Winners only.

[Buck]

‘Everything Changed’: The War Arrives on Russians’ Doorstep

Over the last five days of May, Ruslan, a 27-year-old English teacher in a Russian town near the Ukrainian border,

dnyuz.com

 

[RobGMN]

I am not saying anything by default, YOU ARE. Then you are arguing about it. FOIA is not a "special request" it is a way for the public to gain information freely. It would be EXACTLY like me having information about something and then you asking me for the information. Apparently you FEEL that if you have to get off your lazy backside and go get the information, you have been violated in some way or denied something in some way. Get off your high horse already.

It’s a special request, made in writing, udon a special form, to get information that has not been made public.
You don’t just walk into a federal office and say “I’d like the file, please”.
It is 100% NOT the same as you having a piece of info and me asking you for it.
Go read up on the process if you don’t want to believe me.

The sexual identity of a school shooter is only available by FOIA and is on lock down and is not public information? Do you not see how dramatic you are acting? As soon as the information is requested, it becomes public record. There is no lock, there is no key needed. Just because it is not disclosed to you immediately does not mean it is being concealed or locked down.

YOU brought up the information being held, and released through FOIA only when a NEED is established.
If the info is not available without going through a requisition process, it is indeed being “locked down”.
The simplest analogy I can help you with is the old bathroom key at a gas station.
Public bathroom, but locked down until you request and are granted access.
And that access CAN be denied.

Again, why would YOU need to know the shooters sexual identity? How does that help you?

Again, that has no relevance. Rights are not about NEED. Do you NEED to stand on your lawn with a sign that says you like apples? No. But you can, because it is a right.
Do you NEED to put subs in your car? N. But you CAN because it is a right.

Irrelevant to this conversation. This is about why you and Jimi77 "NEED" to know a school shooters sexual identity and me saying it's not relevant for the news to report and wanting to know why you "NEED" to know. Apparently you two have no idea why you "NEED" to know since I can't get a straight answer out of you. Maybe neither of you know and you just want to argue? Who knows.

Put on your big boy pants, and think about the bigger picture. Look at the COTUS, and tell us which rights you NEED to exercise.
Do you NEED to own 15 rifles and 20 handguns? But you have a RIGHT to.
I can guarantee you’d be the first one to scream if that right hot infringed. I may be wrong, but I think at one point you tried to vilify me for advocating that some people should be stripped of that right, and that I had no problem with there being other restrictions regarding the right.

So, stop trying to spin this about whether the info is needed, or not. That is not the point of discussing whether it should be censored by the government or not.

 

[ThxOne]

It’s a special request, made in writing, udon a special form, to get information that has not been made public.
You don’t just walk into a federal office and say “I’d like the file, please”.
It is 100% NOT the same as you having a piece of info and me asking you for it.
Go read up on the process if you don’t want to believe me.

What makes it special?

YOU brought up the information being held, and released through FOIA only when a NEED is established.
If the info is not available without going through a requisition process, it is indeed being “locked down”.
The simplest analogy I can help you with is the old bathroom key at a gas station.
Public bathroom, but locked down until you request and are granted access.
And that access CAN be denied.

You have no comprehension skills at all. AT ALL.

Again, that has no relevance. Rights are not about NEED. Do you NEED to stand on your lawn with a sign that says you like apples? No. But you can, because it is a right.
Do you NEED to put subs in your car? N. But you CAN because it is a right.

It's fine, avoid the question over and over.

Put on your big boy pants, and think about the bigger picture. Look at the COTUS, and tell us which rights you NEED to exercise.
Do you NEED to own 15 rifles and 20 handguns? But you have a RIGHT to.
I can guarantee you’d be the first one to scream if that right hot infringed. I may be wrong, but I think at one point you tried to vilify me for advocating that some people should be stripped of that right, and that I had no problem with there being other restrictions regarding the right.

So, stop trying to spin this about whether the info is needed, or not. That is not the point of discussing whether it should be censored by the government or not.

You are the one on the spin. Several spins in fact. All this to avoid a simple question. What a clown you are.

 

[Buck]

"This is What AI Thinks of Us."

Stable Diffusion AI's take on a 'Democrat protester' and a 'Republican protester

www.informationliberation.com

 

[Jimi77]

So, stop trying to spin this about whether the info is needed, or not. That is not the point of discussing whether it should be censored by the government or not.

Thx's original point was that we don't need information and the information can be used to divide us. Somehow this is supposed to happen with no gate keeper (ie no gov't or private oversight) per a previous post. Not sure how this filtering would be done and without involvement of gov't.

Do we "need" to know the shooter's sexual identity? Of course we don't "need" to know. Do we "need" to know the shooter used an AR? Again, no we don't. As a matter of fact we don't need to know it was a firearm at all or even that a shooting (murder, since we don't know a firearm was used) occurred. CNN & FoxNews could be taken off the air.

 

[ThxOne]

Thx's original point was that we don't need information and the information can be used to divide us. Somehow this is supposed to happen with no gate keeper (ie no gov't or private oversight) per a previous post. Not sure how this filtering would be done and without involvement of gov't.

Do we "need" to know the shooter's sexual identity? Of course we don't "need" to know. Do we "need" to know the shooter used an AR? Again, no we don't. As a matter of fact we don't need to know it was a firearm at all or even that a shooting (murder, since we don't know a firearm was used) occurred. CNN & FoxNews could be taken off the air.

I knew you got the point.

 

[RobGMN]

What makes it special?

The fact that you don’t rip a sheet of lined paper out of your 3rd grade notebook and wrote in crayon ”I’d like the SEC documents pleze”.
It’s a specific form that does not have substitutions.

You have no comprehension skills at all. AT ALL.

My comprehension skills are awesome. More than once, you have demonstrated your communication skills are lacking, and you are unable to say what you mean.
One simple example is your incorrect use of words because you assign your own personal meaning to them, and expect others to know which arbitrary meaning you are using at the given moment.

You know, like your personal definition of “in” that says we are not “in” our car when driving, but “through” it.

Or using “bridged” to describe two wires directly touching each other.

Or “tautology” to describe a person repeating what another person has said.

It's fine, avoid the question over and over.
You are the one on the spin. Several spins in fact. All this to avoid a simple question. What a clown you are.

The question was answered ver directly, and the answer was repeated in a second post. Just because you claim repeatedly that I didn’t answer, doesn’t make your lie true.
Here’s the third time the very direct answer will be given Go ahead and make a fool of yourself again by claiming I never answered:
Your irrelevant question: ”Rob, does the news need to tell you a persons sexual identity if they are accused of a crime?”
My very direct answer: “The news doesn’t need to tell us ANYTHING. It’s a private industry, and they get to tell us as little or as much of the story as they want.”

Round four (five?) without you even acknowledging the questions have been ASKED. Why are you so afraid to answer?:
Do you think jail rosters should be publicly posted?
Do you think warrant lists should be publicly posted?
If you answered yes, what demographics do you consider appropriate to be listed?

 

[RobGMN]

Thx's original point was that we don't need information and the information can be used to divide us. Somehow this is supposed to happen with no gate keeper (ie no gov't or private oversight) per a previous post. Not sure how this filtering would be done and without involvement of gov't.

Do we "need" to know the shooter's sexual identity? Of course we don't "need" to know. Do we "need" to know the shooter used an AR? Again, no we don't. As a matter of fact we don't need to know it was a firearm at all or even that a shooting (murder, since we don't know a firearm was used) occurred. CNN & FoxNews could be taken off the air.

It’s one of his contradictions, like homosexuality being a choice, but heterosexuality being mandatory.

He wants the information to be locked down by SOME entity, but wants to call it “public” at the same time.

 

[spokey9]

My comprehension skills are awesome.

Says the guy who thinks the only thing to learn about ww2 is written in mein kampf...

 

[RobGMN]

Says the guy who thinks the only thing to learn about ww2 is written in mein kampf...

Please quote the post where I said that.
Please quote the post where I inferred that.
Please quote the post that made you think I said it or inferred it.

I’ll wait.

 

[ThxOne]

The fact that you don’t rip a sheet of lined paper out of your 3rd grade notebook and wrote in crayon ”I’d like the SEC documents pleze”.
It’s a specific form that does not have substitutions.

My comprehension skills are awesome. More than once, you have demonstrated your communication skills are lacking, and you are unable to say what you mean.
One simple example is your incorrect use of words because you assign your own personal meaning to them, and expect others to know which arbitrary meaning you are using at the given moment.

You know, like your personal definition of “in” that says we are not “in” our car when driving, but “through” it.

Or using “bridged” to describe two wires directly touching each other.

Or “tautology” to describe a person repeating what another person has said.

The question was answered ver directly, and the answer was repeated in a second post. Just because you claim repeatedly that I didn’t answer, doesn’t make your lie true.
Here’s the third time the very direct answer will be given Go ahead and make a fool of yourself again by claiming I never answered:
Your irrelevant question: ”Rob, does the news need to tell you a persons sexual identity if they are accused of a crime?”
My very direct answer: “The news doesn’t need to tell us ANYTHING. It’s a private industry, and they get to tell us as little or as much of the story as they want.”

Round four (five?) without you even acknowledging the questions have been ASKED. Why are you so afraid to answer?:
Do you think jail rosters should be publicly posted?
Do you think warrant lists should be publicly posted?
If you answered yes, what demographics do you consider appropriate to be listed?

Yawn....

 

[RobGMN]

Yawn....

As usual. You are proved wrong and given an opportunity to learn. Suddenly the topic bores you.
Funny how that works.

And still refusing to answer or even acknowledge questions pertinent to the CONVERSATION.

 

[ThxOne]

As usual. You are proved wrong and given an opportunity to learn. Suddenly the topic bores you.
Funny how that works.

And still refusing to answer or even acknowledge questions pertinent to the CONVERSATION.

You haven't proven me wrong. How can you prove my opinions about something wrong you egotistical diick. Just because you choose to go off on a long asss unnecessary rant doesn't mean you have proved someone to be wrong about anything. Just because you make things up in the conversation and then argue about them doesn't mean you proved anyone wrong. Just because you open your mouth doesn't mean you proved anyone wrong.

As I responded before, your questions are irrelevant to the conversation about my opinion that the news doesn't need to give an alleged criminal or suspects sexual identity however if one felt they just really need to know for some reason who the alleged criminal or suspects care to bed with well that information is still readily available with a little effort on your part.

 

[RobGMN]

You haven't proven me wrong. How can you prove my opinions about something wrong you egotistical diick. Just because you choose to go off on a long asss unnecessary rant doesn't mean you have proved someone to be wrong about anything. Just because you make things up in the conversation and then argue about them doesn't mean you proved anyone wrong. Just because you open your mouth doesn't mean you proved anyone wrong.

It’s easy to prove your opinions wrong when the opinion is contrary to verifiable fact.
You have an opinion that information that must be obtained by a FOIA request is not locked down by the agency holding that info. Patently incorrect opinion. If it must be requested, it is not “public”, and therefore locked down by the very definition.

You have an opinion that information being held should only be released when a “need” is demonstrated. Incorrect opinion. A FOIA request does not need to include an explanation of need.

You have an opinion that new should only be reported on a “need to know” basis.
Incorrect opinion. News is a “want to know” information source. Has been for centuries.

As I responded before, your questions are irrelevant to the conversation about my opinion that the news doesn't need to give an alleged criminal or suspects sexual identity however if one felt they just really need to know for some reason who the alleged criminal or suspects care to bed with well that information is still readily available with a little effort on your part.

The questions are entirely relevant with your concepts of information being disseminated on a “need to know” basis.
If we should only be given some info about criminals on a “need to know” basis, should a jail roster be posted publicly?
If so, what demographics about the incarcerated would you authorize as “need to know”?

The news is there to report things to us, not for us to research. If we are all being investigative reporters, then there is no need for news sources to exist. Telling us to research our own news in order to watch the news is like telling us to act a role in order to watch a movie, or telling the judge to provide evidence that shows your innocence as a defendant.
Ridiculous notions, all of them.

Aside from sexual orientation of a criminal, what other demos do you think should be locked down and only obtained with a demonstrated “need to know”?

What other types of information that news sources currently report do you think should only be obtained with a demonstrated “need to know”?

 

[Eggs]