It also appears that OrangeMarlin was quoting an outdated version of the Army regulation. An excerpt from the linked 2005 revision follows:
http://docs.usapa.belvoir.army.mil/jw2/xmldemo/r25_1/head.asp
*e. Authorized uses of communication systems. Authorized use includes brief communications made by DOD employees while they are traveling on Government business to notify family members of transportation or schedule changes. They also include personal communications from the DOD employee's usual workplace that are most reasonably made while at the work place (such as checking in with spouse or minor children; scheduling doctor and auto or home repair appointments; brief Internet searches; e-mailing directions to visiting relatives). Such communications may be permitted, provided they — *
*(1) Do not adversely affect the performance of official duties by the employee or the employee's organization. *
*(2) Are of reasonable duration and frequency, and, whenever possible, are made during the employee's personal time, such as during lunch, break, and other off-duty periods). *
-Durova
To clarify:
Article 78 of the UCMJ states that any person subject to this chapter who, knowing that an offense punishable by this chapter has been committed, receives, comforts, or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial, or punishment shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Article 92 of the UCMJ states that 1) any person subject to this chapter who violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation, 2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order (so branch of service is irrelevant)
5 C.F.R. 2635.704 of US Code states that all employees of the Department of Defense have a duty to protect and conserve Government property, and to refrain from using or allowing its use for purposes other than those for which it is made available to the public or those authorized in accordance with law or regulation.
This is the specific Air Force regulation on Internet use. It's in caps, because the Air Force does it that way:
4. INTERNET USE. GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING ELECTRONIC MAIL AND INTERNET SYSTEMS, ALONG WITH THEIR ASSOCIATED HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE, ARE FOR OFFICIAL AND AUTHORIZED PURPOSES ONLY. COMMANDERS MAY AUTHORIZE INCIDENTAL USE WHICH: DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES; IS OF REASONABLE DURATION AND FREQUENCY; SERVES A LEGITIMATE AIR FORCE INTEREST, SUCH AS,ENHANCING PROFESSIONAL OR MILITARY EDUCATION; AND DOES NOT OVERBURDEN THE SYSTEM OR CREATE ANY SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO THE AIR FORCE. A GOVERNMENT SUBSCRIPTION FOR COMMERCIAL INTERNET SERVICES OR FEE-FOR-USE SERVICES MUST BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO USING GOVERNMENT OWNED EQUIPMENT TO ACCESS THESE COMMERCIAL SERVICES. ACCESS TO AIR FORCE NETWORK TERMINAL SERVERS FROM HOME WILL BE LIMITED TO OFFICIAL USE.
UCMJ lists out criminal procedures. Military regulations are established by each department of the Department of Defense. But they're the same, and officers are obligated by Article 92 to follow the regulations of any of the armed forces. Their some differences in regs (like it's unlikely that the Air Force has any regs with respect to submarines, and the Navy unlikely has any regs that deal with B-52 bombers).
On Jan 2, 2008 9:36 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
It also appears that OrangeMarlin was quoting an outdated version of the Army regulation. An excerpt from the linked 2005 revision follows:
http://docs.usapa.belvoir.army.mil/jw2/xmldemo/r25_1/head.asp
*e. Authorized uses of communication systems. Authorized use includes brief communications made by DOD employees while they are traveling on Government business to notify family members of transportation or schedule changes. They also include personal communications from the DOD employee's usual workplace that are most reasonably made while at the work place (such as checking in with spouse or minor children; scheduling doctor and auto or home repair appointments; brief Internet searches; e-mailing directions to visiting relatives). Such communications may be permitted, provided they — *
*(1) Do not adversely affect the performance of official duties by the employee or the employee's organization. *
*(2) Are of reasonable duration and frequency, and, whenever possible, are made during the employee's personal time, such as during lunch, break, and other off-duty periods). *
-Durova _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Nathan
Now we have seen the up to date Army regulation. Is that the most up to date AF one. Can you source it so that we can verify it? :)
Mercury
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 8:41 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Legal obligation to report Wikipedia
To clarify:
Article 78 of the UCMJ states that any person subject to this chapter who, knowing that an offense punishable by this chapter has been committed, receives, comforts, or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial, or punishment shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Article 92 of the UCMJ states that 1) any person subject to this chapter who violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation, 2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order (so branch of service is irrelevant)
5 C.F.R. 2635.704 of US Code states that all employees of the Department of Defense have a duty to protect and conserve Government property, and to refrain from using or allowing its use for purposes other than those for which it is made available to the public or those authorized in accordance with law or regulation.
This is the specific Air Force regulation on Internet use. It's in caps, because the Air Force does it that way:
4. INTERNET USE. GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING ELECTRONIC MAIL AND INTERNET SYSTEMS, ALONG WITH THEIR ASSOCIATED HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE, ARE FOR OFFICIAL AND AUTHORIZED PURPOSES ONLY. COMMANDERS MAY AUTHORIZE INCIDENTAL USE WHICH: DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES; IS OF REASONABLE DURATION AND FREQUENCY; SERVES A LEGITIMATE AIR FORCE INTEREST, SUCH AS,ENHANCING PROFESSIONAL OR MILITARY EDUCATION; AND DOES NOT OVERBURDEN THE SYSTEM OR CREATE ANY SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO THE AIR FORCE. A GOVERNMENT SUBSCRIPTION FOR COMMERCIAL INTERNET SERVICES OR FEE-FOR-USE SERVICES MUST BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO USING GOVERNMENT OWNED EQUIPMENT TO ACCESS THESE COMMERCIAL SERVICES. ACCESS TO AIR FORCE NETWORK TERMINAL SERVERS FROM HOME WILL BE LIMITED TO OFFICIAL USE.
UCMJ lists out criminal procedures. Military regulations are established by each department of the Department of Defense. But they're the same, and officers are obligated by Article 92 to follow the regulations of any of the armed forces. Their some differences in regs (like it's unlikely that the Air Force has any regs with respect to submarines, and the Navy unlikely has any regs that deal with B-52 bombers).
On Jan 2, 2008 9:36 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
It also appears that OrangeMarlin was quoting an outdated version of the Army regulation. An excerpt from the linked 2005 revision follows:
http://docs.usapa.belvoir.army.mil/jw2/xmldemo/r25_1/head.asp
*e. Authorized uses of communication systems. Authorized use includes
brief
communications made by DOD employees while they are traveling on
Government
business to notify family members of transportation or schedule changes. They also include personal communications from the DOD employee's usual workplace that are most reasonably made while at the work place (such as checking in with spouse or minor children; scheduling doctor and auto or home repair appointments; brief Internet searches; e-mailing directions to visiting relatives). Such communications may be permitted, provided they -
*
*(1) Do not adversely affect the performance of official duties by the employee or the employee's organization. *
*(2) Are of reasonable duration and frequency, and, whenever possible, are made during the employee's personal time, such as during lunch, break, and other off-duty periods). *
-Durova _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I'd look it up, but its really irrelevant.
On Jan 2, 2008 9:50 PM, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Nathan
Now we have seen the up to date Army regulation. Is that the most up to date AF one. Can you source it so that we can verify it? :)
Mercury
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 8:41 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Legal obligation to report Wikipedia
To clarify:
Article 78 of the UCMJ states that any person subject to this chapter who, knowing that an offense punishable by this chapter has been committed, receives, comforts, or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial, or punishment shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Article 92 of the UCMJ states that 1) any person subject to this chapter who violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation, 2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order (so branch of service is irrelevant)
5 C.F.R. 2635.704 of US Code states that all employees of the Department of Defense have a duty to protect and conserve Government property, and to refrain from using or allowing its use for purposes other than those for which it is made available to the public or those authorized in accordance with law or regulation.
This is the specific Air Force regulation on Internet use. It's in caps, because the Air Force does it that way:
- INTERNET USE. GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT,
INCLUDING ELECTRONIC MAIL AND INTERNET SYSTEMS, ALONG WITH THEIR ASSOCIATED HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE, ARE FOR OFFICIAL AND AUTHORIZED PURPOSES ONLY. COMMANDERS MAY AUTHORIZE INCIDENTAL USE WHICH: DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES; IS OF REASONABLE DURATION AND FREQUENCY; SERVES A LEGITIMATE AIR FORCE INTEREST, SUCH AS,ENHANCING PROFESSIONAL OR MILITARY EDUCATION; AND DOES NOT OVERBURDEN THE SYSTEM OR CREATE ANY SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO THE AIR FORCE. A GOVERNMENT SUBSCRIPTION FOR COMMERCIAL INTERNET SERVICES OR FEE-FOR-USE SERVICES MUST BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO USING GOVERNMENT OWNED EQUIPMENT TO ACCESS THESE COMMERCIAL SERVICES. ACCESS TO AIR FORCE NETWORK TERMINAL SERVERS FROM HOME WILL BE LIMITED TO OFFICIAL USE.
UCMJ lists out criminal procedures. Military regulations are established by each department of the Department of Defense. But they're the same, and officers are obligated by Article 92 to follow the regulations of any of the armed forces. Their some differences in regs (like it's unlikely that the Air Force has any regs with respect to submarines, and the Navy unlikely has any regs that deal with B-52 bombers).
On Jan 2, 2008 9:36 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
It also appears that OrangeMarlin was quoting an outdated version of the Army regulation. An excerpt from the linked 2005 revision follows:
http://docs.usapa.belvoir.army.mil/jw2/xmldemo/r25_1/head.asp
*e. Authorized uses of communication systems. Authorized use includes
brief
communications made by DOD employees while they are traveling on
Government
business to notify family members of transportation or schedule changes. They also include personal communications from the DOD employee's usual workplace that are most reasonably made while at the work place (such as checking in with spouse or minor children; scheduling doctor and auto or home repair appointments; brief Internet searches; e-mailing directions to visiting relatives). Such communications may be permitted, provided they -
*(1) Do not adversely affect the performance of official duties by the employee or the employee's organization. *
*(2) Are of reasonable duration and frequency, and, whenever possible, are made during the employee's personal time, such as during lunch, break, and other off-duty periods). *
-Durova _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
It is not irrelevant if the most up to date AF regulation permits some personal use of the government resource.
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 8:56 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Legal obligation to report Wikipedia
I'd look it up, but its really irrelevant.
On Jan 2, 2008 9:50 PM, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Nathan
Now we have seen the up to date Army regulation. Is that the most up to date AF one. Can you source it so that we can verify it? :)
Mercury
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 8:41 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Legal obligation to report
Wikipedia
To clarify:
Article 78 of the UCMJ states that any person subject to this chapter who, knowing that an offense punishable by this chapter has been committed, receives, comforts, or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial, or punishment shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Article 92 of the UCMJ states that 1) any person subject to this chapter who violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation, 2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order (so branch of service is irrelevant)
5 C.F.R. 2635.704 of US Code states that all employees of the Department of Defense have a duty to protect and conserve Government property, and to refrain from using or allowing its use for purposes other than those for which it is made available to the public or those authorized in accordance with law or regulation.
This is the specific Air Force regulation on Internet use. It's in caps, because the Air Force does it that way:
- INTERNET USE. GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT,
INCLUDING ELECTRONIC MAIL AND INTERNET SYSTEMS, ALONG WITH THEIR ASSOCIATED HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE, ARE FOR OFFICIAL AND AUTHORIZED PURPOSES ONLY. COMMANDERS MAY AUTHORIZE INCIDENTAL USE WHICH: DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES; IS OF REASONABLE DURATION AND FREQUENCY; SERVES A LEGITIMATE AIR FORCE INTEREST, SUCH AS,ENHANCING PROFESSIONAL OR MILITARY EDUCATION; AND DOES NOT OVERBURDEN THE SYSTEM OR CREATE ANY SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO THE AIR FORCE. A GOVERNMENT SUBSCRIPTION FOR COMMERCIAL INTERNET SERVICES OR FEE-FOR-USE SERVICES MUST BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO USING GOVERNMENT OWNED EQUIPMENT TO ACCESS THESE COMMERCIAL SERVICES. ACCESS TO AIR FORCE NETWORK TERMINAL SERVERS FROM HOME WILL BE LIMITED TO OFFICIAL USE.
UCMJ lists out criminal procedures. Military regulations are established by each department of the Department of Defense. But they're the same, and officers are obligated by Article 92 to follow the regulations of any of the armed forces. Their some differences in regs (like it's unlikely that the Air Force has any regs with respect to submarines, and the Navy unlikely has any regs that deal with B-52 bombers).
On Jan 2, 2008 9:36 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
It also appears that OrangeMarlin was quoting an outdated version of the Army regulation. An excerpt from the linked 2005 revision follows:
http://docs.usapa.belvoir.army.mil/jw2/xmldemo/r25_1/head.asp
*e. Authorized uses of communication systems. Authorized use includes
brief
communications made by DOD employees while they are traveling on
Government
business to notify family members of transportation or schedule changes. They also include personal communications from the DOD employee's usual workplace that are most reasonably made while at the work place (such as checking in with spouse or minor children; scheduling doctor and auto or home repair appointments; brief Internet searches; e-mailing directions
to
visiting relatives). Such communications may be permitted, provided they
-
*(1) Do not adversely affect the performance of official duties by the employee or the employee's organization. *
*(2) Are of reasonable duration and frequency, and, whenever possible,
are
made during the employee's personal time, such as during lunch, break,
and
other off-duty periods). *
-Durova _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Nathan wrote:
To clarify:
Article 78 of the UCMJ states that any person subject to this chapter who, knowing that an offense punishable by this chapter has been committed, receives, comforts, or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial, or punishment shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
5 C.F.R. 2635.704 of US Code states that all employees of the Department of Defense have a duty to protect and conserve Government property, and to refrain from using or allowing its use for purposes other than those for which it is made available to the public or those authorized in accordance with law or regulation.
This is the specific Air Force regulation on Internet use. It's in caps, because the Air Force does it that way:
- INTERNET USE. GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT,
INCLUDING ELECTRONIC MAIL AND INTERNET SYSTEMS, ALONG WITH THEIR ASSOCIATED HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE, ARE FOR OFFICIAL AND AUTHORIZED PURPOSES ONLY. COMMANDERS MAY AUTHORIZE INCIDENTAL USE WHICH: DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES; IS OF REASONABLE DURATION AND FREQUENCY; SERVES A LEGITIMATE AIR FORCE INTEREST, SUCH AS,ENHANCING PROFESSIONAL OR MILITARY EDUCATION; AND DOES NOT OVERBURDEN THE SYSTEM OR CREATE ANY SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO THE AIR FORCE. A GOVERNMENT SUBSCRIPTION FOR COMMERCIAL INTERNET SERVICES OR FEE-FOR-USE SERVICES MUST BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO USING GOVERNMENT OWNED EQUIPMENT TO ACCESS THESE COMMERCIAL SERVICES. ACCESS TO AIR FORCE NETWORK TERMINAL SERVERS FROM HOME WILL BE LIMITED TO OFFICIAL USE.
It seems that in all that the key statement is "COMMANDERS MAY AUTHORIZE INCIDENTAL USE." How can anyone say that he knows about an offence if he is not on the same base, and knows nothing about the orders by the commander of the putative offender's base?
Ec
On 1/3/08, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It seems that in all that the key statement is "COMMANDERS MAY AUTHORIZE INCIDENTAL USE." How can anyone say that he knows about an offence if he is not on the same base, and knows nothing about the orders by the commander of the putative offender's base?
Good point. Furthermore, is there a specific obligation to go out of ones way to "fish" for compromising information on a wikipedia user, I.E. Isn't there anything like our AGF in the best practises of the armed servises?
Even if there were an affirmative obligation to pass on any information that would lead to the apprehension of somebody misusing resources, wouldn't such an affirmative obligation only apply to positive knowledge. That is, how should anyone be affirmatively obliged to inform upon a *possible* infraction?
If that were the case, wouldn't that mean that those folk should be running around frenetically informing their higher-ups about every suscpicion they might have about their brothers in arms... ?
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
"Commanders may authorize incidental use which:...serves a legitimate Air Force interest"
Have to include the context.
On Jan 3, 2008 5:21 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/3/08, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It seems that in all that the key statement is "COMMANDERS MAY AUTHORIZE INCIDENTAL USE." How can anyone say that he knows about an offence if he is not on the same base, and knows nothing about the orders by the commander of the putative offender's base?
Good point. Furthermore, is there a specific obligation to go out of ones way to "fish" for compromising information on a wikipedia user, I.E. Isn't there anything like our AGF in the best practises of the armed servises?
Even if there were an affirmative obligation to pass on any information that would lead to the apprehension of somebody misusing resources, wouldn't such an affirmative obligation only apply to positive knowledge. That is, how should anyone be affirmatively obliged to inform upon a *possible* infraction?
If that were the case, wouldn't that mean that those folk should be running around frenetically informing their higher-ups about every suscpicion they might have about their brothers in arms... ?
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
R+R is a legitimate air force interest. I emailed my Army JAG friend, I'm waiting on a response. However, from my own experiences in both Army and USAF computer facilities in Iraq and other middle east countries, we're all arguing about a complete non-issue. Here's the rub: The military, ALL branches of the military, regularly set up and authorize the use of computer labs and stations for off-duty browsing. The navy has them installed on their ships. The Air Force sets them up at air bases, and the army comes in and mooches off of them until we get our own. These facilities are at the discretion of the installation commander and he can always take them back and shut them down. But in practice, that never happens. Did you know there is an MOS in the air force for internet help desk? That means there are people who's entire job in the airforce is getting sent to kuwait and answering phone calls from junior officers about why flash videos of a dog humping a cat are loading slowly.
This is all really much ado about nothing.
-Dan On Jan 3, 2008, at 8:55 AM, Nathan wrote:
"Commanders may authorize incidental use which:...serves a legitimate Air Force interest"
Have to include the context.
On Jan 3, 2008 5:21 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/3/08, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It seems that in all that the key statement is "COMMANDERS MAY AUTHORIZE INCIDENTAL USE." How can anyone say that he knows about an offence if he is not on the same base, and knows nothing about the orders by the commander of the putative offender's base?
Good point. Furthermore, is there a specific obligation to go out of ones way to "fish" for compromising information on a wikipedia user, I.E. Isn't there anything like our AGF in the best practises of the armed servises?
Even if there were an affirmative obligation to pass on any information that would lead to the apprehension of somebody misusing resources, wouldn't such an affirmative obligation only apply to positive knowledge. That is, how should anyone be affirmatively obliged to inform upon a *possible* infraction?
If that were the case, wouldn't that mean that those folk should be running around frenetically informing their higher-ups about every suscpicion they might have about their brothers in arms... ?
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 03/01/2008, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
That means there are people who's entire job in the airforce is getting sent to kuwait and answering phone calls from junior officers about why flash videos of a dog humping a cat are loading slowly.
*splorf* Quote of the day.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 03/01/2008, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
That means there are people who's entire job in the airforce is getting sent to kuwait and answering phone calls from junior officers about why flash videos of a dog humping a cat are loading slowly.
*splorf* Quote of the day.
Almost rivals my latest blunder...
"Are you now, or have you ever been, in the employ of the organisation commonly known as the Church of Scientology"?
Denial posted on my talk page was met with...
"You have no more interest in news that conforms to NPOV than the Pope has in canonising w:Ian Paisley"
Now I have the CoS investigating my ass.
Brian McNeil
On 03/01/2008, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 03/01/2008, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
That means there are people who's entire job in the airforce is getting sent to kuwait and answering phone calls from junior officers about why flash videos of a dog humping a cat are loading slowly.
*splorf* Quote of the day.
Almost rivals my latest blunder... "Are you now, or have you ever been, in the employ of the organisation commonly known as the Church of Scientology"? Denial posted on my talk page was met with... "You have no more interest in news that conforms to NPOV than the Pope has in canonising w:Ian Paisley" Now I have the CoS investigating my ass.
As long as your ass is neutral and, of course, newsworthy.
[[:en:Xenu]], printed out and condensed, is excellent and neutral reading for all on the subject.
- d.
Could we take out the [WikiEN-l] from our subjects for posting to foundation? Thank you for consideration in this. Regards, Mercury
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 10:26 AM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Legal obligation to report Wikipedia
On 03/01/2008, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 03/01/2008, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
That means there are people who's entire job in the airforce is getting sent to kuwait and answering phone calls from junior officers about why flash videos of a dog humping a cat are loading slowly.
*splorf* Quote of the day.
Almost rivals my latest blunder... "Are you now, or have you ever been, in the employ of the organisation commonly known as the Church of Scientology"? Denial posted on my talk page was met with... "You have no more interest in news that conforms to NPOV than the Pope has in canonising w:Ian Paisley" Now I have the CoS investigating my ass.
As long as your ass is neutral and, of course, newsworthy.
[[:en:Xenu]], printed out and condensed, is excellent and neutral reading for all on the subject.
- d.
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org