You are pissing me off with these crazy McCarthy-like accusations.
It was a statement of fact.
And if you're going to share hate from people like him, then you're just going to have to accept that people will mention facts like that. As Jamie said to you -
Where do you get your news? It's not a good source. You need to supplement with some other points of view.
Facts don't have a "point of view." I think that's the problem is that you fail to appreciate the distinction between objective truth and opinion/interpretation of said objective truth.
It's easy to insult people when you don't have to back up your claims with examples and then support them.
Do you even understand the difference between fact and opinion? You've already made it quite clear that you don't understand the difference between evidence, direct evidence, and circumstantial evidence, and the import of word choice.
I commented pages ago, even citing a US Supreme Court case that says that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for a conviction. I have to assume that EVERYONE but nan is aware of the distinction.
A picture that completely erases the hopes, dreams, and will of the Ukrainian people to live free lives is a cautionary tale to the rest of us that selfish, disgusting people like you exist and need to be called out for your ****.
Very sick indeed.
You are the delusional one. And all that Ukrainian destruction is on your head because you believe the sugar-coated propaganda that has been fed to you since at least 2014. The truth will eventually crawl out, as it always does much later, but who knows if we will even have a planet by that time since the neocons are running the show and they have no OFF or REVERSE button.
Yup...it's on my head because I want the guy who is DOING IT to stop it.
I don't think she meant it as a compliment, though whether that dig was directed at Rauch or me who can tell. I'll just recall Samuel Johnson's comment on writing, and note that I don't get paid to write.
It is interesting how the "hoax" word got connected with Russiagate. It was T****'s #1 mantra. His whole life has been - repeat a lie enough and it becomes the truth.
When I peruse the Mueller report, like I said before there was plenty of lying to make Donny and his team suspicious of their connections.
It is true, that the FBI depended on Crowdstrike’s analysis for some of the technical details. But, the attribution of the hack to Russia does not rest solely on CrowdStrike’s findings.Several other cybersecurity firms, including Fidelis, FireEye, SecureWorks, and ThreatConnect have independently validated CrowdStike’s conclusions or surfaced additional evidence linking Russia to the DNC hacks.
It is true, that the FBI depended on Crowdstrike’s analysis for some of the technical details. But, the attribution of the hack to Russia does not rest solely on CrowdStrike’s findings.Several other cybersecurity firms, including Fidelis, FireEye, SecureWorks, and ThreatConnect have independently validated CrowdStike’s conclusions or surfaced additional evidence linking Russia to the DNC hacks.
What the F? "Roughly Explained"?????? This is a sketchy publication. I looked at their other stories and they always come to the same mainstream conclusion with a folksy "common sense" tone. There is zero information about them except I found they have an editor who used to work for Bush. This site will never get blocked by the Ministry of Truth, but it spreads disinformation.
Also, I think that quote was plagiarized from Crowdstrike itself. I have seen this argument before. Of course they are going to list other companies that agree with them. We don't know anything about these companies or how they validated the conclusion. They all might have personal connections to Crowdstrike and there is lots of business/money to be made when you can say Russia is the villain. I read they just agreed it was Russia because of some marks that others have disputed. Bill Biney says the documents had fake Russian marks and thought the CIA did it.
The debate about it being Russia is separate from the debate about who took the data. Even Julian Assange has said that the Russians could have hacked the servers, but they did not give him the emails. You can't make the claim that Russia interfered in an election just because they hacked into a server.
... This site will never get blocked by the Ministry of Truth, but it spreads disinformation. ...
There's a good "On The Media" piece this weekend about the deception and deliberate lies that were used by the right wing to invent the "Ministry of Truth" panic.
It is true, that the FBI depended on Crowdstrike’s analysis for some of the technical details. But, the attribution of the hack to Russia does not rest solely on CrowdStrike’s findings.Several other cybersecurity firms, including Fidelis, FireEye, SecureWorks, and ThreatConnect have independently validated CrowdStike’s conclusions or surfaced additional evidence linking Russia to the DNC hacks.
What the F? "Roughly Explained"?????? This is a sketchy publication. I looked at their other stories and they always come to the same mainstream conclusion with a folksy "common sense" tone. There is zero information about them except I found they have an editor who used to work for Bush. This site will never get blocked by the Ministry of Truth, but it spreads disinformation.
So what does this mean? Who is responsible for the DNC hack? Based on our comparative analysis we agree with CrowdStrike and believe that the COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR APT groups were involved in successful intrusions at the DNC. The malware samples contain data and programing elements that are similar to malware that we have encountered in past incident response investigations and are linked to similar threat actors.
Here's how you discredit a source.
First, don't laugh at their name. Then, you take one of their claims and try to disprove it.
We don't know anything about these companies or how they validated the conclusion. They all might have personal connections to Crowdstrike and there is lots of business/money to be made when you can say Russia is the villain.
Are you sure you want to make an argument against trusting people and organizations whose connections and funding we don't know?
... This site will never get blocked by the Ministry of Truth, but it spreads disinformation. ...
There's a good "On The Media" piece this weekend about the deception and deliberate lies that were used by the right wing to invent the "Ministry of Truth" panic.
Holy Cow! How far has NPR fallen? I went looking for this piece and right before was an advertisement for a piece on "Putin Expert" Garry Kaporov. We are so doomed.
It was a softball interview with the Evil Singing Wizard herself, Nina Jankowicz. The whole piece was disinformation about disinformation and Jankowicz said her demise was also caused by disinformation. so if you are in the mood for disinformation, check it out.
They introduce the piece by using benign examples such as storms and electrical problems. How horrible if people did not get the right information on those right? Lives could be lost! Sort of sounds like Homeland Security needs to step in where PSE&G has failed and Nina J. is all about helping out with natural disasters. That's what her time at the neocon Wilson Center and her two books about navigating online trolls were all about, right? Yeah, no.
She tries to reassure us that her position at the Disinformation Board carried no real authority and was simply an advisory position. Yeah, no. Again. Believe that and I have a bridge to sell you.
While at the Wilson Center she was already identifying the Gayzone as a target and in their recent revelations about Paul Mason's plot to shut them down, they found correspondence between him and Ms. J.
The interviewer tries to give her some tiny pushback but no real counter view (Max Blementhal is never going to be a guest on this show) provided. He says people are not comfortable with the idea of government censorship and the name, "Disinformation Governance Board" was probably not the best choice. They giggle over that. He says he agrees with her there is a big problem with disinformation but he's not sure how it should be handled. She says she is an expert in this field and the rejection of her "threatens Democracy." I'm not kidding. The interviewer seems to be won over with this argument! Or maybe her charm!
She says we need to be more like Estonia who evidently gets it right with misinformation. I will have to look into that, because I have never heard anyone else suggest we need to use Estonia as our model for Democracy. She says there is a LOT of misinformation about Ukraine she wanted to deal with and now it's going to get out of control (I can just imagine).
Finally she says she was taken down by the far-right (Tucker Carlson & Fox--which I thought was regular right). They found an old clip of her saying that she favored editing people's tweets with counter information. She said that was taken out of context from a long time ago, but she did not say she was against the idea. All I can say is THANK YOU far-right. It's sad that the Democrats have left the free speech lane open for the people on the right to fill. Democrats used to stand up for free speech and be against censorship. Now they cheer on people like Nina J., censorship and the prosecution of Julian Assange, Journalist. Nina is now thankfully gone, but the inteviewer says this will teach the DHS to do it differently next time and I'm sure it is continuing in a less public fashion. The narrator would consider that a good thing for Democracy and so will a bunch of you on MOL.
Are you sure you want to make an argument against trusting people and organizations whose connections and funding we don't know?
I suggested some problems with them. Yes, we would need to investigate each one separately and we probably don't have the proper knowledge base. We are not going to know if the owner of one of these firms is the Godfather to another CEO's kids.
But it only matters if you want to discuss who hacked the DNC, not if they stole the emails. I thought you were more interested in who stole the emails?
Holy Cow! How far has NPR fallen? I went looking for this piece and right before was an advertisement for a piece on "Putin Expert" Garry Kaporov. We are so doomed.
It was a softball interview with the Evil Singing Wizard herself, Nina Jankowicz. The whole piece was disinformation about disinformation and Jankowicz said her demise was also caused by disinformation. so if you are in the mood for disinformation, check it out.
They introduce the piece by using benign examples such as storms and electrical problems. How horrible if people did not get the right information on those right? Lives could be lost! Sort of sounds like Homeland Security needs to step in where PSE&G has failed and Nina J. is all about helping out with natural disasters. That's what her time at the neocon Wilson Center and her two books about navigating online trolls were all about, right? Yeah, no.
She tries to reassure us that her position at the Disinformation Board carried no real authority and was simply an advisory position. Yeah, no. Again. Believe that and I have a bridge to sell you.
While at the Wilson Center she was already identifying the Gayzone as a target and in their recent revelations about Paul Mason's plot to shut them down, they found correspondence between him and Ms. J.
The interviewer tries to give her some tiny pushback but no real counter view (Max Blementhal is never going to be a guest on this show) provided. He says people are not comfortable with the idea of government censorship and the name, "Disinformation Governance Board" was probably not the best choice. They giggle over that. He says he agrees with her there is a big problem with disinformation but he's not sure how it should be handled. She says she is an expert in this field and the rejection of her "threatens Democracy." I'm not kidding. The interviewer seems to be won over with this argument! Or maybe her charm!
She says we need to be more like Estonia who evidently gets it right with misinformation. I will have to look into that, because I have never heard anyone else suggest we need to use Estonia as our model for Democracy. She says there is a LOT of misinformation about Ukraine she wanted to deal with and now it's going to get out of control (I can just imagine).
Finally she says she was taken down by the far-right (Tucker Carlson & Fox--which I thought was regular right). They found an old clip of her saying that she favored editing people's tweets with counter information. She said that was taken out of context from a long time ago, but she did not say she was against the idea. All I can say is THANK YOU far-right. It's sad that the Democrats have left the free speech lane open for the people on the right to fill. Democrats used to stand up for free speech and be against censorship. Now they cheer on people like Nina J., censorship and the prosecution of Julian Assange, Journalist. Nina is now thankfully gone, but the inteviewer says this will teach the DHS to do it differently next time and I'm sure it is continuing in a less public fashion. The narrator would consider that a good thing for Democracy and so will a bunch of you on MOL.
This is an example of someone being taken in by the lies.
Ms. Nan is literally showing the reaction that is exploited by the right-wing disinformers.
It is true, that the FBI depended on Crowdstrike’s analysis for some of the technical details. But, the attribution of the hack to Russia does not rest solely on CrowdStrike’s findings.Several other cybersecurity firms, including Fidelis, FireEye, SecureWorks, and ThreatConnect have independently validated CrowdStike’s conclusions or surfaced additional evidence linking Russia to the DNC hacks.
What the F? "Roughly Explained"?????? This is a sketchy publication. I looked at their other stories and they always come to the same mainstream conclusion with a folksy "common sense" tone. There is zero information about them except I found they have an editor who used to work for Bush. This site will never get blocked by the Ministry of Truth, but it spreads disinformation.
So what does this mean? Who is responsible for the DNC hack? Based on our comparative analysis we agree with CrowdStrike and believe that the COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR APT groups were involved in successful intrusions at the DNC. The malware samples contain data and programing elements that are similar to malware that we have encountered in past incident response investigations and are linked to similar threat actors.
Here's how you discredit a source.
First, don't laugh at their name. Then, you take one of their claims and try to disprove it.
You have failed.
Whose name did I laugh at (and I'm not saying I did not because I would do that)?
Here's how you discredit a source:
Laugh at the name if you want -- it's irrelevant
Then, find out who funds them and where they are biased and the history. See if they are directly connected to the views they support. For example, if they are funded/supported by the Atlantic Council/NATO/Bellingcat you have to take what they say with extreme caution.
You can also take claims they make and disprove them or, cast doubt if no concrete evidence is available.
I know what I am doing and I have only failed to get it through your thick head.
I suggested some problems with them. Yes, we would need to investigate each one separately and we probably don't have the proper knowledge base. We are not going to know if the owner of one of these firms is the Godfather to another CEO's kids.
But it only matters if you want to discuss who hacked the DNC, not if they stole the emails. I thought you were more interested in who stole the emails?
I'm just saying that if unknown funding and personal connections were a concern of mine, I'd like to be able to answer questions like "who funds Mintpress" or "Who funds The Grayzone."
I'm just saying that if unknown funding and personal connections were a concern of mine, I'd like to be able to answer questions like "who funds Mintpress" or "Who funds The Grayzone."
The Grayzone is funded by viewers. Mintpress is also funded by viewers but may have some other funding, which they don't disclose. So you can take that into consideration when reading them. Does not mean you dismiss them but it is a point.
The Grayzone is funded by viewers. Mintpress is also funded by viewers but may have some other funding, which they don't disclose. So you can take that into consideration when reading them. Does not mean you dismiss them but it is a point.
I find it odd that you don't know who these viewers are and how much they pay them, but are untroubled by this whereas you make a very big deal out of sussing out nefarious connections for people and outlets you disagree with. Why the inconsistency?
I find it odd that you don't know who these viewers are and how much they pay them, but are untroubled by this whereas you make a very big deal out of sussing out nefarious connections for people and outlets you disagree with. Why the inconsistency?
The viewers are people like me who sign up to support them on PayPal or Patreon. Lots of people sending $5 - $10 a month. You think if I send them $10 a month they are going to change their opinion on Ukraine for me? They also do Superchats where people send in money to ask them questions or make comments on line. This is the new model for independent media. It can be annoying because they are always begging for money but better than having them funded by Bill Gates or Raytheon.
The viewers are people like me who sign up to support them on PayPal or Patreon. Lots of people sending $5 - $10 a month. You think if I send them $10 a month they are going to change their opinion on Ukraine for me? They also do Superchats where people send in money to ask them questions or make comments on line.
you have ZERO idea of the truth of this comment. Sure lot of people may send the $5 - 10 a month. But could some send them $50,000 a month? Do you have any breakdown of their income stream - do you know any of their highest donors?
What is their annual income? I was trying to figure this out - came across their wiki page- pretty apt description of them on it!
The Grayzone is a left-wing to far-left news website and blog founded and edited by American journalist Max Blumenthal. The website, initially founded as The Grayzone Project, was affiliated with AlterNet before becoming independent in early 2018. The website's news content is generally considered to be fringe. It is known for misleading reporting and sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes, in addition to its denial of the Uyghur genocide. The Grayzone has spread conspiracy theories about Venezuela, Xinjiang, Syria, and other regions
The Grayzone tactics of cheer-leading state violence, smearing and attacking critics with distortions that put their lives in danger, misrepresenting protesters as hapless, violent pawns of foreign powers and obfuscating facts on the ground have become the trademarked tactics of this crew as they tour the world in search of social media “likes”.
These breaches of journalism ethics, white-washing human rights violations and editorializing breaking news against protesters have very dangerous real-world effects.
And as they champion these attacks on the liberty of people in countries they don’t live in, they damage the credibility of brave protesters and journalists putting their lives on the line who do.
you have ZERO idea of the truth of this comment. Sure lot of people may send the $5 - 10 a month. But could some send them $50,000 a month? Do you have any breakdown of their income stream - do you know any of their highest donors?
What is their annual income? I was trying to figure this out - came across their wiki page- pretty apt description of them on it!
The Grayzone is a left-wing to far-left news website and blog founded and edited by American journalist Max Blumenthal. The website, initially founded as The Grayzone Project, was affiliated with AlterNet before becoming independent in early 2018. The website's news content is generally considered to be fringe. It is known for misleading reporting and sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes, in addition to its denial of the Uyghur genocide. The Grayzone has spread conspiracy theories about Venezuela, Xinjiang, Syria, and other regions
You have printed misleading reporting about The Grayzone. Nothing you write in bold is true. As for the funding, this is just accusation, given without evidence.
They depart from mainstream views, which given the last six months even you should be questioning by now. When it comes to accurate reporting, the mediocre comedians, disbarred lawyers, want-to-be travel guides, convicted felons and people who look like they live in Mom's basement have been outperforming the mainstream news and it's not even close.
It was a statement of fact.
And if you're going to share hate from people like him, then you're just going to have to accept that people will mention facts like that. As Jamie said to you -