6 ms·

Seeing as he's yet to be accused of anything except being a community-minded sysadmin with a low sense of humor, I'm not sure a mere lack of taste excuses the e

by aaronem 11y ago

Seeing as he's yet to be accused of anything except being a community-minded sysadmin with a low sense of humor, I'm not sure a mere lack of taste excuses the extremely unsympathetic media attention that's been focused on the operator of this service in the last few days.

Nadya 11y ago
I use the provided mail service (@tfwno.gf) explicitly due to how transparent he is. Same reason why I used and donated to pomf.se before its closure (different person). If the only people who care about users and practice active disclosure of subpoenas are people with low-brow humor, so be it, I'll continue to support them. E: Also a quick note there is a bit of misinformation floating around. He doesn't own many of the domains, he just runs the mailservers for them.
s73v3r 11y ago
Nobody is accusing him of anything other than hosting some poor joke domains. However, his domain was the one that the emails threatening several school districts came from. And while I'm sure they don't think he's the culprit, his server would still have some evidence on it.
- aaronem 11y ago
  Have you seen CBS's [1] and the Daily Mail's [2] hit pieces on him? Of the latter such flagrant nonsense is to be expected, but one generally doesn't expect to see CBS descend to the same level. [1] http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/12/18/cbs-news-maine-native-based-in-romania-at-center-of-school-threats-probe/ http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/12/18/cbs-news-maine-nat... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3367044/Maine-college-drop-21-center-hoax-terrorist-threat-emails-New-York-Las-Vegas-issue-subpoenas-former-student-claims-knows-origin-posts.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3367044/Maine-colleg...
  - Bud 11y ago
    That wasn't from CBS, it was from a local TV station, which is quite different.
    - aaronem 11y ago
      It says "CBS News" at the front of the headline. If they aren't inclined to make the distinction, I don't see why they deserve the benefit of the doubt from me.
      - maxerickson 11y ago
        That's crediting this story as a source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-given-email-account-information-in-los-angeles-school-hoax-bomb-threat/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-given-email-account-infor... If the same article were published on Abc.com, putting a credit in the headline would be similarly useful, and it would obviously be ridiculous to say that CBS was then responsible for the content of the article under the headline (in this case, it seems that CBS Radio is responsible for the content though)
        aaronem 11y ago
        And? KCBS isn't an affiliate; it's owned and operated by the network. The difference in domain name is purely cosmetic; if CBS corporate weren't OK with the content of the story, the story would no longer be online, if indeed it had ever been published at all.
        maxerickson 11y ago
        The difference between the entities is largely cosmetic, but it simply isn't accurate to say that "CBS News" is responsible for the content of the article that you linked. As I pointed out, CBS Radio is, so as you say, that points to "CBS corporate" still being responsible, but it's more fair to the people working at CBS News to not mis-attribute the story (I used the abc.com example to try to make it clearer that conflating a source mentioned in the headline with the attribution is a mistake). edit (which I see you only said CBS, I got lost in the depth of the thread.)
- Bud 11y ago
  Point of order: gratuitous use of the word "nigger" is not a joke. Jokes are funny, or at least attempt to be funny. This doesn't qualify. This is something other than a joke.
  - fbbbbb 11y ago
    It doesn't qualify because you said so, really? This is something else than a joke, because? Speculation and assertion is not an argument. If a statement is a joke is not defined whether someone finds it is funny or not, but by its intention. We don't all laught at the same jokes do we? In this case, we don't know the intention behind it, or at least our two comments didn't reveal it. (It is so sad to see preconditioned impulsive disagreement, just because certain words are discussed from a neutral perspective)
    - leppr 11y ago
      "nigger" is never neutral (except when it comes from the mouth of black rappers but that is the exception to the rule).
    - Bud 11y ago
      Words were not "discussed", here, in any way, let alone a supposedly "neutral perspective". Pay attention to detail. It counts.
    - s73v3r 11y ago
      He doesn't seem to be serious, but I don't think one could really call the domain a "joke". It's using a word who's sole connotation is as a racial slur. And i don't see why there shouldn't be impulsive disagreement, considering how terrible the word is.
  - mahouse 11y ago
    Most people find it funny to offend people they don't like, just deal with it.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    There's a whole chunk of black comedy and hip hop that didn't get that memo. Seems to me like it's one of those things where it's funny or not depending on the audience's personal beliefs. Along with speakers skin color. Which means there's probably nothing concrete to your statement past normal biases and judgments of human groups.

by aaronem 11y ago

Nadya 11y ago

I use the provided mail service (@tfwno.gf) explicitly due to how transparent he is. Same reason why I used and donated to pomf.se before its closure (different person). If the only people who care about users and practice active disclosure of subpoenas are people with low-brow humor, so be it, I'll continue to support them. E: Also a quick note there is a bit of misinformation floating around. He doesn't own many of the domains, he just runs the mailservers for them.

s73v3r 11y ago

Nobody is accusing him of anything other than hosting some poor joke domains. However, his domain was the one that the emails threatening several school districts came from. And while I'm sure they don't think he's the culprit, his server would still have some evidence on it.

aaronem 11y ago
Have you seen CBS's [1] and the Daily Mail's [2] hit pieces on him? Of the latter such flagrant nonsense is to be expected, but one generally doesn't expect to see CBS descend to the same level. [1] http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/12/18/cbs-news-maine-native-based-in-romania-at-center-of-school-threats-probe/ http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/12/18/cbs-news-maine-nat... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3367044/Maine-college-drop-21-center-hoax-terrorist-threat-emails-New-York-Las-Vegas-issue-subpoenas-former-student-claims-knows-origin-posts.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3367044/Maine-colleg...
- Bud 11y ago
  That wasn't from CBS, it was from a local TV station, which is quite different.
  - aaronem 11y ago
    It says "CBS News" at the front of the headline. If they aren't inclined to make the distinction, I don't see why they deserve the benefit of the doubt from me.
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      That's crediting this story as a source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-given-email-account-information-in-los-angeles-school-hoax-bomb-threat/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-given-email-account-infor... If the same article were published on Abc.com, putting a credit in the headline would be similarly useful, and it would obviously be ridiculous to say that CBS was then responsible for the content of the article under the headline (in this case, it seems that CBS Radio is responsible for the content though)
      - aaronem 11y ago
        And? KCBS isn't an affiliate; it's owned and operated by the network. The difference in domain name is purely cosmetic; if CBS corporate weren't OK with the content of the story, the story would no longer be online, if indeed it had ever been published at all.
        maxerickson 11y ago
        The difference between the entities is largely cosmetic, but it simply isn't accurate to say that "CBS News" is responsible for the content of the article that you linked. As I pointed out, CBS Radio is, so as you say, that points to "CBS corporate" still being responsible, but it's more fair to the people working at CBS News to not mis-attribute the story (I used the abc.com example to try to make it clearer that conflating a source mentioned in the headline with the attribution is a mistake). edit (which I see you only said CBS, I got lost in the depth of the thread.)
Bud 11y ago
Point of order: gratuitous use of the word "nigger" is not a joke. Jokes are funny, or at least attempt to be funny. This doesn't qualify. This is something other than a joke.
- fbbbbb 11y ago
  It doesn't qualify because you said so, really? This is something else than a joke, because? Speculation and assertion is not an argument. If a statement is a joke is not defined whether someone finds it is funny or not, but by its intention. We don't all laught at the same jokes do we? In this case, we don't know the intention behind it, or at least our two comments didn't reveal it. (It is so sad to see preconditioned impulsive disagreement, just because certain words are discussed from a neutral perspective)
  - leppr 11y ago
    "nigger" is never neutral (except when it comes from the mouth of black rappers but that is the exception to the rule).
  - Bud 11y ago
    Words were not "discussed", here, in any way, let alone a supposedly "neutral perspective". Pay attention to detail. It counts.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    He doesn't seem to be serious, but I don't think one could really call the domain a "joke". It's using a word who's sole connotation is as a racial slur. And i don't see why there shouldn't be impulsive disagreement, considering how terrible the word is.
- mahouse 11y ago
  Most people find it funny to offend people they don't like, just deal with it.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  There's a whole chunk of black comedy and hip hop that didn't get that memo. Seems to me like it's one of those things where it's funny or not depending on the audience's personal beliefs. Along with speakers skin color. Which means there's probably nothing concrete to your statement past normal biases and judgments of human groups.