Digest for rec.sport.golf@googlegroups.com - 15 updates in 4 topics

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

BK@Onramp.net: Jun 12 02:38PM -0500

On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 14:26:52 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
 
>> You're really reaching to make a proper action look wrong. Face it,
>> your hero screwed up and is doing now what he does best....Lie.
 
>It was wrong. You lost track of right and wrong decades ago.
 
All of Trumps actions were wrong during this time. Now he's lying
about everything that Comey kept a history of.
 
With your track record here it's not wise to call anyone wrong. But
then you aren't very wise....or generally right.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 12 12:39PM -0700

On 2017-06-12 12:37 PM, Moderate wrote:
>> was nothing illegal about the release of his notes.
 
> Comey testified repeatedly that he could not even mention this
> very investigation in an open setting.
 
No. He declined to answer a few specific questions about the investigation.
 
 
> Now suddenly it is not classified? Comey is a dirty cop. You are
> a serial liar
 
 
Trump's conversations with Comey were not a part of the investigation.
BK@Onramp.net: Jun 12 02:43PM -0500

On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 14:37:22 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
> very investigation in an open setting.
 
>Now suddenly it is not classified? Comey is a dirty cop. You are
> a serial liar
 
Completely wrong again. It's understandable though. What else could
be expected from a poorly educated Arkansan that has been duped and
brainwashed by a master of bullshit?
BK@Onramp.net: Jun 12 02:53PM -0500

On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 12:39:56 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>
wrote:
 
 
>> Now suddenly it is not classified? Comey is a dirty cop. You are
>> a serial liar
 
>Trump's conversations with Comey were not a part of the investigation.
 
Comey went out of his way to keep Trump out of any connection to the
Russian investigation . If he wanted to lie he could have made up a
plethora of things to blame on Trump, and it would be his word against
Donald's. His word carries more weight.
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: Jun 12 01:51PM -0700

BobbyK wrote:
 
> Completely wrong again. It's understandable though. What else could
> be expected from a poorly educated Arkansan that has been duped and
> brainwashed by a master of bullshit?
 
Well, here's a bit for him to comprehend, from the pen
of Jim Wright (10 June 2017):
 
<QUOTE>
"What's with the fuzz? Must be a regional idiom?"
 
[marked edits in the text]
 
Reader C George Kohrman asked that question regarding
yesterday's post. Specifically in reference to testimony
by former FBI Director James Comey before the Senate
Intelligence Committee:
 
"There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The
Russians interfered in our election during the 2016
cycle. They did it with purpose, they did it with
sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical
efforts and measures driven from the top of that
government. There's no fuzz on that. It's not a close call.
That happened. That's about as unfake as you can
possibly get and it is very, very serious, which is
why it's so refreshing to see a bipartisan focus on that.
Because this is about America."
 
What's with the fuzz?
 
That's a good question.
 
And the answer is something EVERY American should understand.
 
Because it's important.
 
It's not a regional idiom, George, it's an Intelligence
Community term.
 
You see, Intelligence is never certain. Well, rarely anyway.
 
Intelligence is a highly complex process, part science,
part technology, part technique, part methodology, part
training, part experience, part guesswork, and part luck.
 
Intelligence is dynamic. By that I mean intelligence (as
used in this context) is an ongoing process of creating
a holographic picture of the adversary's military,
technical, industrial, political, sociological, and
geographic state -- and/or various specific aspects within
that larger picture. For example, certain agencies (such
as the CIA) are tasked with building and maintaining an
ongoing assessment of an entire target country (say,
North Korea), its leadership, its people, its level of
technology, its military capability, its industrial base,
etc. Other intelligence agencies (or entities within the
CIA) are tasked with specific areas of interest. Naval
Intelligence, again for example, might be tasked with
determination of the specific warfare capabilities of
North Korean Sang-O Class submarines (weapons, range,
dive, power plant, crew, etc). And so on.
 
To do that, you collect information.
 
HOW we collect that information is classified. These
are the "methods and means" you hear mentioned in the
news. Methods and means are tightly guarded. Just
because somebody is cleared to know the final intelligence
assessment, doesn't mean they're cleared to know how the
information was obtained or the process by which the
assessment was made.
 
Methods and means vary, these are the "ints." HUMINT
(human intelligence, i.e. acquired via spycraft), SIGINT
(signals intelligence, i.e. information obtained via
intercept of various forms of communication and
electronic emissions. SIGINT is further broken down
into a large variety of sub ints), PHOTOINT (i.e.
photographic intelligence), and etc. There are many ints.
 
In other words, raw information is acquired via a wide
variety of means, some highly, highly classified and
some not classified at all (until combined with other
information). Once upon a time this was the hard part,
getting the information. Some of this is done by people,
but increasingly collection is done by advanced machines.
And in this age of information, well, getting the
information is much less difficult than it used to be.
And that's a problem. Because nowadays we're swimming
in a sea of it and it is increasingly hard to find the
tiny little bits that matter. (For example: once upon
a time you could, say, monitor phone calls. It was pain,
but there weren't a lot of phones, comparatively speaking,
and they all sent information via copper cables connected
to a relatively small number of hubs. Nowadays? There are
billions of phones, billions of conversations per second,
a vast ever-changing googolplex of data riding a wide
variety of transmission means through millions of hubs.
The complexity of the problem has expanded by full orders
of magnitude. And that's jus the tip of the iceberg, that
doesn't even touch on modern problems of burner phones
and dummy accounts and Voice over IP, to name just very
few examples over the good old days of POTS).
 
Once information is acquired, it is analyzed.
 
This is the hard part. This is a highly complex process
that has to be done by people. By trained and experienced
experts. And unlike the movies or TV, nobody is an expert
in everything. Each analyst specializes in a particular
area. That analysis is combined with the work of other
analysts to build a larger picture. It's complicated
(Goddamn is it complicated). It's tedious (Goddamn is it
tedious). And it's very often frustrating, because world
events can render the entire process moot in seconds.
And you never, or at least rarely, ever know for sure.
And it never ends.
 
Once you reach an assessment, you try to find corroborating
information to verify the conclusions. Because assessments
are often built on layers upon layers of guesswork, without
multiple avenues of verification, the assessment must be
regarded as tenuous at best. So, you need corroborating
intelligence. Just like science.
 
Given all of that, Intelligence products are typically
referred to in terms of probability.
 
And as I said, there is a firewall between methods and
means and the final product that is briefed to the decision
maker.
 
The General, the mission commander, the president, the
senator, (the users) they don't need to know all of the
above. They don't need to know how the myriad pieces of
information were obtained or the techniques used by
hundred of analysts to assemble that information into a
coherent picture. It's better for all of us if they don't,
for what should be obvious reasons at this point.
 
They just need the product.
 
Now, you can tell an intelligence PROFESSIONAL by the
words they use when briefing the user. A professional
talks in terms of probabilities.
 
Within the community we use terms like "reliability"
and "validated" and give the information a weighted
value based on certain factors.
 
When briefing a USER, intelligence assessments are
almost always carefully caveated with "possibly"
(reasonable chance of being correct) and "probably"
(high chance of being correct) and a professional
almost never speaks in terms of certainty. Especially
when it comes to guessing what the enemy will do next
and why.
 
And so, this is the long way around of saying that
"fuzz," well, it's exactly what it sounds like.
 
Sometimes, OFTEN, intelligence is fuzzy.
 
The information isn't clear, the assessment is a
best guess. It might be a damned good guess by people
who are trained and experienced and damned good at
guessing correctly. But it's a guess nonetheless.
 
And sometimes it's wrong.
 
Example: all of those media amateur analysts who
said Hillary Clinton would most CERTAINLY win the
White House. Sometimes, despite your best guess,
the world throws you a curve ball. A professional
knows this and knows better than to say "for sure."
 
The world is a complicated place and intelligence
doesn't just deal with physical items such as number
of tanks or whether a particular voting machine was
"hacked." Intelligence often deals with intention,
i.e. what the enemy might do and why.
 
It's one thing to say certain entities were attempting
to diddle the election, it's another to say it was not
only Russia but they wanted a particular outcome (and
WHY they wanted that). The first is a straightforward
assessment, either the machine was hacked or it wasn't.
The second is ... difficult and dependent on hundreds
of pieces of information obtained via a vast array of
collection efforts and the product of hundreds of hours
of careful assessment.
 
For Comey -- Comey of all people -- to say "there's no
fuzz on this," well, for a man of his experience,
speaking from his position, to the users at that level,
before the TV cameras and thus the nation, with ABSOLUTE
CERTAINTY, well, that is very, very rare.
 
And it is VERY, VERY significant.
 
[Edit: I think most to you picked up immediately on what
no fuzz MEANS IN THE CONTEXT of the Senate Hearing, but
I don't think a lot of you understand the very specific
implications IN THE CONTEXT OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY
and just how unusual that statement is:]
 
James Comey is saying that intelligence on this is 100% certain.
 
No Fuzz.
 
No ambiguity.
 
The goddamned Russians manipulated our elections via
a deliberate act of information warfare on the battlefield
of the Information Age.
 
James Comey is telling you in no uncertain terms that this is enemy action.
 
[Edit: This is an intelligence professional, THE
Intelligence Professional, giving you an intelligence
assessment WITHOUT ANY CAVEATS or weasel words. If he's
wrong, he destroys himself without any way out. And he
made the statement, under oath, on the record, in front
of the entire world, ANYWAY. That's how certain he is.
You can damned well bet he can prove every word]
 
That's what he's saying.
 
Every single American should understand this in detail.
 
"The Russians interfered in our election during the
2016 cycle. They did it with purpose, they did it with
sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical
efforts and measures driven from the top of that
government. There's no fuzz on that."
 
Democratic elections are the heart of our system.
 
The integrity of our elections is the very foundation
upon which our country, and thus our liberty, rests.
 
This isn't about Trump.
 
This isn't about Hillary Clinton.
 
This isn't about Republicans or Democrats or Left and Right.
 
This, as James Comey said, is about AMERICA.
The Republic is under attack.
 
</QUOTE>
 
From:
<https://www.facebook.com/Stonekettle/posts/1363089817059751>
 
 
 
 
-hh
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 12 01:54PM -0700

On 2017-06-12 1:51 PM, Moderate wrote:
 
>> Trump's conversations with Comey were not a part of the investigation.
 
> Exacty, so why did Comey leak that they were?
 
He didn't.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 12 01:58PM -0700

On 2017-06-12 1:54 PM, Moderate wrote:
>> plethora of things to blame on Trump, and it would be his word against
>> Donald's. His word carries more weight.
 
> He did make up things to blame on Trump.
 
He didn't make up anything.
 
> He previously testified
> that there was no influence.
 
Quote this alleged "testimony"...
 
> Suddenly he is leaking about a
> classified investigation.
 
He didn't leak anything about a classified investigation.
BK@Onramp.net: Jun 12 04:16PM -0500

On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 15:54:37 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
 
>He did make up things to blame on Trump. He previously testified
> that there was no influence. Suddenly he is leaking about a
> classified investigation.
 
Diametrically proposed. The responses to your three sentences;
Wrong, Correct, Wrong.
Two out of three are your general averages.
Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>: Jun 12 07:44PM -0400


>> A private discussion is not "classified information".
 
> This is interesting;
 
> https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/zero-hedge/

It truly is.
 
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/infowars-alex-jones/
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: Jun 12 02:37PM -0500

> for the FBI could be changed by permission of the Director.....who, at
> the time was Comey. The overall thought of the article was that there
> was nothing illegal about the release of his notes.
 
Comey testified repeatedly that he could not even mention this
very investigation in an open setting.
 
Now suddenly it is not classified? Comey is a dirty cop. You are
a serial liar
 
--
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: Jun 12 03:49PM -0500

> about everything that Comey kept a history of.
 
> With your track record here it's not wise to call anyone wrong. But
> then you aren't very wise....or generally right.
 
Nobody knows who kept track of what. We do know that Trump did
not try to interfere with any investigation from Comey's own
testimony.
--
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: Jun 12 03:51PM -0500


>> Now suddenly it is not classified? Comey is a dirty cop. You are
>> a serial liar
 
> Trump's conversations with Comey were not a part of the investigation.
 
Exacty, so why did Comey leak that they were?
--
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: Jun 12 03:54PM -0500

> Russian investigation . If he wanted to lie he could have made up a
> plethora of things to blame on Trump, and it would be his word against
> Donald's. His word carries more weight.
 
He did make up things to blame on Trump. He previously testified
that there was no influence. Suddenly he is leaking about a
classified investigation.
--
Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com>: Jun 12 09:39PM +0200

Good for him.
 
Keeps the animal off the streets. There are enough RATS out there as it is.
 
Sad, how bored this asshole must be.
"Willie Brennan" <BillB@aol.com>: Jun 12 10:50AM -0400

The only ones here enabling IT just don't get it.
 
Ignore the little POS.
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.golf+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

0 comments:

Post a Comment