TexasCHLforum.com

Jim Beaux wrote:
BAA? It would be interesting to read your opinion regarding the practices of the IRS!

My opinion, based on what has been released, was that the IRS was up to some very partisan abusive behavior. They just haven't managed to pin the tail on the fall-donkey yet.
In regard to the "lost email" fiasco, that could be a legit issue if their server side configuration was to over write every X months. However, a corrupt laptop hard drive can likely be recovered.
Most client side mail programs will delete / clean up too, so I don't know how much use it will be. Basically I don't know if the lost email is a cover up or not.. Could go either way. It does smell bad.

Jim Beaux wrote: This student revealed a liberal trend that was ignored.

A superintendent ignoring a student until someone raises a public fuss? That doesn't surprise me at all. Also wouldn't surprise me if a public school superintendent doesn't know where to get started in terms of resolving an issue like this.

Apparently they pay for a firewall as a service. Want clarity here? Figure out why the firewall was triggering on some sites and not others. It's not necessarily a partisan conspiracy.

Does anyone really think that a public school firewall prevents kids from accessing content that their interested in? If it was intentional and partisan, it's bad education... But I just can't jump to the worst case conclusion off the cuff.

Dave2 wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:What's more likely to display offensive content: Right to life sites or Pro-Choice sites?

If that's the standard, their software got it backwards.

Yea, I need to phrase that differently: Which site will have more offensive imagery? I don't mean morally offensive.. I mean like shock and reality.

BuckFlicks wrote:I seriously doubt this was a deliberate attempt to block conservative sites. He probably also would have found that websites about video games, gambling, social media, porn and other controversial subjects blocked. It was likely a package blocker that most corporate and commercial entities employ, with little to no control over subject matter by the school's administration.
I call it the Web-stapo.

I agree. It's much likely an unintended consequence. Putting it in the media like that is either:
1) Really ignorant and done without checking basic facts.
2) Designed to score a "conservative" point. (yes, both sides do stuff like this)

Blocks like these usually work on keywords and content. What's more likely to display offensive content: Right to life sites or Pro-Choice sites?

We'd need to know that the conservative sites were blocked specifically, not by algorithm.

Don't believe everything you read at face value.... Baa...