Was Rep. Weiner’s Account Hacked? The Question is Irrelevant

Why are the media ignoring strongly exculpatory evidence?

Slate’s Christopher Beam has an article today titled, “Weinergate: Was Anthony Weiner’s Twitter account hacked? The evidence for and against.”

And this is emblematic of the rest of the media, because Beam is totally missing a crucial point — there was absolutely no need to “hack” Rep. Weiner’s account. As we demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt yesterday, it’s possible to send a picture to a user’s yfrog account and at the same time post an automatic tweet on Twitter, without ever hacking into an account. This is possible because of yfrog’s MMS posting feature, which is indisputably insecure.

I should say it was possible, because in a clear sign that yfrog knows they have a problem, they’ve now disabled the MMS posting feature completely.

And the simple fact is that yfrog’s email “secret codes” are extremely easy to guess; they’re based on a limited set of characters, and as “ElCapitanAmerica” demonstrated, duplicates occur quite frequently.

Some right wingers trying to keep the attack on Weiner alive have said that yfrog “locks out” accounts after three tries, but they’re simply making this up. The only way they could possibly know that is if they actually tried it themselves. And what “account” could be locked? These attempts would be semi-random — it would not be possible to tie them to a specific account with certainty. So yfrog could very easily lock out the wrong user, and that doesn’t seem like a very sound strategy, does it?

In any case, it isn’t possible to test this now because as mentioned above, yfrog has disabled this feature. But before the feature went away, ElCapitanAmerica did try more than three false account attempts — and there was no lock-out.

Auto-locking an account after a certain number of tries is a technique used to prevent password-guessing scripts, but this is not even close to the same thing. When a script is trying to guess someone’s password it will use the same username repeatedly, and only vary the password — so it’s a simple matter to discern which account is under attack. And even if this technique is used, the account would only be locked for a few minutes, to prevent inconveniencing legitimate users who make mistakes. Yfrog is not a bank; it would be counter-productive in the extreme for them to use these kinds of ultra-secure techniques.

Note that I’m not just making this stuff up; I’ve written code to defeat password-guessing scripts, right here at LGF.

Why are the media ignoring this strongly exculpatory evidence, and continuing to focus on the likelihood of “hacking” Rep. Weiner’s password? Is this too technical for them to understand?

Jump to bottom

325 comments

1 Targetpractice  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:34:07am

Hence why they're still arguing the "hacked" angle, because otherwise now they have to work towards actually proving that the subject of the photo is Weiner. If they could prove as much, they'd have done so by now, making the argument over how the photo got there moot.

2 Randy W. Weeks  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:36:20am

It's a damn shame that so much time and effort is having to be spent on this ridiculousness.

3 Jeff In Ohio  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:38:54am

NPR had a piece this AM about Wiener on CNN refusing to acknowledge whether or not those are his underpants.

Yup, liberals and conservatives, people are just fucking stupid. Brietbart and Co. are out pulling their chains and making them dance like silly puppets.

4 [deleted]  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:41:26am
5 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:43:02am

re: #4 MikeySDCA

Actually, I had the devil's own time getting my Chase account unblocked after I accidentally tried to use the wrong password too many times.

Banks are a completely different story, for obvious reasons. It would be insane and completely unnecessary for a picture hosting service to use that kind of super-tight security.

6 Varek Raith  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:45:00am

Who the hell at yfrog thought that this "feature" was a good idea?

7 ElCapitanAmerica  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:45:05am

Charles, on the "lockout" thing, the username is static if they just read up the name up to the dot. Remember, twitter names don't allow dots, so these attempts;

foobar.gudom@yfrog.com
foobar.dudom@yfrog.com
foobar.tudom@yfrog.com

Could easily be interpreted by yfrog to be attempts to get into foobar's account without permission. The username that matters here if "foobar", you can think of the word after the dot as the "password", it's just hard to imagine it as a password because this scheme is so stupidly insecure.

I'm trying to be fair here, but I have to note I tried 3 wrong email addresses for my real twitter account and it didn't lock out anything. I also agree with you, the people spouting this lock out thing don't seem to have tested it well or at all (for example, was the lockout temporary, how do you remove it, etc).

8 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:46:24am

I would note, Charles, that the first part of the name, before the "." would remain consistent in attacks, so they could actually know which account had a compromise attempt against it. But if it locked it out permanently until some sort of personal reset it'd be an easy way to DOS the service, and if it locked out attempts on that account for X amount of time after Y tries, unless X and Y are very big you'd still be able to hack the account in weeks.

It only took ElCapital 27 tries to get a duplicate string.

9 Jeff In Ohio  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:46:32am

re: #5 Charles

Banks are a completely different story, for obvious reasons. It would be insane and completely unnecessary for a picture hosting service to use that kind of super-tight security.

Well, not to go OT, my wife routinely travels to Africa and occasionally when she uses her Amex card, they lock her out and then require her to call and give information only she supposedly knows - the year our house was purchase and it's square footage. Information publicly available on the County Auditors web site which is probably where Amex got it.

10 hugh59  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:47:46am

So why is Weiner uncertain whether or not the photo is of his shorts? Why not just ask for law enforcement to investigate. If the police or FBI then say there was no crime, so be it.

11 Jeff In Ohio  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:51:15am

re: #10 hugh59

So why is Weiner uncertain whether or not the photo is of his shorts? Why not just ask for law enforcement to investigate. If the police or FBI then say there was no crime, so be it.

Ask law enforcement to investigate if they are his shorts? That seems kind of stupid.

12 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:51:46am

re: #7 ElCapitanAmerica

My point is that it can't be tied to a specific account with certainty, as a username/password script could be.

13 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:52:47am

re: #10 hugh59

It's a form of plausible deniability. I heard an explanation this morning that makes sense, though it's not clear that this is Weiner's rationale: The "I don't know" explanation sounds bad because it sounds like he could have taken a pic of his wee that somehow ended up on the internet. But the photo could be a photoshop of him morphed with some other photo.

14 lawhawk  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:53:02am

re: #4 MikeySDCA

Chase requires contacting them for an access code to verify access from a new computer (or phone) or if your cookies have become disabled. That's in addition to their regular password security. It's a far more secure environment - necessarily so.

Yfrog apparently has no such thing.

As for why the media hasn't realized that the Yfrog service was so easily exploited in this manner, I think it simply can't be bothered to look any deeper than the bulge in the guy's undies.

Salaciousness trumps investigative reporting, even though good investigative reporting would more than likely find wrongdoing by someone other than Rep. Weiner.

Seeing how Yfrog has now disabled this feature, maybe the media would like to ask them about it - and why it was available in the first place.

You know, when you have a tech issue, how about contacting the source of that tech to find out what's going on - whether it's possible, probable, or what steps the company is taking to make the system more secure.

15 Vicious Babushka  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:53:13am

re: #10 hugh59

So why is Weiner uncertain whether or not the photo is of his shorts? Why not just ask for law enforcement to investigate. If the police or FBI then say there was no crime, so be it.

This was asked and answered yesterday but I will try to explain it. Weiner can't be 100% certain if the photo really was taken of him and he didn't know it, like in the locker room at the gym, or an old college dorm photo that he didn't know about. Of course that begs the question of how the wingnuts got their hands on such a photo, so it's probably not him, but the probability that it might be is greater than zero.

16 sharona  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:53:29am

Maybe it's just me, but his own admissions on this issue are getting dangerously close to "Yeah. It's me." I am thinking he didn't realize that he was posting what was meant to be a private tweet in a very public way, which makes him a dumbass, not matter what his political affiliation.

17 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:54:05am

re: #16 sharona

What 'admission' has he made, exactly?

18 Jeff In Ohio  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:54:41am

re: #17 Obdicut

What 'admission' has he made, exactly?

Why the ones he doesn't know, of course!

19 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:55:10am

re: #10 hugh59

So why is Weiner uncertain whether or not the photo is of his shorts? Why not just ask for law enforcement to investigate. If the police or FBI then say there was no crime, so be it.

Do you remember every picture ever taken of you? And even if you think you do, would you be able to say for certain it was you, if someone had made modifications to the photograph?

Rep. Weiner was simply trying to be accurate. He can't say with certainty that it isn't a picture of him, because there's no way to be certain of something like that, in the era of Photoshop.

20 sharona  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:55:21am

re: #17 Obdicut

"I don't know if it's mine" among others. That's practically Clintonian, a la "Depends on what the meaning of IS is." And I'm a Clinton fan.

21 lawhawk  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:55:45am

re: #16 sharona

Saying he can't conclusive say it isn't him isn't the same as an admission. It's simply an admission that someone might have a photo of him in his undies - such as if it were taken in a gym, locker room, or some other location either with or without his consent.

22 Jeff In Ohio  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:56:02am

re: #20 sharona

"I don't know if it's mine" among others. That's practically Clintonian, a la "Depends on what the meaning of IS is." And I'm a Clinton fan.

Could be me. I wear boxer briefs and have a nice package.

23 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:56:14am

re: #16 sharona

Maybe it's just me, but his own admissions on this issue are getting dangerously close to "Yeah. It's me." I am thinking he didn't realize that he was posting what was meant to be a private tweet in a very public way, which makes him a dumbass, not matter what his political affiliation.

What admissions?

He said very clearly that he did not send the photo or post the tweet. How do you get an "admission" out of that?

24 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:56:17am

re: #20 sharona

"I don't know if it's mine" among others. That's practically Clintonian, a la "Depends on what the meaning of IS is." And I'm a Clinton fan.

I don't know if it's mine, for that matter. Does that mean I'm guilty?

25 Varek Raith  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:56:20am

re: #10 hugh59

re: #16 sharona

Oh geez.

26 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:56:27am

re: #20 sharona

"I don't know if it's mine" among others. That's practically Clintonian, a la "Depends on what the meaning of IS is." And I'm a Clinton fan.

That's not at all Clintonian.

I can't deny that photo is of me. It could be. I don't think so, but it's possible, especially with weird angle and possible photoshopping.

So, by your logic, I just admitted it is me.

27 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:57:19am

re: #22 Jeff In Ohio

Could be me. I wear boxer briefs and have a nice package.


re: #24 thedopefishlives

I don't know if it's mine, for that matter. Does that mean I'm guilty?

Look, we must be identical triplets!

28 Henchman Ghazi-808  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:57:57am

re: #16 sharona

Which is exactly what Breitbart and Wolfe want you believe. You've been duped.

29 Varek Raith  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:58:02am

re: #27 Obdicut

re: #24 thedopefishlives

Look, we must be identical triplets!

You're all wrong.
It's clearly Osama Bin Laden zombie.

30 sharona  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:58:06am

re: #21 lawhawk

Spoken like the good lawyer you are. It's plausible deniability, but it seems that he getting closer to "Yeah. It's me." AGain, I think he wanted to send it to this girl (just because he's married to a beautiful woman doesn't automatically mean he is faithful) but screwed up.

31 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:58:38am

I have some boxer briefs that look almost exactly like those. I can't say with certainty that it isn't me, either.

32 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:58:49am

re: #30 sharona

How has he gotten any closer? How has he changed at all in what he's said from the beginning?

33 sharona  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:58:54am

re: #28 BigPapa

Big Papa: You're insulting me. Just because I don't buy into Weiner's increasingly lame excuses doesn't mean I've been duped. Jerk

34 Targetpractice  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:59:01am

re: #30 sharona

Spoken like the good lawyer you are. It's plausible deniability, but it seems that he getting closer to "Yeah. It's me." AGain, I think he wanted to send it to this girl (just because he's married to a beautiful woman doesn't automatically mean he is faithful) but screwed up.

Based upon...what? The fact that he's a politician?

35 ElCapitanAmerica  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:59:10am

re: #12 Charles

My point is that it can't be tied to a specific account with certainty, as a username/password script could be.

I thought the same thing initially, but once I realized how limited the twitter names are, it can be tied to a specific account which is the twitter name.

Also note that their "secret" words don't have dots in them, the key is in the dot :-), so anything before it is the twitter name, everything after is is the "password". It's hard to see because the "scheme" is so stupid!!!

But again, I did try 3 emails (well 2 emails 1 MMS) and no lock out. That's as far as I could test. I think the simple fact that yfrog has disabled this feature says everything we need to know about it.

Also, note if they change their email generation policy, they'll have to migrate all existing users. I also read from somebody else their earlier accounts use small number combos, so if they ever reanable this they'll can't existing users use the same email.

36 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:59:27am

re: #30 sharona

Spoken like the good lawyer you are. It's plausible deniability, but it seems that he getting closer to "Yeah. It's me." AGain, I think he wanted to send it to this girl (just because he's married to a beautiful woman doesn't automatically mean he is faithful) but screwed up.

How does "I did not send that picture" get closer to "Yeah, it's me?"

37 Henchman Ghazi-808  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 8:59:41am

Oh gawd, here we have more people just asking questions. It's a convention of Concern Fairies wearing the Noble Objectivity Cloak.

38 Varek Raith  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:00:20am

re: #37 BigPapa

Oh gawd, here we have more people just asking questions. It's a convention of Concern Fairies wearing the Noble Objectivity Cloak.

Stealing that.

39 Henchman Ghazi-808  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:00:39am

re: #31 Charles

I have some boxer briefs that look almost exactly like those. I can't say with certainty certitude that it isn't me, either.

Dude... Dude! We'll be saying this word for at least another 3 months.

40 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:00:53am

re: #37 BigPapa

Oh gawd, here we have more people just asking questions. It's a convention of Concern Fairies wearing the Noble Objectivity Cloak.

Is that the +5 Noble Objectivity Cloak or the +6?

*ducks*

41 sharona  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:01:30am

re: #34 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Being a powerful man does seem to corrupt many men.

re: #36 Charles

"I can't say for certain it isn't me" seems to be a well-fashioned denial. I could be wrong, but I think he's going to eventually come out and admit he sent this pic to this woman.

42 Jeff In Ohio  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:01:30am

re: #33 sharona

Big Papa: You're insulting me. Just because I don't buy into Weiner's increasingly lame excuses doesn't mean I've been duped. Jerk

Lets see. Smear merchant pushes story. Target says he didn't do it. It's been demonstrated how easy it is to make it appear that some posted a photo when they didn't. Target can't deny that the picture isn't him.

Duped is to polite.

43 iossarian  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:01:45am

I will not be satisfied until every poster on this board categorically denies that they beat their wives.

That includes you, ladies.

44 iossarian  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:02:34am

re: #41 sharona

Being a powerful man does seem to corrupt many men.

re: #36 Charles

"I can't say for certain it isn't me" seems to be a well-fashioned denial. I could be wrong, but I think he's going to eventually come out and admit he sent this pic to this woman.

"I could be wrong." Why so evasive, Congressman Sharona? What do you have to hide?

Seems like you won't deny the fact that you could be wrong!

45 lawhawk  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:02:50am

re: #43 iossarian

I'm not wearing any pants. Film at 11. /wait, does that mean that the photo is of me?

46 Henchman Ghazi-808  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:03:10am

re: #33 sharona

Big Papa: You're insulting me. Just because I don't buy into Weiner's increasingly lame excuses doesn't mean I've been duped. Jerk

But you buy into Breitbart/Wolfe's meme. It is exactly the story they are presenting.

I think you should look in the mirror. I'm not insulting you, merely pointing out that you're insulting yourself. Just sayin....

47 hugh59  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:03:36am

Well, I am a conservative Republican so I will have a good laugh at Weiner's expense as long as this pathetic excuse for a scandal goes on. Gosh knows, Dems have not been shy about laughing when some Rep embarrassed himself.

It is ultimately a matter for the voters in his district to consider (and the voters of NYC if he runs for mayor). The scandal itself is a nothing little thing. The press loves it when a politician gets caught with his pants down so they are going after him even if they like his positions on issues.

I saw yesterday that the comments here mostly indicated that people thought Weiner did a good job defending himself; at conservative sites the comments indicated the opposite. Let's see what New Yorkers believe.

48 iossarian  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:03:54am

re: #46 BigPapa

I'm not insulting you, merely pointing out that you're insulting yourself. Just sayin...

You must have ruled the playground in your day :)

49 Targetpractice  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:04:01am

re: #41 sharona

Being a powerful man does seem to corrupt many men.

Not every man with power drop 50 IQ points, despite what such jewels like Ensign and Gingrich might have convinced you.

50 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:04:25am

I:

1. Think we'll never know exactly who Captain Underpants actually is

2. Don't have the technical ability to follow a lot of what is being said

3. Am going to make cake pops today

51 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:04:41am

re: #47 hugh59

Well, I am a conservative Republican so I will have a good laugh at Weiner's expense as long as this pathetic excuse for a scandal goes on. Gosh knows, Dems have not been shy about laughing when some Rep embarrassed himself.

Lovely attitude. Someone is being smeared with a false story and you're gloating.

52 Targetpractice  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:04:44am

re: #43 iossarian

I will not be satisfied until every poster on this board categorically denies that they beat their wives.

That includes you, ladies.

*raises hand* What about those of us who aren't married?

53 sattv4u2  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:05:25am

re: #50 EmmmieG

I:

1. Think we'll never know exactly who Captain Underpants actually is

2. Don't have the technical ability to follow a lot of what is being said

3. Am going to make cake pops today

No idea what those are, but I'll bring the milk!!

54 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:05:26am

re: #52 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

*raises hand* What about those of us who aren't married?

Provide a signed, notarized affidavit or you are history, bucko.

55 lawhawk  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:05:29am

re: #52 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Then you're beating yourself. /

56 iossarian  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:05:36am

re: #47 hugh59

Well, I am a conservative Republican so I will have a good laugh at Weiner's expense as long as this pathetic excuse for a scandal goes on. Gosh knows, Dems have not been shy about laughing when some Rep embarrassed himself.

Translated for the sane among us:

"I am a conservative Republican so I will have a good laugh at a manufactured smear job in the hope that I can continue to deny to myself the cold-hearted evilness of my political leanings. Gosh knows my party is chock full of diaper-wearing closeted gay-bashing hypocrites."

57 sharona  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:05:41am

re: #44 iossarian Yes,I could be wrong. All of us here, including Charles, could be wrong. But some of us are so passionate about Weiner being a victim that they aren't open to the possibility that there may be no victim here at all, just a powerful guy with a hard-on for a young woman who isn't his wife.

58 sattv4u2  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:05:55am

re: #55 lawhawk

Then you're beating yourself. /

NTTAWWT!!

59 Jeff In Ohio  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:06:00am

I see Clown College Class of '04 has graduated another group.

60 Targetpractice  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:06:08am

re: #51 Charles

Lovely attitude. Someone is being smeared with a false story and you're gloating.

Of course, because it's not his "team" that's been attacked. Tribal mentality, writ large.

61 Four More Tears  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:06:46am

Alright already! It was me!

I am Weinercus!

62 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:07:15am

re: #57 sharona

Yes,I could be wrong. All of us here, including Charles, could be wrong. But some of us are so passionate about Weiner being a victim that they aren't open to the possibility that there may be no victim here at all, just a powerful guy with a hard-on for a young woman who isn't his wife.

And contrariwise, some of you are so passionate about him being a power-hungry sex fiend that you aren't open to the possibility of him being framed. Seizing on nitpicky details such as that he didn't come out and say "That's not my picture" is a Twoofer tactic.

63 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:07:26am

re: #47 hugh59

Well, New York Post readers will freak out, I'm sure.

64 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:07:29am

I got more than a dozen hate mails overnight, all like this one:

So which Soros funded organization pays your bills? It certainly can't
be this shitty blog. What a farce you are! You are a person with no
alligences but to himself! P.O.S.!

This Weiner guy can't even deny whether it is a picture of his junk or
not. So that tells me he does take pictures of his unit and distribute
it on the internet and that shows a incredible lack of good judgement.
Do you really want this type of jackass making policy desisions for us??
Well, apparently you do by your defense of this "alleged" derelict.

Right wingers are so cute when they're apoplectic with rage.

65 Jeff In Ohio  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:07:35am

re: #61 JasonA

Alright already! It was me!

I am Weinercus!

We are all from Weinerstanians now.

66 iossarian  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:07:36am

re: #57 sharona

Yes,I could be wrong. All of us here, including Charles, could be wrong. But some of us are so passionate about Weiner being a victim that they aren't open to the possibility that there may be no victim here at all, just a powerful guy with a hard-on for a young woman who isn't his wife.

I will take your continuing refusal to deny that you could be wrong as evidence that you are, in fact, wrong.

So long, "Clinton fan".

67 Targetpractice  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:07:47am

re: #61 JasonA

Alright already! It was me!

I am Weinercus!

No, I'm Weinercus!

68 Interesting Times  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:07:49am

re: #47 hugh59

Well, I am a conservative Republican so I will have a good laugh at Weiner's expense as long as this pathetic excuse for a scandal goes on. Gosh knows, Dems have not been shy about laughing when some Rep embarrassed himself.

1) We could say with certitude the Reps committed those acts (Larry Craig, Chris Lee, Ensign, Vitter, Foley, Gingrich, Sanford, I'm sure I'm forgetting someone else...)

2) Reps constantly cop a holier-than-thou attitude and throw stones at other people's sex lives, thus making them hypocrites as well as sleazebags.

69 engineer cat  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:07:59am

Romney To Announce Identity Of Weiner Crotch Hacker

will also explain why there is a dog tied to the roof of his car

70 Henchman Ghazi-808  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:08:31am

re: #51 Charles

Lovely attitude. Someone is being smeared with a false story and you're gloating.

Hey, they do it, I do it LOL lulz George Bush

71 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:08:31am

re: #53 sattv4u2

No idea what those are, but I'll bring the milk!!

Cake pops are something so incredibly fattening and bad for you that I am astonished the Scottish didn't come up with the idea. Maybe Bakerella is Scottish; I'll look it up.

You bake a cake. You let the cake cool off and mash it into crumbs. You stir in frosting and form the resulting mush into little balls. Then you dip it in chocolate and decorate it adorably.

72 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:09:00am

re: #64 Charles

I got more than a dozen hate mail overnight, all like this one:

Right wingers are so cute when they're apoplectic with rage.

As we are observing here in this thread. I have to admit, it makes for great entertainment when the workload is light. :)

73 Jeff In Ohio  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:09:02am

re: #64 Charles

All liberals take pictures of our junk. Because we're HUGE. Penis envy is not winning political strategy.

74 Bubblehead II  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:09:20am

re: #59 Jeff In Ohio

I see Clown College Class of '04 has graduated another group.

Noticed that.

75 sharona  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:09:34am

re: #66 iossarian

What about "Yes, I could be wrong" do you not understand? But don't let me stop the party y'all are having here.

76 sattv4u2  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:10:07am

re: #71 EmmmieG

Cake pops are something so incredibly fattening and bad for you that I am astonished the Scottish didn't come up with the idea. Maybe Bakerella is Scottish; I'll look it up.

You bake a cake. You let the cake cool off and mash it into crumbs. You stir in frosting and form the resulting mush into little balls. Then you dip it in chocolate and decorate it adorably.

I'm on my way!

77 sharona  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:10:14am

re: #73 Jeff In Ohio

And I've dumbed down the conversation?

78 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:10:18am

re: #75 sharona

If you could be wrong, then, by your logic, you are wrong.

79 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:10:20am

re: #71 EmmmieG

Cake pops are something so incredibly fattening and bad for you that I am astonished the Scottish didn't come up with the idea. Maybe Bakerella is Scottish; I'll look it up.

You bake a cake. You let the cake cool off and mash it into crumbs. You stir in frosting and form the resulting mush into little balls. Then you dip it in chocolate and decorate it adorably.

I know them as cake balls. And I am addicted to them. My wife did three batches of them for Christmas last year; I'm still trying to lose the weight.

80 Jeff In Ohio  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:11:11am

re: #77 sharona

And I've dumbed down the conversation?

Yes.

81 Four More Tears  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:11:29am

re: #75 sharona

What about "Yes, I could be wrong" do you not understand? But don't let me stop the party y'all are having here.

Lemme ask you this: if it is a picture of his crotch, one that was spread by this malicious "hacker," would that hurt your opinion of him? If so, why?

82 sharona  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:11:34am

re: #78 Obdicut

So if I say I could be right, I am, by logic, absolutely, unquivocally right? This is just ridiculous.

83 iossarian  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:11:51am

re: #75 sharona

What about "Yes, I could be wrong" do you not understand? But don't let me stop the party y'all are having here.

You don't get it, do you?

Weiner says he can't be sure the photo isn't of him (Photoshop/whatever). You take this as evidence that it is, in fact, of him.

You say you can't be sure you aren't wrong (idiocy/whatever). I take this as evidence that you are, in fact, wrong.

84 andres  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:12:14am

From what I can gather in this thread: lots of suspiciously specific denials here.

Unspoken: many aren't shy of admitting their well-endowedness.

Is this too technical for them to understand?

Yes. The hacking is just a lie that many people will understand without thinking much.

85 Vicious Babushka  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:12:30am

re: #71 EmmmieG

Cake pops are something so incredibly fattening and bad for you that I am astonished the Scottish didn't come up with the idea. Maybe Bakerella is Scottish; I'll look it up.

You bake a cake. You let the cake cool off and mash it into crumbs. You stir in frosting and form the resulting mush into little balls. Then you dip it in chocolate and decorate it adorably.

I remember having something like that years ago. IIRC, the recipe included brandy or rum.

86 iossarian  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:12:39am

re: #82 sharona

So if I say I could be right, I am, by logic, absolutely, unquivocally right? This is just ridiculous.

Note, he said "by YOUR logic". Not by logic.

Right-wing logic is notoriously fallible.

87 3CPO  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:12:50am

re: #57 sharona

Actually, I think we're more passionate about how such a meaningless event (real or faked) could be blown up so irresponsibly by the media. As the media is presenting this overwhelmingly as "Weiner did it," many of us are naturally exploring all the underreported evidence that that isn't necessarily so.

88 Henchman Ghazi-808  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:13:00am

re: #57 sharona

Yes,I could be wrong. All of us here, including Charles, could be wrong. But some of us are so passionate about Weiner being a victim that they aren't open to the possibility that there may be no victim here at all, just a powerful guy with a hard-on for a young woman who isn't his wife.

Ah, the 'they could be wrong I could be wrong equivocation.' That seems like a wise and objective rationalization (to somebody being ignorant of the situation).

Did you forget Charles and many other posters (especially ElCapitanAmerica, sure winner of a Honco Star) spent several hours studying these issues yesterday and reported all the facts?

Where are your facts or observations? Because otherwise you're just a talking head who hasn't done any work except for some lazy thinking.

89 sattv4u2  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:13:05am

re: #71 EmmmieG

re: #85 Alouette

I remember having something like that years ago. IIRC, the recipe included brandy or rum.

Just when I thought it couldn't get any better!!

90 sharona  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:13:13am

re: #81 JasonA

If it is, and it wasn't sent to this woman by Weiner himself, but rather a hacker intent on causing Weiner harm, I would think Weiner was a victim. But I would also think him naive for thinking that a pic like that couldn't harm him if it fell into the wrong hands.

91 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:13:38am

re: #85 Alouette

I remember having something like that years ago. IIRC, the recipe included brandy or rum.

Well, for obvious reasons, rum and brandy will not be getting involved here.

Chocolate will. This is actually a dry run for the concessions table at the school play which will be for the purpose of funding the cast party. Or the props. I forget which.

92 3CPO  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:13:46am

re: #71 EmmmieG

I'm lost here. How do you save the frosting for last?

93 Mattand  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:13:59am
Why are the media ignoring this strongly exculpatory evidence, and continuing to focus on the likelihood of “hacking” Rep. Weiner’s password? Is this too technical for them to understand?

Two words: false balance.

A buddy of mine claims to now be "independent" politically after years of keeping his ears glued to Limbaugh and conservative radio. However, whenever one criticizes someone on the right, his first response is to find a counter example of similar behavior on the left and shout, "See, they do it, too!"

IMO: organizations like CNN and the NYT, supposed liberal bulwarks, actually understand people think this way and play it up (or dumb it down) in their coverage. They get their assess kicked by Fox News in both ratings and ad revenue, and are trying to catch up any way they can.

And as elitist as this may sound, a good chunk of America can't or won't try to grasp the subtitles that Charles/LGF has pointed out in this situation. I take no pleasure in thinking like this, but I know too many people who wouldn't know critical thought if it came up and bit them in the cerebral cortex.

94 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:14:41am

re: #90 sharona

If it is, and it wasn't sent to this woman by Weiner himself, but rather a hacker intent on causing Weiner harm, I would think Weiner was a victim. But I would also think him naive for thinking that a pic like that couldn't harm him if it fell into the wrong hands.

Can you say with absolute certainty that there are no photos out there, anywhere, that would embarrass you if they were posted on the Internet?

95 iossarian  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:15:32am

re: #94 Charles

Can you say with absolute certainty that there are no photos out there, anywhere, that would embarrass you if they were posted on the Internet?

Anyone who can assert this has led a fucking dull life.

96 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:15:47am

re: #64 Charles

...and it never takes much to enrage them, either.

97 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:15:47am

re: #94 Charles

Can you say with absolute certainty that there are no photos out there, anywhere, that would embarrass you if they were posted on the Internet?

If so, I'd like to have a look at your mother's baby album of you. (Assuming you have one.) Because that's not embarrassing at all, am I right?

98 abolitionist  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:16:16am

This bit from that 2009 tech article hints that yfrog once required some sort of credentials (perhaps only initially?):

We should note – and I’m getting tired of having to say this every time – that you have to enter your Twitter credentials to use Yfrog so that’s up to you.

Like TwitPic, YFrog has its own API, but the former is also built into most popular Twitter clients, so they have the advantage of already being familiar to most Twitter users who are interested in this type of service.

The (broken) link about yfrog's API leads to
Something went wrong ... bad bad frog
His last words were: Could not find api.html/index

A search for API on that site (yfrog) turns up only comments.

99 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:16:19am

re: #94 Charles

Can you say with absolute certainty that there are no photos out there, anywhere, that would embarrass you if they were posted on the Internet?

Are you kidding? They're already out there. That's what my siblings and I use facebook for. Maybe I'll see if I can find that seventh-grade picture of me in my Valley Girl outfit and post it.

100 Targetpractice  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:16:26am

re: #95 iossarian

Anyone who can assert this has led a fucking dull life.

Or is lying their ass off.

101 sharona  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:16:59am

re: #94 Charles

I've never taken a picture of myself from my mobile that I wouldn't feel comfortable sharing with my Mom. Is there a picture on Facebook somewhere of me with a beer in my hand? Sure. But a close-up of one's crotch seems like a whole different...er, ballgame. And I'm not a congressman with a lot more to lose than a little face.

102 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:17:11am

re: #82 sharona

So if I say I could be right, I am, by logic, absolutely, unquivocally right? This is just ridiculous.

Well, kind of. I mean, the whole point is your logic sucks. You insisted that because he said it could be him, it had to be him.

So if you could be wrong, you have to be wrong.

So, I guess if you could be right, you must be right.

The fact that those are mutually exclusive is what shows that your 'it could it be = it is' is fallacious, by the way.

103 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:17:12am

re: #95 iossarian

Anyone who can assert this has led a fucking dull life.

I've led a dull life, and there are embarrassing photos of me out there.

Not without clothes on, though. Well, not without clothes on over the age of 3.

104 Political Atheist  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:17:46am

re: #5 Charles

Banks are a completely different story, for obvious reasons. It would be insane and completely unnecessary for a picture hosting service to use that kind of super-tight security.

From where I sit the major problem with all this new connectivity and social networking is the lack of security and the threat to privacy. I'm a lot more comfortable with openly Paging here (I like that feature) than facebook. These new technologies have to secure better, and protect privacy, or even the young early adopters will not be nearly so inclined to use them. As for more mature adults, well if your career can be screwed by some twitter/whatever miscreant, why take the risk at all?

105 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:18:16am

re: #101 sharona

Congressmen were college students once.

The prudishness of the people shocked that such a picture might even exist are kind of funny.

106 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:18:35am

Here's the deal: there are only so many makers of men's underpants. (I am the mother of four boys. I have learned more about male underwear than I wanted to know.) Gray jockey-style underwear is actually quite common.

We have a man's leg with no distinguishing characteristics and a pair of gray underpants. It could easily have been taken in a men's locker room. Someone could use their iphone, pointed down as if you are just holding it, to take a picture of an unsuspecting individual.

I can understand where the uncertainty comes in here.

107 allegro  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:18:43am

re: #94 Charles

Can you say with absolute certainty that there are no photos out there, anywhere, that would embarrass you if they were posted on the Internet?

That's assuming there is anything about that picture to be ashamed of. I'm not seeing it... but then I don't get weird over a picture of a guy's crotch in underwear. I see more on the beach with the guys in Speedos.

108 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:18:56am

re: #106 EmmmieG

Brief style, I meant.

109 iossarian  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:18:57am

re: #105 Obdicut

Congressmen were college students once.

The prudishness of the people shocked that such a picture might even exist are kind of funny.


Think of the blackmail possibilities!!!11!

/concern troll

110 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:19:10am

re: #31 Charles

I have some boxer briefs that look almost exactly like those. I can't say with certainty that it isn't me, either.

You have taken crotch shots of yourself, and you have been released on the internet, so that someone could post them back on you....

Interesting admission.

Somehow I doubt this. Maybe you are trying to start a "I am Spartacus" campaign....

111 Targetpractice  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:19:42am

re: #105 Obdicut

Congressmen were college students once.

The prudishness of the people shocked that such a picture might even exist are kind of funny.

This is a guy who, up til at least a year and a half ago, was swinging single. And he doesn't strike me as the kinda guy who spent his formative years living like a monk.

112 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:19:47am

re: #92 3CPO

I'm lost here. How do you save the frosting for last?

Okay, the frosting gets mixed in, then the little ball of crumbs-and-frosting paste gets dipped in melted chocolate. More decorating can follow.

113 Mattand  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:19:55am

re: #105 Obdicut

Congressmen were college students once.

The prudishness of the people shocked that such a picture might even exist are kind of funny.

See also: President Clinton smoking pot in college. IMO, if he had just fessed up right then and there, the whole incident would've died on the vine.

114 3CPO  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:21:04am

re: #112 EmmmieG

That was a rhetorical question.

They sound delicious, by the way...

115 Henchman Ghazi-808  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:21:11am

All this hand wringing of Wiener's actions, intents, probabilities, likelihoods, and technical analysis by people who know little of technology.

I wish some of this same energy would be focused on the sources of this story, one partisan antagonist on Twitter and Big Yellow Journalism.

That would be fair and balanced.

116 Four More Tears  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:21:20am

I almost feel sad for all the guys who've never had a lady ask them to send a crotch-shot. :( Unsolicited, that is... they really have to like you first. ;)

117 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:21:22am

re: #101 sharona

Can you guarantee that you didn't get your, er, "private" picture taken in a changing room somewhere? No one said the picture has to be self-inflicted.

118 Political Atheist  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:21:36am

re: #105 Obdicut

Congressmen were college students once.

The prudishness of the people shocked that such a picture might even exist are kind of funny.

Agreed. And frankly if pictures are some part of a person or couples sexual activity so what? Online flirt? So what? It's a yawner apart from political exploitation.

119 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:21:46am

By the way, if this were a court case, the fact that yfrog is so easy to "hack" would almost certainly constitute more than enough reasonable doubt to have the charges dismissed against Weiner.

120 Ericus58  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:23:22am

re: #95 iossarian

Anyone who can assert this has led a fucking dull life.

Actually, I would put forth the notion that some of us have had a bit more "class"....

... or at least smart enough to not allow negatives to exists.
/

121 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:23:25am

re: #110 Buck

You have taken crotch shots of yourself, and you have been released on the internet

Even though you were being a dick and obtuse on purpose, that is a good rotating headline possibility.

122 justaminute  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:24:17am

Rep. Weiner is not shy about pointing out the foibles of the Republican party and it's team members. Republicans are feeling insecure due to the Medicare/Ryan budget added to their upcoming primaries. President Obama already has a lock on the Democratic party and the Republicans have an uninspiring field. IMHO it's making the Republicans live in hope of some kind of Democratic scandal. This may be all they got.

123 ElCapitanAmerica  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:24:41am

re: #119 Charles

By the way, if this were a court case, the fact that yfrog is so easy to "hack" would almost certainly constitute more than enough reasonable doubt to have the charges dismissed against Weiner.

Charles, one interesting is that yfrog fails to admit to the problem. You wonder if they would be reliable at this point on providing the proper IP logs and email headers when they're trying to hide the fact that they never really were serious about the security of their users in the first place.

In other words, it's not to their advantage to show that the Representative's account was so easy to spoof.

124 Bubblehead II  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:24:48am

re: #119 Charles

Well it is in fact a court case of sorts. The court of public opinion, where we all know (and has been pointed out by numerous Lizards) fact don't matter.

125 hugh59  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:25:18am

Charles, liberals laughed at fake stories about George W Bush all the time. Let's not forget the bogus national guard memos that you did an excellent job of challenging.

I have a few pair of boxer briefs very similar to the ones in the photo. I will swear under oath punishable by perjury that the picture is not of me. I can do that because there are no photos of me wearing just my shorts. The photo looks like it was taken with a digital camera at close range, probably by the person wearing the shorts. I have never taken such a picture of myself. My wife (whom I do not beat) has never taken a picture of me like that. The last time I was a member of a gym, I did not own grey boxer briefs. When I was in college I did boxer briefs did not exist (digital cameras did not exist). So, case closed. I am not he man in the picture.

Let's assume Weiner did not take the photograph and did not know about its existence before Friday night. If he testified that the photo was not of him and someone else testified that they took the photo without his knowledge, then Weiner would not have to worry about perjury. Of course, the photographer would have to prove that the photograph was of Weiner.

126 ElCapitanAmerica  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:25:37am

re: #123 ElCapitanAmerica

"one interesting" = "one interesting thing" of course :-)

127 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:26:27am

re: #125 hugh59

If he testified that the photo was not of him and someone else testified that they took the photo without his knowledge, then Weiner would not have to worry about perjury.

How did perjury get into this, exactly?

128 kirkspencer  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:26:30am

Actually, there's this really sneaky sleight of hand going on. Certain people are conflating two questions, making Weiner's careful responses to one apply to the second.

The two questions are:
1) Is the picture a picture of Weiner's underwaear?
2a) Did Weiner post the picture and
2b) send the link to the girl?

"I'm not sure that's a picture of my crotch" and "I did not send that picture" are both paraphrases of what Weiner has said. They are, respectively, answers to question one and two.

129 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:26:34am

re: #31 Charles

I have some boxer briefs that look almost exactly like those.

As do I

I can't say with certainty that it isn't me, either.

Sadly, I can say with absolute certainty that it isn't me. Many of my ex-girlfriends would be more than happy to confirm it.

130 allegro  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:26:44am

The fact that most people these days are walking around with digital cameras in their phones makes the odds of there being pictures of pretty much anyone in any kind of position that can be construed in most any way imaginable is about 1:1.

131 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:26:54am

re: #125 hugh59

Charles, liberals laughed at fake stories about George W Bush all the time.

So go ahead and be just as bad, if that's what floats your boat. I think it's pretty creepy to do that, myself.

132 APox  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:27:40am

re: #125 hugh59

1. Can't prove it's him
2. He denies sending any picture
-- It's been proven that others can send these pictures
3. The accusers are a) a stalker b) a renowned smear artist (Andrew Breitbart) who already has destroyed one person's life

What exactly is so fucking hard to understand about this? Jesus.

133 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:27:52am

re: #125 hugh59

Charles, liberals laughed at fake stories about George W Bush all the time. Let's not forget the bogus national guard memos that you did an excellent job of challenging.

I have a few pair of boxer briefs very similar to the ones in the photo. I will swear under oath punishable by perjury that the picture is not of me. I can do that because there are no photos of me wearing just my shorts. The photo looks like it was taken with a digital camera at close range, probably by the person wearing the shorts. I have never taken such a picture of myself. My wife (whom I do not beat) has never taken a picture of me like that. The last time I was a member of a gym, I did not own grey boxer briefs. When I was in college I did boxer briefs did not exist (digital cameras did not exist). So, case closed. I am not he man in the picture.

Let's assume Weiner did not take the photograph and did not know about its existence before Friday night. If he testified that the photo was not of him and someone else testified that they took the photo without his knowledge, then Weiner would not have to worry about perjury. Of course, the photographer would have to prove that the photograph was of Weiner.

But there may be more than one man in the picture, i.e. via photoshop.

134 sattv4u2  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:28:22am

re: #133 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

But there may be more than one man in the picture, i.e. via photoshop.

A Double Wiener!?!?

135 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:28:30am

re: #125 hugh59

I have a few pair of boxer briefs very similar to the ones in the photo. I will swear under oath punishable by perjury that the picture is not of me. I can do that because there are no photos of me wearing just my shorts.

"Yeah. That's the ticket"!

136 Targetpractice  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:28:44am

re: #125 hugh59

Let's assume Weiner did not take the photograph and did not know about its existence before Friday night. If he testified that the photo was not of him and someone else testified that they took the photo without his knowledge, then Weiner would not have to worry about perjury. Of course, the photographer would have to prove that the photograph was of Weiner.

How about first we prove it's Weiner, then talk about how it got taken? Nah, that would introduce reasonable doubt, something that we simply can't have. Obviously it's gotta be Weiner, because otherwise, whose crotch could it be? *rolls eyes*

137 iossarian  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:29:08am

re: #132 APox


What exactly is so fucking hard to understand about this? Jesus.

Remember you are talking to a self-declared "conservative Republican".

138 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:29:31am

re: #134 sattv4u2

A Double Wiener!?!?

Or a composite weiner, even.

139 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:29:59am

re: #110 Buck

That post doesn't even make sense.

140 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:30:18am

re: #125 hugh59

Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? The man says he doesn't know if it's his photo and that he certainly didn't send it. Fine, now it's on the other side to prove it IS him. He and his defenders shouldn't have to do a darn thing to show that it isn't.

141 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:30:45am

re: #121 Obdicut

Even though you were being a dick and obtuse on purpose, that is a good rotating headline possibility.

In your opinion I was being that, however in reality I was just saying that we don't all have to admit to doing this in order for Weiner to be excused.

One - I think the yfrog (and many other social network sites) desire to make posting easy also makes it easy to be pranked,

Two - I think that it has been a huge waste of time the last few days to pursue this. I ignored it at the start, and would hope that people would ignore it going forward. However I also think that if this were a conservative you especially would be singing a very different tune.

Three - You are the dick, if only for using that term in relation to the subject matter.

142 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:31:13am

re: #139 Slumbering Behemoth

Have you been released on the internet?

143 budda10000  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:31:15am

Charles... the answer is simple. The news networks don't go with whats right nor do they employ the brightests people. I haven't heard a hard truth on american media in years.... Why do you think i rely on your blog and foreign media?

144 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:31:15am

re: #134 sattv4u2

A Double Wiener!?!?

ALL THE WAY!
/What does it mean?

145 iossarian  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:31:41am

OK, I've got to go away for a bit, but before I leave I must say that this pathetic clinging to the hope that it just might be true that a Democrat might have behaved in a way that somewhat approaches the sleaziness of countless Republicans is a fascinating insight into the mental toll that voting GOP in this day and age must extract.

Sayonara, honcos.

146 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:32:27am

re: #141 Buck

Buck, in your original post you assumed two things:

1. That, if this is a picture of Weiner, that he took it of himself.

2. That he 'released it on the internet'.

Can you explain why you're assuming these things?

147 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:32:59am

9:30, and no sign of Romney, just the obligatory old rock music in the background.

Ah, MST*. I am well acquainted with it.

*Mormon Standard Time. I once was in charge of organizing a very optional event. It was scheduled for 12. The Relief Society President and I were there, alone, at 12:05. "I guess nobody's coming," she said.

"No," I said, "if nobody's here at 12:30, nobody's coming."

148 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:33:39am

re: #33 sharona

Big Papa: You're insulting me. Just because I don't buy into Weiner's increasingly lame excuses doesn't mean I've been duped. Jerk

It's interesting to note that you're insulted by someone believing that you've been duped, yet you're you have no problem believing the worst Rep. Weiner.

AGain, I think he wanted to send it to this girl (just because he's married to a beautiful woman doesn't automatically mean he is faithful) but screwed up.

Jerk indeed.

149 APox  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:34:23am

re: #145 iossarian

I mean you have Larry Craig trying to argue his way out of the idea that he didn't solicit sex in a bathroom with a witness who was there to be solicited.

Then you have someone who denies an anonymous underpants (with no proof that it is even him, and even if it was doesn't really mean anything by itself) picture with proven ways to post this picture without the end user's consent, and somehow these types of things are equal.

The logic is baffling.

150 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:34:28am

re: #142 Obdicut

I dunno. As a rule, I don't visit shock/gore sites.

151 Bubblehead II  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:34:44am

re: #140 thedopefishlives

Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? The man says he doesn't know if it's his photo and that he certainly didn't send it. Fine, now it's on the other side to prove it IS him. He and his defenders shouldn't have to do a darn thing to show that it isn't.

You are confusing a Court of Law with the court of public opinion. In the former, Facts are all that matters. In the lattter, they not only don't matter, but are often frowned upon and discouraged.

152 Four More Tears  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:34:54am

Charles, have you thought about adding Google +1 buttons? Might be worth it.

153 Henchman Ghazi-808  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:36:45am

re: #141 Buck

Two - I think that it has been a huge waste of time the last few days to pursue this. I ignored it at the start, and would hope that people would ignore it going forward. However I also think that if this were a conservative you especially would be singing a very different tune.

Three - You are the dick, if only for using that term in relation to the subject matter.

2a: It is a huge waste of time when the media doesn't do their homework and allows partisan yellow journalism to smear a congressman because he has the gravitas to criticize the GOP. You think nobody should pay attention to that?

2b: The accusation of bias and partisanship is a significant projection on your part, especially against Obdictut. You are doubling down on being a dick.

3: see 2b

154 engineer cat  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:37:02am

as manufactured scandals go, it's an amateur job that is doing more harm to romney's announce than anything else

155 Feline Fearless Leader  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:37:11am

re: #93 mattand

Two words: false balance.

A buddy of mine claims to now be "independent" politically after years of keeping his ears glued to Limbaugh and conservative radio. However, whenever one criticizes someone on the right, his first response is to find a counter example of similar behavior on the left and shout, "See, they do it, too!"

IMO: organizations like CNN and the NYT, supposed liberal bulwarks, actually understand people think this way and play it up (or dumb it down) in their coverage. They get their assess kicked by Fox News in both ratings and ad revenue, and are trying to catch up any way they can.

And as elitist as this may sound, a good chunk of America can't or won't try to grasp the subtitles that Charles/LGF has pointed out in this situation. I take no pleasure in thinking like this, but I know too many people who wouldn't know critical thought if it came up and bit them in the cerebral cortex.

Boils down to most people not wanting to accept nuance. They want black/white and right/wrong so that they feel no responsibility to think for themselves or the ego hit for accepting the making of a mistake.

And our political and media communications have discarded nuance for the most part as well. It doesn't fit in a 10-second sound bite.

Wesley in _The Princess Bride_ says "Life is pain, Highess. Anyone who says differently is selling something."

In our social and political discourse anyone stating that the solution is "simple" is selling something as well. There are no simple solutions since life and people are complex.

The nuance of Weiner's statements are that he can't be sure if the picture is him - so he adds the caveat that he cannot confirm that it is a picture of him. Which is besides the point that the real issue is whether or not he sent the tweet and picture to the woman. Which he explicitly says he did not.

Besides, is the issue to be criticized the sending of the picture, or the exact contents of the picture? For example, would there be no criticism if he'd Tweeted a picture of someone else's package?

156 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:38:23am

re: #146 Obdicut

Buck, in your original post you assumed two things:

1. That, if this is a picture of Weiner, that he took it of himself.

2. That he 'released it on the internet'.

Can you explain why you're assuming these things?

Absolute nonsense.

What I assumed is that IF anyone took a picture like that of themselves, and someone was able to post it back to them, then they must have access to it (in order to post it on yfrog in this case).

So, whoever this is a picture of, must have uploaded it on the internet at some point.

My original post was saying that not only must a person own underwear like that they must have also have taken a crotch shot of themselves (while being excited) AND have have uploaded it into the internet (ie it is not still on their camera, or personal storage) in order for that to be them.

157 justaminute  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:39:31am

On Rachel Maddow last night Rachel asked Rep. Weiner if that was a pic of him (she asked with a smile) he replied like any normal man "I wish" and made a crack about his friend John Stewart. So in some way he is denying the pic.

158 Four More Tears  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:40:14am

re: #156 Buck


My original post was saying that not only must a person own underwear like that they must have also have taken a crotch shot of themselves (while being excited) AND have have uploaded it into the internet (ie it is not still on their camera, or personal storage) in order for that to be them.

You really have no clue of what can be done with photoshop, do you? It's within the realm of possibility that "excitement" can be altered in.

159 lawhawk  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:41:06am

re: #105 Obdicut

Congressmen were college students once.

The prudishness of the people shocked that such a picture might even exist are kind of funny.

See also Blutarsky, John. US Senator.

160 Claire  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:41:56am

What's the difference between guessing somebody's else's password that's easy to guess and guessing somebody's else's password that's hard to guess?

I guess I'm missing the point.

161 Feline Fearless Leader  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:42:02am

re: #158 JasonA

You really have no clue of what can be done with photoshop, do you? It's within the realm of possibility that "excitement" can be altered in.

More likely he doesn't care.

162 garhighway  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:42:38am

re: #156 Buck

Absolute nonsense.

What I assumed is that IF anyone took a picture like that of themselves, and someone was able to post it back to them, then they must have access to it (in order to post it on yfrog in this case).

So, whoever this is a picture of, must have uploaded it on the internet at some point.

My original post was saying that not only must a person own underwear like that they must have also have taken a crotch shot of themselves (while being excited) AND have have uploaded it into the internet (ie it is not still on their camera, or personal storage) in order for that to be them.

What many here have suggested is the possibility that the photo was surreptitiously taken (say, in a locker room) and uploaded and transmitted by someone other than the Congressman. (As noted yesterday, there is a whole genre of internet photo, the "upskirt" based on this whole concept.)

You seem to have ruled this out. Any particular reason?

163 reloadingisnotahobby  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:42:56am

THIS IS RIDICKULOUS!!!
IT"S ME!! DAMN IT!!
Fifteen years ago!!
Now can we move on already!!!
//

164 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:43:01am

re: #156 Buck

What I assumed is that IF anyone took a picture like that of themselves, and someone was able to post it back to them, then they must have access to it (in order to post it on yfrog in this case).

Why are you discounting the possibility of someone else having taken such a picture, please?

AND have have uploaded it into the internet (ie it is not still on their camera, or personal storage) in order for that to be them.

Huh. You see, you originally said released. Now you're just uploading it-- so it could still be private. Thanks for walking it back, but you've got quite a distance to cover.

Keep going.

165 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:43:30am

re: #159 lawhawk

See also Blutarsky, John. US Senator.

According to the Double Secret Probation Edition DVDs Extras he's actually President Now....

Clearly he won the campaign based on having personally tried to run over nazis in his car...

166 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:43:38am

re: #162 garhighway

Or, say, a frat brother, or a former girlfriend.

167 Four More Tears  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:43:53am

re: #160 Claire

What's the difference between guessing somebody's else's password that's easy to guess and guessing somebody's else's password that's hard to guess?

I guess I'm missing the point.

The difference in this case is that we're not talking about a password. It's a URL. One that allows uploading to your account.

168 hugh59  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:44:09am

Good points. I do not think there is any way to prove Weiner is the person in that photo. The presumption of innocence only applies in a criminal case. This matter will be decided by the court of public opinion where the rules of evidence are different.

Weiner's problem now seems to be that many people do not feel he is doing a good job explaining himself. I did not see this story until Monday night; I gather that Weiner started aggressively defending himself soon after the story broke. Maybe his early denials were too much, too soon. Sometimes, the best thing to do with a scandal is nothing at all. Sometimes the act of denial gives the story a higher profile.

169 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:44:42am

re: #168 hugh59

Your concern is noted.

170 Claire  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:45:11am

re: #167 JasonA

But it's a secret as long as you are the only one that knows it, right?

171 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:45:17am

re: #158 JasonA

You really have no clue of what can be done with photoshop, do you? It's within the realm of possibility that "excitement" can be altered in.

Everything can be altered in. The color of the shorts, that there were shorts at all, that it is a guy and not a woman...

What is your point? That when asked if that is you, you have to take into account that someone could have photoshop-ed one of your "Wall of China" vacation pictures to look like that?

172 scogind  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:46:06am

That's definitely a photo of a left-winger.

173 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:47:19am

re: #158 JasonA

You really have no clue of what can be done with photoshop, do you? It's within the realm of possibility that "excitement" can be altered in.

Not to mention that it's absurd to assert that a person who takes a picture is the same person who uploaded it to the internet.

As a matter of fact, trying to discuss this subject rationally is becoming impossible. I give up. Later, Lizards.

174 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:47:24am

re: #162 garhighway

What many here have suggested is the possibility that the photo was surreptitiously taken (say, in a locker room) and uploaded and transmitted by someone other than the Congressman. (As noted yesterday, there is a whole genre of internet photo, the "upskirt" based on this whole concept.)

You seem to have ruled this out. Any particular reason?

If so then the congressman can say with "certaintood" that it isn't him.

IF it was later discovered that someone without his knowledge took it in a locker room, then he would be forgiven for NOT KNOWING.

175 hugh59  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:48:36am

re: #170 Claire

I am not concerned; I am amused.

176 Four More Tears  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:48:52am

re: #171 Buck

Everything can be altered in. The color of the shorts, that there were shorts at all, that it is a guy and not a woman...

What is your point? That when asked if that is you, you have to take into account that someone could have photoshop-ed one of your "Wall of China" vacation pictures to look like that?

Oh brother... Think what you want, Buck, but his failure to deny ownership of the photo has no bearing on the fact that it was leaked.

177 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:49:16am

re: #174 Buck

That's not what certainty means, though.

And again, what if someone took it with his knowledge, like a frat brother or an ex-girlfriend?

178 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:49:19am

re: #164 Obdicut

Why are you discounting the possibility of someone else having taken such a picture, please?

Huh. You see, you originally said released. Now you're just uploading it-- so it could still be private. Thanks for walking it back, but you've got quite a distance to cover.

Keep going.

Uploaded/ released....

This is the problem Obdicut, we don't speak the same language. AND you only think nit picking is ok when you do it.

179 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:49:38am

re: #174 Buck

If so then the congressman can say with "certaintood" that it isn't him.

IF it was later discovered that someone without his knowledge took it in a locker room, then he would be forgiven for NOT KNOWING.

Wait Buck I am confused.

Are you arguing that if it was taking without his knowledge than he would be able to say for certain that the picture wasn't of him?

180 Four More Tears  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:49:43am

re: #174 Buck

If so then the congressman can say with "certaintood" that it isn't him.

IF it was later discovered that someone without his knowledge took it in a locker room, then he would be forgiven for NOT KNOWING.

No. Then people like you will question how he could possibly not know.

181 Claire  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:51:22am

re: #175 hugh59

OKAY. I'll let Obdicut know. :-)

182 garhighway  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:51:47am

re: #174 Buck

If so then the congressman can say with "certaintood" that it isn't him.

IF it was later discovered that someone without his knowledge took it in a locker room, then he would be forgiven for NOT KNOWING.

Exactly wrong. That is why he cannot say for sure that it isn't him: because he can't possibly know whether such photos were taken. He can only speak to what he did or did not do: he knows he didn't send the photo and he has said so. He cannot know that it isn't him, and he has said that.

183 makeitstop  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:51:57am

re: #47 hugh59

Let's see what New Yorkers believe.

This New Yorker thinks the story is bogus, that Breitbart is a pusbag, and that the media is way too happy to chase the soccer ball.

And if Weiner runs for mayor of NYC, I believe he'll win.

Oh, and all the concern around here today is really touching. Truly.
/

184 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:52:01am

re: #160 Claire

What's the difference between guessing somebody's else's password that's easy to guess and guessing somebody's else's password that's hard to guess?

I guess I'm missing the point.

Yfrog's "secret code" is NOT a "password." It's not even close to being the same thing. Obscurity is not security.

185 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:53:39am

re: #170 Claire

But it's a secret as long as you are the only one that knows it, right?

The yfrog email address was revealed in many places. It's in the "From" line if you email a picture, it's visible onscreen when you're looking at your page -- very much unlike a password.

186 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:54:34am

Web security 101: Obscurity is not security.

187 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:54:56am

re: #179 jamesfirecat

Wait Buck I am confused.

Are you arguing that if it was taking without his knowledge than he would be able to say for certain that the picture wasn't of him?

Yes. If ANY ONE OF US has no knowledge of a shot of his excited crotch ever being taken, then we should have no problem saying that it isn't us.

If it turns out that some pervert took the picture without our knowledge (some have suggested a locker room), then no one could call us a liar, as it was WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE.

AND in fact I was talking about Charles,,,, not Weiner.

188 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:56:12am

re: #187 Buck

Why are you saying it's an excited crotch, exactly?

189 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:58:28am

re: #182 garhighway

Exactly wrong. That is why he cannot say for sure that it isn't him: because he can't possibly know whether such photos were taken. He can only speak to what he did or did not do: he knows he didn't send the photo and he has said so. He cannot know that it isn't him, and he has said that.

Really? You seriously think there is a chance it was YOU for example? You really can't eliminate yourself from the list of possible models?

Well, I can say with certainty that it isn't me. Even if I own underwear exactly like that. I have never had a picture like that taken of me.

190 ElCapitanAmerica  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:58:38am

re: #170 Claire

But it's a secret as long as you are the only one that knows it, right?

The problem is that it's a poorly kept secret, it's sent out in the clear (not encrypted) and until recently was easily shown on your yfrog page if you were using it to read twitter (imagine gmail showing your password at the top right corner while you are logged in).

More importantly, with yfrog's "scheme" you don't have a choice to what the "secret" is, they create it for you. And as we've demonstrated, the process they use to create this secret word is very flawed and easy to guess.

Remember, for the yfrog email you need the twitter user name which is publicly and globally available. The rest is a smallish word that I was able to get a duplicate in 27 tries (and lots of similar words in those tests).

This is like facebook creating their password for you, and it being as simple as any of these strings here;
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Honestly, do you consider those hard to figure out?

191 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:58:59am

re: #188 Obdicut

Why are you saying it's an excited crotch, exactly?

That is how it is being described.

192 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:59:16am

re: #187 Buck

Yes. If ANY ONE OF US has no knowledge of a shot of his excited crotch ever being taken, then we should have no problem saying that it isn't us.

If it turns out that some pervert took the picture without our knowledge (some have suggested a locker room), then no one could call us a liar, as it was WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE.

AND in fact I was talking about Charles,,, not Weiner.

But what about unkown unkowns Buck?

I have no knowledge that there exists a shot of my crotch that has been taken.

At the same time I can't be 100% certain that such a shot didn't take place.

Someone might have snuck into my home while I was asleep.

Someone might have shocked a camera under the changing booth wall while I was pulling a shirt I was trying out up over my head.

Can you say with 100% certainty that no one has ever taken a picture of your junk?

And if so how did you come to that certainty?

193 ElCapitanAmerica  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 9:59:56am

re: #186 Charles

It's even worst, as you pointed out, if you include another recipient in that MMS or email they'll see it, and if you show the freaking email on your page while logged in (until they changed it to just the settings, I'm wondering if they're reading LGF) it's easy to see.

They were not even really hiding it!!!

194 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:00:38am

re: #191 Buck

That is how it is being described.

Well, it's not at all clear that it is.

195 garhighway  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:02:34am

re: #187 Buck

Yes. If ANY ONE OF US has no knowledge of a shot of his excited crotch ever being taken, then we should have no problem saying that it isn't us.

If it turns out that some pervert took the picture without our knowledge (some have suggested a locker room), then no one could call us a liar, as it was WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE.

AND in fact I was talking about Charles,,, not Weiner.

Buck, you are being accidentally or deliberately imprecise. If someone took a photo of you without your knowledge, and you were asked "is that you?", and you answered "no", then you would be wrong, because it WAS you.

The Congressman seems to have recognized that possibility and is therefore carefully responding that he can't say for sure if it is him or not.

If you gave that incorrect denial, would you be a liar? Different question, and one that goes to the level of scienter you require for a false statement (which it clearly would be) to be a lie. That is a semantic question I would leave to others. But please do recognize the difference.

196 Claire  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:02:46am

re: #184 Charles

Then why does someone have to be told what it is (given permission to access the page) or guess what it is. Why is it obscure and not just obvious and out there.

It's a URL, but it's "your" url and belongs to you, more or less, unless you allow others to contribute by showing them the address to get to it.

I see a huge difference in security levels between the two, but if the URL for weiners yfrog page was something simple like
weiner@yfrog or something, and then once there you had to put in the secret 5 word code to actually post, that would be the same difference, wouldn't it?

197 hugh59  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:02:58am

If NYC wants Weiner, they are welcome to him. He would be free to bash Republicans all he wants as NYC mayor (not that he holds himself back at all right now).

198 Alexzander  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:03:58am

re: #192 jamesfirecat

Those are pretty extraneous epistemic circumstances, well outside of the normative use of 'knowledge'. By that standard, what can you really say you know?

199 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:04:57am

re: #196 Claire

You don't have to be told. It's visible right there on your yfrog page. That's the point. They didn't even try very hard to obscure this.

It's vastly different from a password system, and I'm honestly a little suprised that a company with millions of users is so incredibly lame about security.

200 ElCapitanAmerica  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:06:02am

re: #196 Claire

Then why does someone have to be told what it is (given permission to access the page) or guess what it is. Why is it obscure and not just obvious and out there.

It's a URL, but it's "your" url and belongs to you, more or less, unless you allow others to contribute by showing them the address to get to it.

I see a huge difference in security levels between the two, but if the URL for weiners yfrog page was something simple like
weiner@yfrog or something, and then once there you had to put in the secret 5 word code to actually post, that would be the same difference, wouldn't it?

Huh?

It's not a URL, it's an email address.

It's also not a secret "5 word code", it's a word with about 5 words on average that is easy to guess. That's the problem.

201 Four More Tears  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:06:21am

re: #196 Claire

Then why does someone have to be told what it is (given permission to access the page) or guess what it is. Why is it obscure and not just obvious and out there.

It's a URL, but it's "your" url and belongs to you, more or less, unless you allow others to contribute by showing them the address to get to it.

I see a huge difference in security levels between the two, but if the URL for weiners yfrog page was something simple like
weiner@yfrog or something, and then once there you had to put in the secret 5 word code to actually post, that would be the same difference, wouldn't it?

Picture this: you're sitting in Starbucks. You go to yfrog. Bam. Your URL is right there for anyone looking over your shoulder to see.

202 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:06:25am

re: #198 Alexzander

Those are pretty extraneous epistemic circumstances, well outside of the normative use of 'knowledge'. By that standard, what can you really say you know?

I know that I exists.

Everything else is all brain in a jar territory really.

203 ElCapitanAmerica  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:07:05am

re: #200 ElCapitanAmerica

it's a word with about 5 words on average that is easy to guess.

a word with about 5 words == a word with about 5 characters (on average)

204 Alexzander  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:08:26am

re: #202 jamesfirecat

I know that I exists.

Everything else is all brain in a jar territory really.

Even in the I or Self is suspect according to some. On a psychological/cognitive science level of analysis, much of the self is significantly more fragmented than we suppose it to be. It is also highly socially dependent. Without the world, what is left of the self? Also see: Zen.

205 hugh59  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:10:08am

I wonder if yfrog will have the original upload of the photo in their servers. I wonder if that uploaded version has the metadata of the original photo from the person who uploaded it. It is easy enough to delete the metadata, bit if it is still there it could be enlightning.

206 abolitionist  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:10:12am

re: #187 Buck

Yes. If ANY ONE OF US has no knowledge of a shot of his excited crotch ever being taken, then we should have no problem saying that it isn't us.
[snip]

I'll say it. It isn't us. Probably isn't one of us either. But I don't know that, and I have no problem saying that I don't know.

207 makeitstop  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:10:15am

re: #197 hugh59

If NYC wants Weiner, they are welcome to him. He would be free to bash Republicans all he wants as NYC mayor (not that he holds himself back at all right now).

And that is the reason why this stupid nontroversy is getting so much play. Weiner is not afraid to mock the stupid, and the stupid have taken umbrage.

Weiner flips the script. And Republicans - who have spent the past three years disrespecting the president, get all pissy when someone like Weiner calls them out for being the blinkered idiots they so obviously are.

Admit it, Hugh. This is more about Republicans catching feelings than it is about Weiner's package.

208 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:10:38am

re: #192 jamesfirecat

But what about unkown unkowns Buck?

You are funny, "unknown unknowns". What about alternate realities? What about an alternate universe?

I have no knowledge that there exists a shot of my crotch that has been taken.

At the same time I can't be 100% certain that such a shot didn't take place.

Someone might have snuck into my home while I was asleep.

Someone might have shocked a camera under the changing booth wall while I was pulling a shirt I was trying out up over my head.

Fine... you can believe that about yourself. I prefer to keep my feet on earth.


Can you say with 100% certainty that no one has ever taken a picture of your junk?
And if so how did you come to that certainty?

I can say that, I am certain. I am shocked that you seriously can't, because you feel the need to allow for the possibility that someone might have snuck into your bedroom while you slept and taken the picture without your knowledge.

I personally think that level of insecurity is sad. You might want to talk to someone about it.

209 garhighway  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:13:11am

re: #208 Buck

Y

I can say that, I am certain. I am shocked that you seriously can't, because you feel the need to allow for the possibility that someone might have snuck into your bedroom while you slept and taken the picture without your knowledge.

Buck, anyone who belongs to a gym or racquet or golf club or other fitness facility with a locker room has to face up to the possibility of a surreptitious photo.

Do you disagree?

210 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:14:56am

re: #209 garhighway

For a frat house. Or had roommates.

211 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:16:47am

re: #209 garhighway

Buck, anyone who belongs to a gym or racquet or golf club or other fitness facility with a locker room has to face up to the possibility of a surreptitious photo.

Do you disagree?

I have been very clear on this subject. NO, just because you have in a locker room you do NOT have to allow for the possibility that every crotch shot on the internet MIGHT be you.

It is perfectly reasonable to say, no. I have never had a picture like that taken of me, and I have never taken a picture like that of me.

212 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:17:31am

re: #211 Buck

But you could be wrong, right?

213 leftynyc  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:18:18am

re: #183 makeitstop

This New Yorker also believes he'd kick any republicans ass in a mayoral race. If we cared about the sex lives of our mayors, Rudy would have been ridden out of town on a rail for how he treated his wife.

214 ointmentfly  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:18:44am

Weiner screwed up. All he had to say was " I didn't take a picture of my junk and post it to my twitter acct." For some reason he left open the possibility that it was his junk.

215 garhighway  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:18:55am

re: #211 Buck

I have been very clear on this subject. NO, just because you have in a locker room you do NOT have to allow for the possibility that every crotch shot on the internet MIGHT be you.

It is perfectly reasonable to say, no. I have never had a picture like that taken of me, and I have never taken a picture like that of me.

Then you live in denial. You cannot possibly know whether a surreptitious photo of you has been taken, and a flat-out denial is disingenuous.

216 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:19:16am

re: #208 Buck

You are funny, "unknown unknowns". What about alternate realities? What about an alternate universe?

Fine... you can believe that about yourself. I prefer to keep my feet on earth.

I can say that, I am certain. I am shocked that you seriously can't, because you feel the need to allow for the possibility that someone might have snuck into your bedroom while you slept and taken the picture without your knowledge.

I personally think that level of insecurity is sad. You might want to talk to someone about it.

I don't think it is likely I don't even think it's especially plausible but it is possible.

The only way Weiner could say for certain that it wasn't his junk is if he never owned/never tried on a pair of underpants like that.

Weiner is simply hedging his bets that events that he doesn't know about could have taken place, and I think anyone who reads anything more into his statement is either acting foolish or deliberately trying to find ammo to attack him with.

217 leftynyc  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:20:44am

re: #189 Buck


Are you being deliberately obtuse? Unless you've never been in public in your underwear (gym, dressing room, locker room), you can't possibly say a picture like that has never been taken of you without your knowledge.

218 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:25:30am

re: #212 Obdicut

But you could be wrong, right?

No. I am as certain of this as I am about anything that I can be certain of.

What a huge waste of time for you to argue otherwise.

BY YOUR LOGIC Weiner should be answering "I don't believe it is me, is it you?" to every male reporter who has asked the question. Using your logic, no male reporter could say it wasn't them. AND if we are expected to take the photoshop possibility into mind, then no woman reporter would be able to say it wasn't them either.

What a world you live in.

219 M. Dubious  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:25:48am

re: #214 ointmentfly

Weiner screwed up. All he had to say was " I didn't take a picture of my junk and post it to my twitter acct." For some reason he left open the possibility that it was his junk.

I don't understand why this is getting downdinged. It seems like a pretty factual statement to me, though a congressman should probably not refer to his cock'n'balls as 'junk'...

220 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:27:25am

re: #218 Buck

No. I am as certain of this as I am about anything that I can be certain of.

What a huge waste of time for you to argue otherwise.

BY YOUR LOGIC Weiner should be answering "I don't believe it is me, is it you?" to every male reporter who has asked the question. Using your logic, no male reporter could say it wasn't them. AND if we are expected to take the photoshop possibility into mind, then no woman reporter would be able to say it wasn't them either.

What a world you live in.

Upding for the mental image even if you were being sarcastic.

221 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:28:44am

re: #219 harald

I don't understand why this is getting downdinged. It seems like a pretty factual statement to me, though a congressman should probably not refer to his cock'n'balls as 'junk'...

Its getting down dinged because it ignores the possibility that someone else might have taken a picture of his junk at some point without him knowing it.

Hence why he said that he can't be certain that it is not his junk in the picture.

A lot of people here at LGF seem to be ignoring that fact, hence the down dings.

222 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:29:09am

re: #218 Buck

No. I am as certain of this as I am about anything that I can be certain of.

Have you ever been in a gym in your underwear?

223 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:29:56am

re: #219 harald

I don't understand why this is getting downdinged. It seems like a pretty factual statement to me, though a congressman should probably not refer to his cock'n'balls as 'junk'...

He did say he didn't post the picture.

224 M. Dubious  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:32:42am

re: #221 jamesfirecat

Ok, but he (?) suggested Mr. Weiner say "I didn't take a picture of my junk", which would not rule out the possibility of someone else doing it, unless Weiner has already said so? I'll admit I'm not following this too closely.

225 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:34:18am

re: #224 harald

A) Why does it matter if he did take a picture of his junk?

B) What difference would saying that make?

226 M. Dubious  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:34:20am

re: #222 Obdicut

Have you ever been in a gym in your underwear?

Most of us wear gym pants or shorts in Europe.

227 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:34:50am

re: #226 harald

Most of us wear gym pants or shorts in Europe.

In the changing room?

228 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:34:59am

re: #222 Obdicut

Have you ever been in a gym in your underwear?

I repeat: BY YOUR LOGIC Weiner should be answering "I don't believe it is me, is it you?" to every male reporter who has asked the question. Using your logic, no male reporter could say it wasn't them. AND if we are expected to take the photoshop possibility into mind, then no woman reporter would be able to say it wasn't them either.

To think that just because I have dressed in a locker room means that I should allow for the possibility that there is a picture of me undressed on the internet makes as much sense as any Birther, or Truther I have ever met.

229 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:35:33am

re: #224 harald

Ok, but he (?) suggested Mr. Weiner say "I didn't take a picture of my junk", which would not rule out the possibility of someone else doing it, unless Weiner has already said so? I'll admit I'm not following this too closely.

Okay you're right there would have been nothing wrong with his first sentence.

"Weiner screwed up. All he had to say was " I didn't take a picture of my junk and post it to my twitter acct."

But then he adds

"For some reason he left open the possibility that it was his junk."

Ignoring the obvious fact that the reason Weiner had to leave at least some possibility that it was his junk out there is because given Murphy's law + the natural perversity of human beings + how powerful our technology is, there's no way he can be 100% certain that it isn't his junk, which should be obvious if you think things through.

230 M. Dubious  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:36:12am

re: #227 Obdicut

In the changing room?

It was a joke. Not a very funny one, but still a joke.

231 Four More Tears  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:36:13am

re: #228 Buck


To think that just because I have dressed in a locker room means that I should allow for the possibility that there is a picture of me undressed on the internet makes as much sense as any Birther, or Truther I have ever met.

Your ignorance of what gets posted on the net is blinding.

232 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:36:32am

re: #228 Buck

No, by my logic he could ask that. Not he should ask that.


To think that just because I have dressed in a locker room means that I should allow for the possibility that there is a picture of me undressed on the internet makes as much sense as any Birther, or Truther I have ever met.

Really?

Someone takes out their cellphone in the lockerroom and snaps a picture while pretending to check his email.

That's all it would take.

And you're comparing that to 9/11 trutherism?

Pathetic.

233 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:37:59am

re: #228 Buck

I repeat: BY YOUR LOGIC Weiner should be answering "I don't believe it is me, is it you?" to every male reporter who has asked the question. Using your logic, no male reporter could say it wasn't them. AND if we are expected to take the photoshop possibility into mind, then no woman reporter would be able to say it wasn't them either.

To think that just because I have dressed in a locker room means that I should allow for the possibility that there is a picture of me undressed on the internet makes as much sense as any Birther, or Truther I have ever met.

Admitting to the existence of unlikely (sometimes VASTLY UNLIKELY) events does not mean you have to put them forward as the truth the way that the Birthers or Truthers do.

234 garhighway  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:38:19am

re: #228 Buck

There is none so blind...

235 garhighway  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:38:53am

re: #233 jamesfirecat

Admitting to the existence of unlikely (sometimes VASTLY UNLIKELY) events does not mean you have to put them forward as the truth the way that the Birthers or Truthers do.

It does in Buckland.

236 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:39:07am

re: #232 Obdicut

Someone takes out their cellphone in the lockerroom and snaps a picture while pretending to check his email.

You left out "facing you while you are standing in your underwear".

Ya, I can say that has NEVER happened to me. For sure.

237 abolitionist  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:39:18am

re: #221 jamesfirecat

If I may paraphrase,

... because it ignores the possibility that someone else might have taken a picture of his someone's junk at some point without him knowing it.

Except for the tech, privacy and security aspects, it's hard to believe this is a news story.

238 M. Dubious  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:40:26am

re: #225 Obdicut

A) Why does it matter if he did take a picture of his junk?

B) What difference would saying that make?


a) Well, yes? That would imply that someone stole his personal, juicy pics and screwed with his Yfrog/Twitter thingy to make him look bad, which would make matters worse, no?

b) See a)

Are you satisfied with my attempt to reply, sir? :)

239 Four More Tears  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:41:12am

re: #236 Buck

You left out "facing you while you are standing in your underwear".

Ya, I can say that has NEVER happened to me. For sure.

Uh huh. So how can you say that for Weiner? He doesn't know. Other people have had other experiences than you, you know.

240 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:41:19am

re: #233 jamesfirecat

Admitting to the existence of unlikely (sometimes VASTLY UNLIKELY) events does not mean you have to put them forward as the truth the way that the Birthers or Truthers do.

Except that they also only put it out as a possibility. Did you see loose screws? It is all about... hey this is possible..

241 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:41:20am

re: #236 Buck

You left out "facing you while you are standing in your underwear".

Ya, I can say that has NEVER happened to me. For sure.

Really? No guy has ever taken out his cell phone while in the locker room with you?

Do you just never use public gyms?

242 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:42:09am

re: #238 harald

a) Well, yes? That would imply that someone stole his personal, juicy pics and screwed with his Yfrog/Twitter thingy to make him look bad, which would make matters worse, no?

I don't see whether it matters so much if someone stole them or manufactured them. It's not like it's very revealing.

243 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:43:23am

re: #240 Buck

Except that they also only put it out as a possibility. Did you see loose screws? It is all about... hey this is possible..

Well, I won't fault Weiner for covering his bases.

If you want to go ahead.

244 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:43:37am

re: #239 JasonA

Uh huh. So how can you say that for Weiner? He doesn't know. Other people have had other experiences than you, you know.

Right... and excuse me if I don't repeat everything I said in the thread in every post. James and Obdicut asked precisely about me and were making it seem like I couldn't know this about me.

You came along while I was (due to their insistence) talking about me.

245 Alexzander  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:45:36am

Clandestine Crotch Shot's new album is amaaazing!

246 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:46:25am

re: #241 Obdicut

Really? No guy has ever taken out his cell phone while in the locker room with you?

Do you just never use public gyms?

Not much lately, but in the gyms I go to, the rules are "no cellphones". I guess because of perverts that you imagine are snapping pictures in locker rooms.

AND no one would aim a cell phone at me while I stand in my gitch without me noticing. I am just aware of shit like that I guess.

247 ointmentfly  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:49:25am

re: #229 jamesfirecat

Why did he have to leave open the possibility that it was his junk? IF somebody took a shot in the gym lockerroom he wouldn't know that it existed. All i am saying is that he screwed up with the non denial statement. Others might say that he might be afraid that the pic can be traced back to him...

248 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:52:52am

re: #243 jamesfirecat

Well, I won't fault Weiner for covering his bases.

If you want to go ahead.

OK, straight up... If before any of this happened, some stranger walked up to you and showed you the picture we are talking about, and asked if it was of you....

Seriously.... what would you say?

249 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:54:38am

re: #246 Buck

Not much lately, but in the gyms I go to, the rules are "no cellphones". I guess because of perverts that you imagine are snapping pictures in locker rooms.

Well, that's the first i ever heard of a gym with a no cellphone rule. Care to name the gym?

AND no one would aim a cell phone at me while I stand in my gitch without me noticing. I am just aware of shit like that I guess.

Most cameras on cell phones are just on the face of the phone. You can accidentally take pictures rather easily. There's no way of knowing if the person with the phone facing you is taking pictures or not.

250 M. Dubious  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:55:39am

I'm waiting this one out. He may have been screwed over, the possibility is certanly well-documented here at LGF, or he may have screwed up on his own, which would not be the first time in history. Time will tell.

251 M. Dubious  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:56:20am

re: #248 Buck

OK, straight up... If before any of this happened, some stranger walked up to you and showed you the picture we are talking about, and asked if it was of you...

Seriously... what would you say?

Depends. If the cock was huge, I'd own it.

252 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:56:47am

re: #247 ointmentfly

Why did he have to leave open the possibility that it was his junk? IF somebody took a shot in the gym lockerroom he wouldn't know that it existed. All i am saying is that he screwed up with the non denial statement. Others might say that he might be afraid that the pic can be traced back to him...

You're assume he knew that the shot had been taken of him. How can you be sure he would know though?

It's unrealistic to expect someone to be aware of everything going on around them at all times.

It's vastly unlikely but it could happen....

I see it as Weiner simply covering his all his bases and if you want to be surprised at a politician doing that then go right ahead.

If he'd closed the door on it being his junk and him posting it at the same time, then if by some small percentage chance it did turn out to be his junk than instantly it would call into question if he did post it after all.

This regardless of whose junk it is he can focus on the issue of how he didn't post it.

253 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 10:59:18am

re: #248 Buck

OK, straight up... If before any of this happened, some stranger walked up to you and showed you the picture we are talking about, and asked if it was of you...

Seriously... what would you say?

Yeah I'd say "no" or some variation of it.

But I'm not a politician and in your situation I'm being asked by some random person I've never met before not a news reporter with a camera trained on me.

If you introduced some penalties (like if he could prove what I said wrong I'd have to give him $1000 dollars) I'd be covering all my bases like crazy also.

254 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 11:07:49am

re: #249 Obdicut

Well, that's the first i ever heard of a gym with a no cellphone rule. Care to name the gym?

Most cameras on cell phones are just on the face of the phone. You can accidentally take pictures rather easily. There's no way of knowing if the person with the phone facing you is taking pictures or not.

Well, a quick search of "cell phones in locker rooms" shows than many facilities have banned them.

And I repeat, if someone is facing me, and pointing the cell phone at me (ie not talking with it on the side of the head), I would notice it. I am absolutely sure of it.

255 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 11:10:07am

re: #254 Buck

Well, a quick search of "cell phones in locker rooms" shows than many facilities have banned them.

Gee, and why did they do that, Buck? Maybe to stop people taking pictures-- like this one?

Thanks for admitting that it's a possiblity. Baby steps.

And I repeat, if someone is facing me, and pointing the cell phone at me (ie not talking with it on the side of the head), I would notice it. I am absolutely sure of it.

You mean, like the usual way people use blackberries and Iphones?

Image: iphone_sxsw.jpg

You'd notice that?

You must notice that a lot.

256 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 11:12:21am

re: #251 harald

Depends. If the cock was huge, I'd own it.

If your last name was Weiner, and people had been making fun of that for your whole life, I bet you wouldn't.

However, without a joke.... based on the picture we are talking about, what would you say?

I am just trying to point out that you would probably NOT allow for the possibility that (as has been put forward) that someone MIGHT have snuck into your bedroom while you slept, or taken it in a locker room. You would know if there were pictures of you in your underwear on the net.

257 M. Dubious  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 11:16:17am

re: #256 Buck

I would deny it until I was blue in the face and then some.

258 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 11:16:35am

re: #255 Obdicut

Gee, and why did they do that, Buck? Maybe to stop people taking pictures-- like this one?

Thanks for admitting that it's a possiblity. Baby steps.

You are twisted... I say that the locker room where I go dfoes not allow cell phones, and you say that you have never heard of that. I point out with a simple search that is is more common than that, and you make it sound like you showed me something.

You mean, like the usual way people use blackberries and Iphones?
You must notice that a lot.

Ya, I would certainly notice that, but in the picture you link to, he would be taking a picture of his feet. Find me a picture of someone using a cell phone while facing the camera and aiming it at crotch level. I think you would notice it.

259 DeepBlue  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 11:18:37am

Ok, for those still interested in believing that this is a true honest-to-god potential scandal.

Can I ask why you are focusing so much attention on it as compared to let's say any of the hundreds of thousands of more important issues (Nuclear Power, Climate Change, Erosion of Women's rights, Immigration issues, Healthcare, Peace, War, etc.)
& even other proximal activities that are bigger & verified ...
e.g.
Former-Governor Schwarzenegger's affair with a former employee?
Breaking up a marriage
Denying his 'grope-ing' ways during the campaign

It's clearly obvious that you're a just a partisan hack. Just stop typing & instead state 'I believe that whatever is bad for Democrats is good for me.' Then we don't have to read your contrived text.

Me, I'm interested in what happened but willing to let time move forward to reveal this.

260 M. Dubious  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 11:20:28am

re: #258 Buck

Find me a picture of someone using a cell phone while facing the camera and aiming it at crotch level. I think you would notice it.

There are a hundred thousand websites devoted to this concept, though you very rarely find upskirts of guys.

261 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 11:21:18am

re: #258 Buck

You are twisted... I say that the locker room where I go dfoes not allow cell phones, and you say that you have never heard of that. I point out with a simple search that is is more common than that, and you make it sound like you showed me something.

You showed yourself something, dude. If they're banning them to stop people taking pictures, then it's kind of obvious that it does, in fact, occur, and it's not something that you pathetically and tastelessly said was akin to 9/11 birtherism.


Ya, I would certainly notice that, but in the picture you link to, he would be taking a picture of his feet. Find me a picture of someone using a cell phone while facing the camera and aiming it at crotch level. I think you would notice it.

I just did. The above picture is aiming at crotch level.

262 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 11:22:52am

Here are my final thoughts on the issue if anyone cares, if you want to debate me further do it at my new page...

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

263 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 11:25:29am

re: #261 Obdicut

You showed yourself something, dude. If they're banning them to stop people taking pictures, then it's kind of obvious that it does, in fact, occur, and it's not something that you pathetically and tastelessly said was akin to 9/11 birtherism.

AGAIN twisted. The truther/birther comment was about giving way too much allowance for the small possibility.


I just did. The above picture is aiming at crotch level.

Only if the person it was aimed at was laying on the ground.

264 M. Dubious  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 11:28:31am

re: #255 Obdicut

Allow me to butt in for a sec. You are trying to make Buck admit that there is a possibility he was photographed in a locker room or something of that sort, which of course is a possibility, and Buck might as well admit that right away, even though he considers it to be unlikely.

But, if we look at it from a different angle: Would you say that it is impossible that the congressman simply screwed up and made public something that was intended to be private?

265 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 11:30:32am

re: #263 Buck

AGAIN twisted. The truther/birther comment was about giving way too much allowance for the small possibility.

Wait, you think there's a small possibility that 9/11 trutherism is real? That Islamic Fundamentalists weren't really the ones that attacked the US, or that the government was somehow in on it?


Only if the person it was aimed at was laying on the ground.

Heh. You're literally trying to say non one could possibly hold a phone at an angle to take a picture. So weird.

Image: 03att02-650.jpg

The actual picture, by the way, wans't taken in a gym. There's a hardwood floor and a piece of furniture.

266 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 11:31:04am

re: #260 harald

There are a hundred thousand websites devoted to this concept, though you very rarely find upskirts of guys.

I doubt very much that there are "a hundred thousand" websites of pictures of guys in their underwear taken without their knowledge in locker rooms with cell phones.

I doubt that there is even one.

267 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 11:31:15am

re: #264 harald

Nope. It's not implausible. But that wouldn't explain the full story-- how the wierdo creepy stalker dude predicted a sex scandal would occur, before the picture appeared.

268 DeepBlue  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 11:32:28am

re: #264 harald
Not particularly a high standard of discourse to have debates about whether things are impossible or not. I used have these conversations w/ my now 8-year-old but don't any longer.

Let's instead discuss which super-heroes could beat each other.

269 Decatur Deb  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 11:33:50am

re: #64 Charles

I got more than a dozen hate mails overnight, all like this one:

Right wingers are so cute when they're apoplectic with rage.

Pretty good H/M, but I want misspellings and froth-garbled syntax before I go for the tip jar.

270 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 11:34:20am

re: #267 Obdicut

Nope. It's not implausible. But that wouldn't explain the full story-- how the wierdo creepy stalker dude predicted a sex scandal would occur, before the picture appeared.


To be 100% it could be a broken clocks are right twice a day thing. Creepy stalker dude constantly predicts scandal sooner or later this is a scandal.

271 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 11:35:52am

re: #265 Obdicut

Wait, you think there's a small possibility that 9/11 trutherism is real? That Islamic Fundamentalists weren't really the ones that attacked the US, or that the government was somehow in on it?

EVEN MORE TWISTED. I think that this argument of "a remote possibility" no matter how remote IS exactly how bitherism and trutherism works. For you to infer, or even question my belief is low even for you.


Heh. You're literally trying to say non one could possibly hold a phone at an angle to take a picture. So weird.

The actual picture, by the way, wans't taken in a gym. There's a hardwood floor and a piece of furniture.

Your link doesn't work for me.

272 M. Dubious  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 11:37:07am

re: #266 Buck

I doubt very much that there are "a hundred thousand" websites of pictures of guys in their underwear taken without their knowledge in locker rooms with cell phones.

I doubt that there is even one.

That, sir, I agree with. The reason I agree is that your statement is a paraphrase of what I wrote above.

My point was that shooting pictures in the locker room is a fairly common thing, but that it is usually women who are victims of "upskirts" or hidden cams or cell phone photography.

So yes, it happens, and you should just be glad nobody has documented your cock for all the women of the internet to enjoy.

273 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 11:38:04am

re: #265 Obdicut

Heh. You're literally trying to say non one could possibly hold a phone at an angle to take a picture. So weird.

Yes, I am literally saying that no one could possibly face me with a camera phone in their hand aimed at my crotch while I am standing there and I would not notice.

I think it is weird that you wouldn't notice it.

274 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 11:41:33am

re: #271 Buck

EVEN MORE TWISTED. I think that this argument of "a remote possibility" no matter how remote IS exactly how bitherism and trutherism works. For you to infer, or even question my belief is low even for you.

No, birthers and truthers actually believe that "the government behind it" or "Obama isn't really from Hawaii" is the most likely explanation. They don't think it's a remote possibility. They think it's the truth.

You're comparing the idea that someone might have taken a picture of Weiner-- a frat brother, an ex-girlfriend-- or that he might have and kept it private-- on a computer that someone else got ahold of-- and then uploaded it to embarass him, a one-stop operation that has a lot of obvious paths, to a complete collusion and coverup by the US government involving the death of more than three thousand people.

That's the twisted part.


Your link doesn't work for me.

It's a picture of someone holding an iphone at angle so that, if you were a few feet away, or sitting down on the bench at a changing room, it'd be aimed at crotch.

I know this cannot be true, for some reason that you know.

[Link: buddytanjaya.blogspot.com...]

It's literally impossible to hold the phone at that angle. And if you did around you, Buck, you would automatically notice.

It's not even relevant anymore, but it's really funny that you're literally insisting that nobody ever checks their email by holding their phone at those angles.

275 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 11:42:19am

re: #272 harald

That, sir, I agree with. The reason I agree is that your statement is a paraphrase of what I wrote above.

My point was that shooting pictures in the locker room is a fairly common thing, but that it is usually women who are victims of "upskirts" or hidden cams or cell phone photography.

So yes, it happens, and you should just be glad nobody has documented your cock for all the women of the internet to enjoy.

Let's try and stay on topic here. Shooting cell phone pictures in the locker room of unaware men in their underwear is NOT a fairly common thing.

276 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 11:42:30am

re: #273 Buck

I'm sorry, but if someone is holding their phone and it's pointed in my direction, I don't leap to the conclusion that they're taking pictures of my crotch.

How paranoid are you?

277 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 11:42:47am

re: #275 Buck

Let's try and stay on topic here. Shooting cell phone pictures in the locker room of unaware men in their underwear is NOT a fairly common thing.

Then why are they banning them from locker rooms?

278 M. Dubious  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 11:46:36am

re: #277 Obdicut

Then why are they banning them from locker rooms?

1. Radiation
2. Annoying ring tones
3. Loud conversations
4. Jealousy
5. They don't work in the shower

279 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 11:54:42am

re: #278 harald

Seems this bill prohibiting is specifically to stop people from taking pictures.

But that can't happen, and you would always notice, so I don't know why they bothered.

[Link: badgerherald.com...]

280 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 11:57:28am

re: #274 Obdicut

No, birthers and truthers actually believe that "the government behind it" or "Obama isn't really from Hawaii" is the most likely explanation. They don't think it's a remote possibility. They think it's the truth.

Well, we don't know what they think, BUT we do know, if we watch "loose change" that it is shown to be possible (extremely remote) but possible. That is how they argue it. If you ever discussed it with one of them, they keep presenting the argument that it is possible.... And to me they sound just like you do on this topic.

You're comparing the idea that someone might have taken a picture of Weiner-- a frat brother, an ex-girlfriend-- or that he might have and kept it private-- on a computer that someone else got ahold of-- and then uploaded it to embarass him, a one-stop operation that has a lot of obvious paths, to a complete collusion and coverup by the US government involving the death of more than three thousand people.

No, I am comparing the twisted logic that YOU seem to be fine with with the twisted logic that they seem fine with.

Let me break it down for you...

"someone might have taken a picture of Weiner-- a frat brother, an ex-girlfriend-- or that he might have and kept it private-- on a computer that someone else got ahold of-- and then uploaded it to embarass him, a one-stop operation that has a lot of obvious paths"

Ya.... all that AND

without his knowledge

sounds to me to be JUST AS CRAZY as birthers and truthers do.

It's a picture of someone holding an iphone at angle so that, if you were a few feet away, or sitting down on the bench at a changing room, it'd be aimed at crotch.

Well, that person is not facing you, AND your crotch would have to be about 3 feet away from her.

BUT Yes, I would notice her in the locker room doing that.


It's not even relevant anymore, but it's really funny that you're literally insisting that nobody ever checks their email by holding their phone at those angles.

NOPE.... that is not what I am "literally insisting". To quote you... Why are your lying?

I am very clearly insisting that a man, facing me while I am undressed in the locker room, checking their email, and holding their phone aimed at my crotch would be obvious and noticeable to me.

281 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 11:58:49am

re: #276 Obdicut

I'm sorry, but if someone is holding their phone and it's pointed in my direction, I don't leap to the conclusion that they're taking pictures of my crotch.

While you are undressed in the locker room? Funny that you leave that part out...

282 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 12:01:28pm

re: #280 Buck

Well, we don't know what they think, BUT we do know, if we watch "loose change" that it is shown to be possible (extremely remote) but possible.

I'm sorry, Buck, but I don't think the 9/11 conspiracies are at all possible, and it's disappointing that you do.


sounds to me to be JUST AS CRAZY as birthers and truthers do.

But why?

In order for the 9/11 conspiracy to be true, there has to be massive collusion involving thousands of people.

For a frat brother to take a picture of another guy's crotch and upload it takes one person.


I am very clearly insisting that a man, facing me while I am undressed in the locker room, checking their email, and holding their phone aimed at my crotch would be obvious and noticeable to me.

Okay. I don't know why you're that deeply paranoid, but if it works for you, fine.

283 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 12:01:59pm

re: #281 Buck

While you are undressed in the locker room? Funny that you leave that part out...

Sorry. Let me say it again:


I'm sorry, but if someone is holding their phone and it's pointed in my direction while I'm undressed in a locker room, I don't leap to the conclusion that they're taking pictures of my crotch.

284 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 12:11:47pm

re: #283 Obdicut

Sorry. Let me say it again:

I'm sorry, but if someone is holding their phone and it's pointed in my direction while I'm undressed in a locker room, I don't leap to the conclusion that they're taking pictures of my crotch.

BUT in fact you are arguing that you DO allow for the possibility that THEY ARE taking a picture of your crotch AND that your logic dictates that it means that ANY pictures on the net of a close up crotch could be of you. In fact that you will not deny any picture close cropped of anything in a mans underwear is not possibly you.

Because you think that if you have ever been in a locker room, in your underwear the possibility that someone took your picture is.... possible.

And maybe you don't see the crazy.... but I do.

285 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 12:14:33pm

re: #279 Obdicut

Seems this bill prohibiting is specifically to stop people from taking pictures.

But that can't happen, and you would always notice, so I don't know why they bothered.

[Link: badgerherald.com...]

To protect children?

286 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 12:15:21pm

re: #284 Buck

BUT in fact you are arguing that you DO allow for the possibility that THEY ARE taking a picture of your crotch AND that your logic dictates that it means that ANY pictures on the net of a close up crotch could be of you.

Well, yes. I'm just not going to be paranoid and worried about it, because so what if they are?


Because you think that if you have ever been in a locker room, in your underwear the possibility that someone took your picture is... possible.

Yes. It's possible. That's why there is a bill against it, as I cited above, and it's probably why some gyms are banning cell phones.

That you think it isn't possible is kind of funny.


And maybe you don't see the crazy... but I do.


Speaking of the crazy: What about the 9/11 conspiracy theory do you find possible, Buck? Just the whole thing-- that it's possible that several thousand people conspired in an attack on the American public and kept it silent ever since?

287 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 12:15:37pm

re: #285 Buck

To protect children?

Protect them from what, Buck? You're arguing it's not possible for a picture like that to be taken.

288 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 12:20:32pm

re: #287 Obdicut

Protect them from what, Buck? You're arguing it's not possible for a picture like that to be taken.

Again, you purposely twist what I say. You know better. I never said that it is not possible for a picture like that to be taken.

I am very clearly insisting that a man, facing me while I am undressed in the locker room, checking their email, and holding their phone aimed at my crotch would be obvious and noticeable to me.

However, children might not be as aware as I am. I also would support the bill to protect you. As it seem you also need protection.

289 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 12:22:43pm

re: #288 Buck

Again, you purposely twist what I say. You know better. I never said that it is not possible for a picture like that to be taken.

Here's what you said:


Because you think that if you have ever been in a locker room, in your underwear the possibility that someone took your picture is... possible.

And maybe you don't see the crazy... but I do.

You think it's crazy that I think it's a possibilty.


I am very clearly insisting that a man, facing me while I am undressed in the locker room, checking their email, and holding their phone aimed at my crotch would be obvious and noticeable to me.

I know you are. I'm not sure why you're convinced everyone else is as paranoid as you.

So, say that happened, Buck. A guy had his phone out, while you were in your underwear.

What would you do, exactly?

290 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 12:23:58pm

re: #286 Obdicut


Speaking of the crazy: What about the 9/11 conspiracy theory do you find possible, Buck? Just the whole thing-- that it's possible that several thousand people conspired in an attack on the American public and kept it silent ever since?

AGAIN YOU LIE! When did I ever say that? NEVER.... that's when.

This is how you debate. It has been noted by many. You are trying to take this way off course with your inane and twisted questions.

291 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 12:25:08pm

re: #290 Buck

AGAIN YOU LIE! When did I ever say that? NEVER... that's when.

Here's what you said:

Well, we don't know what they think, BUT we do know, if we watch "loose change" that it is shown to be possible (extremely remote) but possible.

You said that it's shown to be possible, in that sentence.

How did I lie?

292 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 12:30:11pm

re: #289 Obdicut

Here's what you said:

BUT in fact you are arguing that you DO allow for the possibility that THEY ARE taking a picture of your crotch AND that your logic dictates that it means that ANY pictures on the net of a close up crotch could be of you. In fact that you will not deny any picture close cropped of anything in a mans underwear is not possibly you.

Because you think that if you have ever been in a locker room, in your underwear the possibility that someone took your picture is... possible.


You think it's crazy that I think it's a possibilty.

I think it is crazy to think that ANY pictures on the net of a close up crotch could be of you. Yes.

So, say that happened, Buck. A guy had his phone out, while you were in your underwear.

What would you do, exactly?

I would challenge them. Just as I would if they were hold a camera.

You would ignore them, obviously.... I just don't think that would be a good idea. He could be a pervert taking pictures of naked children. I don't think I could ignore that possibility.

293 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 12:31:57pm

re: #291 Obdicut

Here's what you said:

You said that it's shown to be possible, in that sentence.

How did I lie?

I didn't say that I thought it was possible. AND I made that clear when you first accused me of that. I specifically said that "loose change" made that argument. You knew that when you did this a second time.

That is how you lied.

294 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 12:32:15pm

re: #292 Buck

I think it is crazy to think that ANY pictures on the net of a close up crotch could be of you. Yes.

But that's not what you said, Buck. You said this:


Because you think that if you have ever been in a locker room, in your underwear the possibility that someone took your picture is... possible.

You didn't say anything about putting it on the net, did you?


I would challenge them. Just as I would if they were hold a camera.

Oh my god, really? So I'm in the locker room, I get my phone out to check my mail, and all of a sudden you're 'challenging me'? What would this challenge consist of?


You would ignore them, obviously... I just don't think that would be a good idea. He could be a pervert taking pictures of naked children. I don't think I could ignore that possibility.

Hee hee. Cell phone users in gyms, beware. Buck is going to 'challenge' you. For the children.

Oh god you're funny sometimes.

295 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 12:35:17pm

re: #293 Buck

No, you didn't. That may be what you have meant to do, but you said this:

Well, we don't know what they think, BUT we do know, if we watch "loose change" that it is shown to be possible (extremely remote) but possible.

If you'd like to amend your claim to that that the truthers are only saying that it's a remote possibility that there was a conspiracy, feel free, but that's not actually true. Loose Change doesn't argue that there's a possibility, it argues flat out that 9/11 was a conspiracy, that what hit the Pentagon was a missile. It doesn't at all posit it as a remote possibility.

Please stop trying to blame me for your terrible writing, Buck. I'm not psychic, I can't tell what you're really trying to say when you say that Loose change showed us that it was possible that 9/11 was a conspiracy.

296 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 12:36:21pm

re: #294 Obdicut

You didn't say anything about putting it on the net, did you?

Bad news.... that is the topic. You can try and move away, but that is exactly what we are discussing. Yes.... putting it on the net is exactly what we are talking about.

AND I DID SAY " that it means that ANY pictures on the net of a close up crotch could be of you".

Oh my god, really? So I'm in the locker room, I get my phone out to check my mail, and all of a sudden you're 'challenging me'? What would this challenge consist of?

"Put away that camera, pervert, or I am calling security".

Yep.

297 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 12:39:03pm

re: #296 Buck

"Put away that camera, pervert, or I am calling security".

And the fact that I'm just checking my email, and say so... what will you do then?

Just keep ranting about me being a pervert?


AND I DID SAY " that it means that ANY pictures on the net of a close up crotch could be of you".

You said that after, Buck.

Maybe the problem is just how terribly you express yourself. You may not be as much of a liar as I think you are, you may just be an absolutely horrendously bad writer.

For example, when you said what you did about loose change showing that it was a possibility that 9/11 was a conspiracy, did you actually mean they alleged that, not that they showed it?

298 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 12:44:11pm

re: #295 Obdicut

No, you didn't. That may be what you have meant to do, but you said this:


Well, we don't know what they think, BUT we do know, if we watch "loose change" that it is shown to be possible (extremely remote) but possible.



Maybe you need to watch it again. They don't insist. They question the official explanation. Question question... but it is possible that.... they say. Why is there no plane parts on visible? Why isn't the hole bigger? Why did this guy say this, or not say that?

However my sentence is fine. Who is trying to show it is a possibility? "loose change" is trying to show it. I was clear about that twice, and YOU trying to infer otherwise is sick and low. I am a victim of al qaeda hijacking. Don't you know that? For you to infer that I am a truther is sick and disgusting, even for you.
a

299 garhighway  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 12:45:51pm

re: #275 Buck

Let's try and stay on topic here. Shooting cell phone pictures in the locker room of unaware men in their underwear is NOT a fairly common thing.

How would you know? You have literally never seen it happen. You think that it is literally impossible for it to have happened in your presence, ever. You are therefore not much of an expert on how common this is when you aren't around.

300 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 12:47:54pm

re: #298 Buck

Maybe you need to watch it again. They don't insist. They question the official explanation. Question question... but it is possible that... they say. Why is there no plane parts on visible? Why isn't the hole bigger? Why did this guy say this, or not say that?

I've watched it. They make it very clear that they think it's not possible that a plane hit the Pentagon.

It's not presented as a possibility that a plane really did.

However my sentence is fine. Who is trying to show it is a possibility? "loose change" is trying to show it. I was clear about that twice

No, you weren't. You stated that they showed it was a possibility, albeit a remote one. I fully accept that this is not what you meant to say, but man up and take some responsibility for your incoherence, dude.

I am a victim of al qaeda hijacking. Don't you know that? For you to infer that I am a truther is sick and disgusting, even for you.

I don't think you're a truther, Buck, and I'm glad you clarified that you only misspoke when you said that loose change showed that it was possible that 9/11 was a conspiracy.

However, I'd still like you to realize that when you say that the theory that "Some frat brother of Weiner's could have taken a pic and uploaded it to embarass him" is just as crazy as 9/11 trutherism, you're still doing a grave disservice to 9/11 trutherism.

Basically, don't bring up 9/11 when you don't have to. It's wildly tasteless.

301 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 12:48:06pm

re: #299 garhighway

How would you know? You have literally never seen it happen. You think that it is literally impossible for it to have happened in your presence, ever. You are therefore not much of an expert on how common this is when you aren't around.

Heh. Good point. How would you know that you'd know?

302 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 12:49:30pm

re: #298 Buck

How are you a victim of an Al Queda hijacking, by the way?

303 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 12:54:49pm

re: #297 Obdicut

For example, when you said what you did about loose change showing that it was a possibility that 9/11 was a conspiracy, did you actually mean they alleged that, not that they showed it?

Loose change, by making shit up, and leaving stuff out shows that it is possible. That is the whole idea of the video, to show it is possible. No where do I say that I believe it is possible. You repeated twice that I did.

I didn't "misspoke", and you insisting over and over that I did does not make it true.

You, like you always do, lied. You didn't even misunderstand what I wrote. You picked a nit and tried to paraphrase by bolding parts to make it seem like I said something I didn't.

Pick any moon bat conspiracy. The assassination of JFK, the death of Marilyn Monroe, the Moon Landing.... 9/11 truthers and Birthers...

They all traffic is the extremely remote possibility.

304 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 12:57:13pm

re: #303 Buck

Loose change, by making shit up, and leaving stuff out shows that it is possible.


But they don't, Buck. They try to show that it's possible, but they fail to do so.

305 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 12:58:08pm

re: #302 Obdicut

How are you a victim of an Al Queda hijacking, by the way?

My mother was the lone Canadian on Indian Airlines Flight 814.

When the USA and allied forces took Kandahar years later, the locals showed them an al-qeada safe house that had hers and other passengers belongings. Also found in the house was clear evidence that the hijackers were al-qeada.

306 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 1:02:33pm

re: #304 Obdicut

But they don't, Buck. They try to show that it's possible, but they fail to do so.

Of course for you and I they fail. BUT for a lot of people... huge amount of (delusional, pitiful, naive) people, it is definitive evidence.

Now you can try and say that I just said that it is definitive evidence. I didn't, but this is what you did earlier...

307 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 1:05:51pm

re: #306 Buck

Now you can try and say that I just said that it is definitive evidence. I didn't, but this is what you did earlier...

No, it's not, Buck. If before you had written:

Of course for you and I they fail. BUT for a lot of people... huge amount of (delusional, pitiful, naive) people, it is definitive evidence.

I'd have agreed. That is, in fact, what I was saying.

Take some personal responsibility, dude. In your urge to smear me as as crazy as a 9/11 truther, you wrote some incoherent and stupid stuff. I accept you didn't mean it. But you still did say that loose change showed that it was possible. You didn't say-- that first time-- that loose change showed by lying and leaving stuff out that it was possible. You didn't say that they alleged it was possible. You just said that it showed that it was possible.

Don't be upset with me for taking what you say at face value. Be upset with yourself.

And again:


However, I'd still like you to realize that when you say that the theory that "Some frat brother of Weiner's could have taken a pic and uploaded it to embarass him" is just as crazy as 9/11 trutherism, you're still doing a grave disservice to 9/11 trutherism.

Basically, don't bring up 9/11 when you don't have to. It's wildly tasteless.

308 Claire  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 1:21:49pm

So...... it's not hacking, per se, it's pranking. It could be like hacking, but it's so easy to do that it's like the difference between stealing a necklace from Tiffanys and swiping 2 newspapers from a machine and only paying a quarter.

So is it then a crime? Why is the FBI getting involved?

I agree that it's incredibly lame on yfrogs part. I wouldn't want to have anything to do with them.

It's possible that the fine line between hack and prank is indeed too technical because for a non-expert (like me) they sound about the same. Both are access to somebody else's "property" without permission.

309 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 1:22:04pm

re: #307 Obdicut


Take some personal responsibility, dude. In your urge to smear me as as crazy as a 9/11 truther, you wrote some incoherent and stupid stuff.

I said your arguments were like truthers and bithers.

I still believe that.

It was you who tried to paint me as a truther.


I accept you didn't mean it.

Oh thank you.... Again twisted beyond belief.


But you still did say that loose change showed that it was possible.

What I really said was:

"It (referring to loose change) is all about... hey this is possible.."

That was the first time.

The second time I said:

"if we watch "loose change" that it is shown to be possible (extremely remote) but possible. That is how they argue it. If you ever discussed it with one of them, they keep presenting the argument that it is possible... And to me they sound just like you do on this topic."

extremely remote is how loose change shows it.

If you leave out the extremely remote, or that I was referring to loose change, then yes you could think that I thought it was possible. But leaving that stuff out would be.... well leaving the important stuff out.

So when YOU SAID "I don't think the 9/11 conspiracies are at all possible, and it's disappointing that you do." You were being a asshole of the extreme kind.

Especially since you continue even after I make clear that:
"I am comparing the twisted logic that YOU seem to be fine with with the twisted logic that they seem fine with."


Basically, don't bring up 9/11 when you don't have to. It's wildly tasteless.

I brought up wild conspiracy theories. Nothing to with frat boys. Rather that I would have to allow for the possibility that there is a crotch shot of me on the net somewhere, only because I have changed in a locker room.

Yes, that is as crazy as any idiotic conspiracy theory.

310 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 1:34:34pm

re: #309 Buck

I said your arguments were like truthers and bithers.

I still believe that.

Yes, I know. And that's amazingly tasteless.

You're calling the idea that someone might snap a picture of someone in a locker room and then upload it to embarass them as equivalent in plausibility to the idea that the US government might collude with thousands of conspirators to kill thousands of Americans.

It's really, really strange of you to do.


Rather that I would have to allow for the possibility that there is a crotch shot of me on the net somewhere, only because I have changed in a locker room.

Yes, that is as crazy as any idiotic conspiracy theory.

Right, because if someone were to check their email in the gym locker room, you would have accused them of being a pervert.

I accept that you're paranoid enough that no picture of your crotch probably exists, since you are so darn vigilant about it.

Myself, I don't really monitor other people's cell phone use in the locker room, nor is my first assumption that they're a pervert. So it is possible that someone took a picture of my nethers and uploaded it to the web.

And that is also true of anyone who doesn't have your same rabid reaction to cameras in the locker room.

What would you do if the guy you had just accused of being a pervert told you he was checking his email?

311 Claire  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 1:41:12pm

re: #310 Obdicut

Are said nethers usually sporting a big ole' woody, though, after racquetball? That might attract some attention...

Wait......I don't want to know, lol.

312 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 1:43:05pm

re: #311 Claire

Heh. I haven't done any sort of scientific analysis on the picture, but it really doesn't look erect to me.

Anway, as I said a thousand posts or so ago, the actual picture in question isn't taken in a gym. At this point, I just find it hilarious that if someone checked their email in the changing room with Buck and had the phone pointed in his direction he'd call them a pervert. You can't make shit like that up.

313 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 1:52:01pm

re: #310 Obdicut

What would you do if the guy you had just accused of being a pervert told you he was checking his email?

Checking his email was not one of the choices.

"Put away that camera, pervert, or I am calling security".

If security has no problem with the guy using a camera in the locker room, I would simply stop going there, and make sure that everyone I knew, loved and cared about knew that they didn't mind.

The fact that children can be in various states of undress, and you don't think it is a big deal that some adult is holding a camera is disturbing. Not hilarious.

You are the one arguing both sides....

"Someone takes out their cellphone in the lockerroom and snaps a picture while pretending to check his email."

and

"I'm sorry, but if someone is holding their phone and it's pointed in my direction, I don't leap to the conclusion that they're taking pictures of my crotch."

You are both saying it is a risk, and that it is not.

Frankly you are getting more and more weird about this. Almost like you are defending the use of a camera phone in a locker room where there might be children in various states of undress. Is that intentional?

314 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 1:59:33pm

re: #313 Buck

Checking his email was not one of the choices.

I have no clue what you're talking about. Checking email could be what he is actually doing.

If security has no problem with the guy using a camera in the locker room, I would simply stop going there, and make sure that everyone I knew, loved and cared about knew that they didn't mind.

But he wasn't. He was using a cell phone-- which can also be a camera. And you would have called him a pervert.

The fact that children can be in various states of undress, and you don't think it is a big deal that some adult is holding a camera is disturbing. Not hilarious.

Yes, I'm highly disturbing in the way I wouldn't accuse someone checking their email on a phone with a camera of being a pervert. It's probably the most disturbing thing about me.


You are both saying it is a risk, and that it is not.

No, I'm saying it's a risk, but that I, personally, if I had the cell phone pointed at me, wouldn't really care or notice.

Frankly you are getting more and more weird about this. Almost like you are defending the use of a camera phone in a locker room where there might be children in various states of undress. Is that intentional?

You are such a sick, sick person, Buck. You love to try to imply that I'm a pedophile. What the hell is wrong with you?

Where is your sense of decency?

You seriously think anyone bringing a cell phone into a locker room should immediately be suspected of being a pedophile?

315 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 2:04:44pm

Not to mention kids were never in the discussion until you brought them up-- so that you could start tying to smear me as a pedophile.

Really such pathetic behavior, Buck. I have no idea how you justify it to yourself.

316 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 2:12:18pm

re: #314 Obdicut

I have no clue what you're talking about. Checking email could be what he is actually doing.

But not one of the choices I gave him.

No, I'm saying it's a risk, but that I, personally, if I had the cell phone pointed at me, wouldn't really care or notice.

Right arguing it both ways. You are saying that allowing people to use a camera phone in a locker room with people dressing is a risk that they might get their picture taken when they don't want it, AND if you had a cellphone camera pointed at you in a locker room, while you were undressed, you wouldn't care or notice.

Well, now that you realize that you are not the only person in the locker room, and that the risk is that the guy might be a pedophile....what is your opinion now?

Because it seems weird to me that you would continue to defend the use of a camera phone under those circumstances.

I am clearly opposed to it.... You seem to be saying you wouldn't care.

Is that right?

---------------------------------
Oh, and in case I wasn't clear earlier.... when I said that I thought your arguments were in the same style and as crazy as truthers and birthers....I don't want you to think I don't think you are crazy.

I do. I actually think you are a serious nut ball.

For a whole bunch of reasons. Not just your position that I have to allow for the possibility that there is a crotch shot of me on the net somewhere, only because I have changed in a locker room. Although that is a good reason to think you are crazy.

Now I am not a mental health professional, so it is just my opinion.

317 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 2:14:23pm

re: #316 Buck

But not one of the choices I gave him.

Ah, I see. So you'd call security after calling him a pervert. And you'd tell security he was a pervert?

You don't see anything wrong in alleging that he's a pervert, right off thet bat? You obviously like calling people perverts, with your sleazy implication that I'm a pedophile. Such a weird, slimy attack.

Right arguing it both ways. You are saying that allowing people to use a camera phone in a locker room with people dressing is a risk that they might get their picture taken when they don't want it, AND if you had a cellphone camera pointed at you in a locker room, while you were undressed, you wouldn't care or notice.

Yes, Buck, because I wouldn't particularly care if someone took a picture of me in my underwear.

Why would I?

318 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 2:14:45pm

re: #315 Obdicut

Not to mention kids were never in the discussion until you brought them up--

I brought them up to explain why I am opposed to camera phones in the locker room, and why they should be banned.

At that point you might have said "Oh I never thought about that, yes the fact that it could be used in that way is disturbing."

But you didn't you just kept making it seem like using a camera phone in a locker room should be defended.

319 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 2:19:33pm

re: #318 Buck

I brought them up to explain why I am opposed to camera phones in the locker room, and why they should be banned.

So, if there were no kids around, you'd be fine with it?

At that point you might have said "Oh I never thought about that, yes the fact that it could be used in that way is disturbing."

I don't got a gym where there are kids, so in my gym, it'd be a literal impossibility.

But sure, cameras could be used that way. And binoculars could be used by a neighbor to spy through your kids window. Do you think binoculars should be banned? Do you think that cameras ought to be banned at the beach, where people might take pictures of kids, too?


But you didn't you just kept making it seem like using a camera phone in a locker room should be defended.

Please point out a single place where I've defended using a camera phone, rather than saying I don't find it a big deal if someone is pointing a camera phone at me while in the locker room.

You can't.

320 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 2:30:56pm

re: #319 Obdicut

So, if there were no kids around, you'd be fine with it?

I don't got a gym where there are kids, so in my gym, it'd be a literal impossibility.

Nope, I think that a camera in a locker room is a risk (just like you do) and I would not go where the management didn't see that.

So far the two places I go to, since these things were invented, have banned them.

But sure, cameras could be used that way. And binoculars could be used by a neighbor to spy through your kids window. Do you think binoculars should be banned? Do you think that cameras ought to be banned at the beach, where people might take pictures of kids, too?


You are funny... comparing a locker room to the beach, or the windows in a house.

Well, not funny.... creepy actually.

Please point out a single place where I've defended using a camera phone, rather than saying I don't find it a big deal if someone is pointing a camera phone at me while in the locker room.

That is all you have been doing. You said multiple times that it would be no big deal, and that you wouldn't even notice. You have tried to say that the camera phone MIGHT only be checking email. That is defending the use.

I keep saying no use at all, you keep saying what about if the person using it says it is just for checking email. That is defending the use of a camera phone in a locker room. The defense is that it might only be checking email.

That is a defense.

Join me now and say you are opposed to any use of a camera phone in a locker room. We can start fresh, and I will write off all the other stuff as you just needed to take the opposite position as me, even when I am right.

321 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 2:42:18pm
Nope, I think that a camera in a locker room is a risk (just like you do) and I would not go where the management didn't see that.

A risk of what? Someone taking a picture of you in your underwear? That would seriously be enough for you to not to go a gym?


Join me now and say you are opposed to any use of a camera phone in a locker room. We can start fresh, and I will write off all the other stuff as you just needed to take the opposite position as me, even when I am right.

But I'm not opposed to it. I don't give a shit one way or the other.

Which, to you, gets magically transformed into a defense, plus your creepy, sleazy, shameful insinuation that I'm a pedophile.

Such a sleazeball.


I'm glad that we've gone from your original insistnence that it's beyond probability that someone would be taking a picture of someone else with a camera phone to a certainty that if someone were using a phone with a camera in a locker room that they'd be taking pictures, so much that you'd accuse them of being a pervert solely based on the fact that they had their phone out.

322 Buck  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 3:04:52pm

re: #321 Obdicut

A risk of what? Someone taking a picture of you in your underwear? That would seriously be enough for you to not to go a gym?

I have been pretty clear, but if you want to make this about me being modest, that is fine with me.

Which, to you, gets magically transformed into a defense, plus your creepy,
sleazy, shameful insinuation that I'm a pedophile.

Actually that was you who first used the term pedophile here. And you are acting really defensive about it.

Here is what I said:

Frankly you are getting more and more weird about this. Almost like you are defending the use of a camera phone in a locker room where there might be children in various states of undress. Is that intentional?

Not calling you a pedophile exactly.

I did call you a pervert IF you point a camera phone at my crotch while I am in the locker room undressed. You thought that was funny. Which I think is really weird of you.


I'm glad that we've gone from your original insistnence that it's beyond probability that someone would be taking a picture of someone else with a camera phone

That wasn't my original insistence at all, and you have been told this more than once. However it is just so like you to put words in the other persons mouth. How anyone here believes anything you say is beyond me.

323 Claire  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 3:08:13pm

re: #312 Obdicut

Heh. I haven't done any sort of scientific analysis on the picture, but it really doesn't look erect to me.

I think you might be the only one on the planet that thinks that. Are we looking at the same picture?

324 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 6:08:16pm

re: #323 Claire

I think you might be the only one on the planet that thinks that. Are we looking at the same picture?

Yep.

325 Varek Raith  Fri, Jun 3, 2011 12:01:15am

Damn, Buck!
Lol.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2016-01-01 10:29 am PST
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Square Cash Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Incredibles 2 Official Teaser Trailer The teaser trailer for "Incredibles 2" is here. Disney/Pixar's "Incredibles 2" opens in theatres in 3D June 15th, 2018. Everyone’s favorite family of superheroes is back in “Incredibles 2” – but this time Helen (voice of Holly Hunter) is ...
Thanos
19 hours, 3 minutes ago
Views: 135 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Deadpool’s “Wet on Wet” Teaser After surviving a near fatal bovine attack, a disfigured cafeteria chef (Wade Wilson) struggles to fulfill his dream of becoming Mayberry’s hottest bartender while also learning to cope with his lost sense of taste. Searching to regain his spice ...
Thanos
2 days, 19 hours ago
Views: 357 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Voice of America Reporter Outed as Alt-Right However, using information Fatzick himself posted on Reddit — including his age, girlfriend’s name, former employers, friends, location, educational background, and sports affiliations — this reporter was able to tie the vile posts of UncleSam4200 to the Voice of ...
Thanos
4 days, 9 hours ago
Views: 509 • Comments: 3 • Rating: 2
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Gary Clark Jr - Come Together (Official Music Video) [From the Justice League Movie Soundtrack] Official Video for "Come Together" by Gary Clark Jr. featured in the Justice League Movie trailer. In theaters November 17th 2017.Directed by Kris Merc Get the song now at garyclarkjr.com Check out the Justice League soundtrack here: lnk.to Follow ...
Thanos
6 days, 16 hours ago
Views: 496 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 2
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Kimbra - Top of the World (Official Music Video)New from Kimbra The new single Top of the World is available now on Apple Music, Spotify, Google Play, and more. Get the single here - kmbra.me The new studio album Primal Heart out wwide January 19th, 2018Preorder now - ...
Thanos
1 week ago
Views: 522 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
The Barr Brothers - Song That I Heard (Live on KEXP) kexp.org presents The Barr Brothers performing "Song That I Heard" live at Breakglass Studios during POP Montreal 2017. Recorded September 16, 2017. Audio Engineer: James BenjaminCameras: Jim Beckmann, Ian Cameron & Scott HolpainenEditor: Jim Beckmann kexp.orgpopmontreal.combreakglass.ca With support from ...
Thanos
1 week, 1 day ago
Views: 615 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Left Cries Foul, but Electoral College Prevents Tyranny of the Majority I'm speechless...this is what we have to fight against: Image: constitution-1486010_960_720.jpg Author: Paul Jenkins(Paul Jenkins is editor of the anchoragedailyplanet.com, a division of Porcaro Communications) The political left and its mouthpiece, The New York Times, are still fuming over ...
Cheechako
1 week, 1 day ago
Views: 760 • Comments: 2 • Rating: 3
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Tune-Yards - Look at Your Hands (Official Video) 'Look at Your Hands' by Tune-Yards. New album 'I can feel you creep into my private life' is released January 19th 2018: smarturl.it Video by Michael SpeedFootage by Marisa Gesualdi & Jennifer SommerAdditional photos by Nate Brenner, Ginger Fierstein ...
Thanos
1 week, 3 days ago
Views: 893 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Beck Performing ‘Up All Night’ Live on KCRW Watch / Listen to the full session here: kcrw.com Beck has always been a chameleon and his latest Colors finds him returning to the incredibly upbeat songs that drove earlier albums like Odelay and Guero. This performance, recorded at ...
Thanos
1 week, 3 days ago
Views: 938 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Thundercat Performs ‘Them Changes’ With Jon Batiste & Stay Human Bass-man and musical wunderkind Thundercat sits in with the Late Show house band to perform this track off his latest album 'Drunk.' Subscribe To "The Late Show" Channel HERE: bit.lyFor more content from "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert", ...
Thanos
1 week, 3 days ago
Views: 813 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0