Whoops! Bush's military records "accidentally" destroyed

[Urban Ranger]

No matter how you spin it, it does not bode well for Mr Bush. If the records were really accidentally destroyed, why wasn't it mentioned earlier?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by molly bloom
You're absolutely right- they're part of the worldwide liberal conspiracy to tarnish the good name of George Bush Jr., Top Gun extra ordinaire.


Is there much loco weed near where you live, Diss?

He's trolling. Didn't you notice him saying that the NYT isn't credible either?

Really, haven't you realized Diss is almost NEVER serious?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
No matter how you spin it, it does not bode well for Mr Bush. If the records were really accidentally destroyed, why wasn't it mentioned earlier?

I think alot of people's precious gives a **** are broken.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I do not ascribe to these scenarios as being true

Is this for your benefit? To convince yourself? Any 'question' that begins with "Gee, I wonder" is never really a question, but rather a statement in the form of a question (ie, "Gee, I wonder who ate my sandwich?", "Gee, I wonder who could have stole my boots", etc.).

[mrmitchell]

Furthermore Clinton was a draft dodger and you worship him. Shut-up already!

No, I worship him because he's a fellow Arkansan. Didn't you know? All Arkansans are required to give The Great Clinton a nice healthy BJ once a week.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I do not ascribe to these scenarios as being true

Is this for your benefit? To convince yourself? Any 'question' that begins with "Gee, I wonder" is never really a question, but rather a statement in the form of a question (ie, "Gee, I wonder who ate my sandwich?", "Gee, I wonder who could have stole my boots", etc.).

Yeah, and when the "Gee, I wonder" is about a hypothetical situation, since it hadn't even been established (nor did I assert) that that the destruction of said documents was deliberate or malicious?

Gee, I wonder why you didn't actually answer the questions, but just went off on another lawyerish diversionary tactic?

[Agathon]

Answering questions is forbidden by the right wing cabal that runs our society, and has so viciously brainwashed our friend Mr Siddiqui.

The only thing worse than answering questions is asking them, which marks one off as a commie traitor.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Alex
come on, do you really believe those records were 'accidentally' destroyed?

My wife worked on a committee to save deteriorating microfiche's and microfilms for the U. of Ga libraries back in the early-mid 1990's, and, despite their best efforts, over 20% of the stock was lost. There are also a large number of films (as in movies) that are no longer extant in their original version due to deteriorating film stock, leaving us with second rate third-hand copies. Fewer than 20% of American silent films still exist in complete form, and for all films made before 1950, only 1/2 survive. Typically the problem is caused by dissolving nitrate, which separates the emulsion from the base.

Film stock based on acetate are particularly vulnerable, which constituted the majority of all microfilm/microfiche stock up to the late 1980's.

This is a real issue, and was one that only gained prominence about a decade, decade-and-a-half ago. It wasn't until 1996 that Congress authorized funds for the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to transfer Federal acetate-microfiche records to a more stable polyester based film stock (they also required that all future Federal microfiching to use polyester film stock). Because of the rate of deterioration, the NARA, logically, was more aggressive in preserving older records (like WW1 enlistment records) than newer ones, assuming that they had more time with the 1960's-onward. However, film stock is very sensitive to storage conditions which means that many records from the later periods were still lost.

Sorry, but I don't see a conspiracy here, rather just another example of something that has been a problem for decades.

[Dinner]

Hmm...

[Dis]

Originally posted by Kucinich


He's trolling. Didn't you notice him saying that the NYT isn't credible either?

Really, haven't you realized Diss is almost NEVER serious?

actually in this case I do believe the NYT and BBC because the military themselves admitted they accidently destroyed the records. You can't dispute that I guess.

But the BBC and NYT is far too liberal to be credible on many subjects. In this case they are right though.

[Dis]

Originally posted by JohnT


My wife worked on a committee to save deteriorating microfiche's and microfilms for the U. of Ga libraries back in the early-mid 1990's, and, despite their best efforts, over 20% of the stock was lost. There are also a large number of films (as in movies) that are no longer extant in their original version due to deteriorating film stock, leaving us with second rate third-hand copies. Fewer than 20% of American silent films still exist in complete form, and for all films made before 1950, only 1/2 survive. Typically the problem is caused by dissolving nitrate, which separates the emulsion from the base.

Film stock based on acetate are particularly vulnerable, which constituted the majority of all microfilm/microfiche stock up to the late 1980's.

This is a real issue, and was one that only gained prominence about a decade, decade-and-a-half ago. It wasn't until 1996 that Congress authorized funds for the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to transfer Federal acetate-microfiche records to a more stable polyester based film stock (they also required that all future Federal microfiching to use polyester film stock). Because of the rate of deterioration, the NARA, logically, was more aggressive in preserving older records (like WW1 enlistment records) than newer ones, assuming that they had more time with the 1960's-onward. However, film stock is very sensitive to storage conditions which means that many records from the later periods were still lost.

Sorry, but I don't see a conspiracy here, rather just another example of something that has been a problem for decades.

As I was saying above. This type of storage isn't that useful. Very unreliable. I don't know why they don't just go to digital storage. Although even that can be unreliable in some cases.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Gee, who would have had the influence to do such a thing? Perhaps an ex-chief of the CIA?

Have you stopped beating your boyfriend yet?

[Drake Tungsten]

Next time, buy a Japanese "gives a ****". Much more reliable.

The Japanese don't make a gives a **** for issues like this. They concentrate on higher quality products. You might be able to get a Chinese gives a **** that will deal with this non-issue, but its reliability will be questionable.

[Ramo]

And it might have some rat feces in it.

[Drake Tungsten]

True. Odds are greater than 90% that any given item from China will contain rat feces.