Matching GSB27 and JamesDD Language
The problem with the "defense" is that they never substantially addressed the issue: Why were their computers connected to the same IP?
One of them openly admitted to sharing a computer. But the profiles did not show matching cities. They were more than 300 miles apart.
The problem with the "defense" is that they never substantially addressed the issue: Why were their computers connected to the same IP?
One of them openly admitted to sharing a computer. But the profiles did not show matching cities. They were more than 300 miles apart.
The problem with the "defense" is that they never substantially addressed the issue: Why were their computers connected to the same IP?
One of them openly admitted to sharing a computer. But the profiles did not show matching cities. They were more than 300 miles apart.
testing -
Is there any connection to known gwb43 entities and the use of kraken ?
Its my belief that there may very well be employees of gwb43 entities impersonating various posters on our tpm thread -
The similarities between syntax , tone , and indignation of certain posters here really gives me pause to consider who really lurks on this thread ,,,
How do these bots end up on people's computers in the first place?
Why do I get the idea it's because of those "Free Screensavers" advertised on certain news websites?
All, please be aware that this is kind of silly.
Posted by hereSomeone has two different standards on whether or not public issues can or cannot be discussed. They also have two different standards on how adverse inferences can or cannot be reviewed or debated.
They also have a double standard on whether one group can or cannot have adverse inferences; and, despite their claim of an "unreasonable" adverse inferences, they're defensive about something that -- in their view -- should not be reasonably concluded.
Here's what this discussion thread is about:
Neutral observation "It rare to have two different people repeat the same string of words, especially when they are independent."
Reason for information: "This is presented for your discussion"
Ideally, we should be focusing on the language; and whether the common language does or doesn't tell us something. That's a debatable point, not a premise or an accusation.
The purpose of this discussion is because something is unclear. Contrast that with the response, which starts with the opposite assumption: That something is or isn't certain; and that "certainty" is or isn't the same as some other (unspecified) claim.
The interesting thing about the following comment, is you'll note nobody in this comment accused either of the posters of being the same person. Why are they being defensive about something which was never stated?
Unrelated: "You know that I am not GSB27, yet still continue to recycle this attack every so often in some sort of attention getting move."
The issue isn't whether two people are or are not the same; but whether there is a reasonable explanation why we should believe the claim that they are independent when their language substantially matches.
- How does something that is unclear prompt a very specific denial?
- Why is someone distracting attention from the question about the common language to a specific denial about the identity?
- What is the basis for your saying someone "knows" anything? This is the only argument you've provided to address this (irrelevant) issue.
The only statement was: Let's discuss this common language. That hasn't been discussed:
- What are people's views of "two different" people using the same language?
- Where is GSB27 in commenting on these issues?
- What is your view about someone getting defensive about a point that wasn't raised?
Consider the issue: We're starting from a general observation linked with uncertainty; but the response is as if there was something specific. Yet, some have argued that it is impossible to link the President -- through indirect information -- with a specific legal action.
Notice the contradiction: In the example above, someone starts with a vague statement; then becomes defensive about something never raised; yet, would ask that we not do the same when analyzing the link between the President and the Wecht Jury.
By their own actions, it's clear:
A. Once someone starts with a set of facts, however unrelated they are, it is possible to make conclusions about whether those facts are or are not linked to a specific person;
B. They would have us embrace two standards: One that says there can be no link between the President and Wecht Jury tampering; but, despite no open statement of any link between the two commenters, they've defended something which, using the President-Wecht example cannot be done.
C. They have two different standards on whether adverse inferences can or cannot be made. If the President is involved, their view is that it is impossible to make any adverse inference. However, if they might be related, they jump to conclusions, become defensive, and do the very thing they say others are not allowed to do: Jumpe to an adverse conclusion, refute that conclusion, then go on the attack.
This has not been supported:
"You just can't stop with your craziness."
A reasonable statement would be linked with something that is specific, not a generalized assertion. Whether there is or isn't an argument is a separate matter.
This isn't an argument.
Posted by testingThis is a comment that doesn't address the topic:
Unrelated: "I swear you probably wake up each morning and feel their [stet, "there"] is some sort of conspiracy in how your oatmeal reacts to water."
The two have jointly or separately mentioned the word at least 73 times on TPM.
- Is it a problem when someone keeps raising an "issue about" something, but they don't specifically address any examples; or discuss the issue?
- Why do some have an issue with time?
This is an example of being defensive about something never raised:
"Now you are recycling this attack."
This is an example of someone recycling something. This is another example of someone recycling.
There's been no textual evidence provided to show that there was an accusation; nor that there was a recycling of anything.
It is not reasonable for someone to get defensive about something never raised. If there is no issue, there is a question why someone is getting defensive about something which was never raised.
It is a debatable point for TPMM to review why someone might have an interest in distracting attention from the common language.
It is important to notice when people have two different definitions of whether something is or isn't an acceptable repetition.
- What is their definition of what is an 'acceptable' vs 'not acceptable' recycle?
- Why do they have the option to repeat phrases; but then claim, without proof, others are repeating things?
Posted by testingThis misses the point: It's the matching phrase on TPM, which is not repeated anywhere else:
"Oh my god, I used a phrase from the english language that someone else utilized. Wow, must be some huge government conspiracy."
Your word has been used 73 times. This is your issue. The problem is your profiles are different; and one of them claimed to be 340 miles apart; yet they shared a computer. Someone lied.
Here is the original accusation by virginia/testing a few months back:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/jamesdd-ip-number-linked-with.php
The link takes you to a posting where she made a similar attack. It is unfortunate that she appears to be running away from her slander and attempting to divert.
Simple put, FUCK OFF BITCH. Did you get that virginia?? FUCK OFF.
I've had enough of your stupid little petty idiotic rants. Go ahead and continue to post your lunancy, but keep me the fuck out of it. Did you get that on the fucked up planet you are on or are you that fucking warped you can't comprehend??
Oh, go ahead and cut this comment apart as you have in the past. You are only proving the point that you are crazy and appear to be grasping at fringe theories.
Also, anyone interested, please feel free to review the history of my comments to this asswipe. For months she has posted crazed unfounded theories on the Wecht case. When told she was incorrect and pointed to factual documents, she has attempted to divert.
Simple put, she is a egotistically a-hole that appears only to be centered in her own agenda.
Review how she treats divergent viewpoints and facts and you will see a pattern of a deranged a-hole known as testing....oh I'm sorry virginia.
The latest absurd theory is once again laughable. Yeah, I am running a kraken with a unicorn while chilling with a yetti. Give it a rest and please FUCK OFF.
This will be my last word on your pathetic postings.
Posted by JamesDDYou've provided no information to justify belief that anyone has met this legal standard. Surely, if there as proof of defamation, then TPM would have banned someone:
Denied: "Also, please do not ask for someone to cease and desist from posting on your articles if you plan to then turn around and attempt to defame them with smears."
Or is it your contention that TPM has a commenting policy which it doesn't enforce?
"Attempt to defame" is not a cause of action; and your shifting, inconsistent position has been discussed.
This topic is about matching language, not copyright issues. This is not something you can enforce:
Do not repost my comments without my permission.
Copyright laws include fair use and other exceptions. Once you post the comments on TPM, you no longer control how they are used. That is a judicial matter, one which TPM appears not interested in adequately enforcing.
If you have a concern with what is being said about your comments, those need to be addressed there, on those platforms where the content is posted, and attempt to resolve your concerns. You have not shown an interested in civil discussion to resolve any issue.
You cannot control how others do or do not use your comments for purposes of evidence collection, investigations, and other inquiry.
There is another problem:
Failure to deny "I recently received this computer from a friend and he turned me onto the site since it talks about a case we have both followed." From
You did not deny that your computer was shared; rather you confirmed the information.
- What about the "other" computer that you've used?
Comments (17)
There is a problem with Kraken on the computer used to access TPM. It's reporting as an infected IP. Someone or a group has been using the IP in conjunction with a bot.
Virginia/Testing,
You just can't stop with your craziness. I swear you probably wake up each morning and feel their is some sort of conspiracy in how your oatmeal reacts to water.
Now you are recycling this attack. As stated before, I am not GSB27. We went through this process months ago, yet now you appear to have short term memory loss.
You know that I am not GSB27, yet still continue to recycle this attack every so often in some sort of attention getting move. Oh my god, I used a phrase from the english language that someone else utilized. Wow, must be some huge government conspiracy.
I look forward to your next pseudo conspiracy ridden posting linking the Wecht prosecution to every wrong in the world. Your postings have simple become nothing more than
a noun + a verb + Wecht Prosecution + Geneva
Also, please do not ask for someone to cease and desist from posting on your articles if you plan to then turn around and attempt to defame them with smears. Simply put - FUCK OFF BITCH.
Is that clear enough for you Virginia??? Oh, I'm sorry I should have used your TPM alias known as testing.
testing -
Is there any connection to known gwb43 entities and the use of kraken ?
Its my belief that there may very well be employees of gwb43 entities impersonating various posters on our tpm thread -
The similarities between syntax , tone , and indignation of certain posters here really gives me pause to consider who really lurks on this thread ,,,
How do these bots end up on people's computers in the first place?
Why do I get the idea it's because of those "Free Screensavers" advertised on certain news websites?
Someone has two different standards on whether or not public issues can or cannot be discussed. They also have two different standards on how adverse inferences can or cannot be reviewed or debated.
They also have a double standard on whether one group can or cannot have adverse inferences; and, despite their claim of an "unreasonable" adverse inferences, they're defensive about something that -- in their view -- should not be reasonably concluded.
Here's what this discussion thread is about:
Neutral observation "It rare to have two different people repeat the same string of words, especially when they are independent."
Reason for information: "This is presented for your discussion"
Ideally, we should be focusing on the language; and whether the common language does or doesn't tell us something. That's a debatable point, not a premise or an accusation.
The purpose of this discussion is because something is unclear. Contrast that with the response, which starts with the opposite assumption: That something is or isn't certain; and that "certainty" is or isn't the same as some other (unspecified) claim.
The interesting thing about the following comment, is you'll note nobody in this comment accused either of the posters of being the same person. Why are they being defensive about something which was never stated?
Unrelated: "You know that I am not GSB27, yet still continue to recycle this attack every so often in some sort of attention getting move."
The issue isn't whether two people are or are not the same; but whether there is a reasonable explanation why we should believe the claim that they are independent when their language substantially matches.
- How does something that is unclear prompt a very specific denial?
- Why is someone distracting attention from the question about the common language to a specific denial about the identity?
- What is the basis for your saying someone "knows" anything? This is the only argument you've provided to address this (irrelevant) issue.
The only statement was: Let's discuss this common language. That hasn't been discussed:
- What are people's views of "two different" people using the same language?
- Where is GSB27 in commenting on these issues?
- What is your view about someone getting defensive about a point that wasn't raised?
Consider the issue: We're starting from a general observation linked with uncertainty; but the response is as if there was something specific. Yet, some have argued that it is impossible to link the President -- through indirect information -- with a specific legal action.
Notice the contradiction: In the example above, someone starts with a vague statement; then becomes defensive about something never raised; yet, would ask that we not do the same when analyzing the link between the President and the Wecht Jury.
By their own actions, it's clear:
A. Once someone starts with a set of facts, however unrelated they are, it is possible to make conclusions about whether those facts are or are not linked to a specific person;
B. They would have us embrace two standards: One that says there can be no link between the President and Wecht Jury tampering; but, despite no open statement of any link between the two commenters, they've defended something which, using the President-Wecht example cannot be done.
C. They have two different standards on whether adverse inferences can or cannot be made. If the President is involved, their view is that it is impossible to make any adverse inference. However, if they might be related, they jump to conclusions, become defensive, and do the very thing they say others are not allowed to do: Jumpe to an adverse conclusion, refute that conclusion, then go on the attack.
This is a comment that doesn't address the topic:
Unrelated: "I swear you probably wake up each morning and feel their [stet, "there"] is some sort of conspiracy in how your oatmeal reacts to water."
The two have jointly or separately mentioned the word at least 73 times on TPM.
- Is it a problem when someone keeps raising an "issue about" something, but they don't specifically address any examples; or discuss the issue?
- Why do some have an issue with time?
This is an example of being defensive about something never raised:
"Now you are recycling this attack."
This is an example of someone recycling something. This is another example of someone recycling.
There's been no textual evidence provided to show that there was an accusation; nor that there was a recycling of anything.
It is not reasonable for someone to get defensive about something never raised. If there is no issue, there is a question why someone is getting defensive about something which was never raised.
It is a debatable point for TPMM to review why someone might have an interest in distracting attention from the common language.
It is important to notice when people have two different definitions of whether something is or isn't an acceptable repetition.
- What is their definition of what is an 'acceptable' vs 'not acceptable' recycle?
- Why do they have the option to repeat phrases; but then claim, without proof, others are repeating things?
This misses the point: It's the matching phrase on TPM, which is not repeated anywhere else:
"Oh my god, I used a phrase from the english language that someone else utilized. Wow, must be some huge government conspiracy."
Your word has been used 73 times. This is your issue. The problem is your profiles are different; and one of them claimed to be 340 miles apart; yet they shared a computer. Someone lied.
Here is the original accusation by virginia/testing a few months back:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/jamesdd-ip-number-linked-with.php
The link takes you to a posting where she made a similar attack. It is unfortunate that she appears to be running away from her slander and attempting to divert.
Simple put, FUCK OFF BITCH. Did you get that virginia?? FUCK OFF.
I've had enough of your stupid little petty idiotic rants. Go ahead and continue to post your lunancy, but keep me the fuck out of it. Did you get that on the fucked up planet you are on or are you that fucking warped you can't comprehend??
Oh, go ahead and cut this comment apart as you have in the past. You are only proving the point that you are crazy and appear to be grasping at fringe theories.
Also, anyone interested, please feel free to review the history of my comments to this asswipe. For months she has posted crazed unfounded theories on the Wecht case. When told she was incorrect and pointed to factual documents, she has attempted to divert.
Simple put, she is a egotistically a-hole that appears only to be centered in her own agenda.
Review how she treats divergent viewpoints and facts and you will see a pattern of a deranged a-hole known as testing....oh I'm sorry virginia.
The latest absurd theory is once again laughable. Yeah, I am running a kraken with a unicorn while chilling with a yetti. Give it a rest and please FUCK OFF.
This will be my last word on your pathetic postings.
You've provided no information to justify belief that anyone has met this legal standard. Surely, if there as proof of defamation, then TPM would have banned someone:
Denied: "Also, please do not ask for someone to cease and desist from posting on your articles if you plan to then turn around and attempt to defame them with smears."
Or is it your contention that TPM has a commenting policy which it doesn't enforce?
"Attempt to defame" is not a cause of action; and your shifting, inconsistent position has been discussed.
This topic is about matching language, not copyright issues. This is not something you can enforce:
Do not repost my comments without my permission.
Copyright laws include fair use and other exceptions. Once you post the comments on TPM, you no longer control how they are used. That is a judicial matter, one which TPM appears not interested in adequately enforcing.
If you have a concern with what is being said about your comments, those need to be addressed there, on those platforms where the content is posted, and attempt to resolve your concerns. You have not shown an interested in civil discussion to resolve any issue.
You cannot control how others do or do not use your comments for purposes of evidence collection, investigations, and other inquiry.
There is another problem:
Failure to deny "I recently received this computer from a friend and he turned me onto the site since it talks about a case we have both followed." From
You did not deny that your computer was shared; rather you confirmed the information.
- What about the "other" computer that you've used?
