Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Big Dog said:
I do enjoy that the skeptics have hand waved away the metadata.

Anyhow, if one were to have into possession of the attachment, how would one post it here?
Asking for 16.5
Click to expand...

Host it on a hosting site like a grownup. Photobucket, etc. or I think you can just upload it here under "quick upload".

I haven't hand waved away the metadata. I've looked directly at it and confirmed that it says exactly jack ****. The fact that you can't actually point out the relevant parts is what makes it interesting. The fact you'd link to an article that doesn't support your argument is quickly becoming standard. The fact you're quadrupling down in this ******** claim is borderline hilarious.

I've repeatedly asked you to explain how the metadata supports the argument. You point me to the letter, the ******* letter doesn't say how it supports their argument, then you say I've dropped it.

As they say on the big screen, it would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
 
Last edited:
Cavemonster said:
https://pdfcandy.com/edit-pdf-meta.html
Click to expand...

Yeah, I didn't even bother to tell him that you could do that, or that you can strip the meta out of it completely. It won't make any difference.

Remember, for conspiracies to work it requires the ones that are in on it to completely stupid, yet extremely devious at the same time.

That article checks all of the boxes for uneducated saps to go to it and use words like "metadata", not knowing what it means or how it applies, look at the screenshots and say, "Yup, makes sense to me." Much the same way uneducated saps look at AE911T and say, "Yup, they said it's that way, and they have a pic, makes sense to me."

It's awkward.
 
Let's not let The Big Dog's craptastic bloviations take over this thread. Is there nothing more interesting to talk about here? I'd hope from some actual news.
 
Last edited:
Cavemonster said:
https://pdfcandy.com/edit-pdf-meta.html
Click to expand...


Good point!

"Simple PDF metadata editor / viewer
This tool for editing PDF metadata enables you to view and alter the following metadata values for the uploaded PDF: Author, Title, Subject, Keywords, Created on and Modified on. Simply type in the new data into the corresponding fields and apply the changes."
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Good point!

"Simple PDF metadata editor / viewer
This tool for editing PDF metadata enables you to view and alter the following metadata values for the uploaded PDF: Author, Title, Subject, Keywords, Created on and Modified on. Simply type in the new data into the corresponding fields and apply the changes."
Click to expand...
Hrumph! An upstanding fellow like Roger Stone, known to be a bastion of truth, would never do such a thing!
 
plague311 said:
Host it on a hosting site like a grownup. Photobucket, etc. or I think you can just upload it here under "quick upload".

I haven't hand waved away the metadata. I've looked directly at it and confirmed that it says exactly jack ****. The fact that you can't actually point out the relevant parts is what makes it interesting. The fact you'd link to an article that doesn't support your argument is quickly becoming standard. The fact you're quadrupling down in this ******** claim is borderline hilarious.

I've repeatedly asked you to explain how the metadata supports the argument. You point me to the letter, the ******* letter doesn't say how it supports their argument, then you say I've dropped it.

As they say on the big screen, it would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
Click to expand...

InfoWars seems to believe that the creation date, which was the day before the indictment was unsealed, proves that CNN got it that day, which is pretty stupid.
 
plague311 said:
Host it on a hosting site like a grownup. Photobucket, etc. or I think you can just upload it here under "quick upload".

I haven't hand waved away the metadata. I've looked directly at it and confirmed that it says exactly jack ****. The fact that you can't actually point out the relevant parts is what makes it interesting. The fact you'd link to an article that doesn't support your argument is quickly becoming standard. The fact you're quadrupling down in this ******** claim is borderline hilarious.

I've repeatedly asked you to explain how the metadata supports the argument. You point me to the letter, the ******* letter doesn't say how it supports their argument, then you say I've dropped it.

As they say on the big screen, it would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
Click to expand...

YOU said you had something interesting to regale us with.

You did nothing of the sort

Obviously
 
Think the investigation will be closed, now that Trump threatened to freeze all legislation until so?
 
thaiboxerken said:
Think the investigation will be closed, now that Trump threatened to freeze all legislation until so?
Click to expand...

On the contrary, in threatening to stop legislation unless people stop investigating him, Trump is yet again making a blatant attempt to obstruct justice.

In fact, he may have handed Pelosi exactly what she needs; someone to lay the blame on if the Democrat controlled House can't get any legislation passed; Trump has much as said this is what he intends to do.

Also, he may have given some of the wavering GOP Senators what they need; a reason to abandon him. By saying he would stop legislation if he continues to be investigated, he is effectively saying the Congress is irrelevant, and that he will do whatever he pleases.
 
The Big Dog said:
Lol, are you really falling for that? ‘K...

Hoo boy.

Evidence: presented by the big dog, the interesting things we were promised by our correspondent?
Tick tock, don’t hold your breath.
Click to expand...

LoL everyone can see through this ******** TBD. This is a blatant red herring. Trying to divert attention to me saying it would be "interesting". Which it was, to everyone but you. You linked to a complete nonsense article, you got called out on it in every way (the fact the metadata doesn't support you, the fact it can be modified, the fact it can even be stripped completely), but instead of focusing on how you tried to pass off some piss rag as factual basis, you're trying to claim that what I said wasn't interesting enough. Easily this is the weakest argument I've ever seen put forth by anyone.

Sad.
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
Just wait until we see TBD break down this metadata for me. I have some very interesting things to show him.
Click to expand...

plague311 said:
LoL everyone can see through this ******** TBD. This is a blatant red herring. Trying to divert attention to me saying it would be "interesting". Which it was, to everyone but you. You linked to a complete nonsense article, you got called out on it in every way (the fact the metadata doesn't support you, the fact it can be modified, the fact it can even be stripped completely), but instead of focusing on how you tried to pass off some piss rag as factual basis, you're trying to claim that what I said wasn't interesting enough. Easily this is the weakest argument I've ever seen put forth by anyone.

Sad.
Click to expand...

Quoting someone who claimed they were going to show us "very interesting things' is now a red herring.

Check! Thanks for posting.

hoo boy.....
 
The Big Dog said:
Quoting someone who claimed they were going to show us "very interesting things' is now a red herring.

Check! Thanks for posting.

hoo boy.....
Click to expand...

It was interesting, maybe you just...can't comprehend it. Maybe you're having issues processing that what you're posting is supported by nothing. Maybe you're unaware that posting ******** articles that aren't supported by any evidence at all is going to get called out immediately. Maybe you don't find being proven completely wrong, and then doubling down it, interesting. Maybe you only have interest in things that support your blatant confirmation bias.
 
plague311 said:
It was interesting, maybe you just...can't comprehend it. Maybe you're having issues processing that what you're posting is supported by nothing. Maybe you're unaware that posting ******** articles that aren't supported by any evidence at all is going to get called out immediately. Maybe you don't find being proven completely wrong, and then doubling down it, interesting. Maybe you only have interest in things that support your blatant confirmation bias.
Click to expand...

The interesting things we were going to be shown was that the article that contained evidence did not contain evidence and the interesting thing we were going to be shown about the metadata was plague repeatedly asserting that it does not contain evidence or something, which was was 'shown" by saying it which everyone finds interesting, except for me...

Ya can't argue with that type of critical thinking, thanks for the interesting comments.
 
smartcooky said:
On the contrary, in threatening to stop legislation unless people stop investigating him, Trump is yet again making a blatant attempt to obstruct justice.

In fact, he may have handed Pelosi exactly what she needs; someone to lay the blame on if the Democrat controlled House can't get any legislation passed; Trump has much as said this is what he intends to do.

Also, he may have given some of the wavering GOP Senators what they need; a reason to abandon him. By saying he would stop legislation if he continues to be investigated, he is effectively saying the Congress is irrelevant, and that he will do whatever he pleases.
Click to expand...

Wow!

I really had not thought of it in quite that way. You have made some excellent points, so thanks much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom