Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela

nan said:
No surprise, the trolls defend the troll.
Don't think we need detailed explanations, extensive research or charts and graphs.  You don't go on twitter and tell an ambassador that the person that just commented to them is full of crap on their local message board.  That is despicable behavior and needs to be called out.  

Nan, I have to say that I find the weirdness of "@South_Mountaineer" -- offering himself as an "informant" to Amb McFaul, by "revealing" to him (inaccurately) my local discussion board activities -- is even more striking than the despicable aspect of the behavior. That he thought that McFaul would care that I post on a local discussion board is bordering on delusional.

He didn't think that, Paul, as he explained.

But I should've listened to ridski. I should always listen to ridski.

paulsurovell said:

nan said:
No surprise, the trolls defend the troll.
Don't think we need detailed explanations, extensive research or charts and graphs.  You don't go on twitter and tell an ambassador that the person that just commented to them is full of crap on their local message board.  That is despicable behavior and needs to be called out.  

Nan, I have to say that I find the weirdness of "@South_Mountaineer" -- offering himself as an "informant" to Amb McFaul, by "revealing" to him (inaccurately) my local discussion board activities -- is even more striking than the despicable aspect of the behavior. That he thought that McFaul would care that I post on a local discussion board is bordering on delusional.

 Yeah, that indicates some bizarre perspective, but I can't even begin to understand that. So, I just focus on the ethics. McFaul is not going to be checking out MOL. We are just a little community thing.  It's one thing to say, "Oh, I was discussing this on my local message board, and . . ."  But, to personally attack someone with supposed information about their participation on a community message board is awful. What was he thinking?

DaveSchmidt said:
He didn't think that, Paul, as he explained.
But I should've listened to ridski. I should always listen to ridski.

Where did "@South_Mountaineer" explain that he didn't think that McFaul would care that I post on a local discussion board when he wrote (my bold):

Don't listen to him, Ambassador @McFaul. He rants like that on our local message board all the time. He's been fairly well refuted there, so I guess that's why he's come to twitter to repeat the same stuff.

Good summary of the Mueller investigation so far:

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-mueller-investigation-is-sending-people-to-jail-but-not-for-collusion/

paulsurovell said:

Where did "@South_Mountaineer" explain that he didn't think that McFaul would care that I post on a local discussion board when he wrote (my bold):

More time listening and trying to understand what others are saying. Less time “calling attention to odd behavior.”

I responded to paulsurovell along those lines (when you reply to someone else's reply on Twitter, the reply goes both to that person, and to the person they first replied to).  Instead of just a reply, I worded the comment the way I did.  It was a reply to paulsurovell, of course, and his whole "phony outrage" thing posted here is a bit much.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Where did "@South_Mountaineer" explain that he didn't think that McFaul would care that I post on a local discussion board when he wrote (my bold):

More time listening and trying to understand what others are saying. Less time “calling attention to odd behavior.”

I responded to paulsurovell along those lines (when you reply to someone else's reply on Twitter, the reply goes both to that person, and to the person they first replied to).  Instead of just a reply, I worded the comment the way I did.  It was a reply to paulsurovell, of course, and his whole "phony outrage" thing posted here is a bit much.

Of course it was technically a reply to me. But the message was addressed to Amb McFaul. Once again:

Don't listen to him, Ambassador @McFaul. He rants like that on our local message board all the time. He's been fairly well refuted there, so I guess that's why he's come to twitter to repeat the same stuff.

Not difficult to understand what he was saying. And what he said was very odd.

Mr. Surovell is still doing his classic "I know what it looks like, and I know what the poster explained it meant, but I still get to tell you what it REALLY is" routine.

As I mentioned yesterday -

nohero said:
 As you may have discerned, I do tend to disagree with the bull caca you put out, and often respond with reference to actual facts.  I had to do so the other day with your false accusation that I held a viewpoint which I don't actually hold, but you claimed otherwise based on your faulty, incomplete description.  So it's not a leap to not accept your other claims at face value.

Message to Mr. J. Ross - In my long experience on this message board, when a thread has gone off the rails like this, and devolves into just some poster complaining about other posters and making it all about him, it has reached the end of its useful life.  Just sayin' ...

Agreed.   Time to kick this one to the dungeon.   Permanently.

paulsurovell said:

Not difficult to understand what he was saying. And what he said was very odd.

 Try harder.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Not difficult to understand what he was saying. And what he said was very odd.

 Try harder.

 Well, tell us why addressing McFaul is not addressing McFaul.

sbenois said:
Agreed.   Time to kick this one to the dungeon.   Permanently. 

Same mentality

paulsurovell said:

Well, tell us why addressing McFaul is not addressing McFaul.

You’ve heard of rhetorical devices? (For example, that’s a rhetorical question.)

Here’s another:

I’m sure I don’t give a **** anymore, TBH.

nohero said:
Mr. Surovell is still doing his classic "I know what it looks like, and I know what the poster explained it meant, but I still get to tell you what it REALLY is" routine.
As I mentioned yesterday -

nohero said:
 As you may have discerned, I do tend to disagree with the bull caca you put out, and often respond with reference to actual facts.  I had to do so the other day with your false accusation that I held a viewpoint which I don't actually hold, but you claimed otherwise based on your faulty, incomplete description.  So it's not a leap to not accept your other claims at face value.

Message to Mr. J. Ross - In my long experience on this message board, when a thread has gone off the rails like this, and devolves into just some poster complaining about other posters and making it all about him, it has reached the end of its useful life.  Just sayin' ...

 @nohero the censor. He can dish it out but he can't take it.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Well, tell us why addressing McFaul is not addressing McFaul.

You’ve heard of rhetorical devices? (For example, that’s a rhetorical question.)
Here’s another:
I’m sure I don’t give a **** anymore, TBH.

 Not a rhetorical device when he's on McFaul's thread. He was addressing McFaul.

paulsurovell said:
Good summary of the Mueller investigation so far:
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-mueller-investigation-is-sending-people-to-jail-but-not-for-collusion/

Mate, too, writes under the assumption that Mueller hasn’t uncovered anything that hasn’t been made public. Also, I question the accuracy (not to mention, while I’m at it, pronoun/antecedent agreement) of this sentence: “That allegation may or may not prove to be sufficient grounds for impeachment, but they decidedly do not fall under Robert Mueller’s purview.” 

Mueller’s purview includes “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:
Good summary of the Mueller investigation so far:
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-mueller-investigation-is-sending-people-to-jail-but-not-for-collusion/

Mate, too, writes under the assumption that Mueller hasn’t uncovered anything that hasn’t been made public. Also, I question the accuracy (not to mention, while I’m at it, pronoun/antecedent agreement) of this sentence: “That allegation may or may not prove to be sufficient grounds for impeachment, but they decidedly do not fall under Robert Mueller’s purview.” 
Mueller’s purview includes “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”

 Agreed that it's unclear. But of the two possibilities -- grounds for impeachment are entirely under Congress's purview and since Mueller himself farmed out Cohen's case to the District Court he effectively took it out of his purview -- Mate is right.

But yes, that passage needs to be edited.

Paul - what will you do if collusion is proven when the Mueller report comes out?

Any conclusions prior to the report is pure speculation.

Trump and people like you have done your best to tip things your way when it comes to discrediting Mueller and the Intelligence community - so you may have gotten a lot of people on your side with the witch hunt tweets and the CIA is bad because of WMDs - but overall the truth will come out.  It's just a question of how your side will attack it when it does.

In the meantime - have fun - this is your wheelhouse.  Keep making allegations to classified evidence you don't have.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Well, tell us why addressing McFaul is not addressing McFaul.

You’ve heard of rhetorical devices? (For example, that’s a rhetorical question.)

Mr. Surovell must have been terrified.

"Well, I was terrified. Everyone was terrified of Doug. I've seen grown men pull their own heads off rather than see Doug. Even Dinsdale was frightened of Doug."

Interviewer: "What did he do?:

"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, pathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

Q: "So to be clear, Mr. Trump has no financial relationships with any Russian oligarchs."

Manafort: "Th -- that's what he said. I -- that's what I said -- that's obviously what the -- our position is."

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

Message to Mr. J. Ross - In my long experience on this message board, when a thread has gone off the rails like this, and devolves into just some poster complaining about other posters and making it all about him, it has reached the end of its useful life.  Just sayin' ...

 @nohero the censor. He can dish it out but he can't take it.

 Please note that this was not an actual request to Mr. J. Ross, but instead was intended to convey the absurdity of this turn in the discussion, in a manner designed to elicit recognition from the reader as to the similarity to past circumstances with which the reader may be familiar.

Or in other words - It doesn't matter to me, knock yourself out. 

nohero said:
. . .  when a thread has gone off the rails like this, and devolves into just some poster complaining about other posters and making it all about him, it has reached the end of its useful life.  Just sayin' ...

 and then he posts this -->

nohero said:

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Well, tell us why addressing McFaul is not addressing McFaul.

You’ve heard of rhetorical devices? (For example, that’s a rhetorical question.)

Mr. Surovell must have been terrified.
"Well, I was terrified. Everyone was terrified of Doug. I've seen grown men pull their own heads off rather than see Doug. Even Dinsdale was frightened of Doug."
Interviewer: "What did he do?:
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, pathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

Message to Mr. J. Ross - In my long experience on this message board, when a thread has gone off the rails like this, and devolves into just some poster complaining about other posters and making it all about him, it has reached the end of its useful life.  Just sayin' ...

 @nohero the censor. He can dish it out but he can't take it.

 Please note that this was not an actual request to Mr. J. Ross, but instead was intended to convey the absurdity of this turn in the discussion, in a manner designed to elicit recognition from the reader as to the similarity to past circumstances with which the reader may be familiar.
Or in other words - It doesn't matter to me, knock yourself out. 

This claim that "you didn't mean it" -- like your claim "South_Mountaineer" "didn't mean it" -- has no credibility, in part because you were an active participant when this thread was closed in February, and like "South_Mountaineer" you made it personal by PM'ing me this:

nohero Mar 1, 2018 at 3:32pm

(that's "In Case You Missed It")

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/who-colluded-more-hillary-or-trump?page=next&limit=2700#discussion-replies-3394479

The linked post, coming 16 minutes after Jamie announced the thread was closed, concluded with:

Okay, now we can kill the thread.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

Message to Mr. J. Ross - In my long experience on this message board, when a thread has gone off the rails like this, and devolves into just some poster complaining about other posters and making it all about him, it has reached the end of its useful life.  Just sayin' ...

 @nohero the censor. He can dish it out but he can't take it.

 Please note that this was not an actual request to Mr. J. Ross, but instead was intended to convey the absurdity of this turn in the discussion, in a manner designed to elicit recognition from the reader as to the similarity to past circumstances with which the reader may be familiar.
Or in other words - It doesn't matter to me, knock yourself out. 

This claim that "you didn't mean it" -- like your claim "South_Mountaineer" "didn't mean it" -- has no credibility, in part because you were an active participant when this thread was closed in February, and like "South_Mountaineer" you made it personal by PM'ing me this:

nohero Mar 1, 2018 at 3:32pm

(that's "In Case You Missed It")

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/who-colluded-more-hillary-or-trump?page=next&limit=2700#discussion-replies-3394479

The linked post, coming 16 minutes after Jamie announced the thread was closed, concluded with:

Okay, now we can kill the thread.

 That's another one of your cheap insults.  If people follow the link, you'll see that it's a long response I made to another one of your cheap insults.  I was editing it, and noticed that Jamie had already closed the thread (so I would be the last post, at least at that time).  So I added that last bit ("Okay, now we can kill the thread") because I had been able to respond to your insult by pointing out the truth.

You were never censored.  Stop telling people that.

If people are done with this thread, they can leave.  Otherwise it should remain open, because the topic is still relevant.  Sadly, it was censored and shut down for some months and now it has been relegated to the sub-basement.  But, it keeps going on and Paul has done a remarkable job, despite a less-informed, and sometimes closed-minded pile-on opposition and even stalking on his twitter account. Well, as they say, no good deed shall go unpunished.  

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

Message to Mr. J. Ross - In my long experience on this message board, when a thread has gone off the rails like this, and devolves into just some poster complaining about other posters and making it all about him, it has reached the end of its useful life.  Just sayin' ...

 @nohero the censor. He can dish it out but he can't take it.

 Please note that this was not an actual request to Mr. J. Ross, but instead was intended to convey the absurdity of this turn in the discussion, in a manner designed to elicit recognition from the reader as to the similarity to past circumstances with which the reader may be familiar.
Or in other words - It doesn't matter to me, knock yourself out. 

This claim that "you didn't mean it" -- like your claim "South_Mountaineer" "didn't mean it" -- has no credibility, in part because you were an active participant when this thread was closed in February, and like "South_Mountaineer" you made it personal by PM'ing me this:

nohero Mar 1, 2018 at 3:32pm

(that's "In Case You Missed It")

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/who-colluded-more-hillary-or-trump?page=next&limit=2700#discussion-replies-3394479

The linked post, coming 16 minutes after Jamie announced the thread was closed, concluded with:

Okay, now we can kill the thread.

 That's another one of your cheap insults.  If people follow the link, you'll see that it's a long response I made to another one of your cheap insults.  I was editing it, and noticed that Jamie had already closed the thread (so I would be the last post, at least at that time).  So I added that last bit ("Okay, now we can kill the thread") because I had been able to respond to your insult by pointing out the truth.
You were never censored.  Stop telling people that.

 "Okay now we can kill the thread." (my bold)

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

This claim that "you didn't mean it" -- like your claim "South_Mountaineer" "didn't mean it" -- has no credibility, in part because you were an active participant when this thread was closed in February, and like "South_Mountaineer" you made it personal by PM'ing me this:

nohero Mar 1, 2018 at 3:32pm

(that's "In Case You Missed It")

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/who-colluded-more-hillary-or-trump?page=next&limit=2700#discussion-replies-3394479

The linked post, coming 16 minutes after Jamie announced the thread was closed, concluded with:

Okay, now we can kill the thread.

 That's another one of your cheap insults.  If people follow the link, you'll see that it's a long response I made to another one of your cheap insults.  I was editing it, and noticed that Jamie had already closed the thread (so I would be the last post, at least at that time).  So I added that last bit ("Okay, now we can kill the thread") because I had been able to respond to your insult by pointing out the truth.
You were never censored.  Stop telling people that.

 "Okay now we can kill the thread." (my bold)

Dang.  It's always the little things that trip you up.

Well, I got away with it for so long, but all good things must come to an end.

Yes, it's true.  I am also Jamie.    

[Edited to add]  I sent you a private message because, since the thread had been closed, I wasn't sure you were going to go back to it.  I had written an overlong response to your cheap insult of me about legal ethics, and wanted to be sure you saw it.  In retrospect, a little childish on my part, but there it is.

ouch 

nan said:
If people are done with this thread, they can leave.  Otherwise it should remain open, because the topic is still relevant.  

 Right now this thread could be about Hillary Swank, Tiffany Trump, Bill Hader and Boris Johnson. 

ridski said:

nan said:
If people are done with this thread, they can leave.  Otherwise it should remain open, because the topic is still relevant.  

 Right now this thread could be about Hillary Swank, Tiffany Trump, Bill Hader and Boris Johnson. 

 The topic of collusion is still relevant in the world.  This thread has been making bumpy detours but  will be back on track soon.