# Official Army Forum (DND.ca) is down.



## East Side Soprano (21 Jan 2004)

As you well may know, the official DND army forum has been shutdown. Reason: not specified. I‘ve heard rumors that it‘s because of Liberal defence policy bashing. If you know anything about what the reason behind the shutdown is and when it‘s supposed to be back up again (if ever) let us know.


----------



## McG (21 Jan 2004)

Look Here:   http://army.ca/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/1/1229/3?


----------



## NMPeters (22 Jan 2004)

The REAL reason the Army Discussion Forum was shut down is because someone hacked the French side so the whole board was taken offline. They were using the Snitz Forum and it had something to do with vulnerable code or open code or something techie like that (I‘m not a techie so don‘t ask me to clarify). The Army is now trying to find a secure product. The plan is to have the discussion forum back online, but there is no projected date for that. We‘ll all just have to wait and see.


----------



## ErorZ (22 Jan 2004)

Yes, that is the real reason I saw the French side after it was hacked, being that both the English and French side used the same forum (Snitz) they needed to shut both down, hopefully they find a secure forum and put it back online soon.


----------



## webster (27 Jan 2004)

Does this mean that when the boards are up and running again that all the previous posts will be lost?


----------



## NMPeters (27 Jan 2004)

Yes


----------



## Danny (27 Jan 2004)

Thats a shame.


----------



## webster (27 Jan 2004)

Yup it is a shame lots of good discussion and information has been lost.


----------



## EliteInfanteer (27 Jan 2004)

Was anyone here a previous member of that forum? If so what were your user names?? 
Mine was EliteInfantry.


----------



## mattoigta (27 Jan 2004)

He‘s too elite; he doesn‘t want the wrong people to find stuff out about him


----------



## jonsey (27 Jan 2004)

I was jonsey there, too.


----------



## Sundborg (28 Jan 2004)

My name says it all.


----------



## Danny (28 Jan 2004)

I was Dannyq.


----------



## NMPeters (28 Jan 2004)

I‘m thinking probably not. It‘s not unlike how I was unable to bring the LFRR discussions over from the old old discussion board. I will ask the webmaster about it though, if and when a new Army board is up and running.


----------



## webster (28 Jan 2004)

> Originally posted by NMPeters:
> [qb] I‘m thinking probably not. It‘s not unlike how I was unable to bring the LFRR discussions over from the old old discussion board. I will ask the webmaster about it though, if and when a new Army board is up and running. [/qb]


Thanks, I was going to ask him myself but misplaced his contact.  Im sure that the boards will be up and running again at somepoint but if the webmaster tells you differently please let us know.


----------



## Lexi (6 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by C:
> [qb] Was anyone here a previous member of that forum? If so what were your user names??
> Mine was EliteInfantry. [/qb]


Mine was "Alexa."
It‘s a shame they were shut down, I quite enjoyed them. Hopefully they‘ll be back up soon.


----------



## Righty (6 Feb 2004)

Mine was "Righty"... didn‘t post much but was a frequent reader.


----------



## shaun_bougie (6 Feb 2004)

mine was shaun_bougie
Posted and read there quite often.  Hope to see it up soon.


----------



## meni0n (6 Feb 2004)

Hey Shaun how did the selection board go? Or was it at the end of Feb?


----------



## shaun_bougie (7 Feb 2004)

Meni0n,

Military Police Assessment Centre is on Sunday for me.  There are some candidates that are in Halifax right now.  There‘s 2 serials.  I‘m in the second one.  I‘m really looking forward to leaving Timmins and going to Halifax to get a career.  I‘m pretty confident that I‘ll get in.  After the 3 day assessment I think it takes about 2 weeks before I‘ll know if I‘m getting the job or not.  I‘m anxious! That‘s all there is to it lol.  I‘ll let everyone that‘s interested know how it went when I get back.


----------



## tree hugger (7 Feb 2004)

Does anyne know if the old site will eventually be back up? -- Yeah it‘s me - tree hugger


----------



## tree hugger (7 Feb 2004)

Forgot to look at page 1...this site will take some getting used too.


----------



## JasonH (7 Feb 2004)

I never knew DND had it‘s own forums


----------



## Northern Touch (8 Feb 2004)

Same name...read mostly, some good info, but lets be honest, a lot of silly conversations too. Here is an article written about that forum in an Ottawa newspaper, yes, I stole it from andyboy who originally posted it on Socnet.  I just read there, never post.  

PUBLICATION : The Ottawa Citizen 
DATE : 2004.01.15 

HEADLINE: ‘Bush=Hitler,‘ brought to you by Canada‘s army: George W. Bush
is the new Hitler. It‘s time the Liberals got booted out of power. 
Jean Chretien speaks with a funny accent worthy of a Monty Python character.

And if the U.S. does invade Canada, the military could try scorched-earth tactics to destroy everything in the path of the marauding Americans so nothing would fall into their hands. 
While such statements might be typical chatter on Internet sites covering Canadian politics or conspiracy theories, these come courtesy of the
Canadian taxpayer. In an effort to promote professionalism and debate in the ranks, the Canadian army is operating the Internet discussion forum where the public and soldiers can anonymously post statements such as these.

The site, including less-than-flattering comments aimed at Prime Minister Paul Martin and former defence ministers, as well as insults between
participants, has all been copyrighted by the Department of National Defence. "If anyone out there thinks we will be better of with paul martin think again!," warns one participant in a discussion about government funding for the military. "Martin and Chretien are cut form (sic) the same cloth with either one in power the CF is in trouble." "You can be sure that when the Libs are replaced it will be by a right-leaning government and defence spending will increase greatly," writes another. "It‘s only a matter of time, so fear not." 
The U.S. invasion of Iraq is also hotly debated with some suggesting the war was simply an American grab for that country‘s oil. "In my opinion Bush = Hitler," writes one forum participant. "I‘m not insulting anyone or anything but I think america is the cause of all this crappy terrorist garbage ... without america there probably would have not been a sept. 11," states another. 
The six-month old site carries a disclaimer such opinions are "not necessary those of the Department of National Defence" and that personal attacks, insults and inappropriate comments will not be tolerated. 
Army spokesman Lt.-Col. Rejean Duchesneau said he has not seen some of the comments in question, but acknowledged it can be difficult to monitor the site. He said there is no funding available for military staff to do full-time monitoring, but argued that participants have to feel they can
speak their minds. "The discussion forum has to be quite open," he noted. "You can‘t really police it. If you want people to use it you‘ve got to allow them a bit of freedom." 
The Army does not know the identities of the participants or whether any of them are even military personnel. In a follow-up interview, Lt.-Col. Duchesneau said the site was temporarily taken offline Tuesday night to remove inappropriate comments. Those were discovered after the military‘s webmaster returned from being away on a course for 10 weeks. It is not known when the site will be back up. 
Lt.-Col. Duchesneau said the original idea behind the site was to foster discussions on army issues. But the forum has become popular with young people, many whom are new or potential recruits looking for information about the military. Although some forum participants warned others about making political statements, those seem to have little effect. One discussion containing an obscenity-laden attack on former prime minister Jean Chretien was partially
censored. 
Other participants blame Mr. Martin for gutting the military in the mid-1990s while he was finance minister. Defence Minister David Pratt fares better, garnering kudos for his support of the military. But even he is suspect. "Want to silence a critic?" writes one forum member "Appoint him as a minister." 
One of the hottest topics on the site discusses whether the U.S. will invade Canada to seize its natural resources. If the attack did come, Canada
could rely on a scorched-earth policy similar to what Russia did when invaded by Nazi Germany, one participant recommends. "With such emmense (sic) land, and with our cold climates, we may be able to hold them off, even though we have the much weaker military," the individual concludes. 
The invasion debate prompted additional anti-American rhetoric, with one forum member recalling the British attack on Washington in the early 1800s and the torching of the White house. "I‘m proud to know that the Canadians / British are the reason why the whitehouse is white ... way to burn that f--ker down!" was the statement posted on the army site. 
Others suggest the U.S. government was behind the Sept. 11 attacks, but that theory was dismissed by most forum participants. In another case, U.S.
President George W. Bush is referred to as a cheat and a liar. 
Former Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Maurice Baril is also roasted. One soldier writes that he was once selected to have lunch with Gen. Baril. "He talked about cartoons, smurfs to be exact," wrote the soldier. "Kind of funny to hear the then CDS talk about a cartoon that people commonly associate with lsd." 
Lt.-Col. Duchesneau said he did not believe the government can be held legally liable for some of the comments. "When we did our research everything we saw said that discussion forums are wide-open and that there is no body of law that people are being sued," he added. 
Two people have been kicked off the site for inappropriate comments, but army officials suspect they have come back on under new identities.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Feb 2004)

Then perhaps they should block IP address‘.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (8 Feb 2004)

It‘s not a "technical" problem it‘s one of manpower. The means are there to keep the rotten apples out, but DND simply doesn‘t have the resources to keep 24/7 watch over every post.

Early warning is key; most of the "episodes" we have here are picked out well in advance by the moderators, who nip it in the bud. (Good help is hard to find, but we have over 20 folks volunteering their time to keep things running smoothly...)

It‘s also harder for DND than it is here. If someone makes questionable claims here (I.E. Bush = Hitler) we all know it‘s just an opinion and look to the poster to justify the comments. On an official forum, just having those comments sends the wrong message (the fact that the media latched onto it is evidence of it).

It‘s far harder to do things under an official umbrella because of all the politics and legalities that come along with it.

Another example: imagine DND was paying the "appropriate" number of staff to watch over the forums. The media would jump on it as a waste of taxpayer dollars. The alternative is to understaff it and potentially suffer press like that above. (In my opinion, the right call.)


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Feb 2004)

I was Colin there, but someone already has that here, hence the "P"

It is a shame, I really enjoyed some of the discussions there. I have to say Mike that you have done an excellent job here and I have heard good comments from other internet boards about your site. Now If I could just win the lottery, then I would have enough time to read all the neat threads!


----------



## wongskc (13 Feb 2004)

Hey everyone!

Finally found my way over here from the dnd boards.


----------



## Lexi (15 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Jay Hunter:
> [qb] I never knew DND had it‘s own forums     [/qb]


What do you mean? When you gave me the link for this forum I specifically remember telling you I was on what I called, "the army.gc.ca forums."
****, you really are forgetful..   :blotto:


----------



## homerjsimpson (17 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Ghost778:
> [qb] lol
> 
> if i did i wouldn‘t have put my picture up under my profile.
> ...


lmfao! nice link for the pic...or did ya just happen upon it one late evening...LOL! hotornot.com lol

  http://pics2.hotornot.com/pics/HS/HQ/NZ/HL/REKMRQYJPJJ.jpg


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Feb 2004)

naw, i‘m not very computer smart and i didn‘t know any free picture web pages off hand so i grabed my old picture from hot or not.


About the DND site, not to pick on our younger readers but their quoting comments from what i can only imagine are young teen-agers who are half way through highschool and get their situational awareness from TV, teahers and what their parents say. Some of those comments are pretty retarded but ****, its the internet and if its an open policy on who can type there what do you expect.


----------



## jonsey (20 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by CFL:
> [qb] Then perhaps they should block IP address‘. [/qb]


Only problem with that is that with most ISP‘s, a user gets assigned a dynamic IP, which can change every time they connect. Not much of a problem with Cable or DSL users who are generally connected constantly, but dial-up users generally get a new one with every connection.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (20 Feb 2004)

like Mike told me in a former thread in the administration forum, he can contact the individuals ISP and bring it to their attention. They can then figure out how to deal with it, but either way..its bad news for the person in question.

Static IP‘s are great, especially when running servers.Nothing more annoying than when you‘re buddies cant connect because they can never keep up with your latest IP.


----------



## Yard Ape (2 Jun 2004)

Civilian said:
			
		

> Does this mean that when the boards are up and running again that all the previous posts will be lost?





			
				NMPeters said:
			
		

> Yes



I would think that it should be possible to salvage old threads/posts.  This BB went to a new program without the requirement to throw-out all old information.   Unless everything has already been erased(?).

 8) Yard Ape


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (3 Jun 2004)

It would be a matter of policy and resources. Keeping the posts from the old forums here took a fair amount of work, and I know the official site doesn't have a lot of spare time for things like that.

I assume the official forums are still offline, and being offline this long, there are probably no immediate plans to bring them back.

To be honest, I don't blame them: Why accept that risk, when these forums are run without draining valuable resources and without the threat of bad press... (So long as we don't go *too* far awry, that is...)


----------



## Huggy (13 Dec 2004)

I was at http://www.armee.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/4_1.asp which is where I 1st found this site, so today I go back to it and click the link for the fourm and it tells me.
The Army Discussion Forum is temporarily offline for security reasons. We apologize for the inconvenience. 


I did this at 8:30am today and again at ~10:00am and again now 2:30pm same thing, I had had to do a google search to find this site. no big deal but is it normaly like this??


----------



## don (13 Dec 2004)

Its been down for about a year.  If it really is a security problem its likely that the whole site is contaminated.


----------



## Huggy (14 Dec 2004)

How was that any different from this???


Can't they put a link from there to here.... I have gotten more useful info here then anywhere else.


----------



## Torlyn (14 Dec 2004)

Huggy said:
			
		

> How was that any different from this???
> 
> 
> Can't they put a link from there to here.... I have gotten more useful info here then anywhere else.



The two sites aren't affiliated.  This is a personal website run by Mike Bobbit, the other one is an official gv't website.  Ergo, the official can't link to the unofficial.  It's not official.  

T


----------



## william (14 Dec 2004)

Why do a google search? Why not type in army.ca itself?


----------

