Quote from: synechist on November 03, 2014, 01:21:03 PM

Quote from: itod on November 03, 2014, 01:15:09 PM

Quote from: synechist on November 03, 2014, 01:06:12 PM

Quote

Why did everyone(especially you) vehemently deny that the chat logs were genuine?

1) I denied the validity of the entire smear campaign.
2) More specifically, I denied the validity of numerous pastebins and whatnot due to their being modified.
3) I denied the truthfulness of 00Smurf's screenshots because of
(a) their having been cut in such a way as to present Prometheus in a negative light
(b) their having been presented in the context of a smear campaign that guaranteed they would be misinterpreted.

3b is the subtlest point yet. Texts have two layers: the physical marks on a screen and the meaning they convey. In 00Smurf's case, the physical marks were probably only altered by cutting out sections. However the interpretive layer - the meaning - of the text was heavily and deceitfully modified by the smear campaign that it is a part of.

Let me get this straight: you admit that the screenshots were not altered except being croped, but they must be fake because what is written there (the meaning) is unbelievable? Is that what your answer sums to? How much nonsense should we swallow before these responses become laughable?

No, you've not grasped the point I made.

Go and read it again.

If the ontology of texts is not a familiar field to you, you might need to think quite hard here.

I'll help you out with a simple example.

Let's say I create a newbie account and post in this thread.

My post simply reads "Scam!"

Now let's suppose I was actually talking about XYZcoin, but for whatever reason, I didn't mention that.

In this circumstance, the omission makes my post look like I'm talking about the Blocknet.

This is a case of the second layer - the interpretive layer - changing a text.
The same physical sentence becomes, in one context, a remark about XYZcoin, and in another context, the Blocknet.

Now apply this to 00Smurf's screenshots. The same thing is happening: releasing in the context of a smear campaign, their meaning changes.
They were leaked in this context in order to support the smear campaign.
Therefore they are deceitful and present manifest falsehoods.

Do you get me now? Do you understand why I called them "internet trash"? Because they are.