Collusion update: "no factual evidence"

[Bill the Cat]

Since you seem to realize now that the were many accounts associated with Hillary's account, and that the Russians hacked them just hours after Trumps request, then just explain how they are irrelevant.

The Russians were trying to get into her, the DNC, and the RNC's accounts since early March, stupid. That Podesta's coincidentally timed gaffe allowed them in the door to begin a phishing campaign against the DNC mail accounts in no way indicts the Republicans or Trump.

[Sparko]

This is a great example of the lack of self reflection. You only point your fingers at the others. Is that a good Christian principle?

Says the guy who n the same breath where he is pointing fingers at Christians and questioning whether they really were Christians. Does your
hypocrisy ever bother you Chuck?

[Charles]

So, any time an expert speaks on their field of expertise, they are "close" to the fallacy

No. Look at my response to the last quote.

Your point was strange. At what point can ANYONE speak and not be "close" to the fallacy then?

If you look up the fallacy I am sure you will get the point. You are not close to it when you actually provide evidence, reasons and facts. If you only point to the "I am an expert" thing as a reason to believe you, you are close to the fallacy. Speaking of which:

In badgering me over my statement that this is my career and I know what the DoD practices for that reason.

I was not badgering you over that statement. I was just pointing out that it cannot in and of itself prove you right. Try to read your own posts again and see the expert attitude and you calling other "idiots" and you may get the point.

[JimL]

I'm baiting you, stupid. Name the accounts that were hacked so I can show their irrelevance to her defunct email server and show once again what an ignorant tool you are...

Since you seem to realize now that there were many accounts associated with Hillary's account, and that the Russians hacked them just hours after Trumps request, then just explain how they are all irrelevant.

[oxmixmudd]

In DIRECT RESPONSE to the accusation that Trump told them in the campaign speech to do so. They never hacked her server in response to Trump's joke because it was not online any longer.




Perhaps in a vacuum, but not in response to a question, unless you are expecting me to restate the question before providing responses?



Not when asked about a specific speech.



The initial claim did so for me.



While I agree with you on the very high probability, her having it wiped removed all evidence of certainty. The original claim though specifically called out Trump's joke as a real threat - as if it were possible to hack a decommissioned and disassembled server. THAT is the extent of my rebuttal.

Your response was unclear. It stated universally the server had NEVER been hacked. That stands alone and whether the context was taken into account or not is unclear. I try not to make assumptions about what people 'really' meant when they said something. In fact, the way you made the comment could easily have meant exactly what it said even taking into account the context.

(e.g. "you dolt, not only wan't it hacked after, it was NEVER hacked")

So I responded to what you said.

However, it is also quite likely you meant exactly what you say here and simply misspoke, and I take you at your word that you meant in the "Never" the sense of the time frame after Trumps request even though you specified a universal term.

----

There is another issue here. I have been accused many, many times by several posters of attempting to read minds - of trying to 'know what they meant' even though based on the context my conclusion was quite reasonable.

And so now I am being chastised for not 'Knowing what you meant' and factoring that assumption into my response?




You (The collective you of TWEB itself) can't have it both ways. Either you excuse a person for responding to what was said and not what was implied and accept responsibility for being imprecise, or you excuse/give the benefit of the doubt to a person for misunderstanding the assumptions behind their conclusion about what was said.

I think the least contestuous road is the one I'm now on. To take your words as they are written. Then at least nefarious motives can't be ascribed to the 'misunderstanding of the assumptions'.



Jim

[One Bad Pig]

I am glad you at lest find some of it substantive. This is not meant as an angry reply (though it may sound that way) but I actually find that some of your posts are interesting too. If you have noticed I even amen'ed some of your post (and that was not an error).

I'm not averse to giving you an 'amen' when I think you contribute something useful - even JimL's gotten one or two from me, IIRC.

[Bill the Cat]

Duh! What happened to that superior knowledge of yours?

I'm baiting you, stupid. Name the accounts that were hacked so I can show their irrelevance to her defunct email server and show once again what an ignorant tool you are...

[JimL]

What accounts?

Duh! What happened to that superior knowledge of yours?

[Bill the Cat]

That is actually exactly how the fallacy works. You gave some explanations which is why I did not say you commited the falacy, only that you were close.

So, any time an expert speaks on their field of expertise, they are "close" to the fallacy

Nope. And this is not important for the point I made.

Your point was strange. At what point can ANYONE speak and not be "close" to the fallacy then?

And where did I say I did not accept that?

In badgering me over my statement that this is my career and I know what the DoD practices for that reason.

[Charles]

If Charles didn't have personal attacks to draw upon, his quiver would be nearly empty. Every once in a while, he actually posts something substantive, but he's mostly here to snipe from the sidelines (and only against one team). He's been so consistent at it that he's mostly reduced his impact to background noise.

I am glad you at lest find some of it substantive. This is not meant as an angry reply (though it may sound that way) but I actually find that some of your posts are interesting too. If you have noticed I even amen'ed some of your post (and that was not an error).

[JimL]

It would be no surprise if the Russians favored Trump

Now there's an understatement for you.

in that their goal was to support underdogs and stir up dissatisfaction. I doubt that they expected Trump to win.

No rogue, Putin actual stated why he supported Trump, because he liked Trumps friendly attitude toward Russia. And whether they expected him to win or not is irrelevant, they worked to get him elected. Thanks to you their plan worked and now they have their man in the White House.

[One Bad Pig]

Talk about an ironic post.

I'll decline your proffered bait, thanks.

[Charles]

No, that's not how the fallacy works. Especially when the explanations have been given. And my expertise had been demonstrated multiple times here on the topic.

That is actually exactly how the fallacy works. You gave some explanations which is why I did not say you commited the falacy, only that you were close.

Something more than telling someone how absurd it is to claim a powered off and disassembled server can be hacked? Do I really need to give you a lesson on network availability and how a hard drive works? Seriously?

Nope. And this is not important for the point I made.

In matters of utter absurdity, like claiming a powered off and disassembled server can be accessed from another country via the Internet, nothing more is necessary. That you don't accept that isn't my problem.

And where did I say I did not accept that?

[Bill the Cat]

Except that your knowedge is not superior because the Russians hacked into 70 Clinton accounts after Trump requested they do so.

What accounts?

[Charles]

Then go ahead and prove Bill the Cat wrong, or find another authority who disagrees with him.

So you still don't know what the fallacy is? I don't need to prove an authority wrong for it to be a fallacy to base a belief solely on the fact that an expert says so. This is rather basic, MM.

But considering his expertise on the matter, accusing him of fallaciously appealing to authority is astoundingly ignorant, even for you.

And I did not. I said he was close and provided an example.