Posts by Matt Bryant

Re: John Brown Re: @ TrishaD

"I think they ought to have an H for Heterosexual too. That way they can be fully inclusive. If they don't, I'll sue on grounds of discrimination." Yeah, and what about a P for the paedos and a B for the Welsh, and then we can get a really good Scrabble score!

Re: TrishaD Re: Point of Order

"Peter is in fact a human rights activist...." Only when those humans are gay or he can use them to bash "The Man". He has shown no interest whatsoever in any cause for any other reason, being a relic of the leftie Gay Liberation Front which started the "Turing gay icon" myth in the first place. The problem for crusaders like him is that as homosexuality has become more accepted and mainstream they have to make more rediculous claims to get the air-time they crave.

"....I believe that he's probably jumped the shark on this one...." Nope, he hasn't jumped the shark as that does not reflect the self-serving opportunism of his claim, he's just trying to drum up attention for his crusade. He knows he can safely make this stupid, attention-seeking comments because there is no way for the secret service to either shut him up or sue him for slander. Please note Tatchall is very careful not to name any individuals in the service as that would leave him open to being sued, he simply smears the lot in one go. What a twat.

Re: Lying Loser Loser Loser BIG difference between commercial and street drugs.....

".... I don't recollect saying that and you haven't quoted my text ...." Hmmm, how about when you posted the following:

Posted Wednesday 25th December 2013 17:19 GMT

BlueGreen

Re: Loser BIG difference between commercial and street drugs.

".....*this particular* tale sounded just like the kind of crap spread by conformist types like yourself to scare people off bad naughty wicked things and onto the green grassy (and in your case, edible) path of righteousness...."

"....Reference please...." Every single one of your posts.

"....do you condone the home cultivation of drugs as a way of controlling their purity, or not?...." I would suggest that, if you're going to be stupid enough to do drugs, then you should probably try and limit the inevitable harm to yourself by at least controlling the source. Smoking/drinking/injecting anything which you know has had no quality controls and has been produced without any legal standards control would seem very stupid, but you'd probably disagree, probably due to the DDT having rotted the bits of your brain the drugs haven't yet. Either way, it's also probably better given that the main cause of common crime is loser junkies trying to get the cash together to buy their next hit, so home cultivation would seem a good start. The problem is most of those junkies have progressed from starter drugs like grass to harder stuff (it's called gateway drugs, go read up on it when you come down), so home cultivation won't help them.

"....your half-a-walnut-sized brain boiling with impotent ovine rage entertains me....." And there's just more fantasy - I'm laughing at your stupidity. But then you probably can't tell due to having inhaled pesticide-soaked weed more than once.

Re: Loser Re: Loser Loser BIG difference between commercial and street drugs.....

".....Yess, plumpy, we get that *illegal* drugs get cut and there is a risk...." Except for the bit you claimed it was all scaremongering squares just trying to ruin your fun, you mean? You are so wrapped up in your lies you're losing track of your own fantasies.

"....No plumpy, my post was about the veracity of your original story about the woman whose "body was riddled with cancerous tumours"...." No, you post was about ignoring the examples with clear ans evidential links in your desperate attempt to avoid reality, all because you want to baaaah-lieve.

".....drug use that damages others is unacceptable, the user must take reasonable precautions to ensure only their own health and livelihood are affected adversely....." Except that the morons that use drugs are shown to be the type to ignore realities and try to rationalise their baaaah-liefs. And that's before you get to the reduced judgement that drugs lead to. I find it hilarious that you bleat about alcohol without acknowledging that recreational drug use means you are much less able to make judgement calls. Major fail.

".....It gets irritating and is dishonest....." Then maybe you should stop lying to yourself.

Re: Blowhard Re: Loser Loser BIG difference between commercial and street drugs.....

"So basically, every single bad thing you're throwing at mowie wowie is there because it's illegal, and not because it's mowie wowie....." So basically, you really want to baaaah-lieve that every point raised that shows the dangers of street drugs, that their manufacturers/farmers actually don't give a sh*t about their customers or the environment, being quite happy to poison both, you want to baaaah-lieve it's all "movie wowie" scaremongering.

Re: Loser Re: Loser BIG difference between commercial and street drugs.....

".....sounded just like the kind of crap spread by conformist types like yourself to scare people off bad naughty wicked things....." Oh, sorry, I forgot you're a fully-paid-up baaaah-liever, one of those that has the knee-jerk response of bleating about "squares ruining their fun" because it's less effort than actually thinking for yourself. I suppose the two women in Ireland that nearly died of contaminated weed were an Irish folk tale from the local cearnóga, eh? http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNE_zIpedxLwooX-xeDhcOR_S1bblw&url=http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0530/453502-two-in-intensive-care-over-contaminated-cannabis/

So you ignored the links to the pesticide threat and the damage done to the environment by weed farmers, you really want to pretend that "harmless" marijuana never harms anyone? Hey, it's just your body, so you're the only one affected, right? Ignoring the threat to themselves, what about the harm such dumb smokers do to others? Like Ashley Smith here in the UK, who killed a father when she crashed into his car whilst high on weed? Would you like to tell his kids that drugs are harmless? Whilst driving drunk is on the decline, driving whilst stoned is on the increase because of idiots that like to pretend the warnings are just "squares ruining their fun" (http://www.washingtondcinjuryattorneyblog.com/2010/12/drugged-drivers-increase-fatal.html). Shame none of those "squares" had a word with New Zealander Lance Hopping before he killed ten people and himself piloting a balloon whilst stoned (http://news.sky.com/story/1161997/balloon-crash-pilot-smoked-pot-before-flying?f=ob). But you go insisting it's your "right" to use whatever drugs you like.

See, it doesn't just effect you, but also idiots that put their trust in you. Like Lara Smith, who trusted Matthew Norcott, who bragged about how "wonderful" he felt when he was high, even AFTER he killed Lara when driving drugged up on ecstasy (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2185379/Facebook-post-driver-Matthew-Norcott-high-drugs-killed-beauty-therapist.html). Maybe you want to go and "like" his Facebook posts? Maybe before you do you should Yahoogle for "drugged driver killed" to get an idea of the hundreds of sheeple that, just like you, thought it was just the lying of kill-joy squares.

And whatever you do, don't go read about the kids trafficked as farm slaves to grow the stuff here in the UK, now that will really pop your bubble (you'll have to suspend your belief in joy-killing squares long enough to put down a subscription on this one.)

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/britains_secret_slaves/article1304823.ece

Sorry, but before that last incredibly stupid post I used to just think your stupidity was amusing, but now I actually pity you.

Re: Loser Re: BIG difference between commercial and street drugs. @plump & bleaty

"....ref please....." Sorry, it was a while back so I can't remember a name, but IIRC she studied at St Martins in London. I'll have a Yahoogle and see if I can find the news reports.

".....it's just an urban legend or something you invented....." LOL, I already had you pegged as a baaaaah-liever, but even an idiot as stupid as you surely doesn't want to pretend street drugs get cut with all kinds of harmful rubbish? Yes, even weed, often mixed with everything from grass cuttings to potential nasties such as stinkweed and oleander cuttings. Please do explain the extensive horticultural training and experience you have that allows you to identify everything in your backstreet purchase, especially when you're probably permanently half-cut going by your posts. I suggest you go Yahoogle "marijuana pesticides" and get an adult to read it to you. You could start here where it even talks to an attorney fighting for legalised medical weed (http://www.alternet.org/there-pesticide-weed-youre-smoking). What you buy from your dealer has NO quality control, and the drug dealers have NO responsibility to do any form of chemical control, they just want to make money. The only way you will know for sure is to grow your own or really get very close to the farmer (which would probably put you at greater danger of arrest as an accomplice). So not sorry to pop that bubble of ignorance you live and inhale in. Enjoy!

The tree-huggers puffing away on weed in California are even responsible for destroying the wildlife they proclaim to hold so dear (http://www.kcet.org/news/the_back_forty/commentary/golden-green/-rachel-carson-was-right.html).

".....Might say more about you than us." Don't worry, your previous posts have already exposed you as exactly the kind of stupid to think taking drugs is "rebellious" or "alternative". I just think of people like you as Darwinism in operation, removing potential competitors by their own silliness.

Re: AC Re: Blowhard It's all good

".....how many people have you seen ruin their lives with alcohol?...." Actually, in the IT industry, not that many, and certainly less than have gone overboard on weed. The problem for your argument is that the problems of "evil" alcohol have been known for years and IT people are usually above average intelligence, so they get and accept the "excessive drink is bad" concept, but they often fall for the fuzzy-feel-good "but weed is harmless" schpiel. But you go on trying to ignore the potential issues of being a pothead by trying to equate it with the "evils" of the legal drug alcohol if it helps you cope.

"......People who drop out of anything in such a manner frequently have more going on in their lives than weed smoking....." So you can see that "evil" alcohol can be used excessively by those trying to escape their lives, but you fail to see that the same applies, that excessive weed use could be for EXACTLY the same reasons - to escape their humdrum existence. All you have done is point out that the people that use weed heavily are more than likely compensating for problems in their lives, but you suggest it is fine for them to hide from their issues behind cannabis but not to do so with "evil" alcohol? Major fail!

".....Furthermore, I suffered from crippling anxiety and depression for years (at one point I couldn't leave the house for 2 years), weed helped me to cope with all of that when conventional medicines and psychiatrists struggled to help......" Gee, and no other medicine has any side effects? Please do go read up on Prozac and the long list of side effects, which doctors have to take into account when prescribing Prozac. Just about any drug, even Asprin, have negatives against which doctors have to balance the benefits of using it. The issue is Prozac and other similar drugs have been tested and approved, whereas weed has largely not. In cases of medicinal use I actually support medicinal marihuana, but only if it is first tested and approved, and not when it is skunk from some guy on the corner, and not when it is being passed off as "cool" for those with no medical requirement. I know people that take Prozac (and have side effects), that doesn't mean I would support the idea of everyone being told Prozac should be taken as a recreational drug just because it is OK for medical use. Another fail.

".....The amount of absolute horseshit....." So, what you're saying is that anyone that supports a view that doesn't agree 100% with yours is "horseshit"? How open-minded! I do not rule out either the future legalisation of cannabis or the possible medical benefits, but unlike you I'm not just going to accept it without some actual scientific evidence. Until then, I would suggest you try a more constructive argument rather than just accusing all your opponents of "horseshit" if you actually want to try convincing people being a pothead hasn't rendered you incapable of calm and reasoned discourse.

Re: Jimboom Re: Blowhard It's all good

".....as they light up their umpteenth fag of the day." Whilst I support the way you demonstrate the hypocrisy of smokers that call potheads "hippies", you fail to realise that smoking was once not only socially acceptable but even praised for it's "healthy benefits"! You also fail to see that smoking has become unacceptable due to the realisation of its damage to the body and the addictive potential of nicotine, yet you fail to see that smoking cannabis is both addictive (if only psychologically) and ALSO that the smoking action presents many of the health threats of cigarette smoke. In short, you are pointing out one hypocrisy by illustrating your own.

Oh, and I don't smoke.

Re: Anon Cluetard Re: JustaKOS @Don Jefe

"....which certainly seems to be the NSA'a actual raison d'être, even if they don't actually put "we fuck people over" on the flashy logo...." And you have evidence of them f*cking anyone over, or can we assume you are another AC acting on "what you've been told" rather than from verifiable facts?

Re: obnoxiousSaddo Re: @Matt Bryant

"....I defintely covered that in my posts...." No you didn't. You also failed to give any MOTIVE for the NSA or GCHQ to do what you claim they are doing for any other reason than to fit in with your narcissistic and paranoid delusions. Get over yourelf, you're simply not interesting, either to the security services, the politicians or probably to the majority of readers of this thread. If you do want to maintain that your are THE Most Important Person in the World, and that by intercepting your comms the security services somehow gain some incredible insight that lets them seize all power in the universe, please do explain your fantastical abilities. Please note that THINKING you are the centre of the universe is not going to be enough.

"....I long for the day when they get to stand in the dock and explain why they choose to ignore the crimes which were committed against me....." If you think you have a case then go to a solicitor and take it up with them, they can open a public case even if the Police and CPS don't think there is grounds. My betting is you won't because you're happier wallowing in self-pity and blaming it all on "The Man" rather than having to realise you dug the hole you're sitting in.

".....granting unlimited powers....." <Yawn> yeah, it's like they can CONTROL me just by seeing who I texted last week! Not. Seriosuly, get a grip and seek help.

Re: @Matt Bryant

"....You see I know the bobby on the beat doesn't give a fuck about protecting me or mine, I know full well he doesn't give a fuck about detecting or solving crime....." And there we have it, the exact type of bitter, shrieking statement you expect from the typical sheep. "All coppers are bent", etc. Classic fail of the bitter paranoid.

"....I know from very personal experience....." Don't tell me, they busted you for being drunk and disorderly one night and you've harboured a grudge ever since? Don't tell me, you're convinced the NSA had the pub bugged and tipped off the coppers that you'd had one too many Babychams?

"....I know full well that the only person who I can trust with my (and my childrens) safety is me....." Posted from your bunker in Montana? ROFLMAO!

"....I know te bobby won't do fuck all about it even when you put it right in front of his face, with the relevant section of criminal law which shows it is a crime....." Details, please, just so we can all have a laugh at your backstreet lawyer take.

".....That's why when I'm good and ready I shall take a knife to the individual who decided she could stalk me....." You do realise that posting a threat of violence, even if not directed at the post's audience, can still be an offence, right? Duh! Seriously, I suggest you stop now and go seek professional help, you obviously have a lot of issues you need to work through.

obnoxiousInfant Re: @Matt Bryant

"I could respond by calling you names in return, however I grew up and developed the ability to discuss things with reasoned arguments, so I don't feel any need to call you names...." What, you're older than six?!? I would have been ashamed to post such mindless bleating aged six as you posted! And what arguments, you posted SFA other than regurgitated baloney.

".....You really don't seem to have grasped how this intelligence is being used....." But the fact is YOU don't know, all you have a wild accusations, such as demonstrating in your post of 03:31GMT on 27th Dec that you don't understand how they can use patterns of communication to trace out networks. In fact, you completely fail to supply anything other than fantastical paranoia.

"....Now that has to be the all time most stupid statement I think I have ever seen you make...." So I would assume it would be easy for you to debunk then? Oh, but you don't, instead you just bleat and whine some more. Maybe you need the help of a six year old?

Re: Marketing Noob Re: Marketing Noob Earth to Snowden

"....why are they fighting so hard to keep my data in their "haystack"...." They are not fighting to keep the metadata indefinitely so please stop fantasising that they are.

"....and DC circuit court judge Leon...." Judge Leon's judgement has been countered by that of another federal judge in striking down the inevitable ACLU case (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/25529677). Judge Pauley ruled that the NSA surveillance was a valid, legal and valuable tool in fighting Al Quaeda. And Obambi's announcement of a review is just window dressing for his Faithful. You really need to pay more attention.

Re: Marketing Noob Re: Earth to Snowden

".....Their access to your data is also mandatory." Their interest in your data is nonexistent. Seriously, I know marketing is all about spinning a tale to suspend reality, but I think you really need to leave the IT discussions to those with at least one foot in reality, mmmkay?

Re: Marketing Noob Re: Marketing Twat @chrisp1141

".....rather than address the substance of your arguments...." Well, you post something with actual substance rather than paranoid whimsy and I'll return the favour.

"....Did ALL those "random traffic stops" and raids (that were actually instigated by warrentless communication intercepts)....." And again you're talking out of your rectum - all intercepts were authorised under the FISC, so they WERE warranted. Also please provide PROOF of any claimed information transfer which was unwarranted. Most drug dealers, like most other criminals, get caught through usual causes - doing stupid things which draw attention to themselves or consorting with other known criminals already being watched.

".....We had to find out 1) above from the Snowden leaks...." Snowdope revealed nothing of the kind. Indeed, he only revealed anything to those that simply didn't know much, the majority of his revelations have been public knowledge or educated conjecture for years. Don't bitch at me because you simply fall in the clueless camp.

Re: obnoxiousMoron Ledwhinger @Matty B

"....So the information has to be retained for a considerable length of time in order to REscrape it....." Apart from the fact we already know it is held only for a very short time (six months to two years in the EU at the tracking level by EU directive, which is actually WORSE than the US), once again the data is not actually read by a human unless it proves not to be chaff, and will be discarded if it is chaff. So all you have done is highlight the fact it still will not be read and will still be discarded UNLESS it actually proves to be a lead. Thanks for undermining your own weak argument.

Re: bigtimebleater Re: Kids DON'T WANT privacy

"......its what things are like in 20, 30 50 years time i worry about and why people should ask questions and worry." Of course, because - seeing as we actually have no idea what will happen in even twenty years - it is quite easy for you to indulge in rampant, hysterical, paranoid fantasy and pass it off as intelligent thought. It's just as valid to say we should forget all about it as the Aztecs said the World is due to end next year (or whenever). It is quite obvious the only fact displayed in your posts is your limited grip on reality, lack of perspective, and complete surrender to irrational fears.

Re: bigtimebleater Re: Yawn

".....then the world would have been better, is that actually what your suggesting? I think you'd find the world would have a whole lot less ethnic variety." And there we have the other staple, knee-jerk response from a sheep when facts are presented which upset their trendy and revisionist view of history - "Fascist!" Did I in any way say I supported Nazism or agreed with Hitler? No I didn't, so - to be quite frank - you can go shove your blinkered preconceptions up the hole you spoke from you ill-educated moron.

Re: Marketing Twat Re: @chrisp1141

"....the NSA and GCHQ have many friends in law enforcement, security and other parts of government, and if you end up on their shit list they can shut you down financially, politically or criminally...." So please do provide some examples of this mythical tyranny in operation, or can we just assume it is all trendy male bovine manure?

Re: Kids DON'T WANT privacy

"....t's sad, sad world we all helped create...." Oh STFU you hyperventialting, melodramatic, whining sheep. Please do explain what is so "terrible" or "sad" about your comfortable lifestyle, maybe you'd rather swap it for living in a hut in the jungles of the Central African Republic, wondering which "freedom-fighter" group or militia is going to hack your arms off, that's if you don't die of malnutrition or some easily curable diseas first. What a complete load of baloney. When did being such a whining ingrate become so fashionable?

Re: obnoxiousMoron Re: Ledwhinger @Matty B

".....Assume they're only matching details of known bad guys and trying to link them to other bad guys?...." I suggest you don't give up the day job, intelligence (both the field and the characteristic) is obviously not for you. Firstly, it is very obvious that they will be watching the known players to see if they lead them to fresh players, then checking who those new players have talked to, etc., etc. That is simple police work and is how ordinary police build up a picture of a criminal organisation.

"....this is a mass surveillance program, which HAS to be aimed at baselining EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE......" There is no doubt the secret services will also be screening ALL coms for certain phrases, this is how they turn up leads on new players. The wheat is sorted from the chaff and the chaff - which in this case probably represents 99.99999% of conversations or messages - is discarded without ever having even been examined by a human being. There is no need to build a "baseline" on idiots like you that think your trendy baaah-lieves make you such rebels. Don't worry, your online dribblings are safe, they most definately fall in the chaff category.

".....That's the surveillance society you're supporting Matt....." Once again, I'll try and use an analogy even a moron like you can understand, if you concetrate real hard and get an adult to help you with the long words. A Bobbie walking his beat observes hundreds of perfectly harmless human activities and interactions whilst he is looking out for a criminal activity, some of which may be embarassing to the citizens but which do not constitute a crime. You are suggesting that the Bobbie is thererfore "spying" on us all with the express intention of later blackmailing us all with those embarassing events, and should be blindfolded until and only when a verified crime is happening right in front of him. How you expect him to see the crime and remove the blindfold in time to catch the criminal is beyond you, you simply insist that his "spying" is such a threat to your privacy that it is more important than actually catching criminals. In short, you have given in to the fear of the non-existant "privacy invasion" and failed to see the reason the Bobbie is walking the beat in the first place - to protect you. Indeed, you have so crippled yourself with that fear that you now ignore all evidence to the effectiveness of the Bobbie in reducing crime and instead bleat that the Bobbie must be removed from the beat, leaving the criminals unopposed. Even a complete cretin like yourself must surely be able to see that removing all the Bobbies from their beats might not be a good idea?

Re: Serge 2 Re: To: Matt Bryant

"You either are a troll or a complete idiot....." Gee, you provide such a detailed argument for either - not! It obviously really upsets the sheeple to hear a dissenting voice, you lot really prefer the idea of everyone bleating in unison.

".....Quick look through your post history reveals that you mostly get down-voted on your comments....." So what you're saying is you base your analysis of an argument not on the intrinsic points of the message contained, but instead you default your independent thought and only place value on the votes for or against and insist that everyone should do the same. In short, you are admitting you are the epitome of a sheep, just following the herd. That is just sad. Consider that most sites will contain a core of "like thinkers" that huddle together for the sense of belonging, that different sites will attract different core groups, and that if you desperately ignore those outside the core then all you will end up with is a bleating herd of sheeple, not actual debate, conversation or real discussion. But then I suspect sheeple like you just don't feel comfortable with real debate, it upsets you to think what you have been told is The Truth might actually not be so. You would prefer to hide away from any such discomfort, lest your fragile bubble be popped.

"....The things that you have said before (not just here) reek with ignorance of an overwhelming proportion and mostly lack intelligence....." Yet I note, whilst you most obviously disagree, you are unable to post any form of counter. In short, you have the unquestioning baaaaah-lieve of the typical sheeple. It does you zero favours to even try and discuss ignorance when your attempt at a response is so easily shown to be nothing more than spittle and bleating. After all, if we look at YOUR rather short list of posts, we find such delightful eloquence as this:

"Posted in US DoJ: Happy b-day, Ed Snowden! You're (not?) charged with capital crimes

Posted Sunday 23rd June 2013 22:08 GMT Serge 2

Re: Not exactly...

I hope you get aids"

Such stunning eloquence, brimming with insight and rationality - not! I can only guess the target of your playground shrieking thought it was far funnier and illuminating as to your limited mental capacity to not complain about your obnoxious ranting, and instead leave it on record for everyone to laugh at. I suppose you can take some comfort from the thought that, despite your failings everywhere else, at least you managed to provide unintended humour.

"....Do us all a favour...." Who is "us"? Are you really so arrogant in your stupidity as to think you really speak for all the readers? I would suggest you do yourself a favour, get over yourself, and then try really hard to actually formulate some type of argument. For a real challenge, you could even forego your inevitable attempt to regurgitate something you have been told is "cool" to say. Then again, maybe that should wait - baby steps and all.

Re: Ledwhinger Re: @Matty B

"Actually he had this freedom before the "security" services were able to snoop all and everything...." A freedom that was guarded before by security services that simply used the means available to them. The NSA and GCHQ are just examples of those same services, only now they have far superior tech. Guess what, dumbie - spying existed long before the NSA or GCHQ or even before the existence of the USA. It is your inability to see that round your "cool" blinkers that is the really funny part of the tragedy. You are like a wind up toy - "today I want you to bark about the NSA" - and off you go. To be honest, the predictability of you and the other sheeple is getting pretty yawntastic.

".....All the attacks foiled in the UK....." Apart from the fact I seriously doubt you even know a fraction of what goes on, you are also desperate to deny the effectiveness of such work is in that it also STOPS nutters like Bin-bag Laden communicating easily and effectively with his followers.

"..... Look at the murder of Lee Rigby....." oh, you want to cherry pick the example where there was no external communication, just two sad jihadi nutters? Smart choice of example - not! Why don't you stop and ask yourself how the drones keep finding the AQ and Talebint leaders despite them trying to hide out in Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan and Somalia? Oh, sorry, that would require you to do some actual independent thought, obviously not your strong point. One can only hope they cover it on Oprah for sheeple like you.

".....But people like you Matt, you're a Christmas gift to SIS and the politicians...." Aw, does it hurt that not everyone shares your "enlightened POV"? We must all just be very stupid not to see "The Truth" like you do, right? Well, there must be a lot of us stupid people because every election shows you're just the tiny and tinny minority. But you can always take comfort in the fact you're probably keeping tinfoil companies afloat.

Re: P.Pee Re: the end of common sense....

".....The next time the economy collapses and a group becomes a scapegoat for things that have gone wrong. It is going to be very ugly indeed." Aw, your paranoia was quite entertaining, right up to that bit of silliness. You really need to peel back the tinfoil and realise that the NSA and GCHQ have been doing this for decades, and long before the Dummicrats cooked the mortgage market and triggered the most recent economic crisis.

Re: @chrisp1141

"..... I certainly don't get anything in return." You get the freedom to spout your tinfoil-attired claptrap. I just feel sorry for any NSA or GCHQ employee that has the misfortune to read your dribblings.

Re: codeusirae Re: Dear NomNomNom ..

".....Are you trying to discredit Snowden by associating him with David Icke?" Hmmm, I'm not sure even Mad Icke would want to be associated with Snowdope, but I suspect Icke was probably on the C4 list of people "out-there-enough" for their "alternate" (which actually just seems to be bad taste shock-jock) Christmas speech. I can almost imagine the discussions in the C4 Central Committee:

Controller: "OK, who can we get for the Alternate Chrimbo Speech after Ahm-mad-in-a-dinnerjacket?"

Producer1: "Er.... How about David Icke? We could spike his drink and hope he goes off on one about aliens invading and the end of the the World again."

Controller: "Hmmmm, not controversial enough, and half our audience are too young to remember him and the other half will be too stoned or drunk to. Anyway, we need to display our anti-Yank credentials. What do we have scheduled for the rest of Christmas Day?"

Producer2: "Cheap Yank sitcom repeats."

Producer3: "I know - Kim Chung- whatshisface, that guy from North Korea!"

Controller: "OK, fits the anti-Yank agenda and definitely scores high enough on the weirdo scale, but does anyone know if he's available? And cheap."

Producer1: "Could be a problem - last time his dad asked for thirty cases of Courvoisier and total dominion over Wales."

Producer3: "Ian Watkins? He could do a special message for the children?"

Controller: "No, we need someone that is going to at least appear lucid whilst talking complete bollocks, make us look hip'n'trendy, and be really cheap seeing as we blew the budget on Friends....."

".....for hounding a man to self-destruction...." Please take a break from the gay propaganda and go READ some actual factual history on the subject. Turing was not being hounded by anyone and most likely died by accident.

Re: diodesign Re: What A Crock of SHIT

"....More than the straight people repeatedly marrying and divorcing in their droves?...." I would suggest the "making a mockery of marriages" has been the fault of the media industry for decades. It seems it is just not fashionable to realise marriages and relationships in general are actually hard work and require compromise, and that there might not actually be "one ideal person" for everyone, gay or straight. Going into it with eyes open and ready for a bit of compromise and some effort make for a happier relationship, whether it's a marriage, business partnership or any other form of interaction between people. Far too many people seem to rush into what they see as idyllic partnerships with some fairytale expectation they have gathered from films, TV or magazines. Added to that are the hilariously OTT expectations we put upon ourselves - does anyone actually go on a first date as themselves or as what they think that prospective partner wants to see? My advice to my kids was don't rush in, make sure you spend at least a year "living in sin" together because it's the only way to actually be sure you're marrying the person you think you are. Which has SFA to do with gays "corrupting" marriage and a lot more with common sense.

Re: Tom Welsh Re: frobnicate

".....However Stalin's motivation has nothing to do with the fact that the USSR did at least 75% of the fighting....." Apart from the fact Stalin did 0% of the fighting against Japan, you are simply wrong even if just looking at the fighting against German forces. Stalin did NONE of the fighting against the Nazis in the first 21-odd months of the War, when Britain (and to a lesser extent the Fwench) destroyed the core of his pre-War highly-trained forces. One of the biggest problems for the Germans - especially the Luftwaffe - was that they simply didn't have the training structure to replace those properly trained and experienced men. The Germans were happy to send poorly-trained recruits to fight the Soviets but tried to keep their more experienced units for fighting the Western Allies. If Hitler had been able to invade Russia in May rather than June 1941, without the delay caused by the British in Greece, without the thousands of highly-trained tank, bomber and fighter crews he had lost in the campaign in the West, without having to divert forces to prop up Mussolini in North Africa, without having to divert men and materials to fighting the Atlantic Campaign, and without having to worry about the West supplying the Russians, then he would most probably have defeated the Soviets. Especially if he could have persuaded the Japanese not to attack the US and UK and to attack Russia instead. Stalin was only able to resist the Germans because he could transfer forces from the East to defend Moscow, forces he could only move because the Japanese promised they would honour their Neutrality Pact. When the positions were reversed in 1945, when the US and Commonwealth had defeated the Japanese, and Stalin saw the chance to seize Mongolia, he didn't hesitate to tear up the Pact.

It was the industrial behemoth of the USA joining the war that sealed Hitler's fate, regardless of his attacking Russia. The manpower and resources of the Commonwealth along with the manpower and industrial power of the USA were far greater than that of the Soviets. Invading Russia without having defeated the British was a big mistake by Hitler, but a bigger mistake was declaring war on the British without an actual plan of how he could defeat the British Empire, and his BIGGEST mistake was declaring war on the USA when he could have left fighting the US to the Japanese. Hitler simply never had a strong enough navy to defeat Britain and the Commonwealth, but he could have had a strong enough army and airforce to defeat the Soviets alone.

"..... a lot more than that of the dying......" Again, the fact Stalin was happy to send untrained peasants on foot, even at times with one rifle to a pair of men, into human-wave attacks against mechanised German troops, just shows the callous disregard the Communists had for the very people they claimed to serve. Trying to show that more of your troops died as some sign of moral superiority doesn't exactly sound smart to me.

"..... In the week that the Normandy landings went in, the USSR launched Operation Bagration on a far bigger scale....." Apart from the fact Stalin could only make the attack because the West had kept him in business with supplies (especially the vast majority of the lorries that converted his peasent armies into a mobile force) when he was facing defeat in 1941 and 1942, the main reason Stalin could employ his massed wave attacks in 1944 was because the majority of the Luftwaffe's fighter force was engaged fighting the US bomber attacks. Goering always kept his best fighters in the West. Luftwaffe units returning from the relatively easy air war of the Eastern Front in 1943 and 1944 had to be completely retrained to face the much stiffer opposition of the West. If the Germans had been able to employ the full might of the Luftwaffe in the East without the losses made to defending against the USAAF bomber attacks in 1943 and 1944 then the Luftwaffe would have been easily able to retain air superiority in the East and would probably have destroyed Stalin's armies from the air, as they did in 1941.

"....If not for the German forces tied up (and chewed up) by Bagration, they would very likely have been able to repel and destroy the Allied forces in Normandy." Rubbish. The eventual success of the Soviet forces in the East was largely due to Hitler throwing away his strategic reserves on the pointless Ardennes Offensive in the West, leaving him nothing to patch the holes in the Eastern Front. If Hitler had been able to face just the Allies in the West then the Normandy campaign would probably have never been anything other than a distraction exercise to keep his forces in the wrong area and the Western Allies would probably have followed the far smarter British plan of invading via the Southern Front, through Italy and Greece, which would have also probably stopped the Russians occupying Eastern Europe for forty-odd years. Even if the Germans had only faced the Western Allies, and even if the Normandy landings went ahead, Hitler could have transferred all his forces to Calais (where he had been fooled into thinking the actual Invasion landing would have been by Operation Fortitude South) and it would have made SFA difference as he had lost control of the air. He simply would not have had the rail stock or fuel to move all his armies quickly to the Normandy area, and they would have been under continual air-attack the whole time. One of the great successes of Operation Overlord was that the Allies in Normandy DID NOT have to face all the available German forces BECAUSE control of the air had allowed the Allies to destroy the rail system the Germans depended on BEFORE the invasion, keep the Luftwaffe away from the invading beaches, and decimate the German forces in transit. Plenty of Panzers were abandoned in Normandy because Allied fighters had destroyed the fuel trucks before they could get to the front. By 1944 the Western Allies had such a superiority in the air they could have faced ALL the Luftwaffe over Normandy and still won. So, TBH, you are talking out of your rectum.

Re: frobnicate

"....their Soviets allies, who did most of the fighting?" Some allies. The Soviets started their "fighting" in 1939 by signing the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact that effectively sealed Poland's fate, then invaded Poland on 17th September 1939 to help the Germans carve up Poland. Even before Poland had fallen the GRU and NKVD were meeting with the Gestapo to plan out which Polish intellectuals, politicians and trade unionists were likely to be troublemakers and needed to be eliminated or sent to concentration camps. This was despite Stalin having fought a four year proxy war against the Nazis and Fascists in the Spanish Civil War.

Even before that, Stalin was planning to use the Nazis to weaken the rest of Europe. He set the ground by using his "useful idiots" amongst Western socialists and communists, especially in France where - under the pretext of "anti-war" - they sabotaged the French arms industry and set about demoralising the French forces. French socialist politicians did their bit, either in cahoots or simply through immense stupidity, and just about destroyed the rest with the result that the French had half the working tanks and modern fighters or bombers they should have had by May 1940. You could argue Stalin really wanted to distract the West from his plans to rape the old Eastern European countries but he really didn't care, not as long as Communism (I.e., Stalin) came out the winner.

And even before that, the Soviets trained and rebuilt the German war machine, especially the Luftwaffe, when it was completely illegal to do so. The Soviets provided aircraft and facilities at Lipetsk that allowed the Germans to develop the "terror bombing" techniques the Communists would shriek in horror at when used at Geurnica in the Spanish Civil War.

Those Soviet "allies" then followed up on their niceness to the Poles by invading Finland and the Baltic States. At that point, France and the UK counted the Soviets as an enemy and sent aid to Finland. They even planned to invade neutral Norway to keep the Soviets from seizing the Norweigean iron mines and supplying the Nazis with the iron ore they needed for their war machine. Of course, ironically, after the Nazis turned on their Soviet chums the Fins sided with the Germans and became enemies of the UK and France.

Right up until June 21st 1941, Stalin was happily using his "useful idiots" in the UK (and US) to cripple the Allied war effort as much as he could. His sudden conversion to the Allies was when the Germans beat him to the punch and invaded Russia before Stalin could invade Germany. Even then, Stalin only managed to do "most of the fighting" against Germany because the Nazis simply couldn't fight elsewhere - the Kriegsmarine were too weak to contest the English Channel so he couldn't pursue his war with Britain by invading the UK or go to the assistance of the Japanese; German efforts in North Africa were very much as a prop to the war being fought between Italy and the Commonwealth; and the Luftwaffe was simply too constrained by their tactical design to fight a strategic bombing campaign against the UK or the USA.

In fact, it is arguable that the British effort to help the Greeks delayed the German invasion of Russia by the three weeks that made all the difference between Soviet defeat and eventual victory. It also ignores the fact that the Soviets had a treaty with Japan that meant they did SFA in fighting the Japanese until the very end of the Pacific War, when they tore up the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact in order to try and grab as much of Mongolia and China as they could.

So, I suggest you go do a LOT more historical reading before you try and claim that load of baloney.

Re: About time.....but

"...."We f*&ked up and killed one of the best minds we had in the field....." Go do some reading on his final days (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing#Death), he fucked up an hobbiest chemistry experiment and killed himself by accident. Even his mother has said she thought that at the time of his inquest. But that conclusion doesn't fit with the preferred gay fable, does it?

"..... we really, really should have treated him better in the first place"" Turing actually - and quite stupidly - told the Police he was having a gay relationship with an (alleged) rent boy that was suspected of the burglary of Turing's home. As Turing worked on sensitive projects he was shooting himself in both feet. BUT, if he had been an heterosexual male working on secret projects and had been picking up teenage girl prostitutes he would also have been in trouble with the law, and he would have been classed as a security risk (the KGB also used young prostitutes to ensnare lonely old men), and would have lost his security clearance.

Turing was also given the choice of imprisonment OR probation and chemical castration (injections of female hormones) and he chose the latter himself. If he had been a heterosexual male convicted of soliciting he would not have been given a choice, it would have just been jail time. Turing made bad choices and set the legal and security apparatus in motion with his own admission, but that legal and security apparatus would have swung into motion if he had admitted to the equivalent heterosexual crime. Yes, looking back the laws of the day criminalising homosexuality were wrong with today's value set, but he would have been convicted and lost his job if he had been the heterosexual equivalent. And many people today with today's value set question the illegality of heterosexual prostitution, so the homsoexual angle is just fluff and fanfare. And none of it would have made him no less likely to kill himself with a bit of bad lab practice.

Alan Turing's achievements in the field of computing and his service to his country should be applauded and upheld as both an example of intellect and how homosexuality should not be seen as a barrier to either loyalty or ability, but twisting the tale into gay propaganda is not going to do anyone any favours.

Re: Damnit, I'd just about decided not to renew my BMFA ticket...

"....model planes scare us....." Driving or flying, it is usually a good rule of thumb to assume every other road/air user is a suicidal fool and give them plenty of room.

Re: Loopy Wankinmasta Re: So much for "If you've done nothing wrong.....

"It's obvious just who is the real crims here, then....." Yes, it is - the NSA and GCHQ are legally covered, whereas Snowope took restricted material (cybercrime) and distributed it to "journalists" that did not have clearance to have it (breach of the Espionage Act in the US and the Official Secrets Act in the UK). Yes, by his own admission, it is very clear that Snowdope is a criminal. Your wanting to baaaah-lieve otherwise is just LACKOFINT.

Re: many more in his possession?

"....so, knowing he would be flying through Russia, what might he have done with the files?...." He has already stated he gave everything to Poitras and Greenwald. That is why he can't now get anyone to give him asylum outside Russia, because he has no secrets to offer and only lots of diplomatic heat from the US. Snowdope was duped by Greenwald just as Manning was by A$$ange.

".....Whether Snowden's declaration that his mission is accomplished means he will continue to release documents isn't disclosed....." Hmmm, so leaving glorious, tropical Hawaii, poledancer girlfriend, and an allegedly $150K job, for winter in Moscow with a crappy helldesk job paying peanuts and only KGB goons for company? Yeah, what an accomplishment! ROFLMAO! Snowdope's unfounded narcissism is so beyond Walter Mitty it's simply tragic.

Re: AC Re: Why the hell

"Would I want to dual boot my perfectly running Android and run a horrible slow vista mark 2 kludge exactly?" Because then you have greater control over the device and it won't spend half it's time reporting back to Google and the cellular provider everything you look at, download or do.