<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
        <title>Comments for Worthy of a Repeat.*</title>
        <description>We&apos;re the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost.  All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT,  and KA 2003-2010</description>
        <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/01/worthy_of_a_repeat.html</link>
        <atom:link href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/01/worthy_of_a_repeat_rss.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />

        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2012 15:56:51 Z</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>Movable Type 4.12</generator>
        <language>en</language>
        <copyright>Copyright 2012</copyright>
        <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>

        <item>
            <title>Worthy of a Repeat.*</title>
            <description> Remember - someone is reading. And not just jihadis, but the 1st IO Command &amp; your commander. If watching out for jihadis seems just too esoteric, remember your boss. Cyber Patrol: Careless keyboards can kill By Ed Beemer January 24, 2006 ARLINGTON, Va. (Army News Service, Jan. 24, 2006) -- Fewer people would know about a deployment or operation if you screamed it out at the Superbowl than if you posted it on a Web log or blog. Common sense will tell you not to discuss sensitive subjects on the streets of Baghdad. The same common sense should apply...</description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/01/worthy_of_a_repeat.html</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/01/worthy_of_a_repeat.html</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:49:19 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>

        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Harvey on 2006-01-25</title>
            <description>
                &quot;loose clicks sink ships&quot;

Words to live by...
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/01/worthy_of_a_repeat.html#comment-39567</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/01/worthy_of_a_repeat.html#comment-39567</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:30:06 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from cw4(ret)billt on 2006-01-25</title>
            <description>
                Kat - If I were the offending party, I&apos;d much rather hear about it via e-mail from a civilian reader than via an MP-delivered &quot;Report to the CG immediately&quot; note from the battalion commander.


            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/01/worthy_of_a_repeat.html#comment-39566</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/01/worthy_of_a_repeat.html#comment-39566</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:24:20 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from kat-missouri on 2006-01-25</title>
            <description>
                So, what&apos;s your take?  If I read a blog that I think might have given away senstive information like departure dates or two things I saw yesterday including something about a specific sized shaped IED blowing a specific vehicle in half and somebody who said their exact area of patrol (I mean, down to the neighborhood in the city they were in), would or should I email the perpetrator a note about what may be a problem?  Or, as a civilian, should I pretend that I don&apos;t find that information disturbing and let some other schmuck in the military find it out?

How should one say something without someone getting offended when the person saying it is not a professional or official?
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/01/worthy_of_a_repeat.html#comment-39564</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/01/worthy_of_a_repeat.html#comment-39564</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:45:50 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
    </channel>
</rss>


