We expect the police to hold themselves to a higher standard of behavior than John or Joan Q. Public. Cops aren’t supposed to be a bunch of thin-skinned assholes. When they are, the behavior of the public is largely irrelevant.
If a cashier at a Walmart did this bullshit to a belligerient customer, that cashier would likely be fired within the day. When a cop does it, we get excuses and justifications—especially from bootlickers like you.
At least Lostinlodos, for whatever I think of their opinions and such, legitimately has the testicular fortitude to stick around and defend their shit and have actual conversations.
Anything that has even the slightest possibility of being true and is against the clintons or bidens, (and the far left progressives), there’s little doubt I’m begging for it to be true. But I’ll wait for the evidence.
And in the meantime, you’ll treat it as true anyway because you have a (likely literal) hateboner for left-wing politicians and their associates. Which is largely what you’ve done here.
The truthfulness has yet to be proven or disproven.
You’re still leaning in the “this is absolutely proven” direction despite the lack of answers to several outstanding questions about the story. Anyone who was truly a skeptic would be questioning the veracity of the story up to the point where credible sources were saying “yes, this is legit”. Consider, then, how sources with that level of credibility didn’t pick up the Hunter Biden laptop story—and that a Post writer apparently didn’t consider the story credible enough to have his name attached to it.
If someone told me that Donald Trump planned the entirety of the January 6th insurrection, I’d want it to be true with every last atom of my entire carbon-based being. But without proof that could withstand close scrutiny, I wouldn’t treat that claim as true (or even plausible) despite how much I’d want it to be true. What makes you unable or unwilling to do the same with the Hunter Biden story?
President [B]iden has proven himself to work with terrorist governments in practice.
[citation needed that he has materially supported foreign terrorists while serving as POTUS]
My hold was always pissgate got 24-7 coverage and laptopgate was buried.
The Trump dossier had more credibility because of the sourcing and the contents. The alleged pisstape was an outlandish claim, to be sure—and even I doubt such a tape exists. But that was a single outlandish claim within a host of more plausible ones. Maybe the dossier was all complete bullshit, but it was at least plausible bullshit. (Though I should note that there was confirmation that at least some of the information in the dossier was legit.)
Compare that to the Biden laptop story. No other news outlet was given a copy of the hard drive or allowed to directly view its contents. The only people we know for sure had direct knowledge of those contents are Isaac and Giuliani, and their political bias is…known. No one has fully confirmed the authenticity of the contents of that drive, emails included. And meetings that the emails purport to have happened either didn’t happen or at least aren’t confirmed to have happened.
Given the credibility and plausibility of the two stories, even you could probably figure out why the dossier story got more play in mainstream press than the laptop story—and that’s before you get into how the pisstape claim was basically off-limits on many news networks and newspapers.
it doesn’t mean anything about the President in office today, easily the worst since carter
I don’t recall Joe Biden effectively sitting on his hands while a pandemic surged through the country and killed hundreds of thousands of people. I don’t remember Joe Biden telling a militant white nationalist group to “stand back and stand by” before an election he claimed would be “rigged” and “fraudulent”. I sure as shit can’t think of any moment when Joe Biden referred to a large group of violent white supremacists marching in defense of a Confederate statue as “very fine people”. And I definitely can’t recollect Joe Biden claiming to have a plan to replace the Affordable Care Act after repealing it but never showing off that plan to anyone.
But you know who did do all of that? Someone who, barring a major catastrophic event on the level of the COVID-19 pandemic, will always be a worse president than Joe Biden: Donald Trump.
Don’t get me wrong here, I think Biden is a centrist dickhead chump. He lacks the balls needed to throw some metaphorical elbows and get shit done. (That he hasn’t torn into Manchin and Sinema for their continued support of the filibuster is proof enough of that.) The only reason he got elected was to stop the bleeding that four years of Trump caused (and another four years of Trump would’ve worsened). But he is competent enough that I will take him over Old 45 every day of the week and thrice on Sundays.
Criticize Biden all you want; I could give a rat’s ass. But calling him the worst president in history when we had Donald Trump in the Oval Office—when we had a POTUS who literally believed Article II of the Constitution gave him the power to do basically anything he wanted without consequence—is, at best, the claim of a laughingstock of a human being.
My problem is who he chooses to play with.
I don’t suppose you had a problem with Trump playing lovey-dovey with dictators and fascists like Erdogan, Putin, and Kim Jong-Un, did you~.
All I saw was someone close to Biden having potential business ties with the terrorist government of Ukraine.
And that’s all it seemingly took for you to accept the story as genuine and objective fact. You apparently didn’t even bother asking questions about the veracity of the claims made by the story or its follow-ups.
When I said “you seem to accept right-wing propaganda with the same fervor and lack of thought as a Jonestown resident accepting a cup of Flavor-Aid”, that’s what I meant: You mindlessly swallow anything that criticizes left-wing politicians (or anyone associated with them) without actually asking questions about what you just swallowed until well after you’ve been “poisoned”. A GOP Senator could go on Meet the Press tomorrow morning and say “AOC campaigned for open borders, forced abortions, and internment camps for the unvaccinated at a 9/11 memorial speech yesterday” and you’d probably accept that as fact because they’re saying things you want to hear about a left-wing lawmaker.
I’ve no love for Republicans, but if I ever fuck up when talking about shit they’ve said and done, I’m willing to admit it and make sure I correct my thinking. But the only way I can do that is to admit that my thought process was fucked up—that I essentially jumped to a conclusion without thinking. You’ve done no such thing.
You aren’t capable of ‘just being correct’ are you?
Maybe I’d rather be thorough enough to question the thought process behind a talking point, whether it’s bullshit or legit, and dismantle it if it is bullshit. In doing so, maybe I can teach you to do the same, since you seem to accept right-wing propaganda with the same fervor and lack of thought as a Jonestown resident accepting a cup of Flavor-Aid. It also lets me sharpen my own thought processes, which is always a good thing.
Not as a hard rule, but several regular commenters (including myself) do take issue with someone who uses the sexual assault of others as a foundation for a joke.
What cop is going to do anything to any violent lunatic with a gun if it means he will suffer the insane hatred of cop haters[?]
The kind of cop trained to “do anything to any violent lunatic with a gun” by people who think cops should treat everyone on the street as a potential “enemy combatant” and the streets themselves as a war zone.
But highlighting hacker and clicking look up: the first thing people see is an illegal activity.
Irrelevant. “Hacking” as a word does not, in and of itself, denote an explicitly criminal act. Someone can “hack” their own computer to play around with settings they can’t access through normal means. Is that a crime?
This was abandoning, oh, what’s this, interesting…
And that’s part of the reason why Isaac couldn’t be defamed by Twitter: Through his own actions, he brought negative attention to himself.
Let’s grant that the Post identified him in a later story about the laptop, either directly or through a photo. He still fucked himself over by being the kind of person who doesn’t just “retrieve” data, but sifts through it as if he has that right. You can say “but the laptop was his property by then!” all you want; from where I sit, any computer tech who sifts through other people’s data like that is, for lack of a better term, a gigantic gaping asshole.
And that leaves open more questions about this story: How long was the period of time between when the laptop was dropped off and when the laptop became the default property of John Paul Mac Isaac? How long was the period of time between when the laptop became Isaac’s property and when Isaac sent the data off to Giuliani? When did Isaac first look at the data on the laptop—after it was first dropped off or after the laptop defaulted to his possession? If it took Isaac weeks or months instead of days or even hours to send Giuliani the data after first seeing it, what was the delay about?
Neither Giuliani nor Isaac seem capable of answering such questions. The Post didn’t seem to care, either.
A meme doesn’t have to be in the format you’re talking about. It can be a line from a movie or TV show—or even politicians—that’s been quoted often enough to be used as some form of cultural shorthand. It can be a facial expression that sums up an emotion or reaction better than words ever could. It could even be as simple as a metaphor or an allegory, because what are those if not units for transmitting cultural ideas, symbols, or practices from one mind to another?
Ever made a reference to a movie or song you liked while in the middle of a conversation, on- or offline? That’s technically a meme, since—per Wikipedia—“[a] meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices, that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme”. (That doesn’t refer to Internet memes specifically, but the concept still applies.)
I’m the last person who should be saying this to you, but seriously: Get a fucking life.
secret service logs don’t line up to other comments and records
[citation needed]
Post makes connection to shop by article.
The Post never claimed Isaac or his business hacked the data out of the laptop, nor did it even name him or his business in the article itself. The photo was the only direct link to him.
twitter->post->store twitter has connected the store, via the article, to hacked materials
It was a third-hand connection at best—and as the court ruled, it doesn’t amount to defamation.
I’d really like to understand your conclusions.
My conclusion that the story is bullshit is based on a whole bunch of questions about the plausibility of the story (and associated accusations about Hunter Biden’s alleged drug use at the time) that no one has yet answered to my satisfaction. If and when those questions are answered, I’ll consider the story in that light. Until then, it’s bullshit.
As for your stuff about the case talked about in the article:
Just because you don’t have to [accept “a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation”] doesn’t mean you shouldn’t
It also doesn’t mean you should do so as a default. If an allegation is bullshit, the legal conclusion underpinned by that allegation probably won’t hold up any better.
twitter took no steps to verify their internal claim as it extended to an award winning publication
[citation needed]
as with copyright and all other cases, this can [be] held and postponed for trial, not required at submission of cause
“Can be” doesn’t mean “should be”.
claiming the … article [contained] hacked materials they associated the source of the files as supplying hacked materials
Again, if you’ll note: Neither Twitter nor the Post directly named Isaac or his business as the source of the files or referred to either entity as a “hacker”. If you’re going to claim defamation, it would be a good idea to show the exact and specific statements that defamed you—and Isaac clearly couldn’t do that.
as above, the term hacked materials
“Hacking” doesn’t necessarily imply a crime has been committed. I could hack a password-protected ZIP file I made for which I lost the password; what crime will I have committed by doing so?
And to bring up a point you raised: If the statute of limitations for ownership had already expired and the laptop was technically owned by Isaac, what crime did he commit by “hacking” his own property?
we here have distrust and contempt
A person can have distrust and contempt for Isaac by virtue of his giving away sensitive personal information from a client’s computer to a political operative instead of proper authorities. That goes double for a political operative looking to use that data as a way to ratfuck a political rival—like, say, Rudy Giuliani trying to use the Hunter Biden story to ratfuck Joe Biden.
is clear when pared with 3
As mentioned: He put himself in harm’s way by giving away personal data from a(n alleged) customer to a political operative. “Hacker” or not, who the fuck is going to trust someone with their computer if that someone is looking to rifle through everyone’s data for the sake of somehow getting famous?
The named target was an article: The store, however, is shown. As such the association is already made.
But it isn’t a direct association—and in defamation law, that’s sort of a big deal.
twitter has declared the source to be illegal to the public
No, it didn’t. “Hacked” materials aren’t necessary “illegal” materials—and the “hacked” materials in question contained identifying personal information, which is why Twitter initially banned links to the story.
The article clearly associated the materials with the plaintiff.
I’m looking at the earliest archived version of the article on the Internet Archive, and I’m not seeing any reference to either Isaac or his shop by name. The only photos in the story are either of documents with blacked-out personally identifying information or Hunter Biden. That hasn’t changed, judging by a quick look at the article as it stands today.
A different, later article on the story reference Isaac by name, yes. And a later article may have had a photo of his shop; that, I can’t confirm. But the initial story didn’t (and still doesn’t) reference him or his business by name or photograph.
To qualify for fees the case needed to be without merit and the case clear[ly] does have merit
Not according to the court, given how it ruled in favor of Twitter on the SLAPP fees and dismissed the suit with prejudice.
My problem here is he uses references to Texas, California, etc rulings on SLAPP statutes to guide his own. And the specific application of discretion in one state has no concurrency in another location outside the state.
I see no issue with a judge referencing any relevant rulings from other jurisdictions as context for his own ruling, so long as they don’t claim those outside rulings are binding precedent within the specific jurisdiction of that judge.
You’re still making this political and looking at the whos.
You say that as if who’s involved isn’t important. It is—especially when their credibility is, at best, suspect.
Man recovers data from laptop abandoned at shop.
Man finds incriminating data.
Man sends data to somewhere
News company writes story.
Facebook blocks (relative links to the) story, explanation: hacked data policy.
Three things.
Twitter, not Facebook, was the company that blocked the link. Get the details correct if you expect me to take you seriously.
Isaac didn’t send the data to “somewhere”—he gave it to Rudy Giuliani, a known associate of Donald Trump.
The data in the emails was easily debunked as bullshit based on other publicly known data, so whatever was supposed to be so “incriminating”…wasn’t.
[Twitter] implied in the policy reason that the source of the story was a hack.
Even if I agree that it did: So what? It never once claimed that Isaac or his business were behind the “hack” that produced the data.
As for the second case, right or wrong, the judge’s ruling [reeks?] of politics, not case at hand.
And as soon as you point out the exact precise language in the ruling that brought you to that conclusion, I’ll be happy to discuss that with you. Until then: Fuck off with this point.
My wonder is if this would have been different if it wasn’t Biden.
Now who’s making this political~.
The point is that it’s still clearly possible.
Possible? Sure, I can agree to that. Plausible? The list of questions I have about this story—as well as the allegations made by other commenters about Hunter Biden being on crack when he allegedly dropped off the laptop that allegedy belongs to him—say otherwise. Until those questions are settled, I don’t see this story as anything but a story that was supposed to be a flaming October Surprise but ended up being a barely-warm bag of dogshit.
Recovering an email with free tools will usually dump the text from compressed file.
You’d think someone running a business dedicated to computer repair and data recovery would be using more advanced tools—including tools that can recover email metadata.
And this assumes he needed to recover the emails from a certain format that bungles the storage of email metadata. Nothing has yet proven that to be the case—assuming the emails are legit, anyway.
The longer we wait the less I believe the story.
That’s your problem. Everyone else saw through the bullshit already because they’re not stupid enough to take obvious bullshit on good faith and wait out some imaginary clock on when that good faith expires.
Look at the list of questions I asked about this story. Ask them to yourself. If you can’t answer them with any level of satisfaction, ask yourself one more question: “Why am I willing to believe this story?”
Your willingness to believe bullshit so blatant that no one at the Post was willing to put their name on the byline for it probably has more to do with your Trumpist beliefs than you might think. I mean, if you’re willing to dismiss actual criticisms of Trump but jump all over implausible stories about Biden and his family as if they’re 100% true, you’re probably wanting to have your biases confirmed more than anything. Lucky for you, I’m not here to kiss your bias.
Hell, part of the reason sites and services like Twitter even have moderation practices is to prevent the heckler’s veto from drowning out marginalized voices.
Maybe I am, maybe I’m not. That makes no difference as to whether your particular offering is a failure.
And given everything you’ve told us about yourself over the years, Meshpage is most certainly a failure of both technology and marketing. I mean, who the fuck would ever want to use a piece of software that does only and specifically what its designer wants people to do with it, is upkept by someone who is actively hostile towards the rest of humanity, will never be changed by that developer based on genuine good-faith criticism, and has no clear superiority in either features or output when compared to other contemporary software of its kind?
Your software is less than a joke, because at least jokes are funny. You’ve spent years dedicating yourself to the Sisyphean task of making something that can outperform Blender—a task which, as the adjective implies, you have continuously failed at achieving in every aspect except the one you claim is the absolute most important. Literally no one would ever want to use software that is so limiting in its functionality that even a single accidental instance of copyright infringement would be enough to make that software—and its developer—treat a user like a convicted criminal who deserves no less than life in prison for daring to violate the Holy Sacred Testament that is copyright law. And that’s even before we get to how every other piece of software in that field outperforms yours in every way that matters (to other people [who aren’t you {thank God}]).
I wouldn’t be this harsh on you if you treated Meshpage like a hobby or side project—a curiosity to be played with every once in a while. But you act like it will sincerely and seriously change the world of 3D rendering software forever if you could just make people use it. Your hubris, your ego, your religious worship of copyright, and your outright contempt for every one of the seven billion people on this planet who aren’t you compel me to do this shit. Trust me, I don’t want to be doing this shit. But since I am…
Meshpage is a failure; always has been, always will be. You may not be as big a joke as I am, but you’re definitely close to it. Your fervent devotion to copyright as a law above both Man’s Law and God’s Law is disturbing even to someone who regularly witnesses the inanity of copyright maximalists. Please go outside and touch grass for about a year—and trust me when I say that if I need to do that (and I do!), you need it worse.
On the post: Nintendo Shuts Down Another 'Smash' Tournament Due To Mod Use, With No Piracy As A Concern
You have no power here.
On the post: Officer Claims Sheriff's Office Told Him To Play Copyrighted Music To Shut Down Citizens' Recordings
We expect the police to hold themselves to a higher standard of behavior than John or Joan Q. Public. Cops aren’t supposed to be a bunch of thin-skinned assholes. When they are, the behavior of the public is largely irrelevant.
If a cashier at a Walmart did this bullshit to a belligerient customer, that cashier would likely be fired within the day. When a cop does it, we get excuses and justifications—especially from bootlickers like you.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Well, there’s also Koby and restless.
At least Lostinlodos, for whatever I think of their opinions and such, legitimately has the testicular fortitude to stick around and defend their shit and have actual conversations.
On the post: Computer Repair Shop Owner Has To Pay Twitter's Legal Fees Over Bogus SLAPP Suit Regarding Hunter Biden's Laptop
And in the meantime, you’ll treat it as true anyway because you have a (likely literal) hateboner for left-wing politicians and their associates. Which is largely what you’ve done here.
You’re still leaning in the “this is absolutely proven” direction despite the lack of answers to several outstanding questions about the story. Anyone who was truly a skeptic would be questioning the veracity of the story up to the point where credible sources were saying “yes, this is legit”. Consider, then, how sources with that level of credibility didn’t pick up the Hunter Biden laptop story—and that a Post writer apparently didn’t consider the story credible enough to have his name attached to it.
If someone told me that Donald Trump planned the entirety of the January 6th insurrection, I’d want it to be true with every last atom of my entire carbon-based being. But without proof that could withstand close scrutiny, I wouldn’t treat that claim as true (or even plausible) despite how much I’d want it to be true. What makes you unable or unwilling to do the same with the Hunter Biden story?
[citation needed that he has materially supported foreign terrorists while serving as POTUS]
The Trump dossier had more credibility because of the sourcing and the contents. The alleged pisstape was an outlandish claim, to be sure—and even I doubt such a tape exists. But that was a single outlandish claim within a host of more plausible ones. Maybe the dossier was all complete bullshit, but it was at least plausible bullshit. (Though I should note that there was confirmation that at least some of the information in the dossier was legit.)
Compare that to the Biden laptop story. No other news outlet was given a copy of the hard drive or allowed to directly view its contents. The only people we know for sure had direct knowledge of those contents are Isaac and Giuliani, and their political bias is…known. No one has fully confirmed the authenticity of the contents of that drive, emails included. And meetings that the emails purport to have happened either didn’t happen or at least aren’t confirmed to have happened.
Given the credibility and plausibility of the two stories, even you could probably figure out why the dossier story got more play in mainstream press than the laptop story—and that’s before you get into how the pisstape claim was basically off-limits on many news networks and newspapers.
I don’t recall Joe Biden effectively sitting on his hands while a pandemic surged through the country and killed hundreds of thousands of people. I don’t remember Joe Biden telling a militant white nationalist group to “stand back and stand by” before an election he claimed would be “rigged” and “fraudulent”. I sure as shit can’t think of any moment when Joe Biden referred to a large group of violent white supremacists marching in defense of a Confederate statue as “very fine people”. And I definitely can’t recollect Joe Biden claiming to have a plan to replace the Affordable Care Act after repealing it but never showing off that plan to anyone.
But you know who did do all of that? Someone who, barring a major catastrophic event on the level of the COVID-19 pandemic, will always be a worse president than Joe Biden: Donald Trump.
Don’t get me wrong here, I think Biden is a centrist dickhead chump. He lacks the balls needed to throw some metaphorical elbows and get shit done. (That he hasn’t torn into Manchin and Sinema for their continued support of the filibuster is proof enough of that.) The only reason he got elected was to stop the bleeding that four years of Trump caused (and another four years of Trump would’ve worsened). But he is competent enough that I will take him over Old 45 every day of the week and thrice on Sundays.
Criticize Biden all you want; I could give a rat’s ass. But calling him the worst president in history when we had Donald Trump in the Oval Office—when we had a POTUS who literally believed Article II of the Constitution gave him the power to do basically anything he wanted without consequence—is, at best, the claim of a laughingstock of a human being.
I don’t suppose you had a problem with Trump playing lovey-dovey with dictators and fascists like Erdogan, Putin, and Kim Jong-Un, did you~.
On the post: Computer Repair Shop Owner Has To Pay Twitter's Legal Fees Over Bogus SLAPP Suit Regarding Hunter Biden's Laptop
And that’s all it seemingly took for you to accept the story as genuine and objective fact. You apparently didn’t even bother asking questions about the veracity of the claims made by the story or its follow-ups.
When I said “you seem to accept right-wing propaganda with the same fervor and lack of thought as a Jonestown resident accepting a cup of Flavor-Aid”, that’s what I meant: You mindlessly swallow anything that criticizes left-wing politicians (or anyone associated with them) without actually asking questions about what you just swallowed until well after you’ve been “poisoned”. A GOP Senator could go on Meet the Press tomorrow morning and say “AOC campaigned for open borders, forced abortions, and internment camps for the unvaccinated at a 9/11 memorial speech yesterday” and you’d probably accept that as fact because they’re saying things you want to hear about a left-wing lawmaker.
I’ve no love for Republicans, but if I ever fuck up when talking about shit they’ve said and done, I’m willing to admit it and make sure I correct my thinking. But the only way I can do that is to admit that my thought process was fucked up—that I essentially jumped to a conclusion without thinking. You’ve done no such thing.
Re-read the list of questions I have about the Hunter Biden laptop story—including the ones I added a few comments above this one. If you can’t answer those questions, but you can still believe the story is plausible despite the lack of answers to those questions, I would love to know how you keep that cognitive dissonance intact.
On the post: Computer Repair Shop Owner Has To Pay Twitter's Legal Fees Over Bogus SLAPP Suit Regarding Hunter Biden's Laptop
Maybe I’d rather be thorough enough to question the thought process behind a talking point, whether it’s bullshit or legit, and dismantle it if it is bullshit. In doing so, maybe I can teach you to do the same, since you seem to accept right-wing propaganda with the same fervor and lack of thought as a Jonestown resident accepting a cup of Flavor-Aid. It also lets me sharpen my own thought processes, which is always a good thing.
On the post: Cop Who Killed A Suicidal Man Less Than 11 Seconds After Entering His House Convicted Of Murder
Not as a hard rule, but several regular commenters (including myself) do take issue with someone who uses the sexual assault of others as a foundation for a joke.
On the post: Cop Who Killed A Suicidal Man Less Than 11 Seconds After Entering His House Convicted Of Murder
The kind of cop trained to “do anything to any violent lunatic with a gun” by people who think cops should treat everyone on the street as a potential “enemy combatant” and the streets themselves as a war zone.
On the post: Computer Repair Shop Owner Has To Pay Twitter's Legal Fees Over Bogus SLAPP Suit Regarding Hunter Biden's Laptop
Irrelevant. “Hacking” as a word does not, in and of itself, denote an explicitly criminal act. Someone can “hack” their own computer to play around with settings they can’t access through normal means. Is that a crime?
And that’s part of the reason why Isaac couldn’t be defamed by Twitter: Through his own actions, he brought negative attention to himself.
Let’s grant that the Post identified him in a later story about the laptop, either directly or through a photo. He still fucked himself over by being the kind of person who doesn’t just “retrieve” data, but sifts through it as if he has that right. You can say “but the laptop was his property by then!” all you want; from where I sit, any computer tech who sifts through other people’s data like that is, for lack of a better term, a gigantic gaping asshole.
And that leaves open more questions about this story: How long was the period of time between when the laptop was dropped off and when the laptop became the default property of John Paul Mac Isaac? How long was the period of time between when the laptop became Isaac’s property and when Isaac sent the data off to Giuliani? When did Isaac first look at the data on the laptop—after it was first dropped off or after the laptop defaulted to his possession? If it took Isaac weeks or months instead of days or even hours to send Giuliani the data after first seeing it, what was the delay about?
Neither Giuliani nor Isaac seem capable of answering such questions. The Post didn’t seem to care, either.
On the post: Computer Repair Shop Owner Has To Pay Twitter's Legal Fees Over Bogus SLAPP Suit Regarding Hunter Biden's Laptop
A meme doesn’t have to be in the format you’re talking about. It can be a line from a movie or TV show—or even politicians—that’s been quoted often enough to be used as some form of cultural shorthand. It can be a facial expression that sums up an emotion or reaction better than words ever could. It could even be as simple as a metaphor or an allegory, because what are those if not units for transmitting cultural ideas, symbols, or practices from one mind to another?
Like I said: Get a fucking life.
On the post: Computer Repair Shop Owner Has To Pay Twitter's Legal Fees Over Bogus SLAPP Suit Regarding Hunter Biden's Laptop
Ever made a reference to a movie or song you liked while in the middle of a conversation, on- or offline? That’s technically a meme, since—per Wikipedia—“[a] meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices, that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme”. (That doesn’t refer to Internet memes specifically, but the concept still applies.)
I’m the last person who should be saying this to you, but seriously: Get a fucking life.
On the post: Computer Repair Shop Owner Has To Pay Twitter's Legal Fees Over Bogus SLAPP Suit Regarding Hunter Biden's Laptop
[citation needed]
The Post never claimed Isaac or his business hacked the data out of the laptop, nor did it even name him or his business in the article itself. The photo was the only direct link to him.
It was a third-hand connection at best—and as the court ruled, it doesn’t amount to defamation.
My conclusion that the story is bullshit is based on a whole bunch of questions about the plausibility of the story (and associated accusations about Hunter Biden’s alleged drug use at the time) that no one has yet answered to my satisfaction. If and when those questions are answered, I’ll consider the story in that light. Until then, it’s bullshit.
As for your stuff about the case talked about in the article:
It also doesn’t mean you should do so as a default. If an allegation is bullshit, the legal conclusion underpinned by that allegation probably won’t hold up any better.
[citation needed]
“Can be” doesn’t mean “should be”.
Again, if you’ll note: Neither Twitter nor the Post directly named Isaac or his business as the source of the files or referred to either entity as a “hacker”. If you’re going to claim defamation, it would be a good idea to show the exact and specific statements that defamed you—and Isaac clearly couldn’t do that.
“Hacking” doesn’t necessarily imply a crime has been committed. I could hack a password-protected ZIP file I made for which I lost the password; what crime will I have committed by doing so?
And to bring up a point you raised: If the statute of limitations for ownership had already expired and the laptop was technically owned by Isaac, what crime did he commit by “hacking” his own property?
A person can have distrust and contempt for Isaac by virtue of his giving away sensitive personal information from a client’s computer to a political operative instead of proper authorities. That goes double for a political operative looking to use that data as a way to ratfuck a political rival—like, say, Rudy Giuliani trying to use the Hunter Biden story to ratfuck Joe Biden.
As mentioned: He put himself in harm’s way by giving away personal data from a(n alleged) customer to a political operative. “Hacker” or not, who the fuck is going to trust someone with their computer if that someone is looking to rifle through everyone’s data for the sake of somehow getting famous?
But it isn’t a direct association—and in defamation law, that’s sort of a big deal.
No, it didn’t. “Hacked” materials aren’t necessary “illegal” materials—and the “hacked” materials in question contained identifying personal information, which is why Twitter initially banned links to the story.
I’m looking at the earliest archived version of the article on the Internet Archive, and I’m not seeing any reference to either Isaac or his shop by name. The only photos in the story are either of documents with blacked-out personally identifying information or Hunter Biden. That hasn’t changed, judging by a quick look at the article as it stands today.
A different, later article on the story reference Isaac by name, yes. And a later article may have had a photo of his shop; that, I can’t confirm. But the initial story didn’t (and still doesn’t) reference him or his business by name or photograph.
Not according to the court, given how it ruled in favor of Twitter on the SLAPP fees and dismissed the suit with prejudice.
I see no issue with a judge referencing any relevant rulings from other jurisdictions as context for his own ruling, so long as they don’t claim those outside rulings are binding precedent within the specific jurisdiction of that judge.
On the post: Computer Repair Shop Owner Has To Pay Twitter's Legal Fees Over Bogus SLAPP Suit Regarding Hunter Biden's Laptop
You need to either watch more movies or learn more memes.
On the post: Computer Repair Shop Owner Has To Pay Twitter's Legal Fees Over Bogus SLAPP Suit Regarding Hunter Biden's Laptop
Re: Re:
You say that as if who’s involved isn’t important. It is—especially when their credibility is, at best, suspect.
Three things.
Twitter, not Facebook, was the company that blocked the link. Get the details correct if you expect me to take you seriously.
Isaac didn’t send the data to “somewhere”—he gave it to Rudy Giuliani, a known associate of Donald Trump.
Even if I agree that it did: So what? It never once claimed that Isaac or his business were behind the “hack” that produced the data.
And as soon as you point out the exact precise language in the ruling that brought you to that conclusion, I’ll be happy to discuss that with you. Until then: Fuck off with this point.
Now who’s making this political~.
Possible? Sure, I can agree to that. Plausible? The list of questions I have about this story—as well as the allegations made by other commenters about Hunter Biden being on crack when he allegedly dropped off the laptop that allegedy belongs to him—say otherwise. Until those questions are settled, I don’t see this story as anything but a story that was supposed to be a flaming October Surprise but ended up being a barely-warm bag of dogshit.
You’d think someone running a business dedicated to computer repair and data recovery would be using more advanced tools—including tools that can recover email metadata.
And this assumes he needed to recover the emails from a certain format that bungles the storage of email metadata. Nothing has yet proven that to be the case—assuming the emails are legit, anyway.
That’s your problem. Everyone else saw through the bullshit already because they’re not stupid enough to take obvious bullshit on good faith and wait out some imaginary clock on when that good faith expires.
Look at the list of questions I asked about this story. Ask them to yourself. If you can’t answer them with any level of satisfaction, ask yourself one more question: “Why am I willing to believe this story?”
Your willingness to believe bullshit so blatant that no one at the Post was willing to put their name on the byline for it probably has more to do with your Trumpist beliefs than you might think. I mean, if you’re willing to dismiss actual criticisms of Trump but jump all over implausible stories about Biden and his family as if they’re 100% true, you’re probably wanting to have your biases confirmed more than anything. Lucky for you, I’m not here to kiss your bias.
On the post: Brazilian President Bans Social Media Companies From Removing Disinformation & Abuse
Hell, part of the reason sites and services like Twitter even have moderation practices is to prevent the heckler’s veto from drowning out marginalized voices.
On the post: Nintendo Shuts Down Another 'Smash' Tournament Due To Mod Use, With No Piracy As A Concern
Maybe I am, maybe I’m not. That makes no difference as to whether your particular offering is a failure.
And given everything you’ve told us about yourself over the years, Meshpage is most certainly a failure of both technology and marketing. I mean, who the fuck would ever want to use a piece of software that does only and specifically what its designer wants people to do with it, is upkept by someone who is actively hostile towards the rest of humanity, will never be changed by that developer based on genuine good-faith criticism, and has no clear superiority in either features or output when compared to other contemporary software of its kind?
Your software is less than a joke, because at least jokes are funny. You’ve spent years dedicating yourself to the Sisyphean task of making something that can outperform Blender—a task which, as the adjective implies, you have continuously failed at achieving in every aspect except the one you claim is the absolute most important. Literally no one would ever want to use software that is so limiting in its functionality that even a single accidental instance of copyright infringement would be enough to make that software—and its developer—treat a user like a convicted criminal who deserves no less than life in prison for daring to violate the Holy Sacred Testament that is copyright law. And that’s even before we get to how every other piece of software in that field outperforms yours in every way that matters (to other people [who aren’t you {thank God}]).
I wouldn’t be this harsh on you if you treated Meshpage like a hobby or side project—a curiosity to be played with every once in a while. But you act like it will sincerely and seriously change the world of 3D rendering software forever if you could just make people use it. Your hubris, your ego, your religious worship of copyright, and your outright contempt for every one of the seven billion people on this planet who aren’t you compel me to do this shit. Trust me, I don’t want to be doing this shit. But since I am…
Meshpage is a failure; always has been, always will be. You may not be as big a joke as I am, but you’re definitely close to it. Your fervent devotion to copyright as a law above both Man’s Law and God’s Law is disturbing even to someone who regularly witnesses the inanity of copyright maximalists. Please go outside and touch grass for about a year—and trust me when I say that if I need to do that (and I do!), you need it worse.
On the post: Police Department Caught Falsifying Evidence Logs Used In Trial Of PD Employee Who Was Caught Falsifying Evidence Logs
Crimeception
On the post: Another Mod War: Jagex Demands Shutdown Of HD RuneScape Mod, Retracts After Public Backlash
Lawyers.
On the post: Body Cam Video Shows Cop Killing A Harmless Dog Within 15 Seconds Of Arriving At The Scene
Not that I disagree with your point, but you may want to read the room.
On the post: Body Cam Video Shows Cop Killing A Harmless Dog Within 15 Seconds Of Arriving At The Scene
Sometimes, I only have one word to describe my feelings about bullshit like this:
Motherfucker.
Next >>