I'm confused ...

Are you just “throwing it out there?”

I absolutely love Joy, and I don't really find that much 'fault' with a woman not caring to watch two guys go at it. As I've said elsewhere I've yet to meet a woman who 'wants' to watch that, yet many who do not ... also don't have an actual homophobic bone in their body.

That said, from my cursory understanding, it does seem odd to apologize, but then say later 'I was hacked'. Or does the hacking have nothing to do with the accusations?

Feel free to enlighten me, I'm all about exonerating her, for reals.

And that you were confused.

You are the first I have seen to present that line of thought. Maybe I should have put more emphasis on your second sentence.

Not into the divisions, and seeing everyone on DU fight about 'how bad XXX Democrat really IS!' ... it kinda makes me ill. Esp. when the fight appears to center around someone just not being as UBER PC at all times as some people expect around here.

Can you briefly explain to me the apparent dichotomy I brought up?

All I'm asking is that you educate yourself before casting aspersions. But that seems just too much for you.

I know there was an apology for what she said, but then she said her old account or blog or whatever was hacked.

Are they completely unrelated matters?

What's the 'fraudulent posts' described in teh OP?

Try again.

What's the 'fraudulent posts' described in the OP?

The editor of The Intercept would be proud.

Fact is, I love Joy, I don't give a ratsass if she failed to meet the exactly standards of the DU PC Police 10 years ago. I don't care if she didn't wanna watch Brokeback, I don't care if she said so and so was in the closet.

From what I understand, she posted some stuff along those lines, 10 years ago, she later apologized, seems like 'end of story'.

I'm legit just trying to understand WTF does her account(s) or whatever being hacked ... have to do with the initial comments, and the subsequent apology?

Surely you can see why it wouldn't make sense for 'hacking' to be involved with this matter ... UNLESS the claim is that BOTH the initial posts, AND the apologies ... are both hacks. Hence my initial friggin' question.

WHAT ARE THE FRAUDULENT POSTS discussed in the OP?

If the hacks actually have nothing to do with the whole 'homophobia' thing, then just f***ing tell me. I don't care to read all about the details of a story I already know is just another 'Cernovich dividing the Left' scam.

That's the reality of the situation for me.

turning or you don't. Which is it?

original comments and subsequent apology, or if they're two totally unrelated 'things' that happen to be coming out at the same time.

I don't care to open a bunch threads here to watch everyone fight just like Cernovich wants ... it's friggin' depressing.

EDIT: BTW ... KEEP IT TURNING? Half the frigging threads the last two day are this whole damn site 'keeping the wheel turning' ffs ... but I'm the only 'bad guy'. Got it.

Have a nice day.

I have to say you guys are friggin' depressing me right now.

Cernovich is definitely winning this one.

Good day to you sir ...

(not just this poster, but several others)

inside track on this story and knows all about it?

Again I think you are repeating the story line over and over which in my eyes does not bode well for you

Okay, so what I gather from the Steph Miller interview with Malcolm is that there's OTHER, separate 'extremist alt-right-sounding' stuff on her blog from around the same time as the Brokeback comments, and THAT is what her people are asserting as having been the result of a hack. And since nobody at the time commented about THOSE comments, but DID about the Brokeback ones, that gives further weight to the idea they're hacked in at a later time.

I got that straight?

See, you could've just said from the beginning 'no dude, the Brokeback/Apology is not what's hacked, there's OTHER extremist alt-right sounding stuff from that same era, and THAT is what she's saying was hacked in later/not really hers'.

I hadn't heard about 'the other stuff', you see? I thought the whole hub-bub (in the few threads I looked at yesterday, that was all I saw anyone talking about) was about the Brokeback/Closeted Congressman thing.

So when news of 'hacking' and 'fraudulent posts' came out (in the OP), I was like wait, what? The only way that makes sense is if both the comments and apology ... were hacked into existence. Which sounded RIDICULOUS ... Hence my question and confusion.

Apologies for not being 'informed' up to the damn second.

As I said, you go with that dude.

YOU directed me to the youtube link, and I JUST watched the video, and Malcolm Nance literally SAID that there was extremist alt-right stuff on her blog.

And that 'alt-right' stuff ... IS WHAT THE FRAUDULENT POSTS are ... that's what the HACK IS ... which is what I didn't understand at first. I didn't 'know' about their supposed existence.

Srsly, WTF, dude. You're being incredibly fucking lame.

Listen to Malcolm from 03:40 to 04:00, it's RIGHT THERE on tape.

You really don't have to be here.

As you can see below, I've since been 'schooled' on my failure to keep my ear to the ground every second before deigning to comment.

a National Election, it seems.

I surely hope that MSNBC hears from enough viewers to extend more support to her. I fear she is not going to be given the time it will take to prove her case.

I know they have to get their legal ducks in row. So glad this is going forward.

The Wayback Machine wasn't hacked. It wasn't spoofed. The blog was supposedly hacked before it was archived, which means it was hacked back in 2006 when Reid was an obscure Florida personality.

Or are they claiming that her blog was hacked over a decade ago when the posts in question were archived?

Edit: NB that the "dark web" wasn't a thing in 2006: Nichols suggested that someone may have found a password on the "dark web" and used it to access Reid's account on Blogger.com, which is owned by Google, an operation he characterized as simple. And Nichols insisted that he nor Reid aren't suggesting that the Internet Archive or other archival sites were hacked.

So Nichols is suggesting that the blog was hacked more recently. But the archived posts were archived over a decade ago. Therefore, Reid's claims that she was "hacked" are bullshit. QED.

He was also claiming the screenshots of the archive might have been doctored, which is kind of stupid if the questionable material was inserted years before on the website itself.

There is no coherent narrative in his statement. It reads less like a cyber attack analysis and more like a lawyer trying to establish reasonable doubt.

Not until a few years later (and especially after the rise of Bitcoin). TOR had only been around in broad public release for a few years at that point, and "darknet" sites didn't really take off as a Thing closer to around 2010 or so (after Bitcoin arrived in 2009, enabling a darknet economy in illegal goods using payment methods other than real, traceable money).

Ever hang out on IRC in the 1990s?

and that doesn't change the fact that the posts in question were archived shortly after being originally posted (within days in many cases) and have therefore been there for over a decade.

because the date the page was archived is visible on the archived page. You see the version of the page that existed on that date. Any later changes would have a later date.

hacking sites?

in 1969...

1969..the year social media fought the Vietnam War..yup.

screen with crayons and print inside out and backwards.

Verify you are a real live boy or girl..

In the country of the blind, one-eyed man is king.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't me.

But like all Internet technology, it has morphed and changed.

The wayback machine does not guarantee anything https://burningbird.net/the-joy-reid-saga-the-wayback-machine-cannot-guarantee-authenticity/#.WuDw69w6PTy.twitter

Don't expect a reply from the poster.

Why different dates and entities? Was someone else doing it? Why?

trashing people and bullying people is the MO of the alt right or whatever they want to be called.
Joy is being targeted.