If

11/1/2022 5:31pm
I genuinely feel sorry for many posters here.

I really do.
ToolMaker wrote:
You feel sorry for people having fun?
Oh, the humanity!
TM
GrapeApe wrote:
I mean, we're talking about an old man getting attacked in his home by a crazy guy. We can all agree on that, right? Fighting over...
I mean, we're talking about an old man getting attacked in his home by a crazy guy. We can all agree on that, right? Fighting over the political party affiliation of the attacker is kind of burying the lead, isn't it? I just can't imagine being in a place where I revel in an 82 year old man having his skull split just because he is a family member of a person that is not in my political party. Are there maybe some other things you can have "fun" with?
Couldn't have said it better.

Thank you sir!
2
4
11/1/2022 5:36pm
ToolMaker wrote:
You feel sorry for people having fun?
Oh, the humanity!
TM
GrapeApe wrote:
I mean, we're talking about an old man getting attacked in his home by a crazy guy. We can all agree on that, right? Fighting over...
I mean, we're talking about an old man getting attacked in his home by a crazy guy. We can all agree on that, right? Fighting over the political party affiliation of the attacker is kind of burying the lead, isn't it? I just can't imagine being in a place where I revel in an 82 year old man having his skull split just because he is a family member of a person that is not in my political party. Are there maybe some other things you can have "fun" with?
Couldn't have said it better.

Thank you sir!
Well if you think that was articulated well, who do you think was/is happy that Paul Pelosi got attacked?
TM
5
11/1/2022 5:45pm Edited Date/Time 11/1/2022 5:58pm
GrapeApe wrote:
I mean, we're talking about an old man getting attacked in his home by a crazy guy. We can all agree on that, right? Fighting over...
I mean, we're talking about an old man getting attacked in his home by a crazy guy. We can all agree on that, right? Fighting over the political party affiliation of the attacker is kind of burying the lead, isn't it? I just can't imagine being in a place where I revel in an 82 year old man having his skull split just because he is a family member of a person that is not in my political party. Are there maybe some other things you can have "fun" with?
Couldn't have said it better.

Thank you sir!
ToolMaker wrote:
Well if you think that was articulated well, who do you think was/is happy that Paul Pelosi got attacked?
TM
I guess you missed the previous 4 pages of posts.
2
3
11/1/2022 5:59pm
Couldn't have said it better.

Thank you sir!
ToolMaker wrote:
Well if you think that was articulated well, who do you think was/is happy that Paul Pelosi got attacked?
TM
I guess you missed the previous 4 pages of posts.
Yes there have been some jokes about it. But the reality of the matter is, it would have been a nonissue if
the left wouldn't have tried to make political hay out of it. Would have been Paul Pelosi got attacked and everyone
would have said "that's a terrible thing". But no, the left has to make political points and start blaming the right.
So yes, the fun began saying how the events just don't add up to what you're pushing. And by the way, there's
a whole lot of fishy here. But the left just keeps digging their hole deeper. At some point don't you just
think they'd put down the shovel? It's like being around stupid little kids. They break something and think if they
lie about it they won't get in trouble. And then you later laugh about it because of their stupid story. It's not
like you're happy something broke, but it's funny how stupid of a story they think you'll believe. So one time, it's
funny and you let it go. But when it happens over and over, then you just have to start calling out the BS.
If you don't get that, then you should be sorry, for yourself.
TM
6
5

The Shop

Sully
Posts
9361
Joined
8/24/2006
Location
JP
11/1/2022 6:03pm
Gworm wrote:
Reckon, or Rectum?
Sully wrote:
Rectum? It damn near killed ‘um!
Chance1216 wrote:
Liquor? I don’t even like her.
Does anyone know if there's actually lead ups to these puchlines? For both jokes, I've only ever heard the punchline.
2
11/1/2022 6:17pm
ToolMaker wrote:
Well if you think that was articulated well, who do you think was/is happy that Paul Pelosi got attacked?
TM
I guess you missed the previous 4 pages of posts.
ToolMaker wrote:
Yes there have been some jokes about it. But the reality of the matter is, it would have been a nonissue if the left wouldn't have...
Yes there have been some jokes about it. But the reality of the matter is, it would have been a nonissue if
the left wouldn't have tried to make political hay out of it. Would have been Paul Pelosi got attacked and everyone
would have said "that's a terrible thing". But no, the left has to make political points and start blaming the right.
So yes, the fun began saying how the events just don't add up to what you're pushing. And by the way, there's
a whole lot of fishy here. But the left just keeps digging their hole deeper. At some point don't you just
think they'd put down the shovel? It's like being around stupid little kids. They break something and think if they
lie about it they won't get in trouble. And then you later laugh about it because of their stupid story. It's not
like you're happy something broke, but it's funny how stupid of a story they think you'll believe. So one time, it's
funny and you let it go. But when it happens over and over, then you just have to start calling out the BS.
If you don't get that, then you should be sorry, for yourself.
TM
Again, an 82 year old gets seriously beaten and your response is to write a novel on politics?
4
8
SEEMEFIRST
Posts
13774
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Arlington, TX US
11/1/2022 6:25pm
GrapeApe wrote:
You're seriously going to call me out on grammar!? Lede and lead are both acceptable in that instance. Do you feel it is okay to revel...
You're seriously going to call me out on grammar!? Lede and lead are both acceptable in that instance.

Do you feel it is okay to revel in an 82 year old man getting his head broken by a hammer?
SEEMEFIRST wrote:
It's Vital.... But to answer your question, no, and I don't believe that is what you are seeing as much as people bewildered by the convoluted...
It's Vital....

But to answer your question, no, and I don't believe that is what you are seeing as much as people bewildered by the convoluted, nonsensical story that they are trying to peddle.
ns503 wrote:
They who?
The DA, the police?
Or whoever is pulling their strings.
2
Gworm
Posts
2757
Joined
4/5/2017
Location
Monett, MO US
11/1/2022 6:25pm
I guess you missed the previous 4 pages of posts.
ToolMaker wrote:
Yes there have been some jokes about it. But the reality of the matter is, it would have been a nonissue if the left wouldn't have...
Yes there have been some jokes about it. But the reality of the matter is, it would have been a nonissue if
the left wouldn't have tried to make political hay out of it. Would have been Paul Pelosi got attacked and everyone
would have said "that's a terrible thing". But no, the left has to make political points and start blaming the right.
So yes, the fun began saying how the events just don't add up to what you're pushing. And by the way, there's
a whole lot of fishy here. But the left just keeps digging their hole deeper. At some point don't you just
think they'd put down the shovel? It's like being around stupid little kids. They break something and think if they
lie about it they won't get in trouble. And then you later laugh about it because of their stupid story. It's not
like you're happy something broke, but it's funny how stupid of a story they think you'll believe. So one time, it's
funny and you let it go. But when it happens over and over, then you just have to start calling out the BS.
If you don't get that, then you should be sorry, for yourself.
TM
Again, an 82 year old gets seriously beaten and your response is to write a novel on politics?
Or, an 82 year old guy gets attacked and the very people that should care try to leverage the situation to make it look like something it’s not, while trying to make political points.
5
4
7I3N
Posts
1746
Joined
10/22/2009
Location
Moto Paradise, UT US
11/1/2022 6:26pm
APLMAN99 wrote:
phil, serious question..... What in that article pointed to the websites being created after the event? The only mention is of scraping, which isn't anything close...
phil, serious question.....

What in that article pointed to the websites being created after the event? The only mention is of scraping, which isn't anything close to creating the website. So how is pointing that out grasping at straws?

Trying to be rational without any personal attacks, just wondering how you came to the conclusion of me grasping for straws for pointing out that the article didn't come close to saying what was claimed.
ToolMaker wrote:
https://www.google.com/search?q=scrape+a+website+meaning&rlz=1C1UEAD_enUS994US994&oq=scraped+a+website+meaning&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i13i512j0i390l3.8950j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 "What does it mean to scrape a website? Web scraping is the process of using bots to extract content and data from a website. Unlike...
https://www.google.com/search?q=scrape+a+website+meaning&rlz=1C1UEAD_en…
"What does it mean to scrape a website?
Web scraping is the process of using bots to extract content and data from a website. Unlike screen scraping, which only copies pixels displayed onscreen, web scraping extracts underlying HTML code and, with it, data stored in a database. The scraper can then replicate entire website content elsewhere."

So where does it say that scraping a website means the new site is created from a specific person?
It basically just says the new site can be created from "any" site. Or what am I missing?
Where did the original content come from?

So you're alleging that the scraped site with very right wing posts is in alignment with a guy that lives in a bus plastered with LGBTQ... , BLM, and other left wing material? That makes sense to you? Why would you think that content came from a lefty to begin with?
And that would explain grasping at straws.
TM
APLMAN99 wrote:
Scraping isn't creating a new site. Scraping is the data gathering portion. That data COULD be used to make a 'duplicate' site, or it could be...
Scraping isn't creating a new site. Scraping is the data gathering portion. That data COULD be used to make a 'duplicate' site, or it could be used to store and analyze date in any manner you decided to.

But you brought up a great point. In order to 'scrape' a site, it has to be there to begin with.
That's the whole point. There is no evidence that the sites existed prior to the first time they were scraped. None.

Here's an example. Vital MX launched on July 10th, 2006. The site was scraped several times before it officially launched because the IP address was active.



http://web.archive.org/web/20060101000000*/www.vitalmx.com

The Wayback Machine Archive is much more efficient now than it was in 2006. If those sites had existed before last Friday, they would have been captured at least a few times.
1
Gworm
Posts
2757
Joined
4/5/2017
Location
Monett, MO US
11/1/2022 6:28pm
Also, why do we bring up that it’s an 82 year old man?
Would it be less of a thing if he was a different age?
1
3
11/1/2022 6:28pm
ToolMaker wrote:
Yes there have been some jokes about it. But the reality of the matter is, it would have been a nonissue if the left wouldn't have...
Yes there have been some jokes about it. But the reality of the matter is, it would have been a nonissue if
the left wouldn't have tried to make political hay out of it. Would have been Paul Pelosi got attacked and everyone
would have said "that's a terrible thing". But no, the left has to make political points and start blaming the right.
So yes, the fun began saying how the events just don't add up to what you're pushing. And by the way, there's
a whole lot of fishy here. But the left just keeps digging their hole deeper. At some point don't you just
think they'd put down the shovel? It's like being around stupid little kids. They break something and think if they
lie about it they won't get in trouble. And then you later laugh about it because of their stupid story. It's not
like you're happy something broke, but it's funny how stupid of a story they think you'll believe. So one time, it's
funny and you let it go. But when it happens over and over, then you just have to start calling out the BS.
If you don't get that, then you should be sorry, for yourself.
TM
Again, an 82 year old gets seriously beaten and your response is to write a novel on politics?
Gworm wrote:
Or, an 82 year old guy gets attacked and the very people that should care try to leverage the situation to make it look like something...
Or, an 82 year old guy gets attacked and the very people that should care try to leverage the situation to make it look like something it’s not, while trying to make political points.
I give up.
3
2
SEEMEFIRST
Posts
13774
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Arlington, TX US
11/1/2022 6:31pm
Gworm wrote:
Also, why do we bring up that it’s an 82 year old man?
Would it be less of a thing if he was a different age?
Not for nothing, but there are heavier charges for elder abuse that can be brought, but I get what you mean.
1
SEEMEFIRST
Posts
13774
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Arlington, TX US
11/1/2022 6:33pm
ToolMaker wrote:
https://www.google.com/search?q=scrape+a+website+meaning&rlz=1C1UEAD_enUS994US994&oq=scraped+a+website+meaning&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i13i512j0i390l3.8950j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 "What does it mean to scrape a website? Web scraping is the process of using bots to extract content and data from a website. Unlike...
https://www.google.com/search?q=scrape+a+website+meaning&rlz=1C1UEAD_en…
"What does it mean to scrape a website?
Web scraping is the process of using bots to extract content and data from a website. Unlike screen scraping, which only copies pixels displayed onscreen, web scraping extracts underlying HTML code and, with it, data stored in a database. The scraper can then replicate entire website content elsewhere."

So where does it say that scraping a website means the new site is created from a specific person?
It basically just says the new site can be created from "any" site. Or what am I missing?
Where did the original content come from?

So you're alleging that the scraped site with very right wing posts is in alignment with a guy that lives in a bus plastered with LGBTQ... , BLM, and other left wing material? That makes sense to you? Why would you think that content came from a lefty to begin with?
And that would explain grasping at straws.
TM
APLMAN99 wrote:
Scraping isn't creating a new site. Scraping is the data gathering portion. That data COULD be used to make a 'duplicate' site, or it could be...
Scraping isn't creating a new site. Scraping is the data gathering portion. That data COULD be used to make a 'duplicate' site, or it could be used to store and analyze date in any manner you decided to.

But you brought up a great point. In order to 'scrape' a site, it has to be there to begin with.
7I3N wrote:
That's the whole point. There is no evidence that the sites existed prior to the first time they were scraped. None. Here's an example. Vital MX...
That's the whole point. There is no evidence that the sites existed prior to the first time they were scraped. None.

Here's an example. Vital MX launched on July 10th, 2006. The site was scraped several times before it officially launched because the IP address was active.



http://web.archive.org/web/20060101000000*/www.vitalmx.com

The Wayback Machine Archive is much more efficient now than it was in 2006. If those sites had existed before last Friday, they would have been captured at least a few times.
Glad you said something because I didn't know how to explain that.
I heard it explained, but couldn't articulate it as convincingly.
3
11/1/2022 6:49pm
Sully wrote:
Does anyone know if there's actually lead ups to these puchlines? For both jokes, I've only ever heard the punchline.
The fact that you had to ask, Sullen, is enough to rebuke you. The joke IS the punchline. Please keep up. Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life son.*

*not a personal attack, but a line from “Animal House” that seemed fitting.
4
APLMAN99
Posts
12474
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR US
Fantasy
11/1/2022 6:52pm
ToolMaker wrote:
https://www.google.com/search?q=scrape+a+website+meaning&rlz=1C1UEAD_enUS994US994&oq=scraped+a+website+meaning&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i13i512j0i390l3.8950j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 "What does it mean to scrape a website? Web scraping is the process of using bots to extract content and data from a website. Unlike...
https://www.google.com/search?q=scrape+a+website+meaning&rlz=1C1UEAD_en…
"What does it mean to scrape a website?
Web scraping is the process of using bots to extract content and data from a website. Unlike screen scraping, which only copies pixels displayed onscreen, web scraping extracts underlying HTML code and, with it, data stored in a database. The scraper can then replicate entire website content elsewhere."

So where does it say that scraping a website means the new site is created from a specific person?
It basically just says the new site can be created from "any" site. Or what am I missing?
Where did the original content come from?

So you're alleging that the scraped site with very right wing posts is in alignment with a guy that lives in a bus plastered with LGBTQ... , BLM, and other left wing material? That makes sense to you? Why would you think that content came from a lefty to begin with?
And that would explain grasping at straws.
TM
APLMAN99 wrote:
Scraping isn't creating a new site. Scraping is the data gathering portion. That data COULD be used to make a 'duplicate' site, or it could be...
Scraping isn't creating a new site. Scraping is the data gathering portion. That data COULD be used to make a 'duplicate' site, or it could be used to store and analyze date in any manner you decided to.

But you brought up a great point. In order to 'scrape' a site, it has to be there to begin with.
7I3N wrote:
That's the whole point. There is no evidence that the sites existed prior to the first time they were scraped. None. Here's an example. Vital MX...
That's the whole point. There is no evidence that the sites existed prior to the first time they were scraped. None.

Here's an example. Vital MX launched on July 10th, 2006. The site was scraped several times before it officially launched because the IP address was active.



http://web.archive.org/web/20060101000000*/www.vitalmx.com

The Wayback Machine Archive is much more efficient now than it was in 2006. If those sites had existed before last Friday, they would have been captured at least a few times.
I’d guess that Vital had a ton more visits, even before it went ‘live’ by the folks who started it, than this crackpot ever had. Vital had several related sites before the MX site, if I’m not mistaken.

The disclaimer on the Wayback Machine is pretty telling as well.


1
SEEMEFIRST
Posts
13774
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Arlington, TX US
11/1/2022 6:58pm
Sully wrote:
Does anyone know if there's actually lead ups to these puchlines? For both jokes, I've only ever heard the punchline.
The fact that you had to ask, Sullen, is enough to rebuke you. The joke IS the punchline. Please keep up. Fat, drunk, and stupid is...
The fact that you had to ask, Sullen, is enough to rebuke you. The joke IS the punchline. Please keep up. Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life son.*

*not a personal attack, but a line from “Animal House” that seemed fitting.
Yes, it's more of a spontaneous retort.
1
7I3N
Posts
1746
Joined
10/22/2009
Location
Moto Paradise, UT US
11/1/2022 7:20pm
APLMAN99 wrote:
Scraping isn't creating a new site. Scraping is the data gathering portion. That data COULD be used to make a 'duplicate' site, or it could be...
Scraping isn't creating a new site. Scraping is the data gathering portion. That data COULD be used to make a 'duplicate' site, or it could be used to store and analyze date in any manner you decided to.

But you brought up a great point. In order to 'scrape' a site, it has to be there to begin with.
7I3N wrote:
That's the whole point. There is no evidence that the sites existed prior to the first time they were scraped. None. Here's an example. Vital MX...
That's the whole point. There is no evidence that the sites existed prior to the first time they were scraped. None.

Here's an example. Vital MX launched on July 10th, 2006. The site was scraped several times before it officially launched because the IP address was active.



http://web.archive.org/web/20060101000000*/www.vitalmx.com

The Wayback Machine Archive is much more efficient now than it was in 2006. If those sites had existed before last Friday, they would have been captured at least a few times.
APLMAN99 wrote:
I’d guess that Vital had a ton more visits, even before it went ‘live’ by the folks who started it, than this crackpot ever had. Vital...
I’d guess that Vital had a ton more visits, even before it went ‘live’ by the folks who started it, than this crackpot ever had. Vital had several related sites before the MX site, if I’m not mistaken.

The disclaimer on the Wayback Machine is pretty telling as well.


The Wayback Machine doesn't archive sites based on traffic. It uses AI bots that crawl the internet and archive damn near everything. If those sites had existed before Friday, they would have been archived.
1
APLMAN99
Posts
12474
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR US
Fantasy
11/1/2022 7:32pm
7I3N wrote:
That's the whole point. There is no evidence that the sites existed prior to the first time they were scraped. None. Here's an example. Vital MX...
That's the whole point. There is no evidence that the sites existed prior to the first time they were scraped. None.

Here's an example. Vital MX launched on July 10th, 2006. The site was scraped several times before it officially launched because the IP address was active.



http://web.archive.org/web/20060101000000*/www.vitalmx.com

The Wayback Machine Archive is much more efficient now than it was in 2006. If those sites had existed before last Friday, they would have been captured at least a few times.
APLMAN99 wrote:
I’d guess that Vital had a ton more visits, even before it went ‘live’ by the folks who started it, than this crackpot ever had. Vital...
I’d guess that Vital had a ton more visits, even before it went ‘live’ by the folks who started it, than this crackpot ever had. Vital had several related sites before the MX site, if I’m not mistaken.

The disclaimer on the Wayback Machine is pretty telling as well.


7I3N wrote:
The Wayback Machine doesn't archive sites based on traffic. It uses AI bots that crawl the internet and archive damn near everything. If those sites had...
The Wayback Machine doesn't archive sites based on traffic. It uses AI bots that crawl the internet and archive damn near everything. If those sites had existed before Friday, they would have been archived.
So I just looked up the website for the company I work for. When you go to ICANN, the site was started in December of 2009. Wayback says that it was first ‘saved’ in June of 2012 (and only 44 times total). So the idea that every site is constantly scraped by Wayback all the time seems to be far fetched.
1
2
Robgvx
Posts
4043
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
GB
11/1/2022 7:34pm Edited Date/Time 11/1/2022 7:37pm
https://www.bbc.com/news/63477452



Paul Pelosi, the husband of US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was attacked by a hammer-wielding intruder at the couple's San Francisco home in the early hours of Friday.
Within hours of the attack, a series of unsubstantiated claims began circulating in fringe far-right circles that contradicted the official police account of how the attack unfolded.
Those misleading claims have since gone viral after being amplified by new Twitter chief Elon Musk and a number of conservative influencers.
BBC News examines some of the claims about the attack.

False same-sex affair claims

One of the most viral false claims about the attack suggests that Mr Pelosi, 82, and his attacker David DePape, 42, were in a same-sex relationship and had a drunken quarrel.

A series of baseless assumptions that do not match official accounts of the incident have been used to support the narrative.

These claims started to trend in the US after Elon Musk tweeted an article from a website featuring similar claims to his 112 million followers on Sunday, before deleting his tweet without any explanation hours later.
"There is a tiny possibility there might be more to this story than meets the eye," Mr Musk had said in response to a tweet by former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
Tweet screenshot
IMAGE SOURCE, TWITTER

The website Mr Musk linked to has a history of publishing inaccurate stories, including an article from 2016 that claimed Hillary Clinton was dead.
One of the claims made online is that both Mr DePape and Mr Pelosi were in just their underwear as police arrived at the scene.

But the FBI complaint against Mr DePape quotes a witness as saying he was dressed "in all black" carrying a large black bag on his back.
Another claim seized on to support this narrative is that the two men knew each other before the attack and were friends.

Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene repeated the claim in a tweet yesterday.
Tweet screenshot
IMAGE SOURCE, TWITTER

According to the FBI complaint, Paul Pelosi did not know Mr DePape. Mr Pelosi used coded language as he made a 911 call from the bathroom, and an experienced operator worked out what was happening in his house.
Another rumour supporting the idea that the two men knew each other claimed that the shattered glass door of the house was broken from the inside, suggesting Mr Pelosi or a third person had let Mr DePape in.

The FBI complaint quotes Mr DePape as saying that he "broke into the house through a glass door, which was a difficult task that required the use of a hammer".

U.S. House Speaker Pelosi"s husband violently assaulted during break-in at their house in San Francisco


IMAGE SOURCE, REUTERS
Image caption,
False claims suggested the glass door of the house was broken from the inside

There is no evidence in any of the police accounts that a third person was either in the house or involved in the attack.

Claims DePape's blogs were faked
Two personal blogs and a Facebook account in the suspect's name were found on the internet after police revealed his name following the attack, all of which were subsequently taken down.

His writings, viewed by the BBC, suggest he was a man radicalised by far-right conspiracy theories.
His posts cover a range of subjects, including unsubstantiated theories that the 2020 election was stolen, the 6 January Capitol riot, claims that Covid vaccines were harmful, support for the QAnon conspiracy theory, as well as racist and anti-Semitic posts.
Some online posts suggested the blogs were fake and only created on the day of the attack to support the narrative that he believed in far-right conspiracy theories.

Tweet screenshot
IMAGE SOURCE, TWITTER

But the BBC has screenshots of the blogs which show he had made posts as early as August, weeks before the attack.

Some have also claimed the attack was not motivated by politics or Mr DePape's beliefs.

Conservative commentator Matt Walsh said it was "absurd" to portray the attacker as "a militant right winger".
Texas Senator Ted Cruz echoed Mr Walsh's words, simply tweeting "truth".
However, the police complaint clarifies the attack was not a random act. According to San Francisco's district attorney Brooke Jenkins, the attack was likely "politically motivated".
In his police interview, Mr DePape described Nancy Pelosi as the "leader of the pack of lies told by the Democratic Party", adding that he wanted to "break her kneecaps".
Conservative figures, including Congressman Steve Scalise and Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, have also been targets of violent attacks by political opponents in recent years.


Evidence-free accusations against Marjorie Taylor Greene

Baseless theories in the aftermath of the attack weren't confined to the right.
Some liberal influencers seized on a tweet by Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, posted a day prior to the attack, which read: "Just wait until tomorrow."

A number of accounts with large liberal followings claimed that Ms Taylor Greene's tweet could be a hint that she was in on the attack on Mr Pelosi. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this theory.
5
5
11/1/2022 8:04pm
"Paul Pelosi, the husband of US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi,"
Well, they got something right. LOL
TM
3
4
7I3N
Posts
1746
Joined
10/22/2009
Location
Moto Paradise, UT US
11/1/2022 8:21pm
APLMAN99 wrote:
So I just looked up the website for the company I work for. When you go to ICANN, the site was started in December of 2009...
So I just looked up the website for the company I work for. When you go to ICANN, the site was started in December of 2009. Wayback says that it was first ‘saved’ in June of 2012 (and only 44 times total). So the idea that every site is constantly scraped by Wayback all the time seems to be far fetched.
That's funny, I can find over 20,000 archives for ICANN going all the way back to 1999. How about a link to what your looking at?

http://web.archive.org/web/19990101000000*/www.icann.org

APLMAN99
Posts
12474
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR US
Fantasy
11/1/2022 8:25pm
APLMAN99 wrote:
So I just looked up the website for the company I work for. When you go to ICANN, the site was started in December of 2009...
So I just looked up the website for the company I work for. When you go to ICANN, the site was started in December of 2009. Wayback says that it was first ‘saved’ in June of 2012 (and only 44 times total). So the idea that every site is constantly scraped by Wayback all the time seems to be far fetched.
7I3N wrote:
That's funny, I can find over 20,000 archives for ICANN going all the way back to 1999. How about a link to what your looking at...
That's funny, I can find over 20,000 archives for ICANN going all the way back to 1999. How about a link to what your looking at?

http://web.archive.org/web/19990101000000*/www.icann.org

You misunderstood and/or I wasn’t clear. I used ICANN to find when my company’s domain began, I wasn’t referring to the ICANN site beginning in 2009.
1
7I3N
Posts
1746
Joined
10/22/2009
Location
Moto Paradise, UT US
11/1/2022 8:50pm
APLMAN99 wrote:
So I just looked up the website for the company I work for. When you go to ICANN, the site was started in December of 2009...
So I just looked up the website for the company I work for. When you go to ICANN, the site was started in December of 2009. Wayback says that it was first ‘saved’ in June of 2012 (and only 44 times total). So the idea that every site is constantly scraped by Wayback all the time seems to be far fetched.
7I3N wrote:
That's funny, I can find over 20,000 archives for ICANN going all the way back to 1999. How about a link to what your looking at...
That's funny, I can find over 20,000 archives for ICANN going all the way back to 1999. How about a link to what your looking at?

http://web.archive.org/web/19990101000000*/www.icann.org

APLMAN99 wrote:
You misunderstood and/or I wasn’t clear. I used ICANN to find when my company’s domain began, I wasn’t referring to the ICANN site beginning in 2009.
Yeah, ICANN as your employer confused me. I've always thought you worked for George Soros. Wink

So I just have to take your word for it? That's funny, because you're the guy that demands proof for everything. Laughing

The site was archived 18 times in 7 hours on Friday, but never once before. Not once. If you can't see the logical conclusion in that, then you are truly blinded by your political bias, or you're just doing your job.
2
2
lappedrider
Posts
1550
Joined
8/26/2006
Location
Tooele, UT US
11/1/2022 9:52pm
7I3N wrote:
That's funny, I can find over 20,000 archives for ICANN going all the way back to 1999. How about a link to what your looking at...
That's funny, I can find over 20,000 archives for ICANN going all the way back to 1999. How about a link to what your looking at?

http://web.archive.org/web/19990101000000*/www.icann.org

APLMAN99 wrote:
You misunderstood and/or I wasn’t clear. I used ICANN to find when my company’s domain began, I wasn’t referring to the ICANN site beginning in 2009.
7I3N wrote:
Yeah, ICANN as your employer confused me. I've always thought you worked for George Soros. ;) So I just have to take your word for it...
Yeah, ICANN as your employer confused me. I've always thought you worked for George Soros. Wink

So I just have to take your word for it? That's funny, because you're the guy that demands proof for everything. Laughing

The site was archived 18 times in 7 hours on Friday, but never once before. Not once. If you can't see the logical conclusion in that, then you are truly blinded by your political bias, or you're just doing your job.
Dude, it was being archived because it was just connected to a crime. Seriously it’s really not that complicated.
2
2
Jeremy A.K.
Posts
1449
Joined
1/5/2022
Location
North Tonawanda, NY US
11/2/2022 2:19am
Is the camera footage cut up and available to view yet?
4
1
ns503
Posts
4585
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
NS Toolies CA
11/2/2022 3:34am
SEEMEFIRST wrote:
It's Vital.... But to answer your question, no, and I don't believe that is what you are seeing as much as people bewildered by the convoluted...
It's Vital....

But to answer your question, no, and I don't believe that is what you are seeing as much as people bewildered by the convoluted, nonsensical story that they are trying to peddle.
ns503 wrote:
They who?
SEEMEFIRST wrote:
The DA, the police?
Or whoever is pulling their strings.
Just doesn't seem logical to me.

I couldn't care less one way or the other on the politics at play here. Partisanship sucks in the largest way possible.

I just can't see how the DA, the police, the FBI, and whoever else is saying that this guy was a wing nut who broke into a home with intent to cause harm, could all be in on some kinda gig to make that all up. As opposed to - the guy was just a wing nut who broke into someones home with intent to cause harm.
3
11/2/2022 5:08am
Trump weighed in, apparently it is nonsense to just say that something seems weird, and to say that it is sad.

Trump was asked about the attack during an interview with conservative radio host Chris Stigall on Tuesday. To be clear, what follows from the former president is nonsense and officials have gone on the record to denounce conspiracy theories like this.

"It's weird things going on in that household in the last couple of weeks," Trump said. "You know, probably, you and I are better off not talking about it. The glass, it seems, was broken from the inside to the out and, you know, so, it wasn't a break in, it was a break out."


Trump went on to say that he's "not a fan of Nancy Pelosi," but that what happened was "very sad." He added: "The whole thing is crazy. I mean, if there's even a little bit of truth to what's being said, it's crazy. But the window was broken in and it was strange the cops were standing there practically from the moment it all took place."


https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/01/politics/donald-trump-paul-pelosi-reaction/index.html
2
2
Jeremy A.K.
Posts
1449
Joined
1/5/2022
Location
North Tonawanda, NY US
11/2/2022 5:39am
I'm sure we'll be able to hear all of his testimony when the time comes LOL
1
2
11/2/2022 5:40am
false flag.

The left needed to stoke the flames of "right wing extremism" and found this loony bird, handed him a hammer and pointed at the Pelosis. Easy peasy. The CCTV footage will never be released, and if so, it'll only include a mysterious figure walking up the sidewalk.

Move along. Nothing to see here. The whole thing is enormously transparent. Yawn.
4
8
SEEMEFIRST
Posts
13774
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Arlington, TX US
11/2/2022 5:53am
They must have hired the guys responsible for watching Epstein because they missed the entry into the house.
They evidently noticed something when the flashing lights of the cop cars got their attention.
4
1

Post a reply to: If

The Latest