500M Yahoo accounts hacked US just blamed 2 Russian Spies

[Rory]

The same freedom to proliferate dozens of spam threads across the board is the same freedom to drop in occasionally and ask politely for context and discussion. There's been no bullying, only unsubstantiated allegations of such. If you actually bothered to read, as opposed to just picking sides you might have noticed that

[82_28]

Oh, OK. I don't bother to read and am taking sides. I like it.

I have long maintained that someone should never be singled out and be put on the defense, in all actuality not just here but anywhere online and off. I don't give a single fuck what someone posts as long as it adheres to the RI doctrines of no racism, sexism etc. SLAD falls under none of those categories. Read or don't read. Purty simple.

[JackRiddler]

I think it’s important to maintain close proximity with the shared news articles and the discussion here of their substance, rather than having to retrieve related material from stored threads or subforum sections with the same topics separately titled. In other words, let’s leave well enough alone.

If you think that, then you might want a collecting of related news articles in one or two saliently titled threads that maintain coherence and memory rather than a flood of new threads every time there is a new twist. Everything about "Russian" hacking is happening in a particular context. The "Russian" angle for example on the Yahoo e-mail penetration would not be emphasized if not for that context. Why are there separate threads on Manafort, Page and others relating to the same alleged "Russian" interference in the recent election? This has the opposite effect of what you are saying you want, it disperses "close proximity with the shared news articles." But it does look like a flood with a particular slant.

.

[brekin]

The same freedom to proliferate dozens of spam threads across the board is the same freedom to drop in occasionally and ask politely for context and discussion. There's been no bullying, only unsubstantiated allegations of such. If you actually bothered to read, as opposed to just picking sides you might have noticed that

What you do is not 1. occasional or 2. polite and is 3. bullying.
You post repetitive, unwanted aggressive slights to SLAD posting, not her posts content.
The aim being for her you to change her behavior so she posts less so as not to challenge your bias of what you want to believe.
You have a personal mission to stop SLAD personally from posting, and never actually provide rebuttals to her posts content, but constantly demean her reason and prerogative to post.
If you actually tried rebutting her posts content then you would have some legitimacy, but you don't as a quick perusal of your posts below shows (minus our exchange where you asked if my mind had been hacked by the Russians and your Chelsea Clinton ones) that you provide nothing substantive in content, just a constant "Why do you post things I don't like?".

My guess is you justify your immature and harassing behavior because you think in some way you are serving a nobler cause.
Preventing the spread of war propaganda and war with Russia most likely it seems.
But you aren't doing that because you aren't providing any counter argument other than "La-La-La-I don't want to hear this, why do you say these things? La-La-La" which only weirdly makes SLAD's post seem to be more important because it is hitting a reactionary response and not a rational rebuttal.

I'm all for consolidating threads, kind of a pet peeve of mine, but that is not what you're pushing.

Definition

There is no universal definition of bullying, however, it is widely agreed upon that bullying is a subcategory of aggressive behavior characterized by the following three minimum criteria: (1) hostile intent, (2) imbalance of power, and (3) repetition over a period of time.[11] Bullying may thus be defined as the activity of repeated, aggressive behavior intended to hurt another individual, physically, mentally or emotionally.
The Norwegian researcher Dan Olweus[12] says bullying occurs when a person is "exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other persons". He says negative actions occur "when a person intentionally inflicts injury or discomfort upon another person, through physical contact, through words or in other ways."[12] Individual bullying is usually characterized by a person behaving in a certain way to gain power over another person.[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying

Yeah, liminalOyster. Post it in the correct, RUSSIA IS BEEN EVIL DOERS thread.
This one is specifically for RUSSIA, NOT MELISSA MEYER, BROKE YAHOO TO BITS, DARN IT ALL TO HELL

Another RUSSIA HACKED THE FREE WORLD propaganda thread.

Unsubstantiated, evidence free allegations. Kind of like the whole anti Russia, pro war propaganda being spread across the board

One topic, many threads

It's not cheese, it's Russian smegma.
*and the tomato "sauce" is Soviet era menses.

4 posts in 3 mins. I'll never keep up with your war drum propaganda at that rate

Spamslikeamericandream

oh no Rory using nasty words now......I am in trouble now for sure

Why are you spreading anti Russian propaganda?
You want war? Why are you defending lowlifes like Louise Mensch, among many others.

[Rory]

You don't like true detective. Your opinions are kooky and I have no time for them

[liminalOyster]

Is there a best thread in which to post about and discuss the big question of how our current moment relates to McCarthyism, other forms of cold war mass psy-ops and the evolution thereof in this time? For instance, a place where McCain's rhetorical use of Putin against Rand Paul is *related* to the Yahoo event is *related* to the reemergence of Litivenko is *related* to Roger Stone claiming the "Deep State" is poisoning *him?* Ideally a thread that is agnostic and not a priori credulous in any given direction. TIA.

[Rory]

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40404

I think this was an attempt, at least a reaction to the flood of hysterical anti russia, nominally anti Trump threads

[Iamwhomiam]

I doubt many of us actually use the Subject Forums down below the 5 Stickies that includes General Discussion. The creator of this space provided, but his flock strayed and fell to arguing.

Is it no longer possible to curtail thread proliferation? I'm not sure that's possible without several active moderators to monitor each posting, so we have to deal with things as they are.

I've always thought wtf, an Ignore button? Who would click that rather than simply letting a comment pass by exhibiting mature self-restraint?

Moderators long ago would occasionally consolidate threads, but that's become impractical for several reasons that should be plain to see for all RI regulars.

Times are changing, and brings discomfort and discontent as well as approval, but the times, they are always changing. People of all contentions should pay attention to the dollars and sense of the changes we're experiencing.

The only behaviors we should attempt to modify are our own.

[82_28]

I think it’s important to maintain close proximity with the shared news articles and the discussion here of their substance, rather than having to retrieve related material from stored threads or subforum sections with the same topics separately titled. In other words, let’s leave well enough alone.

If you think that, then you might want a collecting of related news articles in one or two saliently titled threads that maintain coherence and memory rather than a flood of new threads every time there is a new twist. Everything about "Russian" hacking is happening in a particular context. The "Russian" angle for example on the Yahoo e-mail penetration would not be emphasized if not for that context. Why are there separate threads on Manafort, Page and others relating to the same alleged "Russian" interference in the recent election? This has the opposite effect of what you are saying you want, it disperses "close proximity with the shared news articles." But it does look like a flood with a particular slant.

.

Dood. Some threads and links and shit get lost here in Tumbleweed Town. You don't wanna scan through 57 pages to find the context. SLAD starts out shit quick and easy. I may not read everything, but I don't give a shit if it is there. Point being, lay off, just out of the goodness of your hearts. It isn't a big deal.

[Rory]

I think it’s important to maintain close proximity with the shared news articles and the discussion here of their substance, rather than having to retrieve related material from stored threads or subforum sections with the same topics separately titled. In other words, let’s leave well enough alone.

If you think that, then you might want a collecting of related news articles in one or two saliently titled threads that maintain coherence and memory rather than a flood of new threads every time there is a new twist. Everything about "Russian" hacking is happening in a particular context. The "Russian" angle for example on the Yahoo e-mail penetration would not be emphasized if not for that context. Why are there separate threads on Manafort, Page and others relating to the same alleged "Russian" interference in the recent election? This has the opposite effect of what you are saying you want, it disperses "close proximity with the shared news articles." But it does look like a flood with a particular slant.

.

Dood. Some threads and links and shit get lost here in Tumbleweed Town. You don't wanna scan through 57 pages to find the context. SLAD starts out shit quick and easy. I may not read everything, but I don't give a shit if it is there. Point being, lay off, just out of the goodness of your hearts. It isn't a big deal.

Lay off? Like we're the ones in control of our actions and she's just a force of nature, to be accepted and worked around?

[82_28]

Rory, this is upsetting for a member of which you belong in the ranks. Don't do it. That's it and that's all. There is not much to it. Don't like it don't read it. Also, I have many people I would love "to get back at" but don't. IRL, not here. Once you start being lame it becomes a cascade. Just be accepting of others behaviors. You gotz no say, again, what is going through their mind and what they are reading and want to share. Perhaps obsessively to a degree, but no innocent party should ever have to answer for themselves. I will though with the following. I am totally repeating myself and wish I didn't have to do it.

Plus! This is not the topic of the OP.

[Heaven Swan]

I think it’s important to maintain close proximity with the shared news articles and the discussion here of their substance, rather than having to retrieve related material from stored threads or subforum sections with the same topics separately titled. In other words, let’s leave well enough alone.

If you think that, then you might want a collecting of related news articles in one or two saliently titled threads that maintain coherence and memory rather than a flood of new threads every time there is a new twist. Everything about "Russian" hacking is happening in a particular context. The "Russian" angle for example on the Yahoo e-mail penetration would not be emphasized if not for that context. Why are there separate threads on Manafort, Page and others relating to the same alleged "Russian" interference in the recent election? This has the opposite effect of what you are saying you want, it disperses "close proximity with the shared news articles." But it does look like a flood with a particular slant.

.

Dood. Some threads and links and shit get lost here in Tumbleweed Town. You don't wanna scan through 57 pages to find the context. SLAD starts out shit quick and easy. I may not read everything, but I don't give a shit if it is there. Point being, lay off, just out of the goodness of your hearts. It isn't a big deal.

Lay off? Like we're the ones in control of our actions and she's just a force of nature, to be accepted and worked around?

Please stop this BS Rory. SLAD posts useful content and I for one don't care if there are several threads on an important subject. Nobody is forced to read anything. Just skip over it and stop interjecting.

Why so much resistance from so many to examining news and evidence on the possibility of Russian interference?

Whenever I ask Russian friends and acquaintances what they think about this possibility they have unanimously said (in a very blasé tone) that Russia always tries to influence American elections-- it's just that this time they were more successful.

The US interferes with every country it possibly can, you think that other countries don't even think of trying it?
If so you are either very naive or have an agenda.

[Rory]

Yes, Russia hacked the US election because they could. Despite all evidence to the contrary.

[Heaven Swan]

Is Rory a bot?
Can he prove he's not a bot. Bots can be very irritating and thick skulled.

[Rory]

Swans are sometimes characterized by their narcissism and stupidity