Come on, Mojo. I answered your questions and you refuse to answer mine.
If we are going to have a two-way discussion that means we both ask and answer questions.
I know, I don't agree with the decision.
Inappropriate use of government equipment and misuse of government employee's time springs to mind...
..."The videos, shot and edited using Navy equipment, were shown over the ship's internal system to its nearly 6,000 crew members on a weekly "movie night," the newspaper reports.
In one scene, two female sailors stand in a shower stall, pretending to wash each other. In others, sailors parade in drag, use anti-gay slurs, and simulate masturbation and a rectal exam. Another scene implies an officer is having sex in his stateroom with a donkey..."
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/01/02/Navy-probes-condemns-raw-ship-videos/UPI-47331294009807/
So you want to continue the investigation because it was inappropriate?
It was not a misuse of the gov't employee's time. It was put on the ships entertainment system. No one on duty would have been watching.
I can pretty much guarantee that 6,000 people did not view this video. At any given time, between 20% and 30% of the people are on duty and would not be watching. Another significant segment would be doing other things besides watching tv. Especially once they saw that it was a video created by one of their officers.
Now try and answer my question. Should Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn be in the ship's library??
The making of the video on Navy gear by serving Navy enlisted personnel and officers could constitute an infraction of regulations.
Employees shall protect and conserve Federal property and shall not use
it for other than authorized activities.
5 C.F.R. 2635.101(b)(9)
(Seventh Principle of Ethical Conduct)
An employee has a duty to protect and conserve Government property
and shall not use such property, or allow its use, for other than
authorized purposes.
5 C.F.R. § 2635.704(a)
(Use of Government Property)
http://www.dod.gov/dodgc/defense_et...10_Deskbook/8ECC_UseOfGovernmentResources.pdf
Lets get real here, Mojo. I do not think you are concerned about whether this was an authorized use of Navy equipment.
It is about the inappropriateness of the material that offends you. Am I correct?
Lets get real here, Mojo. I do not think you are concerned about whether this was an authorized use of Navy equipment.
It is about the inappropriateness of the material that offends you. Am I correct?
The video was made for entertainment purposes. If people were entertained, it was used for the purpose for which it was intended.
So still dodging the question?
You are not.
Are you ready to cut wasteful government spending?
The Navy and several crewmembers disagree with you, apparently.
"Navy Cmdr. Chris Sims said in a statement that the videos "were not acceptable then and are not acceptable in today's Navy."
Executive officers and other leaders "are charged to lead by example and are held accountable for setting the proper tone and upholding the standards of honor, courage and commitment that we expect sailors to exemplify," he said.
...The Virginian-Pilot quoted anonymous crew members who said they raised concerns aboard the ship about the videos when they aired, but they were brushed off..."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40889027/ns/us_news-life/
So it was bad or inappropriate entertainment, but it did not use any gov't funds, or use any equipment in a manner for which it was not intended.
Now, in a previous thread you said I was incorrect that this was about the inappropriateness of the video, that it was about cutting gov't funding. Now its about it being inappropriate content again?
Which is it? Was I wrong or not?
So how about that question of the Mark Twain book? Wanna give it a shot now?
The video was made for entertainment purposes. If people were entertained, it was used for the purpose for which it was intended...QUOTE]
I didn't raise the "entertainment" value...you did.
The purpose is relevant only in that it was not an officially recognized or authorized use of the Navy's equipment or personnel.
I've already shown you how the Navy (and several crewmembers) said the videos were not "entertaining".
The former XO (now Captain") has been relieved, so I suppose the right people weren't "entertained".
I've also cited the appropriate regulations regarding inappropriate use of goverment equipment and time of government personnel.
Which part of this is confusing you?
earlier, you said this:
The video was made for entertainment purposes. If people were entertained, it was used for the purpose for which it was intended...QUOTE]
I didn't raise the "entertainment" value...you did.
The purpose is relevant only in that it was not an officially recognized or authorized use of the Navy's equipment or personnel.
I've already shown you how the Navy (and several crewmembers) said the videos were not "entertaining".
The former XO (now Captain") has been relieved, so I suppose the right people weren't "entertained".
I've also cited the appropriate regulations regarding inappropriate use of goverment equipment and time of government personnel.
Which part of this is confusing you?
I said, "Lets get real here, Mojo. I do not think you are concerned about whether this was an authorized use of Navy equipment.
It is about the inappropriateness of the material that offends you. Am I correct?"
YOu replied that I was wrong and then asked if I was serious about cutting wasteful spending.
I challenged you to show me what money was spent on this event, and you returned to trying to prove that the material was inappropriate.
I am not confused at all.
Are you against this because of the inappropriateness of the video, as I thought??
earlier, you said this:
I said, "Lets get real here, Mojo. I do not think you are concerned about whether this was an authorized use of Navy equipment.
It is about the inappropriateness of the material that offends you. Am I correct?"
YOu replied that I was wrong and then asked if I was serious about cutting wasteful spending.
I challenged you to show me what money was spent on this event, and you returned to trying to prove that the material was inappropriate.
I am not confused at all.
Are you against this because of the inappropriateness of the video, as I thought??
No.
So you are against this because you think it is an example of wasteful spending?
So you are against this because you think it is an example of wasteful spending?
Did I say I am against it?
Did I say I am against it?
Are you now saying you are not against it?
You talked several times about wasteful spending. But I have yet to see you explain how any money was spent on this event.
Are you now saying you are not against it?
You talked several times about wasteful spending. But I have yet to see you explain how any money was spent on this event.
No.
Are you claiming that the video and editing equipment and the facilities used for the taping were provided to the US Navy free of charge, and that the crew members who operated it were all off duty?
No.
Are you claiming that the video and editing equipment and the facilities used for the taping were provided to the US Navy free of charge, and that the crew members who operated it were all off duty?
I did not claim that at all. But there have been no claims that they purchased any equipment to make this video. If this video had not been made, what video equipment would not have been purchased? What actual money was spent on this video?
Yes, I am fairly certain the crew members who operated the equipment were off duty. But, for the sake of argument, what money would have been saved if on-duty personnel were used? The crew members gained more experience in filming, editing ect, and they were not paid more tax dollars for doing any of it. There is nothing consumed in making digital videos.
Again, what money was spent making this video?