Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How to enrage a hack in zero easy steps

damn_registrars (1103043) writes | about 8 months ago

User Journal 46

I would ponder writing this up as a book, as I have volumes of experience with the matter. However I'm not sure I can make zero steps long enough to warrant binding into a volume.I would ponder writing this up as a book, as I have volumes of experience with the matter. However I'm not sure I can make zero steps long enough to warrant binding into a volume.

cancel ×

46 comments

8 letters (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 8 months ago | (#45331957)

"Benghazi"

Re:8 letters (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 8 months ago | (#45333157)

No, that was enrage, not excite. Getting a hack to jerk of relentlessly in excitement is not much of an achievement.

Re:8 letters (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 8 months ago | (#45333263)

Well... It's shorter than "Whitewater".

Re:8 letters (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 8 months ago | (#45333379)

... but the same length as "Lewinski"

Re:8 letters (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 8 months ago | (#45333411)

Touché. :)

Re:8 letters (1)

pudge (3605) | about 8 months ago | (#45336765)

Shrug. You're an expert on that. You clearly don't believe most of what you write -- like in our Benghazi discussion, where you literally had no arguments against what I wrote in the end, but still claimed some sort of victory -- and are only engaging to excite yourself. And you're not even fooling anyone ... which means you're a cheap date, even for yourself.

Re:8 letters (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 8 months ago | (#45337133)

Are you capable of resisting the opportunity to come and present your opinion as god's own truth? Just because you can post in my JE discussions doesn't mean it is the best idea. You can sling all the insults you want, and make all the desperate attempts to twist reality that you want, but that doesn't change the facts of the matter - or the fact that you are sorely lacking in facts.

Re:8 letters (1)

pudge (3605) | about 8 months ago | (#45337379)

Are you capable of resisting the opportunity to come and present your opinion as god's own truth?

Keep up the charade if you like. Anyone can read the discussion, and if they did, would be well aware that you had no answer to my points about Benghazi. I mean, you tried, of course, but in doing so you only exposed your ignorance further, like when you said there was a three hour pause in the attacks between the consulate and the annex. I mean, this was your huge point for awhile: there was no reason to expect further attacks, no reason for American troops to go to the annex, because the annex hadn't been attacked for the hours before the final assault.

But then I pointed out the fact that the terrorists had been attacking the annex for those hours. It was at this point that you claimed victory in the argument.

It was quite beautiful, in its own way. You actually seemed like you believed that you "won," despite the fact that you were proven wrong.

... that doesn't change the facts of the matter - or the fact that you are sorely lacking in facts.

You just keep telling yourself that.

Re:8 letters (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 8 months ago | (#45337521)

Pudge, if you feel that you have to push your version reality at every chance you find, I won't stop you. But quite simply the opposite of most of what you just claimed is the reality and anyone could see it. Only someone desperate to make bullshit into truth would be compelled to follow me around to keep shouting said bullshit and slinging insults at me. Your anger and hatred do not make your nonsense into fact.

Go ahead, write another reply where you accuse me of lying (which will, as per your usual, be an accusation that is completely lacking in actual facts). I don't care. You can have the last comment again as I don't want to waste my time with you right now. Even watching you squirm gets old after a while.

Re:8 letters (1)

pudge (3605) | about 8 months ago | (#45337819)

I've asked you before why you persist with such obvious lies, but I think I get it now. You're pretending to be President Obama. Like when yesterday, Obama said that he'd said all along that he had put a disclaimer about insurance companies possibly canceling your insurance on his oft-repeated promise that "If you like your insurance, you can keep it. Period." I mean, it's an obvious lie. He didn't do that. He many many times said "period," with no "unless." But he makes this lie anyway, as though anyone with a functioning brain could possibly believe it. Of course, therein lies the answer: there's lots of people without functioning brains out there.

The only questioning remaining, then, is ... who are you lying to, exactly, that you expect to believe you? With Obama, the answer is "low-information voters," which, incidentally, is a superset of most of "journalists." But who is the target of your lies? Or is this just, as we've guessed before, merely performance art?

Re:8 letters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45347015)

no pudge, you don't get it. listen, she doesn't want to talk with you any more than you actually want to talk with her. she blew holes into your argument that the goddamned uss enterprise could sail through with room to spare, but you are too pig-headed and condescending to realize it. you can spin your loss however you like, but you're not likely getting her to talk to you about it any more until you stop spewing baseless crap around. of-course, you have shown that there isn't much you are interested in doing here BUT spewing baseless crap around...

Re:8 letters (1)

pudge (3605) | about 8 months ago | (#45347113)

he blew holes into your argument that the goddamned uss enterprise could sail through with room to spare

I never made such an argument, and he blew holes in not a single thing I wrote. And this is really simple: simply quote what I wrote, and then quote him blowing a hole in it. Very very simple.

Note that he didn't do that, and you didn't either, and there's a reason why, and we all know what it is: you can't.

Re:8 letters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45347711)

she blew holes into your argument that the goddamned uss enterprise could sail through with room to spare

I never made such an argument

indeed another way to state it is that you never made an argument at all.

and he blew holes in not a single thing I wrote

except for damn near every single thing you wrote.

And this is really simple: simply quote what I wrote, and then quote him blowing a hole in it. Very very simple.

the way you evaded truth and shat all over logic in this discussion there is no reason to expect that you would actually pay attention to a response. besides the obvious demonstration of her blowing your argument to kingdom come is already on display for all of us to see, there is no need for that much redundancy. you got owned, beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Note that he didn't do that, and you didn't either, and there's a reason why, and we all know what it is: you can't.

you say that as if you expect someone to believe it. it is highly doubtful that even you do.

Re:8 letters (1)

pudge (3605) | about 8 months ago | (#45347847)

indeed another way to state it is that you never made an argument at all.

An obviously false way to state it, sure.

except for damn near every single thing you wrote.

We are collectively unsurprised that you provide not a single example.

the way you evaded truth and shat all over logic in this discussion

Ibid.

besides the obvious demonstration of [him] blowing your argument to kingdom come is already on display for all of us to see

Ibid.

Re:8 letters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45350949)

wow, she really got your undies in a bunch, didn't she? i like how you keep trying to claim that she's a he; is your ego too large to admit defeat to a woman? you presented a bunch of shitty foxnews wordbites and then threw a fit when she pointed out the factual errors.

and who is this 'collective' you refer to? there is nobody hear who is crazy enough to think that you made any points in this or any other discussion this year. it must hurt to be such an epic pile of failure such as yourself. you sure have a lot of time on your hands to post here again, did you lose another job already? i can't wait to hear you tell us how that is obama's fault.

Re:8 letters (1)

pudge (3605) | about 8 months ago | (#45356241)

Wow, you provide no substance to back up your claims. I'm completely shocked!

Re:8 letters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45356621)

so apparently your correspondence school associates' degree in conservative blogging taught you how to recognize the absence of a citation, but not how to write one yourself? wow, that is a really thorough education there. no wonder you keep losing jobs. maybe talon news is hiring again? you'd be perfect for them...

Re:8 letters (1)

pudge (3605) | about 8 months ago | (#45357055)

Still no substance. I wonder why?

I'll give you a hint, because you seem to really think you're making a case, even though you're not. If you think I should've cited something that I didn't, then tell me what. That said, he never asked for any citations that I might have left out, either implicitly or explicitly. If he had even said "no, their was no fighting at the annex for the hours before 4 a.m.," I'd have provided the citation for it. But when things are easy to Google and no one is directly questioning them, I tend to not bother citing them.

Compare that to here: I am challenging you directly on specific claims you're making, and you're refusing to provide any evidence or substantiation of any kind.

Now, I realize, you're probably just full of it. It's extremely likely that know you cannot cite anything, and you know I can. But I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I predict you'll abuse it, though.

Re:8 letters (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45357397)

Pudge, you're devolving. Soon you will become a jellyfish. I am beginning to believe that you handed off your account to some punk.

Re:8 letters (1)

pudge (3605) | about 8 months ago | (#45357497)

Substance, wherefore art though?

Re:8 letters (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45357741)

:-) Yes, my question exactly... Let us know if you ever come up with any....

Performance art? At least Smitty has some talent in that department. You and d_r should do your best to hang on to your day jobs.

though? or thou?

Re:8 letters (1)

pudge (3605) | about 8 months ago | (#45358065)

:-) Yes, my question exactly... Let us know if you ever come up with any....

I offered many points, based on the facts, of why he was wrong that there was not enough time to send more people in to Benghazi. I pointed out there was several hours between the first and final assaults, that the WH had information necessary to know what was going on, and that the attacks didn't stop, continued at the annex, and the folks there still needed rescuing ... and at the end, two more Americans died, while help never came.

You can choose to pretend that's not substance, but no one is fooled.

Re:8 letters (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45358433)

You offered points based on press releases, not facts. You base your beliefs on the person making the statements without bothering to verify. When Bush lied us into war in Iraq and Afghanistan you were all gung ho. Obviously you are part of the cult of personality. Like Reagan said, "Facts are stupid things". And since you worship him, you take that as biblical truth.

You're right. No one is fooled by your BS. The pretender is you!

Re:8 letters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45359961)

You're right. No one is fooled by your BS. The pretender is you!

one person is fooled by pudge's bullshit - pudge. he honestly believes the shit he spews, 110%. he has convinced himself that he is the worlds primary source of real knowledge and that nothing he says can ever be proven untrue. facts and physical reality can be damned.

Re:8 letters (1)

pudge (3605) | about 8 months ago | (#45368345)

Hm ... scanning for facts that contradict anything I wrote ...

You guys realize you're a parody of yourselves, right? You perpetually insist I am wrong without actually referencing anything I wrote and showing how it is wrong.

And we all know why: because you can't.

Re:8 letters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45368535)

you're very cute with your "na na na na boo-boo" technique where you accuse us of doing what you consistently do. your insistence on their being more than one person who believes your bullshit is amusing as well.

also did you see that the story about benghazi that you are basing you latest argument on was just admitted to be crap [cnn.com] ? of course reality is too liberal for you, but here is the network that posted it apologizing for it as well [cbsnews.com] .

Re:8 letters (1)

pudge (3605) | about 8 months ago | (#45368745)

you're very cute with your "na na na na boo-boo" technique where you accuse us of doing what you consistently do.

You're lying.

also did you see that the story about benghazi that you are basing you latest argument on was just admitted to be crap [cnn.com] ?

You're lying. One part of it -- whether this security contractor was in a certain place at a certain time -- was wrong, but nothing I wrote about was in any way related to that (in part because he said little I cared about it in this context, and in part because I already knew there were questions about where he was and when). Nothing in this story you link to, in any way, contradicts or diminishes what I wrote. You're just lying, as usual.

Most of what I wrote actually came from the link in the story you link to: CNN's own "Benghazi attack timeline."

Re:8 letters (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45368861)

Most of what I wrote actually came from the link in the story you link to: CNN's own "Benghazi attack timeline."

And you believe THEM??? You're a rodeo clown...

Re:8 letters (1)

pudge (3605) | about 8 months ago | (#45368935)

You realize you linked to them to try to attack me, right?

Re:8 letters (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45369099)

Serendipity. The apology is a lie :-)

Re:8 letters (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45370035)

Since I'm hanging around, What is CNN's source for this mystical 'timeline' you brought up? The Pentagon? Am I supposed to believe them? And Afghanistan. Whose conspiracy theory are you pushing? The government's? Yeah right, like there's no incentive to lie there. You are so full of it, it's *coming out your ears*... Once again, the retard is you, and all the other believers. You have nothing. You're like the damn cops and prosecutors who falsify and even make up evidence against someone who 'fit a description' just so they can hastily close the case and get a promotion, or win an election.

Re:8 letters (1)

pudge (3605) | about 8 months ago | (#45370759)

What is CNN's source for this mystical 'timeline' you brought up? The Pentagon? Am I supposed to believe them?

Wow. A question that is almost about substance. Good job.

So, there's many sources. Which part of the timeline do you want to know about? Each part is sourced differently.

And Afghanistan. Whose conspiracy theory are you pushing? The government's? Yeah right, like there's no incentive to lie there.

Um. If you're saying Bush lied to get us into Afghanistan, you are the one pushing a conspiracy theory. Literally and explicitly. Maybe you're right, but the burden of proof is clearly on you.

You are so full of it, it's *coming out your ears*

And yet, you're the one who still refuses to provide a single argument against anything I've said.

Re:8 letters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45371701)

you are the one pushing a conspiracy theory. Literally and explicitly. Maybe you're right, but the burden of proof is clearly on you.

and yet, when you run around shouting that the current administration was intentionally lying to the American people, there is no burden of proof on you whatsoever. why is that? is it because you are the mouthpiece of god himself and hence nothing you say needs to be verified for virtue of coming from you?

And yet, you're the one who still refuses to provide a single argument against anything I've said.

only someone who hasn't read this or the other discussions where you have been thoroughly logically trounced and discredited would come to that conclusion.

Re:8 letters (1)

pudge (3605) | about 8 months ago | (#45381591)

and yet, when you run around shouting that the current administration was intentionally lying to the American people, there is no burden of proof on you whatsoever.

You're lying, of course. I accept that burden of proof, and in my view, I met it.

Perhaps you are referring to the fact that some A.C. dishonestly pretended to want to engage in a discussion of the evidence, and so I didn't provide it ... to him. But I did provide it, and I never once implied, in any way, that the burden of proof was not on me. You're simply lying.

only someone who hasn't read this or the other discussions where you have been thoroughly logically trounced and discredited would come to that conclusion

Such as ... ? That's never actually happened. And you either won't provide a link (because you can't), or you'll provide a link where I actually won the argument, but you'll lie and say otherwise. That's what y'all do.

Re:8 letters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45383423)

Perhaps you are referring to the fact that some A.C. dishonestly pretended to want to engage in a discussion of the evidence

you're lying. you cannot prove that the AC was dishonest. you are only projecting your opinion as fact, as you frequently do. you used your opinion as an excuse to brush off a discussion of evidence.

But I did provide it

you're lying again. you dodged repeatedly the AC (and other) requests for evidence. you insisted instead that they did not want to discuss it, likely because you were - and still are - afraid of being exposed as a hack with no meaningful information to discuss.

and I never once implied, in any way, that the burden of proof was not on me

except that you repeatedly stated plainly that the burden of proof was on everyone but you. if you felt you had any burden of proof then why did you never once provide any proof?

You're simply lying.

you're even lying about lying. i guess it just comes as second nature for you, to just keep lying in the hopes that somehow you will magically get your way back out of this fine hole that you have dug for yourself, if you just keep lying.

with all the time you have off now that you've lost another job, you should be able to at least provide enough evidence for your argument. yet you can't. maybe you should try to see if you can find a real school that will give you a few credits for your correspondence a.a. degree and let you work towards a bachelor's.

nah, scratch that idea. you would find any school able to grant a bachelor's to be too liberal and you'd never survive in their journalist dept.

Re:8 letters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45383609)

btw pudge, now that you're unemployed again, are you going to stay on unemployment longer this time? that would be your chance to make your own personal contribution towards raising the obama admin unemployment rate. after all thats what jesus would do, right? maybe you could even petition the government (we do still have that right, as much as you might believe otherwise) to reverse the bush-era math adjustment that stopped counting the people who gave up on looking for work, then you could really push the unemployment numbers up. hell you've got nothing better to do with your time now.

Re:8 letters (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45377797)

...the burden of proof is clearly on you.

Nope, he's the one who engaged in malicious prosecution with false evidence until proven otherwise with a proper, public cross examination of its source, which he refused to allow, thus the conclusion it must be false. He is the one who condemned many thousands to death and much suffering. And he reopened a very important opium connection worth many billions of dollars every year. The sword of Damocles is over his head, not mine. That's the only proper way to treat those in positions of power.

And since you're so confident, name your sources from the 'timeline', and I can bet that all of them have an interest in the outcome, revealing much bias in favor of more war, just like you, all based on bigotry and arrogance*, and 'just following orders'. You are nothing but a mouthpiece for the empire, and your motivations are quite transparent.

* "No legal issue arises when the United States responds to a challenge to its power, position, and prestige."

Re:8 letters (1)

pudge (3605) | about 8 months ago | (#45381587)

he's the one who engaged in malicious prosecution with false evidence until proven otherwise

Well, no, in fact, that is a perfect example of where you have to prove he did any of those things. You're the one making allegations; those allegations are not based on any obvious or well-known facts; the burden of proof is completely on you.

That's the only proper way to treat those in positions of power.

Ignoring logic and reason and proper procedure is the only proper way to treat those in positions of power?

Are you trying to get people to not take you at all seriously? If so, mission accomplished.

And since you're so confident, name your sources from the 'timeline'

Cite the things you don't know or question, and I'll provide the sources ... if you are really interested in knowing what happened (pearls/swine etc.). But it seems you're not, since you claim your reason for wanting to know the sources is explicitly so that you can engage in red herring fallacies.

revealing much bias in favor of more war, just like you

You're a liar. I have no such bias, and have not demonstrated any such bias. On the contrary, my bias is against more war. I offered several ways that I thought we could avoid war with Iraq and Afghanistan, I have been in favor of getting out of both countries as quickly as possible, and I have opposed use of force in all other nations since.

You are nothing but a mouthpiece for the empire

Right. Because when I said before the invasion of Iraq that I did not believe in the existence of an active WMD program in Iraq, that clearly was me being a mouthpiece for Bush. And when I point out the fact that your case is unproven, somehow that makes me a mouthpiece for Bush.

Again, you're apparently trying to not be taken seriously.

and your motivations are quite transparent.

I agree. I've always been motivated in these affairs by trying to minimize war and reveal facts. That is entirely, transparently, clear.

Re:8 letters (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45381825)

You got it backwards. His allegations must meet the burden of proof, and they have failed. All your pro war talk is based purely on bigoted speculation. There is no publicly available evidence to back any of it up, only official statements which you choose not to challenge in your appeal to authority, and because you are a bigot, like everyone else that is pro war.

Re:8 letters (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45381857)

And another thing. You are a liar. I never said you were a mouthpiece for Bush. I said you are a mouthpiece for empire. Bush was just following orders, and is actually irrelevant, as is Obama.

Re:8 letters (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45381871)

And ANOTHER thing... Nice cop out on the sources. You seem to act like you have actual knowledge of what happened. Swine indeed you are.

Re:8 letters (1)

pudge (3605) | about 8 months ago | (#45368327)

You offered points based on press releases, not facts.

You're lying. I based it on journalism reports, almost all of it from 60 Minutes, CNN,com, and factcheck.com. Of course, you know this isn't true: if it were, you would offer an example of something I said that isn't easily verifiable.

You base your beliefs on the person making the statements without bothering to verify.

You're lying. I cross-referenced and verified everything I posted with at least one additional source.

When Bush lied us into war in Iraq and Afghanistan you were all gung ho. Obviously you are part of the cult of personality.

You're lying. First, Bush didn't lie to get us into Afghanistan. That's retarded.

Second, to Iraq, the facts actually prove the opposite of your claim: despite my general like of and respect for George Bush and Colin Powell, I publicly stated, before we went into Iraq, my disbelief that Iraq had an active WMD program. Before Colin Powell's presentation before the UN, some of my liberal friends disbelieved in the WMD program, and I believed. But afterward, I disbelieved and they believed. Why? Because they trusted Powell. I generally do too, but I didn't believe the case he made: I figured that the U.S. government would have made a very convincing case if it had convincing evidence, and it didn't do that.

If I followed personalities, I would have believed in the WMD case. But I didn't. (Not that I expect you to admit you're wrong. ...)

Now, I did still favor going into Iraq, but not due to the existence of an active WMD program, because I did not believe such a program existed.

Like Reagan said, "Facts are stupid things".

He did say that, although it was a simple slip of the tongue (he meant "stubborn things," and corrected himself immediately), like when Ted Kennedy called our President "Osama."

And since you worship him

You're a liar.

you take that as biblical truth.

If I did, then I would take the quote as an error, and ignore it, as I do the transcription errors in many copies of the Bible.

Re:8 letters (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45368651)

...almost all of it from 60 Minutes...

Exactly! Thanks AGAIN for making my point [cnn.com] , sir. What you call 'journalism', we call something else. You get your 'info' from hacks with an agenda. Same goes for your take on Afghanistan and Iraq... and so many other things... You are a goof... and a war monger. You serve the empire well. You appeal to authority to curry favor and privilege.

Re:8 letters (1)

pudge (3605) | about 8 months ago | (#45368773)

You're just lying, as usual. [slashdot.org]

You didn't diminish anything I wrote. You didn't subvert it in any way. You simply point out that information I didn't use, at all, was called into question and is likely wrong (which is part of why I didn't use it).

If you could call into question anything I wrote, you would. You would quote me, and then show that what I said was incorrect or not verifiable. You can't do that, so instead, you resort to all manner of fallacy to dishonestly try to diminish my points.

And we all know you're doing this.

Re:8 letters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45358391)

don't insult a jellyfish that way. they could easily make better arguments and keep higher standards of cvility.

Re:8 letters (1)

pudge (3605) | about 8 months ago | (#45356993)

Oh and by the way -- maybe you're new to English, I don't know, but -- I never claimed any particular gender for him. It is perfectly acceptable in English to use the masculine pronouns as gender-neutral when the gender is unknown. I could also use the plural pronouns (them, they, their) but I find them to be cumbersome.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...