Evidence please or innocent until proven guilty. That is our standard by which all of us expect to be judged.

Thank you.

Since you insisted I do expect you to read and comment.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/04/the-evidence-is-not-with-joy-reid/558935/

honestly that is pretty damning that she has blocked the ability to look at those posts. No I don't think the wayback people are liars. No I don't think the library of congress are liars. The fact is the evidence looks bad. And the part we can't see is because of actions she has taken.

It’s not possible to view the Internet Archive’s public stash of Reid blog posts because Reid’s team recently inserted code into the site that prevents the Internet Archive from indexing it.

You're making shit up. Literally.

This whole thing stinks. People pushing the "Joy Reid is evil" story are being played. And the players are the ones who brought us The Donald Trump Show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=10&v=ioBhGmfYDKo

I literally cut and pasted my last paragraph from them. DO NOT CALL ME A LIAR.

If you don't want to be called a liar, then maybe you shouldn't lie.

from the mother fucking article I posted.

It’s not possible to view the Internet Archive’s public stash of Reid blog posts because Reid’s team recently inserted code into the site that prevents the Internet Archive from indexing it. It is the 9th paragraph. It is right there in mother fucking black and white. DO NOT CALL ME A LIAR. AGAIN, IT IS DIRECTLY FROM THE TEXT. I COPIED IT AND PASTED IT AND DIDN'T ADD OR SUBTRACT A SINGLE MOTHER FUCKING WORD.

And nothing in the Atlantic article even hints that this is malicious. Try again.

what you accused me of lying about was the fact that she has made it so we can't look at them any more and the Atlantic says exactly that. Here is the paragraph again.

It’s not possible to view the Internet Archive’s public stash of Reid blog posts because Reid’s team recently inserted code into the site that prevents the Internet Archive from indexing it.

and here is the line from my post where I clearly say that there were no responses.

On her side is the apparent lack of comments on these newly found posts which does strike one as bizarre.

DO NOT CALL ME A LIAR.

You're implying that Reid is being malicious, when there's no evidence of that & even the Atlantic doesn't imply that. Either you're spreading that falsehood intentionally, or you're not.

Maybe you should just delete that post with the lie in it, then?

the Atlantic says exactly what I said it said. She had code inserted in and that is the only reason we can't read the posts on the wayback machine.

And it didn't come from the Atlantic article.

Try again.

edit:
And I see the original post with the lie included has been removed. And not by you.

I'm sure you didn't mean to leave that part out

and I don't see their evidence either.

you didn't say they asked for the post to be removed, you said they had proof it had been tampered with and they refused to remove it. Those are two rather different things.

of the article linked in my OP that you apparently couldn't be bothered to read.

The posts had been dug up on the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, which maintains copies of many pages on the web. When Reid said she’d been hacked, many jumped to the conclusion that it was the Wayback Machine that had been hacked. On its blog, the Internet Archive said that Reid’s lawyers had contacted them about a possible hack, but that they had no indication that one had occurred.

“This past December, Reid’s lawyers contacted us, asking to have archives of the blog (blog.reidreport.com) taken down, stating that ‘fraudulent’ posts were ‘inserted into legitimate content’ in our archives of the blog,” they wrote. “Her attorneys stated that they didn’t know if the alleged insertion happened on the original site or with our archives (the point at which the manipulation is to have occurred, according to Reid, is still unclear to us).”

On review, the Internet Archive “found nothing to indicate tampering or hacking of the Wayback Machine versions.”

That is them claiming to have reviewed her evidence and found it lacking. Exactly and precisely what I said.

Her experts had evidence from HER blog that the post were not her's

They are insensitive but Joy is not anti gay. To paint her as such is disingenuous.

I want to see evidence that she is homophobic if you can produce it.

She is too important to us today. Anyone on the left who is as effective as she is will be attacked and some of us will willingly shoot ourselves in the back.

Let's stop this character assassination of our effective leaders.

are you serious?

... is there a new set?

Regards

and you apparently couldn't be bothered to read.

The new round of posts contain a lot of cliche gay jokes about Charlie Crist and others, concerns that “adult gay men tend to be attracted to very young, post-pubescent types, bringing them ‘into the lifestyle,’” and commentary like “part of the intrinsic nature of ‘straightness’ is that the idea of homosexual sex is ... well ... gross ... even if you think that gay people are perfectly lovely individuals.”

emphasis mine.

... part of it and saying she's saying this.

You're leaving out some salient information in your post man

wonder why?

... even what was hacked in the blog.

This is some screwed up stuff

and have to ask just why is she or what she says of any importance? I understand that she has a cable infotainment news show of some sort, but there are numerous talking heads on many of the "we need to fill the 24/7 airtime with something, so we repeatedly talk a lot about what might or could be."

I can not fathom why any of them garner any interest.

who isn't afraid of strongly pushing back against the right WHILE THEY ARE BEING INTERVIEWED. She argues with facts quite well and she's a strong liberal. Those of us who seen her in action appreciate her strength; we can use more journalists like her.

so I can't say as I have seen her and suspect that I will likely not.

Watch this take down of a Republican spewing trash about Uranium One. I have to deal with the same talking points from people around me sometimes and Joy arms me with the facts that I can use to shut them down.

[link:

She doesn't get pushed around, doesn't get talked over. I am proud of her. I expect most women are. She is a liberal weapon. We don't want to lose her.

I suspect this is payback for Laura Ingram.