- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: One of Ohio's best HS football teams/town going to be all over the news
Posted on 12/26/12 at 10:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 12/26/12 at 10:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
what about this tweet?
What do you think that tweet proves exactly?
I interpret it as the people who stood by and watched instead of helping are just as guilty as those they were watching. So the 16 year old that was in the bathroom throwing up after drinking his first beer while they were out in the car doing whatever to the girl is not guilty in the eyes on anonymous. This is supported by the fact that he only named 10 or so people that he was going to release information on.
Now, what proof do you have that he's going after everyone that was even attending the parties? Since you're mr lawyer that requires proof from everyone else to support their stances, surely you have some proof to support yours.
Oh, and I'm talking more than just a tweet that would have to be interpreted in a non-rational way. Because you know, only the evil, mean anonymous guys use that kind of stuff as proof.
quote:
and at least 4 are being prosecuted and 1 was incorrectly named
What does this have to do with the very likely fact that there were more than the 10 named people at multiple back to school high school parties?
1
Posted on 12/26/12 at 11:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
getting a chance to defend yourself with a slew of appeals
You conveniently leave out the part about racking up hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in attorney and legal fees. And the time it will take to do all of that. And the fact that, even if you win, it will still follow you for the rest of your life.
quote:
a lot better than a single, biased person acting as judge/jury/executioner, don't you think?
I'll point out again that your sentence in this case is having some personal information that's more than likely already available to the general public posted in a place that not very many people will be going to check anyway.
quote:
law enforcement is bound by rules. anon isn't
And law enforcement never breaks the rules they are bound by, right?
quote:
what is the point of even bringing up that hyperbolic commentary if it has nothing to do with the situation?
I don't know. What was the point of spreading a flat out lie that he is going after everyone that was at the parties, and asking the other poster if he thought he should be responsible or everything that went on at parties he attended?
Or are you the only one allowed to interject hyperbolic commentary around here?
Posted on 12/26/12 at 11:04 pm to Open Your Eyes
quote:
What do you think that tweet proves exactly?
they're going after people who were just at the party? it says it directly
quote:
This is supported by the fact that he only named 10 or so people that he was going to release information on.
they posted the names of people the rumor mill said participated
quote:
Now, what proof do you have that he's going after everyone that was even attending the parties? Since you're mr lawyer that requires proof from everyone else to support their stances, surely you have some proof to support yours.
other than the tweet, i'm pretty sure it was in one of the videos they posted. i commented about it in this thread early on
quote:
Because you know, only the evil, mean anonymous guys use that kind of stuff as proof.
sounds like you're putting words in my mouth. why so mad, bro? quote:
What does this have to do with the very likely fact that there were more than the 10 named people at multiple back to school high school parties?
they list 10 random people who are part of the rumor mill, and it's very likely at least half are already implicated
the cops are doing their job
the prosecutors are doing their job
Posted on 12/26/12 at 11:11 pm to Open Your Eyes
quote:
You conveniently leave out the part about racking up hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in attorney and legal fees.
everyone in this country is entitled to representation. if you can't afford it, it is provided for you at the state's expense
quote:
I'll point out again that your sentence in this case is having some personal information that's more than likely already available to the general public posted in a place that not very many people will be going to check anyway.
social security numbers are publicly available info?
quote:
And law enforcement never breaks the rules they are bound by, right?
i didn't say that. there are serious penalties if they don't follow the rules and are busted, though. this group has already committed multiple felonies and illegally seized information, though. they've already broken the rules that police are bound by
and, like i said earlier, they may be tainting the actual investigation which may let the 2 likely guilty parties go free. how would that help the girl?
quote:
What was the point of spreading a flat out lie that he is going after everyone that was at the parties, and asking the other poster if he thought he should be responsible or everything that went on at parties he attended?
well i posted evidence of that, plus they're prosecuting people who weren't even at the parties as well as releasing information of persons who have nothing to do with the incident. i don't know who exactly they're after. they didn't explain it and they've expanded their behavior to include people defending those who may be being defamed
again...what is their end goal?
prosecution? already happening
publicity? was already there before they got involved
Posted on 12/26/12 at 11:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
they're going after people who were just at the party? it says it directly
No, no it doesn't. It says, directly, all who stood by.
But as I said earlier, feel free to continue making shite up
quote:
they posted the names of people the rumor mill said participated
And you believe those names included any and all of the people that were at the parties, correct?
quote:
other than the tweet, i'm pretty sure it was in one of the videos they posted. i commented about it in this thread early on
Oh, well since your pretty sure it was in one of the videos, I guess that's good enough. That's some clear, solid evidence that would clearly be admitted in court, since that's all that can be and is ever used.
quote:
sounds like you're putting words in my mouth. why so mad, bro?
What words were put in your mouth, and who is mad exactly?
quote:
they list 10 random people who are part of the rumor mill, and it's very likely at least half are already implicated
the cops are doing their job
the prosecutors are doing their job
None of that has a single thing to do with what you were replying to. So I'll post it again:
"What does this have to do with the very likely fact that there were more than the 10 named people at multiple back to school high school parties?"
Posted on 12/26/12 at 11:20 pm to Open Your Eyes
quote:
No, no it doesn't. It says, directly, all who stood by.
what does that mean, exactly?
quote:
And you believe those names included any and all of the people that were at the parties, correct?
no. i have no clue who was posted, other than 2 people who are already being prosecuted, at least 1 person testifying against those 2, and a person who wasn't even there.
quote:
What words were put in your mouth, and who is mad exactly?
where did i call the hax0rs evil or mean? i may have used evil, but i don't think i did. i don't believe in witch hunts
i certainly said they were biased, though
quote:
"What does this have to do with the very likely fact that there were more than the 10 named people at multiple back to school high school parties?
their information is flawed and biased. they're starting from a flawed position and they're using that information to sling shite around about people AND those who defend them
Posted on 12/26/12 at 11:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
and i'll ask you this: since their actions in cracking sites/accounts is illegal (a felony), and they have at least drug one innocent person in the mud (By associating him with a possible horrible crime), why aren't we pushing to un-mask them and track them down? why do they get to pick and choose what laws are bad and what laws are good?
Posted on 12/26/12 at 11:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
everyone in this country is entitled to representation. if you can't afford it, it is provided for you at the state's expense
In which case your chances of proving your innocence drop drastically. And you will still have court costs, bail money, etc. you will still spend x amount of time fighting it. It will still follow you for the rest of your life.
quote:
social security numbers are publicly available info?
They posted his social security number already?
quote:
i didn't say that. there are serious penalties if they don't follow the rules and are busted, though. this group has already committed multiple felonies and illegally seized information, though. they've already broken the rules that police are bound by and, like i said earlier, they may be tainting the actual investigation which may let the 2 likely guilty parties go free. how would that help the girl?
I'm not arguing that their system is flawless or not broken. I'm simply pointing out that leaving it up to law enforcement would be putting it in the hands of a system that has also proven to be broken, and isn't the foolproof, righteous juggernaut you and others have presented it as.
quote:
well i posted evidence of that
No you didn't. You posted a tweet that, at best, was open to interpretation. And honestly only a retard would interpret it the way you did.
quote:
plus they're prosecuting people who weren't even at the parties as well as releasing information of persons who have nothing to do with the incident.
So they falsely accused someone. Again, anonymous is starting to sound an awful lot like law enforcement.
Posted on 12/26/12 at 11:35 pm to Open Your Eyes
quote:
In which case your chances of proving your innocence drop drastically. And you will still have court costs, bail money, etc. you will still spend x amount of time fighting it. It will still follow you for the rest of your life.
i never claimed the system is perfect. but it gives everyone a chance to defend themselves through VARIOUS mechanisms
this witch hunt does not. we aren't even sure if an impartial fact finder is involved. the person doing the investigation may be completely biased and is going into this looking for dirt for a personal reason having nothing to do with this incident
quote:
They posted his social security number already?
well the 1 person implicated falsey has, a situation, as you put it that " will still follow you for the rest of your life."
quote:
. I'm simply pointing out that leaving it up to law enforcement would be putting it in the hands of a system that has also proven to be broken
it's nto broken. it's just not perfect. there is a vast difference
quote:
So they falsely accused someone. Again, anonymous is starting to sound an awful lot like law enforcement.
if you're against the flaws of state-based law enforcement, i fail to see how you can defend a group making the same mistakes while doing a lot of illegal shite along the way....a lot of illegal shite that may taint the actual investigation going on
Posted on 12/26/12 at 11:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
does that mean, exactly?
Well unless anonymous further clarifies, it's open to interpretation. So I'm going to interpret it as in, he literally meant the role that were standing by watching/cheering/egging on/doing nothing. I honestly don't see another way to interpret that given the context of the situation. And I'll ask again, do tou believe anonymous is after the kid throwing up in the bathroom while the guys were in the car with the girl?
quote:
no.
But you said earlier, and I quote:
"this group wants to prosecute any person who was AT THE PARTY."
So please, explain how that is NOT you saying there were only 10 or so people at these parties.
quote:
where did i call the hax0rs evil or mean?
Where did I say you did?
quote:
their information is flawed and biased. they're starting from a flawed position and they're using that information to sling shite around about people AND those who defend them
This STILL does not address the question you are supposedly responding to. Were there more or less than 10 people at those parties?
Posted on 12/26/12 at 11:43 pm to Open Your Eyes
quote:
Well unless anonymous further clarifies, it's open to interpretatio
so people are being prosecuted for very vague standards? i mean i know the law isn't typically set in stone, but there is some guidance as to whether you're breaking a law or not
quote:
Where did I say you did?
you used those words. i didn't. if you didn't mean to interject that i said them, i don't see why they were used
quote:
This STILL does not address the question you are supposedly responding to. Were there more or less than 10 people at those parties?
i answered: i don't know.
they named people who weren't even at the parties and we don't even know what this group wants apologies for
i'll ask this again:
quote:
and i'll ask you this: since their actions in cracking sites/accounts is illegal (a felony), and they have at least drug one innocent person in the mud (By associating him with a possible horrible crime), why aren't we pushing to un-mask them and track them down? why do they get to pick and choose what laws are bad and what laws are good?
Posted on 12/26/12 at 11:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i never claimed the system is perfect. but it gives everyone a chance to defend themselves through VARIOUS mechanisms
And the guy that already proved his innocence didn't have a chance to defend himself, right?
quote:
well the 1 person implicated falsey has, a situation, as you put it that " will still follow you for the rest of your life."
Oh please, oh please, oh please. Tell me you are going to argue that some unknown person on the Internet wrongfully accusing an innocent kid is worse than the police wrongfully accusing an innocent kid, arresting him, throwing him in jail, and having to go though trial after formal charges are brought against him. Please tell me that future potential employers would be more concerned with the anonymous Internet poster than the police, the district attorney, and a permanent record. I beg of you to continue showing your stupidity.
quote:
it's nto broken. it's just not perfect. there is a vast difference
Then anonymous isn't broken. It's just not perfect.
quote:
if you're against the flaws of state-based law enforcement, i fail to see how you can defend a group making the same mistakes while doing a lot of illegal shite along the way....a lot of illegal shite that may taint the actual investigation going on
If you'll notice, my posts in this thread have been more centered around the ridiculousness of some if you claims rather than supporting or not supporting what anonymous is doing here.
Speaking if the ridiculousness of your claims, I feel like one of your posts recently should have addressed the previously discussed issue of hyperbolic comments. Are you just going to run away from that too?
Posted on 12/26/12 at 11:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
so people are being prosecuted for very vague standards? i mean i know the law isn't typically set in stone, but there is some guidance as to whether you're breaking a law or not
It was his tweet. Obviously he knows the meaning behind it. Clearly the standards aren't vague to him.
quote:
you used those words. i didn't. if you didn't mean to interject that i said them, i don't see why they were used
When I'm accusing you of saying something, I'll say you said it. Like from before, which you conveniently ignored:
"But you said earlier, and I quote:
"this group wants to prosecute any person who was AT THE PARTY."
So please, explain how that is NOT you saying there were only 10 or so people at these parties."
quote:
i answered: i don't know.
Cop- out, but fine. Do you believe there were more than 10 people at these parties?
quote:
i'll ask this again:
"If you'll notice, my posts in this thread have been more centered around the ridiculousness of some if you claims rather than supporting or not supporting what anonymous is doing here."
Posted on 12/26/12 at 11:58 pm to Open Your Eyes
quote:
And the guy that already proved his innocence didn't have a chance to defend himself, right?
he was presumed guilty and had to convince them he was innocent. according to a tweet i read, he had to give them his phone records from that night. when he was completely innocent!
quote:
Oh please, oh please, oh please. Tell me you are going to argue that some unknown person on the Internet wrongfully accusing an innocent kid is worse than the police wrongfully accusing an innocent kid, arresting him, throwing him in jail, and having to go though trial after formal charges are brought against him.
the vast majority of people who are found innocent don't have national media reporting them as being involved
how many new york times articles are written about innocent people in louisiana?
quote:
Then anonymous isn't broken. It's just not perfect.
anonymous commits illegal searches and invades the privacy of people without any regulation. they're not trained, typically are biased, and throw a wide net based on biased information. it's a bit different
quote:
If you'll notice, my posts in this thread have been more centered around the ridiculousness of some if you claims
the only "ridiculous" claim was that i commented that they were going after people who were just at the party, and your response to my evidence was that it was "open to interpretation" even though they accused a person who wasn't even AT the party. they also have not even set a standard of culpability/behavior to judge those they named
so yeah, it's not exactly ridiculous when taken in view of all available, reliable information
Posted on 12/27/12 at 12:02 am to Open Your Eyes
quote:
Obviously he knows the meaning behind it. Clearly the standards aren't vague to him.
well he's implicating others, and we're discussing this in comparison to actual criminal law, so that's kind of a silly standard/excuse
quote:
So please, explain how that is NOT you saying there were only 10 or so people at these parties."
i've already explained this
they are working on imperfect information and a rumor mill. this begining was already shown to be flawed when they named a person who wasn't even there. they obviously weren't at the parties (i'm still assuming the person who started this is a local who hates the football team, so that fits in with that fact), so they're just guessing, basically
they only had 10 names because they got the names from forums/blogs (one of which is being sued for misrepresentations made about a minor and the owner is evading service to avoid the suit, per the NYT article). like i said, their starting point is flawed and biased. their sample has proven to be incorrect already, too
quote:
Do you believe there were more than 10 people at these parties?
yes. that's kind of irrelevant
Posted on 12/27/12 at 12:19 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
he was presumed guilty and had to convince them he was innocent. according to a tweet i read, he had to give them his phone records from that night. when he was completely innocent!
So what you're saying is he did, in fact, have a chance to defend himself.
And what exactly is your point? If this kid was facing trial as an accessory to rape, are you saying he wouldn't have supplied his phone records to prove his innocence or something?
quote:
the vast majority of people who are found innocent don't have national media reporting them as being involved
You really are this stupid.
There is still record of their arrest and charges. Record that will come up much quicker in future background checks than the current situation.
quote:
how many new york times articles are written about innocent people in louisiana?
Is there another New York Times article with the kid's name in it that I haven't read yet? Because if not, then based on the probability that there has been 1 article written about an innocent person from Louisiana in the entire 150+ year existence of the paper, I'll go with infinitely times as many. If there hasn't been an article written, and the kid's name is still not in the NYT, then equally as many.
quote:
anonymous commits illegal searches and invades the privacy of people without any regulation. they're not trained, typically are biased, and throw a wide net based on biased information. it's a bit different
Once again, anonymous sounds an awful lot like law enforcement. I'm noticing a common theme here.
quote:
the only "ridiculous" claim was that i commented that they were going after people who were just at the party, and your response to my evidence was that it was "open to interpretation"
No, my response to your "evidence" is that only a retard could interpret that "evidence" in the manner you are. The open to interpretation part is me attempting to leave all possibilities open. I've made it quite clear how I interpret the "evidence"
quote:
even though they accused a person who wasn't even AT the party.
So thy accused an innocent person. And they did it because he fell in line with the evidence they were using against others at the time. Once again, anonymous is sounding a lot like law enforcement.
quote:
so yeah, it's not exactly ridiculous when taken in view of all available, reliable information
It's extremely ridiculous, especially when you are using it as such a large part of your argument. You even felt the need to ask another poster if he felt he should be held responsible for everything that went on at parties he attended.
This post was edited on 12/27/12 at 12:42 am
Posted on 12/27/12 at 12:38 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
well he's implicating others, and we're discussing this in comparison to actual criminal law, so that's kind of a silly standard/excuse
Are we discussing this in comparison to actual criminal law? Because it only seems that way when it's convenient for you. Because in criminal law, the accused has a chance to defend himself. You are at the very least implying that this kid didn't have that chance and was already executed(even though he did in fct defend himself and was acquitted). So which is it?
quote:
i've already explained this
You talking in circles about other irrelevant things is not an explanation.
quote:
they are working on imperfect information and a rumor mill. this begining was already shown to be flawed when they named a person who wasn't even there. they obviously weren't at the parties (i'm still assuming the person who started this is a local who hates the football team, so that fits in with that fact), so they're just guessing, basically they only had 10 names because they got the names from forums/blogs (one of which is being sued for misrepresentations made about a minor and the owner is evading service to avoid the suit, per the NYT article). like i said, their starting point is flawed and biased. their sample has proven to be incorrect already, too
The bottom line is this: The 10 names are the people they believe are guilty of either performing or not preventing the supposed crimes. The school, coaches, etc are being attacked for a different reason. The parents are now being attacked for a completely different reason. As far as I can tell, they are not holding the administrators, coaches, parents, etc responsible for the actual alleged crimes. Only the 10 people they have named. That why hey named them.
So unless they've come out with additional names to the original 10 or so, everything you said above is, once again, you talking in circles about things that are still, irrelevant.
quote:
i'm still assuming the person who started this is a local who hates the football team,
Where is your proof for this? Or is this like the hyperbolic comments thing where you are allowed to throw out accusations without evidence but nobody else is?
quote:
yes. that's kind of irrelevant
No, it's very relevant. Because according to you, anonymous is going after everyone that was AT THE PARTY. Hell, you even have "evidence" to support this. But anonymous only named 10 people they believed were at the parties to go after. And you believe there were more than 10 people at the parties. So obviously, something isn't adding up here. What do you suppose that might be?
This post was edited on 12/27/12 at 12:43 am
Posted on 12/27/12 at 6:25 am to Open Your Eyes
Posted on 12/27/12 at 6:56 am to LSUCanFAN
my thoughts on all this:
ANONYMOUS STAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACKED
Steuebenvile is FA FA FUUUUUUCKED
actually went to a game of theirs a while back. they was stacked then, unstacked now
ANONYMOUS STAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACKED
Steuebenvile is FA FA FUUUUUUCKED
actually went to a game of theirs a while back. they was stacked then, unstacked now
Posted on 12/27/12 at 7:17 am to Ghazi
quote:
ANONYMOUS STAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACKED
quote:truth.
Steuebenvile is FA FA FUUUUUUCKED
Page 11 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News