Oh you guys are gonna have a field day. Cohen was wiretapped!

a reply to: Gothmog

What are you talking about?

a reply to: Grambler

Dershowitz is full of #.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

Dershowitz is full of #.

So what are you? He is an attorney and Harvard law professor...

I’ll take his opinion over a failed furniture shop owner.

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: MysticPearl
a reply to: Sillyolme

Stop posting fake news.

She would have no post count at all if not for fake news and poltical bait threads.

MOD s hoax bin this thread... not unless you just like what you see truth be damned.

Why would they hoax bin the thread? It's not a hoax, nor is it fake, despite the claims of the rabid nutters.

They had to make a correction after information changed, but the overall premise still remains. That happens all the time in journalism.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: MysticPearl
a reply to: Sillyolme

Stop posting fake news.

She would have no post count at all if not for fake news and poltical bait threads.

MOD s hoax bin this thread... not unless you just like what you see truth be damned.

Why would they hoax bin the thread? It's not a hoax, nor is it fake, despite the claims of the rabid nutters.

They had to make a correction after information changed, but the overall premise still remains. That happens all the time in journalism.

So now thread that are factually untrue get to remain just because they are kind of close to the truth??

Bring back the galactic federation of light threads!!!

a reply to: GuidedKill

So now thread that are factually untrue get to remain just because they are kind of close to the truth??

The source used updated their story to include the information as it changed. Again, that is normal in journalism.

A hoax implies that someone purposefully fabricated information in order to deceive.

Do you have that proof?

Bring back the galactic federation of light threads!!!

Well, if you enjoy that sort of thing, sure.

But that's not comparable to this. Not sure why you would make such a silly comparison.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: GuidedKill

So now thread that are factually untrue get to remain just because they are kind of close to the truth??

The source used updated their story to include the information as it changed. Again, that is normal in journalism.

A hoax implies that someone purposefully fabricated information in order to deceive.

Do you have that proof?

Do you have proof they didn’t? Do you have proof of a source? Do you have proof that any of this Wasn’t just made up by the reporter?

Fact is burden of proof is on the OP and their sources. And their source is now saying the original story isn’t true..

Fact is we all know silly usually has no sources at all so I’ll give her some credit for actually dragging this piece of garbage to the porch... but it’s still a piece of garbage and should be treated as such.

HOAX bin all day.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

Dershowitz is full of #.

Wow nice argument!

As usual, your attention to detail and in depth analysis proves very insightful!

a reply to: GuidedKill

Do you have proof they didn’t? Do you have proof of a source? Do you have proof that any of this Wasn’t just made up by the reporter?

Fact is burden of proof is on the OP and their sources. And their source is now saying the original story isn’t true..

No. I don't. That is why I take it for what it is worth until their information is verified or proven false.

You claimed it was a hoax. That burden of proof is on you.

Fact is we all know silly usually has no sources at all so I’ll give her some credit for actually dragging this piece of garbage to the porch... but it’s still a piece of garbage and should be treated as such.

She did have a source. The source was honest and updated as necessary. That happens all the time in journalism.

HOAX bin all day.

Perhaps you do not understand what a hoax is.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: crtrvt

This is what is traditionally known as a # show.

well you were right at least one time

a reply to: GuidedKill

It wasn’t a hoax nor is it fake news, it’s the media correcting a story from a source

That’s what real journalists do if they make a mistake

This is what they by law are allowed to do with a pen rigister


Dialed numbers


Received call numbers
The time the call was made
Whether the call was answered, or went to voice-mail
The length of each call
Content of SMS text messages
Post-cut-through dialed digits--(digits you dial after your call is connected, like your banking personal identification number (PIN) or your prescription refill numbers)
The real-time location of your cell phone to within a few meters

Perhaps they might want to see where he has been with his phones?

a reply to: introvert

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person who disbelieves the information or thinks it's a hoax.
The claim needs to be proven, not the rejection of the claim.

Given that there is already an admission of the story being incorrect then it makes sense to disregard it.
Whether the reporter intentionally sensationalised this to make a headline and mislead people is something only the reporter and likely the editor will ever know.

Anonymously sourcing, reporting and propagating false information by a major news outlet is NOT 'Fake News'.
GOT IT.

Thank you, Leftists.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Anonymously sourcing, reporting and propagating false information is NOT 'Fake News'.
GOT IT.

Thank you, Leftists.

Be careful. By the very standards some are setting here, since they apparently do not understand the definition of "hoax", the Q nonsense would be considered a hoax/fake news.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Anonymously sourcing, reporting and propagating false information is NOT 'Fake News'.
GOT IT.

Thank you, Leftists.

Be careful. By the very standards some are setting here, since they apparently do not understand the definition of "hoax", the Q nonsense would be considered a hoax/fake news.

Comparing 8chan to NBC is probably not a winning argument for you.

a reply to: IAMTAT

It is hilarious to watch unfold in real time tho!

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Anonymously sourcing, reporting and propagating false information is NOT 'Fake News'.
GOT IT.

Thank you, Leftists.

Be careful. By the very standards some are setting here, since they apparently do not understand the definition of "hoax", the Q nonsense would be considered a hoax/fake news.

Comparing 8chan to NBC is probably not a winning argument for you.

We are working with the definitions and standards being set forth in this thread and those definitions do not change based on the source.

You believe this is a hoax, but the Q stuff is gospel, even though 8chan fails to meet any standard to the level NBC does.

Sounds to me like you guys have no standards and are calling things hoaxes because of your own personal political bias, not the integrity of the source.

In fact, in appears the #tier the source, the more likely you are to believe it.

Page 17? Man I was right.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Anonymously sourcing, reporting and propagating false information is NOT 'Fake News'.
GOT IT.

Thank you, Leftists.

Be careful. By the very standards some are setting here, since they apparently do not understand the definition of "hoax", the Q nonsense would be considered a hoax/fake news.

Comparing 8chan to NBC is probably not a winning argument for you.

We are working with the definitions and standards being set forth in this thread and those definitions do not change based on the source.

You believe this is a hoax, but the Q stuff is gospel, even though 8chan fails to meet any standard to the level NBC does.

Sounds to me like you guys have no standards and are calling things hoaxes because of your own personal political bias, not the integrity of the source.

In fact, in appears the #tier the source, the more likely you are to believe it.

I don't know anyone who states Q's information is real.
It's not even news, and there's the difference. It is speculation that is mildly interesting in a James Bond sort of way.
If you accept that NBC, CNN, NYT etc are just airing speculation and conspiracy theories and are not news outlets, then fine. We can discuss their speculative opinions and conspiracy theories for what they are.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Anonymously sourcing, reporting and propagating false information is NOT 'Fake News'.
GOT IT.

Thank you, Leftists.

Be careful. By the very standards some are setting here, since they apparently do not understand the definition of "hoax", the Q nonsense would be considered a hoax/fake news.

Comparing 8chan to NBC is probably not a winning argument for you.

We are working with the definitions and standards being set forth in this thread and those definitions do not change based on the source.

You believe this is a hoax, but the Q stuff is gospel, even though 8chan fails to meet any standard to the level NBC does.

Sounds to me like you guys have no standards and are calling things hoaxes because of your own personal political bias, not the integrity of the source.

In fact, in appears the #tier the source, the more likely you are to believe it.

Hmmm...you had to edit to add a personal insult.


I won't judge.