Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.

Minichan

Topic: Police insider reveals motives of Las Vegas shooter on fucking 4chan.

Anonymous A started this discussion 1 week ago #66,983

I thought this was information that wasn't suppose to be getting out yet?

Source: https://squawker.org/world/breaking-las-vegas-police-insider-posts-on-4chan-reveals-stephen-paddocks-motive/

Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 week ago, 24 minutes later[^] [v] #821,218

OH WELL WHAT DO YOU KNOW, IT WAS MUSLIMS AFTER ALL.

I SURE HOPE THE TRUTH DOESNT COME OUT BECAUSE RACISM REASONS

Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 week ago, 2 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #821,220

@OP
@previous (B)
lol. There really are people gormless enough to eat this shit up.

Anonymous B replied with this 1 week ago, 12 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #821,221

@previous (C)
So you're just willing to believe that an old guy with no criminal record just collected together a bunch of automatic weapons, put cameras around his room and shot over 50 people FOR NO REASON

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 week ago, 18 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #821,223

@previous (B)
Mental illness.

(Edited 11 seconds later.)

Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 1 week ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #821,224

@previous (A)

> Mental illness.

Anonymous B replied with this 1 week ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #821,227

@821,223 (A)
Sure, right out of nowhere. An old man with no history or criminal activity or mental illness shoots up a crowd.

Sorry but that's more unlikely than the FBI covering it all up

Anonymous D replied with this 1 week ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #821,229

@previous (B)
lol I look forward to your apologies and retractions when you’re proven wrong

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 week ago, 21 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #821,232

@821,227 (B)
Mental illness can start at any time or a mental illness could have gone undetected. In other words, you're retarded and should go kill yourself.

Anonymous D replied with this 1 week ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #821,233

@previous (A)
I think it is.

Anonymous B replied with this 1 week ago, 53 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,240

@821,232 (A)
@previous (D)
Nice samefagging you fucking loser.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 week ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,242

@previous (B)
Nice madpost, TGniggersox.

Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 week ago, 4 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,305

@821,232 (A)
@821,224 (D)
@821,223 (A)
that doesn't cut it for me. his weren't the actions of someone not in his right mind. mental ilness doesn't preclude a motive

Anonymous E double-posted this 1 week ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,306

also that post is total bullshit lmao
why would he be running perfectly legal guns to isis in Las Vegas
hahaha

chili dog !!81dzJNNYL joined in and replied with this 1 week ago, 31 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,307

> Whereas taking as valid the words of a random internet stranger would be a foolish thing to do in any other sphere of the online world, 4chan is a little more trustworthy,

What

Anonymous E replied with this 1 week ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,308

@previous (chili dog !!81dzJNNYL)
I just realized the link in op is sqawker and not Gawker

Meta joined in and replied with this 1 week ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,313

At this point I think I'd trust 4chan before CNN

Anonymous D replied with this 1 week ago, 11 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,321

@previous (Meta)
> buying into the claims that news is faked

Meta replied with this 1 week ago, 4 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,405

@previous (D)
> buying into Fake News

Anonymous D replied with this 1 week ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,406

@previous (Meta)
unrelated-image.jpg

Meta replied with this 1 week ago, 4 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,408

@previous (D)
Just an example of Fake News "fact" "checking".

Anonymous D replied with this 1 week ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,409

@previous (Meta)
Please explain how NBC News was incorrect.

Meta replied with this 1 week ago, 9 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,413

@previous (D)
What, you mean with a cloth or something?

Anonymous C replied with this 1 week ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,414

@821,307 (chili dog !!81dzJNNYL)
I think that was just the writer really wanting it to be true.

Anonymous D replied with this 1 week ago, 6 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,416

@821,413 (Meta)
u wot m8

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 1 week ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,418

@821,408 (Meta)
I mean we clearly established thats what Trump thought she did. He actually thought she used chemicals to wipe her server. Why do you keep posting this dumb stuff?

Anonymous D replied with this 1 week ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,419

@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Because it is PROOF that the librul meeedja is lying to smear our God Emperor!!!111

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo joined in and replied with this 1 week ago, 27 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,425

@OPenis

Anonymous C replied with this 1 week ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,426

@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
When even Derek is writing off your anti-Muslim article as a laughable conspiracy theory, it is time to rethink your position.

Anonymous D replied with this 1 week ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,428

@previous (C)
damlol

Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 1 week ago, 20 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,432

@821,426 (C)
Islam is still the religion of pigs and whores. Thanks.

Anonymous D replied with this 1 week ago, 1 hour later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,457

@821,413 (Meta)
bump

Meta replied with this 1 week ago, 13 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,458

@821,418 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Yeah and she wiped it with a cloth or something 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

@821,416 (D)
Fake Anon and I had a back-and-forth about this in October. She used an app called BleachBit™ to delete 30,000-ish emails from her server. She did not, of course, use a corrosive chemical. But why is it called BleachBit? Why not VinegarBit or WaterBit or SodiumBicarbonateBit? Because corrosive chemicals destroy things. "Bleach" (ie ~4% sodium hypochlorite aqueous solution) is a corrosive chemical which cleans things. It evokes the image of, say, bleaching a bloodstain off a white shirt with sodium hypochlorite.

Trump said Hillary "acid washed" her server. He clearly (unless you are a person with autism) meant that she used something to remove the unwanted emails. Donald Trump is not very computer literate (try finding any 72 year old who is). If you are really puzzled by what he meant by "Hillary Clinton acid washed her email server" you are likely on the autistic spectrum.

Now here's the funny (at least to me) part. Back in the '80s there was a thing called "acid washed" jeans (pic related). The "acid" used was chlorine which is actually, in chemical terms a "strong base", the exact fucking opposite of an acid. They should be called "base washed jeans" if anything but somehow people associate "corrosive" with "acid". "Acid wash" jeans were washed with bleach. The app Hillary used to "acid wash" her server? BleachBit.

Meta double-posted this 1 week ago, 6 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,459

I mean if you're confused by the "Acid wash/BleachBit" thing, you probably also are confused by why the save icon in Microsoft Word is a picture of a goddamn 3.5" floppy disk which no one has used to save a .doc since like 1999 and has never been used to save a .docx

You're probably also confused as to why the 3.5" disk was called a "floppy" when it's actually quite rigid and the casing will fracture under slight deflection in which case might I suggest a glass of Domestos taken orally until symptoms improve.

(Edited 49 seconds later.)

Anonymous D replied with this 1 week ago, 20 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,460

@821,458 (Meta)
> person who we should be able to take seriously makes a claim

Okay. Normal and presidential.

> said person’s claims are about the actions of another person

Well then it had better be accurate and not stretching the truth, right?

> the claim is not literally accurate and portrays the actions more negatively than they were

Hmm. Smells like a claim made in bad faith!

> these claims are inaccurate about the process and what it means when compared to reality

Aha! We have a falsehood.

Your insight about acid-washed jeans isn’t useful. It appears you’re trying to claim this is common vernacular and Trump was simply being colloquial. He wasn’t:

Trump, Sept. 5: You see what’s going on with her emails. It’s a disgrace. It’s a disgusting situation where she pretends like she doesn’t know. I mean, she had her emails — 33,000 emails — acid washed. The most sophisticated person never heard about acid washing. Acid washing is a very expensive process and that’s to really get rid of them.

Is acid washing jeans like deleting everything off a server? lolno


Trump, Sept. 6, North Carolina: But why do you acid wash, or bleach, the emails? Nobody even heard of it before. Very expensive. Just ask yourself.

Was it expensive? The software is free. Are acid-washed jeans expensive? Lol


Trump, Sept. 6, Virginia: How about the acid wash of the e-mails that didn’t mean anything? How about the 33,000 missing e-mails that were acid washed — acid washed. And Rudy was telling me, nobody does it because it’s such an expensive process. OK, 33,000.

Here there’s another claim: is it common and normal? Yes. Very. SOP for decommissioning anything sensitive to business is to use tools for securely deleting data (often a 7-pass write) and then certified destruction. Government work follows guidance from NIST and the “rainbow” series of publications from the NSA. (If I recall correctly, only the green book from the series is in the clear.)


Trumps claims are inaccurate about the process, incorrect about the intent, and incorrect about it’s context. It’s correct to rate his statements false about the individual parts and about the claims at large.

(Edited 9 minutes later.)

Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 1 week ago, 10 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,462

If I ever have to smuggle information out of the country, then I will be sure to save it as minichan.docx on a 3.5" floppy. It's probably more effective than encrypting it at this point.

Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 1 week ago, 5 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,464

@821,458 (Meta)

> Yeah and she wiped it with a cloth or something 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
>
>
> Fake Anon and I had a back-and-forth about this in October. She used an app called BleachBit™ to delete 30,000-ish emails from her server. She did not, of course, use a corrosive chemical. But why is it called BleachBit? Why not VinegarBit or WaterBit or SodiumBicarbonateBit? Because corrosive chemicals destroy things. "Bleach" (ie ~4% sodium hypochlorite aqueous solution) is a corrosive chemical which cleans things. It evokes the image of, say, bleaching a bloodstain off a white shirt with sodium hypochlorite.
>
> Trump said Hillary "acid washed" her server. He clearly (unless you are a person with autism) meant that she used something to remove the unwanted emails. Donald Trump is not very computer literate (try finding any 72 year old who is). If you are really puzzled by what he meant by "Hillary Clinton acid washed her email server" you are likely on the autistic spectrum.
>
> Now here's the funny (at least to me) part. Back in the '80s there was a thing called "acid washed" jeans (pic related). The "acid" used was chlorine which is actually, in chemical terms a "strong base", the exact fucking opposite of an acid. They should be called "base washed jeans" if anything but somehow people associate "corrosive" with "acid". "Acid wash" jeans were washed with bleach. The app Hillary used to "acid wash" her server? BleachBit.

I'd be more concerned if security concerns were not even considered. It should be standard operating procedure for anyone who has any anti-espionage needs.

Sheila LaBoof double-posted this 1 week ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,465

@821,459 (Meta)

> I mean if you're confused by the "Acid wash/BleachBit" thing, you probably also are confused by why the save icon in Microsoft Word is a picture of a goddamn 3.5" floppy disk which no one has used to save a .doc since like 1999 and has never been used to save a .docx
>
> You're probably also confused as to why the 3.5" disk was called a "floppy" when it's actually quite rigid and the casing will fracture under slight deflection in which case might I suggest a glass of Domestos taken orally until symptoms improve.

micorsofst is an asshole for a hell of lot more than an anachronistic icon

Meta replied with this 1 week ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,467

@821,460 (D)
Again you're being disingenuous. "He said it was expensive but it's FOSS!" "Deleting emails off a server with an app called BleachBit is nothing like acid washing jeans with bleach!".

Was the server (and associated support, software, IT guys, etc) "expensive"? Probably not to someone who can make a quarter million dollars with a 30 minute speech. Probably very expensive for someone not in the top 1%.

Personally I don't care much about Hillary's server. Lord knows I have at least 30,000 emails I could delete myself. If anything I'm glad she used a good program to delete the emails and didn't just drag the Outlook desktop shortcut into the recycle bin or something.

> Here there’s another claim: is it common and normal? Yes. Very. SOP for decommissioning anything sensitive to business is to use tools for securely deleting data (often a 7-pass write) and then certified destruction. Government work follows guidance from NIST and the “rainbow” series of publications from the NSA. (If I recall correctly, only the green book from the series is in the clear.)
But see here's the thing. She had the entire State Department IT staff to do all these decommissioning best practices and NIST rainbow NSA shit for her. But she took it upon herself, saving taxpayers at least like $10,000. When was the last time a Republican did that?

Anonymous D replied with this 1 week ago, 6 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,468

@previous (Meta)
You’re a king of bad faith and awkwardly taking things literally when convenient.

disingenuous — not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.


lolwhut

Meta replied with this 1 week ago, 4 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,470

Also why did Hillary's "speaking" career dry up? Is she no longer good at speaking? What about Clinton Foundation donations? Are the Clintons no longer doing good work globally? I thought she got such high fees because she's a great orator or something.

Meta double-posted this 1 week ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,471

@821,468 (D)
> awkwardly taking things literally when convenient.
Says Mr. "she didn't LITERALLY bleach it with 4% sodium hypochlorite aqueous solution!!!"

Sheila LaBoof replied with this 1 week ago, 6 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,472

@821,470 (Meta)

> Also why did Hillary's "speaking" career dry up? Is she no longer good at speaking? What about Clinton Foundation donations? Are the Clintons no longer doing good work globally? I thought she got such high fees because she's a great orator or something.

who gives a shit

shoot it and bury it, find something interesting in the world, perhaps flowering plants and ferns

Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 1 week ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,473

Fucking batshit crazy Autistic conspiracy nuts.

Anonymous D replied with this 1 week ago, 10 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,474

@821,471 (Meta)
This is why you are lonely and don’t have friends.

Meta replied with this 1 week ago, 5 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,476

@previous (D)
I see it in a colloquial way. She "bleached" her server. She "acid washed" her server. She "wiped" her server. All three sentences read the same to me.

Anonymous D replied with this 1 week ago, 11 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,477

@previous (Meta)
I mean, sure, that makes sense to me. I worry that if we grant Trump freedom to be both colloquial and vivid with language and simultaneously specific about who did what, when, and why then we’re abandoning objectivity and only allowing conjecture. That’s not how I construct arguments or something I see as a responsible way to make accusations of other people.

Now explain the other claims by Trump: it was expensive, it was unusual, and nobody knows about it.

How can something be so common and cheap as to be used for jeans and yet also so expensive and specialized?

It’s not colorful language but an intentional manipulation to start with something familiar (cleaning something) and then attach it to exaggerated claims—it was expensive and uncommon and therefore could only be done for nefarious purposes.

That is what NBC is calling a lie. It wasn’t unusual or expensive and nobody has proof to show it was nefarious. The statement from Trump, at large, is still false even if we grant acid washing as a colloquial term.

(Edited 9 minutes later.)

Meta replied with this 1 week ago, 9 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,478

@previous (D)
> That is what NBC is calling a lie. It wasn’t unusual or expensive and nobody has proof to show it was nefarious. The statement from Trump, at large, is still false even if we grant acid washing as a colloquial term.
I don't think anyone would disagree that Hillary Clinton deleted emails from her server at some point for some reason. I don't know or care why she did it or what emails were deleted.

The point is, is "acid washing" an email server synonymous with "bleaching" or "wiping" an email server? I say yes.

Anonymous D replied with this 1 week ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,479

@previous (Meta)
> The point is, is "acid washing" an email server synonymous with "bleaching" or "wiping" an email server? I say yes.

We are in agreement. This is not the argument, though.

NBC is rating Trump’s aggregate claims as false because they are false. How is that Fake News?

youre moving the goalposts from being about Trump’s claims being fake news (what NBC did) to only the bit about the acid/bleach language as being what they’re calling fake news (what you can niggle about and feel some manner of self satisfaction)

(Edited 2 minutes later.)

Anonymous D double-posted this 1 week ago, 9 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,480

@821,478 (Meta)
Also you’re both granting Trump the ability to be a naive old man waxing poetically about technology he doesn’t understand while also simultaneously a sage businessman with precise command over details as to be reliable in the purpose of his storytelling.

He has signed thousands of contracts and been deposed in various civil disputes. He knows details are incredibly important for himself and to other people and shows he can use them to his advantage. He demonstrates the ability to compare things and to select what he thinks will be best in many different contexts.

I’m not saying he can never be wrong and must always be 100 percent precise. I’m saying he knows it is standard and expected conduct to be truthful and accurate about accusations of what other people have done.

He’s just straight up a liar about things when convenient to him, though. He starts from something familiar and then moves to falsehoods. It’s manipulation, it’s what NBC was identifying, and it’s what I am focusing on despite your continued lack of acknowledgement.

(Edited 4 minutes later.)

Meta replied with this 1 week ago, 12 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,481

@821,479 (D)

> > The point is, is "acid washing" an email server synonymous with "bleaching" or "wiping" an email server? I say yes.
>
> We are in agreement. This is not the argument, though.
That is my argument. Trump said Hillary deleted emails. NBC said "nope" because Trump did not correctly name the app she used to delete them.

> youre moving the goalposts from being about Trump’s claims being fake news (what NBC did) to only the bit about the acid/bleach language as being what they’re calling fake news (what you can niggle about and feel some manner of self satisfaction)
In which case the "fact check" should have said "yes but she did nothing wrong". The "fact check" never said anything about whether she actually deleted emails or not or why she did or did not delete them. I'm saying that NBC fact checkers rating Trump's claim that Hillary Clinton "acid washed" her email server as "false" because she did not "use a corrosive chemical" is literally true but entirely missing the point.

> NBC is rating Trump’s aggregate claims as false because they are false. How is that Fake News?
That's a completely different argument. Did Hillary Clinton delete official emails for some nefarious purpose? I don't know. Does it matter whether you call it "bleaching" "acid washing" or "wiping"? No.

Anonymous D replied with this 1 week ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,482

@previous (Meta)
You’re a lonely drunk with little accomplishment in life.

Meta replied with this 1 week ago, 4 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,483

@previous (D)

Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 1 week ago, 27 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,484

Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 1 week ago, 22 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,485

@821,473 (L)

> Fucking batshit crazy Autistic conspiracy nuts.

my favorite part is the claim that they have like 1.7TB of data on this nonsense

Sheila LaBoof replied with this 1 week ago, 1 hour later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,496

"acid washed" sounds like she chemically treated the case to make it look streaky and KICKIN RAD like a pair of jeans from 1986

like she's really into the case mod scene

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Sheila LaBoof double-posted this 1 week ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,497

@821,484 (M)

>

what is this even, what
:
[upload]

Please familiarise yourself with the rules and markup syntax before posting, also keep in mind you can minify URLs using MiniURL and generate image macros using MiniMacro.