Topic: Obama admitts they have no clue where WikiLeaks got the DNC mails from
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw started this discussion 9 years ago #59,026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiHtH0IJids
At 8:30, he finally comes clean.
Russians hackers are fake news status:
[] Not told
[X] TOLD
[X] Knights of the TOLD republic
[X] The good, the bad and the TOLD
[X] too TODL for this shit
Even he now calls them leaked emails, and not hacked.
Feels good.
At 8:30, he finally comes clean.
Russians hackers are fake news status:
[] Not told
[X] TOLD
[X] Knights of the TOLD republic
[X] The good, the bad and the TOLD
[X] too TODL for this shit
Even he now calls them leaked emails, and not hacked.
Feels good.
WSD !m2cp3rR5zw joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 36 minutes later[^] [v] #752,635
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 7 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #752,636
So they discovered new information? Isn't this the goal of an investigation?
Metæ !goTRUMPlbg joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #752,639
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 20 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #752,640
@752,636 (C)
More like, he admitted they were lying all the time. "Fake news" "russian hackers" "Trump dirty dossier"...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/cia-director-john-brennan-rejects-donald-trumps-criticism-1484611514?mod=e2twp
They are backpedaling left and right. CNN and Buzzfeed on suicide watch.
More like, he admitted they were lying all the time. "Fake news" "russian hackers" "Trump dirty dossier"...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/cia-director-john-brennan-rejects-donald-trumps-criticism-1484611514?mod=e2twp
They are backpedaling left and right. CNN and Buzzfeed on suicide watch.
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #752,641
@752,639 (Metæ !goTRUMPlbg)
Testosterone leads to wife beatings.
@previous (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
So science is a lie to you?
Testosterone leads to wife beatings.
@previous (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
So science is a lie to you?
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #752,642
@previous (C)
There's a fine line between "I think I know one thing so I'll tell it to others" and "We know one thing but we'll tell the public the complete opposite of what we know"...
Lol just kidding, the line isn't fine, It's bold and fat. Like the lies they were pushing.
There's a fine line between "I think I know one thing so I'll tell it to others" and "We know one thing but we'll tell the public the complete opposite of what we know"...
Lol just kidding, the line isn't fine, It's bold and fat. Like the lies they were pushing.
WSD !m2cp3rR5zw replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #752,643
Metæ !goTRUMPlbg replied with this 9 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #752,644
@previous (WSD !m2cp3rR5zw)
I'd be worried about that much T. Steroids can turn your grapes into raisins.
I'd be worried about that much T. Steroids can turn your grapes into raisins.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #752,648
He said the intelligence community wasn't sure if wikileaks was "witting or not", meaning the intelligence agencies couldn't determine if wikileaks knew they were being fed information by Russia, or not. For the love of Christ stop getting your information from fucking r/the_donald or alt right neo-nazi websites you fucking fuck. Even Trump himself says so. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-election-hacking-russia-233472
Stop drinking the kool-aid you're embarassing yourself.
Stop drinking the kool-aid you're embarassing yourself.
Metæ !goTRUMPlbg replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #752,649
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Why would WikiLeaks care if the info was from Russia or not, though? Their mission is just to post leaks.
Why would WikiLeaks care if the info was from Russia or not, though? Their mission is just to post leaks.
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #752,650
Syntax joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #752,651
@752,649 (Metæ !goTRUMPlbg)
> Why would WikiLeaks care if the info was from Russia or not, though? Their mission is just to post leaks.
They have to car. They want leaks to be credible. They have to vet the leaks first or they end up with no credibility. If they do not really no where the info came from it could just be random fake news
> Why would WikiLeaks care if the info was from Russia or not, though? Their mission is just to post leaks.
They have to car. They want leaks to be credible. They have to vet the leaks first or they end up with no credibility. If they do not really no where the info came from it could just be random fake news
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,653
@752,649 (Metæ !goTRUMPlbg)
That's if you think WikiLeaks is actually living up to its mission, which I find dubious. If you think they are actually in bed with Russia then it's not only that they "cared", it's that they are another arm of the Putin propaganda machine, but without the explicit state ties that RT has. See for example the time they threatened reporters at the daily dot for running a story on Assange omitting emails about $2 billion illegal Russian bank transfers. Or the time the alleged lovers of openness and transparency blasted the Panama Papers for being a US funded attack on Putin, while presenting literally zero evidence. And like you said, even if it WERE true that the US was leaking it, why should they care? All they care about is truth and transparency allegedly.
The fact that they act all defensive around Russia/Putin shit but gleefully leak all other kinds of info should suggest something about them.
That's if you think WikiLeaks is actually living up to its mission, which I find dubious. If you think they are actually in bed with Russia then it's not only that they "cared", it's that they are another arm of the Putin propaganda machine, but without the explicit state ties that RT has. See for example the time they threatened reporters at the daily dot for running a story on Assange omitting emails about $2 billion illegal Russian bank transfers. Or the time the alleged lovers of openness and transparency blasted the Panama Papers for being a US funded attack on Putin, while presenting literally zero evidence. And like you said, even if it WERE true that the US was leaking it, why should they care? All they care about is truth and transparency allegedly.
The fact that they act all defensive around Russia/Putin shit but gleefully leak all other kinds of info should suggest something about them.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Metæ !goTRUMPlbg replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,654
@752,651 (Syntax)
You don't need to know where information came from to verify whether it's true or not.
For example double-blind peer review where referees judge the quality of research without knowing who did it.
You don't need to know where information came from to verify whether it's true or not.
For example double-blind peer review where referees judge the quality of research without knowing who did it.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
WSD !m2cp3rR5zw replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,655
Syntax replied with this 9 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,657
@752,654 (Metæ !goTRUMPlbg)
@752,654 (Metæ !goTRUMPlbg)
> You don't need to know where information came from to verify whether it's true or not.
True but it sure makes it harder. All journalists no you must have two independent sources b4 going to print and the more the better. Wiki at the very minimum wood ask Russia where they got the leaks from. If it were just a one way street which of course is possible - Its less credible and requires now two independent sources - So IF Russian really wants to push something they have to car enough to help Wiki out. Otherwise They slow down the process
Assange from my point of view is out for his own interests b4 anything else as self preservation cause frankly he has run out of options for protection UNLESS he turns to Russia as Snowden did and no doubt he would and end up exactly in the same position Snowden is in. Rite now he is in very tight quarters with more like Rat in a Cage syndrome.
Embassies are very very cramped minimal spaces with the only exception being the Head Honcho. I have been to many many many Embassies over the years but not in the last two decades but I notice the buildings are the same in dimensions which means even less space over time.
This is also true of the working staff of US Congress. Go lobby for something on capitol hill and discover the super cramped quarters people who make a decent wage as Legislative Assistants-staff are like Rats in a very tight cubicle or not even room for the cubicle partition
Assange might even have less space in his room then say Charles Manson in prison
@752,654 (Metæ !goTRUMPlbg)
> You don't need to know where information came from to verify whether it's true or not.
True but it sure makes it harder. All journalists no you must have two independent sources b4 going to print and the more the better. Wiki at the very minimum wood ask Russia where they got the leaks from. If it were just a one way street which of course is possible - Its less credible and requires now two independent sources - So IF Russian really wants to push something they have to car enough to help Wiki out. Otherwise They slow down the process
Assange from my point of view is out for his own interests b4 anything else as self preservation cause frankly he has run out of options for protection UNLESS he turns to Russia as Snowden did and no doubt he would and end up exactly in the same position Snowden is in. Rite now he is in very tight quarters with more like Rat in a Cage syndrome.
Embassies are very very cramped minimal spaces with the only exception being the Head Honcho. I have been to many many many Embassies over the years but not in the last two decades but I notice the buildings are the same in dimensions which means even less space over time.
This is also true of the working staff of US Congress. Go lobby for something on capitol hill and discover the super cramped quarters people who make a decent wage as Legislative Assistants-staff are like Rats in a very tight cubicle or not even room for the cubicle partition
Assange might even have less space in his room then say Charles Manson in prison
Metæ !goTRUMPlbg replied with this 9 years ago, 27 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,662
@752,653 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
If WikiLeaks is a Russian puppet then why doesn't somebody build a competing leak site that dumps all the dirt on Russia? They'd get lots of tacit support from the US intelligence agencies.
If WikiLeaks is a Russian puppet then why doesn't somebody build a competing leak site that dumps all the dirt on Russia? They'd get lots of tacit support from the US intelligence agencies.
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,670
FakeAnon butthurt again, fucking lol. You're putting salt mines out of business, stop it man.
Have you watched the video from 8:30 for a minute?
First time Obama calls it "leaked emails" and not "hacked emails". Go fuck a shit up your ass. You fell for the "russian hackers" boogeyman. You "picked the wrong side of history".
Now that they basically admitted the emails are legit, let's see how long until shit hits the fan and the Hillary investigation kicks up a notch.
Also, have you seen that she shut down her foundation? No more "charity" now that she's not the president elect.
2017 is turning out so fucking great.
Have you watched the video from 8:30 for a minute?
First time Obama calls it "leaked emails" and not "hacked emails". Go fuck a shit up your ass. You fell for the "russian hackers" boogeyman. You "picked the wrong side of history".
Now that they basically admitted the emails are legit, let's see how long until shit hits the fan and the Hillary investigation kicks up a notch.
Also, have you seen that she shut down her foundation? No more "charity" now that she's not the president elect.
2017 is turning out so fucking great.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 55 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,682
@previous (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
Do you actually read my posts lol? I tried to show you why your interpretation of his words was wrong. You are now apparently convinced that makes me mad...or something. You seem to want to use your ideology as a bludgeon, e.g. "lmao salty libcucks btfo blah blah" which is meaningless textual diarrhea. It has no substance and makes you look really bad. It's a waste of your time and mine. If you don't have anything actually constructive to say I don't know why you even bothered replying to me.
If the best evidence you have after mishearing the words he said, is that he called emails produced by WikiLEAKS "LEAKED emails" I have to say I'm totally unimpressed. You can both hack and leak the same thing. You're grasping at straws.
Do you actually read my posts lol? I tried to show you why your interpretation of his words was wrong. You are now apparently convinced that makes me mad...or something. You seem to want to use your ideology as a bludgeon, e.g. "lmao salty libcucks btfo blah blah" which is meaningless textual diarrhea. It has no substance and makes you look really bad. It's a waste of your time and mine. If you don't have anything actually constructive to say I don't know why you even bothered replying to me.
If the best evidence you have after mishearing the words he said, is that he called emails produced by WikiLEAKS "LEAKED emails" I have to say I'm totally unimpressed. You can both hack and leak the same thing. You're grasping at straws.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU double-posted this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,683
@752,662 (Metæ !goTRUMPlbg)
You may see that in the future. Or you may see some other line of attack if the Russian government is currently incredibly concerned about in-kind retaliation and starts taking its electronic security incredibly seriously.
You may see that in the future. Or you may see some other line of attack if the Russian government is currently incredibly concerned about in-kind retaliation and starts taking its electronic security incredibly seriously.
squeegee the shaman joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,686
lol. holy shit, sheep... you're a god damned half wit. i'm shocked that brain of yours is able to breathe on it's own without machines to keep you alive. you would be a clown if your misinformed worldview wasn't so dangerous. i don't know how somone can be so frequently and so thoroughly wrong and still manage to convince themselves they are right all the time.
squeegee the shaman double-posted this 9 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,688
@752,682 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
yeah, what is with them and their beliefs as a weapon? i can't tell you how often i read about "librul tears" and how happy conservatives are to see democrats about to suffer, as if inflicting suffering is the point...
it's incredibly immoral, tbh, to enjoy the suffering of others. but, thats what they are, immoral hypocrites with an agenda to harm as much of this country as they can. they'll tear down our institutions, destroy our traditions, drive a wedge between us, and laugh all the way to the bank.
yeah, what is with them and their beliefs as a weapon? i can't tell you how often i read about "librul tears" and how happy conservatives are to see democrats about to suffer, as if inflicting suffering is the point...
it's incredibly immoral, tbh, to enjoy the suffering of others. but, thats what they are, immoral hypocrites with an agenda to harm as much of this country as they can. they'll tear down our institutions, destroy our traditions, drive a wedge between us, and laugh all the way to the bank.
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 27 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,689
@752,682 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I started putting shit in my posts a few months ago, when I noticed you ignore real arguments and just insult me no matter how well presentet the facts in my posts are.
Since I started putting "LOL SO BUTTHUR" in my posts you again ignore the well presented facts and instead focus on those. Interesting pattern.
How comes you didn't comment on the WSJ link, citing John Brennan, who is now all "no no, the dossier that turned out fake never came from the intelligence community". The dossier you guys claimed is real as fuck, and I got called names when I said "lol you guys got pranked by a fake "intelligence report" produced by 4chan idiots".
Turns out, it wasn't produced by the intelligence community, and there is John Brennan himself stating that. But that part you skipped.
And there you are, claiming it's "grasping for straws" that Obama said "leaked emails" instead of "hacked".
But on one point you are correct, we're wasting time. You keep falling ino the same pattern over and over again. Have fun.
I started putting shit in my posts a few months ago, when I noticed you ignore real arguments and just insult me no matter how well presentet the facts in my posts are.
Since I started putting "LOL SO BUTTHUR" in my posts you again ignore the well presented facts and instead focus on those. Interesting pattern.
How comes you didn't comment on the WSJ link, citing John Brennan, who is now all "no no, the dossier that turned out fake never came from the intelligence community". The dossier you guys claimed is real as fuck, and I got called names when I said "lol you guys got pranked by a fake "intelligence report" produced by 4chan idiots".
Turns out, it wasn't produced by the intelligence community, and there is John Brennan himself stating that. But that part you skipped.
And there you are, claiming it's "grasping for straws" that Obama said "leaked emails" instead of "hacked".
But on one point you are correct, we're wasting time. You keep falling ino the same pattern over and over again. Have fun.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,691
@previous (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
I'll comment on the article if you link it I guess but I probably had other stuff to do and missed it. You haven't even in this thread ACKNOWLEDGED a single premise of my argument, or any of the evidence I've presented, and that is fairly standard for you. You have some ideological axe to grind and you just want to yell your opinion at someone, not engage in reasoned argument. Which is exactly the wrong way to discover what's true and what's false.
I'll comment on the article if you link it I guess but I probably had other stuff to do and missed it. You haven't even in this thread ACKNOWLEDGED a single premise of my argument, or any of the evidence I've presented, and that is fairly standard for you. You have some ideological axe to grind and you just want to yell your opinion at someone, not engage in reasoned argument. Which is exactly the wrong way to discover what's true and what's false.
(Edited 41 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,696
Metæ !goTRUMPlbg replied with this 9 years ago, 13 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,697
@752,683 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
That'd be funny, WikiLeaksLeaks. Then Assange would retaliate with WikiLeaksLeaksLeaks.
To me it seems like everyone has an agenda. WikiLeaks is probably pro-Russian to some extent. I'd imagine Assange is quite miffed at America after being trapped in Ecuador's broom closet for the past three years.
That'd be funny, WikiLeaksLeaks. Then Assange would retaliate with WikiLeaksLeaksLeaks.
To me it seems like everyone has an agenda. WikiLeaks is probably pro-Russian to some extent. I'd imagine Assange is quite miffed at America after being trapped in Ecuador's broom closet for the past three years.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 16 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,699
@previous (Metæ !goTRUMPlbg)
Yeah I can't imagine it's a fun time relying on a geopolitical conflict between two rival powers to keep you out of prison, but I swear people get so stupid about politics. "Mainstream media is biased and agenda driven. WikiLeaks isn't though.". "Hillary Clinton is corrupt but luckily Bernie/Trump/whoever is pure." It's like, yes there is some merit to your criticisms but you are only criticising them because they are your political foes. WikiLeaks and Bernie and alternative media and whatever else you like ALSO have flaws and biases and agendas. Those may be DIFFERENT flaws, but they still are flaws and tend to be ignored for argumentative expedience. If you can't honestly name criticisms of your preferred whatever then you're a moron.
Yeah I can't imagine it's a fun time relying on a geopolitical conflict between two rival powers to keep you out of prison, but I swear people get so stupid about politics. "Mainstream media is biased and agenda driven. WikiLeaks isn't though.". "Hillary Clinton is corrupt but luckily Bernie/Trump/whoever is pure." It's like, yes there is some merit to your criticisms but you are only criticising them because they are your political foes. WikiLeaks and Bernie and alternative media and whatever else you like ALSO have flaws and biases and agendas. Those may be DIFFERENT flaws, but they still are flaws and tend to be ignored for argumentative expedience. If you can't honestly name criticisms of your preferred whatever then you're a moron.
Metæ !goTRUMPlbg replied with this 9 years ago, 18 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,708
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Yes! I try to keep in mind that every media outlet is biased in one direction or another and that I myself view the world through a lens distorted and clouded by my own personal biases.
I don't think a truly fair news source is possible.
I like to think Assange and Snowden didn't want to be pro-Russian but it was more of a "my enemy's enemy is my friend" type of deal.
Yes! I try to keep in mind that every media outlet is biased in one direction or another and that I myself view the world through a lens distorted and clouded by my own personal biases.
I don't think a truly fair news source is possible.
I like to think Assange and Snowden didn't want to be pro-Russian but it was more of a "my enemy's enemy is my friend" type of deal.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
brie !kGoudaMCFA joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,709
@previous (Metæ !goTRUMPlbg)
> I don't think a truly fair news source is possible.
https://kimmoa.se/rn/
> I don't think a truly fair news source is possible.
https://kimmoa.se/rn/
Metæ !goTRUMPlbg replied with this 9 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,710
@previous (brie !kGoudaMCFA)
I can't read any of that Bork Bork moonspeak shit. Speak American dammit!
I can't read any of that Bork Bork moonspeak shit. Speak American dammit!
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,711
@752,708 (Metæ !goTRUMPlbg)
I think news sites can be fair, by giving equal time to all informed opinions on a subject, by representing all opinions and arguments dispassionately, and so on. I don't think they can ever be unbiased, but I think that's a red herring. The only unbiased things I can think of are incredibly boring basic facts with no narrative or argument tied to them, like data on the size of Jupiter's big red spot over time, or something like that. I don't have a problem with bias as long as it's freely admitted and kept in check. Which basically never happens.
I think news sites can be fair, by giving equal time to all informed opinions on a subject, by representing all opinions and arguments dispassionately, and so on. I don't think they can ever be unbiased, but I think that's a red herring. The only unbiased things I can think of are incredibly boring basic facts with no narrative or argument tied to them, like data on the size of Jupiter's big red spot over time, or something like that. I don't have a problem with bias as long as it's freely admitted and kept in check. Which basically never happens.
ken griffey sr joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 31 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,718
you can't hack leaks
you can only leak leaks
no leaking hacks either
you can only leak leaks
no leaking hacks either
squeegee the shaman replied with this 9 years ago, 10 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,723
@752,711 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
you're being way to reasonable. we'll never have civil war with that attitude.
you're being way to reasonable. we'll never have civil war with that attitude.
dw !vJwW0tsPXQ joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 12 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,725
ken griffey sr replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,726
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 24 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,730
@752,691 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> I'll comment on the article if you link it I guess but I probably had other stuff to do and missed it.
I already linked it in:
@752,640 (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
> http://www.wsj.com/articles/cia-director-john-brennan-rejects-donald-trumps-criticism-1484611514?mod=e2twp
But I see, we're at the point your brain is in autopilot mode, literally blocking out whatever is not in your narrative.
I am truly amazed.
> I'll comment on the article if you link it I guess but I probably had other stuff to do and missed it.
I already linked it in:
@752,640 (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
> http://www.wsj.com/articles/cia-director-john-brennan-rejects-donald-trumps-criticism-1484611514?mod=e2twp
But I see, we're at the point your brain is in autopilot mode, literally blocking out whatever is not in your narrative.
I am truly amazed.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 7 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,731
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 33 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,736
@752,730 (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
I have a cold and I'm at work. It wasn't in a post that cited me. Rather than assuming I'm evil and/or a coward, maybe there is a boring explanation.
When have I ever claimed the dossier was from the US intelligence community? It's very clearly from a former MI6 spy, funded by opposition research groups of both parties. Why is any of this news or damaging to my beliefs somehow?
I have a cold and I'm at work. It wasn't in a post that cited me. Rather than assuming I'm evil and/or a coward, maybe there is a boring explanation.
When have I ever claimed the dossier was from the US intelligence community? It's very clearly from a former MI6 spy, funded by opposition research groups of both parties. Why is any of this news or damaging to my beliefs somehow?
ken griffey sr replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,738
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
i don't even remember anybody saying the dossier was legit at any time do u?
i don't even remember anybody saying the dossier was legit at any time do u?
ken griffey sr double-posted this 9 years ago, 16 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,739
DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 21 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,744
@752,736 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> It's very clearly from a former MI6 spy, funded by opposition research groups of both parties. Why is any of this news or damaging to my beliefs somehow?
:'D
> It's very clearly from a former MI6 spy, funded by opposition research groups of both parties. Why is any of this news or damaging to my beliefs somehow?
:'D
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,745
@752,738 (ken griffey sr)
Idk I certainly didn't say it though.
@752,739 (ken griffey sr)
Thanks baby ?
@previous (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
???
Idk I certainly didn't say it though.
@752,739 (ken griffey sr)
Thanks baby ?
@previous (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
???
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,746
@752,654 (Metæ !goTRUMPlbg)
> You don't need to know where information came from to verify whether it's true or not.
You're right. It could come from intelligence agents, random web sites, or 9 year old Billy down the street. It's all equally true, right?
> For example double-blind peer review where referees judge the quality of research without knowing who did it.
Double-blind peer review, at least for reputable academic journals, generally involves an editor overseeing submissions from scholars at accredited institutions and then distributing the material to expert reviewers. Far from just being assertions that this or that happened, the research up for review lays out past research, reasons for a hypothesis, and a methodology that allows for scrutiny of the conclusions and replication.
That kind of a poor comparison as it's a far cry from just receiving some random, unsubstantiated news from an anonymous source.
> You don't need to know where information came from to verify whether it's true or not.
You're right. It could come from intelligence agents, random web sites, or 9 year old Billy down the street. It's all equally true, right?
> For example double-blind peer review where referees judge the quality of research without knowing who did it.
Double-blind peer review, at least for reputable academic journals, generally involves an editor overseeing submissions from scholars at accredited institutions and then distributing the material to expert reviewers. Far from just being assertions that this or that happened, the research up for review lays out past research, reasons for a hypothesis, and a methodology that allows for scrutiny of the conclusions and replication.
That kind of a poor comparison as it's a far cry from just receiving some random, unsubstantiated news from an anonymous source.
Metæ !goTRUMPlbg replied with this 9 years ago, 51 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #752,747
@752,745 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
@752,744 (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
What if the MI6 spy is the real troll here? Make up a bunch of salacious shit, get $$$$paid$$$$ by both US political parties and laugh all the way to the bank?
@752,744 (DasSheeple !pE87XcIVxw)
What if the MI6 spy is the real troll here? Make up a bunch of salacious shit, get $$$$paid$$$$ by both US political parties and laugh all the way to the bank?
(Edited 36 seconds later.)