I’m tempted to concede that my first impression was clouded by a report from Rosemary that Concrete Bob had been blocked because of his participation in the Stop the Flight 93 Memorial project, of which I am also a member.
When I found out to my dismay that I had been locked out, I went with the bug planted by Concrete Bob and sent out the mass-email, linking it to Obama supporters. Why? Well the article at the NYT's helped re-enforce that thought: Google and the Anti-Obama Bloggers
Late Friday I eventually learned that literally thousands of blogs being hosted on Blogger were being listed as SPAM, and that the problem might be internal to Blogger. {Note: Blogger is owned by Google.)
Did I jump the gun? Possibly.
Would I do it again? Yes.
And here is why. Was this simply the result of a malfunctioning bot or was it a concerted effort by persons as yet unidentified? Blogger seemed rather quick to just reset everyone and claim responsibility, but was any investigation undertaken to determine who had been flagged by the supposedly malfunctioning bot and who had been physically flagged by someone as spam?
It seems to me that Blogger staff would be able to let each blog owner know how their blog was flagged; they have our contact information after all. Furthermore, why haven’t all concerned been contacted by Blogger staff directly to let them know exactly how their blog was flagged and the steps taken to resolve the issue? I have yet to receive an email from Blogger about this, as I noted yesterday, I had to log in to my blog and find out for myself that the flag had been lifted.
If this wasn’t a concerted campaign, to silence blogs that stand in opposition to Obama, and support a victorious outcome in Iraq, then how about printing a list of every blog that had been flagged and let us review it for any inconsistencies or trends. While many rather mundane blogs have been locked out, a good portion of these I was in contact with all are right of center blogs. So how about it Blogger, how many pro-Obama blogs were locked out?
Here is just a partial list of blogs that had also been affected…
Concrete Bob
Princess Crabby
Information Dissemination
Flag Gazing
Joshua Pundit
Blue Lyon
Come A Long Way
Nobama Blog
Hyper Educated Uppity Woman
Reflections in Tyme
McCain Democrats
Hillary Or Bust
Florida Voters
Political Lizard
Deacons Bench
Paragraph Farmer
Happy Catholic
Vita Nostra in Ecclesia
Catholic Fire
Dr. Helen
Organized Rage
Puma PAC
America for Hillary
Political Discontent
Florida-Michigan
Caucus Cheating
Rapture Alert
RanthonySteele
Right on the Left Coast
Tiger Hawk
Eye on Miami
Mitchell Langbert
Beers with Demo
Purple Avenger
A Catholic Mom in Hawaii
Red Maryland
Canterbury Tales
LA Catholic
Do you see any trends?
Bob Owens’ of Confederate Yankee who published my first email indicating that I had been locked out is hesitant to ask for any further investigation and is willing to agree that Blogger was at fault for this shutdown, but he also notes that Obama supporting bloggers had done this same thing a month ago and further notes that Google was and still is very reluctant to admit that it had been duped. If Google/Blogger could be duped then, why not now? And if they were duped again, that certainly would explain their super quick response of simply resetting thousands of blogs that suddenly were being flagged as SPAM.
For most people this incident is over, but for some of us the experience will be leaving a sting that will take a long time to go away, and until Google/Blogger thoroughly investigates this matter and makes a full and public accounting of it, there will continue to be suspicions.
When I found out to my dismay that I had been locked out, I went with the bug planted by Concrete Bob and sent out the mass-email, linking it to Obama supporters. Why? Well the article at the NYT's helped re-enforce that thought: Google and the Anti-Obama Bloggers
Late Friday I eventually learned that literally thousands of blogs being hosted on Blogger were being listed as SPAM, and that the problem might be internal to Blogger. {Note: Blogger is owned by Google.)
Did I jump the gun? Possibly.
Would I do it again? Yes.
And here is why. Was this simply the result of a malfunctioning bot or was it a concerted effort by persons as yet unidentified? Blogger seemed rather quick to just reset everyone and claim responsibility, but was any investigation undertaken to determine who had been flagged by the supposedly malfunctioning bot and who had been physically flagged by someone as spam?
It seems to me that Blogger staff would be able to let each blog owner know how their blog was flagged; they have our contact information after all. Furthermore, why haven’t all concerned been contacted by Blogger staff directly to let them know exactly how their blog was flagged and the steps taken to resolve the issue? I have yet to receive an email from Blogger about this, as I noted yesterday, I had to log in to my blog and find out for myself that the flag had been lifted.
If this wasn’t a concerted campaign, to silence blogs that stand in opposition to Obama, and support a victorious outcome in Iraq, then how about printing a list of every blog that had been flagged and let us review it for any inconsistencies or trends. While many rather mundane blogs have been locked out, a good portion of these I was in contact with all are right of center blogs. So how about it Blogger, how many pro-Obama blogs were locked out?
Here is just a partial list of blogs that had also been affected…
Concrete Bob
Princess Crabby
Information Dissemination
Flag Gazing
Joshua Pundit
Blue Lyon
Come A Long Way
Nobama Blog
Hyper Educated Uppity Woman
Reflections in Tyme
McCain Democrats
Hillary Or Bust
Florida Voters
Political Lizard
Deacons Bench
Paragraph Farmer
Happy Catholic
Vita Nostra in Ecclesia
Catholic Fire
Dr. Helen
Organized Rage
Puma PAC
America for Hillary
Political Discontent
Florida-Michigan
Caucus Cheating
Rapture Alert
RanthonySteele
Right on the Left Coast
Tiger Hawk
Eye on Miami
Mitchell Langbert
Beers with Demo
Purple Avenger
A Catholic Mom in Hawaii
Red Maryland
Canterbury Tales
LA Catholic
Do you see any trends?
Bob Owens’ of Confederate Yankee who published my first email indicating that I had been locked out is hesitant to ask for any further investigation and is willing to agree that Blogger was at fault for this shutdown, but he also notes that Obama supporting bloggers had done this same thing a month ago and further notes that Google was and still is very reluctant to admit that it had been duped. If Google/Blogger could be duped then, why not now? And if they were duped again, that certainly would explain their super quick response of simply resetting thousands of blogs that suddenly were being flagged as SPAM.
For most people this incident is over, but for some of us the experience will be leaving a sting that will take a long time to go away, and until Google/Blogger thoroughly investigates this matter and makes a full and public accounting of it, there will continue to be suspicions.
The EEEEEEEEVIL Obamanation bloggers have scammed us, once again, and managed to get dozens of Conservative blogs deemed "spam". In order to save face of our Obamanation friends and customers, we will take full blame for this event. We, at Google, consider the matter closed, and so should the rest of you whining slacker McCain loving nutjobs.
PTHTHTHTHTHHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHHTHTHTHTH
What?! Dude, you're so smoking. Internal lines of comm. The infamous 3-1 ratio(whether that be in pure numbers or of capabilities). I could go on and on about the strategic advantages of being on the defensive, but won't. YOu really might want to rething this.
True, one cannot conquer all under heaven from behind walls, but that does not mean it is almost entirely bereft of strategic advantages to be on the strategic defensive.
Not to mention the dicussion by Corbett about the rather useless attempt to categorize an action as offensive or defensive(Jap-Russo war was a defensive action by Japan, yet, saw them invading Korea.)
Really, homey, you might want to rethink that statement a touch.
This coming from the person that made a tactical retreat in the other thread due to inability to sustain an argument for any long period of time (surpassing more than one post)?
I'll rethink things once you actually come up with an argument.
Pre-emptive, definitely, but to call it a *defensive* action is really stretching the definition.
Yeah, Teach, sign me up with the others, here. While certainly things can get muddled, it's perfectly possible to be on the defensive and not have internal lines (such as the US and Britain in the Pacific reaches at the start of WWII), and the fact that most instances of being on the defense to *win* essentially depends on you allowing the other side the initiative to determine the outcome, even if it ends up in your favor, and that usually because the other guy started something he couldn't finish, or *you* started something the other guy couldn't finish.
Our Revolution was fought defensively by us as far as Britain was concerned... and we were losing until we went over to the offense and brought in the French...
If the Soviets took your advice, the Germans would be on the Volga. They might not hold Moscow, but they'd have the Ukraine.
The Israelis are on the strategic defensive, to be sure - but that's in large part due to the fact that *we and the Soviets* didn't let them take Damascus or move on Cairo - but it was still *offensive* action that gives them what strategic depth they have.
The key point Ymar was making was as much tied to *initiative* as anything else - and that sitting on the strategic defensive is generally something you do because you either aren't interested in a hot war, as what we did with the Soviets during the Cold War, or because you are biding your time until such time as you can go over to the offense, something Bobby Lee understood.
Or Yamamoto. Both to their regret.
Take it up with Corbett, Chief. It's in his book on nautical strategy(it's around here somewhere, nope, nor under the couch), in which he spends the first HALF dealing with why he defines things as he does while extrapolating from Clauswitz. In terms of politics as well as military strategy it was defensive. What was the point of that war from Japan's POV? To not let Russia hold their economic interest at knife point. He spends a good deal of talking about how whether an action is defined by its Object. The Object was defensive in that it was preventative instead of taking. So, yeah, you're wrong. This is one of the few times I'm actually going to tell you your full of it, Unk.(Would you put down that 12" spanner? And what's with that homicidal gleam in your eyes?) That war was defensive in its nature very much the way all the Israeli ones were or WW2 from the US pov. Their point was to stop aggression by an adversary and took on flavors of the offensive at the theatre, operational, and tactical levels. You're wrong.(Can't dig hidey hole fast enough. Yipe!)
Ymar, ooooooooh. Burned me there. When you actually have something other than from the Cult of Testerone or Jock Sniffery 101 class I'll actually make a real argument to your bs. Until then, keep playing COD on the 360.
John, yeah, I know, but remember what I'm talking about, which is a general fracking point and speaking against the insane cult of the offensive. Strategic defensive has advantages to it, and quite a bit more than 'a few'. Am I wrong in general or am I right? Otherwise quit the snipping because it is talking about the general. Hell, was the Pacific an offensive event or defensive? It was defensive, based on the Object(repel and halt Japanese aggression) it is obviously defensive.
For that matter going on the offensive can be boneheaded in the extreme. The Germans punched themselves out in WW2 by being on the offensive. They didn't have the logistics train to fight just about anywhere. Where's the strategic advantage of the attack there, huh? Give me a break, BB. I was talking in general. The defensive has many advantages. It isn't as 'cool' as offensive. So? AirLand(descendent of Mobile Defense) was based around defensive in implementation in Fulda. So, it's all crap then? Teh strat defensive sucks so let's not do it. Screw defending Fulda or the other two axis of USSR advance, let's just blow into Eastern Europe because there's no defense like a good offense? Dude. That's what you're doing when you side with, "Being on the defensive has many tactical advantages, but it has almost no strategic ones."
YOu think I don't understand that the better point is initiative, and not offensive or defensive? Why the hell do you think I brought up Ruso-Jap and Corbett's theory of strategy instead of Mahan or Fuller or Liddel-Hart? SHould I launch into discourse on the center position, how it can be done well, and why lesser commanders shouldn't use it because they can't fully utilize initiative better than their opponents so you'll get off my back when I'm talking on large scale instead of small scale? Geez, gout makes you into a grumpy Bear, don't it?
Could it be that I understand that anything I say to Ymar is going to get his hackles up, have him dare me to a fight, and launch him into uber-macho prick waving and I smell jock better contests so went with the lightest I could muster? naw.
Could it be that instead of taking him apart on why not everyone could run from Kurita, beyond issues of speed, even if they wanted to because there was an invasion force they were meant to screen behind them while 7th fleet couldn't move to deal with Kurita effectively and so *someone* had to make a stand(ergo, not a f'n death ride which is vain and the action of an idiot, see Charge of the Light brigade, or even Lee ordering Picket on his infamous and useless charge because Lee couldn't come up with anything better, and against Longstreet's advice to fight a tactically defensive battle because the S. was numerically exhausted by Gettysburg) to protect all those men on the beach and that immense amount of sea lift that'd also be lost if every element ran---which Kurita would have loved not so he could blow it up in pursuit but because he could then get onto his objective I decided it wasn't worth getting into a flame war? Maybe I'm saying little, against character, because I know numnuts won't listen but I might encourage him to read something other than cult of the warrior level history by questioning him a little, and maybe get others to think about it.
Probably in vain, but, hey, I'm stubborn.
Naw, let's just jump on me for making a general point by using games of stump the chump. THat's learning. Let's forget all the examples have contextual reasons for why they make sense(counter attacking, or holding everything they can to the last man like Stalingrad and Lenningrad---inherently defensive, or anything else). No, let's just jump me because I dared to say some dude had it wrong (which you assume, apparently, I do out of a grudge and hence step in to seperate the fighting children), there's a good number of advantages on the strategic defensive, and one shouldn't become an acolyte of the Church of the Offensive---which is what his statement that I challenged obviously says one should do(attack, there's no point in defense, there's no advantages to it. Let's just wreck a Patton quote. Attacking is cool)--- because there's problems with that too(The Somme, Barbarrosa(even if OKW had their way), IJ strategy in attacking American in the first place, Rommel in his obssession with Tobruk and other actions in N. Africa(oh, double he had initiative too), Nappy in his drive for Moscow(another double), The Later Crusades, Paschendale, and the Argentinian move for the Maldives/Falklands). Nope no point here. Move along. These aren't thr droids you're looking for.
Come on, John. Give me some credit. Think for a moment that I might actually have a point instead of a grudge which then you have to resolve or side with someone over, hey? I think I earned it in a previous incarnation, and by not engaging in flame wars (until now).
And, aren't you talking about different levels of action here(strat, theatre, operational, tactical)? Aren't you effectively saying that once one is taking ground that it is now and offensive war from a strategic standpoint? What a load, John. So, the French were on the strategic offensive when trying to evict the Germans from French territory after Schlieffen failed and again in WW2? That's what it looks like you're saying. BUt, NO!, the French weren't on the offensive. They were trying to take back their land. It was STRATEGICALLY defensive even if it used offensive actions below the strategic level(which was the bloody point of the Ruso-Jap example, homey). It was not an argument in favor of defensive action at all levels all the time(wouldn't the Sun Tzu indicate that I didn't believe in defensive only? Should I type it again, in bold, maybe beg the html code from a programmer friend to make it flash and dance around the screen too?) but against the silly contention that there's almost no advantage to being on the strategic defensive(again, note the modifier of strategic which puts it apart from the tactical or operational level, which the ISraelis definitely were on the offensive at those levels. And, dude, Cairo? With what logistical train were they going to sustain that, regardless of whether the US or USSR was going to let them, hmm?).
Dude, sorry if I'm kicking you on a really bad day, but get off my back with this sniping when you're backing a guy making a silly argument, 'kay? ;)
I can't compete, I cede the field, and the argument.
Do you really believe that someone who can't make an argument except one about games, is somebody I'll take seriously? John could piece together the differences between tactics and strategy from my one liner, but you keep talking about defense vs offense independent of the considerations tactics and strategy have separately.
The Cult of Testosterone is about you calling bs on things due to the fact that you can't back up your own fabricated claims and misinterpretations.
which is a general fracking point and speaking against the insane cult of the offensive.
I'll be sure to tell those who attacked the Bismarck and terrorists that they should tone down their insanity. Given that you won't. Things are insane and pointless because you say so, I know. When they're not insane and pointless, this then makes you right, we know. But I don't play that kind of identity warfare where 'good' is whatever you say and 'bad' is whatever you are against.
I was talking in general.
You don't even use the OODA cycle. That means your general scheisse is restarded.
Why the hell do you think I brought up Ruso-Jap and Corbett's theory of strategy instead of Mahan or Fuller or Liddel-Hart?
Testosterone is about getting ass cracked n' retarded acting concerning a subject that you should be calm and cogent about.
have him dare me to a fight
I'm not the one picking fights here. That's called you. Unless you're Ry, I have no prior history with you for you to justify ambushing me. Or unless you were a troll I bashed on other blogs like Neo-Neocon's. That's certainly possible.
or even Lee ordering Picket on his infamous and useless charge because Lee couldn't come up with anything better
There goes that "things are good because I say so and things are bad because I say so" line of temporal history. Attacks are bad because you say so and not only don't have any advantages, but are pointless in the bargain. But oh when people want to talk about the disadvantages or lack of advantages to a defensive strategy, now suddenly it's about how useful it is. And the funny thing is, you actually try to pretend you're objective here.
there's a good number of advantages on the strategic defensive, and one shouldn't become an acolyte of the Church of the Offensive---which is what his statement that I challenged obviously says one should do(attack, there's no point in defense, there's no advantages to it.
What a flawed lie. It's unfortunate that somebody who wants to pick fights and have a beef with me personally, can't even continue the fight after I respond. That is what had my laughing my arse off and is the primary reason I don't take you seriously, demonstrated in this thread. It was quite obvious from your tone that you were biased against me for one reason or another. Yet from my perspective, somebody like you who want to start fights because you are biased against others, yet won't continue the fight when it starts looking hot (flames), is pretty funny.
I realize you just can't help making stuff up when rewriting history, but you have to at least be a little more subtle about it.
Being on the defensive has many tactical advantages, but it has almost no strategic ones.-Ymar
which is what his statement that I challenged obviously says one should do(attack, there's no point in defense, there's no advantages to it-CBT
Maybe I'm saying little, against character, because I know numnuts won't listen but I might encourage him to read something other than cult of the warrior level history by questioning him a little, and maybe get others to think about it.
My, don't you hold yourself in high esteem.
***************************************
Many people will realize, without me telling them explicitly, that taking a waiting posture to allow the Left to decide the time and manner of their attacks, produces some interesting results. For one thing, it requires eternal vigilance to be on the defensive. It's not a tactical battle where things go one way or the other in a few hours or even days. It's strategic now, where the time scale is in the months, years, if not decades. Maintaining vigilance over that period of time for a defensive posture is pretty crippling to the defenders.
Those who choose to wait and defend against the Left's attacks will never be certain in what form those attacks will come. And they will never know even when they have defeated an attack. They don't know how much a failed attack hurt the opposition, because if they knew that, they would have known when the attack would have come and in what form.
You could beat off an attack and never be sure it came from them. It could be an accident, a trick of light, or some Murphy machination. It could be anything and everything.
A good strategy for defense may beat off all the attacks, but their (defenders') position does not become the stronger for it. Unless there's an attack going towards an enemy target, whether it be their homeland's will, their army's morale, their logistics, their C3 structure, or something else the enemy has that is valuable to them, no strategic gains will be made by the defenders.
A strategy of defense does not contain offensive operations. It is either one or the other. It is only war that combines the two into one thing or act or battle or fight. A human being can hold contradictory beliefs in his head, but a strategy for defending is about defending while a strategy for winning the war may include both offense and defense. This isn't just an academic distinction for paper wars, this is an actual distinction in terms of how human beings act and react. You are either in the cause state or the effect state. You are either reacting to being injured or you are the one injuring another person. Part of the reason why there are so many one sided battles in history.
*************************
If you hadn't underestimated me, CBT, and chose to attack me on what you perceived to be my weaknesses, you wouldn't have caught yourself into a quagmire, you know.
Um, Gentlemen - The Rulez, please. Attack the message, not the messenger.
Keeps things more civil.
And we learn more, other than who has a mastery of snark.
And there are good nuggets in this discussion, while I step over the cowpies you guys are leaving.
Let's just ignore that it was something you directly sought out, it can still be used as a justification to withdraw.
I had thought after John wrote
I surrender to your far vaster and subtle understanding of things, CBT.
I can't compete, I cede the field, and the argument.
That he was okay with that particular style of yours. It seems I was wrong. But it makes no practical difference to me. I was ready to defend my positions against justified or unjustified charges before hand and I am ready now.
I don't particularly like waiting around until the next insensate explosion of yours, CBT. It is rather inconvenient to always be on guard for people picking apart your one liners or short comments because of a personal beef they have. Experience has taught me more effective ways to dealing with this, you may say.
Cass in the Military Rape post said something to the effect that she always saw people being harassed and never standing up for themselves or defending their rights and privileges so they get stepped on all the time. Well, there's defense for ya.
A good game, if you can withstand it for long.
People can believe they can school me in anything they wish. They may or may not be right. But to attempt to do so and then run the heck away... not exactly the thing I expected.
Depending on whether the burglar or gang member is going to come back or not, I may or may not expend the effort to chase them down. But if I even suspect they are going to come back for me with a larger mob than they had before, then you know exactly what I'm going to do, John.
But don't shoot them in the back as they try to run away! Ignore bullies and they'll go away!
No, people will go away when they get attacked and injured and put into the defensive. They'll go away when they are physically unable to function.
Israel has sacrificed many of her citizens precisely because after the first attack, she said "okay, it was a misunderstanding so we're going to give back your land for peace". After the second attack, third attack, fifth attack, 50th attack, John... they're still doing the same damn thing.
I don't play by that philosophy.
Don't worry, I got the meaning. Based upon an analysis of your previous phrases where you didn't make explicit tone signals, I could see where your style was going now.
When you, then, explicitly noted that relationship, I knew you had clocked in for some snark.
But it was also a good excuse for me to expand on my point, given the opening.
I can't compete, I cede the field, and the argument. 8^)