IG: Some Emails on Clinton's Server Were Beyond Top Secret

[dank69]

"snopes says it, I believe it, end of story."

Do you have even one example of Snopes getting something wrong (without correcting the error once it has been brought to their attention)?

 

[fskimospy]

Now you want to insult and smear me personally? Really?

I'll make a deal with you...I'll respond when you present factual information from a reasonably objective source. Until then, insult away...if this somehow makes you feel better.

Surely the guy who has called me a liar more times than I can count isn't worried about people insulting or smearing him? Not to mention that I did not insult or smear you, I simply stated that you have repeatedly used right wing opinion pieces credulously despite them being filled with misinformation. This is factual.

This has been the strategy so far:

1. Dodge the question with questions of your own.

2. Complain that I haven't answered your questions.

3. After I answer your questions make up more conditions before you answer.

How about this deal, just answer a simple question. I did what you asked, now it's your turn.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Surely the guy who has called me a liar more times than I can count isn't worried about people insulting or smearing him? Not to mention that I did not insult or smear you, I simply stated that you have repeatedly used right wing opinion pieces credulously despite them being filled with misinformation. This is factual.

Oh...I don't mind your insults...just humored by your diversion.

This has been the strategy so far:

1. Dodge the question with questions of your own.

2. Complain that I haven't answered your questions.

3. After I answer your questions make up more conditions before you answer.

How about this deal, just answer a simple question. I did what you asked, now it's your turn.

What kind of answer do you want? Since one of the founder's of Snopes thinks something is true, it must be true?

If that's what you really want...go for it, especially if it makes you feel like you've won the internet. Otherwise, give me something relatively objective and factual and we'll talk.

 

[Jhhnn]

Is this important to you? Does it in some way serve to reinforce your beliefs and help rationalize your perceived superiority over others who don't necessarily share your beliefs? Wake up. A fool's game is a fool's game.

You make it sound like religious tolerance by putting it in a false frame.

Unexamined & unquestioned belief is the real fools' game, and it's what's happened to conservatives in general. They put it all in terms of principle, as if the financial elite providers of their economic ideology have any principles beyond greed. They can't question their own free market trickle down bullshit nor even begin to realize that it necessitates the Welfare State. They fall for every bit of scandal mongering & every wedge issue in order to avoid the realization that they've been betrayed at the level of being able to work for a decent living.

We been dumped, honey. The Job Creators don't need expensive American labor nearly as much as they once did and they'll exploit that to the max we'll allow if history is any indicator.

 

[buckshot24]

Do you have even one example of Snopes getting something wrong (without correcting the error once it has been brought to their attention)?

Why would I do that? dude is using their say so as evidence of something being true. It isn't about them being right or wrong but a clear blind faith that their impressions are correct.

 

[buckshot24]

Oh...I don't mind your insults...just humored by your diversion.


What kind of answer do you want? Since one of the founder's of Snopes thinks something is true, it must be true?

If that's what you really want...go for it, especially if it makes you feel like you've won the internet. Otherwise, give me something relatively objective and factual and we'll talk.

The Gospel according to Snope. Did he even link to the snopies saying this?

 

[dank69]

Why would I do that? dude is using their say so as evidence of something being true. It isn't about them being right or wrong but a clear blind faith that their impressions are correct.

The only thing we can use to determine whether or not a source can be trusted is their track record. How do you determine if a source can be trusted?

 

[buckshot24]

The only thing we can use to determine whether or not a source can be trusted is their track record. How do you determine if a source can be trusted?

Who's talking about their track record? You. Point is snopes dude saying more misinformation on the right than the left doesn't make it so. Still not sure he even said it.

 

[fskimospy]

Who's talking about their track record? You. Point is snopes dude saying more misinformation on the right than the left doesn't make it so. Still not sure he even said it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/technology/05snopes.html

Much of the site’s resources are spent on investigating political claims, even though the Mikkelsons say politics is the last subject they want to write about. (Barbara cannot even vote in American elections; she is a Canadian citizen.) Claims relating to President Obama are now the top searches on the site but “even when there were Republicans in the White House, the mail was still overwhelmingly anti-liberal,” Mr. Mikkelson said.

People who make their living by examining misinformation and have more than a decade's worth of experience with this sort of thing say that's how it is. If you have a source that says something different, go ahead and link it. Otherwise, can it.

 

[werepossum]

Good job! You finally caught up to what Clinton said months ago. She used personal email because it seemed convenient at the time, but it didn't work out that way in retrospect.

Exactly my point. You wanted to emphasize the parts that were irrelevant and ignore the parts that showed why you were wrong.

[ ... Clipped another pointless wall of text that adds nothing new or useful ... ]

So in bizarro world, the parts that disagree with your premise are "irrelevant" but the parts with quotes from a man running a foundation whose stated aim is advocating for "progressive political and social change" is the really important part. Interesting. Kind of like it's more convenient to host a private server than to simply get an account on an existing, State Department server. Or how quoting only the parts that support one's point is honest, but quoting it all and bolding some is dishonest. Start from the necessary conclusion and work backwards, as always.

Just out of morbid curiosity, how did you come to the conclusion that Gary Bass, the man advocating for "progressive political and social change", is the appropriate legal expert while Douglas Cox (a law professor at City University of New York who studies records preservation), Daniel Metcalfe (former director of the Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy under Clinton & Bush I, where he administered implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, as part of his forty-five year career in the Justice Department), John Wonderlich (policy director for the Sunlight Foundation, which advocates for government transparency), and David Sobel (director of the FOIA project at the Electronic Frontier Foundation) are "irrelevant"? Note that this is a rhetorical question; there is not a soul on these boards who doesn't understand exactly how you made that determination.

 

[ivwshane]

So in bizarro world, the parts that disagree with your premise are "irrelevant" but the parts with quotes from a man running a foundation whose stated aim is advocating for "progressive political and social change" is the really important part. Interesting. Kind of like it's more convenient to host a private server than to simply get an account on an existing, State Department server. Or how quoting only the parts that support one's point is honest, but quoting it all and bolding some is dishonest. Start from the necessary conclusion and work backwards, as always.

Just out of morbid curiosity, how did you come to the conclusion that Gary Bass, the man advocating for "progressive political and social change", is the appropriate legal expert while Douglas Cox (a law professor at City University of New York who studies records preservation), Daniel Metcalfe (former director of the Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy under Clinton & Bush I, where he administered implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, as part of his forty-five year career in the Justice Department), John Wonderlich (policy director for the Sunlight Foundation, which advocates for government transparency), and David Sobel (director of the FOIA project at the Electronic Frontier Foundation) are "irrelevant"? Note that this is a rhetorical question; there is not a soul on these boards who doesn't understand exactly how you made that determination.

No, the parts you highlighted were the opinion of the person you quoted, the parts I highlighted were statements of fact. Their opinions may be relevant and hold a lot of weight but they are still personal opinions.

 

[Jhhnn]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/technology/05snopes.html



People who make their living by examining misinformation and have more than a decade's worth of experience with this sort of thing say that's how it is. If you have a source that says something different, go ahead and link it. Otherwise, can it.

Also from the article-

“It’s not like, ‘Well, we have to get out there and defend the truth,’ ” Mrs. Mikkelson added. “When you’re looking at truth versus gossip, truth doesn’t stand a chance.”

Taken as a group, I think that Repub sponsored scandals from 2008 forward should be called "Bullshitters' Greatest Hits". The sheer volume of it is astounding. Coupled with the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle It's a wonder there's any truth to be found among the torrent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Bullshit_asymmetry_principle

 

[werepossum]

No, the parts you highlighted were the opinion of the person you quoted, the parts I highlighted were statements of fact. Their opinions may be relevant and hold a lot of weight but they are still personal opinions.

Um, no. Gary Bass, the man advocating for "progressive political and social change", says

Because these rules weren’t in effect when Clinton was in office, "she was in compliance with the laws and regulations at the time," said Gary Bass, founder and former director of OMB Watch, a government accountability organization.

That is demonstrably his opinion, unless one pretends that prior to these regulatory changes there were no laws or regulations covering this.

 

[Bowfinger]

So in bizarro world, the parts that disagree with your premise are "irrelevant" but the parts with quotes from a man running a foundation whose stated aim is advocating for "progressive political and social change" is the really important part. ...

FFS, you cannot possibly be this dense. Can you? Why does the concept of things changing over time so confound righties? The rules that are now in effect are irrelevant to the way things were in the past, when Clinton was SoS. "Because these rules weren’t in effect when Clinton was in office..."

 

[ivwshane]

Um, no. Gary Bass, the man advocating for "progressive political and social change", says

That is demonstrably his opinion, unless one pretends that prior to these regulatory changes there were no laws or regulations covering this.

You think him telling you the rules weren't in effect when Clinton was sos is a matter of opinion?
I don't quite know what to say there. Bizzaro world indeed.

 

[stormkroe]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/technology/05snopes.html



People who make their living by examining misinformation and have more than a decade's worth of experience with this sort of thing say that's how it is. If you have a source that says something different, go ahead and link it. Otherwise, can it.

I didn't read the link due to time constraints, but is there something in it that says there is more disinformation on the right than the left? The quote you posted only says there were more anti-liberal claims than anti-conservative, it doesn't say anything about whether they were true or false. Perhaps disproportionate numbers were for the same reason that there are more reports of female shoplifters than there are of shoplifting purple bigfoots; there are more of them. *Exaggeration for clarity.
Oh, and Haha! I guess.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Did Snopes ever fact check Obama's gender wage gap 'urban myth' lie? Found it on FactCheck but couldn't find it on Snopes for some reason. Hmmm.

 

[buckshot24]

I didn't read the link due to time constraints, but is there something in it that says there is more disinformation on the right than the left? The quote you posted only says there were more anti-liberal claims than anti-conservative, it doesn't say anything about whether they were true or false. Perhaps disproportionate numbers were for the same reason that there are more reports of female shoplifters than there are of shoplifting purple bigfoots; there are more of them. *Exaggeration for clarity.
Oh, and Haha! I guess.

I couldn't find it either.

 

[fskimospy]

Did Snopes ever fact check Obama's gender wage gap 'urban myth' lie? Found it on FactCheck but couldn't find it on Snopes for some reason. Hmmm.

That's a particularly sad attempt to impugn a source. Now Snopes has to check into whatever random issue you thought up in order to be credible?

You're trying really really hard to avoid thinking uncomfortable thoughts, haha.

 

[fskimospy]

I didn't read the link due to time constraints, but is there something in it that says there is more disinformation on the right than the left? The quote you posted only says there were more anti-liberal claims than anti-conservative, it doesn't say anything about whether they were true or false. Perhaps disproportionate numbers were for the same reason that there are more reports of female shoplifters than there are of shoplifting purple bigfoots; there are more of them. *Exaggeration for clarity.
Oh, and Haha! I guess.

Yes, I'm sure that the urban legend disproving website happens to get more anti-liberal conspiracy emails but those all just so happen to be right.

/facepalm

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That's a particularly sad attempt to impugn a source. Now Snopes has to check into whatever random issue you thought up in order to be credible?

You're trying really really hard to avoid thinking uncomfortable thoughts, haha.

Random issue? Are you serious? Snopes specializes in debunking urban myths and the POTUS stated one recently. Nothing but crickets from Snopes on this...nothing. In my opinion, this reeks of selection bias. However, it doesn't surprise me that you would think otherwise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias

Selection bias is the selection of individuals, groups or data for analysis in such a way that proper randomization is not achieved, thereby ensuring that the sample obtained is not representative of the population intended to be analyzed.

 

[stormkroe]

Yes, I'm sure that the urban legend disproving website happens to get more anti-liberal conspiracy emails but those all just so happen to be right.

/facepalm

I honestly figured there was something in the link to back up what you said, you're usually pretty thorough when you post things. Interesting that you'd facepalm someone that doesn't rank 'eskimospy's sure' up with actual facts. You're probably right, it probably has nothing to do with, say, progressivism being, by definition, the ideology of change, thus causing the most complaints. Simplified, sheer volume alone would dictate there being more liberal lies proven. And disproven.
But no, let's quickly circle the jerk wagons before anyone notices that you didn't back up your claim.
Thanks for the grown up discussion.
And, haha! I guess.

 

[fskimospy]

Random issue? Are you serious? Snopes specializes in debunking urban myths and the POTUS stated one recently. Nothing but crickets from Snopes on this...nothing. In my opinion, this reeks of selection bias. However, it doesn't surprise me that you would think otherwise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias

Yes I'm 100% serious, it is a random issue you selected. You're engaging in classic defensive behavior where someone doesn't want to accept inconvenient information. You at first doubt the source, then you say it doesn't matter, then you convince yourself that they are biased against you. This is sad.

You also are misusing selection bias, as the people from Snopes were simply commenting on the volume of input they receive from both sides, not what they choose to do with it. The selection bias you are alleging is definitionally impossible because they were not conducting any selection at that point. If you really wanted selection bias you would need to show that the people SUBMITTING things to Snopes for consideration were biased in their selections.

If you're going to try and break out analysis terms at least use them correctly.

 

[fskimospy]

I honestly figured there was something in the link to back up what you said, you're usually pretty thorough when you post things. Interesting that you'd facepalm someone that doesn't rank 'eskimospy's sure' up with actual facts. You're probably right, it probably has nothing to do with, say, progressivism being, by definition, the ideology of change, thus causing the most complaints. Simplified, sheer volume alone would dictate there being more liberal lies proven. And disproven.
But no, let's quickly circle the jerk wagons before anyone notices that you didn't back up your claim.
Thanks for the grown up discussion.
And, haha! I guess.

I backed up my claim just fine. If you want to believe that the Snopes people were saying that the major majority of urban legend information that came into them to check was from conservative sources but they happened to check out at higher rates that would overcome this disparity you're welcome to do so. I see absolutely no evidence from their statements that they think such a disparity exists.

 

[buckshot24]

I honestly figured there was something in the link to back up what you said, you're usually pretty thorough when you post things. Interesting that you'd facepalm someone that doesn't rank 'eskimospy's sure' up with actual facts. You're probably right, it probably has nothing to do with, say, progressivism being, by definition, the ideology of change, thus causing the most complaints. Simplified, sheer volume alone would dictate there being more liberal lies proven. And disproven.
But no, let's quickly circle the jerk wagons before anyone notices that you didn't back up your claim.
Thanks for the grown up discussion.
And, haha! I guess.

Snopes said it, he believes it, that settles it!

Seriously, he's a hack. His claims are not backed up by that article and deep down he knows it.