LaxPower Back-Up Stick

a fan wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 5:48 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 5:20 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 3:57 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 3:38 pm You both are missing the entire point or have my comment confused, maybe neither of you have ever held a clearance and gone through brutal extensive process. My point.....when you are first cleared, then in control of and in possession of classified documents, not to mention you also told that 'assume' everything is classified/sensitive, the accountability is on YOU, FULL STOP, you OWN those documents (essentially)...treat them as if they are the blood that flows in your veins.

To blame the accounting process, is a direct result, and the symptom of personal irresponsibility of the those in pocession of gov't docs...FULL STOP. If there is not agreement on this, then it makes sense why it seems to be far easier to blame someone else and avoid personal responsibility...which is where we are these days....its always someones elses fault, unless its for the better, then we own the responsibility.

Buffalo Bagels. Ten seconds ago I cited that the Reagan White House failed with their docs, too. You can't chalk this up to the silly game of pretending like Reagan era's sense of personal responsibility was better than today's. They failed just like everyone else.


And YA, for heaven's sake: If you don't know where the documents are, and who has them? How could you POSSIBLY know that the people in the Reagan era handled documents properly?

And pretty please, don't play the game of bailing from the conversation. Give me the courtesy of accepting that you CAN'T tell if the all of the Reagan era employees handled the documents with more responsibility then they do today. It's IMPOSSIBLE to know.

I don't understand how you don't see this as THE problem.

The portion in bold is my standing accountability argument.....and again, you must not have ever gone through clearance screening.

I really cant explain it any clearer than I already did but I'll try,

You are stuck on the 'inventory' of docs...I already said I agree. BUT, even if the docs are inventories.....why is going to say Mr. President, we need those docs back.....and if he says I cant find them.....we'll whos fault is that?...exactly, the person "in care' of them. My point screaming at the top of my lungs.....I handed you my baby to take care of while I went overseas, you agreed to all the terms, you stuff him in the closet and forget about him.....its not my fault I handed you my son to watch. But for some reason, in your logic, you want to say its my fault I didnt come check on him or ask for proof you still have him?

Ok great. The goalposts are in place, and we have the metaphor you gave me.

Let's walk through what you think is perfectly acceptable for your baby, and this is just off the top of my head.

1. You have no way of checking up on your baby at any time. Can't call. Can't text.
2. You have no way of knowing where your baby is at any time.
3. You have given me no timeline to return your baby.... could be years. Decades, even.
4. There isn't just one baby, my man. There are MILLIONS of babies, and numbers 1-4 apply to all of them
5. You have no way of knowing if I've returned your baby.
6. You literally don't care if I return the baby, because you have no way of checking if I returned the baby.


....do you need me to keep going?

And to answer your question: because you, as the father of the baby, set up conditions #1-#6....I would, without hesitation, hold BOTH of you responsible for losing the baby.

So....are we on the same page now? Do you get why the problem is a SYSTEMIC problem?

My solution is the same: either fix the system, or don't have any "babies", and don't mark them classified. Pick one.

Because looking at #1-#7, it's patently clear that this system doesn't give a sh(t about their baby.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 5:52 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 5:48 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 5:20 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 3:57 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 3:38 pm You both are missing the entire point or have my comment confused, maybe neither of you have ever held a clearance and gone through brutal extensive process. My point.....when you are first cleared, then in control of and in possession of classified documents, not to mention you also told that 'assume' everything is classified/sensitive, the accountability is on YOU, FULL STOP, you OWN those documents (essentially)...treat them as if they are the blood that flows in your veins.

To blame the accounting process, is a direct result, and the symptom of personal irresponsibility of the those in pocession of gov't docs...FULL STOP. If there is not agreement on this, then it makes sense why it seems to be far easier to blame someone else and avoid personal responsibility...which is where we are these days....its always someones elses fault, unless its for the better, then we own the responsibility.

Buffalo Bagels. Ten seconds ago I cited that the Reagan White House failed with their docs, too. You can't chalk this up to the silly game of pretending like Reagan era's sense of personal responsibility was better than today's. They failed just like everyone else.


And YA, for heaven's sake: If you don't know where the documents are, and who has them? How could you POSSIBLY know that the people in the Reagan era handled documents properly?

And pretty please, don't play the game of bailing from the conversation. Give me the courtesy of accepting that you CAN'T tell if the all of the Reagan era employees handled the documents with more responsibility then they do today. It's IMPOSSIBLE to know.

I don't understand how you don't see this as THE problem.

The portion in bold is my standing accountability argument.....and again, you must not have ever gone through clearance screening.

I really cant explain it any clearer than I already did but I'll try,

You are stuck on the 'inventory' of docs...I already said I agree. BUT, even if the docs are inventories.....why is going to say Mr. President, we need those docs back.....and if he says I cant find them.....we'll whos fault is that?...exactly, the person "in care' of them. My point screaming at the top of my lungs.....I handed you my baby to take care of while I went overseas, you agreed to all the terms, you stuff him in the closet and forget about him.....its not my fault I handed you my son to watch. But for some reason, in your logic, you want to say its my fault I didnt come check on him or ask for proof you still have him?

Ok great. The goalposts are in place, and we have the metaphor you gave me.

Let's walk through what you think is perfectly acceptable for your baby, and this is just off the top of my head.

1. You have no way of checking up on your baby at any time. Can't call. Can't text.
2. You have no way of knowing where your baby is at any time.
3. You have given me no timeline to return your baby.... could be years. Decades, even.
4. There isn't just one baby, my man. There are MILLIONS of babies, and numbers 1-4 apply to all of them
5. You have no way of knowing if I've returned your baby.
6. You literally don't care if I return the baby, because you have no way of checking if I returned the baby.


....do you need me to keep going?

And to answer your question: because you, as the father of the baby, set up conditions #1-#6....I would, without hesitation, hold BOTH of you responsible for losing the baby.

So....are we on the same page now? Do you get why the problem is a SYSTEMIC problem?

My solution is the same: either fix the system, or don't have any "babies", and don't mark them classified. Pick one.

Because looking at #1-#7, it's patently clear that this system doesn't give a sh(t about their baby.

Epic fail in logic. If you take care my kid like I trusted you, and you then return it when expected or need to move. me have no problem and need to do nothing further. See how easy it is when people just do the right thing....it really is that easy.

a fan wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 6:24 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 5:52 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 5:48 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 5:20 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 3:57 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 3:38 pm You both are missing the entire point or have my comment confused, maybe neither of you have ever held a clearance and gone through brutal extensive process. My point.....when you are first cleared, then in control of and in possession of classified documents, not to mention you also told that 'assume' everything is classified/sensitive, the accountability is on YOU, FULL STOP, you OWN those documents (essentially)...treat them as if they are the blood that flows in your veins.

To blame the accounting process, is a direct result, and the symptom of personal irresponsibility of the those in pocession of gov't docs...FULL STOP. If there is not agreement on this, then it makes sense why it seems to be far easier to blame someone else and avoid personal responsibility...which is where we are these days....its always someones elses fault, unless its for the better, then we own the responsibility.

Buffalo Bagels. Ten seconds ago I cited that the Reagan White House failed with their docs, too. You can't chalk this up to the silly game of pretending like Reagan era's sense of personal responsibility was better than today's. They failed just like everyone else.


And YA, for heaven's sake: If you don't know where the documents are, and who has them? How could you POSSIBLY know that the people in the Reagan era handled documents properly?

And pretty please, don't play the game of bailing from the conversation. Give me the courtesy of accepting that you CAN'T tell if the all of the Reagan era employees handled the documents with more responsibility then they do today. It's IMPOSSIBLE to know.

I don't understand how you don't see this as THE problem.

The portion in bold is my standing accountability argument.....and again, you must not have ever gone through clearance screening.

I really cant explain it any clearer than I already did but I'll try,

You are stuck on the 'inventory' of docs...I already said I agree. BUT, even if the docs are inventories.....why is going to say Mr. President, we need those docs back.....and if he says I cant find them.....we'll whos fault is that?...exactly, the person "in care' of them. My point screaming at the top of my lungs.....I handed you my baby to take care of while I went overseas, you agreed to all the terms, you stuff him in the closet and forget about him.....its not my fault I handed you my son to watch. But for some reason, in your logic, you want to say its my fault I didnt come check on him or ask for proof you still have him?

Ok great. The goalposts are in place, and we have the metaphor you gave me.

Let's walk through what you think is perfectly acceptable for your baby, and this is just off the top of my head.

1. You have no way of checking up on your baby at any time. Can't call. Can't text.
2. You have no way of knowing where your baby is at any time.
3. You have given me no timeline to return your baby.... could be years. Decades, even.
4. There isn't just one baby, my man. There are MILLIONS of babies, and numbers 1-4 apply to all of them
5. You have no way of knowing if I've returned your baby.
6. You literally don't care if I return the baby, because you have no way of checking if I returned the baby.


....do you need me to keep going?

And to answer your question: because you, as the father of the baby, set up conditions #1-#6....I would, without hesitation, hold BOTH of you responsible for losing the baby.

So....are we on the same page now? Do you get why the problem is a SYSTEMIC problem?

My solution is the same: either fix the system, or don't have any "babies", and don't mark them classified. Pick one.

Because looking at #1-#7, it's patently clear that this system doesn't give a sh(t about their baby.

Epic fail in logic. If you take care my kid like I trusted you, and you then return it when expected or need to move. me have no problem and need to do nothing further. See how easy it is when people just do the right thing....it really is that easy.

Check again, my man. You DON'T KNOW if I returned it, remember?

And you DON'T KNOW "when it's expected" to be returned, remember?

You can't squirm out of this, my man. You're trying to tell me, with a straight face, that you don't need to know if your own baby is returned.


Gaslighting won't work, my man. Sorry.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 9:28 pm quite often you do know when it’s expected to be returned, because it is part of a project. And when it’s not, we’ll, you continue to treat it the very same way. It’s really not that difficult, really, it’s not.


you are proving my point….precisely. I don’t need to know if you returned it, so long as you (continue to) manage the document(s) as legally and trust fully expected.

old salt wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 7:25 pm The system is too vast to inventory everything.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 5:20 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 3:57 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 3:38 pm You both are missing the entire point or have my comment confused, maybe neither of you have ever held a clearance and gone through brutal extensive process. My point.....when you are first cleared, then in control of and in possession of classified documents, not to mention you also told that 'assume' everything is classified/sensitive, the accountability is on YOU, FULL STOP, you OWN those documents (essentially)...treat them as if they are the blood that flows in your veins.

To blame the accounting process, is a direct result, and the symptom of personal irresponsibility of the those in pocession of gov't docs...FULL STOP. If there is not agreement on this, then it makes sense why it seems to be far easier to blame someone else and avoid personal responsibility...which is where we are these days....its always someones elses fault, unless its for the better, then we own the responsibility.

Buffalo Bagels. Ten seconds ago I cited that the Reagan White House failed with their docs, too. You can't chalk this up to the silly game of pretending like Reagan era's sense of personal responsibility was better than today's. They failed just like everyone else.


And YA, for heaven's sake: If you don't know where the documents are, and who has them? How could you POSSIBLY know that the people in the Reagan era handled documents properly?

And pretty please, don't play the game of bailing from the conversation. Give me the courtesy of accepting that you CAN'T tell if the all of the Reagan era employees handled the documents with more responsibility then they do today. It's IMPOSSIBLE to know.

I don't understand how you don't see this as THE problem.

The portion in bold is my standing accountability argument.....and again, you must not have ever gone through clearance screening.

I really cant explain it any clearer than I already did but I'll try,

You are stuck on the 'inventory' of docs...I already said I agree. BUT, even if the docs are inventories.....why is going to say Mr. President, we need those docs back.....and if he says I cant find them.....we'll whos fault is that?...exactly, the person "in care' of them. My point screaming at the top of my lungs.....I handed you my baby to take care of while I went overseas, you agreed to all the terms, you stuff him in the closet and forget about him.....its not my fault I handed you my son to watch. But for some reason, in your logic, you want to say its my fault I didnt come check on him or ask for proof you still have him?

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 10:16 pm Remember, I (we) agree that there should and can be a better checksum process, no argument there.

My stance is much like the revolving door crime we see. On a much larger scale, we have what you are asking for, oversight, rules, checks and balances, and it ultimately minimizes the penalty for breaking rules so that it’s no big deal to now loot a store, etc.

I’ve said this before. I was caught in an episode of seeing something I ‘officially’ wasn’t supposed to see by rule, but the docs were certainly something I had to see on a ‘need to know’. My paperwork was not ‘officially’ complete. Someone found out, all our clearances were put on hold until a full investigation was had, and we were removed from the project. Dust settled and it was indeed a technician out, back to work life is good. The system worked.

a fan wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 11:24 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 10:16 pm Remember, I (we) agree that there should and can be a better checksum process, no argument there.

My stance is much like the revolving door crime we see. On a much larger scale, we have what you are asking for, oversight, rules, checks and balances, and it ultimately minimizes the penalty for breaking rules so that it’s no big deal to now loot a store, etc.

I’ve said this before. I was caught in an episode of seeing something I ‘officially’ wasn’t supposed to see by rule, but the docs were certainly something I had to see on a ‘need to know’. My paperwork was not ‘officially’ complete. Someone found out, all our clearances were put on hold until a full investigation was had, and we were removed from the project. Dust settled and it was indeed a technician out, back to work life is good. The system worked.

No. It didn't. Someone without clearance in place saw classified docs, my man.

Sorta the point of the entire system is to keep that from happening. And if we were holding your firm accountable, as you suggest we should do, you would have lost the contract, or at least paid a hefty fine. Did either happen?


Again, agree to disagree. I'm trying to avoid going in circles here...

old salt wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 7:43 am Millions of classified documents are handled daily without compromise or incident.
It is not rational to declare the entire system broken or redo the whole process because of the irresponsible
actions of a few entitled high ranking politicians.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 8:00 am No worries. The system did work perfectly, I just explained (in short version) how it did, and for some reason you still think it did not; just accept that it already does when they chose to follow their own procedures.

No reason to lose a contract over something small, just remove those that had the mishap, after confirming through an investigation there was no ill intent. Really odd you want to throw the baby out with the bath water, especially being a business owner.

a fan wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 12:05 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 8:00 am No worries. The system did work perfectly, I just explained (in short version) how it did, and for some reason you still think it did not; just accept that it already does when they chose to follow their own procedures.

No reason to lose a contract over something small, just remove those that had the mishap, after confirming through an investigation there was no ill intent. Really odd you want to throw the baby out with the bath water, especially being a business owner.

No, I think this way ESPECIALLY because I own a factory.

If we miss an OSHA rule that leads to an accident, I'm on the hook for a fine. Want some examples? Redhook brewery hit with $60k fine. AB....our friends from Bud Lite? $90K.

Did your firm pay a fine? You're bemoaning that the POTUS wasn't held accountable. Seems to me like your firm wasn't either.

I'm annoyed that my business is held to a higher standard than yours is when handling classified documents. To me, this communicates that it's not taken seriously.


Again...agree to disagree.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 1:03 pm Again, making my point for me. You are accountable for safety at you business. Cleared people are responsible for docs in their possession…..see how that works.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 1:03 pm Again, making my point. I am saying the POTUS should be held to the same standard as I am when it comes to national security, and actually a higher standard.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 2:29 pm Just to be clear, an intentional violation with classified documents is treated seriously, with real implications.

Intentional

old salt wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 5:22 pm We don't know enough yet about the MA ANG breach to attribute it to inventory control.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 5:22 pm It was an intentional, individual bad act. Inventory control won't fix that.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 5:22 pm Tighter need to know access will reduce the opportunity.