If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Headline: US jets dropped bombs on Great Barrier Reef...Article: Oh, you were going to read this? Uh, well it's technically true, I guess   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 83
    More: Asinine, Great Barrier Reef, US TV, home runs  
•       •       •

10383 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jul 2013 at 9:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



83 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-21 10:02:38 AM
It's the Ert ones you have to worry about...
 
2013-07-21 10:05:02 AM
I dropped bombs in my potty.
 
2013-07-21 10:08:12 AM
US military drops bombs in an ocean on Earth... and there are also preschools and kittens and puppies on Earth!  Holy shiat!
 
2013-07-21 10:08:21 AM
So, basically, the US Navy dropped bomb-shaped blobs of concrete a short distance from, but not on, the Great Barrier Reef.

/Idiot headline writer
//They do still make training bombs out of concrete, don't they ?
 
2013-07-21 10:09:04 AM
FTFA: "The two planes jettisoned four bombs in more than 50m (165 ft) of water, away from coral, to minimise damage..."

I'm guessing that the "great barrier reef" is not just a reef but also some kind of "nature park" and this occurred within the boundaries of the "nature park".

But yeah, the headline made me think the US was carpet bombing the actual coral reef... Or something like that.
 
2013-07-21 10:09:38 AM
Because terrerism!
 
2013-07-21 10:10:44 AM
Word to your moms.
 
2013-07-21 10:11:47 AM
The sound of FREEDOM.
Because FREEDOM.
 
2013-07-21 10:15:50 AM
About time we got some payback from them damn dirty stingrays!

/crickey look at the size of that one!
 
2013-07-21 10:17:35 AM
I thought it was a polite euphemism for Blue Ice.
 
2013-07-21 10:18:11 AM

Tom-Servo: But yeah, the headline made me think the US was carpet bombing the actual coral reef... Or something like that.


That's what they were hoping people would think, to drive page clicks.

Low blow, BBC.  Usually "journalism" like that is more the Daily Fail's thing.
 
2013-07-21 10:19:51 AM
"However, the mission was aborted when hazards were reported in the area."

Good thing for the pilots that combat only ever takes place in ideal conditions when there are no hazards in the area.
 
2013-07-21 10:22:03 AM
My Banana Benders may release the "dogs" if your shenanigans continue.

cdn.earwolf.com
 
2013-07-21 10:22:41 AM
I would have dive bombed straight into the reef! Fark You, reef!
 
2013-07-21 10:23:05 AM
dl.dropboxusercontent.com
Accidents happen...

/vague ones.
 
2013-07-21 10:24:34 AM
Well, that was an adventurous, reaching headline. Well done, author. Well done. *shakes head*
 
2013-07-21 10:25:14 AM

Mock26: "However, the mission was aborted when hazards were reported in the area."

Good thing for the pilots that combat only ever takes place in ideal conditions when there are no hazards in the area.


I'm guessing they probably meant like dumb Aussies playing boomerang in the area while saying "Hey, hold my Fosters"

crashed planes would do a lot more damage than 4 dummy bombs
 
2013-07-21 10:27:12 AM

Mock26: "However, the mission was aborted when hazards were reported in the area."

Good thing for the pilots that combat only ever takes place in ideal conditions when there are no hazards in the area.


The 'hazard' might be to some drunk boaters wandering into the area.  Really want to go ahead with a practice mission and maybe blow up some civilians?

I know the Navy is responsible for their pet's poop, but I thought only Marines flew the Harrier?
 
2013-07-21 10:27:25 AM
It's actually not even technically true.
 
2013-07-21 10:28:56 AM
"Each bomb weighed 500lb (226kg), according to the US TV network NBC.

The Great Barrier Reef is the world's largest coral structure rich in marine life.

It stretches for more than 2,600km (1,680 miles) along Australia's eastern coast."

Somebody got an encyclopedia set for their birthday!

This article reads like a middle school geography paper.
 
2013-07-21 10:32:02 AM

thamike: It's actually not even technically true.


yeah but "US Navy Acts Responsibly During Training Exercise" doesn't generate as many clicks
 
2013-07-21 10:33:13 AM

thamike: It's actually not even technically true.


It's as true as the guy who tightrope walked the grand canyon. Praise Jesus!
 
2013-07-21 10:33:43 AM
Ok so I was looking for something that said I drop bombs like Hiroshima and found this so I going to go with it:

chimentoe.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-07-21 10:35:26 AM
British humour.
 
2013-07-21 10:37:17 AM

capt.hollister: So, basically, the US Navy dropped bomb-shaped blobs of concrete a short distance from, but not on, the Great Barrier Reef.


From what I read elsewhere, two of the bombs were real but unarmed and so did not explode.

Tom-Servo: But yeah, the headline made me think the US was carpet bombing the actual coral reef... Or something like that.


Personally, I assumed it was an an accident at first. Why did you even think they were carpet bombing it? What military value could there be in carpet bombing the Great Barrier Reef?
 
2013-07-21 10:39:31 AM

1000Monkeys: Personally, I assumed it was an an accident at first. Why did you even think they were carpet bombing it? What military value could there be in carpet bombing the Great Barrier Reef?


They were probably supposed to be targeting Coral Gables.
 
2013-07-21 10:42:03 AM
US fighter jets dropped inert bombs
None of the devices exploded


No shiat Sherlock
They'll just become part of the reef. And In 165 feet of water it's not like they hit the bottom with a ton of force.
 
2013-07-21 10:44:26 AM

capt.hollister: So, basically, the US Navy dropped bomb-shaped blobs of concrete a short distance from, but not on, the Great Barrier Reef.

/Idiot headline writer
//They do still make training bombs out of concrete, don't they ?


As someone who does that for a living. Yes.
 
2013-07-21 10:45:28 AM

Tom-Servo: But yeah, the headline made me think the US was carpet bombing the actual coral reef... Or something like that.


In the author's defense, it is a plausible thing for the US to do.
 
2013-07-21 10:45:37 AM

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: Really want to go ahead with a practice mission and maybe blow up some civilians?


They're Aussies.  It would be comparable to putting animals down.
 
2013-07-21 10:47:19 AM

OhioUGrad: Mock26: "However, the mission was aborted when hazards were reported in the area."

Good thing for the pilots that combat only ever takes place in ideal conditions when there are no hazards in the area.

I'm guessing they probably meant like dumb Aussies playing boomerang in the area while saying "Hey, hold my Fosters"


No Aussie drinks fosters by choice. I ain't even joking.

/It isn't an Australian beer, it's an Australian themed beer that has nothing to do with Australia and tastes like cat-piss.
 
2013-07-21 10:51:20 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Tom-Servo: But yeah, the headline made me think the US was carpet bombing the actual coral reef... Or something like that.

In the author's defense, it is a plausible thing for the US to do.


That doesn't defend so much as explain why they thought the headline would work.
 
2013-07-21 10:54:54 AM

eyemarten: "Each bomb weighed 500lb (226kg), according to the US TV network NBC.

The Great Barrier Reef is the world's largest coral structure rich in marine life.

It stretches for more than 2,600km (1,680 miles) along Australia's eastern coast."

Somebody got an encyclopedia set for their birthday!

This article reads like a middle school geography paper.


Believe it or not, sometimes it's good to report facts even if the reader could easily look them up in an encyclopedia.

I really hate obscure local news websites that assume everyone knows where Springfield (or whatever town) is.  I have a general idea where the Great Barrier Reef is, but I couldn't have told you how long it is without that information in the article unless I looked it up.
 
2013-07-21 10:59:16 AM
From sfgate:


Australian Sen. Larissa Waters, the influential Greens party's spokeswoman on the Great Barrier Reef, described the dumping of bombs in such an environmentally sensitive area as "outrageous" and said it should not be allowed. "Have we gone completely mad?" she told Australian Broadcasting Corp. "Is this how we look after our World Heritage area now? Letting a foreign power drop bombs on it?"


...


"How can they protect the environment and bomb the reef at the same time? Get real," Dunstan said from the Queensland coastal town of Yeppoon


Ah, looks like they have their fair share of scumbags who bend the truth in order to create sensational, emotion-provoking soundbytes as well.
 
2013-07-21 11:05:33 AM
BigNumber12:

Ah, looks like they have their fair share of scumbags who bend the truth in order to create sensational, emotion-provoking soundbytes as well.

Remember, Rupert Murdoch's from Australia.
 
2013-07-21 11:07:23 AM
www.davidicke.com
 
2013-07-21 11:13:50 AM

gfid: eyemarten: "Each bomb weighed 500lb (226kg), according to the US TV network NBC.

The Great Barrier Reef is the world's largest coral structure rich in marine life.

It stretches for more than 2,600km (1,680 miles) along Australia's eastern coast."

Somebody got an encyclopedia set for their birthday!

This article reads like a middle school geography paper.

Believe it or not, sometimes it's good to report facts even if the reader could easily look them up in an encyclopedia.

I really hate obscure local news websites that assume everyone knows where Springfield (or whatever town) is.  I have a general idea where the Great Barrier Reef is, but I couldn't have told you how long it is without that information in the article unless I looked it up.


You really didn't know where great barrier reef is? You're dumb. I hope you are still in middle school, because, Damn, that's some poor education you got. I bet you're a republican, so your sub par education is probably like ivy league compared to your buddies in the holler.
 
2013-07-21 11:19:30 AM

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: I thought only Marines flew the Harrier


Marines are part of the Navy.
 
2013-07-21 11:22:45 AM

thamike: They were probably supposed to be targeting Coral Gables.


Fair enough then.

thamike: It's actually not even technically true.


How not?

They were US jets.
They dropped bombs (yes, two were real GBU 12s).
The bombs fell on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

Voiceofreason01: yeah but "US Navy Acts Responsibly During Training Exercise" doesn't generate as many clicks


I disagree and that's even more misleading than this headline. This incident occurred because the pilot tried multiple times to bomb the designated range but couldn't because it wasn't clear (some boat in they way?). Eventually they realized they didn't have enough fuel make it back with the bombs and were forced to ditch them.

Essentially, someone forgot to take the weight of the bombs into account (the calculations probably assumed the bombs would be gone at that point, which would be correct in most cases) and didn't abort the training mission early enough. This was an irresponsible screw up no matter how you look at it.

Dropping the bombs then was the correct decision based on the circumstances but it's their own fault they got into that situation.
 
2013-07-21 11:35:31 AM

Voiceofreason01: thamike: It's actually not even technically true.

yeah but "US Navy Acts Responsibly During Training Exercise" doesn't generate as many clicks


Especially for a British news site whose readers love to hear about fark ups done by Americans.

/call it what it was, a troll headline
 
2013-07-21 11:39:00 AM

1000Monkeys: Dropping the bombs then was the correct decision based on the circumstances but it's their own fault they got into that situation.



Henceforth to be known as 'pulling a Zimmerman'.
 
2013-07-21 11:58:12 AM

the_rhino: gfid: eyemarten: "Each bomb weighed 500lb (226kg), according to the US TV network NBC.

The Great Barrier Reef is the world's largest coral structure rich in marine life.

It stretches for more than 2,600km (1,680 miles) along Australia's eastern coast."

Somebody got an encyclopedia set for their birthday!

This article reads like a middle school geography paper.

Believe it or not, sometimes it's good to report facts even if the reader could easily look them up in an encyclopedia.

I really hate obscure local news websites that assume everyone knows where Springfield (or whatever town) is.  I have a general idea where the Great Barrier Reef is, but I couldn't have told you how long it is without that information in the article unless I looked it up.

You really didn't know where great barrier reef is? You're dumb. I hope you are still in middle school, because, Damn, that's some poor education you got. I bet you're a republican, so your sub par education is probably like ivy league compared to your buddies in the holler.


I wonder, though, if you were to ask random people in a shopping mall where the Great Barrier Reef is, how many would answer incorrectly ?  I suspect it would be a depressingly high percentage.
 
2013-07-21 12:03:30 PM
I'd have put this, "US Navy generously adds new habitat to Great Barrier Reef." Guess that's why I'll never work for the BBC.
 
2013-07-21 12:07:09 PM
As someone who lives down the road from a live fire military bombing range... Getting a kick...

/thud.
//Boom.
///Sound of freedom.
 
2013-07-21 12:09:08 PM
Even if they were live, how much damage would 4 500 lb bombs do to a 1600 mile long reef? Just watch out for diver boats.
 
2013-07-21 12:11:58 PM

1000Monkeys: Personally, I assumed it was an an accident at first. Why did you even think they were carpet bombing it? What military value could there be in carpet bombing the Great Barrier Reef?


There is no such thing as "carpet bombing" any more. A) We can hit within a meter or two of any intended target every time, so it would be wasteful,  and B) we're not going after targets like the entire Ruhr Valley industrial base these days.
 
2013-07-21 12:12:22 PM
Must have been a bunch of Deep Ones on vacation from Devil's Reef.
 
2013-07-21 12:21:04 PM
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-07-21 12:30:31 PM
25.media.tumblr.com

Gotta nuke something...
 
2013-07-21 12:55:35 PM

1000Monkeys: thamike: They were probably supposed to be targeting Coral Gables.

Fair enough then.

thamike: It's actually not even technically true.

How not?

They were US jets.
They dropped bombs (yes, two were real GBU 12s).
The bombs fell on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

Voiceofreason01: yeah but "US Navy Acts Responsibly During Training Exercise" doesn't generate as many clicks

I disagree and that's even more misleading than this headline. This incident occurred because the pilot tried multiple times to bomb the designated range but couldn't because it wasn't clear (some boat in they way?). Eventually they realized they didn't have enough fuel make it back with the bombs and were forced to ditch them.

Essentially, someone forgot to take the weight of the bombs into account (the calculations probably assumed the bombs would be gone at that point, which would be correct in most cases) and didn't abort the training mission early enough. This was an irresponsible screw up no matter how you look at it.

Dropping the bombs then was the correct decision based on the circumstances but it's their own fault they got into that situation.


It was nobody's "fault" but mother nature and it was the responsible thing to do.  It wasn't a fuel situation, it was a weight situation.  When Harriers land on the boat, they do vertical landings.  The ability to do a VL is predicated on the engines performance under the current environmental conditions.  Weight factors in to that significantly.  They can takeoff with a higher weight than they can land with.  Rarely will you be able to land with the ordnance you took off with.  So you can either divert (if that's an option), jettison the ordnance, or try a VL and settle into the water when you don't have the schlitz to continue flying the plane.

But please, continue enlightening us.

/Harrier Pilot
 
2013-07-21 12:56:31 PM
We've always been at war with Oceania.
 
2013-07-21 12:57:16 PM

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: Mock26: "However, the mission was aborted when hazards were reported in the area."

Good thing for the pilots that combat only ever takes place in ideal conditions when there are no hazards in the area.

The 'hazard' might be to some drunk boaters wandering into the area.  Really want to go ahead with a practice mission and maybe blow up some civilians?

I know the Navy is responsible for their pet's poop, but I thought only Marines flew the Harrier?


The planes in question were Harriers.

For jet aircraft, the Marines fly several versions of the Harrier, in addition to the F/A 18 and the F 35.  In fact, I think one of the Blue Angels (F/A 18 Hornets) is always a Marine pilot.  Fat Albert (the C-130 in the Angels squad) is a Marine aircraft as well.
 
2013-07-21 01:19:37 PM

capt.hollister: I wonder, though, if you were to ask random people in a shopping mall where the Great Barrier Reef is, how many would answer incorrectly ?  I suspect it would be a depressingly high percentage.


Half of the population, by definition, have IQs under 100.
 
2013-07-21 01:52:25 PM

kabar: It was nobody's "fault" but mother nature and it was the responsible thing to do.  It wasn't a fuel situation, it was a weight situation.  When Harriers land on the boat, they do vertical landings.  The ability to do a VL is predicated on the engines performance under the current environmental conditions.  Weight factors in to that significantly.  They can takeoff with a higher weight than they can land with.  Rarely will you be able to land with the ordnance you took off with.  So you can either divert (if that's an option), jettison the ordnance, or try a VL and settle into the water when you don't have the schlitz to continue flying the plane.

But please, continue enlightening us.

/Harrier Pilot


Are you saying that once you take off you have to ditch the bombs before you can land? In that case then fair enough to the US Navy. I'd be more inclined to blame whoever (or whatever) was responsible for the "hazards" in the range in that case.

/ Why can't Harriers land with the higher weight?
// Are take-offs also vertical?
/// Not being snarky, genuinely curious.
 
2013-07-21 02:19:42 PM

1000Monkeys: kabar: It was nobody's "fault" but mother nature and it was the responsible thing to do.  It wasn't a fuel situation, it was a weight situation.  When Harriers land on the boat, they do vertical landings.  The ability to do a VL is predicated on the engines performance under the current environmental conditions.  Weight factors in to that significantly.  They can takeoff with a higher weight than they can land with.  Rarely will you be able to land with the ordnance you took off with.  So you can either divert (if that's an option), jettison the ordnance, or try a VL and settle into the water when you don't have the schlitz to continue flying the plane.

But please, continue enlightening us.

/Harrier Pilot

Are you saying that once you take off you have to ditch the bombs before you can land? In that case then fair enough to the US Navy. I'd be more inclined to blame whoever (or whatever) was responsible for the "hazards" in the range in that case.

/ Why can't Harriers land with the higher weight?
// Are take-offs also vertical?
/// Not being snarky, genuinely curious.


99.9% of takeoffs from the boat are what we call "STOs" or short takeoffs.  They range anywhere from about 400-800 feet of deck run depending on aircraft weight, engine performance, wind over the deck, and environmentals.  The only time you do a VTO (vertical takeoff) from the boat is for post-maintenance check flights, demos, or to check the box and do one.  The jet just doesn't have the power to do a vertical takeoff with a full fuel load and ordnance (base jet weighs around 17k lbs and a nominal motor puts out 23,400 lbs of thrust... throw in fuel, ordnance, etc... and the math doesn't work in your favor).

If it's hot and humid, your bringback is a lot lower than if it's cold and high pressure.  Your numbers are all calculated and briefed before you takeoff and updated by the LSO if need be.  Most of the time, the assumption is the ordnance is off the jet.  Keep in mind, you're also likely bringing back a targeting pod that weighs around 500 lbs and can't be jettisoned (not that you'd want to) and maybe a gun that weighs around 1100 lbs.

On land, none of this is an issue as you can just do a roll-on landing of some manner - i.e. just land like a regular plane.  Without a divert, you don't have that option around the boat.  In OIF1, thousands and thousands of pounds of ordnance were dumped in the NAG if they didn't find targets.
 
2013-07-21 02:24:03 PM

1000Monkeys: thamike: They were probably supposed to be targeting Coral Gables.

Fair enough then.

thamike: It's actually not even technically true.

How not?

They were US jets.
They dropped bombs (yes, two were real GBU 12s).
The bombs fell on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

Voiceofreason01: yeah but "US Navy Acts Responsibly During Training Exercise" doesn't generate as many clicks

I disagree and that's even more misleading than this headline. This incident occurred because the pilot tried multiple times to bomb the designated range but couldn't because it wasn't clear (some boat in they way?). Eventually they realized they didn't have enough fuel make it back with the bombs and were forced to ditch them.

Essentially, someone forgot to take the weight of the bombs into account (the calculations probably assumed the bombs would be gone at that point, which would be correct in most cases) and didn't abort the training mission early enough. This was an irresponsible screw up no matter how you look at it.

Dropping the bombs then was the correct decision based on the circumstances but it's their own fault they got into that situation.


One word makes the difference:

'on' vs 'at'

CNN ran with 'at', but didn't include the 'Marine Park'
BBC ran with 'on', and didn't include 'Marine Park'
 
2013-07-21 02:27:03 PM
Nice headline.  They dropped their fake concrete bombs near the coral because they were low on fuel and would crash if they did not lighten the load.  I'm guessing crashed jets into the coral would be worse than concrete landing near the coral.
 
2013-07-21 03:01:57 PM

1000Monkeys: How not?

They were US jets.
They dropped bombs (yes, two were real GBU 12s).
The bombs fell on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.


This is how not:

US jets dropped bombs on Great Barrier Reef

Did this happen? I know it's fun sometimes to take the devil's advocate when the press tries to weasel in a little controversy with a grossly misleading headline, but come on man.  Aim high.

Hell, it's not even a slow news day.This was just gratuitous.

Look at how the Telegraph is pushing it:

America 'bombs' the Great Barrier Reef

And AFP:

US jets drop bombs on Great Barrier Reef(though they have just added 'unarmed' to it)

Almost everybody else has the facts in the headline, with absolutely no innuendo.  And i'm talking about sensationalist sh*thouses like CNN.  Even they aren't that low.

How long do you think they argued with the editor about having to put the quotes there?  Longer than it took you to see a technical truth in the BBC's headline, i can assure you.
 
2013-07-21 03:03:23 PM
Oops, editing troubles.

America 'bombs' the Great Barrier Reef

How long do you think they argued with the editor about having to put the quotes there?  Longer than it took you to see a technical truth in the BBC's headline, i can assure you.
 
2013-07-21 03:26:43 PM

Mock26: DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: I thought only Marines flew the Harrier

Marines are part of the Navy.


I noted that the Navy was responsible for their pets' poop.  Does that not properly describe the Navy/Marine relationship?
 
2013-07-21 05:18:09 PM

maddermaxx: No Aussie drinks fosters by choice. I ain't even joking.

/It isn't an Australian beer, it's an Australian themed beer that has nothing to do with Australia and tastes like cat-piss.


Fosters. Australian for American beer.
 
2013-07-21 05:24:40 PM

jjorsett: I'd have put this, "US Navy generously adds new habitat to Great Barrier Reef." Guess that's why I'll never work for the BBC.


On the other hand, that headline would work great for the Torygraph.
 
2013-07-21 06:48:10 PM

thamike: This is how not:

US jets dropped bombs on Great Barrier Reef

Did this happen? I know it's fun sometimes to take the devil's advocate when the press tries to weasel in a little controversy with a grossly misleading headline, but come on man. Aim high.


I was responding directly to your post, not playing devil's advocate.

I agree that the headlines makes a big deal out of an inconsequential event but if you talk about technical correctness and then don't complain when others do the same and don't try to move the goalposts from "not even technically true" to "grossly misleading".

If you still want to argue this then feel free to point out which of the statements are "not even technically true".

Hell, it's not even a slow news day.This was just gratuitous.

Look at how the Telegraph is pushing it:

America 'bombs' the Great Barrier Reef

And AFP:

US jets drop bombs on Great Barrier Reef(though they have just added 'unarmed' to it)

Almost everybody else has the facts in the headline, with absolutely no innuendo.  And i'm talking about sensationalist sh*thouses like CNN.  Even they aren't that low.

How long do you think they argued with the editor about having to put the quotes there? Longer than it took you to see a technical truth in the BBC's headline, i can assure you.


Fair enough. They should have added "jettisoned", "unarmed" or "inert" to the headlines,

/ Although, from what I've seen on Google News, both the BBC and AFP are in better company than you suggest.
// Slightly surprised about the Telegraph. They're usually pro-America.
 
2013-07-21 06:55:29 PM

Mithiwithi: maddermaxx: No Aussie drinks fosters by choice. I ain't even joking.

/It isn't an Australian beer, it's an Australian themed beer that has nothing to do with Australia and tastes like cat-piss.

Fosters. Australian for American beer.


Fosters was a main stream beer in Australia in the 80s.

As far as I can tell all Australian mass market beer tastes the same as all American mass market beer. Tooheys New is very popular mass market lager in Australia and to me it tastes no different to Budweiser. Which I don't consider to be particularly bad but then I'm not a beer purist.

Australia and Australians are so similar to America and Americans that it should really become a US state.
 
2013-07-21 06:57:35 PM
What a relief to read that none of the inert bombs exploded.
 
2013-07-21 07:24:39 PM

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: Mock26: DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: I thought only Marines flew the Harrier

Marines are part of the Navy.

I noted that the Navy was responsible for their pets' poop.  Does that not properly describe the Navy/Marine relationship?


I'm sorry a Marine screwed your GF. But you should blame your GF, not the entire Marine Corps.

Ps. SEMPER FI
 
2013-07-21 11:27:54 PM

Diablopup: DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: Mock26: DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: I thought only Marines flew the Harrier

Marines are part of the Navy.

I noted that the Navy was responsible for their pets' poop.  Does that not properly describe the Navy/Marine relationship?

I'm sorry a Marine screwed your GF. But you should blame your GF, not the entire Marine Corps.

Ps. SEMPER FI


Ease up there, Sgt Stryker.  Everybody knows the 'pet' thing was joke.

Nobody can paper-train a Marine.
 
2013-07-21 11:30:22 PM

BitwiseShift: My Banana Benders may release the "dogs" if your shenanigans continue.

[Sharknado movie poster]


My mom and sister said they watched it and never laughed so much at a non-comedy movie before.
 
2013-07-21 11:33:12 PM

maddermaxx: OhioUGrad: Mock26: "However, the mission was aborted when hazards were reported in the area."

Good thing for the pilots that combat only ever takes place in ideal conditions when there are no hazards in the area.

I'm guessing they probably meant like dumb Aussies playing boomerang in the area while saying "Hey, hold my Fosters"

No Aussie drinks fosters by choice. I ain't even joking.

/It isn't an Australian beer, it's an Australian themed beer that has nothing to do with Australia and tastes like cat-piss.


Next you'll be telling me that they don't all eat at Outback Steakhouse every day.
 
2013-07-22 12:05:26 AM

1000Monkeys: Are you saying that once you take off you have to ditch the bombs before you can land? In that case then fair enough to the US Navy. I'd be more inclined to blame whoever (or whatever) was responsible for the "hazards" in the range in that case.

/ Why can't Harriers land with the higher weight?
// Are take-offs also vertical?
/// Not being snarky, genuinely curious.



If you look up the specs for the Super Hornet you should notice that the Maximum Landing Weight is about 16,000 lbs less than the Maximum Take Off Weight.  So if things don't turn out as planned then things like fuel and ordnance would need to be released before it can land.  Aside from the Harrier specific factors laid out above more or less traditional planes have to contend with weight versus airframe structure.  Landing places a lot of stress on the landing gear and undercarriage...so much so that less weight can be accommodated when landing than when taking off.
 
2013-07-22 12:27:31 AM
Just like the canals of Mars!
 
2013-07-22 05:25:55 AM

1000Monkeys: I was responding directly to your post, not playing devil's advocate.


Then you're just being a dick.  It's not technically true because US jets did not drop bombs on the Great Barrier Reef.   After I submitted the headline, I took a second and realized that 'technically' was the wrong word.  "Drop bombs on" and "Great Barrier Reef" have specific meanings.

If you look now, the BBC seem to have reluctantly accepted that lack of technical truth, after the browbeating they got for pissing in the well.
 
2013-07-22 08:29:34 AM
Oblig:

i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-22 04:44:57 PM

thamike: Then you're just being a dick.


From double standards to goal post moving to name calling. I expected better of you.

Come on man. Aim high.

BTW thanks for ignoring the rest of my post.

It's not technically true because US jets did not drop bombs on the Great Barrier Reef.   After I submitted the headline, I took a second and realized that 'technically' was the wrong word.

There were jets
The jets were from the US
They dropped objects
Which were bombs
On the great barrier reef

Just say which only is technically incorrect?

If it is not technically true you can easily prove it by pointing to one of the above.

"Drop bombs on" and "Great Barrier Reef" have specific meanings.

Such as? and citations?

It doesn't really matter regardless. Word and phrases have multiple meanings, only one meaning needs to be applicable for it to be technically correct. Even if it doesn't fit whatever definition you come up with it still fits the above and that's enough.

"The monks had dirty habits" can be interpreted at least two ways. Either one is enough to make the statement technically correct. Is it potentially misleading? Yes. That's why "technically correct" has such weaselly connotations. That's why "not even technically true" is such a strong and definitive statement. In this case it's a stronger claim than can be supported which is why I challenged you and why you've backed off to "misleading" instead.

You created this entire thread based on whether something was "technical true". Yet when you get debated based on whether it was "technical true" you complain and beat the straw man of it being "grossly misleading".

It may be misleading, it may be weaselly but it is technically correct.

If you look now, the BBC seem to have reluctantly accepted that lack of technical truth, after the browbeating they got for pissing in the well.

They made the headline more accurate and informative and that's great. However, there's nothing technically incorrect about the old one, you would have easily proved it by now if it was.

/ But at least you got one, possibly two, greenlights out of it.
 
2013-07-22 05:29:38 PM
To give another example.

If Greg McElroy and Mark Sanchez were rapping on a boat in the Great Barrier Reef, the headline would still be technically true.
 
2013-07-22 05:40:08 PM

1000Monkeys: Just say which only is technically incorrect?


I was going to answer this, but


"Drop bombs on" and "Great Barrier Reef" have specific meanings.

Such as? and citations?

Really, dude?  This is not how you do this.

AhhF*ck it I'll answer it: 'drop bombs on the Great Barrier reef'--completely removing the implied intent and disaster from the equation--would mean that bombs were dropped on the Great Barrier Reef.  Not the area that it's in.  Not the marine Park, the Reef itself.  That's why they had to change the headline.  They don't retract stuff just because they got made fun of by the entire internet.  It was demonstrably false through omission. Intentional omission for the purposes of defaming is unethical, and used to be an inexcusable offense in journalism.

If you want an easier example here's one:
"Now you're just being a dick about it."
Your headline:
"THAMIKE CALLS GUY A DICK FOR NO REASON"

See the difference?

/Mind you, I wasn't all angry about it, I thought it would be fun to poke scurvy journos with a stick.
I am not sure why you take this contrarian sh*t so seriously.
 
2013-07-22 05:41:19 PM

1000Monkeys: To give another example.

If Greg McElroy and Mark Sanchez were rapping on a boat in the Great Barrier Reef, the headline would still be technically true.


Ha!
 
2013-07-22 05:58:34 PM

1000Monkeys: To give another example.

If Greg McElroy and Mark Sanchez were rapping on a boat in the Great Barrier Reef, the headline would still be technically true.


Magnificent.
 
2013-07-22 06:10:43 PM

thamike: Really, dude?  This is not how you do this.

AhhF*ck it I'll answer it: 'drop bombs on the Great Barrier reef'--completely removing the implied intent and disaster from the equation--would mean that bombs were dropped on the Great Barrier Reef.  Not the area that it's in.  Not the marine Park, the Reef itself.  That's why they had to change the headline.  They don't retract stuff just because they got made fun of by the entire internet.  It was demonstrably false through omission. Intentional omission for the purposes of defaming is unethical, and used to be an inexcusable offense in journalism.


Again, you're ignoring the whole point of my post. Yes,it's misleading, I agree.

But a statement only needs to be correct in one sense to be "technically true" even if the impression it gives is completely incorrect.

That headline, though misleading, was correct in one sense.

If you want an easier example here's one:
"Now you're just being a dick about it."
Your headline:
"THAMIKE CALLS GUY A DICK FOR NO REASON"


No I wouldn't write that headline, you clearly called me a dick because I responded to your post.

/ For what it's worth, I wouldn't have written the BBC headline like it was
// Unless I had no better information at the time

1000Monkeys: I was responding directly to your post, not playing devil's advocate.

thamike: Then you're just being a dick


/ Responding to you?
// Disagreeing with you even!
/// The unmitigated gall of it!

thamike: 1000Monkeys: To give another example.

If Greg McElroy and Mark Sanchez were rapping on a boat in yacht called the "Great Barrier Reef", the headline would still be technically true.

Ha!


Even better

Why are you even focusing on the BBC article when the Telegraph was even worse and you could find dozens of essentially the identical headlines on Google News? Hell, the Daily Mail had BOMBS in ALL CAPS in their headline.
 
2013-07-22 06:34:20 PM
To make it clear. I not defending the headline. It's unjournalistic.

Suppose two monks finish a long, hard days work tending to the vegetables in their monastery and go to dinner with mud on their clothes. A journalist sees this and writes a headline.
Headline: "Monks have dirty habits"

Is it technically true? yes
Is it misleading? Hell yes
Should he have written that headline? No, a journalist is supposed to inform people of current events. If he doesn't, he's failed as a journalist. If what he wrote makes people more misinformed or more ignorant then he's effectively an "anti-journalist".

But, like it or not, the headline is still technically correct.

/ Unfortunately, there's too many anti-journalists around
 
2013-07-22 06:48:48 PM

1000Monkeys: Why are you even focusing on the BBC article when the Telegraph was even worse and you could find dozens of essentially the identical headlines on Google News? Hell, the Daily Mail had BOMBS in ALL CAPS in their headline.


Because I've always held BBC to a higher standard.

1000Monkeys: But, like it or not, the headline is still technically correct.


It's not, because US jets did not drop bombs on the Great Barrier Reef. If they had changed the preposition and added 'waters near,' maybe i could let it slide. But then again you think someone saying you're being a dick is the same as calling you one.  So let's call an end to this silliness.

1000Monkeys: / Unfortunately, there's too many anti-journalists around


I'm not anti-journalist, I'm pro-journalism.  I have a degree in it, and unfortunately for me the only thing they really hammered into us was accuracy and ethics.  It left me entirely unprepared for and disgusted with the reality of it.
 
2013-07-22 07:29:34 PM

thamike: Because I've always held BBC to a higher standard.


Fair enough. But the others will never improve if you keep letting them slide.

It's not, because US jets did not drop bombs on the Great Barrier Reef. If they had changed the preposition and added 'waters near,' maybe i could let it slide. But then again you think someone saying you're being a dick is the same as calling you one.  So let's call an end to this silliness.

So this boils down to where the "Great Barrier Reef" is. OK let's leave it at that.

But then again you think someone saying you're being a dick is the same as calling you one.

What's the difference between the two? I used "dick" as a noun instead of an adjective, therefore I didn't call you a dick? I wasn't calling you a dick, I was saying you act like a dick for responding to me?

"I'm not calling you a dick but you're being a dick"

I guess now it's your turn to argue semantics and technicality.

/ How was I being a dick in any sense just because I responded to your post?
// AliensGuy.jpg

I'm not anti-journalist, I'm pro-journalism.  I have a degree in it, and unfortunately for me the only thing they really hammered into us was accuracy and ethics.  It left me entirely unprepared for and disgusted with the reality of it.

I wasn't talking about you or calling you an anti journalist, I was bemoaning the state of the press in general. I didn't know you had a degree in journalism.

/ Damn, Fark must be an infuriating place for you
 
2013-07-22 08:06:19 PM
Now that I know your a journalist I think I can see why we're arguing.

You're a journalist so making sure the reader gets the correct message and right impression is most important. (or at least that's what I think)

I'm an engineer and I often work with technical and requirements documents. Small details and technicalities matter because even a small mistakes can cause a disaster or cost millions to fix later on and there are contractors that will try to use contract technicalities to screw you over or cover their asses when they screw up. I wish I didn't have to deal with this but it sort of comes with the territory.

/ my 2 cents
// Thankfully most of the issues I work with
 
Displayed 83 of 83 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report