Like I said, I don't know you - I'm not saying you're one of those people I mentioned here but what you said reminds me of things I've heard them say.
Screw every last one of them.
That depends on the source. If the source has proven to be wrong, dishonest or malicious more often than not, it would strike me as wise to believe nothing from that source until I can verify it for myself.
I believe in very little.
There is such a thing as objective truth. The only thing that's relative and subjective is its interpretation.
NetRange: 126.96.36.199 - 188.8.131.52
NetType: Direct Assignment
OrgName: United States Senate
Address: 2 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.E. 6TH FLOOR
City: WASHINGTON DC
OrgName: United States Traitors
Allegedly. Who knows what interpretations of the law the government makes in secret. That's the thing, it's secret, so you don't know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki#Abdulrahm...
>We still have due process.
Which has been ignored at times in the (recent) past, so why assume it is going to be applied now?
"Are usually as dumb as brandon's and that is REAL dumb"
This was added to to the Bichon page, the rest of the edits are similarly juvenile
Entirely possible that there is zero connection to FIU or the state of Florida in general.
See what I did there?
A Senator or anyone within the Senate has just as much of a right to their opinions as any of us do and they also have the same permission to edit Wikipedia entries as we do.
So what is the point in pointing out that someone presumably within the US Senate has changed a word in the Wikipedia article about Snowden? To point out that they're wrong? What if we're the ones who are wrong?
This act doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights in any way. Its an attempt to persuade possibly but we can't blame them for that. They have just as much a right to try and persuade people to seeing things their way as we do.
I'm just wondering what kind of discussion is this supposed to spark? I've seen a fair number of posts on HN lately that are little more than attempts to preach to the converted and turn the comments into a back-slapping fest. Is it weird that I consider the opposing viewpoint any time I make an argument or consider an issue? I don't necessarily agree with changing dissident to traitor but I don't see anything wrong with someone believing that either.
If someone in the Senate wants to edit Wikipedia articles, they're free to do so on their own time, using their own equipment.
In any case though, I don't think the ethics of editing a word on Wikipedia during work hours is what we're supposed to be getting up in arms about. I'm really not sure still why we're supposed to be upset.
I would mind if it turned out to be an astroturf campaign but I don't see any evidence of that.
Snowden's leaks have been a subject of great controversy. Some have referred to Snowden as a hero, whistleblower or even a dissident, while others have described him as a traitor.