• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

IRS Scandal explodes. "no evidence that would support a criminal prosecution."

Page 72 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
eskimospy said:
Yes, and that meaning is very different based on... context.

At various times in my life I have told my friends that I am going to kill them. Presumably they didn't think I was actually going to kill them. If I walked up to a complete stranger and said the same thing their reaction would likely be very different. According to you context doesn't matter so they should both take it the same way. I hope this shows how crazy that is.
Click to expand...

Please, how lame can your defense get? This email like I said above, didn't happen in a vacuum. Her actions backed up her words.

Did you take any steps to kill your friends? Do you admit afterwards that you killed one?

There is also a huge difference between telling someone you are going to kill them and emailing someone that you are going to kill them. The tough thing about email is that its often difficult to get context just from an email so you have to take people at their word. Keep glossing over that little fact. And don't even try to say that this little detail has evaded you your entire emailing life. Any honest person knows what a pain in the ass this is, especially at work.
 
Last edited:
Knowing said:
Then what difference does professional vs personal make
Click to expand...
As has already been explained, it sets the context for the conversation -- personal -- and refutes those who kept insisting this was somehow official correspondence. It clearly was not.


and why must we keep flogging this horse which is most certainly bereft of life?
Click to expand...
You tell us. You're the one who brought up the whole IRS "be professional" policy yet again. We get that in your subjective opinion, Lerner violated that policy in this personal email. So what? What do you think that proves? Do you think her boss should fire her for it? (Bad news. She already retired.)
 
xBiffx said:
Please, how lame can your defense get? This email like I said above, didn't happen in a vacuum. Her actions backed up her words.

Did you take any steps to kill your friends? Do you admit afterwards that you killed one?

There is also a huge difference between telling someone you are going to kill them and emailing someone that you are going to kill them. The tough thing about email is that its often difficult to get context just from an email so you have to take people at their word. Keep glossing over that little fact. And don't even try to say that this little detail has evaded you your entire emailing life. Any honest person knows what a pain in the ass this is, especially at work.
Click to expand...

Huh, so context DOES matter!
 
xBiffx said:
If I say something in either context that doesn't mean it didn't happen in regards to the other. Statements, especially those that are put in email, don't exist in a vacuum. They carry meaning regardless of who the audience is.

Are we supposed to ignore a terrorist saying he is going to blow up a building just because he only told his mother he was going to do it?
Click to expand...

Do you even remember what this story is about, or what point you're trying to make? Lerner didn't threaten anyone. She accurately remarked, after being prompted, that "the whacko wing of the GOP" are assholes and crazies. As I pointed out (and you ignored, of course) prominent Republicans have used those exact same words about them. So what is it you think you've proven?
 
Bowfinger said:
You tell us. You're the one who brought up the whole IRS "be professional" policy yet again. We get that in your subjective opinion, Lerner violated that policy in this personal email.
Click to expand...

My opinion is backed up by the policy, it's not subjective no matter how badly you want it to be. For more information, please google: "fired for email." Feel free to keep repeating your subjective opinion that the IRS should have a less professional working environment than the private sector.
 
eskimospy said:
Huh, so context DOES matter!
Click to expand...

That isn't what you said, you said that communication is dependent on context. That simply isn't true. Communication happens regardless of context, especially when dealing with emails. If you emailed that you were going to kill your friend, that doesn't automatically mean you didn't say that or you aren't going to do that. You've stated you're going to kill your friend regardless of what the context of that statement is. Whether that is indeed going to happen in independent of your email.
 
Last edited:
Knowing said:
My opinion is backed up by the policy, it's not subjective no matter how badly you want it to be. For more information, please google: "fired for email." Feel free to keep repeating your subjective opinion that the IRS should have a less professional working environment than the private sector.
Click to expand...

Feel free to keep stuffing straw men. Your interpretation of the IRS policy is subjective, as is your predestined conclusion Lerner violated it. Perhaps you don't understand what "subjective" means. I also said absolutely zero suggesting the IRS should be less professional than private sector peers. That's just another load of straw. As someone who was in Lerner's same position in the past -- carrying a single corporate Blackberry instead of two phones, and moreover, managing teams of employees who did the same thing -- I would never expect such rigid interpretation of policy in personal email, even when sent using a corporate device. Nor would any other reasonable manager I've ever worked with.

No matter. The single most important thing you dodged yet again is so what? What do you think it proves? What do you think should be done about it? You keep flogging the issue. Put up or shut up.
 
eskimospy said:
No, I said that communication does not exist independent of context.
Click to expand...

Sure it does. I don't need context to say anything, especially in an email. Anyone can make any statement they want and it could mean any number of things. They've still communicated, regardless of how that was received. That is why most people are very careful about how they word their emails. There is no context in an email usually, you have to go at face value.
 
xBiffx said:
Sure it does. I don't need context to say anything, especially in an email. Anyone can make any statement they want and it could mean any number of things. They've still communicated, regardless of how that was received. That is why most people are very careful about how they word their emails. There is no context in an email usually, you have to go at face value.
Click to expand...

Since presumably you're reading the email to understand what the person was communicating of course you need the context it was written in and you would be a fool to take all communications at face value.

I can't believe you're even trying to argue this.
 
xBiffx said:
Sure it does. I don't need context to say anything, especially in an email. Anyone can make any statement they want and it could mean any number of things. They've still communicated, regardless of how that was received. That is why most people are very careful about how they word their emails. There is no context in an email usually, you have to go at face value.
Click to expand...
Context includes the identities of the sender and receiver(s).
 
dank69 said:
Context includes the identities of the sender and receiver(s).
Click to expand...

You mean if she had emailed that she was looking forward to a romantic dinner that night that the communication would be taken differently if it was to her husband or to her boss?

NEVER.
 
dank69 said:
Context includes the identities of the sender and receiver(s).
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but it doesn't change the contents of the email. Like the terrorist example. If a terrorist says that he is going to blow up a building in an email, the meaning of that doesn't change if it goes to his mother or to a head of state. This is especially evident after the building is in rubble and the terrorists claims responsibility.

If I am using work email, it doesn't matter who I'm emailing, my words are carefully chosen. Independent of other communications,n o one knows the context or meaning of that email until I spell it out for them in that email.
 
eskimospy said:
You mean if she had emailed that she was looking forward to a romantic dinner that night that the communication would be taken differently if it was to her husband or to her boss?

NEVER.
Click to expand...

If she emails that to her boss does that mean she isn't looking forward to a romantic dinner? Does that mean that she is having a romantic dinner with her boss?

Can't be sure of either because there is no context in the email.
 
xBiffx said:
If she emails that to her boss does that mean she isn't looking forward to a romantic dinner? Does that mean that she is having a romantic dinner with her boss?

Can't be sure of either because there is no context in the email.
Click to expand...

Add in the words "with you".

Regardless, I think I've proven my point pretty conclusively.
 
eskimospy said:
Add in the words "with you".

Regardless, I think I've proven my point pretty conclusively.
Click to expand...

And now you've added in some context. You've proven my point actually. Communication does exist independent of context.

She's still looking forward to a romantic dinner regardless of who she emails that to. Her actions afterward dictate what the context of that email was.
 
xBiffx said:
And now you've added in some context. You've proven my point actually. Communication does exist independent of context.

She's still looking forward to a romantic dinner regardless of who she emails that to. Her actions afterward dictate what the context of that email was.
Click to expand...

Uhmm, no. If that's what you took from this I don't know what to do other than shake my head.
 
xBiffx said:
Why wouldn't it. Does that communication not exist if it includes certain people?

If she told her husband that she seriously hates black people does that mean that she doesn't or does that change the impact of that statement in any way?
Click to expand...

Gawd. Talk about the need to duh-vert.

You seem to think that right wing assholes should be referred to in PC terms even between husband & wife.

Get over yourself.
 
werepossum said:
I would assume the IRS redacted it because her husband is not a government worker nor (presumably) an employee of the DMC or other left wing groups and as such, arguably should not be drawn into this unless he is somehow involved in the subject of the actual investigation.

Supposedly this was sent when Lerner was out of town. I don't think it's reasonable to require an IRS employee to carry two laptops and/or smart phone when traveling to separate business from personal emails, yet someone in her position is expected to always be available. And it's already well established what Lerner thinks of Republicans, so overall this seems pretty meh to me.
Click to expand...

It's curious about Werepossum's complaints. He said a few years ago that lying to congress deserved a medal.

So why all of a sudden does he do a 180?

Sorry, no, I don't deny it. Must have missed the question. For that I think he should have received whatever the standard punishment for lying to Congress is (I think it should be a medal personally, Congress being the opposite of Progress after all, but I recognize that some penalty must be assessed evenly to have the rule of law.) But I admit I took delight when the Dems gave him immunity thinking he would turn over Reagan. Even assuming Reagan knew about it (and Reagan was hardly a hands-on president, he was a delegater) they should have known that a man willing to die for his country (or lie to Congress and possibly go to prison) wouldn't have turned over Reagan to the likes of them in any case.

Interesting fact: The first time I ever heard the name "Osama bin Ladin" was from North's lips. He called him the most evil man he knew (insert obligatory foaming moonbat Reagan joke here) and said he feared him. The liberals laughed at him . . .
Click to expand...

It couldn't have anything to do that Ollie North was a R, and these are all dems could it?

And a huge LOL at his total stupidity for posting about how he heard about OBL from Ollie North, when it never happened.

Poor guy can't even check Snopes before lying on the internet. Yes, werepossum is that delusional and stupid. But we all know that from his posts already.

So I think we can take all of werepossums posts as seriously as his comment about how Ollie said OBL was so dangerous. That is to say, know they are all made up lies.
 
xBiffx said:
The tough thing about email is that its often difficult to get context just from an email so you have to take people at their word.
Click to expand...

lol, yikes. Yes indeed, emailing (like texts or any other non-spoken form of communication) indeed carries with it potential for misunderstanding context...which is exactly why you DON'T take many people "at their word" in those situations. Taking a text or email at face value with a perfect stranger is one thing, but taking words at face value when emailing, say, your good friend Rodney Dangerfield would make you a fool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top