Topic: Police insider reveals motives of Las Vegas shooter on fucking 4chan.
Anonymous A started this discussion 8 years ago #66,983
I thought this was information that wasn't suppose to be getting out yet?
Source: https://squawker.org/world/breaking-las-vegas-police-insider-posts-on-4chan-reveals-stephen-paddocks-motive/
Source: https://squawker.org/world/breaking-las-vegas-police-insider-posts-on-4chan-reveals-stephen-paddocks-motive/
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 24 minutes later[^] [v] #821,218
OH WELL WHAT DO YOU KNOW, IT WAS MUSLIMS AFTER ALL.
I SURE HOPE THE TRUTH DOESNT COME OUT BECAUSE RACISM REASONS
I SURE HOPE THE TRUTH DOESNT COME OUT BECAUSE RACISM REASONS
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 2 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #821,220
Anonymous B replied with this 8 years ago, 12 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #821,221
@previous (C)
So you're just willing to believe that an old guy with no criminal record just collected together a bunch of automatic weapons, put cameras around his room and shot over 50 people FOR NO REASON
So you're just willing to believe that an old guy with no criminal record just collected together a bunch of automatic weapons, put cameras around his room and shot over 50 people FOR NO REASON
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 8 years ago, 18 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #821,223
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #821,224
Anonymous B replied with this 8 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #821,227
@821,223 (A)
Sure, right out of nowhere. An old man with no history or criminal activity or mental illness shoots up a crowd.
Sorry but that's more unlikely than the FBI covering it all up
Sure, right out of nowhere. An old man with no history or criminal activity or mental illness shoots up a crowd.
Sorry but that's more unlikely than the FBI covering it all up
Anonymous D replied with this 8 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #821,229
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 8 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #821,232
@821,227 (B)
Mental illness can start at any time or a mental illness could have gone undetected. In other words, you're retarded and should go kill yourself.
Mental illness can start at any time or a mental illness could have gone undetected. In other words, you're retarded and should go kill yourself.
Anonymous D replied with this 8 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #821,233
Anonymous B replied with this 8 years ago, 53 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,240
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,242
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 4 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,305
@821,232 (A)
@821,224 (D)
@821,223 (A)
that doesn't cut it for me. his weren't the actions of someone not in his right mind. mental ilness doesn't preclude a motive
@821,224 (D)
@821,223 (A)
that doesn't cut it for me. his weren't the actions of someone not in his right mind. mental ilness doesn't preclude a motive
Anonymous E double-posted this 8 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,306
also that post is total bullshit lmao
why would he be running perfectly legal guns to isis in Las Vegas
hahaha
why would he be running perfectly legal guns to isis in Las Vegas
hahaha
chili dog !!81dzJNNYL joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 31 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,307
> Whereas taking as valid the words of a random internet stranger would be a foolish thing to do in any other sphere of the online world, 4chan is a little more trustworthy,
What
What
Anonymous E replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,308
Meta joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,313
At this point I think I'd trust 4chan before CNN
Anonymous D replied with this 8 years ago, 11 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,321
Meta replied with this 8 years ago, 4 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,405
Anonymous D replied with this 8 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,406
Meta replied with this 8 years ago, 4 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,408
Anonymous D replied with this 8 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,409
Meta replied with this 8 years ago, 9 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,413
Anonymous C replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,414
Anonymous D replied with this 8 years ago, 6 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,416
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,418
@821,408 (Meta)
I mean we clearly established thats what Trump thought she did. He actually thought she used chemicals to wipe her server. Why do you keep posting this dumb stuff?
I mean we clearly established thats what Trump thought she did. He actually thought she used chemicals to wipe her server. Why do you keep posting this dumb stuff?
Anonymous D replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,419
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Because it is PROOF that the librul meeedja is lying to smear our God Emperor!!!111
Because it is PROOF that the librul meeedja is lying to smear our God Emperor!!!111
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 27 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,425
@OPenisAnonymous C replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,426
@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
When even Derek is writing off your anti-Muslim article as a laughable conspiracy theory, it is time to rethink your position.
When even Derek is writing off your anti-Muslim article as a laughable conspiracy theory, it is time to rethink your position.
Anonymous D replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,428
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 8 years ago, 20 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,432
Anonymous D replied with this 8 years ago, 1 hour later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,457
Meta replied with this 8 years ago, 13 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,458
@821,418 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)Yeah and she wiped it with a cloth or something ????????????????????????
@821,416 (D)
Fake Anon and I had a back-and-forth about this in October. She used an app called BleachBit™ to delete 30,000-ish emails from her server. She did not, of course, use a corrosive chemical. But why is it called BleachBit? Why not VinegarBit or WaterBit or SodiumBicarbonateBit? Because corrosive chemicals destroy things. "Bleach" (ie ~4% sodium hypochlorite aqueous solution) is a corrosive chemical which cleans things. It evokes the image of, say, bleaching a bloodstain off a white shirt with sodium hypochlorite.
Trump said Hillary "acid washed" her server. He clearly (unless you are a person with autism) meant that she used something to remove the unwanted emails. Donald Trump is not very computer literate (try finding any 72 year old who is). If you are really puzzled by what he meant by "Hillary Clinton acid washed her email server" you are likely on the autistic spectrum.
Now here's the funny (at least to me) part. Back in the '80s there was a thing called "acid washed" jeans (pic related). The "acid" used was chlorine which is actually, in chemical terms a "strong base", the exact fucking opposite of an acid. They should be called "base washed jeans" if anything but somehow people associate "corrosive" with "acid". "Acid wash" jeans were washed with bleach. The app Hillary used to "acid wash" her server? BleachBit.
Meta double-posted this 8 years ago, 6 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,459
I mean if you're confused by the "Acid wash/BleachBit" thing, you probably also are confused by why the save icon in Microsoft Word is a picture of a goddamn 3.5" floppy disk which no one has used to save a .doc since like 1999 and has never been used to save a .docx
You're probably also confused as to why the 3.5" disk was called a "floppy" when it's actually quite rigid and the casing will fracture under slight deflection in which case might I suggest a glass of Domestos taken orally until symptoms improve.
You're probably also confused as to why the 3.5" disk was called a "floppy" when it's actually quite rigid and the casing will fracture under slight deflection in which case might I suggest a glass of Domestos taken orally until symptoms improve.
(Edited 49 seconds later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 8 years ago, 20 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,460
@821,458 (Meta)
> person who we should be able to take seriously makes a claim
Okay. Normal and presidential.
> said person’s claims are about the actions of another person
Well then it had better be accurate and not stretching the truth, right?
> the claim is not literally accurate and portrays the actions more negatively than they were
Hmm. Smells like a claim made in bad faith!
> these claims are inaccurate about the process and what it means when compared to reality
Aha! We have a falsehood.
Your insight about acid-washed jeans isn’t useful. It appears you’re trying to claim this is common vernacular and Trump was simply being colloquial. He wasn’t:
Is acid washing jeans like deleting everything off a server? lolno
Was it expensive? The software is free. Are acid-washed jeans expensive? Lol
Here there’s another claim: is it common and normal? Yes. Very. SOP for decommissioning anything sensitive to business is to use tools for securely deleting data (often a 7-pass write) and then certified destruction. Government work follows guidance from NIST and the “rainbow” series of publications from the NSA. (If I recall correctly, only the green book from the series is in the clear.)
Trumps claims are inaccurate about the process, incorrect about the intent, and incorrect about it’s context. It’s correct to rate his statements false about the individual parts and about the claims at large.
> person who we should be able to take seriously makes a claim
Okay. Normal and presidential.
> said person’s claims are about the actions of another person
Well then it had better be accurate and not stretching the truth, right?
> the claim is not literally accurate and portrays the actions more negatively than they were
Hmm. Smells like a claim made in bad faith!
> these claims are inaccurate about the process and what it means when compared to reality
Aha! We have a falsehood.
Your insight about acid-washed jeans isn’t useful. It appears you’re trying to claim this is common vernacular and Trump was simply being colloquial. He wasn’t:
Trump, Sept. 5: You see what’s going on with her emails. It’s a disgrace. It’s a disgusting situation where she pretends like she doesn’t know. I mean, she had her emails — 33,000 emails — acid washed. The most sophisticated person never heard about acid washing. Acid washing is a very expensive process and that’s to really get rid of them.
Is acid washing jeans like deleting everything off a server? lolno
Trump, Sept. 6, North Carolina: But why do you acid wash, or bleach, the emails? Nobody even heard of it before. Very expensive. Just ask yourself.
Was it expensive? The software is free. Are acid-washed jeans expensive? Lol
Trump, Sept. 6, Virginia: How about the acid wash of the e-mails that didn’t mean anything? How about the 33,000 missing e-mails that were acid washed — acid washed. And Rudy was telling me, nobody does it because it’s such an expensive process. OK, 33,000.
Here there’s another claim: is it common and normal? Yes. Very. SOP for decommissioning anything sensitive to business is to use tools for securely deleting data (often a 7-pass write) and then certified destruction. Government work follows guidance from NIST and the “rainbow” series of publications from the NSA. (If I recall correctly, only the green book from the series is in the clear.)
Trumps claims are inaccurate about the process, incorrect about the intent, and incorrect about it’s context. It’s correct to rate his statements false about the individual parts and about the claims at large.
(Edited 9 minutes later.)
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 10 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,462
If I ever have to smuggle information out of the country, then I will be sure to save it as minichan.docx on a 3.5" floppy. It's probably more effective than encrypting it at this point.
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 5 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,464
@821,458 (Meta)
> Yeah and she wiped it with a cloth or something ????????????????????????
>
>
> Fake Anon and I had a back-and-forth about this in October. She used an app called BleachBit™ to delete 30,000-ish emails from her server. She did not, of course, use a corrosive chemical. But why is it called BleachBit? Why not VinegarBit or WaterBit or SodiumBicarbonateBit? Because corrosive chemicals destroy things. "Bleach" (ie ~4% sodium hypochlorite aqueous solution) is a corrosive chemical which cleans things. It evokes the image of, say, bleaching a bloodstain off a white shirt with sodium hypochlorite.
>
> Trump said Hillary "acid washed" her server. He clearly (unless you are a person with autism) meant that she used something to remove the unwanted emails. Donald Trump is not very computer literate (try finding any 72 year old who is). If you are really puzzled by what he meant by "Hillary Clinton acid washed her email server" you are likely on the autistic spectrum.
>
> Now here's the funny (at least to me) part. Back in the '80s there was a thing called "acid washed" jeans (pic related). The "acid" used was chlorine which is actually, in chemical terms a "strong base", the exact fucking opposite of an acid. They should be called "base washed jeans" if anything but somehow people associate "corrosive" with "acid". "Acid wash" jeans were washed with bleach. The app Hillary used to "acid wash" her server? BleachBit.
I'd be more concerned if security concerns were not even considered. It should be standard operating procedure for anyone who has any anti-espionage needs.
> Yeah and she wiped it with a cloth or something ????????????????????????
>
>
> Fake Anon and I had a back-and-forth about this in October. She used an app called BleachBit™ to delete 30,000-ish emails from her server. She did not, of course, use a corrosive chemical. But why is it called BleachBit? Why not VinegarBit or WaterBit or SodiumBicarbonateBit? Because corrosive chemicals destroy things. "Bleach" (ie ~4% sodium hypochlorite aqueous solution) is a corrosive chemical which cleans things. It evokes the image of, say, bleaching a bloodstain off a white shirt with sodium hypochlorite.
>
> Trump said Hillary "acid washed" her server. He clearly (unless you are a person with autism) meant that she used something to remove the unwanted emails. Donald Trump is not very computer literate (try finding any 72 year old who is). If you are really puzzled by what he meant by "Hillary Clinton acid washed her email server" you are likely on the autistic spectrum.
>
> Now here's the funny (at least to me) part. Back in the '80s there was a thing called "acid washed" jeans (pic related). The "acid" used was chlorine which is actually, in chemical terms a "strong base", the exact fucking opposite of an acid. They should be called "base washed jeans" if anything but somehow people associate "corrosive" with "acid". "Acid wash" jeans were washed with bleach. The app Hillary used to "acid wash" her server? BleachBit.
I'd be more concerned if security concerns were not even considered. It should be standard operating procedure for anyone who has any anti-espionage needs.
Sheila LaBoof double-posted this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,465
@821,459 (Meta)
> I mean if you're confused by the "Acid wash/BleachBit" thing, you probably also are confused by why the save icon in Microsoft Word is a picture of a goddamn 3.5" floppy disk which no one has used to save a .doc since like 1999 and has never been used to save a .docx
>
> You're probably also confused as to why the 3.5" disk was called a "floppy" when it's actually quite rigid and the casing will fracture under slight deflection in which case might I suggest a glass of Domestos taken orally until symptoms improve.
micorsofst is an asshole for a hell of lot more than an anachronistic icon
> I mean if you're confused by the "Acid wash/BleachBit" thing, you probably also are confused by why the save icon in Microsoft Word is a picture of a goddamn 3.5" floppy disk which no one has used to save a .doc since like 1999 and has never been used to save a .docx
>
> You're probably also confused as to why the 3.5" disk was called a "floppy" when it's actually quite rigid and the casing will fracture under slight deflection in which case might I suggest a glass of Domestos taken orally until symptoms improve.
micorsofst is an asshole for a hell of lot more than an anachronistic icon
Meta replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,467
@821,460 (D)
Again you're being disingenuous. "He said it was expensive but it's FOSS!" "Deleting emails off a server with an app called BleachBit is nothing like acid washing jeans with bleach!".
Was the server (and associated support, software, IT guys, etc) "expensive"? Probably not to someone who can make a quarter million dollars with a 30 minute speech. Probably very expensive for someone not in the top 1%.
Personally I don't care much about Hillary's server. Lord knows I have at least 30,000 emails I could delete myself. If anything I'm glad she used a good program to delete the emails and didn't just drag the Outlook desktop shortcut into the recycle bin or something.
> Here there’s another claim: is it common and normal? Yes. Very. SOP for decommissioning anything sensitive to business is to use tools for securely deleting data (often a 7-pass write) and then certified destruction. Government work follows guidance from NIST and the “rainbow” series of publications from the NSA. (If I recall correctly, only the green book from the series is in the clear.)
But see here's the thing. She had the entire State Department IT staff to do all these decommissioning best practices and NIST rainbow NSA shit for her. But she took it upon herself, saving taxpayers at least like $10,000. When was the last time a Republican did that?
Again you're being disingenuous. "He said it was expensive but it's FOSS!" "Deleting emails off a server with an app called BleachBit is nothing like acid washing jeans with bleach!".
Was the server (and associated support, software, IT guys, etc) "expensive"? Probably not to someone who can make a quarter million dollars with a 30 minute speech. Probably very expensive for someone not in the top 1%.
Personally I don't care much about Hillary's server. Lord knows I have at least 30,000 emails I could delete myself. If anything I'm glad she used a good program to delete the emails and didn't just drag the Outlook desktop shortcut into the recycle bin or something.
> Here there’s another claim: is it common and normal? Yes. Very. SOP for decommissioning anything sensitive to business is to use tools for securely deleting data (often a 7-pass write) and then certified destruction. Government work follows guidance from NIST and the “rainbow” series of publications from the NSA. (If I recall correctly, only the green book from the series is in the clear.)
But see here's the thing. She had the entire State Department IT staff to do all these decommissioning best practices and NIST rainbow NSA shit for her. But she took it upon herself, saving taxpayers at least like $10,000. When was the last time a Republican did that?
Anonymous D replied with this 8 years ago, 6 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,468
@previous (Meta)
You’re a king of bad faith and awkwardly taking things literally when convenient.
lolwhut
You’re a king of bad faith and awkwardly taking things literally when convenient.
disingenuous — not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
lolwhut
Meta replied with this 8 years ago, 4 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,470
Also why did Hillary's "speaking" career dry up? Is she no longer good at speaking? What about Clinton Foundation donations? Are the Clintons no longer doing good work globally? I thought she got such high fees because she's a great orator or something.
Meta double-posted this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,471
@821,468 (D)
> awkwardly taking things literally when convenient.
Says Mr. "she didn't LITERALLY bleach it with 4% sodium hypochlorite aqueous solution!!!"
> awkwardly taking things literally when convenient.
Says Mr. "she didn't LITERALLY bleach it with 4% sodium hypochlorite aqueous solution!!!"
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 8 years ago, 6 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,472
@821,470 (Meta)
> Also why did Hillary's "speaking" career dry up? Is she no longer good at speaking? What about Clinton Foundation donations? Are the Clintons no longer doing good work globally? I thought she got such high fees because she's a great orator or something.
who gives a shit
shoot it and bury it, find something interesting in the world, perhaps flowering plants and ferns
> Also why did Hillary's "speaking" career dry up? Is she no longer good at speaking? What about Clinton Foundation donations? Are the Clintons no longer doing good work globally? I thought she got such high fees because she's a great orator or something.
who gives a shit
shoot it and bury it, find something interesting in the world, perhaps flowering plants and ferns
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,473
Fucking batshit crazy Autistic conspiracy nuts.
Anonymous D replied with this 8 years ago, 10 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,474
Meta replied with this 8 years ago, 5 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,476
@previous (D)
I see it in a colloquial way. She "bleached" her server. She "acid washed" her server. She "wiped" her server. All three sentences read the same to me.
I see it in a colloquial way. She "bleached" her server. She "acid washed" her server. She "wiped" her server. All three sentences read the same to me.
Anonymous D replied with this 8 years ago, 11 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,477
@previous (Meta)
I mean, sure, that makes sense to me. I worry that if we grant Trump freedom to be both colloquial and vivid with language and simultaneously specific about who did what, when, and why then we’re abandoning objectivity and only allowing conjecture. That’s not how I construct arguments or something I see as a responsible way to make accusations of other people.
Now explain the other claims by Trump: it was expensive, it was unusual, and nobody knows about it.
How can something be so common and cheap as to be used for jeans and yet also so expensive and specialized?
It’s not colorful language but an intentional manipulation to start with something familiar (cleaning something) and then attach it to exaggerated claims—it was expensive and uncommon and therefore could only be done for nefarious purposes.
That is what NBC is calling a lie. It wasn’t unusual or expensive and nobody has proof to show it was nefarious. The statement from Trump, at large, is still false even if we grant acid washing as a colloquial term.
I mean, sure, that makes sense to me. I worry that if we grant Trump freedom to be both colloquial and vivid with language and simultaneously specific about who did what, when, and why then we’re abandoning objectivity and only allowing conjecture. That’s not how I construct arguments or something I see as a responsible way to make accusations of other people.
Now explain the other claims by Trump: it was expensive, it was unusual, and nobody knows about it.
How can something be so common and cheap as to be used for jeans and yet also so expensive and specialized?
It’s not colorful language but an intentional manipulation to start with something familiar (cleaning something) and then attach it to exaggerated claims—it was expensive and uncommon and therefore could only be done for nefarious purposes.
That is what NBC is calling a lie. It wasn’t unusual or expensive and nobody has proof to show it was nefarious. The statement from Trump, at large, is still false even if we grant acid washing as a colloquial term.
(Edited 9 minutes later.)
Meta replied with this 8 years ago, 9 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,478
@previous (D)
> That is what NBC is calling a lie. It wasn’t unusual or expensive and nobody has proof to show it was nefarious. The statement from Trump, at large, is still false even if we grant acid washing as a colloquial term.
I don't think anyone would disagree that Hillary Clinton deleted emails from her server at some point for some reason. I don't know or care why she did it or what emails were deleted.
The point is, is "acid washing" an email server synonymous with "bleaching" or "wiping" an email server? I say yes.
> That is what NBC is calling a lie. It wasn’t unusual or expensive and nobody has proof to show it was nefarious. The statement from Trump, at large, is still false even if we grant acid washing as a colloquial term.
I don't think anyone would disagree that Hillary Clinton deleted emails from her server at some point for some reason. I don't know or care why she did it or what emails were deleted.
The point is, is "acid washing" an email server synonymous with "bleaching" or "wiping" an email server? I say yes.
Anonymous D replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,479
@previous (Meta)
> The point is, is "acid washing" an email server synonymous with "bleaching" or "wiping" an email server? I say yes.
We are in agreement. This is not the argument, though.
NBC is rating Trump’s aggregate claims as false because they are false. How is that Fake News?
youre moving the goalposts from being about Trump’s claims being fake news (what NBC did) to only the bit about the acid/bleach language as being what they’re calling fake news (what you can niggle about and feel some manner of self satisfaction)
> The point is, is "acid washing" an email server synonymous with "bleaching" or "wiping" an email server? I say yes.
We are in agreement. This is not the argument, though.
NBC is rating Trump’s aggregate claims as false because they are false. How is that Fake News?
youre moving the goalposts from being about Trump’s claims being fake news (what NBC did) to only the bit about the acid/bleach language as being what they’re calling fake news (what you can niggle about and feel some manner of self satisfaction)
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous D double-posted this 8 years ago, 9 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,480
@821,478 (Meta)
Also you’re both granting Trump the ability to be a naive old man waxing poetically about technology he doesn’t understand while also simultaneously a sage businessman with precise command over details as to be reliable in the purpose of his storytelling.
He has signed thousands of contracts and been deposed in various civil disputes. He knows details are incredibly important for himself and to other people and shows he can use them to his advantage. He demonstrates the ability to compare things and to select what he thinks will be best in many different contexts.
I’m not saying he can never be wrong and must always be 100 percent precise. I’m saying he knows it is standard and expected conduct to be truthful and accurate about accusations of what other people have done.
He’s just straight up a liar about things when convenient to him, though. He starts from something familiar and then moves to falsehoods. It’s manipulation, it’s what NBC was identifying, and it’s what I am focusing on despite your continued lack of acknowledgement.
Also you’re both granting Trump the ability to be a naive old man waxing poetically about technology he doesn’t understand while also simultaneously a sage businessman with precise command over details as to be reliable in the purpose of his storytelling.
He has signed thousands of contracts and been deposed in various civil disputes. He knows details are incredibly important for himself and to other people and shows he can use them to his advantage. He demonstrates the ability to compare things and to select what he thinks will be best in many different contexts.
I’m not saying he can never be wrong and must always be 100 percent precise. I’m saying he knows it is standard and expected conduct to be truthful and accurate about accusations of what other people have done.
He’s just straight up a liar about things when convenient to him, though. He starts from something familiar and then moves to falsehoods. It’s manipulation, it’s what NBC was identifying, and it’s what I am focusing on despite your continued lack of acknowledgement.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Meta replied with this 8 years ago, 12 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,481
@821,479 (D)
> > The point is, is "acid washing" an email server synonymous with "bleaching" or "wiping" an email server? I say yes.
>
> We are in agreement. This is not the argument, though.
That is my argument. Trump said Hillary deleted emails. NBC said "nope" because Trump did not correctly name the app she used to delete them.
> youre moving the goalposts from being about Trump’s claims being fake news (what NBC did) to only the bit about the acid/bleach language as being what they’re calling fake news (what you can niggle about and feel some manner of self satisfaction)
In which case the "fact check" should have said "yes but she did nothing wrong". The "fact check" never said anything about whether she actually deleted emails or not or why she did or did not delete them. I'm saying that NBC fact checkers rating Trump's claim that Hillary Clinton "acid washed" her email server as "false" because she did not "use a corrosive chemical" is literally true but entirely missing the point.
> NBC is rating Trump’s aggregate claims as false because they are false. How is that Fake News?
That's a completely different argument. Did Hillary Clinton delete official emails for some nefarious purpose? I don't know. Does it matter whether you call it "bleaching" "acid washing" or "wiping"? No.
> > The point is, is "acid washing" an email server synonymous with "bleaching" or "wiping" an email server? I say yes.
>
> We are in agreement. This is not the argument, though.
That is my argument. Trump said Hillary deleted emails. NBC said "nope" because Trump did not correctly name the app she used to delete them.
> youre moving the goalposts from being about Trump’s claims being fake news (what NBC did) to only the bit about the acid/bleach language as being what they’re calling fake news (what you can niggle about and feel some manner of self satisfaction)
In which case the "fact check" should have said "yes but she did nothing wrong". The "fact check" never said anything about whether she actually deleted emails or not or why she did or did not delete them. I'm saying that NBC fact checkers rating Trump's claim that Hillary Clinton "acid washed" her email server as "false" because she did not "use a corrosive chemical" is literally true but entirely missing the point.
> NBC is rating Trump’s aggregate claims as false because they are false. How is that Fake News?
That's a completely different argument. Did Hillary Clinton delete official emails for some nefarious purpose? I don't know. Does it matter whether you call it "bleaching" "acid washing" or "wiping"? No.
Anonymous D replied with this 8 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,482
Meta replied with this 8 years ago, 4 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,483
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 27 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,484
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 22 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,485
@821,473 (L)
> Fucking batshit crazy Autistic conspiracy nuts.
my favorite part is the claim that they have like 1.7TB of data on this nonsense
> Fucking batshit crazy Autistic conspiracy nuts.
my favorite part is the claim that they have like 1.7TB of data on this nonsense
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 8 years ago, 1 hour later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,496
"acid washed" sounds like she chemically treated the case to make it look streaky and KICKIN RAD like a pair of jeans from 1986
like she's really into the case mod scene
like she's really into the case mod scene
(Edited 1 minute later.)