Of course I've seen an astrological chart, that doesn't mean I have the damn thing memorized either. I've also seen a bible as well, doesn't mean I could quote anything from it or believe anything from it either.
Can you name one of the books from the Bible? If there was one specifically assigned to you for some reason, might it stick in memory? Knowing your sign doesn't imply memorizing the whole chart nor believing in it. It involves remembering one of 12 signs. Most of us, I'd imagine, remember it entirely unintentionally.
I have no fucking clue what my zodiac sign is, I'd have to look that crap up. I'm not just not into fairy tales for adults.
My guess is that makes you part of the minority. I, like I'd imagine most people, know my sign but don't particularly care. I have no idea what it "says about me" and put zero faith in sign-specific predictions. I know what Chinese-animal-year I was born in too, but put the same amount of faith in what it implies.
Just because you don't believe in Hansel & Gretel doesn't mean you've never heard of it. You've really never run into an astrological chart?
It will help maintain your delusion that your addiction to nicotine is "harmless".
I don't think anybody is under the delusion that nicotine is harmless. Some of us have just decided that the harm doesn't outweigh the "benefits." I smoke 2 cigarettes on an average workday, half a cigarette at a time between 4-8 PM. I enjoy the act of smoking and the nicotine buzz it gives me. I quit for about 15 years and am confident that I could drop the habit again if that was something I wanted to do. I have a genetic health issue that is almost certain to remove me from this world long before the cigarettes catch up to me, so I just don't care about the slight "smoker's cough." No delusion - I smoke with my eyes wide open.
Well, if you haven't read it you aren't in a position to know if it is actually "out" of date...
If somebody asks, "What should I read to get good at X?", replying "Why haven't you read it?" isn't useful. If there's some kind of AI bible you're referring to, name it. If not, why are you complaining that people haven't read "it" or that they're asking what "it" might be?
So, all the examples I gave are not examples because reasons. Ok.
Reasons? Because none of them presented any misinformation being used to attack Trump. None of them. One I had to dig up for you and contained no misinformation, you just latched onto a small, out-of-context, portion of a comment from Comey. One was heavily edited garbage from some random group calling themselves "Western Journalism". The last one was something you can find referenced from worthless alt-Right sites and has been debunked by snopes. You've given no examples to support your accusation. At all. When you say that the MSM is "presenting misinformation to attack Trump," your examples should involve the MSM "presenting misinformation to attack Trump." Yes, because reasons.
The NY Times was one example and they have, more than once, have a title and a narrative of Russian collusion yet in one sentence hidden in the article say there is no evidence. One sentence is contradicting 90% of the article is not honest journalism.
There was no implication of collusion in the title or article - That's YOUR construction. It has a sentence in the third paragraph that disputes collusion that in no way contradicts anything else they say. They said that members from the campaign had contacts with the Russians. They never said there was collusion and went out of their way to point that out right in the article.
CNN has been caught lying through omission and potentially other narrative crafting measures, yet you still trust them.
Another accusation with Jack Shit to back it up. Are you citing that garbage you posted from "Western Journalism" as a source on that?
Two of your links in this post seem to reference the same thing and say that a group of psychologists believe that DJT has a mental illness. That's not misinformation. A group of psychologists DO believe DJT has a mental illness. That's not slander, that's professional opinion. WTF does your article about Disney & a racist YouTube star have to do with anything at hand?
There are too many examples I could list.
And yet, you've been "too lazy" to post a single one. It seems to me that this covey of examples is a fantasy.
You may disagree with them but it is not a delusion to see the media failing at their job. Everyone understands that except you are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and chastise me because I am not.
I choose to believe them because they have a damn good track record of providing me with accurate facts. I chastise you because you seem to be talking entirely out of your ass. You accused the MSM of presenting misinformation to attack Trump. I asked for one example, as I see calling the MSM liars as a big deal. I'm not saying there isn't an example, but apparently it's hard enough to find that's it's eluded you. I'm not asking for your entire stash of "too many to list". Just one.
Saying that the MSM is presenting misinformation to attack POTUS is a serious accusation. "Too lazy" to cite a single source tells me that you haven't seen one and the poison in the well that you're worried about is a delusion. I didn't say I trusted snopes, but they're worth checking for some background on fishy stories like the one you linked. Checking them could have kept you from looking silly.
The MSM isn't perfect, but they've got a damn good track record depending on your definition of "Main Stream". Most of the alternatives pale. Your YouTube links doubly so - That's the best of what you're basing your belief on? Opinions are like assholes but a belief like trusting stories from our media should be based on something. My belief, that the MSM for the most part tries to convey accurate facts, is based on very consistent performance. Your opinion is based on a web of lies that exist only in your own head.
That depends. Are you asking if I post to slashdot while I'm on the clock? I would never. Of course not. Never. Mis-use of company time and all that. Besides, nobody can prove I'm gnick! I could be anyone! I could be Anonymous Coward himself!
Watching GP's linked videos WOULD have been a waste of company time. I did that at home. I wasted my own time. His first link was trash and his second I'd seen debunked before. He just got called out on a hollow claim.
Dear lord. Your first link is indeed an example of selective omission. Whoever the fuck "Western Journalism" is selectively edits CNN's story to try to make them look bad with nothing to back it up. Your second link is bullshit. If your fact checking relies on sketchy YouTube clips and ignores snopes, I'm not sure I trust your ability to check facts. Maybe you should add "random shit I found on YouTube" to the list of sources you don't trust. You've said nothing that remotely supports your accusation that the MSM is presenting misinformation to attack Trump. Nothing. Methinks it's because you're full of shit.
I asked for an example of the MSM presenting misinformation to attack Trump. I dug your article up for you - Can you find the misinformation for me? It's not that I disbelieve Comey, but I see nothing in that article that I'd call lying. Unlike you, I DO trust CNN's news reporting. Fox's too. Both have excellent records of providing factual information, even though they present it very differently. The WH I sometimes feel the need to fact check.
If you're going to condemn the entire MSM as liars, it seems appropriate to base that on at least one example of them lying to you. Don't feel bad that you couldn't find one - They're not common. The WH is a much easier target.
Just one example from Comey was a NY times article about a supposed collusion between Trump and the Russians.
This one? It says there were contacts, not collusion. In fact, FTA: "The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation." And Comey's full statement was:
In the main, it was not true. The challenge, and I’m not picking on reporters, about writing stories about classified information is the people talking about it often don’t really know what’s going on and those of us who actually know what’s going on are not talking about it. And we don’t call the press and say, "Hey, you got that thing wrong."
That's hardly enough of a condemnation to declare that the entire MSM has been discredited. Are you saying that you DO trust statements from the WH over CNN?
And one contained classified material and the other didn't. I don't get your point. Sharing unclassified information isn't a crime, even if it is part of an "official record." In fact, if I understand correctly, the Official Records Act is geared more toward what should be shared as opposed to what shouldn't.
The biggest problem I see so far, is that the MSM has totally discredited itself terribly, to the breaking point (IMHO) in its mishandling of information and continuing attacks on Trump, even when there is no "there" there.
Do you have examples of the MSM using misinformation in their "attacks" on Trump? You can find fringe sources that'll say almost anything, but from what I've seen the MSM's coverage of DJT has been based on solid facts. You can claim that they're presented in a biased manner, but what "mishandling of information" are you talking about that has "totally discredited" the MSM? Do you believe the statements that come from the White House over the statements you hear on CNN? The current administrations's track record this year isn't stellar regarding accuracy.
So they are accusing Trump of talking in a manner that might be considered pressuring the FBI to stop an investigation that he had been told was based on salicious and unverified information.
No. Not even close. You're either completely confused or trolling. The investigation that Trump tried to stop had nothing to do with the "salacious and unverified" material. One case was Flynn misrepresenting his contact with the Russians. The other case has to do with alleged pee pee tapes. The only thing they have in common are the words "Russia" and "Trump".
That angle isn't going anywhere.
That part you got right, but only because it's a ludicrous angle of your own creation.
The way that works is the two highest bidders have to pay, but only the highest bidder gets the money. People will bid up to the value of $20 because why not it's free money.
I'm not convinced that it would get bid up to $20. What idiot would enter an auction where the second place bidder still pays but gets nothing in return? Does this situation exist in some context? If you're the only bidder, fine, wager a buck. Otherwise, the only way to win is not to play.
But, c'mon CNN, there are other things happening in the world, some of them quite important.
I'm not sure CNN wants to spend as much time on DJT's Tweets as it does, but many of them are interesting to the public for whatever reason, so they get covered. If Obama had made a habit of issuing inappropriate Tweets every week, I'm confident that CNN would have covered those too. On top of that, I believe that DJT wants them covered and crafts them accordingly. The man feeds off of ratings and needs constant attention to survive. He's happy when his Tweets get covered even if it's negative.
A lot of the time, it's making a mountain out of covfefe. Other times, it's real news with real implications. E.g. "Obama tapped my phones!"
Obama wasn't as hungry for headlines as DJT. Or as publically colorful. Part of why he's in the news so much is that he WANTS to be. Ratings are like crack for that man. Besides being an unfiltered look into his brain, I believe that he makes his Tweets intentionally inflammatory because he can't live without attention.
Personally, I'm more tired of the way the media covers EVERY SINGLE LITTLE LAST TWEET as if each one announces an Arab/Israeli Peace Deal.
The majority of DJT's Tweets are not covered by the MSM. Most seem to be whining about being treated unfairly by the FAKE NEWS, gloating about the election win, or just generally berating people he doesn't like. The ones that get covered are (mostly) the ones that could have major implications for the US or the world or are particularly inappropriate. Unfortunately, he generates a shit-ton of those. I'm not one to make a mountain out of covfefe, but "This is a TRAVEL BAN!" or "Obama wiretapped my phones!" have real implications. Insulting London's mayor after the recent tragedy is just a beacon of bad diplomacy. Some of his Tweets are treated as news because they quite often ARE news.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course I've seen an astrological chart, that doesn't mean I have the damn thing memorized either. I've also seen a bible as well, doesn't mean I could quote anything from it or believe anything from it either.
Can you name one of the books from the Bible? If there was one specifically assigned to you for some reason, might it stick in memory? Knowing your sign doesn't imply memorizing the whole chart nor believing in it. It involves remembering one of 12 signs. Most of us, I'd imagine, remember it entirely unintentionally.
I have no fucking clue what my zodiac sign is, I'd have to look that crap up. I'm not just not into fairy tales for adults.
My guess is that makes you part of the minority. I, like I'd imagine most people, know my sign but don't particularly care. I have no idea what it "says about me" and put zero faith in sign-specific predictions. I know what Chinese-animal-year I was born in too, but put the same amount of faith in what it implies.
Just because you don't believe in Hansel & Gretel doesn't mean you've never heard of it. You've really never run into an astrological chart?
A lot of people still think smoking is cool, but somehow an e-cig is like sucking on a dildo.
Nobody still thinks smoking is cool. I never thought I'd see the day when smoking marijuana carries less of a social stigma than smoking tobacco.
Disclaimer: I smoke.
It will help maintain your delusion that your addiction to nicotine is "harmless".
I don't think anybody is under the delusion that nicotine is harmless. Some of us have just decided that the harm doesn't outweigh the "benefits." I smoke 2 cigarettes on an average workday, half a cigarette at a time between 4-8 PM. I enjoy the act of smoking and the nicotine buzz it gives me. I quit for about 15 years and am confident that I could drop the habit again if that was something I wanted to do. I have a genetic health issue that is almost certain to remove me from this world long before the cigarettes catch up to me, so I just don't care about the slight "smoker's cough." No delusion - I smoke with my eyes wide open.
Maybe you'd prefer "digital" currency?
Well, if you haven't read it you aren't in a position to know if it is actually "out" of date...
If somebody asks, "What should I read to get good at X?", replying "Why haven't you read it?" isn't useful. If there's some kind of AI bible you're referring to, name it. If not, why are you complaining that people haven't read "it" or that they're asking what "it" might be?
The headline was changed. I assume that was in response to the "fucking retard's" informative comment.
So, all the examples I gave are not examples because reasons. Ok.
Reasons? Because none of them presented any misinformation being used to attack Trump. None of them. One I had to dig up for you and contained no misinformation, you just latched onto a small, out-of-context, portion of a comment from Comey. One was heavily edited garbage from some random group calling themselves "Western Journalism". The last one was something you can find referenced from worthless alt-Right sites and has been debunked by snopes. You've given no examples to support your accusation. At all. When you say that the MSM is "presenting misinformation to attack Trump," your examples should involve the MSM "presenting misinformation to attack Trump." Yes, because reasons.
The NY Times was one example and they have, more than once, have a title and a narrative of Russian collusion yet in one sentence hidden in the article say there is no evidence. One sentence is contradicting 90% of the article is not honest journalism.
There was no implication of collusion in the title or article - That's YOUR construction. It has a sentence in the third paragraph that disputes collusion that in no way contradicts anything else they say. They said that members from the campaign had contacts with the Russians. They never said there was collusion and went out of their way to point that out right in the article.
CNN has been caught lying through omission and potentially other narrative crafting measures, yet you still trust them.
Another accusation with Jack Shit to back it up. Are you citing that garbage you posted from "Western Journalism" as a source on that?
Two of your links in this post seem to reference the same thing and say that a group of psychologists believe that DJT has a mental illness. That's not misinformation. A group of psychologists DO believe DJT has a mental illness. That's not slander, that's professional opinion. WTF does your article about Disney & a racist YouTube star have to do with anything at hand?
There are too many examples I could list.
And yet, you've been "too lazy" to post a single one. It seems to me that this covey of examples is a fantasy.
You may disagree with them but it is not a delusion to see the media failing at their job. Everyone understands that except you are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and chastise me because I am not.
I choose to believe them because they have a damn good track record of providing me with accurate facts. I chastise you because you seem to be talking entirely out of your ass. You accused the MSM of presenting misinformation to attack Trump. I asked for one example, as I see calling the MSM liars as a big deal. I'm not saying there isn't an example, but apparently it's hard enough to find that's it's eluded you. I'm not asking for your entire stash of "too many to list". Just one.
Saying that the MSM is presenting misinformation to attack POTUS is a serious accusation. "Too lazy" to cite a single source tells me that you haven't seen one and the poison in the well that you're worried about is a delusion. I didn't say I trusted snopes, but they're worth checking for some background on fishy stories like the one you linked. Checking them could have kept you from looking silly.
The MSM isn't perfect, but they've got a damn good track record depending on your definition of "Main Stream". Most of the alternatives pale. Your YouTube links doubly so - That's the best of what you're basing your belief on? Opinions are like assholes but a belief like trusting stories from our media should be based on something. My belief, that the MSM for the most part tries to convey accurate facts, is based on very consistent performance. Your opinion is based on a web of lies that exist only in your own head.
Do you do this for a living??
That depends. Are you asking if I post to slashdot while I'm on the clock? I would never. Of course not. Never. Mis-use of company time and all that. Besides, nobody can prove I'm gnick! I could be anyone! I could be Anonymous Coward himself!
Watching GP's linked videos WOULD have been a waste of company time. I did that at home. I wasted my own time. His first link was trash and his second I'd seen debunked before. He just got called out on a hollow claim.
I like the "businesses spending money to compete for a contract" analogy somebody offered.
Dear lord. Your first link is indeed an example of selective omission. Whoever the fuck "Western Journalism" is selectively edits CNN's story to try to make them look bad with nothing to back it up. Your second link is bullshit. If your fact checking relies on sketchy YouTube clips and ignores snopes, I'm not sure I trust your ability to check facts. Maybe you should add "random shit I found on YouTube" to the list of sources you don't trust. You've said nothing that remotely supports your accusation that the MSM is presenting misinformation to attack Trump. Nothing. Methinks it's because you're full of shit.
I asked for an example of the MSM presenting misinformation to attack Trump. I dug your article up for you - Can you find the misinformation for me? It's not that I disbelieve Comey, but I see nothing in that article that I'd call lying. Unlike you, I DO trust CNN's news reporting. Fox's too. Both have excellent records of providing factual information, even though they present it very differently. The WH I sometimes feel the need to fact check.
If you're going to condemn the entire MSM as liars, it seems appropriate to base that on at least one example of them lying to you. Don't feel bad that you couldn't find one - They're not common. The WH is a much easier target.
Just one example from Comey was a NY times article about a supposed collusion between Trump and the Russians.
This one? It says there were contacts, not collusion. In fact, FTA: "The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation." And Comey's full statement was:
In the main, it was not true. The challenge, and I’m not picking on reporters, about writing stories about classified information is the people talking about it often don’t really know what’s going on and those of us who actually know what’s going on are not talking about it. And we don’t call the press and say, "Hey, you got that thing wrong."
That's hardly enough of a condemnation to declare that the entire MSM has been discredited. Are you saying that you DO trust statements from the WH over CNN?
And one contained classified material and the other didn't. I don't get your point. Sharing unclassified information isn't a crime, even if it is part of an "official record." In fact, if I understand correctly, the Official Records Act is geared more toward what should be shared as opposed to what shouldn't.
The biggest problem I see so far, is that the MSM has totally discredited itself terribly, to the breaking point (IMHO) in its mishandling of information and continuing attacks on Trump, even when there is no "there" there.
Do you have examples of the MSM using misinformation in their "attacks" on Trump? You can find fringe sources that'll say almost anything, but from what I've seen the MSM's coverage of DJT has been based on solid facts. You can claim that they're presented in a biased manner, but what "mishandling of information" are you talking about that has "totally discredited" the MSM? Do you believe the statements that come from the White House over the statements you hear on CNN? The current administrations's track record this year isn't stellar regarding accuracy.
So they are accusing Trump of talking in a manner that might be considered pressuring the FBI to stop an investigation that he had been told was based on salicious and unverified information.
No. Not even close. You're either completely confused or trolling. The investigation that Trump tried to stop had nothing to do with the "salacious and unverified" material. One case was Flynn misrepresenting his contact with the Russians. The other case has to do with alleged pee pee tapes. The only thing they have in common are the words "Russia" and "Trump".
That angle isn't going anywhere.
That part you got right, but only because it's a ludicrous angle of your own creation.
The way that works is the two highest bidders have to pay, but only the highest bidder gets the money. People will bid up to the value of $20 because why not it's free money.
I'm not convinced that it would get bid up to $20. What idiot would enter an auction where the second place bidder still pays but gets nothing in return? Does this situation exist in some context? If you're the only bidder, fine, wager a buck. Otherwise, the only way to win is not to play.
But, c'mon CNN, there are other things happening in the world, some of them quite important.
I'm not sure CNN wants to spend as much time on DJT's Tweets as it does, but many of them are interesting to the public for whatever reason, so they get covered. If Obama had made a habit of issuing inappropriate Tweets every week, I'm confident that CNN would have covered those too. On top of that, I believe that DJT wants them covered and crafts them accordingly. The man feeds off of ratings and needs constant attention to survive. He's happy when his Tweets get covered even if it's negative.
A lot of the time, it's making a mountain out of covfefe. Other times, it's real news with real implications. E.g. "Obama tapped my phones!"
It must have been dark. When it is pitch dark, you are likely to be eaten by a grue.
It wasn't this way for Obama...
Obama wasn't as hungry for headlines as DJT. Or as publically colorful. Part of why he's in the news so much is that he WANTS to be. Ratings are like crack for that man. Besides being an unfiltered look into his brain, I believe that he makes his Tweets intentionally inflammatory because he can't live without attention.
Personally, I'm more tired of the way the media covers EVERY SINGLE LITTLE LAST TWEET as if each one announces an Arab/Israeli Peace Deal.
The majority of DJT's Tweets are not covered by the MSM. Most seem to be whining about being treated unfairly by the FAKE NEWS, gloating about the election win, or just generally berating people he doesn't like. The ones that get covered are (mostly) the ones that could have major implications for the US or the world or are particularly inappropriate. Unfortunately, he generates a shit-ton of those. I'm not one to make a mountain out of covfefe, but "This is a TRAVEL BAN!" or "Obama wiretapped my phones!" have real implications. Insulting London's mayor after the recent tragedy is just a beacon of bad diplomacy. Some of his Tweets are treated as news because they quite often ARE news.
My first 5-year review was in 2007. My second was in 2012. Social media certainly was a thing.
I was simply remarking that, if she didn't actually want to get caught, she should have thought it through better - like Snowden did.
If Snowden had really thought things through, he wouldn't be living in Moscow.
...you should not be trying to limit that service beyond the scope of the agreement.
"I am altering the agreement. Pray that I don't alter it any further."
-- ISP