FSTDT Forums
Community => Entertainment and Television => Topic started by: Lana Reverse on February 25, 2018, 10:50:24 am
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/parkland-shooting-survivors-family-shops-doctored-cnn-emails-to-media-2018-2?r=UK&IR=T (http://www.businessinsider.com/parkland-shooting-survivors-family-shops-doctored-cnn-emails-to-media-2018-2?r=UK&IR=T)
On the one hand, given CNN's well-documented history of sleaze and dishonesty, I can believe they'd do something like this. On the other, I don't think the word document evidence is convincing enough. But either way, I can just tell the conspiracy theorists are going to latch on to this like the leeches they are.
-
First of all, the victim's father doctored the messages to make it look like CNN was doing something shady, but CNN is able to show the original messages which make it clear that Colton submitted the question, not CNN. The fact that the father decided to edit out that comment should make it obvious that he also understood that the real evidence is not on his side.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWw8NF1XUAE4vRo.jpg:large)
Second: What fucking "well-documented history?"
-
First of all, the victim's father doctored the messages to make it look like CNN was doing something shady, but CNN is able to show the original messages which make it clear that Colton submitted the question, not CNN. The fact that the father decided to edit out that comment should make it obvious that he also understood that the real evidence is not on his side.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWw8NF1XUAE4vRo.jpg:large)
Second: What fucking "well-documented history?"
First, how do we know CNN released the real emails?
Second, they lied in their coverage of the Milwaukee riots (https://ijr.com/2016/08/672666-sister-of-armed-man-killed-by-milwaukee-cops-tells-rioters-to-burn-sht-down-in-the-suburbs/). They misled viewers with a fake "satellite" interview (http://www.latintimes.com/nancy-grace-parking-lot-why-did-2-cnn-anchors-hold-split-screen-interview-feet-apart-127085). They apparently threatened to dox a Redditor over a wrestling meme (https://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html).
CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.
CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.
Emphasis mine.
-
Where should I start? Hanassholesolo wasn't hunted down for making a "wrestling meme." He made a wrestling gif that represented Trump beating up CNN which was later retweeted by Trump. That made him newsworthy, who was Trump retweeting? Well, he is an online troll who makes antisemitic and racist memes and hate speech. CNN tracked him down, interviewed him and said that they won't release his personal information (which isn't even technically doxxing because they aren't a random creep on the net who tries to form a lynch mob.)
And the only ones I've seen calling it a Doxx so far have been Neo-Nazis and T_D trumpettes who act like this is a massive scandal.
-
And the only ones I've seen calling it a Doxx so far have been Neo-Nazis and T_D trumpettes who act like this is a massive scandal.
Are you implying Anal Paragon gets half their talking points from alt-right / gator echo bubble? The nerve!
-
Where should I start? Hanassholesolo wasn't hunted down for making a "wrestling meme." He made a wrestling gif that represented Trump beating up CNN which was later retweeted by Trump. That made him newsworthy, who was Trump retweeting? Well, he is an online troll who makes antisemitic and racist memes and hate speech. CNN tracked him down, interviewed him and said that they won't release his personal information (which isn't even technically doxxing because they aren't a random creep on the net who tries to form a lynch mob.)
And the only ones I've seen calling it a Doxx so far have been Neo-Nazis and T_D trumpettes who act like this is a massive scandal.
You're right that he was newsworthy and a troll. But doxing is doxing, in spirit if not in letter, regardless of who's doing it.
-
.....le sigh.
*throws flags and blows whistle* Multiple fouls on the play...
We have
(https://i.imgur.com/RCDz7rp.jpg)
Also
(https://i.imgur.com/rOL6Bks.jpg)
And finally we have
(https://i.imgur.com/sHOTeWY.jpg)
Ironbite-half the distance to the goal, first down.
-
.....le sigh.
*throws flags and blows whistle* Multiple fouls on the play...
We have
(https://i.imgur.com/RCDz7rp.jpg)
Also
(https://i.imgur.com/rOL6Bks.jpg)
And finally we have
(https://i.imgur.com/sHOTeWY.jpg)
Ironbite-half the distance to the goal, first down.
Mind showing where I went wrong?
-
*more whistles*
Foul on the play.
(https://i.imgur.com/EDSanlx.jpg)
Ironbite-10 yard penalty, repeat second down.
-
Lana, if you haven't figured out by now they won't oblige you on that, you're probably hopeless.
-
Lana, if you haven't figured out by now they won't oblige you on that, you're probably hopeless.
Ah, so nibbles isn't trying to give constructive criticism, he just wants to score points. So much for assuming good faith.
-
First, how do we know CNN released the real emails?
Lana was banned from the zoo last year for trying have sex with the tapirs.
Sure I have no evidence for that, but how do we know you weren't? Since we don't obviously we should assume you are a Tapir fucker.
-
First, how do we know CNN released the real emails?
Lana was banned from the zoo last year for trying have sex with the tapirs.
Sure I have no evidence for that, but how do we know you weren't? Since we don't obviously we should assume you are a Tapir fucker.
I wasn't saying we should assume anything. I was only saying that evidence presented by the defense should be scrutinized rather than simply declared genuine.
-
Fair enough. Any evidence you present that you are not a Tapir fucker will be scrutinized rather then simply declared genuine.
Do you have any evidence that you are not a Tapir Fucker?
-
Fair enough. Any evidence you present that you are not a Tapir fucker will be scrutinized rather then simply declared genuine.
Do you have any evidence that you are not a Tapir Fucker?
The family has evidence for their accusations. Evidence that can be examined. You do not.
-
So why is this nonsense in Entertainment and Television?
EDIT: Also, the Haabs' version of the e-mail is not proof of scripting in the first place. The phrase "This is what Colton and I discussed on the phone" says nothing about who wrote the question. It just means that they discussed the question, which could mean anything.
Of course, I could also go into how it just HAPPENS to be the one kid who wants to give teachers guns as if that hasn't been proven to be a stupid fucking idea who claims that his question was scripted, but that's beside the point.
-
So why is this nonsense in Entertainment and Television?
EDIT: Also, the Haabs' version of the e-mail is not proof of scripting in the first place. The phrase "This is what Colton and I discussed on the phone" says nothing about who wrote the question. It just means that they discussed the question, which could mean anything.
Of course, I could also go into how it just HAPPENS to be the one kid who wants to give teachers guns as if that hasn't been proven to be a stupid fucking idea who claims that his question was scripted, but that's beside the point.
You're right. I was just discussing the accusation, not casting guilt on anybody.
-
Uh huh. Sure you weren't.
-
So, is there any other incident of CNN doing something horribly shady? Or just them tracking down a racist troll who harassed people online and then cried like a baby when realizing that this might backfire on them? And since even the troll didn't get "doxxed" (Which it wouldn't have been anyway if they'd shown his face on the paper because that's what news organizations have done for centuries now.)
Now... Since Lana didn't bother to mention this let me quote something from THEIR OWN source that they provided at the start of this thread:
According to the metadata of the Word document containing the email that was provided to Fox, it appears that Glenn last edited it.
So, we have proof that the father edited the email instead of simply copying it to a word file and presenting it to FOX.
Odd that Lana focused on "begging the question" if CNN evidence was fake and did not mention that the other side had been proven to have faked their evidence. Either they didn't read their own source or they consider doctored evidence to be as valid as real evidence. There is only one option for me now.
First, how do we know CNN released the real emails?
Lana was banned from the zoo last year for trying have sex with the tapirs.
Sure I have no evidence for that, but how do we know you weren't? Since we don't obviously we should assume you are a Tapir fucker.
Yes, that is exactly what happened and I enjoyed it.
There we have it, a confession. Now, Lana might disagree but how do we know that they will release the real quote?
-
First, how do we know CNN released the real emails?
Lana was banned from the zoo last year for trying have sex with the tapirs.
Sure I have no evidence for that, but how do we know you weren't? Since we don't obviously we should assume you are a Tapir fucker.
Yes, that is what happened, and I ran off after to have sex with my lovely boyfriend Logan Paul.
-
That detail is a big part of why I said the evidence was unconvincing. I don't think it's enough to completely discount it (yet), but it's definitely a big strike against the evidence's credibility.
Oh, and I listed other incidents if you don't think that was a good example.
-
Here we have footage of Lana at the Zoo
(http://s1.dmcdn.net/O0aob/1280x720-2D1.jpg)
-
That detail is a big part of why I said the evidence was unconvincing. I don't think it's enough to completely discount it (yet), but it's definitely a big strike against the evidence's credibility.
Oh, and I listed other incidents if you don't think that was a good example.
Falsified evidence is "unconvincing" but "not enough to discount it." All you have on this case on their side is falsified evidence and then you act as if this should be ignored and not make you suspicious of what else they have said. Meanwhile you claim that even if CNN is telling the truth here they should be still considered untrustworthy because of other offences? That's just dishonesty on your part.
The first link to the supposed lies about the riot goes to a weird website where the only evidence appears to be tweets by the writer of the article (which I can't access.) and the whole site appears to have an obvious agenda that makes me suspicious of them.
The final example was some silly stunt, which I admit was a bit weird. Still, do you really think that a stunt like that is enough to discredit an entire news organization? Is that the line we draw and use to evaluate everyone?
-
I can't believe Lana fucks tapiers. It's such a weird animal to fuck.
Ironbite-look, there's even photo proof in this very thread.
-
I can't believe Lana fucks tapiers. It's such a weird animal to fuck.
Ironbite-look, there's even photo proof in this very thread.
Fake news! You've believed for at least 3 respawns (ou'd respawning is something you still do) that Lana makes sweet sweet love to tapiers.
-
5 respawns by the way. The 6th thought it was giraffes Lana fucked.
Ironbite-but with photo proof, we see she really does enjoy the sweet sweet taste of tapir.
-
more photos of lana at the zoo (https://media.giphy.com/media/PWsJSMCcJCW64/giphy.gif)
-
Honestly, fucking tapirs is absolutely appalling, and you should be ashamed of yourself. What, you can't stick to dogs and goats like a normal person?
-
I have a sex tape of Lana and Logan Paul just going at it! Logan is like "I love fucking you more than fuckin up in Japan!" And Lana is like, "Ohh Logan you're so big and muscular! Grope my buttox of delusion!"
I have no proof for this existing, but I feel its potential existence is a point that needs to be defended.
-
Normally I would require more evidence to believe such a claim but knowing Lana's history I am certain that we can all agree that the existence of the tape, should be considered. Even if it is later disproved we can't just ignore the tape being proof of her and Logan's relationship.
-
I've seen the tape and it's pretty hardkore. There's even a point where Logan somehow kills Lana mid-coitus and then tasers her corpse back to life.
Ironbite-really sick stuff.
-
She got so into him and his Japan stunt her heart stopped mid-act. Then he tasered her back to life, and continued no questions asked.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone that excited to be Logan Paul's fuck friend.
-
I think we need to care deeply about ethics in tapir- and Logan Paul-fucking.
-
You're getting that vibe from Lana too, dpareja?
-
You're getting that vibe from Lana too, dpareja?
Who isn't?
-
That detail is a big part of why I said the evidence was unconvincing. I don't think it's enough to completely discount it (yet), but it's definitely a big strike against the evidence's credibility.
Oh, and I listed other incidents if you don't think that was a good example.
Falsified evidence is "unconvincing" but "not enough to discount it." All you have on this case on their side is falsified evidence and then you act as if this should be ignored and not make you suspicious of what else they have said. Meanwhile you claim that even if CNN is telling the truth here they should be still considered untrustworthy because of other offences? That's just dishonesty on your part.
The first link to the supposed lies about the riot goes to a weird website where the only evidence appears to be tweets by the writer of the article (which I can't access.) and the whole site appears to have an obvious agenda that makes me suspicious of them.
The final example was some silly stunt, which I admit was a bit weird. Still, do you really think that a stunt like that is enough to discredit an entire news organization? Is that the line we draw and use to evaluate everyone?
You know, upon reflection, I think I did let my anti-CNN bias get the better of me, leading me to give the emails more credence than I probably should've. Of course, the fact that it was published in a reputable source like Business Insider might also have been a factor. Still, I guess this whole incident is proof that I'm not as above certain biases as I thought I was.
But as for the lies about the riot, here's a YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SxHOLWiUnA).
-
That detail is a big part of why I said the evidence was unconvincing. I don't think it's enough to completely discount it (yet), but it's definitely a big strike against the evidence's credibility.
Oh, and I listed other incidents if you don't think that was a good example.
Falsified evidence is "unconvincing" but "not enough to discount it." All you have on this case on their side is falsified evidence and then you act as if this should be ignored and not make you suspicious of what else they have said. Meanwhile you claim that even if CNN is telling the truth here they should be still considered untrustworthy because of other offences? That's just dishonesty on your part.
The first link to the supposed lies about the riot goes to a weird website where the only evidence appears to be tweets by the writer of the article (which I can't access.) and the whole site appears to have an obvious agenda that makes me suspicious of them.
The final example was some silly stunt, which I admit was a bit weird. Still, do you really think that a stunt like that is enough to discredit an entire news organization? Is that the line we draw and use to evaluate everyone?
You know, upon reflection, I think I did let my anti-CNN bias get the better of me, leading me to give the emails more credence than I probably should've. Of course, the fact that it was published in a reputable source like Business Insider might also have been a factor. Still, I guess this whole incident is proof that I'm not as above certain biases as I thought I was.
But as for the lies about the riot, here's a YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_HssY_Y9Qs).
-
Now, just because the father admitted that he doctored the email: https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/father-parkland-student-admits-doctoring-emails-son-falsely-claimed-cnn-scripted-gun-town-hall/ ...this doesn't mean that we should let CNN off the hook. After all, you just can't trust CNN so maybe they still are guilty of whatever this thing was supposed to be about. Or hey, at least we could dig up some old dirt on them and try to talk about that instead. ...Right guys?
EDIT: http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/television/fox-news-tucker-carlson-sean-hannity-cnn-colton-haab-school-shooting-20180228.html
I guess this still doesn't count as conclusive, am I right?
-
Now, just because the father admitted that he doctored the email: https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/father-parkland-student-admits-doctoring-emails-son-falsely-claimed-cnn-scripted-gun-town-hall/ ...this doesn't mean that we should let CNN off the hook. After all, you just can't trust CNN so maybe they still are guilty of whatever this thing was supposed to be about. Or hey, at least we could dig up some old dirt on them and try to talk about that instead. ...Right guys?
EDIT: http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/television/fox-news-tucker-carlson-sean-hannity-cnn-colton-haab-school-shooting-20180228.html
I guess this still doesn't count as conclusive, am I right?
Guess I better eat my humble pie.
-
Now, just because the father admitted that he doctored the email: https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/father-parkland-student-admits-doctoring-emails-son-falsely-claimed-cnn-scripted-gun-town-hall/ ...this doesn't mean that we should let CNN off the hook. After all, you just can't trust CNN so maybe they still are guilty of whatever this thing was supposed to be about. Or hey, at least we could dig up some old dirt on them and try to talk about that instead. ...Right guys?
EDIT: http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/television/fox-news-tucker-carlson-sean-hannity-cnn-colton-haab-school-shooting-20180228.html
I guess this still doesn't count as conclusive, am I right?
Guess I better eat my humble pie.
No I think the better course would be to wait a few weeks until you think everyone has forgotten and then bring the issue up in a new thread while pretending never to have made this concession.
-
Except, unlike you, we don't have the memories of goldfish and we didn't get banned.
Ironbite-which is probably why you're now on a proxy.
-
Except, unlike you, we don't have the memories of goldfish and we didn't get banned.
Ironbite-which is probably why you're now on a proxy.
I only did so briefly because something was wrong with my IP address. It seems to be fixed now, so I'm back to using my normal connection. If I had access to this website's data, I could show you. Besides, if I were trying to hide something, would I admit to using a proxy?
And I was never banned from this site.
-
Well slightly bannatatored anyways. BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT! The point is you were wrong.
Ironbite-close thread, move on to the next stupidly avoidable tragedy.
-
So, is there any other incident of CNN doing something horribly shady? Or just them tracking down a racist troll who harassed people online and then cried like a baby when realizing that this might backfire on them?
Racist asshole trolls are truly the civil rights movement of our times.
-
So, is there any other incident of CNN doing something horribly shady? Or just them tracking down a racist troll who harassed people online and then cried like a baby when realizing that this might backfire on them?
Racist asshole trolls are truly the civil rights movement of our times.
Look if ultimate llama is not going to stick up for the rights of privileged degenerate scum who will? I mean 'asianslutdestroyer88' is truly the Malcolm X of our time.
-
And just think of this from her perspective - racist asshole trolls need protecting in terms of their civil rights, obviously, and she obviously thinks this will improve her internet profile. She probably shrieks "I'm going to be internet famous!" when she hits orgasm riding Logan Paul's cock.