Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Why is this allowed?

by EdHannigan / August 31, 2010 8:17 AM PDT
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Why is this allowed?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Why is this allowed?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
"Surely a TOS violation"
by Mike_Hanks / August 31, 2010 8:20 AM PDT
In reply to: Why is this allowed?

Got a link??

But seriously, "Surely a TOS violation" is completely arbitrary and subjective !!

Collapse -
Too true...
by EdHannigan / August 31, 2010 8:22 AM PDT

my bad.

Collapse -
OUCH !!!!!!!!
by Mike_Hanks / August 31, 2010 8:31 AM PDT
In reply to: Too true...

Tha's badly english !!!!!

Collapse -
Got a link??
by JP Bill / August 31, 2010 8:25 AM PDT

still waiting for link to Obama's pity/pithy remarks.

Collapse -
scooby doo
by James Denison / August 31, 2010 11:06 AM PDT
In reply to: Got a link??
Collapse -
Because....
by C1ay / September 1, 2010 3:24 AM PDT
In reply to: Why is this allowed?

You first have to be added to the "TOS Violators" group before you can be guilty of one. Those outside the group can post whatever they want. Those inside the group can be found guilty retroactively whenever a mod feels like making up a new rule.

Collapse -
Because there are endless references on Google if you
by Ziks511 / September 1, 2010 9:14 AM PDT
In reply to: Why is this allowed?

put in Hagee and Beck at Rally in the search area. I just heard a tape of Beck screaming at a caller on his radio show "Get off my show, GET OFF MY SHOW a total of 4 times.

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=hp&q=Hagee+at+Beck+Rally&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=Hagee+at+Beck+Rally&gs_rfai=&fp=5b1fceef9c80000d

http://www.mediaite.com/online/chris-matthews-unacceptable-that-glenn-beck-was-sharing-company-with-hagee-at-rally/

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007020002

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2010/08/31/obama_bush_beck_and_hagee

http://www.goddiscussion.com/30990/preliminary-snapshots-from-glenn-becks-restoring-america-rally-america-is-turning-back-to-god/

I have seen clips of John Hagee doing his Catholics are the anti-Christ speech with visual aids, and I have seen Beck do chalk talks that were profoundly incoherent and illogical.

And speaking of violations of TOS, isn't the referral to an already locked thread one, and if it wasn't locked, you could just have posted to the thread, or wasn't that sufficiently conspicuous?

Rob

Collapse -
that's not proof of a lie
by James Denison / September 1, 2010 9:44 AM PDT

After reading that, I'd be more inclined to believe Beck.

Collapse -
Here you go...
by J. Vega / September 1, 2010 10:19 AM PDT

It helps to check out the original source. Below is a link to the segment of the Archives that deals with this document, along with others. Note the segment at the top that says "The Core Collection was originally conceived of as a response to the problem of assembling on short notice, ad hoc presentations to distinguished visitors.".
The page also shows that document specifically. Further down the page, it shows how they are mounted to allow handling.
At the bottom, under Conclusions, it makes a statement that seems to be central to this particular situation. It says "These objects, as a direct result of this project can now be safely handled and presented to scholars, distinguished visitors and the general public
in a variety of formats.".
Link to the site:
http://cool.conservation-us.org/coolaic/sg/bpg/annual/v14/bp14-02.html

Collapse -
RE: in a variety of formats."
by JP Bill / September 1, 2010 10:46 PM PDT
In reply to: Here you go...

which would include NOT the original?

Collapse -
motherjones???
by oldie and goody / September 1, 2010 10:46 AM PDT

Oh Yeah that is a well known name and should just convince everyone that Rob is right! LMAO!

Collapse -
What gets me...
by J. Vega / September 1, 2010 11:04 AM PDT
In reply to: motherjones???

What gets me is that their "reporter" didn't go about checking very well at all. The logical thing to do would have been to call the Archives, and ask to speak to the department that handles that manuscript. That would have gotten them connected to the Core Collection. Once connected to that department, they could have asked to speak to the person who was in charge of allowing people to examine actual documents. That person could have explained to the reporter about the program for VIPs to examine documents, and how they were preserved in a way to allow actual handling by those people. This was explained through a link in my previous post.
Imagine how many hours they spent examining Beck's event looking for something to try to discredit him. Once they found something that they thought might, much less than an hour spent as I described above, should have explained it.

Collapse -
(NT) Your archival link was much apreciated. Very interesting
by grimgraphix / September 1, 2010 11:10 AM PDT
In reply to: What gets me...
Collapse -
Looking for something to try to discredit him....
by EdHannigan / September 1, 2010 12:38 PM PDT
In reply to: What gets me...

It's a hobby for some. Maybe an obsession.

And was that all they could find?

Collapse -
Is this true?
by EdHannigan / September 1, 2010 9:23 PM PDT
In reply to: What gets me...

"you would have read that the librarian who gave him the VIP tour said that under no circumstances would Beck have been permitted to handle the original..."

I don't see anything to indicate that the person was actually present at the tour.

Beck did receive a special VIP tour of the archives, arranged by an as-yet unidentified member of Congress. During that tour, he did get a peek inside the "legislative vault," which isn't open to ordinary visitors. But Archives spokeswoman Susan Cooper insists that Beck didn't lay a finger on any precious documents, much less George Washington?s inaugural address. That would be a major violation of policy. "Those kinds of treasures are only handled by specially trained archival staff," she explains. Cooper acknowledges that someone at the archives did show the document to Beck, but that was the extent of it. Regarding Beck's claim that he held the document, Cooper says that seeing such documents for the first time can be a very emotional experience. "I'm certain it was a figure of speech," she says.

Speaking of "an egomaniacal narcissist who fabricates stories or elements of stories with abandon."

Collapse -
Didn't realize the Google page link wouldn't display
by Ziks511 / September 1, 2010 2:44 PM PDT

correctly, but there was certainly enough information there to pursue the search. Had you read other links presented there where Beck is accused of lying you would have read that the librarian who gave him the VIP tour said that under no circumstances would Beck have been permitted to handle the original. There is a very small group of people allowed to do that. She was present throughout the tour and he looked at it for a couple of minutes and moved on.

Any period of time spent with an open mind watching Mr Beck reveals an egomaniacal narcissist who fabricates stories or elements of stories with abandon. How this squares with his faith I can't say. But your rabid reaction is that of a crowd at a fair buying Ginsu knives rather than thoughtful sceptical evaluators of truth and falsehood. Any statement, no matter how well attested will be insufficient because of the finder of its source.

You bought the Second Gulf War in the face of significant contrary evidence. Evie insisted that Uranium dioxide (Yellow cake) was a weapon of mass destruction rather than a substance requiring lengthy processing and centrifuging first to purify the Uranium and then separate U238 from U235, and she was a University prof in math from whom one might expect a little more intelligence and information. Every story you were told was a lie and I bet half of you still believe they are true.

Enjoy,
Rob

Collapse -
"held" not "handled"
by James Denison / September 1, 2010 9:56 PM PDT

That's like the difference between "fond" and "fondled". You've already been told how one could "hold" it without "handling" it, yet you keep on insisting he said "handled" it. If you said you were "fond" of someone, would you want it reported as you "fondled" that person?

You then get completely off the subject and onto a War. If that wasn't enough you mention a forum member who's not been here in ages.

But your rabid reaction is that of a crowd at a fair buying Ginsu knives rather than thoughtful sceptical evaluators of truth and falsehood.

Rabid??? And what's wrong with Ginsu knives? Some sort of implication there?

Any statement, no matter how well attested will be insufficient because of the finder of its source.

The source isn't a problem if the source tells the truth, but when it's found out he's slanted the story to fit his preconceived conclusion, then yes, one considers the source to be untrustworthy.

Collapse -
Since that other thread is now deleted.
by MarkFlax Forum moderator / September 1, 2010 10:51 PM PDT
In reply to: Why is this allowed?

This thread serves no purpose.

Locked and I will delete later.

No need for any reminders from anyone.

Mark

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

CNET FORUMS TOP DISCUSSION

Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?