Did US Tap Chancellor Merkel's Mobile Phone?

christiefan915 said:
Not even close. No cigar for you. When did I ever demand that someone be banned? When did I ever demand a forced ignore from you mods? I have always said that I use the IA function for people I don't want to read and it's worked nicely for the last 4-plus years. The ban demands centered on ILA and I agreed with many others that his hateful comments were nauseating to read. But I also had him on IA for months and only saw the occasional post when someone quoted it. When he first came here I gave him the same chance I give everyone. It didn't work out, I put him on IA, case closed. I haven't engaged anybody on my IA list. One person I did engage was not on the IA list. You guys are fooling no one. There's a purpose behind what you did and because I've been complaining, you all are making excuses for it. For as long as I've been here the guiding principle is to have the least-moderated board possible. Grind has a signature which reads something like "ILA isn't breaking any rules so he's staying, get over it." Yet the mods decided, without any input from me, who I should or shouldn't be talking to. Who's over-moderating now? You'll have to peddle your excuse to someone a lot more gullible than BAC and me because we don't buy it.
Click to expand...

So you say.
 
christiefan915 said:
Not even close. No cigar for you. When did I ever demand that someone be banned? When did I ever demand a forced ignore from you mods? I have always said that I use the IA function for people I don't want to read and it's worked nicely for the last 4-plus years.

The ban demands centered on ILA and I agreed with many others that his hateful comments were nauseating to read. But I also had him on IA for months and only saw the occasional post when someone quoted it. When he first came here I gave him the same chance I give everyone. It didn't work out, I put him on IA, case closed. I haven't engaged anybody on my IA list. One person I did engage was not on the IA list.

You guys are fooling no one. There's a purpose behind what you did and because I've been complaining, you all are making excuses for it. For as long as I've been here the guiding principle is to have the least-moderated board possible. Grind has a signature which reads something like "ILA isn't breaking any rules so he's staying, get over it." Yet the mods decided, without any input from me, who I should or shouldn't be talking to. Who's over-moderating now?

You'll have to peddle your excuse to someone a lot more gullible than BAC and me because we don't buy it.
Click to expand...

Whatever helps you sleep at night.
 
christiefan915 said:
Yet the mods decided, without any input from me, who I should or shouldn't be talking to. Who's over-moderating now?
Click to expand...

very few (if any people) have voluntarily gone on forced ignore.

Forced ignore has been around for years now, and has been used for situations exactly like this, for members that are incapable of tolerating another posters presence, or those that simply have no productive value in reading each others posts going forward.

darla was on forced ignore with ILA for a long time, probably why it took her so long to notice all the horrible things he said.

Yurt was forced to ignore a few people I believe, howey has been, DY has been, maineman has been, etc. This isnt anything new.

The problem you may not be seeing, and what others may not be seeing if they insist on being continually disingenuous, is the overall demeanor of a lot of people on this board (especially recently) clamoring for more censorship, more rules, having certain people be silenced, being OUTRAGED that x y z aren't banned, thanking posts testifying to that affect, all contributing to an echo chamber of noise and board disruption.

We have given everyone of those people exactly what they have wanted, especially with regards to ILA, he's out of their sight, out of their mind.

When people like BAC complain, when he's made thread after thread/post after post talking about how unfair darla the martyr was banned but ILA is still around, while at the same time getting mad when he can't read ILA's posts anymore so he can't get outraged and mad at them so he can't complain more, you have to understand that we may roll our eyes.

What is the difference between someone being banned and not being able to see their posts anymore, vs. them not being banned but not seeing their posts anymore? The desired outcome is virtually the same in both instances.

I am sick of this two-faced bullshit where everyone is up in arms over various posters but screams bloody murder when they can't read what they have to say.

It's the utmost pillar of hypocrisy.

Please understand we are just doing our best to respond to the community over a few very polarizing posters. It's not personal and we of course will be very receptive to anything you need to say.

But any of this "I didn't ask for this" is kind of irrelevant. Forced ignore isn't a voluntary thing. That's why it's called "forced" ignore to begin with.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I have to say it wouldn't surprise me at all if this is true.

Berlin is taking seriously indications that Chancellor Angela Merkel's mobile phone might have been tapped by US intelligence, according to SPIEGEL information. Merkel spoke with President Barack Obama on Wednesday about her concerns.


German Chancellor Angela Merkel phoned United States President Barack Obama on Wednesday to discuss suspicions that she may have been targeted by US intelligence agencies for years, SPIEGEL has learned.


The chancellor asked for a thorough explanation of serious indications that US intelligence agencies had declared her private mobile phone to be a target in their operations.

Merkel made it clear that, should these indications turn out to be true, she "unequivocally disapproves" of such methods and finds them "totally unacceptable," her spokesman Steffen Seibert said. "This would be a grave breach of trust," he added. "Such practices must immediately be put to a stop."


The unusually strong reaction from the Chancellery was prompted by SPIEGEL research. After the information was examined by the country's foreign intelligence agency, the Federal Intelligence Service (BND), and the Federal Office for Information Security, Berlin seems to have found their suspicions plausible enough to confront the US government.

During her conversation with Obama, Merkel expressed her expectation that "US authorities would provide an explanation about the possible extent of such surveillance practices, and thus answer questions that the German government already posed months ago," Seibert said.




"As a close ally of the United States of America, the German government expects a clear contractual agreement on the activities of the agencies and their cooperation," he added.

In response to the allegations, a spokeswoman for the US National Security Council told SPIEGEL: "The President assured the Chancellor that the United States is not monitoring and will not monitor the communications of Chancellor Merkel."
The spokeswoman did not wish to specify whether this statement applied to the past.




http://www.spiegel.de/international...ions-us-tapped-her-mobile-phone-a-929642.html
Click to expand...

Let's not forget about this little revelation:

Ex-NSA chief talks on a train, fellow rider tweets, tweets go viral
 
All Hail Grind the Wise & Kind All Hail Grind the Wise & Kind All Hail Grind the Wise & Kind All Hail Grind the Wise & Kind
 
Dantès said:
That is what sparked the recent revolt here! They don't know it yet but blaming the victims and making sure that their experience is harder is what this is really all about. Making those who reported three days of offensive posts pay for their being offended. It's fucked up for sure and people are discovering new homes and most may never return. It's the way things are!
Click to expand...

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED.
Get that through your tiny little cranium and do try to understand it. :palm;
 
` said:
very few (if any people) have voluntarily gone on forced ignore.

Forced ignore has been around for years now, and has been used for situations exactly like this, for members that are incapable of tolerating another posters presence, or those that simply have no productive value in reading each others posts going forward.

darla was on forced ignore with ILA for a long time, probably why it took her so long to notice all the horrible things he said.

Yurt was forced to ignore a few people I believe, howey has been, DY has been, maineman has been, etc. This isnt anything new.

The problem you may not be seeing, and what others may not be seeing if they insist on being continually disingenuous, is the overall demeanor of a lot of people on this board (especially recently) clamoring for more censorship, more rules, having certain people be silenced, being OUTRAGED that x y z aren't banned, thanking posts testifying to that affect, all contributing to an echo chamber of noise and board disruption.

We have given everyone of those people exactly what they have wanted, especially with regards to ILA, he's out of their sight, out of their mind.

When people like BAC complain, when he's made thread after thread/post after post talking about how unfair darla the martyr was banned but ILA is still around, while at the same time getting mad when he can't read ILA's posts anymore so he can't get outraged and mad at them so he can't complain more, you have to understand that we may roll our eyes.

What is the difference between someone being banned and not being able to see their posts anymore, vs. them not being banned but not seeing their posts anymore? The desired outcome is virtually the same in both instances.

I am sick of this two-faced bullshit where everyone is up in arms over various posters but screams bloody murder when they can't read what they have to say.

It's the utmost pillar of hypocrisy.

Please understand we are just doing our best to respond to the community over a few very polarizing posters. It's not personal and we of course will be very receptive to anything you need to say.

But any of this "I didn't ask for this" is kind of irrelevant. Forced ignore isn't a voluntary thing. That's why it's called "forced" ignore to begin with.
Click to expand...

From their comments, he may be out of sight; but he's definitely not out of their minds. :)
They have an axe to grind
 
Truth Deflector: I would advise you leave the forum post haste lest it be too late. Bye bye!
Click to expand...
8e5e551bcf6a68bab159672655d82e52.jpg
 
` said:
very few (if any people) have voluntarily gone on forced ignore.

Forced ignore has been around for years now, and has been used for situations exactly like this, for members that are incapable of tolerating another posters presence, or those that simply have no productive value in reading each others posts going forward.

darla was on forced ignore with ILA for a long time, probably why it took her so long to notice all the horrible things he said.

Yurt was forced to ignore a few people I believe, howey has been, DY has been, maineman has been, etc. This isnt anything new.

The problem you may not be seeing, and what others may not be seeing if they insist on being continually disingenuous, is the overall demeanor of a lot of people on this board (especially recently) clamoring for more censorship, more rules, having certain people be silenced, being OUTRAGED that x y z aren't banned, thanking posts testifying to that affect, all contributing to an echo chamber of noise and board disruption.

We have given everyone of those people exactly what they have wanted, especially with regards to ILA, he's out of their sight, out of their mind.

When people like BAC complain, when he's made thread after thread/post after post talking about how unfair darla the martyr was banned but ILA is still around, while at the same time getting mad when he can't read ILA's posts anymore so he can't get outraged and mad at them so he can't complain more, you have to understand that we may roll our eyes.

What is the difference between someone being banned and not being able to see their posts anymore, vs. them not being banned but not seeing their posts anymore? The desired outcome is virtually the same in both instances.

I am sick of this two-faced bullshit where everyone is up in arms over various posters but screams bloody murder when they can't read what they have to say.

It's the utmost pillar of hypocrisy.

Please understand we are just doing our best to respond to the community over a few very polarizing posters. It's not personal and we of course will be very receptive to anything you need to say.

But any of this "I didn't ask for this" is kind of irrelevant. Forced ignore isn't a voluntary thing. That's why it's called "forced" ignore to begin with.
Click to expand...

Here's the difference. I already had most of those people on ignore. I already was not responding to most them. I wasn't complaining and making thread after thread talking about how unfair it was that Darla was banned, etc. I was NOT one of the people doing everything you said, but I do remember Darla asking for forced ignore and you accommodated her, even if she didn't realize it at first. That was Darla, not me.

You guys always talk about wanting the least oversight possible here, the libertarian view. Yet you made the decision that some people shouldn't talk to others. You were very stern and uncompromising that people like ILA are free to say what they want, when they want, as long as it wasn't breaking any rules and if someone didn't like it, they could leave. I repeat, I didn't talk to him but also you didn't give me the choice to take him off IA if I changed my mind. I don't know how to make it any more clear. You gave me something I never asked for and didn't need, and I consider that to be over-modding and hypocritical to your board ethos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top