Disqus - Latest Comments for TomUsher

Re: The new normal: Reading the worst into everything: "If he invited me to a public hanging, I'd be on the front row"

Tom Usher — Thu, 29 Nov 2018 03:57:43 -0000

Here's a quote directly stating the expression was common, but the quote doesn't explain that it was commonly referring to governmental hangings of anyone being hanged regardless of race and was not confined to the Deep South or conservatives or racists:

‘It Was All About the White Guy, Right?’

Many Mississippians scratched their heads. It seemed no one had ever heard the alleged colloquialism, “If he invited me to a public hanging, I’d be on the front row.” The New York Times, though, interviewed a southern linguist who said the expression was used in the late 1800s and early 1900s—when lynchings were most common—but had mostly died out by 1950. Hyde-Smith was born in 1959.

Shows, however, said he recalled hearing the expression growing up.

“I heard it in passing, not as a joke,” he said. “Coming up back then, I didn’t know the impact until I got older and started reading to find out, and I was shocked. You’ve got to remember that we didn’t study black history then—it was all about the white guy, right? I’m not making excuses. It’s crazy running for office in Mississippi to say that.” [end quote]

This is the source article: http://www.jacksonfreepress...

Obviously, that article is in favor of assuming Hyde-Smith had to have meant lynching a Black person.

Anyway, I said I had heard it growing up in the 1950s and 60s in Michigan and being used by liberals there, liberals who favored the Civil Rights Movement too. It was not confined to the Deep South and didn't end in 1950, as I wasn't even born until 1953 and certainly wasn't old enough to remember hearing it until at least 1957 at the earliest.

By the way, in their debate, Espy said he didn't know what's in Hyde-Smith's heart, meaning he, Espy, didn't have proof she meant lynching Blacks.

Could she be a racist? Ask her. Maybe she was but isn't now and hasn't been for some time.

I stand by my post!

Re: The new normal: Reading the worst into everything: "If he invited me to a public hanging, I'd be on the front row"

Tom Usher — Mon, 19 Nov 2018 00:10:58 -0000

Quote:

Espy said in a March 12, 2011, article that he had ended work in February and had only been paid $400,000.

"I have voluntarily suspended it," Espy told The Hill. "Events are spiraling rapidly. It is very difficult to work in that context."

But documents Espy filed months later showed a $350,000 payment on March 1, 2011, bringing the total to $750,000. The contract didn't end until March 15. That was 15 days before it was originally supposed to conclude.

(Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/...

Is that an error in reporting, a harmless error on Espy's part, or Espy downright lying?

Re: The new normal: Reading the worst into everything: "If he invited me to a public hanging, I'd be on the front row"

Tom Usher — Fri, 16 Nov 2018 19:52:48 -0000

Eliot Ware,

This comment answers your final two comments in one.

So, not only do you call her a liar purely because she is a White Republican in Mississippi running against a Black Clintonite and not because you have evidence she is a racist, though I've clearly said she may be one, you are also calling me a liar because I've written here before God and everyone that I remember the expression used when I was a boy in Michigan and by liberals, myself included, as I was labeled a "liberal" at the time.

I considered myself a liberal only because I didn't fully understand the secular-political meaning versus democratic-socialist, which I've always been. I was born one. You have zero evidence that I'm lying. You simply judge and condemn me because you can't bring yourself to admit that logic dictates that her statement doesn't have to mean she's a racist. It was not a racist statement. You go on to accuse me of pretending and of threatening you. By pretending, you mean that you believe I agree with you that she is a racist and am only pretending she's not a proven racist. You do that in the face of what I said: that she might be one but that I have no proof of it and won't judge and condemn her without any (and wouldn't even with it, as judging and condemning goes squarely against the teachings of Jesus. The worst he said we may do is consider one who is knowingly guilty and unapologetic as a heathen).

You ask for a citation of prior use. I haven't bothered. Why should I? You've libeled me right here, as it falls on you to prove that your statement about me is factual. You require proof because you claim my statement is dubious at best, I'm pretending, and so forth. I didn't say the expression was "common." I simply stated it existed. I have no idea how widespread it was. It might have been used mostly locally.

I remember the statement that "smart is as smart does" from long before Forrest Gump. In fact, I used it a great deal when I was a little kid. My immediate family of origin can attest to it, but I'm sure not going to enlist them to come here to defend me on it. I'm quite certain that the vast majority of people would falsely imagine that the expression originated with the screen writers for the movie. Well, I heard it in a movie when I was that little kid I said. I don't remember which movie, but it was probably from the 1930s. Where that movie got it, I have no idea. There are plenty of other such examples. No doubt a person could make an entire career out of investigating origins of statements (commonly used and otherwise) and come up with plenty of surprising results.

I have not libeled you, as your statements truly are illogical and can be proven as such via symbolic logic. Your premises DO NOT support your conclusion. Her statement doesn't even rise to the level of ambiguous. The most you should have said concerning it is that you remain suspicious due to the context (White, Republican, Mississippi, Black opposition) or that you believe she is a racist but can't prove it. The only reason you could get away with that is because of the public office involved and your right to free political speech, which you don't have concerning me, as I'm not in public office and am not running for public office.

I'm not throwing the concepts of circumstantial evidence and preponderance of evidence out the window here. The context you paint is insufficient to come to the final conclusion you have: that it's impossible she meant it as she has said she meant it. God knows that I'm telling you the truth. You need to learn it to save your soul from risk, from danger, per Jesus. Read it. I have.

Being true to your form, you'll likely claim in your muddled head to yourself that I've just threatened to sue you for libeling me on my own blog. You like to jump to false conclusions when they are against ideologies or positions (mine concerning "proof" she's a racist) that don't suit your narrowmindedness and agenda, which I'm certain is bad for humanity, though, perhaps the lesser of evils (only perhaps). I don't trust you for cause.

I'm not on trial simply because you put her on trial. The saying did not originate with her, as in, she is not the first to have said it. I have no idea whether she knows that or not, heard it before, or came up with as an original thought with her. If you're lost about a prior-used expression being unknown to someone who then says that expression without ever having seen or heard it, that's your problem. The fact that I heard it doesn't prove she isn't a racist. It doesn't prove that Mississippi wasn't and isn't different from Michigan. I simply pointed it out as a possible reason she used it and possibly (likely) in the same manner it was used back then in Michigan by those who supported the Civil Rights Movement led by The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., whom I openly liked and admired even back then. I was the sole member of my family who openly supported John Kennedy for President versus Richard Nixon. My parents voted for Nixon. Of course, the Republican Party was different then. I told them I'd vote for Kennedy. I'll stack my knowledge of Republican dirty tricks up against yours any day of the week. That said, I'll also stack my knowledge of Democratic dirty tricks up against yours any day of the week.

Apparently, you aren't very knowledgeable or experienced or discerning as to how finding citations works these days. Plug any such hot-news story expression into any major search engine and attempt to find earlier uses. Eventually, there will be an honest and open platform to find known first uses. We aren't even close to that. We aren't because the powers that be don't want it. You figure it out. You know: context. I'll give you hints: capitalism, anti-democracy (but I repeat myself).

You've provided nothing. You've simply agreed with the masses who judged and condemned her by wildly stretching her words into something she must apologize for solely to throw mud in a political fight for an elitist position. Her Black opposition is no saint. Let him openly state that Hillary Clinton's campaign used totally dirty tricks to win the Presidential primary against Bernie Sanders.

Here's your problem on full display and in a nutshell: "... makes a comment about a lynching ...." "Feigned willful ignorance is sinful."

You twisted her words from "public hanging" to "lynching." You twisted "public hanging" into "lynching." They are not synonymous. They are not connotations of the same term. "Feigned willful ignorance" is redundant, but you're forgiven for that. Twisting is the sin. I've been truthful throughout here to the best of my ability. If I've made any errors here with you, they have been completely unintentional. Of course, you're not the kind to give anyone who disagrees with you even the benefit of the doubt. Lord help us all if your "discernment" is ever the standard by which we are all judged and condemned.

If they invited you to lynch her or to lynch me, would you like to be in the front row? I wonder. "Crucify him, crucify him."

Re: The new normal: Reading the worst into everything: "If he invited me to a public hanging, I'd be on the front row"

Tom Usher — Wed, 14 Nov 2018 23:14:06 -0000

You're proving the point of my post. You are bound and determined to judge and condemn because you refuse to admit the possibility that she meant it exactly as she has said she meant it, nothing more, nothing less.

I am old enough to remember the expression (what she said verbatim) being used in Michigan in liberal households. You're claiming that crossing into any state were lynchings were common suddenly makes a racist out of any Republican White person using that old expression in 2018.

Why should she be condemn for using that expression, for not thinking before she said it, that it could be twisted into "proof" she's a racist who'd show up to the lynching of a Black person, someone afforded zero due process.

As I said, if you have proof she's a racist, show it.

No further continued illogical, huge stretching at best by you will be allowed on this site.

If you want the reputational self-harm that will result that's out of my control (it's the Disqus platform that controls that) if I block you, go for it. I can see my own stats where comment admins have claimed I've spammed (trolls get lumped in there because there is no distinction offered by the platform) which I've never done: never spammed, never trolled. If anyone ever told me they were done and didn't want to continue back and forth comments, I always simply stopped.

I totally hate the current political technique of reading into everything the worst possible as established fact. It's done on the "right." It's done on the "left." It's not done by honest people.

You didn't provide proof she's a racist because you didn't have any proof. Go find some. If you do and call her out for it, I'll back you up on it. Otherwise, you're part of the problem rather than solution.

If a German politician were in Poland saying if they were to bring back capital punishment in Poland and he were to invite her to a public execution, she'd be in the front row, it wouldn't prove she's an anti-Semite. You and I both know that. I won't wait.

Re: The new normal: Reading the worst into everything: "If he invited me to a public hanging, I'd be on the front row"

Tom Usher — Tue, 13 Nov 2018 20:57:58 -0000

Eliot Ware, your comment is completely illogical. First of all, you named a placed designed to state Jews. The hanging comment mentioned no place indicating or to be taken as indicating any particular time or place stating Blacks. There are other problems with your logic, but I've said enough that you ought to drop your stone and walk away.

Of course, you are completely welcome to drop your stone and openly apologize for accusing me of excusing what you appear to have claimed can only be taken how you wanted to take it, even though, obviously, she didn't have to have meant it the way you wanted to take it.

Do you know she is a racist? What evidence do you have that she is? If you know she is and can prove it, show me. She may be, but I, of course, don't know, certainly can't prove it, and won't judge or condemn her as you have. Congratulations yourself.

Don't spam me. Don't troll here. If you are being genuine, write like it. If you were honestly mistaken, say so. Otherwise, don't comment again.

That's clear enough.

Re: The case of the Babichenko family of Boise, Idaho

Tom Usher — Mon, 12 Nov 2018 21:23:12 -0000

Lying is an evil strategy. It's better to say nothing. "... that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man."

Re: The case of the Babichenko family of Boise, Idaho

Tom Usher — Mon, 12 Nov 2018 21:19:02 -0000

"How can I be sure those were not counterfeit? Experience, relationships, and industry knowledge is crucial in this business."

We already knew that a percentage of their products were refurbished. What still isn't known is whether there were any counterfeits. We also don't know that if there were counterfeits, whether the Banichenkos knew they were obtaining and reselling counterfeits. If they were selling any counterfeits but thought they were selling non-counterfeits, we don't know what mitigating evidence they have, such as seller representations/documentation to them as to the genuineness of the products .

"Experience, relationships, and industry knowledge" is not necessarily direct knowledge of their entire inventory. Your reply strikes me as disingenuous: dodgy. Do you understand why?

I'm confident in saying that you do not know for a fact that the Babichenkos weren't selling any counterfeits, whether knowingly or not.

Re: The case of the Babichenko family of Boise, Idaho

Tom Usher — Mon, 12 Nov 2018 21:05:05 -0000

You're too loose with your charges. I've been in wholesaling and jobbing. What Amazon allows or doesn't allow is irrelevant in terms of misrepresentation. We're talking about morals, ethics, religion, specifically Christianity, and the secular law here all at the same time. Pay closer attention to the entire conversation if you wish to participate in a more helpful manner.

I don't know that anyone here wasn't aware of the difference between refurbished and counterfeit. In fact, I believe it was quite clear before you thought you were scoring some sort of point by perhaps suggesting otherwise. It appears that was your intention, but I'm giving you an out by qualifying with "perhaps."

I suggest you slow down and think more thoroughly and thoughtfully before commenting.

"If you have any indictments in regards to new and refurbished, take it up with Amazon." People should, but that does not relieve sellers of their own responsibilities not to misrepresent. You seem to suggest otherwise in your haste or perhaps as a consequence of too much vying in crass capitalism.

Also, address and answer all questions posed here or find yourself blocked for cause. This is an open conversation for those who will follow very basic rules.

Re: The case of the Babichenko family of Boise, Idaho

Tom Usher — Mon, 12 Nov 2018 02:59:45 -0000

No. You're completely wrong in your approach. They are holding themselves out to be Christians and persecuted not for being Russians but for being Christians (of a particular type perhaps but not for being Russian, per se, as far as anything they've sent me).

You're suggesting that lying is acceptable. It is not. If you're willing to state that you'd lie, why should we take you at your word concerning other things you state here? Do you see the problem you're causing?

In addition, it is quite an overstatement that Blacks always scream "racism." The real point is that there is racism.

The Babichenkos have yet to explain exactly what has constituted religious persecution. It may be there, but its up to them to state clearly the facts before simply asking for strangers to sign onto their petitions against the government for any such persecution. So far, its only an allegation without even a description. That's not confidence building.

Re: The case of the Babichenko family of Boise, Idaho

Tom Usher — Mon, 12 Nov 2018 02:47:59 -0000

Well, you've raised some interesting points. However, how can you be sure that only refurbished things were being sold? Also, what about the question of misrepresentation concerning any packaging and other methods of marketing? Was everything that was refurbished sold to buyers clearly informed that the products were refurbished as opposed to new?

Re: The case of the Babichenko family of Boise, Idaho

Tom Usher — Mon, 12 Nov 2018 01:21:37 -0000

Condemning is a strong allegation. What specifically did she write that rises to the level of condemning?

Re: The case of the Babichenko family of Boise, Idaho

Tom Usher — Thu, 08 Nov 2018 20:33:30 -0000

I had seen the term "evangelical" used a few times, but I wasn't sure the degree to which the Orthodox community might be involved or impacted either way. So, the Babichenkos, in your view, are trying to milk the fact that Russia was down on Pentecostalism and that the US government is somehow also? Are the Babichenkos claiming that the US government is against a particular leaning of the Babichenkos' Pentecostalism? There is an ideological spectrum within denominations, as you know.

Re: The case of the Babichenko family of Boise, Idaho

Tom Usher — Thu, 08 Nov 2018 19:33:42 -0000

Okay, thank you for the links. Obviously, it took some time to read both PDF documents.

The Grand Jury Indictment:
"... devices bearing counterfeit marks misrepresented as genuine and new."
Smuggling
Repackaging

The government wants us to conclude that the sheer number of business entities selling the products indicate the purpose was to deceive. It could indicate a purpose to protect assets from liability claims. That, in and of itself, is not illegal.

Did they fail to pay taxes on the gain? Were their accounting records concerning the transactions hidden? Did they keep two sets of books? If not, why not if they were trying to deceive?

The Government Attachment:
"... seized coming in internationally ..." When and where? Smuggling typically suggests not using standard shipping methods but rather methods designed to conceal the products.

As for discussions concerning Amazon and Apple, conversations such as that could occur even though the products are not fake.

The misspelling of California is not criminal. When is packaging criminal? Creating packaging using registered names and logos without permission is illegal. Selling something that's refurbished with the word "new" on the package is fraudulent. Representing a product as being assembled in California when it was known by those who ordered the packaging to have been assembled elsewhere is also fraudulent. However, we can't tell from the documents whether "California Assembled" was the intent. Without further inquiry, the two words could have been in separate contexts.

The defense claims:
1) some 10-20% tithing of sort to aid the poor
2) the "condos" were for government-assisted affordable housing for the poor.

"... a wholesaler of refurbished phones and a retailer of newly manufactured cell phone cases." That's interesting. It remains unclear whether the family is saying that all the equipment the government is calling fake was actually refurbished, genuine equipment.

So, the documents were not the trial. I don't know the evidence that will be presented by defense counsel to attempt to counter the prosecution's claims.

I know a little more than I did from the news reports but not much. What I found most interesting was that the defense counsel discussed sentencing in a manner that suggests he might be considering a guilty plea. That may not be something he's considering, but if I were planning for my client to plead not guilty, I sure wouldn't have phrased things the way he did when mentioning sentencing. In fact, the word sentencing wouldn't have left my mouth.

I was completely dis-impressed by the government's presentation, but that doesn't mean the government has no case. It could, however, mean that the omissions and manner of couching things are because the case is much weaker than the government would like.

The central questions remain completely unaddressed: 1) Upon what basis did the family buy products, upon what representations of those who sold the products to them? 2) What were the families' legal obligations concerning vetting their sources if those sources misrepresented? The Grand Jury Indictment didn't even touch upon either. The defense wasn't in a position to discuss either at the flight-risk hearing if the defense even would ever want to go into those matters.

Re: The case of the Babichenko family of Boise, Idaho

Tom Usher — Thu, 08 Nov 2018 00:36:38 -0000

"Everything about this “religious persecution in America” is frustrating our Slavic community ...." Please elaborate. Are you saying that certain Babichenkos are giving the Russian Orthodox Church (assuming I have the right denomination) a bad reputation? Are they giving all people of Russian descent a bad name there? Are you finding you're having to defend the Church and ethnicity where you otherwise wouldn't have had to but for them: the charges against them and how they have been handling the whole thing?

Re: The case of the Babichenko family of Boise, Idaho

Tom Usher — Thu, 08 Nov 2018 00:21:27 -0000

You've made good points, and you are welcome to comment here so long as you continue doing what you just did: respond directly to questions and not engage in anything trollish.

When they wrote to me that they are being persecuted, I certainly wondered whether any persecution had actually occurred. The fact that the letter was carefully crafted but didn't address some extremely obvious details caused me to publish it and add the commentary I did.

I know you had no intention of offending me, and you didn't offend me. My style is to probe.

Continuing in that mode, do you know them personally? Do you live in the same area and know that they haven't experienced what they are claiming because if the authorities were persecuting, your community there would all be on the receiving end?

My point is that there are Russia and Russian haters galore in the US right now. Our government is so large that there can easily be bad actors who can really be quite nasty for a long time before being stopped. Some never are stopped.

Re: The case of the Babichenko family of Boise, Idaho

Tom Usher — Wed, 07 Nov 2018 20:37:32 -0000

The family is now saying publicly that the phones were refurbished, not counterfeit.

You people can rant and rave all you want, but it would be more helpful if you were to link to the actual court filings and such so I could see what is being presented as evidence by the prosecution.

Even then, I wouldn't dare pronounce the family members charged as guilty. The family wants me to side with them without providing me with enough to even begin to stand for them as being persecuted for being professing Christians. You people commenting here on this thread (so far) want me to denounce those charged as evil criminals. If you really believe in what is supposed to be the American way, the American justice system, then you'd not say they are guilty as charged without having concrete , irrefutable evidence that they are.

So, I don't know exactly what you're claiming is "Absolutely ridiculous," but it sure better not be that you're claiming my position is. If you are, I'd sure hate to have you sitting in the jury box in any case brought against me and I sure wouldn't want to be standing in your shoes when facing God.

Just to be absolutely clear, they are not charged by the government with being rich, living in large houses, or having condos in Brazil, etc., but that they obtained fake phones and such overseas and illegally smuggled those into the country (although that part isn't consistently stated in press reports), package the goods as genuine, and sold them. Perhaps their mistake was not packaging them as refurbished. Maybe they represented them as brand new. I don't know, and the reporting on the case I've seen has been pathetically insufficient.

Anyway, it isn't illegal under the secular law to be even obscenely rich regardless of what religion we're talking about.

So, tell me. How do you know that those charged knew the phones were fake? How do you know that those who sold them the goods didn't present documentation that any reasonable business person would accept as valid? In what manner were the phones and such transported into the US such that the method constituted illegal smuggling? I'm not taking a position either way, but I do know the questions I'd ask those who are charged and those who charged them and were involved in the entire operation.

I already said that their lifestyle is not typically Christian but that I have no idea as to how much they gave and shared with the poor. Do you expect me to condemn them based upon the news reports and the comments against them made here? I can only say that I am completely withholding judgment, as I should be.

If I had, had personal dealings with them and found them to be beyond the legal secular pale, that would be different. Even then, I'd still limit my judgment to what I know. Would I be more suspicious about them concerning other claims? Of course.

So, if they are truly proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt and then repent, will you forgive them?

Re: The case of the Babichenko family of Boise, Idaho

Tom Usher — Sun, 04 Nov 2018 16:29:39 -0000

Look, I think you repeated points I made in my post but failed to also agree with me that the article about the government's charges against them didn't spell things out as to why the government believes or knows the phones were "smuggled." You may personally know those charged. I do not. There is still a presumption of innocence in the USA, and that's a good thing. I had already expressed my concern with prosperity preaching.

So, you may be absolutely right as to guilt; but, don't forget that you've said you were on the receiving end, you want to remain anonymous (which, frankly, isn't Christian), and that you should be on guard yourself concerning becoming bitter (which you already appear to possibly be), vindictive, and, therefore, spiritually ill and at risk over the matter. Are you looking for them to repent and atone and to forgive them and show mercy or what? Do you want them punished? Do you think that's what Jesus wants you to be like concerning them?

There are people who don't realize that amassing a huge fortune while not sharing hugely with the poor and needy is anti-Christ. I don't know how the charged were brought up in terms of theology. I also don't know how much sharing they did within the community, especially with those most in need. Are you saying they never did a good thing there? Are you saying that they are beyond redemption? Are we perfect?

Re: The case of the Babichenko family of Boise, Idaho

Tom Usher — Fri, 26 Oct 2018 16:56:18 -0000

The immediate issue concerns the legal charges leveled against them by the secular government. Were they knowingly violating laws, as alleged by the government? Neither the email nor the news report is much help.

Your anonymous comment claims they are untrustworthy; however, even if one accepts your comment as correct, and I have no way of knowing at this point, it doesn't prove the government's case.

I will say that their lifestyle brought prosperity preachers to mind. I don't hold with prosperity preaching. I don't trust prosperity preachers. Living in a nice house, driving a nice vehicle, and even having a second home doesn't necessarily mean prosperity preaching or greed or even selfishness. It depends upon Christian giving and sharing in general. Neither is particularly easy in a rabidly capitalistic environment. Hyper-capitalistic competition isn't exactly conducive to Christianity.

We don't live in a democratic-Christian theocracy but a plutocracy. Even a Christian commons has to have "income" because of the outside world's wicked coercion.

Peace.

Re: Sexual & gender confusion is definitely contagious. That's being deliberately censored. I've been saying it all for decades.

Tom Usher — Sun, 16 Sep 2018 20:40:47 -0000

Your use of "socialization" is euphemistic. Your view of "harm" is insular. That's why you don't see "disease" where others do. Disease is a loaded term because of the usage of those who don't see the confusion as such. Other terms can be substituted. Error is one of them. The concept is akin to the boiling frog. Those who see error where you see no harm see you as blinded by socialization being mere. They don't want humanity to boil.

One of the difficulties is that many of them have often been largely blind themselves to other forms of boiling. Laissez-faire capitalism, AGW, and militarism being a few examples.

Re: Problematic Second Amendment

Tom Usher — Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:57:10 -0000

Your comment is vague. What specifically do you disagree with in my post? Are you referring to the linked article, my words in my post, or both?

I did say I agree with Robert Parry. This is , however, all far from what I've studied on the issue.

If you can show me specifically where I'm wrong, fine. If you're only able to generalize without specifics, I don't see any value in your comment.

Before you begin to engage on this, please explain your basic ideological position. Use the terms you want, define them, but don't say you haven't any ideology. To head off any needless misunderstanding, I'm not prejudging here.

Secondly, don't presume you are either better educated (more knowledgeable) or smarter than I am. Whether you are, remains to be seen.

For instance, I don't jabber. Let's have an intellectual conversation rather than engaging on that level.

Lastly, scholarly research is only as good as its sources.

Now, I'm not, and never have been, positively impressed with the "Founders." To a man, they were a bunch of lying anti-Christs.

Abigail was wrong. There are men who could be tyrants but have chosen not to be. She is not a credible source, not an authority, to cite in defense of whatever thesis you've attempted to put forth.

Finally, my time is limited. Patience is a virtue. If you reply, I will get to it.

Re: Bug Reports & Feedback: Removing/Blocking Sites from "FREQUENTED COMMUNITIES" on Profiles

Tom Usher — Mon, 22 May 2017 16:00:26 -0000

My post is a request for a feature addition.

I have more than one profile. When logged in to Disqus and visiting various sites with Disqus commenting, Disqus records and then publishes on my public profile where I've been regardless of whether I visited the given site in a different capacity than the one for which my logged in profile is intended to cover/deal with.

As I mentioned, I've fixed it going forward but want to clean that data: remove inapplicable sites depending upon the profile.

If Disqus doesn't want to create that feature, would Disqus be willing to communicate with me via email so I could designate the profile(s) and site(s) to remove per profile.

At the moment, I have one profile with only one site I wish to remove but would much rather there be a feature so I could handle it directly.

Thank you for your time, consideration, and any further assistance you may give in this matter.

Re: CONFIRMED: Kremlin is ‘unaware about’ suspicious document exposed exclusively by The Duran

Tom Usher — Wed, 12 Apr 2017 21:19:07 -0000

"The point was that this statement came from an UNKNOWN group. Which implies that it was a hoax intended to portray Russia and Iran as aggressors in the Western media."

No, it doesn't imply that. Assuming a hoax is jumping to conclusions.

I don't disagree about being prudent rather than needlessly escalating tensions. However, you need to agree that Russia won't simply step back endlessly. Russia made it quite clear (expressly) that were it pushed, it might have no choice but to use nuclear weapons. That was concerning being attacked in Europe. As for Russians in Donbass, etc., Putin has been very clear that he will not tolerate the "West" running over the top of those people. For a while, it was touch and go as to whether he would send in Russian regulars. If Kiev had gained the upper hand militarily in Donbass, I'm confident he would have done just that. He's also made it very clear that Crimea will not be "given back." He thinks Crimea has been Russian territory all along. So do I.

SouthFront was careful, yes; however, SouthFront rejected the hoax notion and also pointed out Iran's media also published the statement.

Therefore, only Russia said it wasn't aware. Meanwhile, the rest have apparently not retracted anything, though they've had ample time and are certainly will aware of this "debate."

Anyway, feel free to have the last word here if you feel the urge. I don't want to beat it to death. Besides, I think we're on the same side.

Re: CONFIRMED: Kremlin is ‘unaware about’ suspicious document exposed exclusively by The Duran

Tom Usher — Tue, 11 Apr 2017 13:00:08 -0000

Also, it was not just Syria. Iran and Hezbollah were in sync with it. https://southfront.org/krem...

Re: CONFIRMED: Kremlin is ‘unaware about’ suspicious document exposed exclusively by The Duran

Tom Usher — Tue, 11 Apr 2017 09:01:53 -0000

I didn't say or suggest what Russia and Iran should or shouldn't agree with. The author suggested that the statement, regardless of who issued it, is designed to be malicious. It's a different issue from whether the statement is authorized or not or fake or not.

Meanwhile, Russia is moving all sorts of more capable military (equipment, etc.) into the area and hasn't said anything to suggest that Russia will simply do nothing if the US continues to hit the Syrian military. In addition, Russia has shut down the "hotline" between the US and Russian militaries for the US to "warn" Russia of any such imminent attacks on the Syrian military. That means that it's not going to allow the US to warn Russia so Russia can move Russians out of harms way in time. Do you understand the implications of that? It's not lost on the US military high-command. If the US attacks, the US runs the very real risk of hitting Russians. Mr. Putin knows that. If that happens, will the US have crossed a red line? Russia has been extremely clear on that. You take it as you want to, but I know the move on Russia's part is consistent with the statement (the statement being called "fake").

All of the acts by Russia do not support the conclusion that the statement was necessarily malicious, just the opposite. Claiming malice makes it sound as if Russia is afraid of Trump's shadow. You don't see that? It's a question of whether the Duran's author jumped to false conclusions concerning that one point. Maybe he's right, but that would point to rather confusing messaging coming out from Russia, which is not Russia's style that I've ever seen (and I've been studying Russian foreign policy since the 1960's).

I didn't say The Duran is wrong that the statement issued overstepped the issuer's authority to speak for the group of allies. I'm digging to find out. If you have a problem with that, that's your problem.

No more time for you on this. No offense, but I have a "day job."

Re: CONFIRMED: Kremlin is ‘unaware about’ suspicious document exposed exclusively by The Duran

Tom Usher — Mon, 10 Apr 2017 20:23:26 -0000

If there is no "red line" drawn by Russia, et al., why this?: https://en.insidesyriamc.co... Is it fake too? I'm not saying it is or isn't. I'm asking.