DOJ Warns Not To Trust Stories Based On "Anonymous Sources"
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 01:25
VIEWED: 3198
PAGE 1 of 1
Why would the DOJ issue this statement now, at this very monent?? Maybe THIS is the problem ...
Quote:
The investigation into ties between President Trump's campaign and the Russian government has now turned to investigating Trump himself for obstruction of justice, the Washington Post reported Wednesday ... citing unnamed sources, said the investigation into the president's own conduct began shortly after Trump fired Comey on May 9.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/14/report-special
-counsel-mueller-investigating-trump-obstruction-justice/102865928/
The article from ZH
Quote:
In a move that stunned many members of the media, on Thursday night Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is overseeing the Russia probe due to Jeff Sessions' recusal and who earlier this week confirmed only he has authority to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller,
**** released an unorthodox statement to be “skeptical about anonymous allegations” following the relentless barrage of news reports emerging from the WaPo and the NYT about the evolving probe into Russia’s "election interference" and possible collusion with Trump, all based on "anonymous sources." ****
"Americans should exercise caution before accepting as true any stories attributed to anonymous 'officials,' particularly when they do not identify the country — let alone the branch or agency of government — with which the alleged sources supposedly are affiliated. Americans should be skeptical about anonymous allegations. The Department of Justice has a long-established policy to neither confirm nor deny such allegations.
Rosenstein, who many had seen as a Trump foil at the DOJ, did not cite specific reports. The DOJ released Rosenstein’s statement after 9 p.m., shortly after The Washington Post reported that the special counsel was investigating the business dealings of Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and adviser. That report was attributed to unnamed American officials.
As we said, the media and punditry was "stunned" by the official statement: the NYT' Maggie Haberman said "Have literally never seen a statement like this." The new leader of the Trump "resistance", Preet Bharara also chimed in, tweeting "Americans should also exercise caution before accepting as true lies about firing of FBI Director & defamation of a war hero special counsel"
To be expected, Rosenstein - who the media was ambivalent about and [then] following his recent testimony in which he said there was "no grounds" to fire Mueller, praised - promptly became the latest pariah for insinuating that the media's Trump reportage may be, in fact, fake news.
As the NYT reported this morning, the "statement aligned with the president’s open frustration with unflattering leaks. Mr. Trump has called stories about the investigation “fake news” and complained on Twitter about a Washington Post report on Wednesday night that the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, was investigating the president himself for possible obstruction of justice. That story was also attributed to unnamed sources, as was a New York Times article that same evening about Mr. Mueller’s request for interviews with three top intelligence officials."
What to make of Rosenstein's statement?
On one hand, it could be seen as a validation of Trump's repeated allegations that much of what has emerged in press in recent weeks is "fake news." On the other, as some in the media suggested, it could be an attempt to "chill" communications and leaks to the press. Yet others saw this as a preview of what may be another upcoming story. As Bloomberg's Jennifer Epstein who said "If this statement is preemptive: oh, boy, is the story going to be explosive."
Trump has yet to tweet his approval of Rosenstein's comment, although moments ago he did tweet the following:
After 7 months of investigationsNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not exactly an endorsement of what I've been saying all along that I much care for, the DOJ....
But for real... People need to stop putting any trust into anything said by "anonymous sources".
It becomes a way for people on either "side" to believe any possible lie because they want to believe it's true, and the other side to dismiss it as false because it's not what they want to hear.
News isn't even news anymore because of this and the internet, particularly Facebook and Twitter. It's become some grotesque interactive form of entertainment.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I find it hilarious SIG started this thread. Her favorite source is zerohedge. A troll site where the writers hide their identities; they post anonymously. She quotes them here in her opening post.
Once again SIG shows us why she should not be taken seriously. No matter what she speaks about she just can't be trusted. She constantly uses anonymous and fake news sources. Posting bullshit is her trademark, and her posts being rejected is always the conclusion. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually, Signy quotes USA Today first. Reading not your thing? Or do you have a problem with USA Today? And if ZH has links to other publications - like the WaPo or NYTimes - do you dispute those sources because they were linked by ZH?
So, out of curiosity THUGGER - setting aside your silly zeal about ZH, do you dispute that the DOJ issued that warning?
Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:An explanation from "What Does Trump Want From Rosenstein?" goes like this:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Why would the DOJ issue this statement now, at this very moment?? Maybe THIS is the problem ...
Jonathan Lemire @JonLemire
What an odd statement - that feels consistent with the White House's recent war on leaks
8:49 PM - 15 Jun 2017
DOJ watchers had never seen a press release quite like it come out of the department, and talk immediately turned to what might have prompted Rosenstein — a man not known for making careless public pronouncements — to issue it. According to one theory, at some point after the Washington Post broke the news Wednesday that Trump was being personally investigated by Mueller for obstruction of justice, Trump might have asked — or told — Rosenstein to publicly knock down the story. Maybe Rosenstein’s statement about the folly of trusting anonymous sources was as far as he was willing to go in responding to such a directive. If so, the fact that Trump woke up on Friday barking mad at Rosenstein would suggest it wasn’t far enough.
That’s all speculation though — an attempt to explain a sequence of events that no one, including multiple ex–DOJ officials I spoke to on Friday, can claim to really understand. What we do know is this: Trump has always hated the fact that Rosenstein — a guy he realizes he can’t count on for the kind of “loyalty” he expects — was given oversight of the Russia investigation after the president’s most reliable ally at the Justice Department, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, recused himself from the case in March.
According to the New York Times, Trump has never forgiven Sessions for that decision, which he apparently — and perhaps accurately — believes is responsible for the fact that a fearsome and unforgiving special prosecutor is now threatening him and his family with possible criminal charges.
www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/06/what_do
es_trump_want_from_rosenstein.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why would the DOJ issue this statement now, at this very moment?? Maybe THIS is the problem ... - SIGNY
An explanation from "What Does Trump Want From Rosenstein?" goes like this:
SLATE RESPONDS TO THE DOJ WARNING NOT TO TRUST ANONYMOUS SOURCES BY UNTYING ITSELF FROM ANONYMOUS SOURCES AND SHOVING OFF INTO THE MIASMA OF PURE UNFETTERED SPECULATION AND FANTASY
Quote:
Jonathan Lemire @JonLemire
What an odd statement - that feels consistent with the White House's recent war on leaks
8:49 PM - 15 Jun 2017
DOJ watchers had never seen a press release quite like it come out of the department, and talk immediately turned to what might have prompted Rosenstein — a man not known for making careless public pronouncements — to issue it. According to one theory, at some point after the Washington Post
One spewing pipeline of anonymously-sourced propaganda
Quote:
broke the
fake?
Quote:
news Wednesday
from even more anonymous sources
Quote:I smell a lot of "if" coming offa that paragraph ... and a whole lot of propaganda ...
that Trump was being personally investigated by Mueller for obstruction of justice, Trump might have asked — or told — Rosenstein to publicly knock down the story. Maybe Rosenstein’s statement about the folly of trusting anonymous sources was as far as he was willing to go in responding to such a directive. If so
Quote:They have facts?
the fact
Quote:
that Trump woke up on Friday barking mad at Rosenstein
He did???? How do we know??? How can very verify? Or is this even MORE anonymously-sourced bullshit? Or just plain bullshit without even the cover of anonymous sourcing?
Quote:No kidding. Solid bullshit from beginning to end. An entire superstructure of bullshit. Bullshit built on more bullshit.
would suggest it wasn’t far enough.
That’s all speculation though
Quote:We DO know this??? I mean, this is the first I've ever heard of it. Are is the MSM now so confident in their ability to mesmerize the public mind that they can create stories after-the-fact?
— an attempt toexplain a sequence of eventsneutralize a warning under a blanket of bullshit thatno oneeveryone including multiple ex–DOJ officials I spoke to on Friday,can claim to reallypretends not to understand. What we do know is this: Trump has always hated the fact that Rosenstein .... was given oversight of the Russia investigation
Quote:Which so far has been another spewing conduit of anonymously-sourced fake news
after the president’s most reliable ally at the Justice Department, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, recused himself from the case in March.
According to the New York Times
Quote:
Trump has never forgiven Sessions for that decision, which he apparently — and perhaps accurately — believes is responsible for the fact that afearsome and unforgivingbiased and unprincipled special prosecutor is now threatening him and his family with possible criminal charges.
--
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In public Rosenstein corrected Trump for faking a fact. Trump never acknowledged the correction. He continues to fake it.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
fake?
Rosenstein did not issue a verbatim memo using Trump’s twisty words dictated over the phone, so when Trump read the final memo that didn’t slavishly follow his instructions, he soiled himself in anger on twitter. Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump Jun 16
I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt. “Rosenstein” is “the man who told me to fire the FBI Director”, except the real Rosenstein did not do what Trump said. “My memorandum is not a statement of reasons to justify a for-cause termination,” Rosenstein said. Did Trump listen when Rosenstein corrected him? No, he did not.
www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/why-trump-attacked-his-own-deputy-at
torney-general
www.thedailybeast.com/rosenstein-to-congress-my-memo-didnt-tell-trump-
to-fire-comey
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The New Yorker
Why Trump Attacked His Own Deputy Attorney General
By Ryan Lizza
June 16, 2017
On Friday morning, in an astounding tweet whose intent many Justice Department watchers and friends of Rosenstein are trying to discern, the President of the United States attacked his own Deputy Attorney General.
“I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director!” Trump tweeted at 9:07 A.M. “Witch Hunt.”
Rosenstein’s reputation for integrity began to fray in early May, when he made a fateful decision to share with the President and Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General, his honest thoughts about Comey. At a meeting in the White House that neither Sessions nor Rosenstein has publicly described in full, Trump reportedly asked Rosenstein to write a memo explaining the case for removing Comey as F.B.I. director. According to senators, Rosenstein later testified in a closed-door briefing that he knew before he wrote the memo that Trump would fire Comey. So, Rosenstein knew that Trump wanted to fire Comey.
The “FBI’s reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice,” Rosenstein wrote, explaining that Comey was wrong to “usurp the authority” of the Attorney General in the Hillary Clinton e-mail case. “As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director's handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken.” And Rosenstein, knowing that Trump was going to fire Comey, wrote the memo anyway.
To Rosenstein’s friends and defenders, the content of the memo was not controversial. “A lot of prosecutors, whatever their political stripes, said Rod is right about the role of an investigator versus a prosecutor,” Trusty said. “Nobody should be getting up the way Comey did and saying, ‘Here are a bunch of offenses, but we’re not going to prosecute.’ ”
Trump immediately fired Comey and released the Rosenstein memo to the public to explain his decision. Democrats and many lawyers in Washington who had a high opinion of Rosenstein were shocked that he allowed himself to be used by Trump and Sessions in such a blatant scheme to oust the person investigating the President’s own campaign. Senator Chuck Schumer wrote to Rosenstein warning that the Deputy Attorney General had “imperiled” his reputation as an “apolitical actor.” But then, Rosenstein's memo was already described as not controversial.
“The content of that memo is totally in keeping with Rod,” the former Obama official said. “He’s a by-the-book guy, and he was deeply offended by how Comey broke the rules. The thing I don’t understand is how Rod let himself get played like that.” How did Rosenstein get 'played'? He knew Trump was going to fire Comey, and he wrote the memo anyway. The memo, described as 'not controversial', outlined where Comey did, in fact, step over the line.
But Trump and Sessions’s ploy backfired. Some observers suggested that Rosenstein felt used and betrayed by the President and Sessions. Some observers offered personal opinions. Whether Rosenstein was trying to correct a mistake or not, his actions since Comey’s firing have been widely commended. When he appointed Mueller as special counsel to oversee the investigation, Rosenstein’s statement announcing the decision was scrupulously fair to Mueller, the President, and Trump-campaign associates. “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination,” he wrote. “What I have determined is that based upon the unique circumstances the p
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The most straightforward interpretation of the DOJ's warning NOT TO THRUST ANONYMOUS SOURCES, which came RIGHT ON THE HEELS OF THE ANONYMOUS LEAK THAT TRUMP WAS BEING INVESTIGATED FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE was that THE LEAK WAS WRONG.
I did mention that right at the beginning of my opening post.
So now, there is is
Quote:
Trump Lawyer: "The President Is Not Under Investigation For Obstruction"
Well, wouldn't you know!
Quote:Those five sources should be fired. Not for leaking, but for lying.
On Friday morning, when Trump lashed out at what appeared to be Rod Rosenstein on Twitter, many took his statement as confirmation of last week's WaPo report that Trump is under investigation for obstruction of justice by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller: "I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt."
On Sunday, however, Trump's personal lawyer Jay Sekulow made the media rounds to explain that Trump's tweet was not an admission, and that Trump is not under investigation in the probe into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential race, adding that the president has not received any notification that he is being investigated.
Speaking on NBC's Meet The Press, Sekulow said "the president is not under investigation by the special counsel. The tweet from the president was in response to the five anonymous sources that were purportedly leaking information to The Washington Post about a potential investigation of the president. But the president, as James Comey said in his testimony and as we know as of today, the president has not been and is not under investigation... let me be very clear here: the president is not and has not been under investigation for obstruction."
Quote:
Todd then asked "if the president is innocent, why is he afraid of this investigation?" to which Sekulow's response: "he's not afraid of the investigation. There is no investigation."
Sekulow later said that Trump was merely reacting to the Washington Post story. "The fact of the matter is the president has not been and is not under investigation," Sekulow said on CBS' "Face the Nation," one of four political shows where he appeared on Sunday.
"There has been no notification from the special counsel’s office that the president is under investigation," Sekulow said.
In other words according to Trump's lawyer, the tweet in question was just a snide response to WaPo -not a confirmation of - the WaPo story. Which means that Trump will likely follow up with more tweets explaining the confusion that his earlier tweet had sowed even as just prior to Trump's tweet, Rod Rosenstein said not to trust reports based on "anonymous officials".
"Americans should exercise caution before accepting as true any stories attributed to anonymous 'officials,' particularly when they do not identify the country — let alone the branch or agency of government — with which the alleged sources supposedly are affiliated. Americans should be skeptical about anonymous allegations. The Department of Justice has a long-established policy to neither confirm nor deny such allegations.
Of course, Trump may well be under investigation, however he has simply not been notified yet.
On Sunday, Trump once again lashed out at what he has called an ongoing "Witch Hunt" against him, tweeting "The MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN agenda is doing very well despite the distraction of the Witch Hunt. Many new jobs, high business enthusiasm,.."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-18/trump-lawyer-president-not-un
der-investigation-obstruction
So, Trump not under investigation (yet) for .... anything.
For those who plug their ears because of the "source" here are more sources saying the same thing
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN1990O7
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So that whole big article in the New Yorker - on top of being filled with obvious disproven assertions, conjecture, opinion, and innuendo - is about something that didn't happen. It's
..................................................
FAKE NEWS !!!!
..................................................
THANKS SECOND! for making sure I get my RDA of FAKE NEWS !!!!, and for doing your part to make sure FAKE NEWS !!!! is well-represented for everyone! (A death that didn't happen ... an investigation that doesn't exist ... I mean really, aren't you all just a little embarrassed about being hoodwinked over and over by FAKE NEWS !!!! ? Haven't you learned yet that you need to double-check your 'sources' and their 'news'? Haven't you figured out that 'they' are lying to you?)
Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Seriously - I can't believe any of us of any political persuasion is going to defend any of these people...
That's the tactic you're going to take now, huh? lol
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The most straightforward interpretation of the DOJ's warning NOT TO THRUST ANONYMOUS SOURCES, which came RIGHT ON THE HEELS OF THE ANONYMOUS LEAK THAT TRUMP WAS BEING INVESTIGATED FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE was that THE LEAK WAS WRONG.= SIGNY
Naturally - ("don't trust anon sources, therefore don't trust...") so isn't the DOJ's winkie winkie - isn't that leaking? (Yes).
No. UNLIKE COMEY who told us all about the Hillary investigation's status, the DOJ is siimply saying ... don't trust anonymous sources. Since just about EVERYTHING that has gotten into NYT, WaPO, and CNN was from "anonymous sources" I guess you could say .... don't trust any of it. That's a pretty broad swath to not trust.
Quote:Please re-read the article, the answer is in there.
And how would one of Trump's lawyers know definitively that Trump wasn't under investigation unless someone at the DOJ leaked, er, told him so? Or is he just grand standing, bluffing?
Quote:So why do the leakers and the press feel compelled to "do the job" of the investigators and why do YOU (and I don't mean just "you", I mean all of the so-called "liberals"on the board) feel compelled to hyperventilate with every anonymous leak?
Face it, this whole "is or isn't" under investigation is bs deflection finger pointing adding up to nothing. In the end it doesn't matter to Mueller & the other 5 investigations. They'll get to Trump if that's where the investigation takes them. And Jarod, and Pence, and any others.
Quote:I'm not defending Trump, I'm defending our democratic institutions. Because what you're seeing, GSTRING, is a concerted effort of the security state and a complicit press to bring down a duly-elected President of the USA and to undo the validated results of the election process.
Seriously - I can't believe any of us of any political persuasion is going to defend any of these people...
I realize that you don't like the results of the election. WELL. WELCOME TO THE CLUB, YA MAROON. I haven't liked the results since 1976. But you don't see ME going along with people who want to bring down the democratic institutions of the United States, DO YOU?
So instead of reading, believing, and amplifying lies and gossip ... because, so far, that is mostly what it's been ... then by all means, tear down this democracy.
Otherwise, get some common sense in your head and see where this is going.
-----------
You too, JOIDIOT. 400 posts in the EVIDENS thread, and all of yours are bullshit. You've managed to flog your idiocy for quite a while. And you STILL have not brought a jot of "evidens" the the board, and it seems you probably won't for quite some time, if ever.
-----------
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by G:Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Seriously - I can't believe any of us of any political persuasion is going to defend any of these people...
That's the tactic you're going to take now, huh? lol
lol, but Jack, you just said: "I know they're full of shit on both sides." So different opinion today?
==============================
I've always held that opinion and I say it all the time.
Just funny hearing you say it now is all.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
GSTRING: Zzzz - you're back top being a boring, predictable contrarian. Don't they teach you any creative writing at Troll School?
-----------
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
"There has been no notification from the special counsel’s office that the president is under investigation," Sekulow said.
no notification
-----------
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You asked me why Trump's lawyer would say he's not under investigation. The reason, according to Sekulow, was because he has not received any notification that Trump is. Now, that may be a good reason or not, but that's the reason.
I would assume that sooner or later ... sooner rather than later .... the target of an investigation (especially at the level of President) will learn about it, either because of receipts of subpoenas, official notification, or back-channel communication.
We WERE all told, repeatedly, that the President was being investigated for collusion with "Russians" during the campaign, were we not? It all turned out to be ... what was that word, again? ... a LIE, was it not? A LIE that was willingly promulgated and echoed and amplified endlessly by the media? And by idiots on this board, whose extremely low bar for "evidens" means that they get duped over and over?
And you STILL haven't learned anything? You still willingly swallow the endless swill, the anonymous gossip that the DOJ warned us against?
One of these days, I'll give you my definition of "intelligence" and explain to you why you demonstrate so little of it. But, yanno, you've had six months or so to give me YOUR definition of "intelligence" - giving you a few more months won't make much of a difference.
-----------
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Are you insinuating that I don't have a definition? Because I assure you that I do; and it's the same one that I've had for years. And over all of the time you've been posting, I've only seen rare moments of it from you.
One of these days - *snort*!! How Trumpian again. Can't wait - hope you don't forget it. - GSTRING
-----------
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yanno what? I'm going to tell you my definition of "intelligence" because I'm tired of waiting for you to come up with one on your own. Here it is:
Intelligence is the ability to learn
This might seem straightforward, but it requires explanation, because I said The ability to learn, NOT The ability to be taught. I can teach a parrot to sing the Star Spangled Banner, but so what?
What I'm talking about is the ability to learn things on one's own. Sometimes this means making entirely fresh mental connections between observations, but quite often it means looking at old information in a new way, asking new questions, unlearning something, or changing one's mind. That's what I see very little of from you, G.
Also, it has nothing to do with the internet or smart phones. It's true that both can bring you more information than ever before, but they don't really help you understand what you're seeing (unless you use your brain to simply stop your skull from imploding, in which case- by all means- let your smart phone tell you what to think!) You have to do that all on your own if you want to be considered "intelligent".
-----------
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME