Heh.
Boy, do you look stupid in this little dustup.
If you "wanted" your readers to "simply mumble 'in the Salon post'" then would it no behoove you to state that?
Anyone reading Greenwald's original post would comprehend that the original, unedited e-mail was available, since his post explicitly state that.
Anyone reading your post would conclude that Greenwald deliberately excluded certain portions of the e-mail. ("The parts that Greenwald chose not to publish..." I know, I know, mumble "in the Salon post....)
I guess you "conservatives" just got used to being lied to, after all the years of the Bush administration, eh? The whole "lying" thing kinda becomes a way of life, eh?
That, at least, explains why you would deliberately lie to your own readers.
Oh.My.God. You must be a sad, lonely, depressed person. Stop right now and get help. It may be too late. You're only making more of a fool of yourself.
Must. Stop. Digging. Deeper. But. Can't.
bwahhahaha!
while knowing that most of his readers would never bother to follow the external link to the full email.
Damn that wiley neocon Greenwald, taking advantage of his lefty readers' softheadedness! He's clearly trying to goad them into a frenzy of self-defeating DPB-hate.
Or perhaps the neocon Greenwald robot is controlled by none other than GOERGE SOROS! MAKE CENTS DONUT!
Ummm... who is moving the goalposts?
I do wish everyone would stop trying to make Diggy McDig stop digging. It's the most fun I've had since watching Stalkin' Malkin's latest meltdown. I mean, our boy is seriously gifted in backtracking, this is some real talent we're witnessing.
Here's yer shovel, Bluto!! Tell us more about your wily ways, your dangerous game of GOTCHA! with Glenn Greenwald! You sly devil.
"It depends on what the meaning of 'publish' is." - Bluto, October 29, 2007.
So let me get this straight.
Greenwald can't reprint excerpts for discussion UNLESS he first prints the ENTIRE ORIGINAL in the SAME POST.
Is that the rule that YOU follow? You don't post an excerpt of ANY article, post, diary, etc. unless you have FIRST fully published (and not by link, but by posting the FULL TEXT) of the source material?
.
i am sorry but i am extremely confused. what is going on in this story.
why are the words 'tries to move the goalposts' in blue?
is there ANY way to determine what this story is about?
i give up, intornots are too hard. back to huffing gas for me.
What you seem to be saying is that Greenwald is not allowed to have his own opinion regarding this email.
Certainly you can have your own opinion of it as well, which is completely at odds with Greenwald's.
However, after making the full email available to all (as he DID), Greenwald is free to analyze it any way he sees fit! You are free to critique his analysis. You are not free to accuse him of doing something he did not do, however.
So if Boylan's email was 50 pages long, was Greewald supposed to reprint 50 full pages of text? Wouldn't it be ok to link to it if it was that long? And if ok then, why not always ok to simply use a link?
I concur w/ Pet Llama - please, please DO continue this remarkable crusade to show exactly how Greenwald is using subtle mind tricks to fool libbrruuullls into believing the worst about our Dear Leader, the great and brave George Bush who defended America's southern border from the Viet Cong during the Viet Nam war, until, he didn't any more.
Greenwald is trying to get people to believe bad things about our torturer in chief, egads, even trying to villify our Dear Leader for kidnapping people and sending them overseas to be tortured in secret prisons in former Soviet Bloc nations.
Please, keep shining a bright light on Greenwald's nafarious purposes, never rest, stay up day and night publishing posts about the nefarious Greenwald, unless you consider "sleep deprivation" torture. If that is the case, just take a nap.
Is it possible that Gleenwald's Jedi Mind Tricks are in fact THE missing WMDs?!!!
In fact, is it even possible they're NOT!
Do you forget what you typed at 11:02 this morning:
Below is what Greenwald claims is the full text of the email. The portions Greenwald chose to leave out are in boldface:
You did in fact accuse him of concealing the full email.
.
The Dread Pundit and Col. Boylan can no longer sit back and allow Liberal infiltration, Liberal indoctrination, Liberal subversion and the international Liberal conspiracy to sap and impurify all of their precious bodily fluids.
Do you forget what you typed at 11:02 this morning:
Below is what Greenwald claims is the full text of the email. The portions Greenwald chose to leave out are in boldface:
You did in fact accuse him of concealing the full email.
You're missing Dreads point: Glenn didn't "publish" the full text. He just "linked" to it so one would have to "click" on a "link" to get to the "full" text and "read" it "unpublished" so to speak depending on what the "word" "publish" "means".
Clear now?
Do you forget what you typed at 11:02 this morning:
Below is what Greenwald claims is the full text of the email. The portions Greenwald chose to leave out are in boldface:
You did in fact accuse him of concealing the full email.
.
Anon | 10.29.07 - 4:57 pm | #
No, anonymouse, I have no way of confirming whether or not Greenwald has held back parts of the original email. I could just take his word, but...
"Corrected"
Do you forget what you typed at 11:02 this morning:
Below is what Greenwald claims is the full text of the email. The portions Greenwald chose to leave out are in boldface:
You did in fact accuse him of concealing the full email.
You're missing Dreads point: Glenn didn't "publish" the full text. He just "linked" to it so one would have to "click" on a "link" to get to the "full" text and "read" it "unpublished" so to speak depending on what the "word" "publish" "means".
Clear now?
You're missing Dreads point: Glenn didn't "publish" the full text. He just "linked" to it so one would have to "click" on a "link" to get to the "full" text and "read" it "unpublished" so to speak depending on what the "word" "publish" "means".
Two questions:
1. If Boylan's email was 50 pages long, would Greenwald then be permitted to link to it instead of recopy it in full?
2. Has Dread Pundit ever linked to source material and then excerpted from it (or does he always reprint the source material IN FULL - not by linking - in the same post)?
.
But... c'mon. Here's you, before Glenn Greenwald noted your illiteracy.
SIREN EXCLUSIVE MUST CREDIT CITIZEN JOURNALIST BLUTO LOOK YOU GUYS LOOK
Greenwald sent me the full text, posted above. Looks like he left quite a bit out.
The Dread Pundit Bluto | Homepage | 10.29.07 - 12:04 pm | #
At 12:04 today you had yet to realize Glenn had already posted, published, linked to, the letter.
Still, I imagine you'll provide your own definition of "looks like he left quite a bit out" momentarily, at which point we'll all agree with you and just go away (not a chance).
This is better than Fitzmas!
Oh, so now we're moving the goal posts. Just like Iraq.
"Hmmm....maybe Glenn really *didn't* post the entire email from Boylan."
Jeez, you just keep diggin' deeper and deeper.
DPB: No, anonymouse, I have no way of confirming whether or not Greenwald has held back parts of the original email. I could just take his word, but...
why don't you hack his site? i know that hackers use these things called 'hyperlinks' to hide sekrit documents from their infor-blog readers.
i can tell you has teh skills coz you maded these posts.
My goodness do you look dumb. Not as dumb as that SacBee reporter, and to your credit you have not erased this post (yet), but still - not good.
"You are not free to accuse him of doing something he did not do, however.
Yes, they can!
Don't you see?!?!?
They're "conservatives." Being a "conservative" means never having to say you're sorry, never having to tell the truth, never allowing any single negative thing to be said about our Dear Leader without challenging the commenter with lies, innuendo, threats, whatever it takes to silence "the opposition."
If "the opposition" is a 12-year-old braind damaged little boy, do whatever is necessary destroy him.
If "the opposition" is a decorated war hero from another party, do whatever you can to destroy him.
If "the opposition" is a lefty blogger, make things up and get linked elsewhere.
That is what conservatism has become in today's day and age.
Has Dread Pundit ever linked to source material and then excerpted from it (or does he always reprint the source material IN FULL - not by linking - in the same post)?
i cannot read this post because DPB has hidded the sekrits in a blue thing called a 'superlink' by liberal terrorist hackers. he is trying to hid the truths from us.
so i do not no what is going on here. did gleenwald steel the pirates map.
Thank you, prunes!! I'm spitting out this tasty popcorn everywhere now.
Teh sekrit superlinks is teh AWESUM!!11!!! Teh Greenwald scarez me. DO NOT WANT
Seriously, this is huge fun. Think I'm going to crack a cold one when I get home and read up on further mockery of the dpb. Rarely has mendacious stupidity been so humorously skewered. Keep it coming, people. Nobody has yet topped the "sofa king we Todd did" chant on the other thread, but many are coming close. DPB's little rightwing corner of illogical lunacy has been entirely too obscure up until now. I was one of the few readers who got how truly asinine and amusing he was. Welcome to the site, people!
so i do not no what is going on here. did gleenwald steel the pirates map.
prunes | 10.29.07 - 5:05 pm | #
yup what you said
Dread Pundit is engaging in the Chewbacca defense.
.
Teh sekrit superlinks is teh AWESUM!!11!!! Teh Greenwald scarez me. DO NOT WANT
d00d yous can hides MPTHREE FILZ ON EXTRALINKS!
dumb ol' libruls cant find your AMERIRCAN MSUICS OF BRAVERY! 30 great hits in one collection:
"KICKIN HAJIS ASS"
"BEATEN HAJIS ASS"
"GOD DAMN IS THAT EAGLE BEAUTIFUL"
"RAPIN HAJIS ASS WITH A FLASHLIGHT IN ABU GRAIB"
"PLEASE SPY ON ME"
"LET THE EAGLE SORE"
"I ONLY GIVE HEAD TO DITTOHEADS"
"NUKIN HAJIS ASS PLUS HIS LITTLE KIDS"
and many, many moar!
rougvie..wers my hidn leenk
teh Greenwald is dat like in werz
waldo..
"Below is what Greenwald claims is the full text of the email."
OK, there's a quote from YOU. Now please point out where in his post that Greenwald "claims" that what he posted was the "full text of the email."
Ummm, Bluto? Do you really want a guy like Bookworm agreeing with you? Like, twice?
Bookie went so far as to claim that Greenwald had actually redacted portions of the letter that he of course posted in its entirety. I mean, it's one thing to not have read Greenwald's post to begin with, but it's something entirely different to not understand what the word "redacted" means.
I mean, fine by me if you two wanna form a tag team and enter it into The Thunderdome of Stupid, but I'm just sayin'.
How can something be mischaraterized when the entire email was made available for review?
.
How embarrassing. You seem to be getting...what is the phrase...pwned?
Bluto: you wrote in your initial post on this subject:
The parts that Greenwald chose not to publish tend to contradict his characterization of the email as "bizarre" and "unsolicited".
Greenwald, in fact, did publish the entire Boylan email and linked to it in the first two sentences of his original post at issue. I assure you I read it, and so did many of his commentariat who thrashed it through in the comments section.
It was too long to reproduce the whole thing in a post anyone could be expected to wade through, but Greenwald made it clearly available to any who might wish to see if he was mischaracterizing the colonel's screed.
You. Were. Wrong. He did publish the colonel's entire post at a separate site he maintains and has used before when what he is quoting is too lengthy for inclusion a post, but the material is such that he wishes everyone to be able to read and judge it for themselves.
Gravatar How embarrassing. You seem to be getting...what is the phrase...pwned?
It is NO SHAME to be PWNED so mercilessly and savagely as this! Glenn Greenwald is revered as the leetest hacker since WARGAMES and REGULAR AMERICANS cannot be expected to keep up with his crafty liberal hacker terror tricks like hiding sekrits in "ultralinks" so that GOOD AMERICANS cannot even read them!
the real villain in all this is the EVILS OF LIBERAL HACKERISM!
Dreads wrote: "...The parts that Greenwald chose not to publish..."
theWalrus wrote: "...You're missing Dreads point: Glenn didn't "publish" the full text. He just "linked" to it..."
Translation: "I'll try and redefine what 'Publish' means as a pathetically lame attempt to cover for my dumbass friend.
Dexter -
Worse than pwned - he SELF-PWNED.
He knows it too, of course - this is all nothing more than an exercise in the humiliating game of rightwinger-facesaving.
Sherifffruitfly...u iz bran challenged coz u full of poop.
Whoa. That Dread Bloat-o is double-plus good at crimestop!
I don't think I've ever seen a better answer to the question "Is our children learning?"
This guy is most definately a Bush Republican.
I scrolled down to read your latest posts, Dreadly. Does this sound familiar from just this past Thursday?
"Drum accused Drudge of only showing "snippets" of the documents, until a commenter pointed out that they were hot-linked."
Man, what a hateful world in which you can't happily point out that a lefty overlooked hyperlinks without having it come back and bite you on the ass less than a week later when you base almost an entire post on it. I feel your pain in a kinda schadenfreude way.
Bluto at 11:02: "Below is what Greenwald claims is the full text of the email."
Just can't seem to explain this flat-out lie despite all your subsequent spinning, can you?
Keep digging. Nothing funnier than someone too mentally compromised to know how badly he's getting dismembered.
Okay wingnuts, listen up. That underlined blue text is known as a hyperlink. When clicked upon, using a computer mouse or trackpad, it leads one to all sorts of neat stuff including newspaper articles, images and in this case, fully quoted e-mails. This allows bloggers to reference material without creating a page that's ten monitors deep and avoids duplicate content issues with Google.
Keeping this rather simple concept in mind, you can avoid embarassing own-goals in the future...
glen glenwald just went leet, leet, leet in yo face.
"dowdification" -- to make strategic use of ellipses to distort the meaning of a quote. WSJ, May 2003
"defecation" -- act or process by which organisms eliminate solid or semisolid waste material from the digestive tract via the anus.
In DPBs case, semisolid.
Of course the most relevant point to make, Bluto, is that you have completely failed to demonstrate why the additional bits of the email (i.e. the bits that Glenn didn't publish) undermine his argument about a politicised military.
They do not show that the email was solicited by Greenwald, nor do they provide any context that would excuse the taunting or abuse that Boylan meted out.
In other words, even overlooking your hysterical claims that Greenwald 'redacted' parts of the email for dishonest purposes ('hysterical' in both senses of the word), the full text backs up his argument just as sufficiently as the excerpts he provided did.
I'm afraid it's a 'fail' for you on this assignment Bluto.
Oh what tangled webs we weave...
Think of how much easier this would all be if you'd simply fessed up to the fact that you didn't notice the link until it was pointed out.
You could still make your point about Glenn's creative editing. You just wouldn't be a damned liar!
He "published" the email.
He "published" it and linked to it in the post.
You are dumber than people whose brains have been removed, soaked in hydrochloric acid, beaten with cacti, and electrocuted before being replaced. Upside down. You, in a word, or a couple, are the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost of Stupid. You are Eternal in stupidity.
There are only two possibilities: Either Lt. Col. Boylan is lying, or somebody has the ability to impersonate him online, complete with valid ISP address. Considering that he is the public relations guy for the leader of our military effort in Iraq, this is a very big deal. In either case, it ought to be of great concern.
Greenwald is not the problem here.
Errr, yeah, Greenwald is the problem, or rather the joke of the day. Lighten up...he's an idiot.
You're a fucking liar, Bluto.
Glenn Greenwald did indeed publish the entire email. You accused him of not publishing the whole email.
You're a fucking liar, Bluto.
Did I mention that you're a fucking liar, Bluto?
You're never going to be free of this one. You've willingly, eagerly branded yourself as a fucking liar, Bluto.
You are dumber than people whose brains have been removed, soaked in hydrochloric acid, beaten with cacti, and electrocuted before being replaced. Upside down. You, in a word, or a couple, are the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost of Stupid. You are Eternal in stupidity.
Thom, that was exquisite. As I read it, I thought I was laughing, but it turned out I was weeping -- so moved was I by the beauty of your prose. My hat is off to you. I am awed into silence. I will say no more.
Excpet this: God, Bluto! You are ten kinds of stupid asshole!
There are only two possibilities: Either Lt. Col. Boylan is lying, or somebody has the ability to impersonate him online, complete with valid ISP address.
ISP addresses are spoofed daily.. a well known fact to most everyone posting here. And no you ignorant moron, there are not just your two possibilities - Greenwald, with his sockpuppet history, would be entirely consistent with his character to have fabricated the email entirely. Alternatively, he could have altered an email sent by a hoaxer, or a hoaxer could have sent these emails unedited. I'm sure there are other possibilities I've overlooked, but I just wanted you to know what a moron you truly were for suggesting that there were just those "two" that you mentioned. Thanks for playing, leftist moron
Thom, that was exquisite. As I read it, I thought I was laughing
I know, isn't it great.. you know, to be in the hivemind club.. back-slapping fellow hiveminders like that. What camaraderie! Kudos to all my brothers!
Mook--if it's a fake (by GG or anyone) why in the world wouldn't the PR guy state that? It is a very intemperate letter that probably could cause a ruckus with his superiors.
Sure, I guess it is possible that someone took the time to fake this (although it would be challenging to know EXACTLY how the ISP traffic gets routed from Iraq to GG, which is why the internet expert said highly highly unlikely--because it matched the earlier emails from this guy exactly) or it is possible that GG is faking it. But--in either case, a uniformed officer of the US dedicated to maintaining his reputation and word--would have said "I didn't write that." Right? It's PR 101. But he didn't say that, did he? He was very coy...guiltily coy.
Once again, in what way does any of the "redacted" (fully available not completely quoted) article indicates that Boylan's email was not unsolicited? Could it be that you're talking out your ass? I think so.
Mook--if it's a fake (by GG or anyone) why in the world wouldn't the PR guy state that?
He said he didn't write it you moron. How much clearer does he have to be for you idiots on the left to understand. He denies writing it! Seriously, if you're really this stupid, just kill yourselves. Put yourselves, and the world out of your misery.
Dexter -
Worse than pwned - he SELF-PWNED.
No fair you GiGi fans turning on your own.
I had to go out - so I missed a little of the fun!.
Looks like ole' Cap'n Boylen might be a liar, too. He claims not to have sent the initial email to Glenn, but it appears that he (Boylen) has a habit of sending emails *very* similar to the one sent to Glenn to others.
http://
www.editorandpublisher.co...t_id=1003664994
Either way, I think Glenn's description of the Dreaded Blutofascist one is apt: "Abject Stupidity Defined".
He claims not to have sent the initial email to Glenn, but it appears that he (Boylen) has a habit of sending emails *very* similar to the one sent to Glenn to others.
Ok, now we're talking. Leftist vermin are now calling out Boylen as a liar. Now only if you would be willing to stand by your accusations with actual names, your emails, and phone numbers, should you be proven again, to be liars, that you take a more honorable, principled stand with regards to your accusations, especially if you are proven (again) to be full of sh*t
OK, Mook--you say he has denied it. Where? Because what I've seen hasn't been a clear denial. And I'm not alone.
Then it got really interesting. Boylan in another note to Greenwald seemed to deny that he wrote the email, while denouncing Greenwald for publishing it. But he did not state this clearly and has since refused to respond to Greenwald’s request for clarity. Meanwhile, various purported computer experts have compared past and present emails from Boylan to Greenwald and suggested that they did seem to come from the same military email address. But no one is certain. E&P has contacted Boylan for a clarification. You can catch the whole thing at:
Some spokesman--he won't even comment on whether he commented or not.
Who's the idiot now, Mook?
Oh, right, being conservative means never making a mistake (or, at least, never ADMITTING one).
And the comedic hits keep on coming!
Hey, um, Bluto, good buddy,
I noticed that you "redacted" some of Glen's post that you cited here.
Tell ya what, Squirt...send me an email, and I'll send you the entire text of Glen's post.
That way you can write a new post showing us your own malicious intent in posting a redacted version of Glen's post....
OK, Mook--you say he has denied it. Where?
Ah yes, the dishonest to the core leftists... rougviej, it was you, you lying sack of shit, not me, who said he denied it. Anyone questioning this exchange can simply look for themselves upthread to see what you wrote. Are you a sociopathic leftist liar, or just an ordinary dishonorable leftist? Cheers!
Heheh, it's been a while since I've read anything on here, and while the content hasn't gotten any better, the comments sure have me laughing.
Uh, Mook, you were the one who said he denied it. I said the opposite:
***
But--in either case, a uniformed officer of the US dedicated to maintaining his reputation and word--would have said "I didn't write that." Right? It's PR 101. But he didn't say that, did he? He was very coy...guiltily coy.
***
I don't know exactly how seriously to take you, since you seem to have absolutely no ability to read or even to remember what you posted not long ago...It seems like you are just making shit up to avoid having to admit that Bluto was wrong. I'm starting to think you ARE Bluto, you are so obtuse. Your lies are not even difficult to shoot down...
Better stupid people, please.
But--in either case, a uniformed officer of the US dedicated to maintaining his reputation and word--would have said "I didn't write that." Right? It's PR 101. But he didn't say that, did he? He was very coy...guiltily coy.
The Col. said, and I quote verbatim: "I did not send him (Greenwald) the note".
How is that in any way substantially different? You are lying flat out. You are not a person to be taken seriously based on what you've posted.
OK, if he said that, I missed it. Where are you getting that? My apologies if I'm wrong--Editor and Publisher and Greenwald and Bluto haven't had that. Where did you see it?
OK, if he said that, I missed it. Where are you getting that?
Directly verbatim from Glenn Greenwald's blog you stupid leftist fuck... http://www.salon.com/opinion/gre...ylan/
index.html
Hmmm...I'm not sure that not being up on the latest GG update constitutes being an idiot, but whatever...You might want to check into an anger management program, because you clearly have issues.
So let me get this straight--he refuses to say to GG when first confronted by the email whether he wrote it or not. He coyly mentions identity theft. But then doesn't answer emails asking whether that was a denial. Then, GG quotes some anonymous person who claims to have received an email from this guy which is your source for the denial.
You blame GG for taking an email at face value--and you take one second and third hand at face value?
The circumstantial evidence that the initial email is legit is very strong. I wonder if there is enough text to subject it to those authorship ascertaining programs? The ones that look at word frequency, grammatical structures? They are very accurate.
But you have succeeded in distracting the main issue--DPB was wrong. DPB lied. DPB can't admit being wrong. So he lied more.
The ones that look at word frequency, grammatical structures? They are very accurate
Tell us dipshit, do they tell us with accuracy whatever you want to hear, truth be damned? You've already been proven wrong by citation. Decisively.
If you had a shred of honor you admit how wrong you were given the verbatim citation, rather than try and deflect the subject. But like most other leftists, you have no honor. Your response defines you, and those with whom you identify.
Hey Mook, did you like Loose Change too? Especially the part about the voice morphing on the phones, that was cool, huh huh huh.
Uh--Mook--I think I admitted to you that I didn't check GG's latest update. So yes, you were right, I was wrong (is that so hard to type? DPB can never say it!). You said something that I hadn't seen. You provided a source. Cool. That's how knowledge advances.
Incidentally--suppose, argu endo, that it turns out he did write the email to GG. And suppose he did initially deny it, at least to some emailers if not Glenn. Should a public affairs officer who sends out an email and then lies about it face any penalty, either as bad PR, or under the UCMJ?
Interesting question, no?
Should a public affairs officer who sends out an email and then lies about it face any penalty, either as bad PR, or under the UCMJ?
Personally, I loved the email. It certainly sent Greenwald and his lapdog groupies into full drama queen tizzy, didn't it? If it turns out the officer lied about not sending the email, that would be noteworthy.. but are you seriously suggesting that messing with Greenwald, who was condescending as hell in his communications with the officer.. that should be a UCMJ offense?
No, I agree it would be disciplinary but not UCMJ. If he lied to his commanding officer like I believe he is lying when he denies it, the UCMJ covers that. It's very broad, and requires a lot of discretion before it should be brought in. So if his CO marched into his office and said, did you send this email and he did, and denies it...UCMJ. But lying to this anonymous correspondent...feh.
Do you seriously doubt that he wrote this, given the ISP evidence, the similarity between it and emails GG had never seen, his known pattern of emailing bloggers and journalists in an unprompted way, AND, finally, his refusal to deny that he wrote it in repeated interactions with GG afterwards? that's a boatload of circumstantial evidence.
It seems highly unlikely.
If he lied to his commanding officer like I believe he is lying when he denies it
Why do you "believe" he lied to his commanding officer? Do you have evidence to support this theory, or do you simply 'feel' that it's true?
Do you seriously doubt that he wrote this, given the ISP evidence
Well, I get spam email every single day with doctored ISP addresses, so it's not like it's such an unusual occurance. Greenwald again reveals himself to be a hack for not verifying the authenticity before going apeshit over it in his Salon column. Fake but accurate redux
Hey, I was using "if" for a reason. It was in the hypothetical spirit. argu endo...you know. Sorry if I was unclear on that point.
On the second point--Mook--you and I receive a lot of spam. But we also receive a lot of email from people we correspond with. Every time I get an email from someone I've emailed with before, I don't "authenticate". Do you? If the email comes from the same address, sounds like the same person...I think 99% of the population assumes it is the same person. Tell me you don't do that, and I'll be pretty surprised. In other words, if I get an email from Colonel Smith, in Iraq, and we've never emailed before, I'll treat it with a great deal of skepticism. But if Smith and I have chatted several times, and I recognize his style, I'll assume it is him. Incidentally, what would you suggest for authentication? If GG had stopped to do ISP analysis, it looked legit. If he had stopped to ask the colonel, he would have gotten a coy non-denial that he actually got. So...what?
Again, the core issue, that DPB lied, should not be forgotten. Lied in an obvious, and easily refuted way. Over and over. And cannot ever admit he made a mistake. So keeps lying lying lying...
Every time I get an email from someone I've emailed with before, I don't "authenticate". Do you?
No, I don't.. But I probably would verify an email if I had a column in Salon and was going public with a column on the email I received. Otherwise, you risk looking like an amateurish hack.. which is exactly the position Greenwald is in now.
Again, the core issue, that DPB lied, should not be forgotten
DPB "lied"? He didn't lie
DPB "lied"? He didn't lie
he hided his emails under a superlink sos i cant reed it.
why he hiding teh truth? is he rilly a liar?
Here's what happened, Mook. GG posts something that quotes from a complete document he links to. DPB asks to have it emailed to him, then compares the two on his blog, and says that the comparison shows deception on GG's part, and that's why he didn't "publish" the full doc. I'm guessing DPB made a mistake, and just missed that part of GG's post. When GG's points out that he did link to it, DPB could have just said "Sorry, I made a mistake, missed that, brain flatulence. I still disagree with your selective quotations and your interpretations, but I was wrong to say that." But you see, DPB can't admit a mistake. So he tries to convince the world that he didn't accuse him of that, and that he KNEW all along it was linked. Problem: why ask for an email if you knew of the link? To give "fair warning" according to DPB. That makes, frankly, no sense.
Up above, I made a mistake. I didn't check GG's update. You had info I didn't have. You pointed it out. I admitted my mistake.
That's what could have happened here. Instead, DPB is defending the indefensible, with your able, if futile, assistance.
Is there no conservative error, however obvious, you wouldn't defend?
Anyone get the impression that mook is a sockpuppet for the idiot who owns this blog. They both seem to write the same and answer the question "is our children learning" in the negative.
That's what could have happened here. Instead, DPB is defending the indefensible, with your able, if futile, assistance.
Is there no conservative error, however obvious, you wouldn't defend?
Indefensible? Oh my, sounds horribly serious. And is there no conservative error I won't defend? What am I, defending child rape or something? Do you need a fainting hanky for even more dramatic effect? Although I see your point: a) I believe DPB has clarified that by "published", he was referring to the Salon website column and b) you and other liberals who have swarmed this site are making a mountain out of.. well, out of not much from what I can see. Yes, Greenwald apparently published the entire (hoax?) email on another site and linked to it from his Salon column rather than publish entire email. And DPB felt that Greenwald's selective quotations changed the tone and meaning of the original. That is what has the Greenwald groupies in such a hateful uproar? And you defend this?
Mook--the point is--DPB said "Yeah, I KNEW that." But his post was obviously a mistake. So instead of just admitting it, he lies. Repeatedly. Over and over.
It's not child rape. It's just utterly moronic. Stop defending it. You seem like a bright guy. Too bright to think that leftists are always wrong, and conservatives are always right. Someone who can never admit error, and who lies in a blatant way to cover it up, isn't worth your time defending, whether he's right or left.
"I believe DPB has clarified that by "published", he was referring to the Salon website column..."
That's horseshit. It's backpedalling from a now-indefensible position. Greenwald hid nothing. Bluto made an accusation that simply is not supported by the facts.
Bluto's a liar, and Mook defends Bluto's lie.
"And DPB felt that Greenwald's selective quotations changed the tone and meaning of the original."
No one gives a shit what Bluto "felt". There's no proof whatsoever that Greenwald hid anything. Bluto lied. Mook chooses to defend a liar.
"Yes, Greenwald apparently published the entire (hoax?) email on another site..."
The allegation that the email was a hoax is unsupported by any facts. And Mook just admitted that Greenwald did indeed publish the entire email. Bluto lied about that. Mook chooses to defend a liar.
You seem like a bright guy.
YOU THE REAL LIAR, LIBRUL SCUM!
The allegation that the email was a hoax is unsupported by any facts
Yeah genius, no facts, except that Greenwald himself admits that he did not and cannot authenticate the email. Other than that, no facts at all.
Yeah genius, no facts, except that Greenwald himself admits that he did not and cannot authenticate the email. Other than that, no facts at all.
you dumbass, exactly how can ANYONE verify ANY email that's been denied if the headers and IPs are faked?
We gonna have to use PGP signatures to cite all emails? Or would you still deny what's right in front of your eyes?
"Cannot authenticate the email" is not equivalent to "hoax", Mook.
What facts do you have that indicate that the email is a hoax?
We gonna have to use PGP signatures to cite all emails? Or would you still deny what's right in front of your eyes?
What's in front of my eyes every day are emails with phonied up ISP addresses from spammers.. doctored email addresses are commonplace. Greenwald was careless in not authenticating the email before publishing his flamethrowing column. Now Greenwald looks like a hack, because he really is an amateur-hour hack, backpeddling and name-calling, rather than admitting that made a big error not checking out the email beforehand. Not unlike Dan Rather with the 'fake but accurate' narrative
"Cannot authenticate the email" is not equivalent to "hoax", Mook.
Talk about dishonesty, you misquoted me to deliberately mislead. You originally acknowledged that I had written "(hoax?)" with a question mark to indicate some degree of doubt.
But things are not looking good for Greenwald. The Col. denies sending the email to Greenwald and Greenwald admits that he can't authenticate it.
Tsk, tsk liberals, if only you had a brain.
I didn't misquote a thing, lying asswipe. You're raising the possibility that the email is a hoax, and you are pretending that the inability to "authenticate" the email supports your claim.
It doesn't. Not being able to "authenticate" the email means not being able to "authenticate" the email -- nothing more.
Still waiting, coward: What facts do you have that indicate that the email is a hoax?
Still waiting, coward
Please tell me this isn't where all the smart liberals hang out..
Still waiting, coward: What facts do you have that indicate that the email is a hoax?
Now Greenwald looks like a hack, because he really is an amateur-hour hack, backpeddling and name-calling, rather than admitting that made a big error not checking out the email beforehand. Not unlike Dan Rather with the 'fake but accurate' narrative
Ooooooh, so it's like the WMDs thing? How retards keep pretending like there was all sorts of evidence just so their retardation isn't uncovered and they won't be shipped off to the retard internment camps for enthusiastic interrogation into their retard secrets?
Or is it more of an outright lie, like how Republicans say they're for low taxes but have increased the tax burden to record levels with all that deficit spending for pork?
Mook--there's no 100% certain method of ascertaining that he sent that email. Even if we could find a copy of it in his outbox, someone else could have done it. But the circumstantial evidence that he did is pretty compelling:
1. The ISPs matched. Yes, we get spam emails all the time. How many have you gotten that mimicked exactly the data of a regular email correspondent of yours? I've gotten precisely zero, out of hundreds of thousands of spams (except when someone's computer gets taken over by a bot--but then it wouldn't say something specific--it would say--Mexican girls want to fuck you, etc)
2. He's well known for sending out unsolicited emails to journalists and bloggers
3. This one resembles very much his style of writing. It resembles very much his world view.
4. Confronted by Glenn, he didn't say any clear denial. I dunno about you, Mook, but if you said to me, did you send that long angry email, and I didn't...hey, I would say--"No man!" Now, apparently, he has said to someone else that he didn't send it...but at first, he said nothing clear. Strange, huh?
So yeah, it's POSSIBLE that he's been spammed, or that Glenn made this up. But I'd have to say, if this were a civil litigation, I'd rule the preponderance, the vast preponderance, of the evidence says he wrote it.
And this is all quite distracting from the fact that Bluto lied lied lied.
And this is all quite distracting from the fact that Bluto lied lied lied.
is no lie alqada hackers hidded the texts in a megalink so internets users cant find it
plz someone mail me pix of britny kthx
The ISPs matched. Yes, we get spam emails all the time. How many have you gotten that mimicked exactly the data of a regular email correspondent of yours?
We're not considered a high enough profile target to spoof I guess. Looks like Greenwald is. As for how difficult it is to spoof the origin of an email, I don't think it's as difficult as you suggest
And you forgot #5: Glenn Greenwald has a history of being a sockpuppet himself
That history suggests, to me at least, that he has a serious credibility problem, along with some unusual personal insecurities which make his claims on the sockpuppetry of others suspect
i admit it i is green gleenworld
plz dont tell no pplz about my sekrit hoverlinks
Still waiting, coward: What facts do you have that indicate that the email is a hoax?
Still waiting, coward
Liberals, you gotta admit that most of the serious freaks are on your side.
I should be apparent to all by now that Mook doesn't have the facts to support the allegation that the email was a hoax. What is telling is that he believes that anyone suggesting that he produce facts is a "freak".
Mook, like many wingnuts, is incapable of formulating a fact-basd argument. He does not even understand the need for facts. He believes that fact-free insinuations and ad hominem attacks are all that is required to make his point.
I should be apparent to all by now that Mook doesn't have the facts to support the allegation that the email was a hoax.
Let's recap: Col. Boylan denies sending the email and Greenwald admits that he did not authenticate it before writing his foot-stamping column. So I write "(hoax?)" to indicate that there is a question as to the authenticity of the email. This results in poster "meatbrain" repeatedly demanding that I "prove" the email is a hoax. Is it just coincidence that the stupidest of the stupid tend to be leftists?
Col. Boylan denies sending the email and Greenwald admits that he did not authenticate it before writing his foot-stamping column.
Don't know about you, Mook, but it has never occurred to me to "authenticate" an email I received from someone I have corresponded with before. "Hey, I just got an email from you, did you send it?"
Not sure exactly why you're hanging your hat on this excuse - why is it so hard for you to believe the much more likely explanation, that the guy sent Greenwald a bitchy email, in the exact same style in which he has sent bitchy emails to numerous other bloggers with whom he disagrees?
"Don't know about you, Mook, but it has never occurred to me to "authenticate" an email"
Most people don't authenticate e-mails. Reporters need to authenticate documents (in this case, e-mail) they obtain that they use for reporting purposes. If not, they better pray that the documents are real or be prepared to lose their job if they are not. i.e. Mr. Rather.
So no leftards are confused. I AM IN NO WAY SAYING THAT THE E-MAIL IS IN FACT FAKE. I am, however, saying that there is ONLY evidence supporting the theory that the e-mail is fake. Greenwald (I am not implying that I authenticate any of my own e-mails; then again, I am not a reporter) has no supporting ACTUAL evidence that the e-mail is real, and has not yet stated that he made any effort, as a journalist, to make sure that his readers were provided with authentic "NEWS".
Again, so no leftards are confused. When I say Greenwald has no supporting ACTUAL evidence that the e-mail is real, I, of course, mean anything other than the fact that the e-mail said it was from Boylan and what not. This would seem to be common sense to me, but I never know with these leftards nowadays. They tend to knit pick every little thing and use only obfuscated logic with no sensibility attached.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using this word "evidence." I do not think it means what you think it means.
You say "there is ONLY evidence supporting the theory that the e-mail is fake." What "evidence "would that be?
There is Boylan's statement that he didn't send the email. There is Glenn's contention that the email matches Boylan's style, and the fact that all the headers seem to match other emails Boylan has sent.
The only thing I could think of that would be "evidence" would be a record at centcom.mil's email server showing the email was in fact sent.
Are you referring to something else when you say "evidence?"
No I'm not. You just stated the evidence (Boylan's statement).
Figured some a$$hole would find some piss poor excuse to argue with me.
If Boylan's denial is "evidence," is Greenwald's allegation not equally "evidence?" I would think "evidence" would be something that can be independently verified, not just someone saying something. But, what do I know... I'm just a "leftard."
Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful and courteous reply. I think you're allowed to say "asshole" here.
I can say asshole when the shoe fits. Let me see, you think that a denial of writing the e-mail is equivalent to GG's expert OPINION that the e-mail is of Boylan's style. What are you, retarded?
Commenting by HaloScan
