This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Anonymous (User Deleted)
Pages: 1 ... 91011 1213 ... 212
301
« on: November 02, 2016, 10:17:42 AM »
>it's good if Clinton wins by technicality
>it was god-awful when Bush won by technicality
Winning the popular vote, but not the electoral college (Or vice versa) isn't really a technicality.
That would be "Well, these 600 ballots had Gore's name misspelled, so he can't claim them to win"
The electoral college shouldn't exist.
302
« on: November 02, 2016, 10:05:11 AM »
Gary Johnson
303
« on: November 02, 2016, 10:03:33 AM »
>it's good if Clinton wins by technicality
>it was god-awful when Bush won by technicality
On principle, I'd say Trump would have the presidency stolen from him if he won the popular vote but lost in the electoral college. But at the end of the day, I find him dangerous enough that I wouldn't care.
305
« on: November 01, 2016, 01:41:58 PM »
Trump has tried already to cozy up to Russia, even re-writing the GOP platform to more or less abandon Ukraine.
This is pure speculation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trump-campaign-guts-gops-anti-russia-stance-on-ukraine/2016/07/18/98adb3b0-4cf3-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html?utm_term=.b53d00438207
http://www.latimes.com/world/la-na-pol-ukraine-gop-20160720-snap-story.html
http://www.npr.org/2016/08/06/488876597/how-the-trump-campaign-weakened-the-republican-platform-on-aid-to-ukraine
It's actually factual evidence. Again, I was referring to what he did with the GOP platform, not him and Russia having direct links. I never said that. I would hope though you don't dismiss these links as liberal media though, as if that would invalidate it. I've noticed that trend happening more recently here.
Here's an easier one, 25 seconds in: As for his claims of not being involved with the platform changes, by virtue of being the GOP nominee, he's essentially the leader of the GOP, and thus lays down its platform.
306
« on: November 01, 2016, 11:29:57 AM »
>SlateWord on the street is multiple publications passed up publishing the story because the facts didn't add up.  According to the New York Times, even the US government doubts the veracity of these claims. 
307
« on: October 31, 2016, 05:49:53 PM »
try windows 7 stupid beaner cunt
308
« on: October 30, 2016, 09:21:41 PM »
309
« on: April 21, 2016, 02:11:44 PM »
it is banter game
310
« on: March 08, 2016, 05:40:05 PM »
may as well post these again since it's not a bannable offensePosting PMs is against the rules regardless of the sender's personal feelings about it Not necessarily true.
here's another PM
you do NOT have my permission to share this PM
but i'm sending you this PM anyway, because i KNOW you're gonna be dumb enough to share it
(and get yourself banned--again)
merry christmas 
Reminder NOT to share the last PM I sent you.
Or this one.
Don't do it.
Firstly, by setting the conditions, you can dishonestly set the bar preposterously high to handwave any evidence brought against you, like you're doing now. Just like you're setting the bar preposterously low to handwave any evidence brought against YOU. Like you're doing now.
What's your point.
Anyone reading this can use the search bar, or ask members on this site, specifically the staff who've cleaned up after you like LC, Psy, Yu, Icy The last time I was banned was in May.
Fucking May. Seven fucking months ago. Almost eight.
What EXACTLY is the function of holding old shit over people's heads?
How is that fair? How is that not setting the bar preposterously low? How is that being honest?
or the folks who've been harassed by you, such as Septy and myself. I've never harassed you, Septy, or anyone. Ever.
For someone who obviously wants to see improvements in my behavior, the type of shit you're doing is just going to make me hate you even more. Calling me an "awful person" just because I said a few mean words to you over the Internet does not help anything. It does not encourage improvement. It's not conducive to good behavior. It does not make me want to be friendly with you at all.
All it does is make me resent you, and want to be even less friendly with you.
So before you try to give me a lecture--about ANYTHING--look at yourself and see if you're even mature enough to handle that sort of thing. If you want to see progress, this is the absolute wrong way of going about it.
You're a petty child.
Grow the FUCK up.
Kupo
You didn't "win" anything. You got yourself banned after you made yourself out to look like a total asshole. More people ended up on my side than yours, and ultimately, you got smacked, and I didn't.
You proved nothing. You proved that if you poke and prod at someone enough with false accusations--someone who is known to be an "easy target" when it comes to his temper--they're going to lash out at you. That's all you proved.
Try the same experiment on anyone else. Accuse people of doing shit they haven't done, bringing up old wrongdoings, and exaggerate their true circumstances--and see if they don't get angry about it. So because I didn't react in a way that is completely out of character for me, that apparently means that I'm "fake." That it's impossible for me to be truly "nice." And that "nice Verbatim" is all just a "ruse."
Because I get angry when people ACTIVELY TRY TO MAKE ME ANGRY.
You didn't win. I didn't win, either.
We're two fucking idiots on a forum getting up in arms over stupid, petty, irrelevant bullshit.
In any case, I'm glad you're banned. Any chances of us ever patching things up are now gone.
And it's your fault. Congratulations.
Way to not take into account all of the insults doled out towards ME, you lying fucking cocksucker.
Get cancer.
311
« on: March 08, 2016, 05:33:34 PM »
I thought it was silly that I'm expected to list all the reasons for my case when Not in your case. I can evaluate five laws really fast, so I want to see five reasons to care about privacy.
Murder in cold-blood being illegal is a good thing.
Theft being illegal is a good thing.
Rape being illegal is a good thing.
Stop signs are a good thing.
Traffic lights are a good thing.
Okay.
Yeah, now you do. (It's a cop-out to start vague and form an argument to look/feel like you were right the whole time.)
That list would be more effective if you didn't actually dodge the privacy issue that's being discussed right here. I'll give you a proper list after you do the same.
312
« on: March 08, 2016, 05:22:45 PM »
That's one reason, sure.
What else?
Whatever else I want it to be.
Not good enough.
I thought it was silly that I'm expected to list all the reasons for my case when I'm not going to go over every law in existence to evaluate which laws make sense and which ones don't.
If you don't have time for this, then I don't either.
313
« on: March 08, 2016, 05:19:07 PM »
That's one reason, sure.
What else?
Whatever else I want it to be.
314
« on: March 08, 2016, 05:07:11 PM »
The blatant potential for abuse or compromise. The government can't keep its own secrets safe. A private corporation, whose employees have no real concept of or training in counter-espionage, cannot rationally be expected to successfully fend off bad actors who want their customers' sensitive information.
Sensitive information like what? Names? Addresses? Credit card numbers?
So you're afraid of being stolen from or having your identity stolen by... unscrupulous, rogue sponsors. Is that right?
That's one reason, sure.
315
« on: March 08, 2016, 04:56:41 PM »
Do you remember silly 2015 Kupo? I remember.
It was a lie.
316
« on: March 08, 2016, 04:56:00 PM »
This isn't even on-topic anymore, except for Turkey.
317
« on: March 08, 2016, 04:48:46 PM »
Kupo is chubby?
I'd put money on it.
It's my other worst-kept secret at this point.
318
« on: March 08, 2016, 04:46:52 PM »
Russian journalists deserve to be assassinated for talking ill about their government? Ok. Where did I say anything about assassination?
I'm just trying to make sense of your vague responses.
Obviously, speaking against your government shouldn't be illegal. I'm not going to go over every law in existence to evaluate which laws make sense and which ones don't.
I'm not asking that you do, but it's no excuse to not elaborate a bit more than you have. (It's a cop-out to start vague and form an argument to look/feel like you were right the whole time.) Why does it bother you so much that Google tries to advertise things to you based on your interests? Why is that so scary? (Google is just one example but) The blatant potential for abuse or compromise. The government can't keep its own secrets safe. A private corporation, whose employees have no real concept of or training in counter-espionage, cannot rationally be expected to successfully fend off bad actors who want their customers' sensitive information.
319
« on: March 08, 2016, 04:41:07 PM »
""Anonymous"" metadata can include personally identifying information as phone numbers, names, and call data?
The anonymity is derived from being legally protected by a court, not that the data has no personal information.
This is totally a semantics discussion but I think it's an important one. That definition of 'anonymity' certainly isn't a conventional one. It's deliberately misleading, if you ask me.
320
« on: March 08, 2016, 04:29:39 PM »
Russian journalists deserve to be assassinated for talking ill about their government? Ok. Where did I say anything about assassination?
I'm just trying to make sense of your vague responses.
321
« on: March 08, 2016, 04:28:18 PM »
That's quite the argument, what counts as criminal though? Somebody who breaks the law.
Russian journalists deserve to be assassinated for talking ill about their government? Ok. 
322
« on: March 08, 2016, 04:26:13 PM »
I'm not sure how it's anything but anonymous. Nobody sees phone numbers, names, or call data until a warrant is obtained.
Do you see the conflict in that statement? If you can discern that information from it, it's not anonymous by definition; it's locked behind a warrant.
I don't see the conflict.
""Anonymous"" metadata can include personally identifying information as phone numbers, names, and call data?
323
« on: March 08, 2016, 04:23:07 PM »
In what way? How is wanting privacy from an entity that doesn't need your personal information irrational? Because if you're not a criminal, you're not going to get arrested.
If you ARE a criminal, you DESERVE to get arrested.
By whose definition of 'criminal'?
324
« on: March 08, 2016, 04:22:23 PM »
325
« on: March 08, 2016, 04:18:40 PM »
The point of anonymous metadata is that people don't have access to it, not that a profile can't be built from the information.
That's not what 'anonymous' implies. The NSA knows that.
I'm not sure how it's anything but anonymous. Nobody sees phone numbers, names, or call data until a warrant is obtained.
Do you see the conflict in that statement? If you can discern that information from it, it's not anonymous by definition; it's locked behind a warrant.
326
« on: March 08, 2016, 04:10:10 PM »
The point of anonymous metadata is that people don't have access to it, not that a profile can't be built from the information.
That's not what 'anonymous' implies. The NSA knows that.
327
« on: March 08, 2016, 04:08:38 PM »
So journalists abroad reporting on oppressive governments don't deserve security (the lack of which would get them killed/arrested/disappeared). Gotcha. Security =/= Privacy.
They can't exist without each other.
There's a difference between protecting someone's life and simply feeling uncomfortable because someone knows you enjoy midget scat porn. Boo fucking hoo.
Nice dodge.
Thank you.
Nice conflation of two things that aren't comparable in any way.
You didn't even attempt to explain why, or how anything I said was invalid. You have no argument. The fact that someone does a perfectly normal thing like watching porn at all is enough to end careers and effectively discredit someone. And the folks who would have access to that knowledge are likely clandestine operatives who aren't bound by laws or morals anyway.
328
« on: March 08, 2016, 04:05:49 PM »
So journalists abroad reporting on oppressive governments don't deserve security (the lack of which would get them killed/arrested/disappeared). Gotcha. Security =/= Privacy.
They can't exist without each other.
There's a difference between protecting someone's life and simply feeling uncomfortable because someone knows you enjoy midget scat porn. Boo fucking hoo.
Nice dodge. The fact that someone does a perfectly normal thing like watching porn at all is enough to end careers and effectively discredit someone. And the folks who would have access to that knowledge are likely clandestine operatives who aren't bound by laws or morals anyway.
329
« on: March 08, 2016, 04:05:07 PM »
Can you fucking drop this already.
what did you think I would do though
Not this.
It's just a stupid forum. Who the hell cares. If you're gonna share PM's expect a ban. Whether or not Verbatim deserves to be banned is irrelevant to your almost obsessive behavior about this.
It's not worth the time and energy. Just drop it and move on. Nobody cares.
but without drama I don't have a reason to post
Come on man you used to be super laid back and like everybody's posts. Stop being so lame.
but that's boooooooring I could go back to B.next if I wanted to do that.
330
« on: March 08, 2016, 04:04:09 PM »
So journalists abroad reporting on oppressive governments don't deserve security (the lack of which would get them killed/arrested/disappeared). Gotcha. Security =/= Privacy.
They can't exist without each other.
Pages: 1 ... 91011 1213 ... 212
|
Show Posts