- 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: IC is floating their Trump kompromat theory to CNN
Posted on 1/10/17 at 9:06 pm to Navytiger74
Posted on 1/10/17 at 9:06 pm to Navytiger74
Always.
1
Posted on 1/10/17 at 9:08 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Now post a legitimite source citing milk and dairy aren't season.
Here is something you might find useful:
LINK /
Here is something you might find useful:
LINK /
Posted on 1/10/17 at 9:09 pm to Iowa Golfer
quote:
Instead of being a jerk off,
quote:
I'll wait while you conduct a quick Google search.
You claimed that the poster in question referenced defamation per se correctly. The poster in question was applying defamation per se to my statement, which was absolutely not defamatory for the reasons previously described (which you, shockingly, declined to read).
The most common use of defamation per se in my jurisdiction is defamation in one's business or trade, not criminal activities. But sure, I imagine that allegations of moral turpitude or sex crimes would fall into the respective defamation per se categories of multiple jurisdictions.
Posted on 1/10/17 at 9:10 pm to Iowa Golfer
No, post this, with links to the topics.
My master's is in systems engineering.
We're sticking this one out.
quote:
I can also post your quotes
quote:
Masters in statistics and all of that.
My master's is in systems engineering.
quote:
New topic, or should we keep going?
We're sticking this one out.
Posted on 1/10/17 at 9:11 pm to Iowa Golfer
Posted on 1/10/17 at 9:15 pm to Pettifogger
He did use the term correctly. He didn't refer to anything you said, nor did I. I was going to quote his original post, but it has been extensively edited. It was originally about three sentences, and the definition of libel per se. It is now about 4 paragraphs long. So that's that, neiither of us can really go back to his original post unfortunately.
Again, where exactly was I incorrect before you had to make your insightful comment about our two brilliant monds teaming up? I never responded to you. I normally don't.
Again, where exactly was I incorrect before you had to make your insightful comment about our two brilliant monds teaming up? I never responded to you. I normally don't.
Posted on 1/10/17 at 9:17 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
I posted your quote already. I posted a link that disproved your quote. Using the same source you used. The USDA. Although you used the USDA, and took quite a lot out of context about milk production.
Now, go ahead and post a link showing me exactly where milk and dairy aren't seasonal. Prove your point.
Here you go again:
Google: LINK /
Yahoo: LINK /
USDA economic research: LINK /
Good luck. It's going to take you quite a lot of time to find someone, anyone, who agrees with you. Anyone with any credibility in any event.
Now, go ahead and post a link showing me exactly where milk and dairy aren't seasonal. Prove your point.
Here you go again:
Google: LINK /
Yahoo: LINK /
USDA economic research: LINK /
Good luck. It's going to take you quite a lot of time to find someone, anyone, who agrees with you. Anyone with any credibility in any event.
This post was edited on 1/10/17 at 9:20 pm
Posted on 1/10/17 at 9:17 pm to Iowa Golfer
quote:
I posted your quote already.
You didn't. Link it so we can all see.
Posted on 1/10/17 at 9:18 pm to Iowa Golfer
quote:
He did use the term correctly. He didn't refer to anything you said, nor did I. I was going to quote his original post, but it has been extensively edited. It was originally about three sentences, and the definition of libel per se. It is now about 4 paragraphs long. So that's that, neiither of us can really go back to his original post unfortunately.
Again, where exactly was I incorrect before you had to make your insightful comment about our two brilliant monds teaming up? I never responded to you. I normally don't.
Crawfish as much as you like. You attempted to ratify his erroneous assertion against me (my statement was a suggestion satisfying the definition of defamation per se). He was wrong. By blindly seeking to intervene in a conversation for which you had neither an interest nor any relevant knowledge, you backed a false claim.
Now, in rather pathetic attempt to bolster your original foolishness, you're taking your usual course of attempting to argue way out of an unnecessary predicament.
quote:
I never responded to you. I normally don't.
Posted on 1/10/17 at 9:23 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Still no respone, but more requests for a link, which is already posted.
I'm starting to get the idea you quickly Google searched, and now know your attempt to show milk and dairy as non seasonal is going to be fruitless.
Why not just sow me where milk and dairy aren't seasonal if you are so confident. It's going tobe a challenge since I already posted a link from the USDA clearly stipulating it is seasonal, but go ahead and prve your point.
PLease, prove yoursef correct. A link please. Something. Anything.
Again, your quote is posted, my link from the USDA, which disgarees is posted. You haven't added any empirical evidence. Nor are you going to be able to. This is precisely why when I originally posted this in October, you mumbled something about me being correct, and disappeared.
I'm starting to get the idea you quickly Google searched, and now know your attempt to show milk and dairy as non seasonal is going to be fruitless.
Why not just sow me where milk and dairy aren't seasonal if you are so confident. It's going tobe a challenge since I already posted a link from the USDA clearly stipulating it is seasonal, but go ahead and prve your point.
PLease, prove yoursef correct. A link please. Something. Anything.
Again, your quote is posted, my link from the USDA, which disgarees is posted. You haven't added any empirical evidence. Nor are you going to be able to. This is precisely why when I originally posted this in October, you mumbled something about me being correct, and disappeared.
Posted on 1/10/17 at 9:25 pm to Iowa Golfer
quote:
Still no respone, but more requests for a link, which is already posted.
Nope. Link to those quotes...
Posted on 1/10/17 at 9:26 pm to Iowa Golfer
quote:
This is precisely why when I originally posted this in October, you mumbled something about me being correct, and disappeared.
Link that as well, please.
Posted on 1/10/17 at 9:27 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Which is not:
quote:
the intelligence agencies explicitly stated in the unclassified report that they don't know for certain the Russians hacked the election and their judgment that the Russians hacked the election "might be wrong".
Like I said, you're putting that together because you don't know any better.
Oh really?
Here are some more direct quotes from the unclassified intelligence report. I put in bold lettering the most relevant parts.
quote:
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.
We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.
quote:
Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.
quote:
Moscow’s influence campaign followed a Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations—such as cyber activity—with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or “trolls.”
Russia, like its Soviet predecessor, has a history of conducting covert influence campaigns focused on US
presidential elections that have used intelligence officers and agents and press placements to disparage candidates perceived as hostile to the Kremlin.
Russia’s intelligence services conducted cyber operations against targets associated with the 2016 US presidential election, including targets associated with both major US political parties.
We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data media outlets obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to and relayed material to WikiLeaks.
This post was edited on 1/10/17 at 9:40 pm
Posted on 1/10/17 at 9:27 pm to Pettifogger
Again, his original post is edited. Here is my original post:
Opposite of defamation per quod. Generally.
Indications that a person unchaste or engaged in sexual misconduct are presumed to be libel per se. Genreally, and dependng on what state you're located in.
I'm curious about the poster that you replied to, and his lack of self awareness?
Where exactly am I incorrect, and how am I in a predicament? Where exactly did I reference "his erroneous assertion against" you?
You're not having a good night.
Opposite of defamation per quod. Generally.
Indications that a person unchaste or engaged in sexual misconduct are presumed to be libel per se. Genreally, and dependng on what state you're located in.
I'm curious about the poster that you replied to, and his lack of self awareness?
Where exactly am I incorrect, and how am I in a predicament? Where exactly did I reference "his erroneous assertion against" you?
You're not having a good night.
Posted on 1/10/17 at 9:28 pm to DawgfaninCa
Correct, which is not what you said.
Posted on 1/10/17 at 9:29 pm to Iowa Golfer
quote:
Now, go ahead and post a link showing me exactly where milk and dairy aren't seasonal. Prove your point.
It took me about 45 seconds on the USDA site to find total US milk production in a spreadsheet by quarter. Here is 2015 production in millions of pounds.
2015
JAN-MAR 51,936
APR-JUN 53,720
JUL-SEP 51,685
OCT-DEC 51,292
Posted on 1/10/17 at 9:29 pm to Iowa Golfer
quote:
You're not having a good night.
Posted on 1/10/17 at 9:29 pm to Iowa Golfer
quote:I think you're talking about me. We had a disagreement about the nuances of the definition seasonality, but I ended up agreeing with you about some seasonal aspect. I don't recall what it was though.
Again, your quote is posted, my link from the USDA, which disgarees is posted. You haven't added any empirical evidence. Nor are you going to be able to. This is precisely why when I originally posted this in October, you mumbled something about me being correct, and disappeared.
This post was edited on 1/10/17 at 9:32 pm
Posted on 1/10/17 at 9:30 pm to Iowa Golfer
An actual quote from you:
"Which you used correctly if the accuasations turn out to be false." [SIC]
You're referring to the original poster's use of defamation per se. Which was erroneous. Which makes the above erroneous.
Just remember you do this to yourself. Nobody makes you behave like this.
Posted on 1/10/17 at 9:32 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
buckeye_vol
Page 12 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News