• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

CNN Doxxes a gif maker

The Big Dog said:
Lots of whining about the use of the term doxxed in the headline.
Click to expand...

That's what happens when you twist words beyong all recognition. You should know that by now.

Ok I will cheerfully ask the mods to change the title to "CNN blackmails some gif maker."

Are the pedants and the actual skeptics in agreement?
Click to expand...

Should we take that as an admission that your use of the term "doxxing" was in error?
 
Argumemnon said:
Should we take that as an admission that your use of the term "doxxing" was in error?
Click to expand...

no you should not.

I offered a compromise to get pedants who are obsessed with a limited definition of a term to move on.

Noting no objection to ""CNN blackmails some gif maker" I am going to cheerfully put that in the yes column.
 
The Big Dog said:
no you should not.

I offered a compromise to get pedants who are obsessed with a limited definition of a term to move on.

Noting no objection to ""CNN blackmails some gif maker" I am going to cheerfully put that in the yes column.
Click to expand...

A stunning display of intellectual integrity!
 
The Big Dog said:
Lots of whining about the use of the term doxxed in the headline.
Click to expand...

The term "doxxed" was not used in the headline. /pedant

Ok I will cheerfully ask the mods to change the title to "CNN blackmails some gif maker."
Click to expand...

Cheerfully? Smile when you say that pardner.
And this is good. The first step to a cure is recognizing there's a problem. Now I suppose we can exhaust the next 23 pages getting you to change the erroneous term "blackmail" to something more accurate? You can still go for the negative eerie-theme-music connotation, though. I'd hate to see you put in all this effort to toe the GOParty line and get nothing from it.
How about "CNN Bullies gif maker"? That's a suitably emotional term and you can still clutch your pearls while you type it.

Are the pedants and the actual skeptics in agreement? As part of the later, I am on board.
Click to expand...

Sure. Sure we are. I'll ask the avid readers to join me in a rousing chorus of "Pick Yourself Up, Dust Yourself Off, Take a Deep Breath and Start All Over Again". 24 pages and counting! It's a Post-Hillary record for our Big Dog. Let's hear it for 'im folks!
 
Foolmewunz said:
The term "doxxed" was not used in the headline. /pedant



Cheerfully? Smile when you say that pardner.
And this is good. The first step to a cure is recognizing there's a problem. Now I suppose we can exhaust the next 23 pages getting you to change the erroneous term "blackmail" to something more accurate? You can still go for the negative eerie-theme-music connotation, though. I'd hate to see you put in all this effort to toe the GOParty line and get nothing from it.
How about "CNN Bullies gif maker"? That's a suitably emotional term and you can still clutch your pearls while you type it.



Sure. Sure we are. I'll ask the avid readers to join me in a rousing chorus of "Pick Yourself Up, Dust Yourself Off, Take a Deep Breath and Start All Over Again". 24 pages and counting! It's a Post-Hillary record for our Big Dog. Let's hear it for 'im folks!
Click to expand...

My favorite faux "clever" line in that foregoing substance free rant? Nope, it is not the reference to "our Big Dog," it is not the "humorous" "rousing chorus" line, it is the "pardner" that kicked it all off. It is like cracking knuckles before the whole trying way too hard thing explodes in an explosion of fail.

It made me laugh tho, "pardner"! :D
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
no you should not.

I offered a compromise to get pedants who are obsessed with a limited definition of a term to move on.

Noting no objection to ""CNN blackmails some gif maker" I am going to cheerfully put that in the yes column.
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, wasn't one or more of the sources you cited that included research with intent as doxing actually part of modern media? If there is a group that generally would favor a more expansive definition on these issues, CNN would be one.
 
The Big Dog said:
no you should not.

I offered a compromise to get pedants who are obsessed with a limited definition of a term to move on.
Click to expand...

That is such a nice way to admit that you had used a personalised definition of "doxxing". You can't admit it, but in a way you really want to, and it shows through your words.

Give in, Dog. Let it go!
 
Argumemnon said:
That is such a nice way to admit that you had used a personalised definition of "doxxing". You can't admit it, but in a way you really want to, and it shows through your words.

Give in, Dog. Let it go!
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

I'll put you down for CNN extorts, thanks!
 
I cannot shake the feeling that those defending HanA**holeSolo's right to preserve anonymity must have posted some pretty unsavory **** themselves, under their own pseudonyms. Either that or they must feel that anonymous speech is generally a good thing, promoting useful and productive discourse, despite so much evidence to the contrary.
 
d4m10n said:
I cannot shake the feeling that those defending HanA**holeSolo's right to preserve anonymity must have posted some pretty unsavory **** themselves, under their own pseudonyms. Either that or they must feel that anonymous speech is generally a good thing, promoting useful and productive discourse, despite so much evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

I think you miss the more obvious explanation. There is a sense that there exists a set of institutions that once an organization reaches that point, separate standards, even if they are a private group, kick in. In this case, it constrains their behavior towards private citizens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom