Pixiq

Well… I won’t be up to NY any time soon, but I will be down in Orlando in July.

We’ll see how much people hate photography down there in the summer time.

Carlos, Tom Franklin is a good friend of mine, when he started the day of shooting after the 9/11 attacks he was shoved hard by a Jersey City policeman, his camera was knocked into a fire hydrant leading to some of his images of the burning towers to be erased from his card…

i imagine the mayor prohibited cameras at the crime scene for the same reason the evidence was quickly taken away and shipped to china; to cover up the actual evidence. i have seen a photo taken at the wtc showing clearly, for any who would care to see, that the main steel support posts were cleanly and clearly cut with thermite, or some such explosive.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the streets. I am wondering if the city budget had more to do with this than any concern for civil rights. They keep settling out of court and/or losing lawsuits each time they hassle a photographer. I don’t think yelling at tourists helps the tourist trade either.

NYC just increased property taxes 7% and cancelled a homeowner rebate making the effective increase more like 11%. They are now talking about raising the sales tax to 8.75% and more tax increases to come. The budget is busted and they need every penny they can save.

NYCPhoto,

I think it’s a combination of the budget and the increase in information about what’s happening to law abiding citizens at the hands of police on the Internet.

Like most things in this country they go too far one way and then too far the other way before settling out.

I think there was a war on photography even before Giuliani . I’d agree however that he was one of the ones most responsible for taking the war to a new level that made it completely out of proportion to any possible threat. I think we are going to start to see a roll back on this across the country as more people complain.

He also ruined lots of the fun and reasons for going to NYC to take photos. The city is just starting to recover.

Note to “craig dudley”: You speculated regarding why the “mayor prohibited cameras” and you concluded that it was to “cover up the actual evidence” of the facts behind 9/11.

My guess is that extended discussion related to your conclusions isn’t appropriate or welcome here, because these conclusions are highly off-topic. However, I believe that the following points are relevant, because they’re intended to close the issue.

Additionally, this posting will allow me to make a separate but related closing statement that’ll address one of my personal concerns. I hope that people will indulge me and read at least the closing statement.

1. Guiliani may be responsible for a large number of deaths, long term, due to his handling of 9/11 issues related to levels of toxicity in the air. Additionally, the International Association of Fire Fighters holds Giuliani responsible for some of the deaths that occurred among first responders on 9/11. They’re not the only ones. Therefore, and for other reasons (the Patrick Dorismond case, in particular), I don’t support Giuliani.

In fact, I see Giuliani’s remarks about the Dorismond case and similar cases are evidence that he shouldn’t be viewed as human. I mean this in a literal sense. I’ve talked about sub-Bonobos in my postings on the Hope Steffey thread.

2. Based on what I’ve just said, it should be clear that I’m not biased in Giuliani’s favor. Don’t view me as somebody who’s likely to cover things up for him. Additionally, I agree that people should look more closely at some of the points raised by the 9/11 Truth Movement.

3. However, if Mr. Kervic is correct, and “there was a war on photography even before Giuliani”, that would be sufficient reason in and of itself to dismiss conclusions that the “war on photography” started out as nothing more or less than a 9/11 coverup.

4. If Mr. Kervic has evidence that “there was a war on photography even before Giuliani”, he should post it, whether or not he’s interested in “craig dudley’s” points. This would be useful information.

5. For obvious reasons, 9/11 is going to come up here occasionally. However, this site is about the “war on photography”. Other issues, such as “main steel support posts” or “thermite”, should be discussed on 9/11 sites, unless they intersect the “war on photography” or issues related to this site or its infrastructure (for example, Internet Explorer 6, WordPress, legal issues, site mirrors, etc.).

6. We’ve all got issues that we’re strongly interested in and related agendas. There’s nothing wrong with that. However, it’s best to focus when possible. I’m quite aware that I don’t always focus myself, so I don’t see this as talking down to people.

Bottom line: This isn’t a 9/11 site, a suicide support site, a school project, a private club, a “cop bashing” site, or a “cop support” site.

This site is intended, or should be intended, to draw attention to a specific set of problems, to establish the nature and significance of the problems, and to debate possible ways to address the problems.

Typo. In point 1, “similar cases are evidence” should read “similar cases as evidence”.

I told ALL BE DAMNED elsewhere to use a spellchecker, but I should add that they frequently miss things like this. As of yet, there’s no real replacement for the human brain.

VoR,

While this site is not a 9/11 site or a suicide support site, I do not want to discourage people from expressing their point of views.

Rather than tell Craig Dudley that he shouldn’t raise those issues here, I would rather see people either agree or disagree with him by providing substantial arguments.

Or just ignore him altogether if they are not up for the discussion.

The fact is, the more we restrict discussion of conspiracy theories, the more fuel we add to them.

It’s not much different than restricting photography at Ground Zero or of any other police investigation in public.

By chasing photographers away, it gives the impression that there is something that is being covered up, whether it is true or not.

While I pretty much decide what topics are covered in the main blog entries, I like to give free range in the comments section to allow the discussion to develop naturally.

This is why it is extremely rare of me to delete or moderate comments. I only do so when the comments are such an obvious act of disruption that they add absolutely nothing to the conversation.

CM said, The fact is, the more we restrict discussion of conspiracy theories, the more fuel we add to them.

It’s not much different than restricting photography at Ground Zero or of any other police investigation in public.

By chasing photographers away, it gives the impression that there is something that is being covered up, whether it is true or not.

That’s for sure. Giuliani fanned the flames of the conspiracy theorists when he blockaded the area around ground zero. As did Jack Ruby when he shot Oswald. As did some of the things that were done with TWA 800, at least in the end with TWA 800 they figured out that they should have what was recovered open to the public.

When law enforcement operates secretly they will always fuel the conspiracy theorists in some way. That’s why it’s important that we have open and transparent enforcement of the law.

Duane is right – there were some photography restrictions (both written and imaginary) before 9/11 yet they were not pursued as vigorously as they were after 9/11.

For example from the 1940′s through the mid 1990′s it was actually illegal to take pictures in the NY Subway without permission. Someone was arrested while taking pictures of a hazardous condition on a platform and the resulting adverse publicity caused the MTA to repeal the ban. In spite of the official ban – railfans and others with an interest in the system could easily get a “permit” just by applying for one at MTA headquarters – many of my friends had permits. Even those who didn’t rarely had problems – hundreds of thousands of pictures from that era are regularly traded at train shows.

After 9/11 even though there was no ban on subway photography and even though attempts to reinstate the ban failed the NYPD started enforcing the nonexistent ban.

Even before 9/11 I would hear the occasional story about a news crew being blocked from taking pictures but the incidents were few and far between. Even rarer were the reports of tourists or amateur photographers being hassled. After 9/11 the number of incidents increased exponentially.

NYC Photo,

It seems 911 was a watershed for many things. Harassment of citizens for doing normal things like taking photos was just one of them. Will any of these things turn out to be good in the long run, I can’t honestly answer that question. I can answer about taking photos.

With all the noise about photography I’ve only read one report where the person supposedly had some kind of link to a “Pakistani” (if I remember correctly) terrorist group. Did they ever prove any of his photos were in anyway connected with terrorist activity, not to my knowledge.

Other than that almost without fail the police end up looking like fools as they try to justify the harassment they have dealt out to citizens engaged in perfectly legal behaviour that is protected under the Constitution of the US.

Maybe the beginning of this new approach to photography is proof that our system works.

Note to Carlos Miller: You said, “Rather than tell Craig Dudley that he shouldn’t raise those issues here, I would rather see people either agree or disagree with him by providing substantial arguments”.

Mr. Miller, if you’re referring to “craig dudley’s” assertion that the War on Photography started out as a 9/11 cover-up, I didn’t tell “craig dudley” that he shouldn’t raise that issue here. With all due respect, I believe that you completely missed the point. It’s not clear that you actually read all of my post. If I’m mistaken, please follow me here and point out my undoubtedly numerous errors. It’s important, because this is your house and your rules. You should try to be clear about the rules.

And no, your current posting isn’t clear, because I actually agree with everything that you’ve said. Your posting boosts your standing as the kind of person that I’d like to support. I wish I’d been like you 30 or 40 years ago. Exactly where is it that you believe we disagree?

I engaged “craig dudley” directly on the specific War on Photography issue that he raised (“Giuliani did it as part of a 9/11 cover-up”). In fact, I did this when nobody else seemed to be willing to engage him. I’m sympathetic to people who might not like to be ignored. After all, I’ve been a bit disappointed myself that Ziggy and “jones” (two important posters) appear to be wary of me and are quite cautious about engaging me. The only people who’ve paid significant attention to me, other than yourself, are Mr. Kervic and ALL BE DAMNED (I do like that handle).

I didn’t chase “craig dudley” away. All on-topic questions should be shown respect. I made it clear that I was sympathetic to some of “craig dudley’s” views. I even encouraged people to look at 9/11 Truther talking points objectively. I wasn’t humoring the poster. I’m usually quite honest. I meant what I said. False Flag is going too far, but the official story on 9/11 is nonsense on the face of it. This was patently obvious within a few days. To see this for yourself, simply visit the sites that try to “debunk” 9/11 Truthers like “craig dudley” and look at the parts that the sites don’t talk about. That’s all you need to do.

After I demonstrated that I wasn’t biased for Giuliani or against 9/11 Truthers, I raised a “substantial argument” that is sufficient, in and of outside, to justify dismissal of the 9/11 Truther assertion that was raised (“Giuliani did it as part of a 9/11 cover-up”). That’s exactly what I was supposed to do.

The “substantial argument” was (and remains) Mr. Kervic’s assertion that “there was a war on photography even before Giuliani”. I’m still quite interested in that point. If Mr. Kervic (or you yourself, Mr. Miller) can back this assertion up, “craig dudley’s” 9/11 Truther point doesn’t hold water. If Mr. Kervic’s assertion can’t be backed up, it’s conceivable that the 9/11 Truthers are correct about this point.

All of this strikes me as quite reasonable. I don’t believe that you’re complaining about any of it. You’re apparently disconcerted by my closing remarks. I said that this wasn’t, among other things, a 9/11 site or a suicide site. I also slapped somebody who’s probably a friend of yours because of personal irritation, and I apologize for that. My point was that on-topic is important.

If you disagree with my point, then please address the following issue. “craig dudley” posted both on-topic and off-topic assertions. The on-topic assertion was that the War on Photography started out as a 9/11 cover-up. That’s reasonable, though I don’t happen to believe it. It’s a perfect subject for these forums. Let’s have more of it. It’s good to air these issues. It’s productive, and if the discussion is sensible and lively, it’ll boost your standing and increase your territory.

The off-topic assertion was that 9/11 was a False Flag operation (though “craig dudley” didn’t use those words). I happen to believe that “craig dudley” is correct (or more accurately, that people are ignoring some unsettling facts), so I’m genuinely sympathetic to the poster’s views. However, and this is the issue that you should address, that part of it is off-topic.

Are you contesting my closing remarks? If so, you’re in charge. However, let’s be clear and precise. It’s not about “point of views”. Actually, you should say “points of view”. It’s about points of view that are on topic. True or false? If you haven’t picked up on this, I’m not much of a grey-area person when it comes to things that are obviously black and white.

Are these forums appropriate for points of view discussions about things like 9/11 per se, suicide (prevention or even pros and cons plus techniques), Battlestar Galactica (old versus new series), domestic versus imported beer, the current recession, the future of YouTube, software in general, and sexual philosophy and techniques? If so, that’s great. Sign me up. I look forward to it. I’m distracted by various issues in my life right now, and I’d find free-ranging discussion of subjects like these entertaining and useful. Maybe other people would as well.

Or is this site about the First Amendment and the War on Photography?

It’s not about suppressing viewpoints or discouraging debate. Obviously, you don’t know me, but I’m the last person who should be accused of doing this. I’ve spent more years than you’ve been alive dealing with the facts that people aren’t open-minded and that they don’t like debate. I didn’t attack “craig dudley’s” right to raise an on-topic point about Giuliani and the War on Photography, and it’s inappropriate to suggest that I did so.

I did suggest (and have suggested in other postings) that general 9/11 discussion, discussion about suicide, etc., that isn’t related to the First Amendment or the War on Photography should go to appropriate sites.

It’s your call. Is on-topic important? If it isn’t, what did you think of the Battlestar Galactica finale? I didn’t see it, but I understand that some people liked the whole circular time thing and others didn’t. I also liked Lorne Greene as Adama 30 years ago, though the original series was corny. Obvious Star Wars rip-off, but we thought it was good at the time. There were group viewings and everything. I miss the original Cylons. “By your command”. I liked Greene in Gunsmoke 40 years ago as well. WRT beer, I was a beer manager in college and we stocked mostly domestic, but these days, I prefer imported. WRT the recession, it’s pretty bad for some people. WRT suicide, I’ve implied some things about my own situation, and let’s have Mr. Kervic start a forum here so that I can deal with them.

I assume that I’ve made a valid point. It doesn’t matter much to me. If I’ve gone too far, I apologize. However, you should think about exactly what it is that you’re trying to do.

Which is it? Are we here to discuss the First Amendment, the War on Photography, and intersecting issues (primarily but not necessarily related to the police), or is it O.K. for me to branch off a thread related to sexual philosophy and techniques? If it’s the latter, people have asked me about NLP in the past, and no, it doesn’t automatically get you laid. It is a remarkably useful starting point, though.

As a P.S., I do consider discussion about things like WordPress, site-related legal issues, DMCA attacks, etc., to be on-topic. If I’m lurking (and this is just a temporary situation), please be advised that I might comment on those issues, whether or not it intrudes on somebody else’s territory. I would like to know if I’ve said anything useful, but that’s not essential.

Additionally, in my opinion, mental health, suicide, 9/11, and all other issues are on-topic as long as they have something to do with your site or your mission statement.

VoR,

As far as “rules” go on this site, there are no written rules. I basically expect us to have civil discussions with each other, especially with those who have different opinions.

I’m not a big fan of websites that are laden with rules. And I suspect that neither are most of my readers.

The people who follow this blog tend to be a pretty free thinking bunch, including yourself.

I know sometimes the discussions get heated and insults are exchanged but that only happens a minority of the time, and usually when the site is overwhelmed by people who don’t normally post here.

Even then, it does take a thick skin to post here some times, especially if you are a LEO, but that doesn’t mean I discourage them for commenting. On the contrary.

I see this site as a community where I have loads of regular readers as well as a few regular commenters.

As in real life, sometimes conversations evolve into different topics. I have no issue with this at all because if at least two people are engaged in the conversation, I see this as being productive for the community in getting to understand one another.

It is these conversations that help us get to know one other and perhaps find that maybe we have some things in common even though we disagree on other topics.

It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference to me if two or more people start talking about Battlestar Galactica or whatever.

If I’m not into the conversation, then I don’t comment.

But the discussions rarely go completely off topic. The commenters do a good job on bringing it back to the topic, so they don’t really need me to do it for them.

Besides, it’s not like these discussions are stopping me from moving this site forward with new blog posts.

You go Carlos!!
I fully agree with you.
VoR, some of the greatest debates in history have been between people who have gotten off topic.
I even had a good 2 month long debate with another commenter, and the topic was pretty highly removed from the original topic. Shouldn’t we encourage controversial speech, instead of telling the poster that it is “not welcome”?
Especially on this site, where free speech is so highly valued.

Note: I have read many of your posts Voice of Reason, and you seem like a highly intelligent good person. I have nothing against you, just putting my 2 cents in.

Note to Carlos Miller and Scott Chamness: Thank you for your responses, both of you. The latest posts by the two of you have put me in a good mood. And yes, Mr. Chamness, I am a “highly intelligent” person. If I told you the exact circumstances, you might question them. However, a “good” person? Different metrics! That’s not at all clear

Note to Carlos Miller:

Technical issues. Server, Internet Explorer 6, etc. Feel free to save this message until later. Not of interest to anybody but Mr. Miller. Obviously, this is a public posting, but it’s related to web-site server and client software. Engineers might relate, especially old ones. The rest of you would be bored.

My post 12 reads “in and of outside” when it should read “in and of itself”. Don’t understand how that happened. I don’t trust spell-checkers, so I read everything twice. It’s irritating, because I’d like my posts to be perfect. I’m trying to accomplish something.

FYI this is one of the first sites I’ve contributed to outside of Wikipedia (using different handles) and various software projects. I predate the modern Internet (actually, I had a prehistoric E-mail address before BBSes or the Internet as you know it existed), but in decades I didn’t feel moved to post on a “normal” site until I read about the Pataky case and some of the other cases documented by this site. Therefore, although my postings aren’t significant, I view them as part of a noteworthy transition.

Before I proceed, I’ll say something that might appear to be unreasonable or unkind. I don’t need the kid’s assistance. I mentioned him to another old engineer just a few hours ago. We laughed about the fact that we’ve got light bulbs older than his tenure. My friend said that his household uses TP rolls based on front to back storage, so he’s got TP that predates this guy. Six years? When I was a kid, I played with some of the first compact (i.e., five-foot) computers that existed on the North American continent outside of NASA and NORAD, and I’ve been at it nearly 24 hours a day ever since. I’ve made it a point to stay out of the limelight, but you might have heard of some of my friends. The kid in question suggested that I try “safe mode”. If I need to do that, I’ll write my own browser, thank you. I’ve done it before. Based on his age, I was actually doing this kind of thing when he was learning the lyrics to “one two buckle my shoe”. I mean no more than a reasonable amount of offense, because he’s obviously helped you. In fact, if I’ve gone too far, I’ll apologize to him as well, but seriously I don’t need his assistance.

On another thread, you indicated that I might be overly-sensitive about this issue. However, you’re not old or an engineer, so it might be difficult for you to understand the factors involved. Think of it as an old-person thing. Better yet, think of it as the kind of territorial issue that I’ve lectured you about. Territorial on my side as well as anybody else’s.

That said, if I don’t cease posting shortly (as I’d actually planned to do), I’d like to post some test messages. Consider setting up a “test” or “admin” thread for this purpose. Best not to clutter up normal threads. You should view threads of this type as disposable. You can reset them when they get cluttered. This kind of thread is useful for anti-spam tests and debugging. BTW I stand by my previous remarks about WP-SpamFree, which were intended to be useful and objective as opposed to intruding on anybody’s territory. I did mention both a positive and a negative point about that plugin.

If I can’t debug the edit-button issue on my side (and it’s probably just a trivial NoScript issue or a similar addons problem, the young’un and I agree about that), I’ll let you know. If the associated sources have an open license (Apache, Artistic, BSD, GPL, LGPL, MIT, etc.), you have the option of posting the code. If there’s more than one engineer in the audience, that should resolve the issue pretty quickly.

I thought about fixing the Internet Explorer 6 issue for you, but I don’t want to. I dislike Windows. Sorry about that, but I got tired of Windows 15 years ago. As the kid said (and I agreed completely with his point, he was just presumptuous about how he applied it), you’ve got to adapt or be left behind. Read his posting again, he’s absolutely correct. Windows is the past. I know that you’ve got to support Windows users, but seriously, it’s like the proverbial dinosaur that’s been killed on one end and the other end doesn’t know it’s dead until later on. Windows will never die completely, but Microsoft has known that it’s over since 1998. If you’re interested in the subject, read the Halloween Documents. They’ve been phasing in a new business model very quietly for about five years. I’ve bumped into it occasionally.

As I said to the whippersnapper, I don’t actually need the edit button. Certainly, it would be a major convenience. However, the part that he missed was that I was trying to help you. You actually asked me about it in post 7 on that thread. However, whether or not I move on, you should nail this issue down, because other people are likely to find this feature useful.

VoR,

Use this as your test thread. There are no comments on it.

http://carlosmiller.com/2009/04/07/my-online-news-show-interview/

Thank you.

VoR,

If you are a regular Wikipedia contributor, would you be able to include my article on the Mariel boatlift into the Wikipedia entry on the boatlift?

The Wikipedia entry is kind of vague considering the impact the boatlift had on Miami.

Here is the Wikipedia entry and here is my article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift

http://www.miamibeach411.com/news/index.php?/news/comments/fleeing-cuba/

Has anyone seen a copy of the actual NYPD directive in question? I’d love to have a copy to keep in my photo bag, right next to Bert Krages’ PDF.

Note to Carlos Miller: You said, “If you are a regular Wikipedia contributor, would you be able to include my article on the Mariel boatlift into the Wikipedia entry on the boatlift?”

Do you mean add a link to the Wikipedia page’s External Links section? If so, I’m not presently involved with Wikipedia, but that kind of thing is straightforward. I thought about attempting it before I responded to you. However, I need to prepare for a meeting that’ll take place shortly.

Before I try to add the link, consider asking the WordPress kid to look at the issue. Last night, he said that he was unemployed and he apparently had time to kill. Additionally, he’s intelligent and aggressive, and I’d be surprised if he didn’t have more experience with this particular toy than I do. These are all good Wikipedia traits.

If he’s not available, mention the matter again on this thread any time this week, and I’ll make the change. However, there’s a chance that I won’t be able to do it, due to a possible technical issue. I’ll know whether or not I’ll be able to proceed as soon as I try it.

Or do you mean move some of the article content into the Wikipedia page? That would be trickier, due to political issues and not for technical reasons. Still possible, but if you say anything that people don’t like, the changes are likely to be reverted, and the time involved will be completely wasted.

Additionally, Wikipedia pages can be tricky, because Wikipedia frowns on anything that looks like “original research”. They prefer to base things on printed magazine articles or newspaper stories, which can be a problem, because print media is dying out. Of course, you’ll see thousands of Wikipedia pages that are nothing but “original research”, but those pages are usually yanked as soon as anybody important complains about them.

If that’s what you’re looking for, I’ll do it or the other guy will do it, but you shouldn’t view it as a simple thing. People are going to revert some of the changes.

I’d advise you not to make the Wikipedia changes yourself (i.e., try to squeeze them in between the late-night War on Photography articles and breakfast). Stick with the site that you control. That project is keeping you busy enough already. Additionally, if you put a lot of work into the Wikipedia page, and they revert your changes, you’ll find it irritating.

On a related note, if you knew what goes on at that place (and no, I’m not an insider or anybody important, this is public information), it’s like knowing what goes into sausage. Wikipedia has carved out a niche, but the project isn’t what people believe it to be.

Note to Carlos Miller: O.K., I’ll have time in about three to five hours. I’ll attempt to make the first change (addition of external link). Might not be able to do so. I don’t believe that I can make the second change (integration of content) without further input from you.

VoR,

The reason I asked you about Wikipedia was because you mentioned you were a contributor.

I’m not familiar with Wikipedia other than using it as a resource, so I imagine they won’t take too kindly to me registering for the sole basis of including my article.

Normally, Wikipedia is very well sourced but in the case of the Mariel boatlift, I found it lacking as I conducted my research for the article.

So I figured it might be beneficial to add my article because it might help other people in the future researching this subject.

Especially considering that next year will be the 30th anniversary of the boatlift.

Hey Carlos,

WTF does the Mariel Boatlift have to do with, “NYPD promises to scale back on War on Photography”

hahahahaha j/k

Dammit,

I forgot the rules.

Note to Carlos Miller: You said: “I’m not familiar with Wikipedia other than using it as a resource, so I imagine they won’t take too kindly to me registering for the sole basis of including my article”.

Laughter. If you only knew. Mr. Miller, you’re correct, but it doesn’t matter. A large number of people edit Wikipedia pages specifically to promote things like their products, their garage bands, etc. The associated pages are usually pulled as soon as somebody important complains. That might happen to you, but you shouldn’t refrain from participation solely because of that. If you haven’t offended anybody personally and you don’t bump into somebody more powerful who’s got a conflicting agenda, your changes might survive. It’s about territory, nothing more or less than that.

I’m working on this right now. I’ll let you know if I run into difficulties.

Additional note to Duane Kerzic and Carlos Miller: Mr. Kerzic said: WTF does the Mariel Boatlift have to do with, “NYPD promises to scale back on War on Photography”. Mr. Miller said: “Dammit, I forgot the rules”.

If that’s humor related to the on-topic issue, I wasn’t obsessed with that. I just like to know what the rules are.

I was picking on both Carlos and V of R a bit. It was supposed to be very funny. I hope you found it that way, hence the j/k for just kidding.

I missed the chance to edit. I fogot to add this.

Don’t let it happen again. hahahaha

Note to Carlos Miller: I won’t be able to edit the Mariel Wikipedia page for you at this time. However, pretty much any of your regular associates should be able to do it without major difficulties. I still feel that for various reasons you should avoid getting involved directly with Wikipedia yourself. Possibly log-in and modify the External Links section. That’s a minor issue. You could do that right now. However, don’t try to rework the entire page unless you seriously believe that you can juggle RL, the current web site, and a new project that might be taken away from you at any time.

Note to Duane Kerzic: You said, “It was supposed to be very funny. I hope you found it that way”. Yes

Thanks, VoR,

And I’m glad you found Duane’s joke funny.

This is all about being part of the community. We can joke. We can go off topic.

But we can be damn serious when we have to be.

Note to Duane Kerzic: If you’re up late, you could modify the Mariel Wikipedia page for Mr. Miller. Simply click on the edit link that’s located to the right of the External Links section. After that, the procedure should be obvious. Add a link to his Mariel article. The change might be reverted, but there’s no harm in trying.

Note to Carlos Miller: You said, “But we can be damn serious when we have to be”. Yes. The trick is knowing how to balance the two sides.

This document is real. It’s NYPD Operations Order 14 and I have a copy of it on my blog:
http://jeremybales.blogspot.com/2009/04/nyc-camera-bag-essential.html.

Everyone with a camera in NYC should print this out and carry it with them.