| Author | Post |
|---|
mark edward marchiafava
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 05:39 pm |
|
You guys amaze me.
The heading is 100% accurate.
The blocking is taking place in the state of Mississippi.
No, not EVERYwhere in Mississippi, but the blocking referred to IS happening in Mississippi as opposed to, say, Louisiana.
If this confuses you, it's YOU who doesn't understand the English language.
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1361 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 05:41 pm |
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: You guys amaze me.
The heading is 100% accurate.
The blocking is taking place in the state of Mississippi.
No, not EVERYwhere in Mississippi, but the blocking referred to IS happening in Mississippi as opposed to, say, Louisiana.
If this confuses you, it's YOU who doesn't understand the English language.
No, the heading is not 100% accurate. It is just not inaccurate. It is misleading, and leaves out a critical piece of information. Keep spinning, you will auger in soon.Last edited on Mon Oct 26th, 2009 05:41 pm by wrightme
|
mark edward marchiafava
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 05:43 pm |
|
Unlike most here, I am always willing to learn from others.
Please point out exactly what part of the heading is not correct, I'll change it.
A headline is not intended to convey the entire message, but give an indication as to the content. My heading does just that.
|
possumboy
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 07:01 pm |
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: Here's the latest.....................
Library administrator, Toni James, informs me if I request the librarian to unblock a site, she will enter a password to allow access to sites blocked.
This entire scenario is due to the fact the library receives appx. $86,000 in federal funds which mandates it.
What federal mandate? Can you get more specific information on this federal mandate that requires libraries to block gun sites?
If it is true that it is a Federal Mandate, then we need to fight it there. If it is not, it will be calling them out.
|
mark edward marchiafava
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 07:03 pm |
|
I didn't state it was a federal "mandate," but with any federal monies comes strings.
Blocking certain websites is one of them attached to this grant.
|
possumboy
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 07:13 pm |
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: I didn't state it was a federal "mandate," but with any federal monies comes strings.
Blocking certain websites is one of them attached to this grant.
Which Federal Grant that mandates it then? I would still be good to know where the battle is.
I'm still suspicious about a grant that forces them to block sites. That seems like a First Amendment violation.
|
mark edward marchiafava
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 07:20 pm |
|
Why not contact the library administrator out of McComb, MS?
If you CHOOSE to take their money (which is really ours in the first place), you must agree to their terms.
A waiving of a right must be done so knowingly. Certainly, the library folks were well aware of the strings attached.
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1361 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 08:05 pm |
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: Unlike most here, I am always willing to learn from others.
Please point out exactly what part of the heading is not correct, I'll change it.
A headline is not intended to convey the entire message, but give an indication as to the content. My heading does just that.
The "niggle" was pointed out clearly by others already, but you may have missed it.
"Opencarry.org banned in Mississippi" does imply that the website is banned in the state, not in one small part of the state. I did not claim that part of the heading was not correct. I did claim that it was misleading, which it is. Others have presented more accurate choices. Here is one from me.
"Mississippi public library blocks ocdo on computers"
ANYONE (even you) should be able to ascertain the difference.....
|
mark edward marchiafava
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 08:09 pm |
|
Yes, the site IS banned in Mississippi.
Note: the headline doesn't say it is banned in Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas or any other state, but Mississippi.
Go show this to your 5th grade English teacher, ask HER if it's incorrect.
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1361 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 08:49 pm |
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: Yes, the site IS banned in Mississippi.
Note: the headline doesn't say it is banned in Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas or any other state, but Mississippi.
Go show this to your 5th grade English teacher, ask HER if it's incorrect.
No, the site is banned in a library. That library happens to be in Mississippi. 
You are simply being dramatic for effect, as opposed to being clear for clarity. Typical.
|
mark edward marchiafava
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 08:50 pm |
|
it's grammatically correct, end of conversation, talk to yourself.
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1361 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 09:01 pm |
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: it's grammatically correct, end of conversation, talk to yourself.
Grammatically correct does not equate to informationally correct.
|
JeepSeller
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 21st, 2009 |
| Location: | Orlando, FL |
| Posts: | 132 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27th, 2009 06:54 am |
|
The title is grammatically correct. It was nothing more than an attention getter, no different than when certain gossip rags on the supermarket shelf read "Elvis spotted in 7-11".
It's not that Elvis himself was in the corner Slurpee center, but, perhaps an Elvis impersonator was there. Again, grammatically correct, but, misleading none the less. That's the difference that's being argued here. Not grammar but intention.
It's painfully obvious that MEM craves attention. He's using one of the oldest tactics in the book to get it. Had he said "Opencarry.org banned in Mississippi library", I'm sure he knows he'd have gotten far fewer "clicks" on his thread. No where near the 700+ views and 30+ responses he's tricked out of all of you.
By posting a sensationalism style "headline" he got the attention he craves.
This is precisely why normally accepted forum decorum asks those that create a new thread to be a little more specific in their heading, and avoid these kind of generalities, lest this kind of circus act/debate result wasting every one's time.
|
PT111
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27th, 2009 05:04 pm |
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: Here's the latest.....................
Library administrator, Toni James, informs me if I request the librarian to unblock a site, she will enter a password to allow access to sites blocked.
This entire scenario is due to the fact the library receives appx. $86,000 in federal funds which mandates it.
That is my understanding of federal guidelines on public libraries. I don't know the law or mandate but they are required to use filters but must be able to bypass the filters. I do not think that there are any specific guidelines on which sites to filter only vague definitions. The actual sites are left up to the individual library. However as she said that if you request the filter to be removed then they must allow you access to any site.
It appears that the SAF lawsuit is exactly that where they are refusing to remove the filter. It was also my understanding that it is not necessary that they receive "fedreal" funds but rather "public" funds and be classified as a public library. These rules do not apply to libraries in schools including colleges unless they are open to the public for unlimited use. I don't think it made it to the Supreme Court but it was a court ruling that the filters be removable to allow some dude to watch porn in a public library.
|
Harper1227
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 31st, 2008 |
| Location: | Lorton, VA |
| Posts: | 315 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27th, 2009 07:12 pm |
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: it's grammatically correct, end of conversation, talk to yourself.
ok, I get it you're right. your choice of word order doesn't bother me a bit. Not like you said 'State of Mississippi bans OCDO'.
but more to the point, you're just kinda being a D%*k about it.
You could have just said "my bad guys, meant it as in the ban is occuring IN Mississippi" and not been condesending and insulting. No one appreciate that.
you have enough posts; you would think you would have more respect for this board. poor show.
edit: caught my poor spelling before being called an idiot.
Last edited on Tue Oct 27th, 2009 07:18 pm by Harper1227
|
possumboy
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 01:57 pm |
|
PT111 wrote: That is my understanding of federal guidelines on public libraries. I don't know the law or mandate but they are required to use filters but must be able to bypass the filters. I do not think that there are any specific guidelines on which sites to filter only vague definitions. The actual sites are left up to the individual library. However as she said that if you request the filter to be removed then they must allow you access to any site.
It appears that the SAF lawsuit is exactly that where they are refusing to remove the filter. It was also my understanding that it is not necessary that they receive "fedreal" funds but rather "public" funds and be classified as a public library. These rules do not apply to libraries in schools including colleges unless they are open to the public for unlimited use. I don't think it made it to the Supreme Court but it was a court ruling that the filters be removable to allow some dude to watch porn in a public library.
I remember a case up in MD here DHS officers pulled a guy out of a library for looking at porn.
It was determined that:
1. He had the right to look at it there.
2. DHS officers had not authority there anyway.
I know in a Prince William County, VA library there was a sign asking you to sit in the back if you would be browsing material others may consider offensive. I asked for a written definition of offensive, but they were unable to provide one.
I will see if I can find the MD case.
|
TheGreatGonzo
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 03:17 pm |
|
possumboy wrote:
I remember a case up in MD here DHS officers pulled a guy out of a library for looking at porn.
It was determined that:
1. He had the right to look at it there.
2. DHS officers had not authority there anyway.
I know in a Prince William County, VA library there was a sign asking you to sit in the back if you would be browsing material others may consider offensive. I asked for a written definition of offensive, but they were unable to provide one.
I will see if I can find the MD case.
Please post the info if you find it. I was unable to come up with anything like that in Maryland, but I'm searching without many details.
Thanks,
Gonzo
|
Harper1227
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 31st, 2008 |
| Location: | Lorton, VA |
| Posts: | 315 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 03:21 pm |
|
TheGreatGonzo wrote: possumboy wrote:
I remember a case up in MD here DHS officers pulled a guy out of a library for looking at porn.
It was determined that:
1. He had the right to look at it there.
2. DHS officers had not authority there anyway.
I know in a Prince William County, VA library there was a sign asking you to sit in the back if you would be browsing material others may consider offensive. I asked for a written definition of offensive, but they were unable to provide one.
I will see if I can find the MD case.
Please post the info if you find it. I was unable to come up with anything like that in Maryland, but I'm searching without many details.
Thanks,
Gonzo
found this
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/16/AR2006021602066.html?sub=AR
Policing Porn Is Not Part of Job Description
Montgomery Homeland Security Officers Reassigned After Library Incident
By Cameron W. BarrWashington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 17, 2006
Two uniformed men strolled into the main room of the Little Falls library in Bethesda one day last week and demanded the attention of all patrons using the computers. Then they made their announcement: The viewing of Internet pornography was forbidden.
The men looked stern and wore baseball caps emblazoned with the words "Homeland Security." The bizarre scene unfolded Feb. 9, leaving some residents confused and forcing county officials to explain how employees assigned to protect county buildings against terrorists came to see it as their job to police the viewing of pornography.
After the two men made their announcement, one of them challenged an Internet user's choice of viewing material and asked him to step outside, according to a witness. A librarian intervened, and the two men went into the library's work area to discuss the matter. A police officer arrived. In the end, no one had to step outside except the uniformed men.
They were officers of the security division of Montgomery County's Homeland Security Department, an unarmed force that patrols about 300 county buildings -- but is not responsible for enforcing obscenity laws.
if ( show_doubleclick_ad && ( adTemplate & INLINE_ARTICLE_AD ) == INLINE_ARTICLE_AD && inlineAdGraf )
{
placeAd('ARTICLE',commercialNode,20,'inline=y;',true) ;
}
In the post-9/11 era, even suburban counties have homeland security departments. Montgomery County will not specify how many officers are in the department's security division, citing security reasons. Its annual budget, including salaries, is $3.6 million.
Later that afternoon, Montgomery County's chief administrative officer, Bruce Romer, issued a statement calling the incident "unfortunate" and "regrettable" -- two words that bureaucrats often deploy when things have gone awry. He said the officers had been reassigned to other duties.
Romer said the officers believed they were enforcing the county's sexual harassment policy but "overstepped their authority" and had to be reminded that Montgomery "supports the rights of patrons to view the materials of their choice."
The sexual harassment policy forbids the "display of offensive or obscene printed or visual material." But in a library, which is both a public arena and a county workplace, the U.S. Constitution trumps Montgomery's rules.
At most public libraries in the Washington area, an adult can view pornography on a library computer more or less unfettered. Montgomery asks customers to be considerate of others when viewing Web sites. If others are put off, librarians will provide the viewer of the offending material with a "privacy screen."
Fairfax County forbids library use of the Internet to view child pornography or obscene materials or to engage in gambling or fraud. But Fairfax library spokeswoman Lois Kirkpatrick said, "Librarians are not legally empowered to determine obscenity."
D.C. library spokeswoman Monica Lewis said the system is working on guidelines for Internet use, but she added that recessed computer screens generally ensure patrons their privacy.
Although many library systems in the United States use filtering software, the D.C. and Fairfax systems do not, and Montgomery uses such software only on computers available to children. Leslie Burger, president-elect of the American Library Association, said the reality is that "libraries are not the hotbed of looking at porn sites."
Still, Montgomery plans to train its homeland security officers "so they fully understand library policy and its consistency with residents' First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution," Romer said in his statement.
|
TheGreatGonzo
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 05:34 pm |
|
Harper1227,
Thanks for the info. I'm glad you had better luck than I did. I guess my Google-Fu is weak.  So these guys were not even law enforcement officers. They were some sort of unarmed security patrol. Nice...very nice.
|
CommonMan101
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed May 20th, 2009 |
| Location: | Dallas, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 33 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 06:39 pm |
|
Can you get on OCDO in MS legally anywhere? - yes! Has the State banned it everywhere? No!
The headline is misleading and sensational because you CAN go to OCDO on any other (non-library) computers in MS. So how is it un-questionably true? You have to qualify it narrowly for it to remain a true statement.
I have only heard children try to make arguements like this and defend it so hard.
Example: The selling of Jack Daniels is prohibited in Texas! ( on Sundays and after 9:00pm on all other days )
/sarc on
Hey! It's true you can't buy JD in Texas! What I said is technically true! I was IN Texas and I wasn't allowed to buy it! So go shove it! Talk to yourself!
/sarc off
Last edited on Sat Nov 7th, 2009 06:42 pm by CommonMan101
|
Current time is 01:02 am | Page:   1 2 |
|
