ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 2016 elections , Clinton controversies , hillary clinton , James Comey , presidential candidates

Reply
Old 13th June 2016, 12:23 PM   #161
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,511
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Ok, then I am misunderstanding the situation. What markings are missing?
All of them except "(c)"

https://www.archives.gov/isoo/traini...ents-email.pdf
So the (c) is step 1.

Steps 2 & 3 are absent.
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 12:40 PM   #162
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,293
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
We know that it wasn't properly marked classified, at least according to the manual TheL8Elvis linked on classifications markings.
That only adds blame to Hillary's underlings, it does nothing to excuse her.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 12:44 PM   #163
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
IMO, no, it wouldn't.
Attempts are not evidence of success, no matter how much you want it to be so.
When you don't know what the outcome of the attacks were (which we don't) and each attack has a chance of success (which it does), then yes it is evidence.

It's very easy to prove this. Let's say the odds of any hacking attempt being successful are 1% (you can quibble over the number, but not the fact that it will be greater than 0).

So there's hacking attempt 1, then another attempt, and another... It's like playing the lottery: each ticket has an extraordinarily low chance of winning, but if you buy enough, you can guarantee you'll win. If a system is attacked enough times, and each time there's a chance of success, eventually it becomes ridiculous to believe every attempt was a failure.

The hypothesis "Clinton's system was compromised" is true if just one attempt was successful. As the number of attempts increase, the chances that one of them were successful also increases. The logic of your position is that if Clinton's server was under attack 24/7, for years, a million separate attempts to compromise it, you wouldn't think that that's evidence that it was ever compromised. If you don't see why that's ridiculous, read up on confirmation theory, I guess.

Quote:
I'd be curious if someone else agrees with you, and could try to explain it in a different way.
Me too, I'm obviously not doing a good job explaining.

Quote:
You mean the IT guy who cooperated with the FBI ?
Yes, only after he was granted immunity. We don't know what he's told the FBI.

Quote:
I'm believing the leak that claimed there was no evidence of compromise:
Why?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us...king.html?_r=0
A former aide to Hillary Clinton has turned over to the F.B.I. computer security logs from Mrs. Clinton’s private server, records that showed no evidence of foreign hacking, according to people close to a federal investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails.


Quote:
That, and the lack of any leak or evidence to the contrary.
There's been too much "according to people close to the investigation.". The New York Times is just as partisan as Fox News.

Quote:
Again, Guccifers self-serving claim, by itself, is not evidence he hacked anything.
Of course it is because it's a credible claim. He hacked Bush and Clinton's friend Blumenthal, so his claim is prima facie credible. Possibly he's lying, but possibly he's not.

Again, if a thousand people like Guccifer, who all had a history of hacking people close to Clinton, claimed to have compromised her system, either her system was compromised or every single person is lying. It's more likely her system was compromised.

Last edited by Fudbucker; 13th June 2016 at 12:46 PM.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 12:44 PM   #164
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 3,957
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Of course not because every attempt has been a failure,
Equally applicable to Hillary's server. There has not been a single substantiated claim that someone has entered the server. Even the person that claims to have "hacked" her server has absolutely no evidence to backup his claim. No information on the server, what security it ran, how he got in, or anything else.

Also, I'm sick of the word "hacked" being used for everything. Guessing someone's password isn't hacking, it's guessing someone's password. Just like DDOS'ing someone's computer isn't hacking. It's script kiddy ******** that anyone can do. It's not all that tough.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
and there's no evidence the paranormal exists.
Just like there's no evidence Hillary's server was "hacked". Absolutely none, not a single iota of evidence that it happened at all.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Has every hacking attempt been a failure?
It would appear so considering the security logs don't show any entrance to the server, and there's nothing else that gives any indication that her server was broken into.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Is hacking paranormal?
It might as well be for all of the knowledge you seem to have on the subject.
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 12:47 PM   #165
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,293
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
All of them except "(c)"

https://www.archives.gov/isoo/traini...ents-email.pdf
So the (c) is step 1.

Steps 2 & 3 are absent.
Step 2 is the overall classification. Let's see what your document has to say about that:
E-mail transmitted on or prepared for transmission on classified systems or networks shall be configured to display the overall classification at the top and bottom of the body of each message.
Huh. Clinton's server wasn't a classified system or network. This information should never have been on her server at all. This makes Hillary look better... how?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 12:48 PM   #166
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,293
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Equally applicable to Hillary's server. There has not been a single substantiated claim that someone has entered the server. Even the person that claims to have "hacked" her server has absolutely no evidence to backup his claim.
The people most likely to have done so are never going to say that they did so.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 12:49 PM   #167
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 3,957
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
read up on confirmation theory, I guess.

Of course it is because it's a credible claim. He hacked Bush and Clinton's friend Blumenthal, so his claim is prima facie credible. Possibly he's lying, but possibly he's not.

Again, if a thousand people like Guccifer, who all had a history of hacking people close to Clinton, claimed to have compromised her system, either her system was compromised or every single person is lying. It's more likely her system was compromised.
Holy *********** irony Justice League. Telling someone to read up on confirmation theory, then go on to list a bunch of word salad equating to your own confirmation theory.

Do you have any experience in IT at all? The things you say directly fly in the face of how the internet and **** like that works. I know I'm only a network administrator so IT security is only about 40% of my job, but wow. I'm learning a lot of from you that I didn't learn, despite JUST graduating.
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 12:50 PM   #168
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 3,957
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The people most likely to have done so are never going to say that they did so.
So you don't find it the least bit ironic that Fud is placing all of his chips in that basket? Are we doing the whole "absence of evidence is obviously evidence that it *********** happened" mindset? Just curious how "skeptical" we're getting here.
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 12:52 PM   #169
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,115
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Step 2 is the overall classification. Let's see what your document has to say about that:
E-mail transmitted on or prepared for transmission on classified systems or networks shall be configured to display the overall classification at the top and bottom of the body of each message.
Huh. Clinton's server wasn't a classified system or network. This information should never have been on her server at all. This makes Hillary look better... how?
You will also note that in addition to the "c" marking, the earlier text of the email specifically notes that the the talking points were not included in the "pouch" which is of course the classified courier pouch for the transmittal of classified information.

So not only was it marked the body of the email itself reinforces that it was classified.
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 12:53 PM   #170
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
And there's no evidence that a successful hack exists, and all evidence points to every attempt being a failure. Which is why claiming that the number of attempts is evidence of a successful attempt is just wrong.
The only good evidence we have is that at least two attempts were made. We don't know if they were successful, but we do know that people are successfully hacked all the time.

I don't know why this is hard. The hypothesis in question is "Clinton's server was compromised". In order for that to be true, every attack made against it had to have failed. Every single. If each attack has a chance of succeeding, as the number of attacks increases, the odds that every single attack was a failure drops until it becomes too remote a possibility to believe, and you're forced to accept the alternative: Clinton's system was compromised.

Now, we don't have a million bazillion hacking attempts. But we know of at least two, and if the two attacks had a non-zero chance of being successful, they count at evidence. If the chance of success is greater than zero, they can't NOT count as evidence.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 12:57 PM   #171
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
So you don't find it the least bit ironic that Fud is placing all of his chips in that basket? Are we doing the whole "absence of evidence is obviously evidence that it *********** happened" mindset? Just curious how "skeptical" we're getting here.
Plague, do you know for a fact that Guccifer is lying? Is there a chance he's telling the truth?
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 01:13 PM   #172
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 3,957
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
The only good evidence we have is that at least two attempts were made. We don't know if they were successful, but we do know that people are successfully hacked all the time.
Your constant denial that security logs show no evidence that there was a hack is getting to be utterly pathetic. Two attempts to hack a server is dog ****. I have more attempts than that on personal equipment, naturally depending on what a "hacking attempt" is it could be hundreds.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I don't know why this is hard. The hypothesis in question is "Clinton's server was compromised". In order for that to be true, every attack made against it had to have failed.
Yeah, and we have evidence of 2 attacks. For some reason you're like...shocked that a few attempts failed. It could be 2,000, hell it could be 200,000 attempts and I wouldn't be surprised if every single one failed. It depends what they're attempting to do to get into the server. Again, saying "hacking" is stupid. It's a blanket term that means nothing to me. Think of the hundreds of thousands of attacks that google\yahoo\bing face daily. They all fail.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Every single. If each attack has a chance of succeeding, as the number of attacks increases, the odds that every single attack was a failure drops until it becomes too remote a possibility to believe, and you're forced to accept the alternative: Clinton's system was compromised.
Huh? This doesn't even make sense in the IT world. Everything ever has a chance of succeeding. I have a chance of flying by myself without help, but I would still guess it isn't going to happen. You're coming to a conclusion based on nothing more than your ignorance of how this **** works. You're so far off base it's not even funny. Net security is forever changing. Patches, updates, hot fixes, etc. all update net security. You don't just install "net security" and be done. I don't know what software she was using or what detection software she had so that's why I'm not making claims like you.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Now, we don't have a million bazillion hacking attempts. But we know of at least two, and if the two attacks had a non-zero chance of being successful, they count at evidence. If the chance of success is greater than zero, they can't NOT count as evidence.
I don't know if you're playing semantics here or what is going on. Every website you go to, every script you run from a site, every cookie you get has a chance of "hacking your intertubez! OMGZ!ONE!1!!ELEVENTY!". They aren't evidence of **** other than someone was poking around the internet. The "attacks" could have just as easily been scripted and no human ever saw them.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Plague, do you know for a fact that Guccifer is lying? Is there a chance he's telling the truth?
I don't speak in certainties when it comes to the IT world, as anyone that actually works in IT would tell you is a pretty standard. I can't say either way. What I CAN say is that there is no evidence to support a statement, other than someone who has hacked before made a completely unsupported statement. If you want to take that evidence, go right ahead, but it's a ******** argument to try and defend.
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

Last edited by plague311; 13th June 2016 at 01:20 PM.
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 01:14 PM   #173
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
So you don't find it the least bit ironic that Fud is placing all of his chips in that basket? Are we doing the whole "absence of evidence is obviously evidence that it *********** happened" mindset? Just curious how "skeptical" we're getting here.
I don't what "absence of evidence" you're talking about. We have the IG report stating there were two attempts:

"Cooper, according to the report, reached out to Huma Abedin on Jan. 9, 2011 to notify her of the hacking problem, an occurrence that happened twice that day. He said he "had to shut down the server because he believed ‘someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to,’” the report says.
“Later that day, the advisor again wrote to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, ‘We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min,’” the report reads.


And don't blame me for using the word "hack", which appears in the IG report.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...#ixzz4BUZRCQtX

And the other evidence is Guccifer's claim.

"The hacker has been indicted on nine felony counts related to his hacking into accounts of senior U.S. officials, including former President George W. Bush and ex-Secretary of State Colin Powell. Lazar’s hacking into Bush’s email account exposed self-portraits and other paintings that the former president had after leaving office.

His access to longtime Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal’s email account first exposed Clinton’s use of a private email account during her time in office.
"
http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...o-plead-guilty

But in Hillary-land none of this is evidence. Everything breaks her way all the time and all negative claims about her are lies, because Hillary.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 01:25 PM   #174
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 3,957
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post

I don't what "absence of evidence" you're talking about. We have the IG report stating there were two attempts:

"Cooper, according to the report, reached out to Huma Abedin on Jan. 9, 2011 to notify her of the hacking problem, an occurrence that happened twice that day. He said he "had to shut down the server because he believed ‘someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to,’” the report says.
“Later that day, the advisor again wrote to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, ‘We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min,’” the report reads.
Nothing showing that they were hacked, and it sounds like they had some pretty top notch detection software or maybe hardware. I don't know if they were using a physical firewall or what. Again, I have no idea.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
And don't blame me for using the word "hack", which appears in the IG report.
Wasn't blaming anyone, I was saying the term is dog ****. It doesn't do anything to explain what is happening.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...#ixzz4BUZRCQtX

And the other evidence is Guccifer's claim.

"The hacker has been indicted on nine felony counts related to his hacking into accounts of senior U.S. officials, including former President George W. Bush and ex-Secretary of State Colin Powell. Lazar’s hacking into Bush’s email account exposed self-portraits and other paintings that the former president had after leaving office.

His access to longtime Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal’s email account first exposed Clinton’s use of a private email account during her time in office.
"
http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...o-plead-guilty

But in Hillary-land none of this is evidence. Everything breaks her way all the time and all negative claims about her are lies, because Hillary.
Now let me point something out to you. Neither of those email accounts were on a private server using private security. They were hacked using brute force attacks (guessing a password a bunch of times until they get in). Powell used Gmail, and Blumenthal used yahoo I believe. Again, those aren't really "hacks" as much as it is guessing. It's also not impressive. Buy a computer off of craigslist, get a rainbow chart, some software and hack wi-fi's. Doing it will get you in a ton of trouble if you get caught, but they aren't impressive by any means.
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 01:26 PM   #175
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,561
Funny that people are freaking out because there were a couple attempts to hack Hillary's server given that we know for a fact that the state department system was hacked.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 01:26 PM   #176
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,511
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Plague, do you know for a fact that Guccifer is lying? Is there a chance he's telling the truth?
Of course there isn't.

Seems odd there's not a mention of Clinton in here, doesn't it ?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documen...victims-637098
FEBRUARY 14--As federal agents hunt for the culprit who illegally accessed several Bush family e-mail accounts, The Smoking Gun has learned that the hacker’s victim list also includes a U.S. Senator, a senior United Nations official, security contractors in Iraq, two former FBI agents, and a Department of Defense supervisor.

No, it's not odd, becuase he just made up ******** red meat to throw to the HDS crowd (way after her knowledge of her server was made public), and they ate it up.
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov

Last edited by TheL8Elvis; 13th June 2016 at 01:27 PM.
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 01:28 PM   #177
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,511
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The people most likely to have done so are never going to say that they did so.
Really ? I don't agree, many of "The people most likely to have done so" *********** live just to tell you all about it.
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 01:34 PM   #178
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Nothing showing that they were hacked, and it sounds like they had some pretty top notch detection software or maybe hardware. I don't know if they were using a physical firewall or what. Again, I have no idea.



Wasn't blaming anyone, I was saying the term is dog ****. It doesn't do anything to explain what is happening.



Now let me point something out to you. Neither of those email accounts were on a private server using private security. They were hacked using brute force attacks (guessing a password a bunch of times until they get in). Powell used Gmail, and Blumenthal used yahoo I believe. Again, those aren't really "hacks" as much as it is guessing. It's also not impressive. Buy a computer off of craigslist, get a rainbow chart, some software and hack wi-fi's. Doing it will get you in a ton of trouble if you get caught, but they aren't impressive by any means.
Perhaps that's what Guccifer did to Clinton as well.

And the bolded seem to be odds with any strong claims regarding Clinton's server (i.e., "Clinton's server was never compromised).

Or maybe you think it could have been compromised? Possibly? Tiny percent chance someone got in?
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 01:37 PM   #179
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
Of course there isn't.

Seems odd there's not a mention of Clinton in here, doesn't it ?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documen...victims-637098
FEBRUARY 14--As federal agents hunt for the culprit who illegally accessed several Bush family e-mail accounts, The Smoking Gun has learned that the hacker’s victim list also includes a U.S. Senator, a senior United Nations official, security contractors in Iraq, two former FBI agents, and a Department of Defense supervisor.

No, it's not odd, becuase he just made up ******** red meat to throw to the HDS crowd (way after her knowledge of her server was made public), and they ate it up.
Well, I can see why you had trouble earlier. Apparently it's impossible Guccifer could be telling the truth. Right. Carry on, intrepid skeptic.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 01:38 PM   #180
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,511
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Step 2 is the overall classification. Let's see what your document has to say about that:
E-mail transmitted on or prepared for transmission on classified systems or networks shall be configured to display the overall classification at the top and bottom of the body of each message.
Huh. Clinton's server wasn't a classified system or network. This information should never have been on her server at all. This makes Hillary look better... how?
Because it was on her server, that would make my de facto initial thought that an email doesn't contain classified data. It doesn't have all of the markings a classified document should. Perhaps someone lifted out the non-classified parts and sent that, believing it was not classified, and it was later deemed classified during an over-zealous review.

I don't know.

It doesn't change my opinion of the big picture - I don't believe it would have been any different had she had an State Dept. email. I think it's irrelevant, and won't change anything.

I guess Kudos to fox (or whoever) for finally finding some classified markings out of 30k emails, if that is in fact what those are.

But shouldn't matter to most of the HDS sufferers in the thread - they have been calling Clinton a congenital liar since before they knew she had an email server.
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 01:40 PM   #181
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,511
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Well, I can see why you had trouble earlier. Apparently it's impossible Guccifer could be telling the truth. Right. Carry on, intrepid skeptic.
Right.

If Donald Trump claims he's the next coming of Jesus Christ, being a "skeptic" doesn't actually require me to suspend belief and pretend it's possibly true, just because he said it.

Is that really how you approach the world ?
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 01:40 PM   #182
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Funny that people are freaking out because there were a couple attempts to hack Hillary's server given that we know for a fact that the state department system was hacked.
Government officials tend to get hacked a lot don't they?

The problem for Clinton is if someone got in her private server, where there were thousands of classified emails, and stole some classified info, that almost sounds...

grossly negligent?
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 01:44 PM   #183
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
Right.

If Donald Trump claims he's the next coming of Jesus Christ, being a "skeptic" doesn't actually require me to suspend belief and pretend it's possibly true, just because he said it.

Is that really how you approach the world ?
Right because the guy who got into Bush, Powell, and Blumenthal's accounts simply cannot be believed when he claims he also got into Blumenthal's buddy Clinton's account. It becomes comparable to Trump claiming he's Jesus as soon as Hillary is involved.

Like I said, carry on.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 01:47 PM   #184
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,561
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Government officials tend to get hacked a lot don't they?

The problem for Clinton is if someone got in her private server, where there were thousands of classified emails, and stole some classified info, that almost sounds...

grossly negligent?
There's a whole lot more classified info on the state department system which we know for a fact was hacked (remember the classified info on Hillary's server got there because subordinates emailed it to her). Yet you freak out because there were a couple of attempts on Hillary's server. *********** please. This is ridiculous.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 01:51 PM   #185
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,511
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Right because the guy who got into Bush, Powell, and Blumenthal's accounts simply cannot be believed when he claims he also got into Blumenthal's buddy Clinton's account. It becomes comparable to Trump claiming he's Jesus as soon as Hillary is involved.

Like I said, carry on.
Well, when it turns out there is no evidence that Guccifer hacked Clintons email, you can rest on your laurels because you were a "proper" skeptic.

Say, how do you prove a negative like that anyway ? What if it was the perfect hack and he left no trail ? And he printed out the emails,read all the emails, and then destroyed them ?

Are you destined to believe forever that maybe guccifer hacked her ?

Like some sort of Schrödinger's hack or something ?
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov

Last edited by TheL8Elvis; 13th June 2016 at 01:53 PM.
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 01:58 PM   #186
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
There's a whole lot more classified info on the state department system which we know for a fact was hacked (remember the classified info on Hillary's server got there because subordinates emailed it to her). Yet you freak out because there were a couple of attempts on Hillary's server. *********** please. This is ridiculous.
It's nice to get an accurate assessment of "freak out" from someone who's been having a meltdown about evil Republicans all day.

Anyway, none of this means much to me, I'm not emotionally invested in Clinton becoming president. I'm pointing out that Clinton's decision to exclusively conduct state dept business with a private email account puts her in legal jeopardy if any classified info was stolen. Based on all the hacking going on at the highest levels, I'd say there's a good chance someone got into her account.

Oh, but it's Clinton, so in Clintonese "good chance someone got into her account" translates to "logically impossible for any hacker to guess even the first digit of her password (Clinton2016)".
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 02:06 PM   #187
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,561
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
It's nice to get an accurate assessment of "freak out" from someone who's been having a meltdown about evil Republicans all day.

Anyway, none of this means much to me, I'm not emotionally invested in Clinton becoming president. I'm pointing out that Clinton's decision to exclusively conduct state dept business with a private email account puts her in legal jeopardy if any classified info was stolen. Based on all the hacking going on at the highest levels, I'd say there's a good chance someone got into her account.

Oh, but it's Clinton, so in Clintonese "good chance someone got into her account" translates to "logically impossible for any hacker to guess even the first digit of her password (Clinton2016)".
You don't care are yet keep posting about this. Sure.

Your evidence that it was hacked remains at nothing. Nobody cares if you think there is a good chance.

And LOL at your pathetic strawman. Nobody believes that it was impossible that her server got hacked. We just require evidence.

And Republicans are evil. See the human trash they think should be President.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 02:10 PM   #188
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
Well, when it turns out there is no evidence that Guccifer hacked Clintons email, you can rest on your laurels because you were a "proper" skeptic.

Say, how do you prove a negative like that anyway ? What if it was the perfect hack and he left no trail ? And he printed out the emails,read all the emails, and then destroyed them ?

Are you destined to believe forever that maybe guccifer hacked her ?

Like some sort of Schrödinger's hack or something ?
If the FBI report clears her, he was probably lying.

You keep thinking I believe all this stuff, like I'm convinced she'll be indicted. I don't know if this Guccifer guy is telling the truth. But that doesn't mean I'm convinced he's lying. Maybe he is, but he's gotten into important people's accounts that were close to Hillary, so it's not totally outrageous he's telling the truth (as you claim). I simply don't know.

The burden of proof is not on me, because I'm not making any strong claims. Maybe she'll be indicted, maybe not. The burden falls on those who are convinced she will/won't. You're convinced she won't. We're both looking at the same evidence, and I just don't see anything that is totally convincing, either way. The stuff that's been leaked has gotten progressively worse for her, culminating in the IG's report. After reading that, it's hard to understand why you would believe a word she says on this (or really any subject, for that matter).
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 02:12 PM   #189
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 3,957
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Perhaps that's what Guccifer did to Clinton as well.
Highly unlikely. When you run a private server you can track things like what IP address logs into a server or tries to access the account. If they were to brute force a private server it would be easy to catch in comparison. Two completely different scenarios.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
And the bolded seem to be odds with any strong claims regarding Clinton's server (i.e., "Clinton's server was never compromised).
I said there is absolutely no evidence that it was compromised, not that it couldn't happen.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Or maybe you think it could have been compromised? Possibly? Tiny percent chance someone got in?
Anything is possible, but I don't assume something did happen merely because it could.
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 02:16 PM   #190
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
You don't care are yet keep posting about this. Sure.
Oh, it's entertaining to me. I have the whole Summer off and chores I don't want to do. I'm not going to be emotionally devastated if they clear her. I'll just throw up a little when I vote for her over Trump. And pay you your $20, of course.

But if it goes the other way, some of you, who are totally convinced she's in the clear, really will have the carpet pulled out from under you. It will be very interesting to see the reactions here if that happens.

Quote:
Your evidence that it was hacked remains at nothing. Nobody cares if you think there is a good chance.
Nobody cares what any of us think here. Yet you responded to me, so on some level you cared enough to bother replying.

Quote:
And LOL at your pathetic strawman. Nobody believes that it was impossible that her server got hacked. We just require evidence.
Well, that's a start.

Quote:
And Republicans are evil. See the human trash they think should be President.
That wasn't most Republicans. Most Republicans voted for someone other than Trump, and there are some prominent GOP members (and organizations, like National Review) who will never endorse him and that's not an easy stand to take.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 02:19 PM   #191
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Highly unlikely. When you run a private server you can track things like what IP address logs into a server or tries to access the account. If they were to brute force a private server it would be easy to catch in comparison. Two completely different scenarios.



I said there is absolutely no evidence that it was compromised, not that it couldn't happen.



Anything is possible, but I don't assume something did happen merely because it could.
Neither did I. The question was whether the hacking attempts and Guccifer's claim are evidence. They are. Not particularly great evidence, but if there's a non-zero chance Guccifer is telling the truth, and/or those attempts from the IG report were successful, it does move the needle.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 02:24 PM   #192
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,511
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
If the FBI report clears her, he was probably lying.
I don't understand that logic. AT ALL.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
You keep thinking I believe all this stuff, like I'm convinced she'll be indicted. I don't know if this Guccifer guy is telling the truth. But that doesn't mean I'm convinced he's lying. Maybe he is, but he's gotten into important people's accounts that were close to Hillary, so it's not totally outrageous he's telling the truth (as you claim). I simply don't know.

The burden of proof is not on me, because I'm not making any strong claims. Maybe she'll be indicted, maybe not. The burden falls on those who are convinced she will/won't. You're convinced she won't. We're both looking at the same evidence, and I just don't see anything that is totally convincing, either way. The stuff that's been leaked has gotten progressively worse for her, culminating in the IG's report. After reading that, it's hard to understand why you would believe a word she says on this (or really any subject, for that matter).
For right now, you are making the strong claim that Guccifer simply saying he hacked her server is evidence she was actually hacked.

I am not sure anyone but you believes that.

As far as Clinton and the evidence - sure, just like there is a possibility her email server has been hacked, there is a possibility she might have charges recommended, and she might get indicted. I'm not totally convinced she won't be charged, just 99.9 %.

The way I see it, the stuff that's been leaked has gotten progressively better for her, culminating in the IG's report that was nothing but a slap on the wrist, followed by repeated leaks that there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. And an endorsement by the president is also a positive indicator that nothing will happen to her.
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 02:36 PM   #193
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 3,957
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Neither did I. The question was whether the hacking attempts and Guccifer's claim are evidence. They are.
I have to agree with Elvis. You're using something that is completely inevitable (hacking attempts) and the statements of a narcissistic "hacker" as evidence. They aren't. They wouldn't be used in any court of law at all.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Not particularly great evidence, but if there's a non-zero chance Guccifer is telling the truth, and/or those attempts from the IG report were successful, it does move the needle.
It may move the needle for you, but like I said I don't believe you have any experience in IT at all. I just don't see it as anything at all, and if he did hack the server he'd have information. Hackers are like murderers, they remember each and every one they performed. If he hacked in he'd remember how he did it, what he used to get in and what the final password was or else it would be useless.
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 02:37 PM   #194
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,115
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Neither did I. The question was whether the hacking attempts and Guccifer's claim are evidence. They are. Not particularly great evidence, but if there's a non-zero chance Guccifer is telling the truth, and/or those attempts from the IG report were successful, it does move the needle.
From a legal perspective, it does not matter if it was "hacked" because Clinton herself made access available to several people/entities without security clearances, including Justin Cooper himself, Platte River and Datto and the whole gaggle of lawyers at Williams and Connelly.

Plus they left the original cowboy server box at some insecure data processing facility in New Jersey.
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations

Last edited by The Big Dog; 13th June 2016 at 02:41 PM.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 02:49 PM   #195
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
I don't understand that logic. AT ALL.
If the FBI report clears her, then Guccifer is either lying or can't corroborate any of his claims. He becomes a nobody either way.



Quote:
For right now, you are making the strong claim that Guccifer simply saying he hacked her server is evidence she was actually hacked.

I am not sure anyone but you believes that.
Whenever someone makes a claim, and there's a chance they're telling the truth, it's evidence (unless the claim is outraegeously false, like seeing Jesus come down from the sky). Anecdotes are the weakest kinds of evidence, but they are evidence.


Quote:
As far as Clinton and the evidence - sure, just like there is a possibility her email server has been hacked, there is a possibility she might have charges recommended, and she might get indicted. I'm not totally convinced she won't be charged, just 99.9 %.

The way I see it, the stuff that's been leaked has gotten progressively better for her, culminating in the IG's report that was nothing but a slap on the wrist, followed by repeated leaks that there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. And an endorsement by the president is also a positive indicator that nothing will happen to her.
Here you raise the biggest doubt I have about her being in trouble. It doesn't stem from Obama (he can't do anything other than vociferously support his former SoS) but from people like Warren, who immediately jumped on Clinton's bandwagon, before California was done counting the votes. If there's a dozen agents working on this, and an indictment was likely, you would think top-tier supporters would be quietly warned to back off a little. Obviously that hasn't happened, so either even the FBI isn't sure what they're going to do, or they're playing it real close to the vest, or they're just going through the motions at this point.

Originally I thought Clinton had about a 30% chance of being indicted. The lack of leaks and the high level of support have made me cut that in half.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 02:49 PM   #196
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,561
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
From a legal perspective, it does not matter if it was "hacked" because Clinton herself made access available to several people/entities without security clearances, including Justin Cooper himself, Platte River and Datto and the whole gaggle of lawyers at Williams and Connelly.

Plus they left the original cowboy server box at some insecure data processing facility in New Jersey.
When there is no indictment what will your excuse be? Surely you have thought of one. Perhaps Obama interfered on her behalf?
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 02:50 PM   #197
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 3,957
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
From a legal perspective, it does not matter if it was "hacked" because Clinton herself made access available to several people/entities without security clearances, including Justin Cooper himself, Platte River and Datto and the whole gaggle of lawyers at Williams and Connelly.

Plus they left the original cowboy server box at some insecure data processing facility in New Jersey.
Hilited is ********. Already been debunked multiple times over.
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 02:52 PM   #198
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
From a legal perspective, it does not matter if it was "hacked" because Clinton herself made access available to several people/entities without security clearances, including Justin Cooper himself, Platte River and Datto and the whole gaggle of lawyers at Williams and Connelly.

Plus they left the original cowboy server box at some insecure data processing facility in New Jersey.
The whole hacking side-discussion is just one of the many ways she can find herself in legal trouble.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 02:54 PM   #199
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
I have to agree with Elvis. You're using something that is completely inevitable (hacking attempts) and the statements of a narcissistic "hacker" as evidence. They aren't. They wouldn't be used in any court of law at all.



It may move the needle for you, but like I said I don't believe you have any experience in IT at all. I just don't see it as anything at all, and if he did hack the server he'd have information. Hackers are like murderers, they remember each and every one they performed. If he hacked in he'd remember how he did it, what he used to get in and what the final password was or else it would be useless.
I have none. I just know that you can't always disbelieve someone like Guccifer. Probably he's lying. But it would be better for Clinton if he hadn't bragged at all. Because now there's a little bit of doubt: what if he is telling the truth?
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 03:07 PM   #200
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 14,431
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Originally I thought Clinton had about a 30% chance of being indicted. The lack of leaks and the high level of support have made me cut that in half.

Julian Assange told UK TV yesterday that they have leaks pending publication regarding Clinton. He also said, though, that he thinks the chance of indictment is 0%. WikiLeaks found it relevant to tweet today that the Clinton campaign HQ is in the same building a few floors below Lynch's office.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Last edited by Childlike Empress; 13th June 2016 at 03:08 PM.
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:29 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.