The Army is downplaying its own regulations requiring soldiers to get their commander's approval before blogging or sending email after the restrictions raised concerns about free speech on the net. While the regulation hasn't been rescinded, a fact sheet released yesterday effectively says 'never mind.' "In no way will every …
The AR (Army Regulation) won't be changed
Speaking as a retired soldier: The AR will be unchanged because it can be used for "selective enforcement" to punish soldiers who are not technically in violation of other regulations, but who are thorns in the paw of the Established Powers.
Now, we can get some milblog gamers back on line?
Ziggurat Con has been suffering due to this "Don't Tell" policy, and I'm glad the Big Green Machine came to their senses. For more details on the first gaming con in a combat zone, visit http://operationdicedrop.blogspot.com which is 100% commercial free, BTW.
Ziggurat Con: Where RPG isn't just a Rocket Propelled Grenade!
An army, not The Army
Your story refers to "The Army", and it isn't immediately clear which army you refer to. Eventually it transpires that you are referring to the United States army.
Look, The Register is a British website, isn't it? You have a US version but surely it would be sensible to write, and have your journalists write, from a British or even a world perspective, and not assume that all readers are from the USA? Even Wired, the source whence came the original story, referred to the "U.S. Army" in its report.
Wrong. US Army = The Army. Any other fighting force must bend to the will of the dominate US military machine and the political and financial superpower they represent.
Well, Jesse, I will hand to you that the U.S. Army especially and military in general are "world champions" in blowing stuff up. Too bad the ain't even half the task in modern war scenarios - as adequately portrayed in the current state of (in)security in both Iraq and Afghanistan....
In that view I sincerely hope there are other armies - or else are we really screwed!
Queue multiple people from multipal nations going "My (or their) army can beat up your army" argument. Lame.
Am I the only one
that sees that Jesse was perhaps being a touch sarcastic... and aren't we, the English, supposed to be the self-appointed kings of sarcasm?
Anyone remember when the Reg ran a story about how we don't necessarily see how people mean a statement? It was a bit of a joke in itself, but it made a decent point because if someone is joking or having a laugh, or being satirical for that matter as I believe Jesse was, unless you include some kind of indicator in the text it's all but impossible to notice.
They then went on to say they would use different colours to represent different emotions (mercifully they did not suggest the use of 'emoticons'), and to our US readership include the word *JOKE* in flashing red letters to indicate irony (or something like that).
Seems they're not the only ones that need the flashing red letters.
Can I sugest the use of : - ) to show sarcasm. I find it works well, as long as you dont fill your work with emoticons, or use the flipin GIF ones.
Also I thought the sarcasm was quight obvious.
- +Comment Trips to Mars may be OFF: The SUN has changed in a way we've NEVER SEEN
- Vid Google opens Inbox – email for people too stupid to use email
- Back to the ... drawing board: 'Hoverboard' will disappoint Marty McFly wannabes
- Pic Forget the $2499 5K iMac – today we reveal Apple's most expensive computer to date
- Google+ goes TITSUP. But WHO knew? How long? Anyone ... Hello ...