CNN Doxxes a gif maker

[apathoid]

Did you already lose track of the conversation? I've asked you a question and you reacted as if I claimed you had answered it.

You kinda did. You started the question with "I take it that you...." as if something I said gave you that impression.

I take it you also think Russia has absolutely nothing wrong relative to the US elections, then?

I didn't. You didn't. I asked you a question. Kindly answer it.

No, I don't think Russia has absolutely (done) nothing wrong relative to the US elections. They meddle. It's part of what makes them Russia. Wouldn't be surprised if we do it too.

While you're at it, answer my question about intent.

Yes, I think there was intent to mislead in the piece that CNN retracted. It was supposed to be a big piece in their Russia jigsaw puzzle.

 

[Belz...]

You kinda did. You started the question with "I take it that you...." as if something I said gave you that impression.

It's a pretty common way to phrase a question, apathoid. No need to be paranoid about it (and no, I'm not making a pun based on your name).

No, I don't think Russia has absolutely (done) nothing wrong relative to the US elections. They meddle. It's part of what makes them Russia. Wouldn't be surprised if we do it too.

Good. That's all I wanted to know.

Yes, I think there was intent to mislead in the piece that CNN retracted. It was supposed to be a big piece in their Russia jigsaw puzzle.

Good, thank you. I'd also like to know how you've determined this, however.

 

[The Big Dog]

They have not. No personal information was released.

See my previous links explaining why doxxing does not require public release, particularly when the documents are being used for extortion.

/by the way, my post was not that long, why did you break it into little tiny pieces?

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not playing games. I'm asking a very clear question based on a logical possibility brought up by another poster's statements.

Anything not explicitly disproven is a logical possibility. And "Do you beat your wife" is a clear question with a logical possibility.

It is in no way similar to "do you still beat your wife?" because there is no "trap" answer he can give.

I know that. Which is why I didn't ask "do you still beat your wife?" Note that "still" is absent from that post.

You aren't very good at this reading comprehension thing, are you? You just jump to conclusions without paying attention to what's actually written.

I know you're accusing me of playing games because I've called you on exactly that in the past, but this sort of obsession with reflecting stuff back at people became old after grade school. Let it go.

That's ironic, coming from you.

 

[NoahFence]

That not the definition Argummemnon quoted. You guys need to get on the same page.

Why? So we can satisfy you??

CNN is not fake news. They do not openly promote lies, they do not invent stories to rile up the masses. What they do on some programming (not even close to all) is have panels talk about their opinions. Just like Fox. But they DO NOT invent anything. If something gets by what happens? Well it seems those employees are dealt with. You can't ask for more.

Dont watch CNN or Fox. I rarely watch TV at all, except for movie night and binge watching some of my shows. 24 hour news turns normal people into tards. I get my current events and political fill with various podcasts like the Rubin Report, Waking up with Sam Harris, Joe Rogan and shows like the Daily Show and Real Time.

So you don't watch it but you seem to fancy yourself fully qualified to discuss the content of the programming. And there's no chance you're wrong. Gotcha.

Stay at a Holiday Inn last night?

You hate Trump and want him gone, I get that. But don't attack me because I haven't swallowed the Russia BS hook, line and sinker. Tell me whos been charged with what crimes, then give me a trial so I can have all the evidence. Then I'll make an informed decision. You guys have decided the verdict already and youre just throwing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Reread the poll I linked. People don't trust the media. Their agenda and biases are blisteringly obvious. It's not just Republicans that feel that way, its the independents too.

Seems to me you're just sticking your fingers in your ears and shutting your eyes hoping its all going to go away. Nobody has been charged yet because this is still all new. It's still being investigated. Have patience.

I'm independent, and you're talking for me again. Don't.

 

[apathoid]

Well the skeptic in me thinks that there is a lot going on behind the scenes that we don't know about. What we do know, and what has been leaked, is pretty damning though.

Could be, why don't we wait until all the relevant information comes to light before we lynch they guy. All I'm saying.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's a pretty common way to phrase a question, apathoid.

Yes, it's common. But commonality isn't the issue. The issue is that its use implies that the questioner already suspects a particular answer. As I said, it doesn't merely solicit information, it conveys it as well.

 

[Mumbles]

There's some serious inflation of their own importance in that link. Jeez, that's pathetic.

I'll assume it's pictures of Trump going things to the CNN Logo, likely from people with names like "JewKillerPepe"?

Yeah, that's not quite the same as a tweet from Trump. Those guys have spent months months of howling "Fake News!" at CNN, photoshopping cartoon frogs shoving various hosts into gas chambers, and so on with no reply. Whoever's running CNN's Twitter feed likely has muted that hashtag already.

 

[NoahFence]

You kinda did. You started the question with "I take it that you...." as if something I said gave you that impression.

No, I don't think Russia has absolutely (done) nothing wrong relative to the US elections. They meddle. It's part of what makes them Russia. Wouldn't be surprised if we do it too.

Yes, I think there was intent to mislead in the piece that CNN retracted. It was supposed to be a big piece in their Russia jigsaw puzzle.

Is Donald Trump pointing at the camera and telling Russia to do exactly what they did not evidence enough?

If not, why not?

"Joking"??

 

[BobTheCoward]

It is extremely unethical, obviously.

Why?

 

[NoahFence]

Could be, why don't we wait until all the relevant information comes to light before we lynch they guy. All I'm saying.

Hey, I was ready to lynch the guy before his stupid trip down the escalator. He's a disgusting human being who would benefit the world from staring up at the ground.

 

[Ziggurat]

Is Donald Trump pointing at the camera and telling Russia to do exactly what they did not evidence enough?

Russia hacked Hillary's email? I thought you were pretending that didn't happen.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, it's common. But commonality isn't the issue. The issue is that its use implies that the questioner already suspects a particular answer. As I said, it doesn't merely solicit information, it conveys it as well.

That doesn't change the fact that it was a question I genuinely wanted to see answered, and now it has been. My suspicion was apparently wrong, and I have no problem with that.

 

[The Big Dog]

Why?

did you read any of the numerous articles written by other journalists explaining that one of the largest media companies in the world should not be injecting itself into an issue and threatening to release information if they are displeased.

Further the dopes at CNN claimed they were not releasing the information "for his safety" but were reserving their rights to release in the future when i guess his *********** safety does not matter anymore or something?

 

[NoahFence]

Russia hacked Hillary's email? I thought you were pretending that didn't happen.

Not sure where you got that, but might I suggest an air freshener?

 

[applecorped]

 

[BobTheCoward]

did you read any of the numerous articles written by other journalists explaining that one of the largest media companies in the world should not be injecting itself into an issue and threatening to release information if they are displeased.

Further the dopes at CNN claimed they were not releasing the information "for his safety" but were reserving their rights to release in the future when i guess his *********** safety does not matter anymore or something?

Last thing first. I can imagine a number of scenarios where there could be a public interest that mattered. For example, if he ran for national office.

First thing, I'm not asking for an opinion of some journalist. I'm asking you to articulate your opinion.

 

[NoahFence]

Last thing first. I can imagine a number of scenarios where there could be a public interest that mattered. For example, if he ran for national office. First thing, I'm not asking for an opinion of some journalist. I'm asking you to articulate your opinion.

LOL

His side would use that in an ad to SUPPORT his candidacy at this point. How long until a republican asks for and get the coveted KKK endorsement?

 

[Crossbow]

I do think that CNN is not a good news site and that is why I have not watched it for many years now.

However, CNN is certainly not a fake news site either.

After all, if CNN was a source of fake news, then such a thing would be quite obvious and quite easy to demonstrate and thus far, no such demonstration has been done.

And furthermore, if some people are really so ticked about CNN, then the best thing for them to do is simply stop watching CNN and get on with their lives.

 

[The Big Dog]

Last thing first. I can imagine a number of scenarios where there could be a public interest that mattered. For example, if he ran for national office.

First thing, I'm not asking for an opinion of some journalist. I'm asking you to articulate your opinion.

As such, until he "runs for public office" or the like, there is no public interest

My opinion is that CNN is a *********** dumpster fire. I was also repeating the opinions of a broad swath of journalists that CNN acted incredibly unethically while also explaining it to you, i.e. the farcical assertion that CNN withheld it for his safety while also reserving their rights to ignore that if they so chose. I assume you at least understand how slimy that is?