A US Marine Corps guidance released in March states that people who suffer from skin conditions like PFB may be discharged; critics argue the policy is ‘racist.’
So then you have no clue what the M50 respirator fits like then…
but I can guarantee I’ve had to wear a full face respirator rated for organic solvents more often than you.
Weird guarantee to make when you have no fucking clue who I am or what I do… I even told you from my post that I have a full face respirator still. Would be weird to have one and not be using it no? But now this devolves into a pissing contest, which I’m not particularly interested in participating in.
Edit: Additionally… the risk of whatever you’re doing in the hospital is much lower than Sarin gas or other wartime gaseous weapons. A bad seal for you might make you a little dizzy or you have to take a break and re-seal/replace your respirator, where a bad seal on the battle field would simply mean death.
Edit: Additionally… the risk of whatever you’re doing in the hospital is much lower than Sarin gas or other wartime gaseous weapons. A bad seal for you might make you a little dizzy or you have to take a break and re-seal/replace your respirator, where a bad seal on the battle field would simply mean death.
Lol, no we have to wear butyl respirators and do monthly fit tests because we work with extremely dangerous chemicals. Some of which do have a NFPA rating of 4, the same as Sarin.
then you have no clue what the M50 respirator fits like then
Lol, I imagine it fits like any butyl rubber respirator. They aren’t making them specifically worse just for the military.
Weird guarantee to make when you have no fucking clue who I am or what I do…
I mean, did you wear your respirator multiple hours everyday for more than ten years? Unless you were working in a lab for the military I highly doubt you spent much time in your PPE.
I even told you from my post that I have a full face respirator still. Would be weird to have one and not be using it no?
Not really? Unless you use it for your job a lot of people will have one they seldomly use at home for small projects like painting.
But now this devolves into a pissing contest, which I’m not particularly interested in participating in.
Your basing all of your argument on anecdotal evidence… Of course bits going to divulge into a pissing contest. That’s why I posted a source stating that there was no evidence supporting your claim…you know the part that you ignored.
Just being in the military isn’t evidence, we have no idea what you mos was or how long you were in for. For all we know you could have just been a pog in the national guard for 4 years.
They aren’t making them specifically worse just for the military.
Oh boy… you don’t know about military contracts do you?
That’s why I posted a source stating that there was no evidence supporting your claim…you know the part that you ignored.
You posted quotes with no source. Which is why I ignored it.
But fine… let’s address these unsourced quotes since that’s what you’re hung up on.
"While many military leaders defending the beard prohibition have repeated the claim that beards break gas mask seals, one Air Force doctor has found no direct scientific evidence to support it.
Results: FF decreased with beard length, especially beyond 0.125 in. However, passing FF scores were achieved on all tests by all subjects at the smooth shave and 0.063 in conditions, and 98% of tests were passed at 0.125 in; seven subjects passed all tests at all conditions.
“It’s an unsubstantiated claim,” said Lt. Col. Simon Ritchie, a dermatologist who last year published a study on the beard prohibition’s discriminatory effect on Black airmen. While supporters of current Air Force policy “may have anecdotal evidence of one to five people who they see fail the fit test,” he said, “that can’t be extrapolated to hundreds of thousands of airmen.”
I agree with him… it is discriminatory. But when the effect of that discrimination is less potential death on a battlefield…
The problem with this though is that services give profiles/chits for shaving… So those people often will not participate in mask training at all… Can’t find what you’re not even looking for. So just saying “anecdotal”… well yeah, that’s all there is if he’s not actively researching it. And as seen above, when research is done… it shows exactly what I said it shows, because I’m basing my opinion on my lived experience and the research that supports that. As I said though, it is under-researched…
And lastly…
In reality the shape of your face and the brand of your mask has a lot more to do with passing a fit test more than anything.
Which the military standardized on one specific model of mask… so picking a choosing a brand is kind of out of the question now isn’t it?
I would like to pose a different question for you then… Assuming that you have the 1/4" or longer facial hair now that you claim you wear… Would you be confident that you could run in it for a football field carrying gear and shooting a gun for hours without losing the seal?
" Beard length and areal density negatively influence FF. However, tight-fitting half-face negative-pressure respirator fit tests can achieve adequate fit factor scores even with substantial facial hair in the face seal area"
I don’t really think one could really claim that a 2% reduction in effectiveness quantifies as beards break gas mask seals.
agree with him… it is discriminatory.
That’s what the whole argument was about.
when the effect of that discrimination is less potential death on a battlefield…
Again, you haven’t substantiated your claim about bumps effecting seals… You haven’t even substantiated that beards break seals.
So no, you can’t claim it would save lives. Plus, the majority of people serving in the military arent in combat positions.
And as seen above, when research is done… it shows exactly what I said it shows, because I’m basing my opinion on my lived experience and the research that supports that.
I don’t think you read that paper correctly…
Which the military standardized on one specific model of mask… so picking a choosing a brand is kind of out of the question now isn’t it?
That doesn’t have anything to do with your facial hair…does it?
would like to pose a different question for you then… Assuming that you have the 1/4" or longer facial hair now that you claim you wear… Would you be confident that you could run in it for a football field carrying gear and shooting a gun for hours without losing the seal?
I don’t have a beard atm, but I would be just as confident doing that with or without the beard.
Wouldn’t know. Didn’t try to wear it without being clean shaven (or close enough/stubble).
you are exhaustingly pedantic…
Because I’m choosing to ignore something that you could have linked to? Sure… I’m pedantic then.
I don’t really think one could really claim that a 2% reduction in effectiveness quantifies as beards break gas mask seals.
out of thousands of soldiers? out of thousands of applications of the mask during an attack? 2% is a large number…
Again, you haven’t substantiated your claim about bumps effecting seals… You haven’t even substantiated that beards break seals.
The sourced document that I provided and clearly you read proved to you that beards will break seals. From the study “Beard length and areal density, but not coarseness, were statistically significant predictors of fit”. If length and density were not relevant to the matter then they would have stated so. But it is. So it is. Poor fit is a bad seal. The study showed no issue for up to 0.063 inches of hair… pull out a caliper and check that length… That is VERY short. I can grow that in probably 2-3 days. Hell even 0.125 is pretty short… and that’s where there’s already fall off and failures in getting seals. You are now arguing that it’s okay for 2% of military members to die during a chemical attack just because they want to have a bit more than stubble… This is a crazy stance to accept.
So no, you can’t claim it would save lives. Plus, the majority of people serving in the military arent in combat positions.
Can’t choose what gets attacked… The enemy chooses that.
That doesn’t have anything to do with your facial hair…does it?
I didn’t bring it up did I? You did.
I don’t have a beard atm, but I would be just as confident doing that with or without the beard.
I have to assume that this is “not at all” confidence for both scenarios then.
Honestly though I’m still reeling from you comparing your job of just handling some chemicals to an airborne chemical attack situation that would aerosolise the chemical…
Wouldn’t know. Didn’t try to wear it without being clean shaven (or close enough/stubble).
I meant without… Though I doubt you spent much time in it. What was your mos again…? Never answered that. I’m guessing based on the fact that you’re non Lemmy it wasn’t infantry… I’m guessing you were on a computer most of the time.
out of thousands of soldiers? out of thousands of applications of the mask during an attack? 2% is a large number…
Reduction in effectiveness does not mean failure you dolt.
The sourced document that I provided and clearly you read proved to you that beards will break seals. From the study “Beard length and areal density, but not coarseness, were statistically significant predictors of fit”. If length and density were not relevant to the matter then they would have stated so. But it is. So it is. Poor fit is a bad seal. The study showed no issue for up to 0.063 inches of hair… pull out a caliper and check that length… That is VERY short. I can grow that in probably 2-3 days. Hell even 0.125 is pretty short… and that’s where there’s already fall off and failures in getting seals. You are now arguing that it’s okay for 2% of military members to die during a chemical attack just because they want to have a bit more than stubble… This is a crazy stance to accept.
Lol, again ignoring the part where you claimed that razor bumps affected seals…you aren’t arguing in good faith. You are also making conclur not made by the original source.
Can’t choose what gets attacked… The enemy chooses that.
Lol… With chemical weapons?
didn’t bring it up did I? You did.
My claim was that facial hair has little to do with a good seal, and that facial shape and brand has more to do with it.
Your argument is that it’s facial hair not, so the brand doesn’t do anything to support you argument.
have to assume that this is “not at all” confidence for both scenarios then.
And the argument is about facial hair… Remember? I like how you constantly they to redirect the argument away from your original claim… really helpful.
Honestly though I’m still reeling from you comparing your job of just handling some chemicals to an airborne chemical attack situation that would aerosolise the chemical…
Honestly surprised your arguing with some with a degree in chemistry when your only experience was probably in basic training. You deal with a lot of Sarin attacks in the 4 years of doing IT for the army?
At this point we’re getting nowhere… When you say shit like “With chemical weapons?”… Yes we’re talking about literal war… where soldiers are the ones following these policies. This is literally the primary place chemical weapons are used as far as all of known recorded history.
OSHA, ANSI, all branches of DOD and the study agree with me… You can argue whatever you want, I’m disengaging.
OSHA paragraph (g)(1) of 29 CFR 1910.134
ANSI Z88.10
You basically admitted to breaking OSHA rules though. So congrats!
At this point we’re getting nowhere… When you say shit like “With chemical weapons?”… Yes we’re talking about literal war…
Yes, and in war chemical weapons aren’t exactly known for their deep strike capabilities. Chemicals are hard to disperse accurately and in significant quantities, especially from far away.
This is literally the primary place chemical weapons are used as far as all of known recorded history.
You’re claiming chemical weapons are usually used to attack deep behind enemy lines?..source for that? Again, besides your supposed “service” that made you an expert in respirators.
OSHA, ANSI, all branches of DOD and the study agree with me… You can argue whatever you want, I’m disengaging.
Lol that razor bumps impede the seals on respirators…? hilarious that you haven’t engaged with that rebuttal a single time despite it being my first correction.
Judging by the way you interpreted that last paper, I don’t feel confident you’re really capable of having an educated opinion. So I think it’s best you disengage.
though I think you’re really disengaging because I’m on the money about your time in the military. Still haven’t replied about your mos…
Eh one person being crazy isn’t personal… I get there’s crazies out there.
It’s all good… Just wild that someone can in one breath claim there’s reading comprehension issues then in the next sentence quote the regulation that proves them wrong thinking they’re right…
It’s scary that people like them are touching chemicals (according to them). Literally just now…
OSHA doesn’t care as long as it does not impede function of the seal.
Then quotes “respirators shall not be worn when facial hair comes between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face” and completely misses the fact that ANY amount of hair would come between the sealing surface and the face… This is the inside of the mask, the red is the areas that touch/seal against your face… The entire chin/cheek area would be touching hair.
I’m actually just disappointed in myself that it took me so long to realize that the discussion just wasn’t going to go anywhere…
It’s funny because Canada ALSO looked into the same stuff… and apparently came to the same conclusion that something else has to be used to get a sufficient seal. But Noooo! I must be wrong!
Their answer was to just add an entire fucking hood to create a snug fit around the neck… Not sure I’m a fan of that… But even in this video some of those beards are pretty short.
You basically admitted to breaking OSHA rules though. So congrats!
Lol, you really have issues with reading comprehension… OSHA doesn’t care as long as it does not impede function of the seal. You determine the fit of the seal by doing a fit test. If you do a fit test and pass, it’s not impeding the seal.
“The Respiratory Protection standard, paragraph 29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A), states that respirators shall not be worn when facial hair comes between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or that interferes with valve function. Facial hair is allowed as long as it does not protrude under the respirator seal, or extend far enough to interfere with the device’s valve function. Short mustaches, sideburns, and small goatees that are neatly trimmed so that no hair compromises the seal of the respirator usually do not present a hazard and, therefore, do not violate paragraph 1910.134(g)(1)(i).”
Those were quotes… not sources <edit>weakly sourced without any validation</edit>. I specifically ignored them because they were <edit>effectively</edit> unsourced. I’m not going to hunt down that quote to validate it was ever even said.
General Grievous says “TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today is lying about the quotes they provided. Lt. Col. Simon Ritchie was relieved of duty for malpractice years ago dishonorably.”
But fine, I addressed them following their comment. Read about it there.
to repeat (a passage, phrase, etc.) from a book, speech, or the like, as by way of authority, illustration, etc. […] to cite, offer, or bring forward as evidence or support.
Source
any thing or place from which something comes, arises, or is obtained; origin.
The problem with simply using a name as a “source” in this context… This lemmy user didn’t talk to that Lt. Col. so that lemmy user can’t be a source to say that the Col said anything… They took that quote from somewhere else… and didn’t cite that source. So it goes unsourced as the origin of where the quote is derived was not disclosed. Much the same as we both know that General Grievous from my previous comment is a fictional character and definitely didn’t say anything of that sort… Yet I “quoted” it… with no source to prove that anything was ever actually said. Quoting something without a citation to the source where you obtain the quote is effectively pointless on the internet.
This same article goes on to show the same study that I posted elsewhere though… with a bizarre stance on the results though…
These anecdotes all regard oxygen masks for aviators, so it would be too bold to extrapolate that the same rings true for gas masks, Ritchie explained. Still, it’s a start, and there is also a recent study from the civilian world that could indicate positive outcomes for beard-hopefuls in the U.S. military. The 2018 study showed that facial hair negatively influences the fit factor for half-face negative-pressure respirators as the hair gets longer and more dense. However, beard-wearers can still “achieve adequate fit factor scores even with substantial facial hair in the face seal area,” the study authors wrote. In fact, 98% of the study participants who had an eighth-inch of beard passed the fit test. Those results are encouraging because the respirators used in the study are pretty close to the M-50 gas masks used in the military today in terms of material and fit, Ritchie said.
Not sure why 98% is acceptable to them… but is what it is. I don’t particularly find the number acceptable considering it’s entirely preventable deaths that could be stopped.
See… I provided the source… and the quote. There is no concern about me having made shit up because you can see it for yourself without hunting for the source yourself.
You can type all that, still funny when you know that a quote with a name is a source. Since you know the quotes source is that named person. Not really relevant if it is a correct quote or not, as a sourced lie is a thing as well.
I mean its right there in your own example “…to cite, offer, or bring forward as evidence or support.”
Cool then you must accept my previous statement of
General Grievous says “TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today is lying about the quotes they provided. Lt. Col. Simon Ritchie was relieved of duty for malpractice years ago dishonorably.”
It’s a quote, attributed to a name. Right?
Edit: Would you feel better if I change the verbiage to “I wasn’t given a good source” or “validated source”?
So then you have no clue what the M50 respirator fits like then…
Weird guarantee to make when you have no fucking clue who I am or what I do… I even told you from my post that I have a full face respirator still. Would be weird to have one and not be using it no? But now this devolves into a pissing contest, which I’m not particularly interested in participating in.
Edit: Additionally… the risk of whatever you’re doing in the hospital is much lower than Sarin gas or other wartime gaseous weapons. A bad seal for you might make you a little dizzy or you have to take a break and re-seal/replace your respirator, where a bad seal on the battle field would simply mean death.
Lol, no we have to wear butyl respirators and do monthly fit tests because we work with extremely dangerous chemicals. Some of which do have a NFPA rating of 4, the same as Sarin.
Lol, I imagine it fits like any butyl rubber respirator. They aren’t making them specifically worse just for the military.
I mean, did you wear your respirator multiple hours everyday for more than ten years? Unless you were working in a lab for the military I highly doubt you spent much time in your PPE.
Not really? Unless you use it for your job a lot of people will have one they seldomly use at home for small projects like painting.
Your basing all of your argument on anecdotal evidence… Of course bits going to divulge into a pissing contest. That’s why I posted a source stating that there was no evidence supporting your claim…you know the part that you ignored.
Just being in the military isn’t evidence, we have no idea what you mos was or how long you were in for. For all we know you could have just been a pog in the national guard for 4 years.
Well… about that.
Oh boy… you don’t know about military contracts do you?
You posted quotes with no source. Which is why I ignored it.
But fine… let’s address these unsourced quotes since that’s what you’re hung up on.
Cool… one guy says it’s not a problem. Here’s an actual study. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29283316/
I agree with him… it is discriminatory. But when the effect of that discrimination is less potential death on a battlefield…
The problem with this though is that services give profiles/chits for shaving… So those people often will not participate in mask training at all… Can’t find what you’re not even looking for. So just saying “anecdotal”… well yeah, that’s all there is if he’s not actively researching it. And as seen above, when research is done… it shows exactly what I said it shows, because I’m basing my opinion on my lived experience and the research that supports that. As I said though, it is under-researched…
And lastly…
Which the military standardized on one specific model of mask… so picking a choosing a brand is kind of out of the question now isn’t it?
I would like to pose a different question for you then… Assuming that you have the 1/4" or longer facial hair now that you claim you wear… Would you be confident that you could run in it for a football field carrying gear and shooting a gun for hours without losing the seal?
Edit: Bad wording…
So your mask didn’t work then…?
you are exhaustingly pedantic…
" Beard length and areal density negatively influence FF. However, tight-fitting half-face negative-pressure respirator fit tests can achieve adequate fit factor scores even with substantial facial hair in the face seal area"
I don’t really think one could really claim that a 2% reduction in effectiveness quantifies as beards break gas mask seals.
That’s what the whole argument was about.
Again, you haven’t substantiated your claim about bumps effecting seals… You haven’t even substantiated that beards break seals.
So no, you can’t claim it would save lives. Plus, the majority of people serving in the military arent in combat positions.
I don’t think you read that paper correctly…
That doesn’t have anything to do with your facial hair…does it?
I don’t have a beard atm, but I would be just as confident doing that with or without the beard.
Wouldn’t know. Didn’t try to wear it without being clean shaven (or close enough/stubble).
Because I’m choosing to ignore something that you could have linked to? Sure… I’m pedantic then.
out of thousands of soldiers? out of thousands of applications of the mask during an attack? 2% is a large number…
The sourced document that I provided and clearly you read proved to you that beards will break seals. From the study “Beard length and areal density, but not coarseness, were statistically significant predictors of fit”. If length and density were not relevant to the matter then they would have stated so. But it is. So it is. Poor fit is a bad seal. The study showed no issue for up to 0.063 inches of hair… pull out a caliper and check that length… That is VERY short. I can grow that in probably 2-3 days. Hell even 0.125 is pretty short… and that’s where there’s already fall off and failures in getting seals. You are now arguing that it’s okay for 2% of military members to die during a chemical attack just because they want to have a bit more than stubble… This is a crazy stance to accept.
Can’t choose what gets attacked… The enemy chooses that.
I didn’t bring it up did I? You did.
I have to assume that this is “not at all” confidence for both scenarios then.
Honestly though I’m still reeling from you comparing your job of just handling some chemicals to an airborne chemical attack situation that would aerosolise the chemical…
I meant without… Though I doubt you spent much time in it. What was your mos again…? Never answered that. I’m guessing based on the fact that you’re non Lemmy it wasn’t infantry… I’m guessing you were on a computer most of the time.
Reduction in effectiveness does not mean failure you dolt.
Lol, again ignoring the part where you claimed that razor bumps affected seals…you aren’t arguing in good faith. You are also making conclur not made by the original source.
Lol… With chemical weapons?
My claim was that facial hair has little to do with a good seal, and that facial shape and brand has more to do with it.
Your argument is that it’s facial hair not, so the brand doesn’t do anything to support you argument.
And the argument is about facial hair… Remember? I like how you constantly they to redirect the argument away from your original claim… really helpful.
Honestly surprised your arguing with some with a degree in chemistry when your only experience was probably in basic training. You deal with a lot of Sarin attacks in the 4 years of doing IT for the army?
At this point we’re getting nowhere… When you say shit like “With chemical weapons?”… Yes we’re talking about literal war… where soldiers are the ones following these policies. This is literally the primary place chemical weapons are used as far as all of known recorded history.
OSHA, ANSI, all branches of DOD and the study agree with me… You can argue whatever you want, I’m disengaging.
OSHA paragraph (g)(1) of 29 CFR 1910.134 ANSI Z88.10
You basically admitted to breaking OSHA rules though. So congrats!
Yes, and in war chemical weapons aren’t exactly known for their deep strike capabilities. Chemicals are hard to disperse accurately and in significant quantities, especially from far away.
You’re claiming chemical weapons are usually used to attack deep behind enemy lines?..source for that? Again, besides your supposed “service” that made you an expert in respirators.
Lol that razor bumps impede the seals on respirators…? hilarious that you haven’t engaged with that rebuttal a single time despite it being my first correction.
Judging by the way you interpreted that last paper, I don’t feel confident you’re really capable of having an educated opinion. So I think it’s best you disengage.
though I think you’re really disengaging because I’m on the money about your time in the military. Still haven’t replied about your mos…
Literally /noOSHAcompliance
Incredible.
Also thanks for your in point comments and detailed explanations, you have not been pedantic at all. Also correcting your comments? what a sight!
Don’t take it personal
People inside Lemmy tend to over react with name calling and what not when their supposed knowledge about how the world works is threatened
They lash out in ignorance
Thanks for your service o7
Eh one person being crazy isn’t personal… I get there’s crazies out there.
It’s all good… Just wild that someone can in one breath claim there’s reading comprehension issues then in the next sentence quote the regulation that proves them wrong thinking they’re right…
It’s scary that people like them are touching chemicals (according to them). Literally just now…
Then quotes “respirators shall not be worn when facial hair comes between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face” and completely misses the fact that ANY amount of hair would come between the sealing surface and the face… This is the inside of the mask, the red is the areas that touch/seal against your face… The entire chin/cheek area would be touching hair.
I’m actually just disappointed in myself that it took me so long to realize that the discussion just wasn’t going to go anywhere…
It’s funny because Canada ALSO looked into the same stuff… and apparently came to the same conclusion that something else has to be used to get a sufficient seal. But Noooo! I must be wrong!
https://youtube.com/watch?v=bpNKS-W0xDQ
Their answer was to just add an entire fucking hood to create a snug fit around the neck… Not sure I’m a fan of that… But even in this video some of those beards are pretty short.
Removed by mod
Lol, you really have issues with reading comprehension… OSHA doesn’t care as long as it does not impede function of the seal. You determine the fit of the seal by doing a fit test. If you do a fit test and pass, it’s not impeding the seal.
“The Respiratory Protection standard, paragraph 29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A), states that respirators shall not be worn when facial hair comes between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or that interferes with valve function. Facial hair is allowed as long as it does not protrude under the respirator seal, or extend far enough to interfere with the device’s valve function. Short mustaches, sideburns, and small goatees that are neatly trimmed so that no hair compromises the seal of the respirator usually do not present a hazard and, therefore, do not violate paragraph 1910.134(g)(1)(i).”
You didn’t refute his source at all.
Those were quotes…
not sources<edit>weakly sourced without any validation</edit>. I specifically ignored them because they were <edit>effectively</edit> unsourced. I’m not going to hunt down that quote to validate it was ever even said.General Grievous says “TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today is lying about the quotes they provided. Lt. Col. Simon Ritchie was relieved of duty for malpractice years ago dishonorably.”
But fine, I addressed them following their comment. Read about it there.
Edit: pedantry I guess?
I am really trying to square this circle…
Quote
Source
The above are quotes… from a source… in this case the sources being https://www.dictionary.com/browse/quote and https://www.dictionary.com/browse/source
The problem with simply using a name as a “source” in this context… This lemmy user didn’t talk to that Lt. Col. so that lemmy user can’t be a source to say that the Col said anything… They took that quote from somewhere else… and didn’t cite that source. So it goes unsourced as the origin of where the quote is derived was not disclosed. Much the same as we both know that General Grievous from my previous comment is a fictional character and definitely didn’t say anything of that sort… Yet I “quoted” it… with no source to prove that anything was ever actually said. Quoting something without a citation to the source where you obtain the quote is effectively pointless on the internet.
Edit: Google shows a number of sources for the quote… https://taskandpurpose.com/news/military-beards-break-gas-mask-seal/ being one of them.
This same article goes on to show the same study that I posted elsewhere though… with a bizarre stance on the results though…
Not sure why 98% is acceptable to them… but is what it is. I don’t particularly find the number acceptable considering it’s entirely preventable deaths that could be stopped.
See… I provided the source… and the quote. There is no concern about me having made shit up because you can see it for yourself without hunting for the source yourself.
You can type all that, still funny when you know that a quote with a name is a source. Since you know the quotes source is that named person. Not really relevant if it is a correct quote or not, as a sourced lie is a thing as well.
I mean its right there in your own example “…to cite, offer, or bring forward as evidence or support.”
Cool then you must accept my previous statement of
General Grievous says “TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today is lying about the quotes they provided. Lt. Col. Simon Ritchie was relieved of duty for malpractice years ago dishonorably.”
It’s a quote, attributed to a name. Right?
Edit: Would you feel better if I change the verbiage to “I wasn’t given a good source” or “validated source”?
Yes, and that is also why you look up quotes and sources.
Just so you know though… that was in the definition for “quote” not source… but I’ve changed the verbiage.
We’re not in a trial case…
If I wanted to be as much of a pain in the ass. None of your claims about being in the service are admissible in nerd court apparently.