IRS "loses" 2 years of Lois Lerner emails. How convenient.

[Googballz 39]

[drobeski 3,061]

The dope testifying counts on dopes to buy his bullchit. And as evidence in this thread, there's plenty of complete dopes who buy it. ....

[Mike Honcho 5,294]

If I recall, when I was available to respond to the first item, I was going to post about the 6 additional HD failures, but I saw that several other people had already done so. I thought about doing so anyway but figured I'd be beating a dead horse; perhaps I should have done so anyway.

 

On the second one, I didn't know what to say that would have been constructive. You understand that they are working on a hard drive; guess we'll see what comes of that. And you think it is likely that those drives just crashed. I take it that the IRS had an ongoing epidemic for all time with HDs crashing with no backup plan? Seems implausible like everything else in this story. I didn't see that value in pushing it more; you seem convinced that the mounting coincidences are irrelevant.

 

6 out of 82 over 3 years is hardly an epidemic(as shown in the link below), and they had a back up plan. Now that plan is problematic because servers were backed up then saved before the tapes were recycled, but the plan was in place.

 

Recent article on hard drive failure(note they were using newer drives than would be in older IRS computers).

 

 

For this report, Backblaze took a look at 15 different HDD models from the three aforementioned major brands. Earning impressive marks for reliability was the Hitachi 3TB Deskstar 7K3000 (HDS723030ALA640) with a 0.9 percent failure rate and an average lifetime of about 2.1 years. That model was followed by another Hitachi, the Deskstar 5K3000 (HDS5C3030ALA630) with an average lifetime of 1.7 years and a similar failure rate. (Remember, these drives are putting in some serious overtime that your PC would likely never see.)

 

The worst of the bunch, meanwhile was the 1.5 TB Seagate Barracuda Green (ST1500DL003), with an average lifespan of 0.8 years. Ouch!

Backblaze said this particular model is pretty bad, but it cautions not to read too much into it. The company received these specific drives as warranty replacements, so they were probably refurbished with wear and tear on them by the time they met Backblaze’s HDD taskmasters.

 

Overall, Seagate drives had the highest failure rates by brand in Backblaze’s environment reaching close to a 14 percent annual failure rate for 1.5TB drives, around 10 percent for 3 TB drives, and 4 percent for 4TB drives. WD 1TB and 3TB drives stayed under 4 percent, while all Hitachi drives (2, 3, and 4 TB) failed less than 2 percent of the time on an annual basis.

Over a 36 month span, Hitachi drives had a 96.9 percent survival rate, followed by WD at 94.8 percent and Seagate way below that at 73.5 percent.

 

 

Three-year, 27,000 drive study reveals the most reliable hard drive makers

[jerryskids 6,828]

 

6 out of 82 over 3 years is hardly an epidemic(as shown in the link below), and they had a back up plan. Now that plan is problematic because servers were backed up then saved before the tapes were recycled, but the plan was in place.

 

Recent article on hard drive failure(note they were using newer drives than would be in older IRS computers).

 

 

Three-year, 27,000 drive study reveals the most reliable hard drive makers

If your point is that it is technically possible, I'll concede it. Although I don't understand metrics like "0.9% failure and mean life of 2 years.". Also the company that ran that study ran the drives nonstop. I'll try to look at the study in more detail later at home.

[Googballz 39]

Honcho has spent the entire thread trying to make the case for the IRS...........but he doesn't believe it.

[OldMaid 2,130]

Honcho has spent the entire thread trying to make the case for the IRS...........but he doesn't believe it.

Mebbe some people think both sides should be equally represented.

[Mike Honcho 5,294]

If your point is that it is technically possible, I'll concede it. Although I don't understand metrics like "0.9% failure and mean life of 2 years.". Also the company that ran that study ran the drives nonstop. I'll try to look at the study in more detail later at home.

 

The point of HD failure isn't about the technicality/coincendence of whether it would happen, but more the probability of it happening. Aside from Lerner, and concentrating on the other HD failures, there were 6 of 82 other employees(of which I do not believe they are considered key---nobody said that last night). You have a failure rate of 7.3%. For new computers today, the failure rate of a HD of a computer by age 4 falls in the 3 to 5% range. According to the IRS commissioner computers generally are used for 7 years at the IRS, so a higher than average failure rate shouldn't be shocking to anyone.

[Mike Honcho 5,294]

 

That and Honcho has not been making cases for the IRS but responding to questions asked by Mr. GP...who then whines when they get answered.

 

Well, to be fair, I ignored his stupid TB hard drive question yesterday.

[ZeroTolerance 584]

Honestly, while I can find the explanation believable...kind of sad that the IRS doesn't use RAID arrays or some form of automated backup *shrug*.

[Googballz 39]

Well, to be fair, I ignored his stupid TB hard drive question yesterday.

Of course you did. It exposed the fact you had no idea what you were talking about.

 

Still no clue how much storage they would require vs what you can get for $14K?

[Googballz 39]

The point of HD failure isn't about the technicality/coincendence of whether it would happen, but more the probability of it happening. Aside from Lerner, and concentrating on the other HD failures, there were 6 of 82 other employees(of which I do not believe they are considered key---nobody said that last night). You have a failure rate of 7.3%. For new computers today, the failure rate of a HD of a computer by age 4 falls in the 3 to 5% range. According to the IRS commissioner computers generally are used for 7 years at the IRS, so a higher than average failure rate shouldn't be shocking to anyone.

 

How old was Lerner's computer?

[Mike Honcho 5,294]

How old was Lerner's computer?

 

Why are you asking me, you don't think I know anything about computers...

 

But I would love to hear you explain how Sonasoft was going to back up all the IRS email on 14K...I'm sure everyone lots of people would like to hear this, actually.

[Googballz 39]

Why are you asking me, you don't think I know anything about computers...

 

But I would love to hear you explain how Sonasoft was going to back up all the IRS email on 14K...I'm sure everyone lots of people would like to hear this, actually.

I'm still waiting for you to tell us how much space is needed to archive IRS emails.

 

1TB.....5.......10........20?

 

You seem to want us to think you are some computer expert, so step up to the plate. How much, in your opinion would it take?

[Mike Honcho 5,294]

Nope.

 

Just find it odd you know $14K won't purchase enough storage space, yet you are clueless how much storage space it would require.

 

I think we are done here. It's clear you don't know WTF you are talking about.

 

 

I'm still waiting for you to tell us how much space is needed to archive IRS emails.

 

1TB.....5.......10........20?

 

You seem to want us to think you are some computer expert, so step up to the plate. How much, in your opinion would it take?

 

So you're not going to explain how you plan to archive all IRS emails for 14k.

[Googballz 39]

So you're not going to explain how you plan to archive all IRS emails for 14k.

I have already said I don't know how much space it would take, so I don't know if $14K would do it.

 

You, on the other hand, say it can't be done for that amount. This means you think you know how much storage it requires, but you keep running away from answering the question of how much is required.

 

This leads us to believe you are talking out of your ass.

[Frank M 181]

I have already said I don't know how much space it would take, so I don't know if $14K would do it.

 

You, on the other hand, say it can't be done for that amount. This means you think you know how much storage it requires, but you keep running away from answering the question of how much is required.

 

This leads us to believe you are talking out of your ass.

 

Who's us, Gollum?

[NewbieJr 541]

 

Who's us, Gollum?

Him and RP. Bwahahahaha

[OldMaid 2,130]

Who's us, Gollum?

The unholy trinity of RP, Drobs and Phurfart.

[drobeski 3,061]

What's 14k have to do with it, the irs budget for IT was over a billion.

They were destroyed intentionally, because they were being directed by the white house to target conservatives. ..to help win the election.

Only a true idiot would believe different.

Mike fits that description well.

1+ billion!

[drobeski 3,061]

The unholy trinity of RP, Drobs and Phurfart.

nerd humor is neither attractive or funny. HTH

[OldMaid 2,130]

nerd humor is neither attractive or funny. HTH

Like I'm going to trust you to say what's funny.

 

 

So, Drobs... if they were just targeting conservative groups to win the election, why were progressive groups also found on the BOLO lists?

[NewbieJr 541]

:crickets:

[Googballz 39]

Who's us, Gollum?

Anyone with critical thinking skills, so you are excluded.

[Frank M 181]

Anyone with critical thinking skills, so you are excluded.

 

That's funny. Were you trying to be or was it an accident?

[OldMaid 2,130]

Anyone with critical thinking skills, so you are excluded.

Frank's pinky toe does more critical thinking before breakfast, than you do in a whole day week month year.

[Frank M 181]

Frank's pinky toe does more critical thinking before breakfast, than you do in a whole day week month year.

 

Truth.

[Googballz 39]

Frank's pinky toe does more critical thinking before breakfast, than you do in a whole day week month year.

Maybe Frank'S pinky toe can help Mike out with an answer. He seems to be unable to come up with one on his own. Apparently, I backed him into a corner and he has no idea how to get out of it.

[Googballz 39]

Like I'm going to trust you to say what's funny.

So, Drobs... if they were just targeting conservative groups to win the election, why were progressive groups also found on the BOLO lists?

Which progressive groups had their application held up until after the election?

[Mike Honcho 5,294]

What's 14k have to do with it, the irs budget for IT was over a billion.

They were destroyed intentionally, because they were being directed by the white house to target conservatives. ..to help win the election.

Only a true idiot would believe different.

Mike fits that description well.

1+ billion!

 

It's funny you say " believe", since you believe in a conspiracy to destroy documents to hide the White House directing IRS targeting of conservative groups...WITHOUT ONE SHRED OF PROOF.

 

There's more evidence that Jeebus turned water into wine.

[Mike Honcho 5,294]

Maybe Frank'S pinky toe can help Mike out with an answer. He seems to be unable to come up with one on his own. Apparently, I backed him into a corner and he has no idea how to get out of it.

 

You're funny, dumb as a rock and a liar, but funny.

[OldMaid 2,130]

Which progressive groups had their application held up until after the election?

I think we've covered this...

 

There seemed to be some questions about whether some of these groups qualified for the tax exempt status. I've already posted the link to the IRS page regarding 401c3/4 twice now.

[Googballz 39]

I think we've covered this...

There seemed to be some questions about whether some of these groups qualified for the tax exempt status. I've already posted the link to the IRS page regarding 401c3/4 twice now.

I didn't see in your earlier links the names of any progressive groups that had their applications delayed through the election.

[Googballz 39]

You're funny, dumb as a rock and a liar, but funny.

 

Cheer up Mike. This isn't the first time I caught you talking out of your ass, and I'm sure it won't be the last.

 

[MDC 7,490]

Looks like Gargleballz spent all day getting trolled again.

[OldMaid 2,130]

I didn't see in your earlier links the names of any progressive groups that had their applications delayed through the election.

One progressive group actually had their tax exempt status overturned. How many conservative groups, did this happen to? Oh yeah... NONE.

 

I don't have a list of the groups that were held up... I doubt you do either... but it makes sense that the IRS would be looking into groups that were trying to funnel campaign money through tax exempt organizations.

 

[Googballz 39]

One progressive group actually had their tax exempt status overturned. How many conservative groups, did this happen to? Oh yeah... NONE.

I don't have a list of the groups that were held up... I doubt you do either... but it makes sense that the IRS would be looking into groups that were trying to funnel campaign money through tax exempt organizations.

A House Ways and Means Committee staff analysis of the applications of 111 conservative and progressive groups applying for tax exempt status found conservative applicants faced, “more questions, more denials, more delays,” says committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich. That is, when the IRS sent groups letters asking for further information, conservative groups were asked more questions — on average, three times more. All of the groups with “progressive” in their name were ultimately approved, while only 46 percent of conservative groups won approval. Others are still waiting for an answer or gave up.

 

[OldMaid 2,130]

A House Ways and Means Committee staff analysis of the applications of 111 conservative and progressive groups applying for tax exempt status found conservative applicants faced, “more questions, more denials, more delays,” says committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich. That is, when the IRS sent groups letters asking for further information, conservative groups were asked more questions — on average, three times more. All of the groups with “progressive” in their name were ultimately approved, while only 46 percent of conservative groups won approval. Others are still waiting for an answer or gave up.

Mebbe there were more tea party groups trying to funnel campaign funds through tax exempt organizations.

 

 

Nah... it couldn't be that simple...

[drobeski 3,061]

Mebbe there were more tea party groups trying to funnel campaign funds through tax exempt organizations.

 

 

Nah... it couldn't be that simple...

then why'd lerner plead the 5th, maybe she had something to hide ...nah coudlnt be that simple.

You irs defenders are much more laughable than birthers ever could dream of

[OldMaid 2,130]

As to RP's question about the number of groups targeted:

 

The letter further stated that out of the 20 groups applying for tax-exempt status whose names contained "progress" or "progressive", 6 had been chosen for more scrutiny as compared to all of the 292 groups applying for tax-exempt status whose names contained "tea party", "patriot", or "9/12".

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_IRS_controversy

 

So, it does indeed look like a lot more conservative groups were applying for this status.

[OldMaid 2,130]

then why'd lerner plead the 5th, maybe she had something to hide ...nah coudlnt be that simple.

You irs defenders are much more laughable than birthers ever could dream of

Since I'm not Lois Lerner, I don't know. I agree that it looks shady... but I'm not going to jump to any conclusions.

 

I'm still not seeing anyone defending the IRS here. Just some people are pointing out facts, that seem to be have been overlooked, in a rush to form judgement.