You really hate this Snowden guy.

that you just learned of a week ago?

Perhaps you might want to modify your baseless accusation.

The OP presents facts, and in response, you sully the name of the OP. That's not cool. Welcome to DU, and enjoy your stay, which will be brief if you keep that kind of thing up.

...and it is a fair question to a$k why $he in$i$t$ on $tarting multiple po$t$ about the $ame topic...

We have a number of posters here who have very specific interests, and who post on them regularly. Who died and left you boss?

Since when do you have the right to be the content police? Here's what is fair--if you don't like the posts she makes, hit the ignore button and YOUR problem (and it's all yours) is solved. Or if your curiosity just can't be overcome, and you MUST be aware of her posts so you can complain about them, just hit the HIDE THREAD button once your curiosity is sated.

And the questioner to whom I responded was being very uncivil, particularly for a supposed newcomer. Cheerleading that kind of 'tude doesn't say much for you.

Are you not doing exactly the same thing to a new poster just a few comments down?

The OP posted a couple of paragraphs, with links.

The way things work in civil discourse is that people respond to the links and the paragraphs. They read the paragraphs, click on the links, read the full context, and then come back to the thread to read and discuss the matter raised.

Notice, if you will, that the most ardent rebuttals from low-post count posters and newcomers who are prosecuting a single, solitary agenda do not -- not even once--refute anything in the OP, beyond the "You're wrong, you pig!" attempts at "refutation." If they did actually refute the contents of the OP, rather than insult the poster, that would be what is called "discussion."

All that I see happening, from these people whose names are not familiar to me, is what appears to be an orchestrated series of insults directed at the OP.

By their words I shall know them. And I'm learning a great deal.

You making a list? You sure you don't work for the NSA!


Jawol! Arbeit macht frei!

To include your enthusiasm for Nazi phraseology.

Since you're not doing too terribly well up to this point, here's some reading for you that might help you during your time here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Aren't you precocious!

It was during the Cold War. East Germany. History... it's something.

They frequently used Nazi symbolism and references to advance their cause, and the Stasi was littered throughout with former Nazis at all levels:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi

The Stasi ordered a campaign in which cemeteries and other Jewish sites in West Germany were smeared with swastikas and other Nazi symbols. Funds were channelled to a small West German group for it to defend Adolf Eichmann.[41]


The Stasi channelled large amounts of money to Neo-Nazi groups in West, with the purpose of discrediting the West.[42]

...



http://www.dw.de/book-claims-stasi-employed-nazis-as-spies/a-1760980

the germans, the US, the UK, do you really want me to dig up that old dirt.
the occupying powers and their embracing of nazi's, the integration into their spy networks due to the fear of the communists?
the nazi's working on the US missile program?

Dig up all the old dirt you want--just don't try, like our little friend did, to suggest that there was no linkage between Stasi and the Nazis.

While you're at it, head down to South America and dig up dirt there, too, if the spirit moves you. It's not a secret that plenty of Nazis lived to fight another day, and made their way all over the world to so do.

if you dont dispute it i dont have to rub facts in your face, saves me some time digging up history i have read to much about already. i did not realise there was a linkage between stasi's and nazi's but it does not surprise me so i wont try to deny it, it does not make sense to do that.
so basically everyone loved the nazi's when it suited them, the stasi and the US and its allies, we find some common ground at last.

It is a topic full of surprising revelations that continue to this day.

It's no secret that the Nazis weren't stupid, and many cut deals with people all over the Globe who were either pragmatic, or like-minded, and sometimes both.

However, this thread isn't about them, and it has already been derailed way too much, so I'll say no more.

I do agree!

The Thought Police on both sides of any issue, now seem to want to attack the Poster vs. what the post is about.

Hmmm...how TeaPukeBagger of so many!

but not terribly enlightening comments.

I do notice.

I would imagine it's no less, no no more fair a question to ask why one may defend $nowden (see...? It does kinda work both ways-- and the implication is as absurd either way, too) when the topic arises. And, as you insist on fairness, I can only presume that that is indeed what you have been doing...

Unless of course, you merely hold one to a higher standard than the other.

for actually noticing ProSense's numerous fact free and agenda driven posts, and assuming this was simply more of the same. I think it's understandable though when finding fact and reason in an individual's posting history is like finding a needle in a haystack.

IGNORE and HIDE THREAD are YOUR friends, too.

Get a life, and stop worrying about what other people post.

The OP is neither "fact free" nor "agenda driven"--unless you don't happen to like the facts that are presented because it calls into question the "agenda" of someone's personal hero.

And, irony of irony, if it's so hard to find a needle in a haystack, then why object to haystacks....? That's a fair question.

but I think you need to turn that mirror around.

talk about THIS issue. You've been here just over a week, and what's been your focus?

You're not talking about congressional races or kittens, or tax codes--your posts have been All Snowden, All The Time for the last nine days. Google is anyone's friend, and all sixty some odd of your posts are available for all of us to view.

So maybe you need that mirror for yourself, because you plainly are a Dish It Out, Can't Take It kind of individual. The fact that you had the brass to call out the OP when your singular purpose here, since you joined the site on 7 Jun, has been to lead the Snowden Cheerleading Brigade, is the definition of irony.

Much as when we call a thing "bullshit" merely because it may challenge our own biases and preconceived notions.

However, I have no doubt you will rationalize your own actions as brining both depth and clarity to the subject rather than simply as a pejorative used most often used by the minds of petulant school children.

you must lead an exceptionally boring life.

Somebody(me) is off message!!

You certainly have, if not couth, message discipline.

Let me repeat that. 87,000. Eighty-seven thousand!

I've been here a long time, too, and I'm retired.

Ha HA! I have TIME to waste! Lucky ME!

Lucky you.

FWIW, people in the 2nd and 3rd worlds retire, too, so your attempt at meme utilization is a bit of a fail.

They might not have a computer to play with, but that's probably better for their health.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/first-world-problems

The fact you refuse to call out the OP, after several years of doing nothing but leading the Obama Cheerleading Brigade-- and yet feel comfortable questioning this poster's motives almost instantly is-- well, it seems to be a bit of double standard.

And he belongs to the DEMOCRATIC Party?

And this is DEMOCRATIC--not Paulbot, not Teabagger, Not Freaky Far Left Batshit--Underground?

So why in HELL would you consider it some kind of "crime" that a poster would "cheerlead" a Democrat on a Democratic message board?

Have you looked at some of the groups, here? We have a John Kerry group, an Elizabeth Warren group, a Hillary Clinton group....and what do these people have in common? Why, they are DEMOCRATS!

There's been some talk of agendas on this thread, and let me tell you, straight up--yours is showing. And it ain't pretty.

I think we both know what I'm talking about. There's a difference between supporting a party or even a specific politician, and actively, inexhaustibly playing defense/PR outlet for them for years on end.

Am I just seeing what I want to see? It's certainly possible. I don't claim to have a crystal ball. But you don't have one either.

There are people on this board with areas of interest that some might find OTT--whether it's a fact-free adoration of the government of Venezuela, or Castro, or an enthusiasm for a particular area of scientific study re: global warming and climate craziness, or feminist issues, or what-have-you. People have areas of interest--some can be a bit obsessive about them. Discussion boards accommodate that. You can (and perhaps should) choose to just NOT REPLY.

It doesn't even matter if--and I say if--she or anyone else on this board is "associated" with the administration. We've had lots of people here who do work for the Democratic party. Hell, I'm complicit, I've done some smiling and dialing and precinct walking in the past, and I even drive Democratic voters to the polls--I guess that makes me an "operative" of some sort.

There is NOTHING wrong with defending a Democrat on this damn Democratic message board--and if you think there is, well, maybe you took a wrong turn. The admins have given you tools so that, if you encounter someone you don't like, you won't be discommoded--you can ignore the poster and make her go pooof, you can hide her threads, but what you can't do is say that a Democrat talking up a Democrat on this board is a bad thing, and expect to go unchallenged. And when you DO say something like that, I say something stinks.

I don't give a flying fart if Prosense is Barack Obama himself. There's NOTHING wrong with the stuff she posts--she's not touting Christie or Rand Paul or Nader for President, now, is she?

If you don't agree with her views, refute what she puts up, or ignore/hide it, but don't ever impugn or malign the motives of a Democrat simply for touting the activities of a Democratic administration on a Democratic message board.

That's just fucked up.

You questioned the motives of a poster because they showed a consistent interest in a certain topic. Now you say that's just fine and doesn't suggest any agenda at all (when done by people you agree with, of course), and if others can't address their actual comments, they should ignore them.

You seem to make a lot of accusations while condemning the same accusations from others, and offer a lot of advice that you don't follow yourself.

questioning the interests of the OP.

Follow along, do.

Calling someone a "hater" as a piss-poor substitute for actually making an argument to refute what the person has to say is some lame-ass shit, IMO. I take issue with the poster's "You must be a Snowden hater" snark because it serves only to derail discussion, not foster it.

That poster still has had absolutely nothing of substance to say in this thread about the actual topic presented--it's nothing but snark and accusations, which, by any standard, is behavior that is contrary to message board etiquette in most venues.

I'm just pointing it out. This kind of crap needs to be dialed back, and I don't think I am the only one in the DU community who doesn't like this sleazy, personality-based approach to "discussion" and thinks it stinks up the place.

I see you were pretty consistent on that point from the beginning. I apologize.

But, so long as a few disruptors are hell-bent on shutting down any substantive conversation with snark and personal attacks, while avoiding answering any of the points made in the OP, we're not going to have that discussion.

And if we don't ever have that discussion, all we have is more shitflinging and pissing contests, and that makes DU suck.

There is a tremendous amount of 'discussion derailing' happening on DU the past week or so -- and it really stinks.

This sub-thread is a perfect example.

I'm in "See it/say it" mode lately. We are capable of great discussion here, when we actually discuss.

I resent these snark-dumps and "asparagus casting" exercises. They're all heat, no light.

If we're to learn something new about this matter, we're not going to learn it by reading "Nanny nanny booboo, stick it in yer poopoo!" directed at posters with whom others disagree.

I haven't felt this scrutinized since the phone call I made an hour ago was intercepted by the NSA. You working for them?

That poster could ask, based on your 68 posts about Snowden in the last ten days, if you're working for Snowden or Greenwald.

I should hope not, as they aren't getting their money's worth.

Your behavior here is what invites scrutiny. You have control over that. Just sayin'....

suspects are everywhere and everybody is an informant. Who even needs the NSA?

You don't even know that the STASI were the East German secret police. Not NAZIs.

You're looking rather foolish with your keyhole view of history.

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/ns-staat-stasi-und-der-geheimdienst-die-braune-vergangenheit-des-bnd-1.973761

I see a post title that is the OP's own interpretation; a question that seems to indicate confusion on what the phrase “Glenn Greenwald follow up” could mean; and a second question indicating the OP’s apparent skepticism that SIGINT could have any relevance in a discussion of access to tech companies’ servers.

What I find most curious is that the last link is to an earlier thread the OP started about a story, instead of to the story itself. That story, by Rick Perlstein, was built around a questionable interpretation by Perlstein, and does not qualify as “fact.”

"You really hate that Snowden guy" isn't a fact--it's a bullshit assertion that substitutes, poorly, for a refutation of the OP.

Which the poster STILL hasn't been able to cough up.

replying to all the posters who don't agree with the OP. But I was referring to your post in which you maintain that the OP is presenting "facts."

instead of snarking you would see that.

I have no problem with people DISAGREEING--but shit, disagree with facts, with discussion points, not "Prosense is an operative" and "Prosense is an Obama shill" and "Prosense does PR for the administration"--that, to me is lazy and pure horseshit.

And some of it is coming from people who seemed to sign up here just to toss those kinds of shitbombs, and that, to me, is suspicious.

You got something to say? Say it. Disagree? Tell us WHY and provide some of those swell links that certain derailers on this thread seem unwilling to cough up.

Don't denigrate a DUer as a substitute for a substantive response.

Is that clear enough for you?

As for the OP, it is a "fact" that you can't "listen in on people's phone calls" using SIGINT, and it would appear that Greenwald and his little friend were either fluffing words to stay unclear or even deliberately obfuscating on that point--for starters. There's plenty to learn in those links--but I guess, for some, making fun of the person posting them is a cheaper and easier way of reaching one's goal.

The OP asked a question that implied that you can't, and then linked to definitions. That's all. Sorry, but that kind of writing does not constitute "fact."

The OP is perfectly entitled to interpret, and imply, and assert things without proffering a reasoned argument, but then that is a post light on substance. Moreover, merely adding a column of links—especially when the link only goes to a previous thread he started, as if that's some kind of QED!—does not constitute reasoned argument. The reasoning is missing.

Add your own discussion points.

Do your part as a thread participant to get some back-and-forth going, so that the issues can be dissected and discussed.

I don't like a DU where responses to OPs consist of "Yay hoo" or "Fuck You," and nothing more. Refute the substance of the OP, or don't bother.

You can't "listen in" to SIGINT, unless your target is using morse code. You can listen in to COMINT, but that's a different thing.

See, it's all a matter of knowing the nomenclature, and the OP's links should have fostered a discussion about that very use of nomenclature, and if it was being used to bamboozle people who don't know the difference. Instead, all it did was bring out a bunch of name-callers.

You have been very generous in this thread with your advice on how people should be responding in their posts. First it's with tone—even when the OP titles his post with the word "bullshit" in it, responses are supposed to be civil—and now you are giving instruction on content.

I don't like, nor am I impressed by, threads with nothing but links in them. Links don't foster discussion all by themselves. That's not substance. And nothing in the OP was written to initiate discussion (much less civil discussion). It's not my responsibility to get some back-and-forth going. That lies with the person who starts the thread.

"Bullshit right back at you" and provided a few links in refutation. It's not simply a case of "Ewww, don't use naughty words" it's a case of "Stick to the OP subject, and don't use personal insults as a substitute for conversation."

And if you don't like OPs that consist of links for discussion, hit the HIDE THREAD button and move on. Plenty of people LIKE the concept of using links to raise points, followed by "Discuss?" It's a variation on a "Coffee Talk" theme.

and how it so deeply bothers you that you have to bring it up IN EVERY RESPONSE TO ME.

So I didn't read this post of yours. Bye.

Much preferable than playing the "Waaah, bye" game simply because I don't agree with you!

You could have engaged the OP on the issues, too--that was always an option.

All you've done is given the post two more kicks for the evening crowd...

You answers have been spot on!

The attacks, on the OP, that I have seen tonight on DU are over the top!

It is repeated by the same band, thread after thread.

One has to ask themselves, what are they so afraid of?

Hmmmm?

I notice you are all talking about something I'd prefer you ignore. As you can see here...



...you complaints are completely invalid. Please exit the thread in an orderly fashion. Exits can be found here:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Giraffes-are-cool/149628811742465

Here:

http://pudgykitties.tumblr.com/

And here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/

Also, please read the following links fully before responding to this thread again:

http://www.biblegateway.com/

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2600

http://www.census.gov/

Only needs a few bolded sentences and you'd have it down perfectly

It undoubtedly means you are correct!!!

Now you just need a fellow poster to follow behind you blasting everything anybody says that would dare contradict you.

post yet another derailing, unsubstantiated insinuation, which is what you just did.

It's a smorgasborg

Anymore than a gardener hates the grass he cuts.

good work ProSense.

It's a very slow updating process. New Tweets only appear every few minutes.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

There is no "upstream" if his interpretation is right. There's nothing "upstream" from being able to get any data from any major server. The "upstream" refers to their legal ability to directly tap foreign communications through American servers pursuant to a broader warrant than is allowed for American communications. The slide Greenwald himself released refers to the upstream as a separate capability from PRISM analysis.

Sid

changing his story--he's hoping people don't know the difference.

From your 2nd to last link:

I hear They have direct access to the vibrations that emanate from the motion.

"Hand On Key Emanation System" or something like that.

A friend tried to tell me I had it wrong, that it was actually spelled "hoax", but that just isn't possible, so ignored him.

(On edit: yes, I am kidding.)

MonaHol
17 June 2013 4:37pm

Ed Snowden, I thank you for your brave service to our country.

Some skepticism exists about certain of your claims, including this:

I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President if I had a personal email.

Do you stand by that, and if so, could you elaborate?

Answer:

Yes, I stand by it. US Persons do enjoy limited policy protections (and again, it's important to understand that policy protection is no protection - policy is a one-way ratchet that only loosens) and one very weak technical protection - a near-the-front-end filter at our ingestion points. The filter is constantly out of date, is set at what is euphemistically referred to as the "widest allowable aperture," and can be stripped out at any time. Even with the filter, US comms get ingested, and even more so as soon as they leave the border. Your protected communications shouldn't stop being protected communications just because of the IP they're tagged with.

More fundamentally, the "US Persons" protection in general is a distraction from the power and danger of this system. Suspicionless surveillance does not become okay simply because it's only victimizing 95% of the world instead of 100%. Our founders did not write that "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all US Persons are created equal."

I find that not only am I having to read it over again and again, I get the worse headache!! Is it just me or does he talk in circles?

It's like a student trying to bullshit his/her teacher.

Though you wouldn't know that by your headline.

Folks need to go to the site themselves so as to not be bamboozled by the totalitarian apologist.

They are Harvesting, Storing, and Analyzing ALL Americans communications.

And that needs to be investigated, and the SCOTUS needs to weigh in on this, to let us know if we now live in a totalitarian state or not.

...servers

NOTHING

Give me a PP on the network infrastructure then we'll talk

They are tying directly into the fiber optic cables as well, but it does not matter one bit how they are doing it but the fact that they are harvesting, storing, and analyzing ALL our digital and phone communications, including CONTENT, is what matters.

Snowden should show a network topology doc FROM THE NSA to prove his point otherwise he's..taling ish

There's SOMETHING that allows us to know he's just not making a claim


Maybe show a ping to a google backend server beyond googles DMZ but from WITHIN the NSA?

Again, he has to show proof and there are plenty of ways to get it

....back end SERVERS from within the NSA.

You posted before they tapped into FO lines .... good, show us the proof...

Right now the guy is claiming he never reveled any "legitimate" military targets as if we're supposed to believe him on what's legitimate or not.

I want the guy to link and quote his data an prove what he's talking about not just make claims