CNN Doxxes a gif maker

[TheL8Elvis]

Your sarcasm seems misplaced. While you can create a video from a GIF you'd still not have sound. A GIF does not have sound. Ergo, Trump's video is not derivative of the GIF. It has to be the other way around: the GIF was made from the video (I'll also add that GIFs are limited to 256 colours, so they usually have quite a loss of quality over modern videos.)

Yes, I know that too... ? Why is my sarcasm misplaced ? Holy Crap, the article says:

Reddit user "HanA**holeSolo" first shared the GIF last Wednesday of Trump pummeling a wrestler with CNN's logo imposed on his face. CNN could find no earlier instance of the GIF. The GIF was later edited into a video with sound and tweeted by the President on Sunday.

You have evidence that wasn't the case ? Lay it on us !!

 

[Belz...]

The subtle stampede of the goalposts.

If the posts were moved they were moved by you, since YOU're the one who said it. I'm addressing the exact words you used.

Trump didn't retweet the doxxee's post, Trump did not repost the doxxee's gif.

I didn't say he did. Again:

Trump did not "retweet" anything and CERTAINLY nothing produced by the individual in question.

 

[The Big Dog]

And yet the hacking and releasing of private emails is ok.

Simply amazing.

Offering comment on your opinion of the OP is not "attacking the arguer" but staying entirely on point of the posted article.

I's say your continued off topic responses about my defense of said comments is more in danger of moderation. You're surely welcome to test this by reporting said comments.

I don't believe anything about hacked emails was in the posted article.
.

Yes, that appears quite clear, and indeed has nothing to do with the posted article at all. Bit baffled why we had to waste our time with this frolic and detour.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Uhm, thanks ?

TBD is claiming CNN is wrong. CNN says the tweet was a derivative of the GIF. TBD claims it's not ... but he doesn't have a basis for that claim.

And, BTW, it's stupid simple to make a video from a GIF, so it did not have to come from another source.

(I didn't do any analysis, so it might have, but IDK, and TBD doesn't know)

The video Trump tweeted is much longer than the GIF, has additional scenes, a soundtrack and a logo showing "FNN". CNN's claims are laughable and came only after they were found out (that is, some of the people who came over their claims were, against what CNN thinks of their audience, smart enough to compare the GIF and Trump's tweet). There is no reason to believe that nonsense but the strong wish to not be a victim of a reckless propaganda booth.

 

[cantonear1968]

Yes, that appears quite clear, and indeed has nothing to do with the posted article at all. Bit baffled why we had to waste our time with this frolic and detour.

You are welcome at any time to decline from participating in anything you consider "frolic". That you wished to "detour" is not my fault.

But perhaps you'd like to offer why you think CNN investigating a news story, but ultimately not publishing the name of said gif maker, makes them "pussies" but releasing hacked private emails is ok.

 

[The Big Dog]

releasing hacked private emails is ok.

Releasing hacked private emails. Again this claim. Kindly show me where they released hacked private emails in relation to the posted article, the gif in question or the doxxee, because this is again the first time i have ever heard of this remarkable claim.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Ziggurat]

Bolding mine, wording Jefferson's.

What's your point?

 

[cantonear1968]

Releasing hacked private emails. Again this claim. Kindly show me where they released hacked private emails in relation to the posted article, the gif in question or the doxxee, because this is again the first time i have ever heard of this remarkable claim.

Thanks in advance.

I was pretty specific in my question that I am interested in your reasoning. Which is specific to the OP. You think finding the identity of a national news story maker is "pussy" work but you applaud the releasing of hacked private emails. Why is that?

Please, I'm interested in why you don't believe this is a contradiction.

 

[The Big Dog]

I was pretty specific in my question that I am interested in your reasoning. Which is specific to the OP. You think finding the identity of a national news story maker is "pussy" work but you applaud the releasing of hacked private emails. Why is that?

Please, I'm interested in why you don't believe this is a contradiction.

At this point, it is pretty clear to me that this "hacking private emails" has nothing at all to do with this issue, the posted article or anything at all to do with this thread.

Sad.

 

[Minoosh]

It's far, far beyond silly. CNN had the worst week imaginable for a news network and they follow it up with this.

This is all I'll say since I've been warned to stay on topic, but defending myself from claims that I'm a white supremacist and asking someone to post evidence of that claim or apologize is being a jerk?

I'm talking about the gif maker and his posts, not about you.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, I know that too... ? Why is my sarcasm misplaced ? Holy Crap, the article says:

Reddit user "HanA**holeSolo" first shared the GIF last Wednesday of Trump pummeling a wrestler with CNN's logo imposed on his face. CNN could find no earlier instance of the GIF. The GIF was later edited into a video with sound and tweeted by the President on Sunday.

You have evidence that wasn't the case ? Lay it on us !!

The evidence is that it is impossible. CNN is wrong. The video is at a higher resolution than the GIF, and is longer. You can't add information to a video or image in the conversion. The video that Trump posted cannot have been made from this GIF.

Seriously, this isn't a particularily important part of the discussion, so why the obstinate resistance? Political loyalty?

 

[cantonear1968]

At this point, it is pretty clear to me that this "hacking private emails" has nothing at all to do with this issue, the posted article or anything at all to do with this thread.

Sad.

You've offered opinion that respected news agency CNN investigating the private name of said gif maker is outrageous yet that same opinion does not apply to the release of hacked emails.

I'd say it's entirely on point to the OP.

But having witnessed this game of pretending to not understand the connection simply to avoid uncomfortable questions is not something I wish to waste another 10 posts on to arrive at the same conclusion.

I guess we'll leave the crickets to chirp.

 

[The Big Dog]

You've offered opinion that respected news agency CNN investigating the private name of said gif maker is outrageous yet that same opinion does not apply to the release of hacked emails.

Utterly false, I have offered no opinion in this thread about hacked emails.

By the way, even if this wasn't utterly made up out of whole cloth? It would be a tu quoque fallacy.

 

[Stacko]

The parents and wife of Andrew Kaczynski received around 50 harassing phone calls each by Wednesday.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Trump in Poland about #CNNBlackmail

 

[Minoosh]

A multibillion media conglomerate who doxxed the wrong guy has plenty of friends here!

Poor CNN!

In what way is he the wrong guy?

 

[cantonear1968]

Utterly false, I have offered no opinion in this thread about hacked emails.

By the way, even if this wasn't utterly made up out of whole cloth? It would be a tu quoque fallacy.

We differ on the definition of tu quoqque since I never made the claim your hypocrisy invalidated your argument.....whatever that was. I simply asked how you found one outrageous and the other fair play.

Oh well c'est la vie!

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The evidence is that it is impossible. CNN is wrong. The video is at a higher resolution than the GIF, and is longer. You can't add information to a video or image in the conversion. The video that Trump posted cannot have been made from this GIF.

I'm trying to deal in facts we can know or not know.

How long is the GIF ? How long is the Video ?

What resolution is the GIF ? What resolution is the video ?

Seriously, this isn't a particularily important part of the discussion, so why the obstinate resistance? Political loyalty?

Your doing it again with your questions...

Political loyalty to ? CNN ? hahahhahahahaha

Obstinate resistance ? I'm just curious. CNN made a claim. It's not unbelievable prima facie. So I was asking for evidence why I shouldn't believe CNNs claim.

If there claim is false, I want to know the alternative explanation is.

It seems more productive and more fruitful than trying to figure out why some posters hold seemingly contradictory views.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Utterly false, I have offered no opinion in this thread about hacked emails.

By the way, even if this wasn't utterly made up out of whole cloth? It would be a tu quoque fallacy.

No, what it is, is simply pointing out your hypocrisy. Just because you offered in another thread doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[Minoosh]

"CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change."

I agree that was dumb. Of course it has the right. There was no reason to say that.