[strtrcr50]

Originally Posted by 6Stang7

There is a difference between responsibility and doing said act. I could really care less if it is true because I never said CNN was the word of God; however, you are implying that CNN knew about this before it was put up. That has yet to have been proven. You love jumping to conclusions for some reason.

Seeing as how they did it, I'd say they knew about it WHEN THEY DID IT.

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

Seeing as how they did it, I'd say they knew about it WHEN THEY DID IT.

Hmmmm, I could of sworn I posted this earlier, but it's not showing up so I'll do it again.


According to the original link that you posted:

"As soon as the situation was discovered, it was immediately corrected, and the employee has been terminated," said a Netscape spokesman. "CNN had nothing to do with the images, the terms, or the postings. We apologize to CNN and to anyone else offended in this matter."

Netscape/CNN site calls Bush an ******* - employee fired - Democratic Underground

So Netscape is admitting it was their fault. Either the editor that made the comment that you linked didn't see that, chose to ignore it, or there is a conspiracy going on between Netscape and CNN. Either that, or the this source (the one you used) isn't reliable; meaning the CNN comments are made up, the Netscape comments are made up, or the imagines showing the file name of the picture is made up. Either way, you either have to accept everything (meaning it was not done by CNN) or you have to throw the whole thing out (meaning you have nothing to blame CNN for).


I'm not trying to defend CNN because I love them or anything. I'm doing it as a matter of principle; you have to remain purely objective here.

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by jikelly

Yea!!

I lol'd irl

[strtrcr50]

Originally Posted by 6Stang7

Hmmmm, I could of sworn I posted this earlier, but it's not showing up so I'll do it again.


According to the original link that you posted:



Netscape/CNN site calls Bush an ******* - employee fired - Democratic Underground

So Netscape is admitting it was their fault. Either the editor that made the comment that you linked didn't see that, chose to ignore it, or there is a conspiracy going on between Netscape and CNN. Either that, or the this source (the one you used) isn't reliable; meaning the CNN comments are made up, the Netscape comments are made up, or the imagines showing the file name of the picture is made up. Either way, you either have to accept everything (meaning it was not done by CNN) or you have to throw the whole thing out (meaning you have nothing to blame CNN for).


I'm not trying to defend CNN because I love them or anything. I'm doing it as a matter of principle; you have to remain purely objective here.

2 people and the article I quoted show you that it was NOT netscape. Both showed you how. However, you seem to be having a case of

Try looking at sphinx's post. Perhaps you can comprehend it there.

[strtrcr50]

In the meantime, since you seem to be unable to read the end of the article I posted that you repeatedly quote.

[Unfortunately, the CNN PR people forgot to look at the domain where the defamatory images were presented. It is CNN.Netscape.CNN.com (as is shown in the middle browser image above), meaning CNN is the controlling domain for the site. -Editor]

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

In the meantime, since you seem to be unable to read the end of the article I posted that you repeatedly quote.

Dear God are you kidding me?! You apparently didn't read what I wrote.

Originally Posted by 6Stang7

Either the editor that made the comment that you linked didn't see that, chose to ignore it, or there is a conspiracy going on between Netscape and CNN.

I did read it and I even addressed it. It is YOU who is having the issue understanding.

Let me try to break this down for you so that maybe you can understand it.

What I meant was that the person who made that comment (the editor), did not know that Netscape had admitted that it was one of their employees that did it. OR the editor did know about Netscape admitting that it was their fault and he/she (the editor) chose to ignore it. OR the editor is right, which would mean that Netscape and CNN are in some kind of conspiracy (seeing as Netscape is admitting to the blame which agrees with that CNN is saying).


That quote you linked is someone's (the editor's) opinion. You understand that? Opinion. They did NOTHING to prove it. All he stated was that since CNN's name was in the domain, that it was thereby CNN's site. That is his argument. He has no evidence that it was CNN who did it and not Netscape.

Just because CNN is the controlling domain doesn't mean that CNN didn't allow Netscape to run it. You are right that CNN is responsible in that they should have checked it (although one can argue that even with checking, something like this could get through). However, to say that it was CNN who did it is completely wrong; not until you prove otherwise.

Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

On the other hand, we have Netscape admitting that it was their fault. That is evidence unless you can prove that statement to be incorrect.

Are you that blinded by your bias?


Again, NETSCAPE ADMITTED IT WAS THEIR FAULT!

Now, unless you can prove that it was someone at CNN that title the picture as such, then you can't say that it was CNN who did it.

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

2 people and the article I quoted show you that it was NOT netscape. Both showed you how. However, you seem to be having a case of
Try looking at sphinx's post. Perhaps you can comprehend it there.

I'm a mechanical engineer, so I don't specifically know or understand what sphinx posted. However, I ask a good friend of mine who is a software engineer/web developer, and this is what he told me: the main domain is CNN, thereby meaning it is their severs. However, they (CNN) have a Netscape sub-domain, so maybe the Netscape people can do their own stuff on that specific sub-domain. At the end of the day though, unless you know how access was specifically set up, you can't tell who did what by just a web address.


Hence my point. You don't know what level of access Netscape had/has, so how can you, or the editor, know who did it?

[sphinx]

Originally Posted by 6Stang7

I'm a mechanical engineer, so I don't specifically know or understand what sphinx posted. However, I ask a good friend of mine who is a software engineer/web developer, and this is what he told me: the main domain is CNN, thereby meaning it is their severs. However, they (CNN) have a Netscape sub-domain, so maybe the Netscape people can do their own stuff on that specific sub-domain. At the end of the day though, unless you know how access was specifically set up, you can't tell who did what by just a web address.


Hence my point. You don't know what level of access Netscape had/has, so how can you, or the editor, know who did it?

Tell me something. Who do you think would take the blame if you got pulled over for speeding and during the stop the officer found a little bag of pot laying on your backseat? Even though it was left there by your buddy and you had no idea it was there?

* hint- Possession is 9/10ths of the law.

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by sphinx

Tell me something. Who do you think would take the blame if you got pulled over for speeding and during the stop the officer found a little bag of pot laying on your backseat? Even though it was left there by your buddy and you had no idea it was there?

* hint- Possession is 9/10ths of the law.

Well, if my buddy admitted that it was his pot......

I'd also like to point out that you analogy doesn't apply to this situation.

[Strype]

Can I get notes of what is going on in here?

[jikelly]

Originally Posted by 6Stang7

I'd also like to point out that you analogy doesn't apply to this situation.

That's what I thought.

[sphinx]

Originally Posted by 6Stang7

Well, if my buddy admitted that it was his pot......

I'd also like to point out that you analogy doesn't apply to this situation.

Originally Posted by jikelly

That's what I thought.

I was trying to simplify it for you. Telling a Judge it wasn't your bag would get you laughed at and told it was in your vehicle and that means you are responsible for it.

Lets try a different route.

Netscape is owned by Time Warner
AOl is owned by Time Warner
CNN is owned by Time Warner
They are all owned by Turner Broadcasting
As in Ted Turner.

Can you see where this is going?

It really doesn't matter that it said "Netscape" in the Address.

Netscape.cnn.com is a subdomain to the hostname.
cnn.com is a domain controlled by three nameservers at ns.aol.com.
All of them are on different IP networks.
Incoming mail for cnn.com is handled by six mailservers at turner.com. Two of them are on the same IP network. cnn.com has six IP numbers. Some of them are on the same IP network.

netscape.cnn.com


THEY ARE PART OF THE SAME COMPANY.

Even if they weren't the same company running off the same servers the images were on the CNN domain. Which mean they belonged to CNN.

I'm at a loss how to explain it any simpler. Its like trying to explain what a pitman arm is to a woman.

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by sphinx

I was trying to simplify it for you. Telling a Judge it wasn't your bag would get you laughed at and told it was in your vehicle and that means you are responsible for it.

Lets try a different route.

Netscape is owned by Time Warner
AOl is owned by Time Warner
CNN is owned by Time Warner
They are all owned by Turner Broadcasting
As in Ted Turner.

Can you see where this is going?

It really doesn't matter that it said "Netscape" in the Address.



netscape.cnn.com


THEY ARE PART OF THE SAME COMPANY.

Even if they weren't the same company running off the same servers the images were on the CNN domain. Which mean they belonged to CNN.

I'm at a loss how to explain it any simpler. Its like trying to explain what a pitman arm is to a woman.

I feel the same way. Just because CNN and Netscape are owned by the same company doesn't mean either one of them gets all the blame for what the other does.

Your entire argument is moot. Netscape admitted it was their fault. You wrote your entire post as if you don't understand this.

Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault. Netscape admitted it was their fault.

[strtrcr50]

For the last time. Netscape lied and took a dive.

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

For the last time. Netscape lied and took a dive.

Prove it.

[strtrcr50]

Originally Posted by 6Stang7

Prove it.

Prove 0bama does not have to show a birth certificate. And we have. Multiple times.

[Strype]

1100 views. This makes me the king of instigation.

[RookieOne]

Originally Posted by Strype

1100 views. This makes me the king of instigation.

Your the king of something alright!!

[sphinx]

Originally Posted by 6Stang7

Prove it.

I actually have a pretty simple way of proving it for you.
Lets set up a domian in your name and registered to your address, then we'll toss a website together for you.
Then we'll add a directory filled with copy righted materials, music, movies, e.t.c. and we'll name it John.

Then we wait and see what the people that call you on it have to say when you tell them to call me, hell I'll even admit that I did it, if they bother contacting me.

From past experience I can tell you they won't, they will go after the domain owner as the content is the owner's responsiblity.

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

Prove 0bama does not have to show a birth certificate. And we have. Multiple times.

No, you haven't proven it. All you have done is state that since the domain is CNN, it is CNN's site. However, you haven't proven that CNN didn't allow Netscape some level of access, you haven't proven who it was (the name of the person) that gave that picture its title, and you haven't proven what company that person worked for. You said that Netscape took the hit for CNN. Prove it. If they did, then you need to show CNNing telling Netscape that they need to take the blame for this. See what I mean?

You keep failing to understand a key concept here; it is the burden of the accuser to proven their point. Understand? I don't have to prove that Obama doesn't have to show his birth certificate because YOU haven't proven that he does need to show it. Now, why should you have to proven your point before I prove him? Because you are the accuser. It would be like me taking you to court saying that you assaulted me but then requiring you to proven you didn't assault me. It doesn't work like that.

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by sphinx

I actually have a pretty simple way of proving it for you.
Lets set up a domian in your name and registered to your address, then we'll toss a website together for you.
Then we'll add a directory filled with copy righted materials, music, movies, e.t.c. and we'll name it John.

Then we wait and see what the people that call you on it have to say when you tell them to call me, hell I'll even admit that I did it, if they bother contacting me.

From past experience I can tell you they won't, they will go after the domain owner as the content is the owner's responsiblity.

Your argument doesn't work for the point you are trying to make. IF you are using the ******* title attached to a picture of Bush to show that CNN is bias to the left, then it needs to be CNN that titled the picture as such.

You're arguing a legal standpoint of responsibility. Should CNN have caught this? Yes. Are the responsible? Yes; it's their site. Did CNN title the picture as *******? Unknown, but irrelevant.

Let me run with your analogy to try and make my point.

Say inside the folder titled John there was a lot of pictures of Obama shown in a negative way (looking like Hitler for example). Based on that, could you say that I hate Obama and am bias to the right? No, you couldn't. Even though I am responsible for everything on that site, that doesn't mean that I know about everything on that site at any given time (even though I should) nor does that mean that everything on that site has a direct link to my opinions. If I found something that I didn't approve of on my site, I would take it down (which is what CNN did).

By your own argument, StangNet is left bias because on their site, there are posting saying how good Obama is. It's their site; they own it, they are responsible for the content on it. Doesn't work does it.

[Dusstbuster]

I haven't even read the last few pages because they're so damn boring...this might be the nerdiest and boring-est debate ever.

[Strype]

Originally Posted by Dusstbuster

I haven't even read the last few pages because they're so damn boring...this might be the nerdiest and boring-est debate ever.

No. That title would go to the Global Warming thread.

[Dusstbuster]

Originally Posted by Strype

No. That title would go to the Global Warming thread.

Touché Mr. Cloud Insurance Salesman!

[sphinx]

Originally Posted by 6Stang7

Your argument doesn't work for the point you are trying to make. IF you are using the ******* title attached to a picture of Bush to show that CNN is bias to the left, then it needs to be CNN that titled the picture as such.

You're arguing a legal standpoint of responsibility. Should CNN have caught this? Yes. Are the responsible? Yes; it's their site. Did CNN title the picture as *******? Unknown, but irrelevant.

Thanks for admitting you've been wrong for the last 2 pages.

Originally Posted by 6Stang7

Let me run with your analogy to try and make my point.

Say inside the folder titled John there was a lot of pictures of Obama shown in a negative way (looking like Hitler for example). Based on that, could you say that I hate Obama and am bias to the right? No, you couldn't. Even though I am responsible for everything on that site, that doesn't mean that I know about everything on that site at any given time (even though I should) nor does that mean that everything on that site has a direct link to my opinions. If I found something that I didn't approve of on my site, I would take it down (which is what CNN did).

And you answered yourself

Originally Posted by 6Stang7

Should CNN have caught this? Yes. Are the responsible? Yes; it's their site.

Originally Posted by 6Stang7

By your own argument, StangNet is left bias because on their site, there are posting saying how good Obama is. It's their site; they own it, they are responsible for the content on it. Doesn't work does it.

Your argument doesn't work for the point you are trying to make. The Clinton News Network is a "News" website. Stangnet is among other things a public forum. See the difference? Now if there were politcal views posted on the home page then you might have a leg to stand on. But, claiming Stangent is left leaning, by the fact that libbies get owned on a daily basis in one subsection of a forum, where anyone can who signs up can make a post isn't going to work.