- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Wikileaks schools NPR, beats NPR like a rented mule
Posted on 5/7/17 at 10:21 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 5/7/17 at 10:21 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
But not actually reviewing the server and despite the fact the code used by the alleged hackers has been shown to not be exclusive to Russian state actors.
The IC's conclusions are built on a house of cards.
The IC's conclusions are built on a house of cards.
1
Posted on 5/7/17 at 10:22 pm to LuckyTiger
quote:
He can't.
I don't need to.
quote:
The position of the US government re: DNC hacks is entirely based on the analysis/investigation done by the DNC's own investigator, Crowdstrike.
This is bullshite, and nothing in that article proves otherwise.
Posted on 5/7/17 at 10:23 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Yet you can't articulate any alternative basis that is actually substantive. N
Posted on 5/7/17 at 10:24 pm to John McClane
quote:
But not actually reviewing the server and despite the fact the code used by the alleged hackers has been shown to not be exclusive to Russian state actors.
Do you really think you have access to all information?
Have you read the reporting that has been released?
If not, I'd recommend doing that.
Posted on 5/7/17 at 10:26 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
You mean the joint report?
Posted on 5/7/17 at 10:26 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
I sure as shite know Comey didn't have access to the server LINK
Posted on 5/7/17 at 10:27 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
I don't need to
quote:
It's because I don't need to
quote:
Collection, analysis, trends, knowledge, reporting, etc.
Lol damn dude this is getting embarrassing for you.
Posted on 5/7/17 at 10:27 pm to John McClane
quote:
You mean the joint report?
Not just the big one. There have been other pieces of information dropped. Sure though, have you read that one?
Also, you didn't answer my question about networks and servers.
Posted on 5/7/17 at 10:28 pm to John McClane
I don't care what Comey had access to.
Posted on 5/7/17 at 10:30 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Yes I've read them.
My knowledge of servers is irrelevant. Don't pretend to know shite.
Based on your question you must be very learned on the matter: care to refute the analysis in the Zero Hedge article?
My knowledge of servers is irrelevant. Don't pretend to know shite.
Based on your question you must be very learned on the matter: care to refute the analysis in the Zero Hedge article?
Posted on 5/7/17 at 10:30 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Do you care what the IC had access to?
Posted on 5/7/17 at 10:32 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
I'm still waiting on you to provide the IC's basis for their conclusion that Russian state actors hacked the DNC.
I've read the reports and WHY they think Russia would do such a thing. That's motive. I want the evidence that Russia did.
I've read the reports and WHY they think Russia would do such a thing. That's motive. I want the evidence that Russia did.
Posted on 5/7/17 at 10:35 pm to John McClane
quote:
Yes I've read them.
Then the only explanation is that you don't understand them.
quote:
My knowledge of servers is irrelevant.
Not as long as you continue to claim that the lack of forensics on the servers proves this:
quote:
The position of the US government re: DNC hacks is entirely based on the analysis/investigation done by the DNC's own investigator, Crowdstrike.
quote:
Based on your question you must be very learned on the matter: care to refute the analysis in the Zero Hedge article?
Nope, just your use of it.
Posted on 5/7/17 at 10:36 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
So you've got nothing. Can't say I wasn't warned.
Posted on 5/7/17 at 10:36 pm to John McClane
quote:
I'm still waiting on you to provide the IC's basis for their conclusion that Russian state actors hacked the DNC.
Done. Might be a few pages back by now.
quote:
I want the evidence that Russia did.
Well, you don't need it, so keep wanting.
This post was edited on 5/7/17 at 10:37 pm
Posted on 5/7/17 at 10:37 pm to John McClane
quote:
So you've got nothing.
Nope.
I've shown that this is bullshite, and that was my point from the start.
quote:
The position of the US government re: DNC hacks is entirely based on the analysis/investigation done by the DNC's own investigator, Crowdstrike.
Posted on 5/7/17 at 10:39 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
I want the evidence that Russia did
quote:
Well, you don't need it
lol holy shite
Posted on 5/7/17 at 10:41 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Ok, change "entirely based" to "substantially based" : does that change your opinion?
"Based in part"?
You haven't shown anything is bullshite. You've only shite on a source without offering any significant refutation of anything within the article and you haven't provided any alternative basis for the IC's conclusion other than listing vague and ambiguous terms.
"Based in part"?
You haven't shown anything is bullshite. You've only shite on a source without offering any significant refutation of anything within the article and you haven't provided any alternative basis for the IC's conclusion other than listing vague and ambiguous terms.
Posted on 5/7/17 at 10:46 pm to John McClane
quote:
"Based in part"?
This is much more accurate. Not sure why that was so hard.
quote:
You haven't shown anything is bullshite.
The reporting that you claim to have read clearly says otherwise, regardless of the weight you give it.
quote:
You've only shite on a source without offering any significant refutation of anything within the article
The accuracy of the article doesn't change the source that you obtained it from. It's somewhat well-known to be a garbage source.
quote:
you haven't provided any alternative basis for the IC's conclusion other than listing vague and ambiguous terms.
Sure I have. You even said that you read it all.
Posted on 5/7/17 at 10:48 pm to John McClane
quote:
You've only shite on a source without offering any significant refutation of anything within the article and you haven't provided any alternative basis for the IC's conclusion other than listing vague and ambiguous terms.
Truth. When directly asked his reply consisted of:
quote:
Collection, analysis, trends, knowledge, reporting, etc
You have to give him some credit for toeing the company line though. He has all the qualities you need in a yes man.
Page 22 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News