Be charitable
Interpret the arguments of others in good faith, do not seek to disagree.
When we do disagree, try to understand why.
Translation: judge a person on their social status first, and if they outrank you in developer status or connections, keep your mouth shut, no matter how bad the bug. (And yes, it will become this way.)
Care to explain how you drew that conclusion? I'm not seeing it.
See, that's me following this part of the CoC. A response that doesn't follow it would be something like this, "Sorry, but you're simply wrong. You're turning something that has nothing to do with status, and making it about status. Your turning something that is focused on making conversations more effective and claiming it, instead, will end conversations. You're asking us to accept your belief of what will happen as if it were fact."
The initial response gives you an opportunity to explain something that I feel you didn't adequately explain. The latter shuts you down, or, starts an argument.
I haven't read the whole CoC (since I'm not a Go developer, there's really no point), but I think this little bit that I quoted should be something we all do, not just in online discussions, but also face to face.
I still doubt the math. It's clearly back of the envelope. The fuel burned by a 747 is not constant, as the link provided makes clear. See Atmosfair Airline Index for 117 page PDF that describes how challenging it is to describe how much CO2 is released by an airplane. Also, the distance is wrong, since the jet certainly didn't follow a straight line
However, one more time, the math doesn't matter. It gets lost in the decimal points when compared to CO2 emissions from coal.
I didn't create a straw man. The clear implication was that the President was being a hypocrite. Putting the CO2 released by his trip in context of his plan makes it clear that's a silly argument. Adding in that the President wasn't saying all CO2 emissions must stop makes it even clearer.
I doubt your math, but it doesn't really matter. For every megawatt of power generated by a coal plant, on average, 2,249 lbs carbon dioxide are generated. In 2013, there were 1,581,115 megawatt hours of electricity generated by coal. That's 3,555,927,635 pounds.
Even so, you're saying, he's a hypocrite, right? Wrong.
The President isn't saying "Shut down everything that emits carbon dioxide". He's saying that it's time to decrease our carbon dioxide emissions. No hypocrisy, and even with your numbers, a drop in the bucket for emissions.
Surely you mean Presidents Truman and Eisenhower, right? I mean, after all, it was the CIA during their administrations that overthrew the democratically elected government in Iran that is more responsible for the situation in the Middle East then anything else. See CIA-assisted coup overthrows government of Iran.
I think putting blame on President Carter is a bit misplaced. While President Carter called on the Shah to stop torturing people and to release political prisoners, the US continued to strongly supported the Shah. Social changes in Iran were too large and too rapid, though, to quell without even more horrendous human rights violations than the Shah was already committing. In reality, there was not way to keep the status quo in Iran. We supported the Shah far too long, against our own stated human rights beliefs and against our own best foreign policy judgements. President Nixon, though, believed that Iran, ruled by the Shah, was vital to American interests in the area, so, that's what we got.
There is no way WE (the USA) could really do anything about carbon emissions, unless you just want people to needlessly die and the USA be remanded back to third world status.
It's comments like this that really get my goat. There are options between doing nothing and becoming a third world country. The President's plan wouldn't make us a third world country and it will decrease our carbon emissions.
Oh, BTW, closing coal powered plans will actually reduce deaths in the US; and, you know what, it's already happening! See Death and Disease from Power Plants. The numbers of deaths attributable to pollution from power plants has gone down significantly in the last 15 years.
In your comparison the police were looking for "documents" so destroying "documents" would be wrong.
In the case of Ms. Clinton, a certain subset of a certain kind of document were requested. None of those were destroyed.
To be close to a valid analogy, the fire in the house would be fed by firewood. That wood could be turned into paper, which could then be a document, which... no, it's just too ridiculous.
Just realized you jumped into the middle of a conversation, and it wasn't you that I had been conversing with and it was not you that wrote the quote I included.
Very odd choice, I must say, to post that comment where you did since it had nothing to do with the thread.
No, I thought you had walked away from this. My last comment was Saturday, you waited 4 days to respond. Then after 1 day you accuse me of something? That's nonsense.
Again, you are confusing what the State Department has released and what Ms. Clinton turned over. We have no idea if there is a real gap.
The statutes you quote don't say what you think they say.
Section 3105 is about process. Did she make items 1, 2, and 3 known to her department? Yes, memos of that have been quoted in a vain attempt to prove she broke her own policies.
Section 3301 defines email as an official record. She knew that, that's why she turned them over.
Section 3302 is about duties of the Archivist and has nothing to do with Ms. Clinton.
Section 3303 is about the department providing information of what the department is maintaining to the archivist. Again, not relevant in this instance.
You still have come close to backing up your claim. Let me quote you again, just in case you forgot:
when you are under investigation, rules get stricter, and nothing should be deleted until checked out.
Of course the PR is bad. People are trying to damage her politically.
We're not talking about a Congressional investigation into the death of a US ambassador at all. We already know everything there is to know about what happened in Benghazi. Multiple commissions have all come to the same conclusions. This is a political sideshow, one that's driven by the GOP, one that's designed to last as long as possible. The longer it lasts, the more possible political damage it can do.
If I was a fan of the GOP I'd be pissed. They should be governing, not playing politics.
I thought it was obvious what you said that was demonstrably wrong, but I'll quote you.
Well, that and the word (or actions) of Sidney Blumenthal who turned over work emails which she didn't.
We don't know if she turned over the emails or not. All we know is that the State Department hasn't provided all of them to the Congressional committee.
Your whole line of argument about the strictness of the law and smoking gun completely misses the point. You said something that wasn't true. Not only isn't there a smoking gun, but contrary to your claim, "There is already ample evidence suggesting of mishandling of classified information.", there isn't evidence of any wrongdoing. There's a lot of allegations like yours, but that's all.
when you are under investigation, rules get stricter, and nothing should be deleted until checked out.
in response to my statement that she performed within the law.
I asked if you were sure, and you said you were. So prove it. Government document retention is governed by statute. If the policy changes when being asked to testify by a Congressional committee, I'd like to read that.
Government statute includes guidelines as to what needs to be retained. Employees decide based on those guidelines what to retain and what not to retain.
The DoJ isn't involved. There is no criminal case. Congress doesn't have the right to decide what you can do with personal documents.
As I said, this is going to be the new Birth Certificate.
I suspect you're right. The GOP extremists keep claiming, "We've got her now!" and then nothing comes of it. The majority of Americans are already tired of it. Soon, they'll stick their fingers in the ears anytime anyone mentions it because they think only a kook would still care.
No, I'm sorry, you are failing to understand what happened.
The State Department has not turned over every email that the committee has access to; that doesn't mean that Ms. Clinton didn't give them to the State Department.
The classification situation is all about the process the State Department uses to classify material. It has nothing to do with Ms. Clinton.
You keep proving my point. The State Department cannot locate them. That does not mean Ms. Clinton did not turn them over.
Your take on what the IGs said is backwards. They said that State should have deemed the material classified. It didn't. That's not Ms. Clinton's fault.
Clearly you have a belief of what happened and are trying to make reality fit that belief. Good luck with that.
Okay, since you're sure it's true, please cite the statute that says when a person has been asked to testify before a Congressional committee, they lose the right to dispose of personal documents.
The State Department has not turned over all of Ms. Clinton's emails to the Congressional committee. State may have them. Nobody knows except the State Department. Thus, your claim that we know she didn't turn over all of the emails is false. The State Department might have them, they might not.
You're misunderstanding the quote. According to them the information should have been deemed confidential. It wasn't, though. That means there is no proof that she sent material that was, at the time it was sent, deemed classified.
Do you understand document retention laws? That happens every single day in the government. People in the government are required to judge for themselves whether something must be retained or not. If not, they delete it or shred it and it's gone.
Slashdot Mirror
That email gets raised every time a discussion of her emails happens.
It's important to realize that:
So, 1, it didn't happen, 2, it was normal order of business, and 3, even if it had happened, it wouldn't be proof of wrongdoing.
Translation: judge a person on their social status first, and if they outrank you in developer status or connections, keep your mouth shut, no matter how bad the bug. (And yes, it will become this way.)
Care to explain how you drew that conclusion? I'm not seeing it.
See, that's me following this part of the CoC. A response that doesn't follow it would be something like this, "Sorry, but you're simply wrong. You're turning something that has nothing to do with status, and making it about status. Your turning something that is focused on making conversations more effective and claiming it, instead, will end conversations. You're asking us to accept your belief of what will happen as if it were fact."
The initial response gives you an opportunity to explain something that I feel you didn't adequately explain. The latter shuts you down, or, starts an argument.
I haven't read the whole CoC (since I'm not a Go developer, there's really no point), but I think this little bit that I quoted should be something we all do, not just in online discussions, but also face to face.
Sigh.
Read what I wrote, emphasis added
I still doubt the math. It's clearly back of the envelope. The fuel burned by a 747 is not constant, as the link provided makes clear. See Atmosfair Airline Index for 117 page PDF that describes how challenging it is to describe how much CO2 is released by an airplane. Also, the distance is wrong, since the jet certainly didn't follow a straight line
However, one more time, the math doesn't matter. It gets lost in the decimal points when compared to CO2 emissions from coal.
I didn't create a straw man. The clear implication was that the President was being a hypocrite. Putting the CO2 released by his trip in context of his plan makes it clear that's a silly argument. Adding in that the President wasn't saying all CO2 emissions must stop makes it even clearer.
I doubt your math, but it doesn't really matter. For every megawatt of power generated by a coal plant, on average, 2,249 lbs carbon dioxide are generated. In 2013, there were 1,581,115 megawatt hours of electricity generated by coal. That's 3,555,927,635 pounds.
Even so, you're saying, he's a hypocrite, right? Wrong.
The President isn't saying "Shut down everything that emits carbon dioxide". He's saying that it's time to decrease our carbon dioxide emissions. No hypocrisy, and even with your numbers, a drop in the bucket for emissions.
Surely you mean Presidents Truman and Eisenhower, right? I mean, after all, it was the CIA during their administrations that overthrew the democratically elected government in Iran that is more responsible for the situation in the Middle East then anything else. See CIA-assisted coup overthrows government of Iran.
Or perhaps you mean the European leaders who, after WWI, created countries that never existed in the Middle East?
I think putting blame on President Carter is a bit misplaced. While President Carter called on the Shah to stop torturing people and to release political prisoners, the US continued to strongly supported the Shah. Social changes in Iran were too large and too rapid, though, to quell without even more horrendous human rights violations than the Shah was already committing. In reality, there was not way to keep the status quo in Iran. We supported the Shah far too long, against our own stated human rights beliefs and against our own best foreign policy judgements. President Nixon, though, believed that Iran, ruled by the Shah, was vital to American interests in the area, so, that's what we got.
It's comments like this that really get my goat. There are options between doing nothing and becoming a third world country. The President's plan wouldn't make us a third world country and it will decrease our carbon emissions.
Oh, BTW, closing coal powered plans will actually reduce deaths in the US; and, you know what, it's already happening! See Death and Disease from Power Plants. The numbers of deaths attributable to pollution from power plants has gone down significantly in the last 15 years.
What a ridiculous analogy!
In your comparison the police were looking for "documents" so destroying "documents" would be wrong.
In the case of Ms. Clinton, a certain subset of a certain kind of document were requested. None of those were destroyed.
To be close to a valid analogy, the fire in the house would be fed by firewood. That wood could be turned into paper, which could then be a document, which ... no, it's just too ridiculous.
Just realized you jumped into the middle of a conversation, and it wasn't you that I had been conversing with and it was not you that wrote the quote I included.
Very odd choice, I must say, to post that comment where you did since it had nothing to do with the thread.
I'm not sure what your point was. The State Department hasn't turned over some emails from a certain period of time. So what?
No, I thought you had walked away from this. My last comment was Saturday, you waited 4 days to respond. Then after 1 day you accuse me of something? That's nonsense.
Again, you are confusing what the State Department has released and what Ms. Clinton turned over. We have no idea if there is a real gap.
The statutes you quote don't say what you think they say.
Section 3105 is about process. Did she make items 1, 2, and 3 known to her department? Yes, memos of that have been quoted in a vain attempt to prove she broke her own policies.
Section 3301 defines email as an official record. She knew that, that's why she turned them over.
Section 3302 is about duties of the Archivist and has nothing to do with Ms. Clinton.
Section 3303 is about the department providing information of what the department is maintaining to the archivist. Again, not relevant in this instance.
You still have come close to backing up your claim. Let me quote you again, just in case you forgot:
Of course the PR is bad. People are trying to damage her politically.
We're not talking about a Congressional investigation into the death of a US ambassador at all. We already know everything there is to know about what happened in Benghazi. Multiple commissions have all come to the same conclusions. This is a political sideshow, one that's driven by the GOP, one that's designed to last as long as possible. The longer it lasts, the more possible political damage it can do.
If I was a fan of the GOP I'd be pissed. They should be governing, not playing politics.
I thought it was obvious what you said that was demonstrably wrong, but I'll quote you.
We don't know if she turned over the emails or not. All we know is that the State Department hasn't provided all of them to the Congressional committee.
Your whole line of argument about the strictness of the law and smoking gun completely misses the point. You said something that wasn't true. Not only isn't there a smoking gun, but contrary to your claim, "There is already ample evidence suggesting of mishandling of classified information.", there isn't evidence of any wrongdoing. There's a lot of allegations like yours, but that's all.
You are really missing the point. You wrote,
Yes, it was, and, as far as we know, she did. There has been no proof to the contrary, just claims like yours.
Tell me, does the statute say that she has to do either of those things? Here's the answer - no.
No, I'm asking you to prove a claim. You wrote,
in response to my statement that she performed within the law.
I asked if you were sure, and you said you were. So prove it. Government document retention is governed by statute. If the policy changes when being asked to testify by a Congressional committee, I'd like to read that.
Government statute includes guidelines as to what needs to be retained. Employees decide based on those guidelines what to retain and what not to retain.
The DoJ isn't involved. There is no criminal case. Congress doesn't have the right to decide what you can do with personal documents.
As I said, this is going to be the new Birth Certificate.
I suspect you're right. The GOP extremists keep claiming, "We've got her now!" and then nothing comes of it. The majority of Americans are already tired of it. Soon, they'll stick their fingers in the ears anytime anyone mentions it because they think only a kook would still care.
No, I'm sorry, you are failing to understand what happened.
The State Department has not turned over every email that the committee has access to; that doesn't mean that Ms. Clinton didn't give them to the State Department.
The classification situation is all about the process the State Department uses to classify material. It has nothing to do with Ms. Clinton.
You keep proving my point. The State Department cannot locate them. That does not mean Ms. Clinton did not turn them over.
Your take on what the IGs said is backwards. They said that State should have deemed the material classified. It didn't. That's not Ms. Clinton's fault.
Clearly you have a belief of what happened and are trying to make reality fit that belief. Good luck with that.
Okay, since you're sure it's true, please cite the statute that says when a person has been asked to testify before a Congressional committee, they lose the right to dispose of personal documents.
Really? Please cite proof. Remember, the State Department has a lot of her emails that it hasn't turned over to Congress.
The State Department has not turned over all of Ms. Clinton's emails to the Congressional committee. State may have them. Nobody knows except the State Department. Thus, your claim that we know she didn't turn over all of the emails is false. The State Department might have them, they might not.
You're misunderstanding the quote. According to them the information should have been deemed confidential. It wasn't, though. That means there is no proof that she sent material that was, at the time it was sent, deemed classified.
Did she break the law? According to the facts, the answer is no. If the facts change, then we can ask the question again.
Deleting personal emails is not destroying "incriminating evidence".
And, oddly enough, under government regulations, individuals do get to decide if a document, including email, meets the requirements for retention.
Whether that's true or not (I doubt it), she wasn't under investigation.
Do you understand document retention laws? That happens every single day in the government. People in the government are required to judge for themselves whether something must be retained or not. If not, they delete it or shred it and it's gone.
She didn't destroy anything that Congress asked for. She deleted
personal
emails, which were not covered by the subpoena.