US Election 2020 - Pt 3

Who do you think WILL win the 2020 US presidential election

  • Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D)

    Votes: 66 44.0%
  • Donald J. Trump (R)

    Votes: 84 56.0%

  • Total voters
    150

hexagon

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
526
I struggle to understand why anyone would not want to see these things, given how easily they could be produced, especially the invoice.
R.H.B.
Honestly you sound like someone in total denial. Next you'll be asking for verification of the signature, then security camera footage etc. NO-ONE implicated has denied the authenticity.
I would bet that John Paul Mac Issac is waiting for the moment that someone tries to burn his home or shop down at this point. There are already photos of the shop circulating. I doubt he's going to pose with today's newspaper holding an orange etc...
 

hexagon

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
526
I think the story about someone dropping off a water damaged laptop is a bit dodgy, and looks like a cover up. I suspect that the laptop was stolen by someone who works for HB
Three laptops.
The owner, John Paul Mac Isaac, examined the three and determined that one was beyond recovery, one was okay and the data on the hard drive of the third could be recovered.
See receipt above.
 

copacetic

King of the Hippies
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
57,028
Sigh.

You can only say that my oversight is significant IF and ONLY IF the narrative I was spinning where it mattered who was lawyer and who was journalist was also significant, and that could only be significant IF and ONLY IF the OCRing of the documents was a significant fact worthy of discussion in the first place. Hence, the problem with your allegation that I missed an extremely pertinent fact is necessarily contingent upon the notion that the OCRing of the documents itself is significant, and I object to that, and it is no defence to then say "but I didn't say it was significant", because all you're doing at that point is claiming for yourself the right to be inconsistent. To be clear, you have not offered any alternative explanation for why the oversight was actually material to the issue at hand.
What does the OCRd document have to do with whether it was a lawyer or a journalist, aside from your somewhat odd assertion that journalists of all people would not really be in the business of possibly needing redact information in the scope of the job description?

Again, I did not say the fact that it was OCRd was significant.

I have explained in excruciating detail why I think it was significant.

Whether Schweizer is Cooney's lawyer or journalist is not significant unless you can point to a fact that makes it significant.
See above.

I'm not going to apologise for skim reading the first paragraphs unless you can show an oversight that is actually relevant to the claims I made rather than the claims you made and then asked me to account for without being able to substantiate that those claims are indeed significant.
I'm not asking you to apologise, or forcing you do anything differently, those are your decisions to make. I'm just suggesting it would behoove you to pay a little bit more attention.

And the claim that I was unwilling to absorb basic facts is patent nonsense. I accomodated the fact and self-corrected as soon as it was brought to my attention.
I did not explicitly state you are unwilling, and I've thoroughly covered my thoughts on the matter in the relevant paragraph. Self-correcting on something you didn't read in the first place is not particularly laudable in any event.

Ok, to the degree that your lack of clarity as to the motives is not necessarily because there is a nefarious motive present, it follows that I am not obligated to dispel the lack of clarity in order for the story to indeed be accurate, right?
I'm not asking you to address the missing data, that would be impossible, since you are not in possession of the information, and as things stand, neither of us are able to know whether it exists.

You have a question. You asked me, but I don't necessarily have an answer for you. You keep asking me WHY WHY WHY and then criticising the reasons that I give. I believe as things stand, I've responded to each of your criticisms, after TRYING to entertain your question in good faith.
I'm simply responding to your responses, as you are to mine. If it is tiresome, then don't engage. That you don't have an answer for a given question that is not my problem; it is your problem, but you are under absolutely no obligation to discuss any of this with me. I'm under no illusions that there's any 'winning' this discussion at this point, since we are operating in a void of accurate information. If you believe in aspects of what we've been chatting about, despite this, that's absolutely fine, but I am compelled to interrogate statements that I don't understand the basis of.

I don't really have more to say regarding these questions. I'm not very interested in the OCR thing, maybe someone else in the thread wants to pick it up with you. I believe I have established to my satisfaction that the OCR thing is not something that need concern me at this point.
I am not entirely sure why it's been spoken about so much, to be honest, from your end, since I, again, in my very first response to you said I don't think it is significant.

Please quote any claim of proof. So far as I can tell, I have only claimed that it is evidence, which I am personally inclined to credit. That's not claiming it's proof, and if you're going to start talking about proof, then you've just smuggled in the criterion of certainty that you have already denied wanting to apply. I don't believe it's reasonable to expect people to only believe that which can be proven, and if you do, well, I say it's up to you to demonstrate it.
I'm not referring to you, I'm referring to people who are making the initial claims, yet don't provide evidence that aligns with what they say they are in possession of.

I'm not interested in entertaining a discussion where it's presumed that the discussion and questions will entail some sort of performance aimed at giving proof. If that's what you want, give me investigatorial powers inside the United States and the manpower necessary to actually see what's what and then we can talk again.
I'm in no manner twisting your arm here, nor am I the one making any claims that require me to provide proof of anything (aside from my OCR experiment, which is not of any relevance at this point). If you, or anyone else indicate that they hold a particular view to be true, I am inclined to discuss it with them, if it is something to catch my interest. If my need for proof is a bother, then simply don't discuss it with me? And I'm not even saying you're wrong! Just discussing the merits of what we currently have in front of us.

I'm certainly not interested in a conversation where you just keep noting facts that haven't been explained and then continuing to ask and ask until you find a contradiction, at which point you proclaim "aha!" like you've already done once, as if the performance that is to be expected on my end is some sort of attempt at proof, where I'm supposed to discharge all of your objections or else it isn't "proof". :sleep:
Well then, don't have the conversation. And just to be clear, assertions lacking evidence are not a facts, by any definition of the word.

Again, you are a finite creature that has to confront combinatorial explosion. It's unreasonable to expect entities constrained by these conditions to only believe what is provable. The world is too big to verify everything for yourself, and trying to live your life that way just leads to madness.
It's extremely important to be open-minded, but not very useful when your brain actually falls out.

Well then we have nothing to work with, I suppose. Until another time, perhaps.
Any time but remember, no one is forcing you.
 
Last edited:

Pegasus

Executive Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
5,611
Three laptops.

See receipt above.
I'm not following the whole laptop saga.
Just wondering after seeing that hew wanted a hard drive recovery.

If it's a Macbook, then his hard drive should be backed up to iCloud, or Time machine.

So you can just get a new drive and load the backup.
 

CaptainOblivious

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2019
Messages
1,160
I have explained in excruciating detail why I think it was significant.
Yes, and my criticism comes back to the only way to justify it is if the detail was material to my claims, and therefore I still maintain that the tone was not appropriate given the circumstances.

Just because you think I should verify better as a general working principle doesn't make your expectation valid.

I'm not asking you to apologise, or forcing you do anything differently, those are your decisions to make. I'm just suggesting it would behoove you to pay a little bit more attention.
Opinion noted. But again, I make no apologies whatsoever for skim reading the first few paragraphs.

I'm not asking you to address the missing data, that would be impossible, since you are not in possession of the information, and as things stand, neither of us are able to know whether it exists.
Well then I stipulate that the cause for the OCRing of the text is missing data, and feel that I should not have been addressing it in the first place.

That you don't have an answer for a given question that is not my problem; it is your problem,
No, it's not my problem. You're claiming it is my problem, and I'm rejecting your claim. I can get by just fine without answering the questions you started asking me.

I am not entirely sure why it's been spoken about so much, to be honest, from your end, since I, again, in my very first response to you said I don't think it is significant.
Because you kept asking me to explain myself, and then disputing the explanations.

I'm not referring to you, I'm referring to people who are making the initial claims, yet don't provide evidence that aligns with what they say they are in possession of.
I don't think people reporting the evidence they've found in an article necessarily translates to claims of proof.

If my need for proof is a bother, then simply don't discuss it with me? And I'm not even saying you're wrong! Just discussing the merits of what we currently have in front of us.
Right, I should have rather said that I do not wish to speculate at the outset and ignored the OCR aspect entirely, as well as everything that flowed from it. However, in the interests of politeness, I decided to try and entertain your questions as best as I could, because you did quote my posts, after all.

Well then, don't have the conversation. And just to be clear, assertions lacking evidence are not a facts, by any definition of the word.
Just to be clear, when I was talking about facts, I was talking about the facts you introduced, namely the OCRing of the document. You brought that up, and then you admonished me for not paying attention because I made the mistake of saying it was possible that the lawyer was inept at handling redactions after trying to discuss hypothetical answers to the questions you were raising. I'm really not interested in engaging with someone on those terms.

It's extremely important to be open-minded, but not very useful when your brain actually falls out.
You're entitled to your opinion, but nothing you've said so far gives me any reason think it is fitting to this situation, on the grounds that your standards are so strict that they invalidate the possibility of using witness testimony in a court of law.

Any time but remember, no one is forcing you.
Duly noted.
 
Last edited:

scudsucker

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
6,219
I'm not following the whole laptop saga.
Just wondering after seeing that hew wanted a hard drive recovery.

If it's a Macbook, then his hard drive should be backed up to iCloud, or Time machine.

So you can just get a new drive and load the backup.
I have a MacBook. It is encrypted but not backed up anywhere. There is no reason, my code is in Gitlab, my life is in Google.

But that is me. Most non-tech people have no idea what "time machine" or even "backup" means.
 

hexagon

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
526
If it's a Macbook, then his hard drive should be backed up to iCloud, or Time machine.
D E S P E R A T I O N.
Firstly, iCloud requires a small amount of set up. It's trivial, but there's no guarantee everyone wil have done it, or that they'll know the recovery procedure. It does not by default back up Applications, Preferences and a bunch of things. Also, assuming water damage and a neophyte user, the screens may not have been visible. This is someone with money who is accustomed to having people do things for him... it seems implied that he bought additional devices and went on with life. There's no ruling out that the tech in fact found iCloud or Time Machine backups and used them for the recovery.
 

scudsucker

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
6,219
D E S P E R A T I O N.

....

There's no ruling out that the tech in fact found iCloud or Time Machine backups and used them for the recovery.
I think you might have misunderstood Pegasus' point. Badly.

Edit: or, should I have said "bigly"?
 

hexagon

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
526
I think you might have misunderstood Pegasus' point. Badly.

Edit: or, should I have said "bigly"?
No - I don't know exactly what you're alluding to. But I know there's a large discrepancy between what a user asks for and what that means to a tech, never mind how they do it. There are plenty of ways that backups can go wrong and Macs are not automatically bulletproof.
 

CaptainOblivious

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2019
Messages
1,160

FWIW, Bannon learned this highly effective tactic of discrediting opposing media propaganda by using staggered releases and then catching them in their lies as they try to deny the truth from Andrew Breitbart. And Patrick Howley learned a significant portion of his professional tradecraft while working at Breitbart, too. The MO is the same, and pretty easy to spot once you've seen it deployed a couple of times.
 
Top