Don't Ask, Don't Surf: Pentagon Bans Gay Websites

Jan 4, 2013 | Posted by: Rick in Kansas | Full story: www.queerty.com

While "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" may have been successfully repealed over a year ago, the Pentagon has been dragging its combat boots when it comes to repealing its ban on LGBT sites.

Comments (Page 2)

Showing posts 21 - 28 of28
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Jan 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Now a lesson for you. Dolphins don't have children dumb A$$, they have calves.
Borngay people have calves too
.
Do you like calves?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Jan 6, 2013
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>And this has anything to do with them banning access to sites, such as the one you read here, how?
It's the software they use. It scans for words phrases and images.

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Jan 6, 2013
 
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
It's the software they use. It scans for words phrases and images.
How do they scan an image and determine if it's gay ?
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Jan 6, 2013
 
Cal In AZ wrote:
<quoted text>
How do they scan an image and determine if it's gay ?
Programming government computers with gaydar isn't exactly rocket science; sugar
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1... !/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/ derivatives/gallery_635/2012-n ew-york-city-gay-pride-parade. jpg
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Jan 6, 2013
 
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
Programming government computers with gaydar isn't exactly rocket science; sugar
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1... !/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/ derivatives/gallery_635/2012-n ew-york-city-gay-pride-parade. jpg
Ooops! Apparently Windows7 has the same affliction as the pentagon computers
.
See if this triggers your gaydar:
http://media.villagevoice.com/6830073.87.jpg
Sam

Arnold, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Jan 6, 2013
 
Rainbow Kid wrote:
Thats a good thing
.
It means we aren't under investigation
HOw is voilent GLBT rights to free speech and press a "good" thing?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Jan 6, 2013
 
Cal In AZ wrote:
<quoted text>
How do they scan an image and determine if it's gay ?
Not "gay" ... hard or soft porn.

Many of our sites allow advertizing that is, to say the least, suggestive. Heuristic analysis is pretty basic for these. Certain classes of imagery combined with a simple hits tally of certain flagged words or phrases can do it. It's not very accurate, but even a hack admin can write one.

The DoD doesn't want it's employees to jerk at work (lol) so it wrote or incorporated some very dumb Nanny software to filter it's network.

Duh.

“God made in the image of man”

Since: May 07

Sausalito, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Jan 8, 2013
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
They are currently banning the sites, that would be the present tense.
No, that is grammatically incorrect. To 'ban' something is a one-time action, like breaking a glass. You cannot say: "they are currently breaking a glass." If you wish to indicate that their action is ongoing, you would have to say, "they are upholding a ban on ..." or "they maintain the ban on ..." or "they have failed to lift the ban on ..." -- any of which would have been acceptable and more accurate.

Had the writer of the article said that, I would have no beef with his portrayal. I do not doubt that the Pentagon blocks LGBT sites. My only argument is with the accuracy of the reporting. When were the blocks originally imposed? There would be a huge difference between bans that were imposed BEFORE DODT but never lifted, and imposing specific bans on LGBT sites AFTER DODT! So which is it?? I would expect an honest journalist who writes an article on the topic to address that question, rather than IMPLY something which is not true. Till now I still have not received an answer, so I cannot take a position on the topic.

We're both on the same side, Rick, and questioning journalistic integrity is not the same as opposing LGBT rights.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 21 - 28 of28
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••