Twitter adopts 'poison pill' to prevent Elon Musk takeover

[Reality 3,121]

15 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

There have been and there always will be useful idiots to carry out deception for those in power. And they are always laughed at by both the masters and those that resist. 

True story suppressed because of orders from the FBI. Admitted and explained in very plain terms by Zuckerberg, who is regretful about the way he handled the story. Not sure what else somebody would possibly need to know but, these are the times we live in. 

You couldn't possibly be more correct, they exist and are among us. 

[TimHauck 2,994]

8 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

The context of that statement, consistent with what I consistently have said about 9874392014 times, is that the Feds were unlikely to document in writing specific attempts to manipulate the election.  If you feel the need for your gotcha, I suppose I should have said "clear questions of TOS violations," vs. tweets which were not potential TOS violations.

I don't know what triggered you to bring that up a week later, but... you win man!  Go celebrate, maybe spend some time with the family.   

I was “triggered to bringing it up a week later,” because you keep saying “you didn’t expect the Feds to document specific attempts to manipulate the election.”  I have said I didn’t expect to see that either, but what I’d like to see to help prove the conspiracy between the FBI and twitter was the FBI flagging tweets that twitter took down that they shouldn’t have.  I guess you’re lumping that into “specific attempts to manipulate the election,” but if that was the case then why are the twitter files continuing to release tweet screenshots?  The authors sure seem to think they show some sort of proof, but you’re admitting they don’t.
 

7 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

So you think Zuck doesn't know if the FBI specifically mentioned Hunter?

I know he didn’t admit that they did, which was your claim.

[jerryskids 6,894]

6 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I was “triggered to bringing it up a week later,” because you keep saying “you didn’t expect the Feds to document specific attempts to manipulate the election.”  I have said I didn’t expect to see that either, but what I’d like to see to help prove the conspiracy between the FBI and twitter was the FBI flagging tweets that twitter took down that they shouldn’t have.  I guess you’re lumping that into “specific attempts to manipulate the election,” but if that was the case then why are the twitter files continuing to release tweet screenshots?  The authors sure seem to think they show some sort of proof, but you’re admitting they don’t.
 

I know he didn’t admit that they did, which was your claim.

It's like I'm speaking a different language with you and dogcows today; seemingly simple questions are so hard to get an answer to.   

[TimHauck 2,994]

Just now, jerryskids said:

It's like I'm speaking a different language with you and dogcows today; seemingly simple questions are so hard to get an answer to.   

I don’t know what Zuckerberg knows, or else I’d be a zillionaire.  So are you gonna admit you lied?

[TimHauck 2,994]

19 minutes ago, Reality said:

True story suppressed because of orders from the FBI. Admitted and explained in very plain terms by Zuckerberg, who is regretful about the way he handled the story. Not sure what else somebody would possibly need to know but, these are the times we live in. 

You couldn't possibly be more correct, they exist and are among us. 

Lol.  So creating your own interpretation of someone saying something completely contradictory to said interpretation is “explained in very plain terms” now, lol, gotta love the GC.

[KSB2424 3,148]

This is the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[jerryskids 6,894]

4 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I don’t know what Zuckerberg knows, or else I’d be a zillionaire.  So are you gonna admit you lied?

Lied about what?  Is this like your definition of hypocrite?

[TimHauck 2,994]

50 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Lied about what?  Is this like your definition of hypocrite?

C’mon now you’re just trolling.  You said he admitted that he was specifically warned about Hunter stories by the FBI, which wasn’t true, unless you have some more obscure podcast links to share with us.

If you want to say “I’m interpreting his answer as I think he was warned about Hunter stories,” you are welcome to your opinion, but he didn’t admit it.

I mean clearly the answer wasn’t rehearsed.  If it was (and he was actually warned about Hunter stories), he would have said he didn’t remember from the jump.  If you’re dying for a yes or no answer to your question, yes I would think he would know what they talked about.  But because his first instinct was to say no, I’d believe that’s the real answer.  Sounds like they had discussions with the FBI after the story broke, which could have made him question for a second the timing of when Hunter was specifically brought up.

[dogcows 1,030]

Circling back to the “Elon cares about protecting kids” nonsense:

 

[Big Guy 1,414]

 

[Shooter McGavin 618]

Well he lost the poll.  Does he step down as CEO or does he delete it today?  Or does he admit that he's hooked on Ambien and doesn't know what he's doing anymore?

[TimHauck 2,994]

21 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

Well he lost the poll.  Does he step down as CEO or does he delete it today?  Or does he admit that he's hooked on Ambien and doesn't know what he's doing anymore?

I’m guessing he was already planning to.  But I’m sure he’ll comment about how the 17:5 million votes on the poll is “record engagement”

[jerryskids 6,894]

11 hours ago, TimHauck said:

C’mon now you’re just trolling.  You said he admitted that he was specifically warned about Hunter stories by the FBI, which wasn’t true, unless you have some more obscure podcast links to share with us.

If you want to say “I’m interpreting his answer as I think he was warned about Hunter stories,” you are welcome to your opinion, but he didn’t admit it.

I mean clearly the answer wasn’t rehearsed.  If it was (and he was actually warned about Hunter stories), he would have said he didn’t remember from the jump.  If you’re dying for a yes or no answer to your question, yes I would think he would know what they talked about.  But because his first instinct was to say no, I’d believe that’s the real answer.  Sounds like they had discussions with the FBI after the story broke, which could have made him question for a second the timing of when Hunter was specifically brought up.

Walter Kern and Matt Taibbi are not "obscure," if that is what you meant.  Sorry you hadn't heard of them though, I'll try to only reference blue check leftist sycophants in the future.

Regarding Zuck, I'm working on the belief that he knows important things that happen in his company.  You choose to believe he is clueless.  You assert that they had discussions after the story broke, but Zuck didn't mention that little tidbit to Rogan.  His quick No to me is a gut denial, then he backtracked.

So in your model, the Hunter story coincidentally dropped shortly after the ambiguous warning to both companies about hacking (pretty prescient of the feds btw), then they instantly met with both, and... what changed from that meeting?  The FBI knew the laptop was real; did they thank the companies for their diligence and then correct them that the laptop was indeed Hunter's?  Then Twitter reinstated the NYP and FB turned off it's strangling algorithm?

Or is this where you flank to the "muh dik pics$#@!" 

[Mike Honcho 5,320]

2 hours ago, Shooter McGavin said:

Well he lost the poll.  Does he step down as CEO or does he delete it today?  Or does he admit that he's hooked on Ambien and doesn't know what he's doing anymore?

Gives him an out. He made it pretty clear for 6 months he didn't want to buy the company, so it doesn't surprise me he doesn't want to run it.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,521]

I think Musk is doing a great job. I say this based on the reactions of libtards to what he’s doing. It’s a highly effective scientific method, borne out by numerous case studies. It’s extremely accurate. 

[TimHauck 2,994]

37 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Walter Kern and Matt Taibbi are not "obscure," if that is what you meant.  Sorry you hadn't heard of them though, I'll try to only reference blue check leftist sycophants in the future.

Regarding Zuck, I'm working on the belief that he knows important things that happen in his company.  You choose to believe he is clueless.  You assert that they had discussions after the story broke, but Zuck didn't mention that little tidbit to Rogan.  His quick No to me is a gut denial, then he backtracked.

So in your model, the Hunter story coincidentally dropped shortly after the ambiguous warning to both companies about hacking (pretty prescient of the feds btw), then they instantly met with both, and... what changed from that meeting?  The FBI knew the laptop was real; did they thank the companies for their diligence and then correct them that the laptop was indeed Hunter's?  Then Twitter reinstated the NYP and FB turned off it's strangling algorithm?

Or is this where you flank to the "muh dik pics$#@!" 

I don’t believe the warning was “shortly” before the story broke. If I remember correctly, Roth‘s testimony said that this vague warning came over the summer. I might believe that the FBI played Twitter by giving them a vague warning and knowing the laptop story would fit the profile, however even agent Chan testified that he didn’t know about the laptop prior to the NY Post story. I’m sure anyone that’s actually worked a job in here would know that not every person at a company knows all the things that other people at the company know. But I will definitely need some actual evidence to show there was a conspiracy between the FBI and twitter.

But I will take your reply as confirmation that you will not admit you lied? I will repeat without the snark:

12 hours ago, TimHauck said:

 You said he admitted that he was specifically warned about Hunter stories by the FBI, which wasn’t true.

If you want to say “I’m interpreting his answer as I think he was warned about Hunter stories,” you are welcome to your opinion, but he didn’t admit it.

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,521]

Facebook was warned  specifically about The laptop and Hunter.  This is a fact. 

[jerryskids 6,894]

16 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I don’t believe the warning was “shortly” before the story broke. If I remember correctly, Roth‘s testimony said that this vague warning came over the summer. I might believe that the FBI played Twitter by giving them a vague warning and knowing the laptop story would fit the profile, however even agent Chan testified that he didn’t know about the laptop prior to the NY Post story. I’m sure anyone that’s actually worked a job in here would know that not every person at a company knows all the things that other people at the company know. But I will definitely need some actual evidence to show there was a conspiracy between the FBI and twitter.

But I will take your reply as confirmation that you will not admit you lied? I will repeat without the snark:

 

You remind me of my children when they were young.  Sometimes we'd say we were going to stop for ice cream after some event, but the event would run long and we didn't have time.  "You LIED!!!!"  Well, no, we'd explain that a lie was, well, something like this:

Quote

A lie is an assertion that is believed to be false, typically used with the purpose of deceiving someone.

I specifically mentioned the Rogan interview; I thought that was clear.  If you thought there was some other Rogan interview that only I knew about, well, I'm not sure what to say.  

Regarding Chan, he said he didn't know about the laptop?  Are we arguing now that the FBI didn't know about the laptop prior to the NYP story?  Dear lord this is tiring...

[Mike Honcho 5,320]

I tweeted my resume to Elon for the new CEO job.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,521]

The. FBI needs to be reformed.  The Twitter dump confirms that.  

[TimHauck 2,994]

20 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

You remind me of my children when they were young.  Sometimes we'd say we were going to stop for ice cream after some event, but the event would run long and we didn't have time.  "You LIED!!!!"  Well, no, we'd explain that a lie was, well, something like this:

I specifically mentioned the Rogan interview; I thought that was clear.  If you thought there was some other Rogan interview that only I knew about, well, I'm not sure what to say.  

Regarding Chan, he said he didn't know about the laptop?  Are we arguing now that the FBI didn't know about the laptop prior to the NYP story?  Dear lord this is tiring...

Yes, you lied based on the definition you provided.  You said Zuckerberg admitted it, but he didn’t, at least not to Rogan or anyone else I’ve heard.  The reference to an obscure podcast was my attempt at a joke.   I would say any podcast that you need to pay for is probably not listened to by all that many people though.

This place is like the focking twilight zone. People denying Musk is a hypocrite despite it being a literal fact based on his tweets and actions, while at the same time    claiming Zuckerberg admitted he was warned by the FBI about a Hunter Biden story, and refusing to admit that statement is a blatant lie.

And Chan is not “the FBI,” he is a single employee of the FBI.

[Reality 3,121]

34 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

You remind me of my children when they were young.  Sometimes we'd say we were going to stop for ice cream after some event, but the event would run long and we didn't have time.  "You LIED!!!!"  Well, no, we'd explain that a lie was, well, something like this:

I specifically mentioned the Rogan interview; I thought that was clear.  If you thought there was some other Rogan interview that only I knew about, well, I'm not sure what to say.  

Regarding Chan, he said he didn't know about the laptop?  Are we arguing now that the FBI didn't know about the laptop prior to the NYP story?  Dear lord this is tiring...

Why do you do this to yourself?

[Strike 5,684]

2 minutes ago, Reality said:

Why do you do this to yourself?

More importantly, why does he do it to US? 

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Facebook was warned  specifically about The laptop and Hunter.  This is a fact. 

Hunter Biden ... Hunter Biden ... Hunter Biden ... Hunter Biden ... Hunter Biden ... Hunter Biden ... Hunter Biden ... Hunter Biden ... Hunter Biden ... Hunter Biden ... Hunter Biden ... Hunter Biden ... Hunter Biden ... Hunter Biden ... Hunter Biden ... Hunter Biden ... Hunter Biden ... Hunter Biden ... Hunter Biden ... Hunter Biden ... Hunter Biden ... Hunter Biden ... Hunter Biden ... Hunter Biden ... Hunter Biden ... Hunter Biden ... Hunter Biden ... Hunter Biden ... 

[TimHauck 2,994]

24 minutes ago, Reality said:

Why do you do this to yourself?

It’s a good question, not sure why Jerry lies, and further, why he denies that he did it in the first place.

[jerryskids 6,894]

19 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

It’s a good question, not sure why Jerry lies, and further, why he denies that he did it in the first place.

Here's what I initially said which set you off for the past two pages:

"Let it slip."  Where does that fit in your "lie" spreadsheet, Tim?  Or might the cognitive dissonance make your haid explode?   

[jerryskids 6,894]

Also, I apologize if this was discussed already, but did we talk about Yoel Roth stating in an affidavit to the Federal Elections Committee that he heard in meetings with the FBI rumors that that the hacks would involve Hunter Biden?

 

 

[TimHauck 2,994]

7 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Also, I apologize if this was discussed already, but did we talk about Yoel Roth stating in an affidavit to the Federal Elections Committee that he heard in meetings with the FBI rumors that that the hacks would involve Hunter Biden?

 

 

Yes

[TimHauck 2,994]

16 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Here's what I initially said which set you off for the past two pages:

"Let it slip."  Where does that fit in your "lie" spreadsheet, Tim?  Or might the cognitive dissonance make your haid explode?   

Wait, so “let it slip” now means personal interpretations of someone saying the opposite of what your interpretation is?

[jerryskids 6,894]

8 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Wait, so “let it slip” now means personal interpretations of someone saying the opposite of what your interpretation is?

Your summary is dumb, but basically yes.  "Reveal," not necessarily explicitly say.  HTH.

Also Strike is correct; you get some bizarre high from trying to parse words until they are shreds of their former self for pages on end, but most normal people don't enjoy it.  I apologize to the rest of the board for feeding your beast and wasting everyone else's (including my own) time.  You win Tim, I lied, oh I lied so good!   

let something slip

 

phrase of slip

 

1. 1.

   reveal something inadvertently in the course of a conversation.

    

    

[jerryskids 6,894]

14 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Yes

What was the conclusion?  Old news?

[TimHauck 2,994]

8 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Your summary is dumb, but basically yes.  "Reveal," not necessarily explicitly say.  HTH.

Also Strike is correct; you get some bizarre high from trying to parse words until they are shreds of their former self for pages on end, but most normal people don't enjoy it.  I apologize to the rest of the board for feeding your beast and wasting everyone else's (including my own) time.  You win Tim, I lied, oh I lied so good!   

let something slip

 

phrase of slip

 

1. 1.

   reveal something inadvertently in the course of a conversation.

    

    

lol whatever dude. 

Mirriam-Webster has a different definition: to say (something that one did not want to say) by mistake

Which did technically happen if he wanted to say he didn't remember instead of no.  But of course did not admit anything.  Keep in mind you also said this:

20 hours ago, jerryskids said:

do you believe they told FB that Hunter misinfo was coming, which Zuck admitted?

BTW, your argument started with @dogcows, I'm sure he thinks you lied too. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,521]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

Also, I apologize if this was discussed already, but did we talk about Yoel Roth stating in an affidavit to the Federal Elections Committee that he heard in meetings with the FBI rumors that that the hacks would involve Hunter Biden?

 

 

Well that settles it. Anyone still claiming the FBI didn’t participate in the censoring of the laptop story? 

[TimHauck 2,994]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

What was the conclusion?  Old news?

Well first of all that’s not really a confirmation that the FBI said it.  What I envision happening is that the FBI made that generic warning and then Twitter folks started guessing as to what they could maybe expect it to be about and then the FBI said something to the effect of “they can neither confirm nor deny.”  But that’s just my opinion, you are certainly welcome to yours as well, as I’ve said.

Overall, my stance has been, which has been supported by the Twitter files, that the FBI was not directing Twitter to do anything, but rather calling their attention to things to do as they see fit

[Mike Honcho 5,320]

The poll inspired other polls, as well. The rapper Snoop Dogg created his own Twitter poll Sunday evening, asking: “Should I run Twitter?” As of early Monday morning, it had 1.3 million votes with over 80% of respondents saying yes.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,521]

Now that it has been shown that the FBI participated in censorship of a legit news story, they need to answer for it. 

[jerryskids 6,894]

32 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Well first of all that’s not really a confirmation that the FBI said it.  What I envision happening is that the FBI made that generic warning and then Twitter folks started guessing as to what they could maybe expect it to be about and then the FBI said something to the effect of “they can neither confirm nor deny.”  But that’s just my opinion, you are certainly welcome to yours as well, as I’ve said.

Overall, my stance has been, which has been supported by the Twitter files, that the FBI was not directing Twitter to do anything, but rather calling their attention to things to do as they see fit

Wrong.  Paragaph 11 discusses the meetings with the agencies.  Roth clearly states that he learned about the Hunter rumor from "these meetings."  There is no other interpretation of "these meetings."  Now, I suppose you can argue that the feds sat there while somebody from Twitter unsolicited speculated on it, and the feds just sat there and said nothing.  Does that seem reasonable, Tim?  I mean, they didn't send an email after the meeting, so it's probably nothing, amirite?

[TimHauck 2,994]

6 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Wrong.  Paragaph 11 discusses the meetings with the agencies.  Roth clearly states that he learned about the Hunter rumor from "these meetings."  There is no other interpretation of "these meetings."  Now, I suppose you can argue that the feds sat there while somebody from Twitter unsolicited speculated on it, and the feds just sat there and said nothing.  Does that seem reasonable, Tim?  I mean, they didn't send an email after the meeting, so it's probably nothing, amirite?

“From these meetings” doesn’t specify who said it in the meeting.  What I posted above is my interpretation of how something like that could come about.  OCCAM’S RAZOR would suggest that the FBI isn’t likely going to be throwing out rumors to twitter, so my guess is that the rumor originated from someone at twitter, just during the meeting with the FBI.  Note I am not saying that as some sort of fact like you are.   You are welcome to your interpretations of things, as I am mine.  Only difference being my interpretation isn’t the complete opposite of what was said, like yours was re: Zuckerberg

[jerryskids 6,894]

5 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

“From these meetings” doesn’t specify who said it in the meeting.  What I posted above is my interpretation of how something like that could come about.  OCCAM’S RAZOR would suggest that the FBI isn’t likely going to be throwing out rumors to twitter, so my guess is that the rumor originated from someone at twitter, just during the meeting with the FBI.  Note I am not saying that as some sort of fact like you are.   You are welcome to your interpretations of things, as I am mine.  Only difference being my interpretation isn’t the complete opposite of what was said, like yours was re: Zuckerberg

This was the whackadoodle theory I just said you'd have.  To summarize:  In a meeting with the feds, some Twitter person or people, NOT the feds, said they heard rumors that the hack and leak operation might involve Hunter Biden.  Twitter heard the rumors, not the feds.  That's your position, right?  In this blue pill world, what did the feds say to Twitter in response to this rumor they just learned about?

[TimHauck 2,994]

6 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

This was the whackadoodle theory I just said you'd have.  To summarize:  In a meeting with the feds, some Twitter person or people, NOT the feds, said they heard rumors that the hack and leak operation might involve Hunter Biden.  Twitter heard the rumors, not the feds.  That's your position, right?  In this blue pill world, what did the feds say to Twitter in response to this rumor they just learned about?

What do you mean “you said I’d have”?  Where you said that was when you quoted me having already said it (and it contains the answer to your question). You sure you’ve taken all your meds today?

I’ve repeatedly said you are welcome to your opinion, but don’t say things are “facts” or “admitted” when they’re not.  And yet you don’t seem to want to allow me to have an opinion…and you all say other people are the intolerant ones?