Trump

[nerrrd]

So, you agree then, they digitally altered the evidence they submitted.

At that point, regardless of the impact that it may or may not have, I take an absolutist view: Once you doctor/fake/alter/manipulate/perjury evidence - you're done, end of.

No, actually I don't agree with anything you just said.

[sugilite:Me]

You complain that Trump runs his mouth, all the time - and then when I point out he runs his mouth - we get grand gestures of the ignore button.

It's irrelevant to the question as to whether or not he incited the crowd and whether or not that action was an insurrection attempt.

Even toad face McConnell says he did it. Your words are pure horseshit mate. Keep clinging onto that one shrewd utterance of the word peaceful and avoid the rest. No more discussion from me on this on rubbish of yours.
You seem to have no problem with a man that runs his mouth sooooo much no one knows when he is serious - not worthy of running a country. But no probs for you Trump boy.
The reason you have so very, very much to say about everything else, but strangely doing everything to avoid commenting on what clearly sums up the mans character. Par of the course for a trumper.

[TheDemonLord]

No, actually I don't agree with anything you just said.

So, you're just fine with people forging evidence, used in a trial?

[nerrrd]

So, you're just fine with people forging evidence, used in a trial?

Again, I don't agree with anything you just said.

As someone who has worked in graphic design, I can understand why material sometimes has to be reconstructed to suit a particular layout or medium. So long as the content is reproduced accurately, I'm totally OK with it. As anyone else with a modicum of sense would be.

[pritch]

So, you agree then, they digitally altered the evidence they submitted.

I take an absolutist view: Once you doctor/fake/alter/manipulate/perjury evidence - you're done, end of.

I saw this because it was quoted.

Needless to say that's a completely ridiculous position. It is, however, entirely predictable. Even the completely unprincipled Republican senators who, against their sacred oath, voted to acquit Trump on spurious constitutional grounds didn't push that point. Trump's ambulance chasing lawyer may have mentioned it in passing though. Things were getting desperate.

[R650R]

Again, I don't agree with anything you just said.

As someone who has worked in graphic design, I can understand why material sometimes has to be reconstructed to suit a particular layout or medium. So long as the content is reproduced accurately, I'm totally OK with it. As anyone else with a modicum of sense would be.

And that is why you are not a lawyer...

Even in cruisey NZ, police lost a case awhile back related to some serious offence as they had resized an image to make a licence plate easier to see...
The judge threw out that bit of evidence destroying the case.
Digitally altering anything is same as physical for courts.

Respectable news publications won’t accept photoshopped images for factual news articles.
An AP photojournalist got sacked for editing out a boys shadow in soccer photo.

But oh yeah screwing white balance to make Trump orange is allowed lol

[R650R]

Um, hello? What bit of they need the Republicans to vote do you not understand? All they have to do is be so spineless that they cant turn on their leader even though he is poisoned the party.

Well guess what? They were too scared that they would have nothing as they were the arse kissers left and used to taking it from him. That's why he didn't bother to show up.

Evidently I understand it better than the democrats lol

Well guess what they were more interested in truth and justice than a sham Salem witch burning.

[TheDemonLord]

Again, I don't agree with anything you just said.

As someone who has worked in graphic design, I can understand why material sometimes has to be reconstructed to suit a particular layout or medium. So long as the content is reproduced accurately, I'm totally OK with it. As anyone else with a modicum of sense would be.

But it wasn't reproduced accurately, was it?

Information/Content was added that wasn't in the original.

And yes, the Verification check-mark IS part of the content.

[TheDemonLord]

I saw this because it was quoted.

Needless to say that's a completely ridiculous position. It is, however, entirely predictable. Even the completely unprincipled Republican senators who, against their scared oath, voted to acquit Trump on spurious constitutional grounds didn't push that point. Trump's ambulance chasing lawyer may have mentioned it in passing though. Things were getting desperate.

It's a completely principled position.

If you have a strong case, there's no need to forge evidence.
If you earnestly believe in the case, there's no need to forge evidence.
However, if you know your case is full of shit, then you might need to forge evidence and...

[nerrrd]

And that is why you are not a lawyer...

Agreed. Which is why all we should be caring about here is the content displayed on the site, not how it is displayed.

[TheDemonLord]

Agreed. Which is why all we should be caring about here is the content displayed on the site, not how it is displayed.

Firstly, the verification mark is part of the Content.

Secondly, if it's something that no one should care about, then why bother going through the effort of digitally adding it?

Clearly, someone cared enough to add the verification mark in, ergo we should care that it is there and we should care that someone made the conscious decision to forge the evidence.

[husaberg]

No, actually I don't agree with anything you just said.

from Imgflip Meme Generator

[mashman]

Again, I don't agree with anything you just said.

As someone who has worked in graphic design, I can understand why material sometimes has to be reconstructed to suit a particular layout or medium. So long as the content is reproduced accurately, I'm totally OK with it. As anyone else with a modicum of sense would be.

So you're ok with changing context to create a lie, to deprive someone of their liberty in this case, so long as that lie is created using original content? I thought they called that framing?

[nerrrd]

So you're ok with changing context to create a lie, to deprive someone of their liberty in this case, so long as that lie is created using original content? I thought they called that framing?

When the content from a web page is formatted completely differently depending on which device/operating system/application/theme etc etc it's being viewed on, does that make the screenshot from your device the only authentic version, and the rest a 'lie'?

I'm not exactly current on this stuff so maybe somehow in the meantime it's all become resolution independent, but in my day if you wanted to use a screenshot from a web page (especially if it's from your phone) on a large, high resolution display at any useful size it would turn into blurry, pixellated mush.

As was pointed out I'm not a lawyer, and I'm pretty sure the rules of evidence for websites are very long, detailed and would probably melt my brain, so I can't comment on the legalities here.

But there are certain practicalities with using web pages as source material that makes reformatting them a reasonable option - quite possibly the only option.

As I said before, so long as the content is reproduced accurately, I see no conspiracy to deceive here. Much more likely is the designer forgot to turn off one of the icon layers in their twitter template due to the pressures of the job.

[pete376403]

Who is watching the program on One at the moment?