Big Brother is Watching You

[Stinger]

Yes, I get it, you are desperate to avoid the real issue, the one I was always discussing, the one this thread has always been about, the one you decided was not important about my post, and in your desperation to defend the indefensible - a massive assault on our freedoms and core principles - when even your own largely inconsequential distinction, content or not, falls apart among your own sources, you retreat into this shell of blithering irrelevancy. Crying, "It's not content," (dependent on your ahistorical blind faith in our government) is as meaningful as saying that it's only 115 million phones, not 121 million.

What a crock of pure shit. Reeks of desperation. One could speak of your retreat into this shell of blithering irrelevancy, crying "It's content," (dependent on your a priori and blind faith in the government always lies and the government is always bad) blah, blah, blah. Like I said, what a crock of pure shit.

I wasn't desperate to avoid anything. I discussed one issue the entire time. If you wanted to discuss something else, that's your problem. If you wanted me to discuss something else, that's your problem.

Here's my first post:

I was making an educated guess above about the NSA and our failed drug war, just found this:

Did You Know that NSA Spymasters Are Involved in the War on Drugs?: A lot of people don't realize that the NSA has a mandate to "stem the flow of narcotics into the country."

That means that PRISM may have noted any of our posts here about drugs and the drug war. Knock, knock . . .

Next to impossible. PRISM collects records from internet companies, not content. The most they should be able to tell is who posted when, not who posted what.

There is still the NSA program for snooping emails entering and leaving the U.S., so if anyone posts from overseas, the Alphabet Boys might know about it.

[/color]

Pretty damn clear what I was talking about from the get-go.

Did I address any other issues you were talking about? No. Don't try to blame me because you can't follow a simple frickin' train of thought.

Here's your reply:

...PRISM collects records from internet companies, not content. The most they should be able to tell is who posted when, not who posted what...

I believe you're thinking of the Verizion, etc. phone snooping, PRISM is all about content and who posted what.

[/color]

Wow. You said PRISM/content. I said PRISM/data. Then you said PRISM/content again. It seems like we started with a discussion about PRISM, content vs. data. It seems like you were following the train of thought. Where did you go wrong?

The only bizarre behavior is you ignoring the blatantly obvious and continuing with your delusions. You seem to think that you control all thought processes on the forum and everyone has to discuss your topic your way.

That's just more bullshit. I can take a sentence out of any post and discuss that sentence anytime I want to on any thread I want to. That's how forums work. You're not God. You don't get to determine exactly what every argument is about and exactly how every argument is supposed to go.

It wasn't deceptive editing. You can keep blathering your false, irrational, illogical accusations as long as you want, but it won't make them any more accurate. You're just plain wrong.

The only way I could have deceptively edited anything is if the part I left out makes a difference. Let me state that again. The only way I could have deceptively edited anything is if the part I left out makes a difference.

Logically, for it to have made a difference, it would have to have changed the meaning of the first part of the sentence. It didn't.

Of course, you can always explain how the end of that sentence changes anything. Here's the sentence: "The surreptitious collection of metadata fundamentally alters the relationship between individuals and their government."

Try explaining how retaining "fundamentally alters the relationship between individuals and their government" somehow magically changes "The surreptitious collection of "metadata" to actually mean "the surreptitious monitoring of content."

If you can't, your argument is just noisy nonsense.

My declarations of relevancy are valid because I know what I was talking about the whole time. The same thing you started talking about -- PRISM as content vs. validity. I reiterated it many times.

But you still have to show how leaving that off changes the meaning of the first part of the sentence.

Try explaining how "fundamentally alters the relationship between individuals and their government" somehow magically changes "The surreptitious collection of "metadata" to actually mean "the surreptitious monitoring of content."

Lying 20 times? Two or three maybe. And I'm exaggerating? My behavior's bizarre? I'm desperate? ROTFLMAO!!!!

If you're now going to lie about separating my sentence so that you could distort the meaning of what I said with your comment, that's just frickin' pitiful. As many people as you've asked to man up and you won't admit what's right there in front of you.

...So far, your best shot was a couple of articles in ThinkProgress

Your source until it didn't say what you wanted it to say.

where content was mentioned in the article . . . but not in the original source. I've provided an expert, Bill Clinton,

So where did you not separate my sentence so that you could alter the meaning and get your little false insinuation in?

I clearly explained that a journalist who says his source says one thing when, in fact, the article he cites says the opposite is either sloppy or dishonest.

Maybe you can explain, since you're always right, regardless of the facts, how a journalist who says his source says one thing when, in fact, the article he cites says the opposite is a reliable source. Yeah, explain that one to me.

So here are some things you can explain to add a little credibility to your fantasies.

1.) Explain how you can say PRISM monitors content, I can say PRISM only mines data, you say that PRISM mines content, and we're not having a discussion about whether PRISM monitors content or mines data. Explain that one.

2.) Explain how how "fundamentally alters the relationship between individuals and their government" somehow magically changes "The surreptitious collection of "metadata" to actually mean "the surreptitious monitoring of content." You claim I changed the meaning by leaving it off. Explain how I did that.

3.) Explain why you get to determine what every argument is about and how it's supposed to go, regardless of what's actually being discussed

4.) Explain how I lied 20 times. ( i really liked that one.)

5.) Explain how my sentence got separated. You claim you never moved it. Explain how it got separated by your comment. (Maybe it was the same sort of magic where leaving off the last part of the sentence magically change the first part of the sentence.)

6.) Explain how a journalist who says his source says one thing when, in fact, the article he cites says the opposite is a reliable source.

You've made or implied all these. If you could explain them all logically and rationally, that would be peachy keen.

[Ombudsman]

Not always, but what was useless was citing all those tech and other groups that disputed your pretentious claim that "those of us who are tech savvy aren't wringing our hands". You just ignored the debunking from the same post while griping about petitioning.

Well that's because you seem a little touchy about it and it wasn't exactly a debunking of what I said, despite your claim to the contrary. Ya know, sometimes people just ignore what you've said because they can agree to disagree and you're pretty bright and generally logical so there's no need to hold an occasional illogical statement against you...

Really? Your patronizing claim to be speaking for the "tech savvy" being disputed by the tech savvy enough to put their names to petitioning the government for strong action is not "exactly a debunking"? Please elaborate on the logic of that.

I'm sorry you took it as a personal attack. It wasn't directed at you but posting a list of companies who have found it to be good marketing to side with "the people" against the mean old "gummit" doesn't negate what I said. Take a deep breath. No one looks down on you for being less tech savvy than others. It was just an observation.

[Ombudsman]

Vrede, do you ever think maybe just maybe you take things a little too personally?

[Ombudsman]

Nice spin!

I'm the prime advocate for civil liberties on this thread.

Are you? I haven't read all the back forth.

You attribute that to being less "tech savvy".

No I made a general comment. You took it personally. That was your choice.

You compare me to LEO, Partisan and Mad Roland.

I would never even consider it. That's your interpretation.

I debunk your "tech savvy" claim.

No you didn't. You posted a list of companies who don't want the government spying on users of their products.

You ignore the debunking but disparage the same post's linking of petitions and call me "pretty naive".

I ignored what didn't happen. Online petitions are useless. Again, you chose to take it personally. I didn't realize you were the creator of online petitions.

You deny that you were debunked.

Actually I ignored your original claim because I didn't think it was worth denying because you were just being touchy. But since you keep bringing it up, yes I deny it.

You stupidly call a list of tech and other grassroots organizations "companies" and attribute their stand to "marketing".

Your opinion is noted. Thanks for sharing.

[Ombudsman]

Vrede you'll have to beat this dead horse on your own. Sorry for running Partisan off. I'm beginning to think you miss him.

[O Really]

They've got a problem there, it looks like. A contention that something is unconstitutional doth not make it so. Talk to me about "saving the Constitution" when you have some court rulings in hand. Betcha collection and analysis of phone records won't be found to be a violation of either the First or Fourth. Not that some individual's rights under either or both of those might not have been violated sometime.

[Ombudsman]

No need to, you're doing just fine with delusions of grandeur, running away from having been debunked, inappropriate comparisons, whining that you were misunderstood, ducking questions and confusing yourself.

Oh look Vrede is insulting me more. I should definitely tell her she was right to be so touchy so she'll be nice again.

[Ombudsman]

Vrede you'll have to beat this dead horse on your own...

Oh look, Ombudsman is griping because his insults generated insults in response.

The difference is I didn't insult you. You simply chose to take a general comment and get your panties in a wad about it as it if was a personal attack on you. That was your choice. Why you made it, I'll never know.

[bannination]

Good Guy Obama:

[Ombudsman]

Still

Nice spin!

I'm the prime advocate for civil liberties on this thread.
You attribute that to being less "tech savvy".
You compare me to LEO, Partisan and Mad Roland.
...You completely ignore the debunking but disparage the same post's (!) linking of petitions and call me "pretty naive".
...You continue the patronizing with "mean old gummit".
You repeat the "less tech savvy" claim after having been proven wrong.

Ombudsman, do you ever think maybe just maybe people take things personally because you meant them to be? Don't get me wrong, be as personal as you wish. Just don't be such a wuss about it when it's responded to.

Vrede you're welcome to go back to my original post on the topic of "tech savvy" and see if there is one single word about you. Or you can keep squealing and name calling. I don't really care one way or the other but the latter doesn't help you make your case or gain any friends.

[Stinger]

You're being such an ongoing, inventive, excuse-making, irresponsible sleazeball about this clear lie about me, I'm not bothering to read the rest. Try CPF.

Damn. I said "I apologize. You didn't deceptively edit it out so that it changed the meaning of the sentence." What more do you want?

I made a mistake when I accused you of deceptively lopping off the end of my sentence because I did not see where you moved it. And I repeated my mistake. Really bad form. There's a difference between a lie and a mistake. Try the dictionary.

lie -- n --An intentionally false statement

mistake -- n -- An action or judgment that is misguided or wrong, an error or blunder

I apologize for my mistake. Doubly so for repeating it.

[O Really]

Seriously, guys - you're all really bright people with differing ideas. Not to criticize anybody's choice of entertainment, but is the best you can do quibbling over nitpicks? Move on.

[Ombudsman]

Sure, let's see who was the only one of "those who are most upset about this NSA surveillance" on that page - why, it's me just 2 posts before. Imagine that. And before then - no one for over 16 hours. Ironically, that was rstrong, perhaps the most "tech savvy" active poster we have. Turns out you're wrong even in our small world. That's what this all about - I proved you wrong and you can't stand that I didn't let you get away with ignoring it. With "friends" like you . . .

So you falsely assumed I was speaking specifically of you. My comment wasn't just based on what I've read here but in many other places on the web. Let's say that I had actually said, "Vrede, since you're not tech savvy, you're wringing your hands over the NSA revelation." Then you might have a case, but the fact is even if I had said that, so what? Who the fuck cares? It's not like it's an insult to say someone isn't tech savvy. The only reason I am is because my job requires it. If it was up to me, I'd be living off the land totally off the grid. My point was that those of us who work in technology aren't surprised that the gov't tracks our phone calls. Hell, we're you asleep during the Carnivore years? None of this is new. Those of us familiar with technology know that. Anyone who works for any of those organizations you mentioned who doesn't know that, should be fired for incompetence. You posting a link to them doesn't negate one goddamn thing I said.

[Ombudsman]

Wow. Good luck with all those demons between your ears. Must be tough.

[Ombudsman]

Well you'd know.

[Dryer Vent]

I get the feeling that those who are least upset about this NSA surveillance are people who don't have much civil liberties knowledge.

WRONG. I'm a member of the ACLU, and I think that Snowden should be drawn and quartered for releasing information that might, just might, save my life or your life, or the lives of marathon runners or skyscraper workers. This has been going on for over a decade, and now, all of a sudden, folks are getting their panties stuck in their crack over it. Wake up. We live in an age of fear of terrorists. If we don't react and something happens, y'all will be screaming that the government didn't do anything to protect you.

Sheesh. Much ado about nothing.

BTW, it doesn't take a secret government program to read my Facebook page, or my Twitter posts, or anything else I do on the Internet. Hell, my boss can look at my computer at work and know everything I've posted or read during work hours. If you don't want anyone to have your personal shit, don't post it.

Case in point: I googled car insurance the other day to check rates. Within 24 hours, I had a call from an insurance agent asking if he could help me. And, I DID NOT post my phone number or address...I just searched the sites. Nothing is sacred in cyberspace.

[bannination]

I get the feeling that those who are least upset about this NSA surveillance are people who don't have much civil liberties knowledge.

WRONG. I'm a member of the ACLU, and I think that Snowden should be drawn and quartered for releasing information that might, just might, save my life or your life, or the lives of marathon runners or skyscraper workers. This has been going on for over a decade, and now, all of a sudden, folks are getting their panties stuck in their crack over it. Wake up. We live in an age of fear of terrorists. If we don't react and something happens, y'all will be screaming that the government didn't do anything to protect you.

Sheesh. Much ado about nothing.

BTW, it doesn't take a secret government program to read my Facebook page, or my Twitter posts, or anything else I do on the Internet. Hell, my boss can look at my computer at work and know everything I've posted or read during work hours. If you don't want anyone to have your personal shit, don't post it.

Case in point: I googled car insurance the other day to check rates. Within 24 hours, I had a call from an insurance agent asking if he could help me. And, I DID NOT post my phone number or address...I just searched the sites. Nothing is sacred in cyberspace.

Sorry, you do not spy on your own citizens to prevent terrorism. I have no business knowing what my neighbor is doing on the internet or saying on the phone, and neither does my government. Corporations on the other hand...... I think this has much more to do with profit than protecting the country.

Age of terrorism? Really? Gain some perspective. How many people die of terrorism each year in the U.S.? Comparing that with any other leading cause of death and see if putting money there couldn't be INCREDIBLY more beneficial. Is there anything you would not accept under the name of protecting you from terrorism?

We're not talking about things you yourself make public. We're talking about things you have a expectation of privacy for.

[O Really]

Sorry, you do not spy on your own citizens to prevent terrorism. I have no business knowing what my neighbor is doing on the internet or saying on the phone, and neither does my government. Corporations on the other hand...... I think this has much more to do with profit than protecting the country.

Age of terrorism? Really? Gain some perspective. How many people die of terrorism each year in the U.S.? Comparing that with any other leading cause of death and see if putting money there couldn't be INCREDIBLY more beneficial. Is there anything you would not accept under the name of protecting you from terrorism?

We're not talking about things you yourself make public. We're talking about things you have a expectation of privacy for.

Well, you wouldn't spy on your own citizens if you define "terrorism" narrowly enough to include only acts committed by non-citizens, but it's been demonstrated that US Citizens are also capable of terrorism.

And with terrorism, the score isn't kept by how many get killed, it's kept by how many get frightened enough to affect their lives. You aren't going to quit going to the bank just because one got robbed. But after Boston, a lot of people will be afraid of big crowds. After 9/11, practically everything in the US was changed, including running ourselves into an economic ditch chasing shadows in Iraq and Afghanistan, creating and tolerating DHS, living under tighter surveillance everywhere and ever increasing security efforts. Sure, there are a lot more people killed in traffic accidents and probably cop shootings than by terrorists. But nobody personalizes a guy in Cali driving off a bridge or somebody getting killed by a cop in Detroit. A school shooting, on the other hand, and people start worrying about their kids' school; people losing legs in an apparently random bombing, and we start thinking it could have been us.

Vigilance in protecting against terrorist acts is as much about managing societal impact as it is about actually catching eeeveel people.

[Stinger]

...4.) Explain how I lied 20 times. ( i really liked that one.)...

completely dishonest…deceptively edited my quote…dishonestly edited my quote…blatant dishonesty in deceptively editing my quote…deceptively edited my quote

So far, your best shot was a couple of articles in ThinkProgress

Your source until it didn't say what you wanted it to say.

...you edited out of my statement…My actual statement was…you deceptively lopped off the end of my sentence…you edited that part out…you're lying about it by claiming every word is there...It's not…Look at that big blank spot…I do believe that "every single word" is not there…edited to make it appear…My valid explanation was edited out…(attachment #1)…(attachment #2)

18, damn I'm good. Would have gone on longer if I hadn't proved you wrong, twice . Then:

...deceptively moved it…moving the reason I gave…you deceptively move them…deceptively moved something…You deceptively moved words…you just moved it…part you moved…dishonest.

8 more of the wingnuttiest, paranoid, childish attacks in lieu of just owning your 18 previous lies. Now, add your doubting the "20 times". 27, so far.

Are you really that self-unaware or did you just think you could get away with it this time?

You're being such an ongoing, inventive, excuse-making, irresponsible sleazeball about this clear lie about me, I'm not bothering to read the rest. Try CPF.

Note how often it's deception and dishonesty when I did not do what I'm accused of, a "mistake" when Stinger does it 27 times.

Now 28 "mistakes".

...But, all that pales in comparison to what's next.

After lying 20 times or so about my creating a "blank spot", even a couple of times with pictures after I'd showed you and linked you reality, you then lamely try to redeem a shred of dignity by claiming that I moved something I never moved, and that the same style of responding to items immediately and point by point that you've seen me use for years is now some deceptive plot on my behalf targeted at you. Wow, just wow, and you all think I'm paranoid! Of course, I know that you're denying liking your source just until it didn't say what you wanted it to say. That was my point, goofball, I don't believe it and I said so as soon as you mentioned it again. Why should I care a whit about responding to the same tired pleas of your not being so selective about your own source? Suck it up and disagree, but don't try and convince anyone that there was deception on my part when all that was ever there was a timely and specific response.

As it was, your argument against my point followed my point. On what dumb planet is that to your disadvantage? Shades of the "false accusation" that just turned out to be your confusion over what I clearly posted. You just make up reasons to be offended.

You screwed-up so big - lying 20 times or so despite my objections and responses - the only decent thing for anyone with a shred of honor to do would have been to post, "Opps," and nothing more. Instead, you actually believe that you can still make an effective point in this tangent after proving yourself to be so poor at comprehension, research, accurate quotation, responsibility and honesty. Amazing.

As Ombudsman says, what is wrong with you?

First of all, your logic is as fuzzy as your math. When I stated that you moved part of my sentence, I stated the facts. That's not falsely accusing you of anything. I wrote a complete sentence. You inserted your comment AND MOVED the rest of my sentence below the first part of my sentence and your comment.

If you didn't move it, as you ridiculously claim, how did it get down there?

Stating facts is not lying.

You claim almost 20 "lies" by parsing my comments into little separate bits. Okay, Clinton. What is the meaning of "is"? Have your little claim by separating one comment into 8 "lies" or whatever.

But I never saw the rest of my sentence because you moved it. (Lie some more.) If I were to have done that, I would have had to hit the "Return" button three times. That would be moving the end of the sentence down the page, conveniently out of the ways. But that's just me. You, obviously, have gods looking out for you who move it down the page so you can insert your comments.

It wasn't where I put it, so how did it get to where it was?

Not seeing that my words were still there, only lower, makes it a mistake, by definition. When I didn't see it after you tried to point it out, that makes it an embarrassing double-dumbass mistake on my part, but still a mistake. You can continue your flights of fancy, but, by definition, a lie is an intentional deception. A mistake is an error. I made a mistake. I couldn't try to intentionally fool you because you knew the words were still there, just in a different place. So, if it's unintentional, it's a mistake . . . at least by the world's definition.

Now you are lying by intentionally claiming I lied when I didn't. See how it works? I don't know how you think you can get away with that.

By the way, I note that you (as is your usual won't) allow yourself superpowers that others can't use. You falsely claim I deceptively edited a sentence by leaving out an irrelevant part that made no difference in what the part I quoted said. But I, not being Vrede, can't make the same claim that you deceptively edited a sentence when you moved the second part down below so you can insert your comment and claim it makes some sense. If one is guilty, the other is guilty. Funny how you get to make up all the rules to always favor your side.

[Stinger]

I get the feeling that those who are least upset about this NSA surveillance are people who don't have much civil liberties knowledge.

WRONG. I'm a member of the ACLU, and I think that Snowden should be drawn and quartered for releasing information that might, just might, save my life or your life, or the lives of marathon runners or skyscraper workers. This has been going on for over a decade, and now, all of a sudden, folks are getting their panties stuck in their crack over it. Wake up. We live in an age of fear of terrorists. If we don't react and something happens, y'all will be screaming that the government didn't do anything to protect you.

Sheesh. Much ado about nothing.

BTW, it doesn't take a secret government program to read my Facebook page, or my Twitter posts, or anything else I do on the Internet. Hell, my boss can look at my computer at work and know everything I've posted or read during work hours. If you don't want anyone to have your personal shit, don't post it.

Case in point: I googled car insurance the other day to check rates. Within 24 hours, I had a call from an insurance agent asking if he could help me. And, I DID NOT post my phone number or address...I just searched the sites. Nothing is sacred in cyberspace.

Sorry, you do not spy on your own citizens to prevent terrorism. I have no business knowing what my neighbor is doing on the internet or saying on the phone, and neither does my government. Corporations on the other hand...... I think this has much more to do with profit than protecting the country.

Age of terrorism? Really? Gain some perspective. How many people die of terrorism each year in the U.S.? Comparing that with any other leading cause of death and see if putting money there couldn't be INCREDIBLY more beneficial. Is there anything you would not accept under the name of protecting you from terrorism?

We're not talking about things you yourself make public. We're talking about things you have a expectation of privacy for.

You're really okay with groups linked to Al Qaeda try to transport Strontium 90 from Uzbekistan into Kazakhstan? How many people will die if Al Qaeda manages to get a suitcase nuke or make a dirty bomb? We know they're trying to. We should just sit back and let it happen?