL ain't the only website:

http://[bannedurl]/perl/cap.pl/sky/0292670786.htm
This website has been around for 6 years!!!!

RM

Hillarious! "Rainbow of Terror": it just does not get much wackier than that. Homosexuals in our national leadership is news? Vanguard sells sensible shoes for a reason...

Major Lord

[RADIOMAN015]

You've got to have a deep understanding of this medium in order to win here.

The only way to win is not to play.

Maybe.  That doesn't seem to have worked so far and now they ARE playing. 

Fred, I agree with you & the legal eagles that controlling CAP members' use of social media is going to be a lot like herding cats!

Having said that, though, I also support Dog Collar's point: people need to realize that actions have consequences.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_MaJDK3VNE

Actually some in the volunteer leadership roles may subscribe to additional regulations that would see the general membership as this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHED46nPkxE&feature=related
:angel:
RM

[RVT]

Hillarious! "Rainbow of Terror": it just does not get much wackier than that. Homosexuals in our national leadership is news? Vanguard sells sensible shoes for a reason...Major Lord

I think the fact that nobody thought to grab, or managed to later get "civilairpatrol.com" says a lot.  I really cannot see NHQ losing a domain name dispute over that no matter how inept they may be.

[JC004]

Hillarious! "Rainbow of Terror": it just does not get much wackier than that. Homosexuals in our national leadership is news? Vanguard sells sensible shoes for a reason...Major Lord

I think the fact that nobody thought to grab, or managed to later get "civilairpatrol.com" says a lot.  I really cannot see NHQ losing a domain name dispute over that no matter how inept they may be.

I brought this up a long while back when I called them to discuss 110-1.  The issue didn't seem to be on their radar and I don't think they cared.  I think they would win a dispute hands down and considering we have legal counsel on staff, it wouldn't be like we had to go out and hire some expensive lawyers.

[Eclipse]

A related story today on CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/07/19/commenting.on.news.sites/index.html?hpt=C2

News sites reining in nasty user comments

(CNN) -- User comments on news sites, while vital to interactive storytelling in the digital age, often read like scribblings on a bathroom stall: anonymous, offensive and full of hate...


I find it amusing that CNN feels I care about the random opinions of "Mr. & Mrs. America".  Many of their newcasts are now just aggregations of Twitter and Facebook.  Just tell me what happened.

[raivo]

They are most certainly referring to a former, a certainly disgruntled, CAP member who does frequently post defamatory E-mails on his website.

Oh... that guy again. Great.

I hadn't heard from him in a few years, I assumed his ego had imploded into a black hole due to its incredible mass and taken him with it.

[JayT]

What confuses me is the Free Speech issue.  We can use free speech to burn my flag.  We can use free speech to make fun of my Christianity.  We can use free speech to place large, loud, armed (with batons) minorites outside of a voting place, perhaps intimidating voters.  But we can't use free speech to denigrate anyone else's flag, religion, or voter interference..  Why does the tolerance always flow in one direction only??  Why are some given preference by calling some crimes "hate crimes" and others aren't given the same protection.  If some one kills a minority, it becomes a hate crime, if someone kills a 4 year old non-minority girl, it is "only" murder and not heightened to a "hate crime".  This is the problem, there is no more common sense.. Only self-centered interests..  So to monitor the internet and our members, we will have to consider all factions..  IMPOSSIBLE..  Nuf Said..

Yeah, because white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants have been so oppressed over the decades.....

[Eclipse]

Yeah, because white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants have been so oppressed over the decades.....

Now we see the violence inherent in the system!

[Major Lord]

Yeah, because white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants have been so oppressed over the decades.....

Now we see the violence inherent in the system!

I thought we were an autonomous collective?

Major Lord

[JC004]

Yeah, because white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants have been so oppressed over the decades.....

Now we see the violence inherent in the system!

I thought we were an autonomous collective?

Major Lord

I can see this scene playing out quite well in a CAP unit...     "I AM YOUR (WING) KING!" 

[bosshawk]

Do you mean to say that PAWG doesn't have a Wing King?

[JC004]

Ya never know.  Got fired, had a temp, then had a permanent, then was reinstated by the MARB...

But Arthur WAS their king, right?  That was his point.

[Tubacap]

http://socialmedia.defense.gov/

[Krapenhoeffer]

Just a reminder that legally, Free Speech works both ways. People can say whatever their little hearts desire about WASPs (yes, there are exceptions. I don't want to nitpick). Just as a "WASP" has freedom to say whatever their little heart desires to as well. People not agreeing with you does not constitute a violation of your free speech.

As for the voter intimidation thing, that is currently being looked at. The justice system takes it's sweet time getting things done.

Remember, the vast majority of religious discrimination is not between Christians and non-Christians. It's between people who are apparently the "wrong kind of Christian."

When you put on your uniform, and when you act in an official capacity, you tolerate others beliefs, because people have a right to their own opinion. A right paid for in blood, and protected by Law.

[AirAux]

:"From JThemann
Yeah, because white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants have been so oppressed over the decades....." 



Just for your information, it has been adjudicated that I have been discriminated against by a minority in a Federal Agency, so you may want to back off there...

[DakRadz]

:"From JThemann
Yeah, because white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants have been so oppressed over the decades....." 



Just for your information, it has been adjudicated that I have been discriminated against by a minority in a Federal Agency, so you may want to back off there...

I fall into the bolded category- I laughed at the remark. It was a sarcastic generalization of the norm- not saying it doesn't happen, but which is more common throughout the entire history? Calm down, and back to our regularly scheduled topic.

[davidsinn]

:"From JThemann
Yeah, because white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants have been so oppressed over the decades....." 



Just for your information, it has been adjudicated that I have been discriminated against by a minority in a Federal Agency, so you may want to back off there...

Farmer?

[AirAux]

I am not interested in past history, I am interested in what is happening right now and especially to me..  I have been affected by affirmative action my whole employment history.  This is always by people that were not affected by what happened 100-150 years ago.  This is due to the ongoing perception that by giving them something we will make up for some past sin.  Well, it isn't going to happen.  By giving someone a job or education that they don't deserve you are not righting a wrong, you are only convincing them that they are entitled to something..  This doesn't make them equal, it makes them demanding and increases the racism..

[DakRadz]

Tick tock, hear the clock, Mike'll come and key the lock