Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

CNN tracks down random reddit meme poster and threatens to release his information

1…1314151618

Comments

  • #512
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 33,054 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    So you'll take the word of someone who claims they were not threatened, over the black and white evidence that he has been threatened. :confused:

    There isn't black and white evidence. The phrase at the end of the statement comes across poorly but it is utterly standard phraseology. As explained by CNN it is a legalistic way of explaining that no official deal was made with the person in question. Poor optics, but that is it.


  • #513
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,304 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    There isn't black and white evidence. The phrase at the end of the statement comes across poorly but it is utterly standard phraseology.
    As explained by CNN it is a legalistic way of explaining that no official deal was made with the person in question. Poor optics, but that is it.
    If they meant to say they made no deal with the man, then they could have said just that.
    The "standard phraseology" excuse doesn't wash, given they used plenty of non-legal speak in the article and the phrase "any of that" in the same line.

    They've furiously started back peddling once they realised people weren't on aboard with their unethical tactics.
    They could have left it at "CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen".
    I doubt the man planned to use so much as use a swear word online in future after CNN gave him a call.
    But they wanted to make an example of him and now they're being called on it.


  • #514
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,408 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    If they meant to say they made no deal with the man, then they could have said just that.
    The "standard phraseology" excuse doesn't wash, given they used plenty of non-legal speak in the article and the phrase "any of that" in the same line.

    They've furiously started back peddling once they realised people weren't on aboard with their unethical tactics.
    They could have left it at "CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen".
    I doubt the man planned to use so much as use a swear word online in future after CNN gave him a call.
    But they wanted to make an example of him and now they're being called on it.

    You're only saying that because Breitbart are threatening you. You say they aren't, they say they aren't, but for some bloody stupid reason I'm going to stick with my theory that Breitbart are actually threatening you.


  • #515
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Grayson wrote: »
    You're only saying that because Breitbart are threatening you. You say they aren't, they say they aren't, but for some bloody stupid reason I'm going to stick with my theory that Breitbart are actually threatening you.

    If the mob, or anyone for that matter rang you up and told you they had damaging information but if you comply with their demands they won't release it, you wouldn't feel threatened right?

    Once the guy found out his identity was unmasked, he went into panic mode. He deleted his history wrote a long apology and told CNN themselves afterwards he feared for himself and his family.

    CNN acted in a highly unethical manner, a news organization should never be releasing statements saying if person does X and Y we won't do Z. Any threats towards CNN, or any individual or group, should be reported to the proper authorities, not used for Political reasons to score points on Trump.


  • #516
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    On the topic of CNN's journalistic ethics, I'll just leave this here. They peddled the hands up don't shoot lie without evidence doing incredible damage to racial and Police relations. It turned out to be false.

    cnn-hands-up.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #517
    B_Wayne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,039 ✭✭✭B_Wayne


    Yourself isit wrote: »
    Poor old multi national billionaire owned partisan news service.

    So employees of CNN are deserving of anti semetic diatribes?


  • #518
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    B_Wayne wrote: »
    So employees of CNN are deserving of anti semetic diatribes?

    Who is saying that?

    One can criticize CNN's actions without sympathizing with his views.


  • #519
    B_Wayne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,039 ✭✭✭B_Wayne


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    Who is saying that?

    One can criticize CNN's actions without sympathizing with his views.

    The poster indicated the sole party that were affected was the organisation. Members of CNN were subject to anti semetic rubbish by the user. That is hate speech directed at their employees. I have zero sympathy for him.


  • #520
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,304 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    Grayson wrote: »
    You're only saying that because Breitbart are threatening you. You say they aren't, they say they aren't, but for some bloody stupid reason I'm going to stick with my theory that Breitbart are actually threatening you.
    Your comparison is flawed because you have no proof of Breitbart threatening me, unlike this situation.


  • #521
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    B_Wayne wrote: »
    The poster indicated the sole party that were affected was the organisation. Members of CNN were subject to anti semetic rubbish by the user. That is hate speech directed at their employees. I have zero sympathy for him.

    The meme-guy was a wacko. He had a history of deranged racist hate speech.

    He fit all the characteristics of someone who could easily follow through on his threats.


  • Advertisement
  • #522
    Sweetemotion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,563 ✭✭✭Sweetemotion


    InTheTrees wrote: »
    The meme-guy was a wacko. He had a history of deranged racist hate speech.

    He fit all the characteristics of someone who could easily follow through on his threats.


    Do you think he should be interned?

    I mean he fits all the characteristics, lets just get rid of him.


  • #523
    Sweetemotion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,563 ✭✭✭Sweetemotion


    B_Wayne wrote: »
    The poster indicated the sole party that were affected was the organisation. Members of CNN were subject to anti semetic rubbish by the user. That is hate speech directed at their employees. I have zero sympathy for him.


    I'll ask you also. Do you think this guy should be interned?


  • #524
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Grayson wrote: »
    Ya know a simple google will provide you with a lot of knowledge so you don't start posting stuff like "The guy was doxxed" or "Both tweets were deleted".

    Here's the CNN tweet. https://twitter.com/CNN/status/822152902802362368
    It's not deleted. I'm not sure why you'd want to show a link to an archive to show something that's still live. maybe it's to show your investigative powers?

    Apologies, I copied that from a Reddit thread and didn't have time at that moment to verify, which in hindsight was unforgivably moronic. Was fuelled by a lot of caffeine and adrenaline this afternoon and was doing things at high speed without thinking much :D
    Anyway, what Sinatra said was that they should remember the first line of the song. "And now the end is near".

    Sinatra was a fan of Obama. She doesn't like Trump. The actual story states this and has been updated to include Sinatra's tweet.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/19/politics/nancy-sinatra-donald-trump-my-way/index.html?sr=twCNN011917/nancy-sinatra-donald-trump-my-way0645PMStoryLink&linkId=33568369

    So hang on, are you saying that Sinatra did not actually say "I never said that" in a tweet? Because although her tweet actually is gone (just checked), archive.is screenshots can't be doctored or faked, so at some stage she did tweet that to CNN in response to the original tweet.
    Then again. maybe they weren't mistakes. maybe you have an agenda and are just happy to regurgitate stuff you see elsewhere that supports your view point.

    I've been around long enough to almost never be so stupid as to not triple check, this was a momentary lapse caused by being in a hurry to leave the house, that's all. Won't happen again.
    It took me 20 seconds to find the tweet and story. Spend at least that long looking up stuff and your quality of information will rise with it.

    As above, I usually do. This was a once off moment of moronity and eejitism.

    I still don't quite understand what's going on here though. She did tweet "I never said that" as a direct response to CNN's tweeted article, so what's going on there? Was she bullsh!tting? O_o


  • #525
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Just to back Patrick up here, Sinatra 100% posted that tweet, I was online when it happened. It was the day of the inauguration.

    She said "I never said that, why do you lie CNN?" Or something to that effect.

    Edit: Never-mind, it's admitted in the CNN article.


  • #526
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    Sweetemotion wrote: »
    Do you think he should be interned?

    I mean he fits all the characteristics, lets just get rid of him.

    No

    But I dont think he should be able to make anonymous racist threats and expect not to be tracked down.


  • #527
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    Sweetemotion wrote: »
    I'll ask you also. Do you think this guy should be interned?

    Presumably you mean formally arrested?


  • #528
    Sweetemotion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,563 ✭✭✭Sweetemotion


    InTheTrees wrote: »
    No

    But I dont think he should be able to make anonymous racist threats and expect not to be tracked down.


    So say some black kid calls a white kid cracker on call of duty. Should he be tracked down and blackmailed into not doing it again.

    Should the anti catholics on boards be ousted for airing their distrust with the church?


  • #529
    Sweetemotion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,563 ✭✭✭Sweetemotion


    InTheTrees wrote: »
    Presumably you mean formally arrested?


    He hasn't hurt anybody yet just made a bad joke.

    You say he has all the traits.

    What do you want of him?


  • #530
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    Sweetemotion wrote: »
    He hasn't hurt anybody yet just made a bad joke.

    You say he has all the traits.

    What do you want of him?

    Nobodies stopping him.

    He can carry right on doing it.


  • #531
    Sweetemotion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,563 ✭✭✭Sweetemotion


    InTheTrees wrote: »
    Nobodies stopping him.

    He can carry right on doing it.


    No he can't. You want him arrested.

    To stop him.


  • Advertisement
  • #532
    Sweetemotion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,563 ✭✭✭Sweetemotion


    Again. What do you want of this 15 year old teen, who shows all the traits?


  • #533
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,009 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Sweetemotion wrote: »
    Again. What do you want of this 15 year old teen


    Where did you hear that? :pac:


  • #534
    Sweetemotion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,563 ✭✭✭Sweetemotion


    osarusan wrote: »
    Where did you hear that? :pac:


    What have you heard?


  • #535
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,408 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    Your comparison is flawed because you have no proof of Breitbart threatening me, unlike this situation.

    you have no proof.

    He said he isn't being blackmailed/threatened. They say they aren't threatening him. You have no proof.
    The only people who are silencing anyone are the mods of /donald who deleted his apology. Yet for some reason none of you guys are pissed off about that.


  • #536
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,408 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Apologies, I copied that from a Reddit thread and didn't have time at that moment to verify, which in hindsight was unforgivably moronic. Was fuelled by a lot of caffeine and adrenaline this afternoon and was doing things at high speed without thinking much :D



    So hang on, are you saying that Sinatra did not actually say "I never said that" in a tweet? Because although her tweet actually is gone (just checked), archive.is screenshots can't be doctored or faked, so at some stage she did tweet that to CNN in response to the original tweet.



    I've been around long enough to almost never be so stupid as to not triple check, this was a momentary lapse caused by being in a hurry to leave the house, that's all. Won't happen again.



    As above, I usually do. This was a once off moment of moronity and eejitism.

    I still don't quite understand what's going on here though. She did tweet "I never said that" as a direct response to CNN's tweeted article, so what's going on there? Was she bullsh!tting? O_o

    Saying "I'm sorry, I posted false facts" would have done.

    And btw, as I said, the story now included the tweet she sent. So I'm not sure why you're questioning men not including it. I even quoted the story so I don't see how I am " saying that Sinatra did not actually say "I never said that" in a tweet?". It's clearly stated in my quote.


  • #537
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Sorry but this is hilarious



  • #538
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    its been a good week for the memes

    https://twitter.com/OrwellNGoode/status/883483413394706437

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #539
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,304 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    Grayson wrote: »
    you have no proof.
    Already covered this in the following post.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104018132&postcount=488
    He said he isn't being blackmailed/threatened. They say they aren't threatening him. You have no proof.
    Already covered this in the following posts.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104018628&postcount=498
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104020162&postcount=511


  • #540
    Ann_Landers
    Closed Accounts Posts: 292 ✭✭Ann_Landers


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Pro-tip:

    If you're afraid that what you say or do online might affect your life, your relationships, your job, then perhaps you shouldn't say or do those things.

    You're likely not as anonymous as you think you are. If you don't have the balls to do it with your identity known, don't do it behind your keyboard.

    + fucking 1.


  • Advertisement
  • #541
    conorhal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,093 ✭✭✭conorhal


    Ann_Landers wrote: »
    + fucking 1.

    Tell it to Sophie Scholl, she probably should have shut up and joined the Nazi party.....


Advertisement
Advertisement