Russia Investigation

[Mountain Man]

So, after claiming no speculation, no guesswork, your post turns out to be one guess, one inference, after another.

Not at all. I can only assume that you didn't bother to follow the numerous links in my post which would have made you conversant with the facts. As the saying goes, there is a lot of "there" there. I've been following this stuff for a while, so I'm reasonably familiar with the "deep dive" analysis of what is going on, but someone like you who is only just now becoming aware of this information will have to do a lot more reading to bring yourself up to speed, and this resource is well worth your time, assuming you're genuinely interested in uncovering the truth of the matter (which given your idly dismissive rebuttal, doesn't seem to be the case).

[carpedm9587]

Not at all. I can only assume that you didn't bother to follow the numerous links in my post which would have made you conversant with the facts. As the saying goes, there is a lot of "there" there. I've been following this stuff for a while, so I'm reasonably familiar with the "deep dive" analysis of what is going on, but someone like you who is only just now becoming aware of this information will have to do a lot more reading to bring yourself up to speed, and this resource is well worth your time, assuming you're genuinely interested in uncovering the truth of the matter (which given your idly dismissive rebuttal, doesn't seem to be the case).

I actually followed (and read) all of them, which is why I wrote what I did. I note you did not respond to any of the specific observations. Instead, again, you merely dismissed it all, suggested I wasn't informed, and accused me of being dismissive. That later is a somewhat odd/ironic claim, given the nature of this post (above).

[Mountain Man]

I note you did not respond to any of the specific observations.

The sources I provided address your "observations", which is why I suspected you hadn't bothered to read them; you claim you did, so I can only conclude at this point that it wasn't with the time and diligence required to untangle the complex web of corruption surrounding these matters.

I suppose I should point out that the links I provided are just the beginning. There's a lot more for you to discover if you're willing to open your mind and put in the effort. Or don't. It's no skin off my back.

[carpedm9587]

The sources I provided address your "observations", which is why I suspected you hadn't bothered to read them; you claim you did, so I can only conclude at this point that it wasn't with the time and diligence required to untangle the complex web of corruption surrounding these matters.

I suppose I should point out that the links I provided are just the beginning. There's a lot more for you to discover if you're willing to open your mind and put in the effort. Or don't. It's no skin off my back.

So, still no response. I read your sources, MM. They basically do what you are doing: take a specific event that is documented to have happened, point out the timing associated with other events, and then speculation/infer to conclusions that could be true, but are not necessarily true, because other possible speculations/inferences are possible. This is essentially what the far right and far left do on a fairly regular basis, and you appear to find that to be "not speculation" and "not guesswork." But, as I noted in my post, that is ALL it is, and pointing me back to things I have already read and pointed out specifically how they are doing that doesn't make your case.

[Mountain Man]

Like I said, it's not skin off my back if you want to dismiss it with a hand-wave. As I like to say, you can lead a liberal to the facts, but you can't force him to think.

[whag]

Like I said, it's not skin off my back if you want to dismiss it with a hand-wave. As I like to say, you can lead a liberal to the facts, but you can't force him to think.

You basically Gish Galloped with the added bonus of conspiracy theorizing, then claim he’s not doing any thinking? You’re not as smart as you think you are.

[Mountain Man]

"Gish Gallop" = "I can't refute the documented facts, so I'll imply that you're somehow being dishonest and pretend my work is done"

Rather pathetic performance there, whag.

[whag]

"Gish Gallop" = "I can't refute the documented facts, so I'll imply that you're somehow being dishonest and pretend my work is done"

Rather pathetic performance there, whag.

On the contrary, you do my work for me just by being you.

[carpedm9587]

Like I said, it's not skin off my back if you want to dismiss it with a hand-wave. As I like to say, you can lead a liberal to the facts, but you can't force him to think.

You do appreciate the irony of this post, right?

[carpedm9587]

"Gish Gallop" = "I can't refute the documented facts, so I'll imply that you're somehow being dishonest and pretend my work is done"

Rather pathetic performance there, whag.

Again, MM, I'm going to ask that you desist from the name calling and mocking emojis in my threads. If you cannot, please post elsewhere.


ETA: Oops... ixnay on the amecallingnay...I didn't realize his name was actually "whag."

[carpedm9587]

You basically Gish Galloped with the added bonus of conspiracy theorizing, then claim he’s not doing any thinking? You’re not as smart as you think you are.

Good for the goose - good for the gander. Please keep the posts about the discussion. Your first sentence was fine. The second was a personal attack. Not here, please.

[Roy]

My emphasis:

So a rundown of the salient points we can glean from this (note that these are documented facts and not guesswork or idle speculation!):

1) Papadopoulos talking casually in a London bar in May 2016 about Russian hackers was almost certainly referring to Guccifier's widely reported confession in April 2016 to breaking into Hillary's server.

Something categorised as "was almost certainly" is not a "documented fact".

[whag]

Good for the goose - good for the gander. Please keep the posts about the discussion. Your first sentence was fine. The second was a personal attack. Not here, please.

That was a reference to what he said to you. I should have put quotes around it. MM’s smarm is contagious. My bad.

[Mountain Man]

You do appreciate the irony of this post, right?

Only as it applies to you.

[Mountain Man]

Speaking of irony...

Again, MM, I'm going to ask that you desist from the name calling and mocking emojis in my threads.

You first.