Bill Browder and the Magnitsky Act. Humanitarian Act or Big Scam?
nohero said:
I am, however, extremely disappointed with Mr. Surovell.
paulsurovell said:I'm not persuaded that you actually interpreted my comment as an attack. If you did, you're showing some seriously deficient reading comprehension ability.
nan said:Good observations. He's done stuff like that before. It's a character flaw.
nohero said:You attack me when I can't respond. You claim that you don't want to argue with people that "don't understand" but your actions show that 1) you continue to participate in these discussons, even when the person you are arguing with can't answer, and 2) "don't understand" in this context means "does not agree with me" Cause I understand your point of view fine.
ridski said:Agreed. Two other points.
Jesus, Jamie. Really? This is already in the basement, just pretend it doesn’t exist.
1. I think the "troll" option under the report button should help take care of one of your concerns.
2. We all have the option of just not responding. Silence does not mean agreement, it just means there's no point in responding.
Low blow.
And you followed up with a personal attack. Here's my comment to Jamie on that: "I'm not suggesting a 'time out', but please keep a tally of everyone's experience with his attacks."
Thank you for this excellent clarification.
nohero said:
I am, however, extremely disappointed with Mr. Surovell.
paulsurovell said:I'm not persuaded that you actually interpreted my comment as an attack. If you did, you're showing some seriously deficient reading comprehension ability.
nan said:Good observations. He's done stuff like that before. It's a character flaw.
nohero said:You attack me when I can't respond. You claim that you don't want to argue with people that "don't understand" but your actions show that 1) you continue to participate in these discussons, even when the person you are arguing with can't answer, and 2) "don't understand" in this context means "does not agree with me" Cause I understand your point of view fine.
ridski said:Agreed. Two other points.
Jesus, Jamie. Really? This is already in the basement, just pretend it doesn’t exist.
1. I think the "troll" option under the report button should help take care of one of your concerns.
2. We all have the option of just not responding. Silence does not mean agreement, it just means there's no point in responding.
Low blow.
And you followed up with a personal attack. Here's my comment to Jamie on that: "I'm not suggesting a 'time out', but please keep a tally of everyone's experience with his attacks."
There are degrees of "attacks," some blatantly offensive, others more subtle.
Ridski's remark that you agreed with was insulting.
Your implication that Nan is a troll is insulting.
Your graphic on "silence" wasn't a generic statement about "not responding." It was directed at "people who just don't want to understand." Another insult.
With regard to my comment that you've "done stuff like that before," I direct your attention to this post, which you made within minutes of the shutdown of my collusion thread, knowing that I couldn't respond.
In the post, you say:
"OK, now we can kill the thread" followed by a gleeful edit that "this thread was put out of its misery."
And then you sent me a link to the post to make sure that I saw what I couldn't respond to.
There are some things you THINK don't need explanation, but as certain people are in a permanent fight mode here, it seems I'll have to do it.
My response was to Jamie, after he gave nan a "time out". I was in the middle of some questions that nan was answering when it happened. I said "Jesus, Jamie. Really? This is already in the basement, just pretend it doesn’t exist." The meaning, which I thought was clear, was that there was no reason to "time out" nan for her responses here, that she hadn't stepped over any lines nor was trolling or spamming or whatever with her answers. I also thought it was clear that I was asking Jamie to "just pretend it doesn't exist" or to just let us discuss this without Moderator interference because it's "already in the basement".
I declined to push it further for 2 reasons. One, this ain't my playground so I don't make the rules. Two, I later discovered that nan was given a "time out" for remarks on another thread in the regular Politics section, not down here in the mire.
Finally, if paulsurovell would like to explain how any of that was supposed to be an insult he can consider himself free to do so, but it wasn't. It was exasperation at what I considered to be heavy-handed board moderation based on my experience of discussing politics on internet message boards since the early 90s.
ridski said:
There are some things you THINK don't need explanation, but as certain people are in a permanent fight mode here, it seems I'll have to do it.
My response was to Jamie, after he gave nan a "time out". I was in the middle of some questions that nan was answering when it happened. I said "Jesus, Jamie. Really? This is already in the basement, just pretend it doesn’t exist." The meaning, which I thought was clear, was that there was no reason to "time out" nan for her responses here, that she hadn't stepped over any lines nor was trolling or spamming or whatever with her answers. I also thought it was clear that I was asking Jamie to "just pretend it doesn't exist" or to just let us discuss this without Moderator interference because it's "already in the basement".
I declined to push it further for 2 reasons. One, this ain't my playground so I don't make the rules. Two, I later discovered that nan was given a "time out" for remarks on another thread in the regular Politics section, not down here in the mire.
Finally, if paulsurovell would like to explain how any of that was supposed to be an insult he can consider himself free to do so, but it wasn't. It was exasperation at what I considered to be heavy-handed board moderation based on my experience of discussing politics on internet message boards since the early 90s.
Welcome to my world. 
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:There are degrees of "attacks," some blatantly offensive, others more subtle.
I am, however, extremely disappointed with Mr. Surovell.
paulsurovell said:I'm not persuaded that you actually interpreted my comment as an attack. If you did, you're showing some seriously deficient reading comprehension ability.
nan said:Good observations. He's done stuff like that before. It's a character flaw.
nohero said:You attack me when I can't respond. You claim that you don't want to argue with people that "don't understand" but your actions show that 1) you continue to participate in these discussons, even when the person you are arguing with can't answer, and 2) "don't understand" in this context means "does not agree with me" Cause I understand your point of view fine.
ridski said:Agreed. Two other points.
Jesus, Jamie. Really? This is already in the basement, just pretend it doesn’t exist.
1. I think the "troll" option under the report button should help take care of one of your concerns.
2. We all have the option of just not responding. Silence does not mean agreement, it just means there's no point in responding.
Low blow.
And you followed up with a personal attack. Here's my comment to Jamie on that: "I'm not suggesting a 'time out', but please keep a tally of everyone's experience with his attacks."
Ridski's remark that you agreed with was insulting.
Your implication that Nan is a troll is insulting.
Your graphic on "silence" wasn't a generic statement about "not responding." It was directed at "people who just don't want to understand." Another insult.
With regard to my comment that you've "done stuff like that before," I direct your attention to this post, which you made within minutes of the shutdown of my collusion thread, knowing that I couldn't respond.
In the post, you say:
"OK, now we can kill the thread" followed by a gleeful edit that "this thread was put out of its misery."
And then you sent me a link to the post to make sure that I saw what I couldn't respond to.
Nohero, if I recall correctly you already explained the closure of that thread, the late post and the courtesy you exhibited by sending that link in order to transparency.
Oh well.
paulsurovell said:Ridski's remark that you agreed with was insulting.
There are degrees of "attacks," some blatantly offensive, others more subtle.
Your implication that Nan is a troll is insulting.
Mr. Ridski already covered your false characterization of his comment.
As for my reference to the "troll option under the report button", that's the option to report a comment for "user is trolling and/or hijacking a discussion". I mentioned it because Mr. J. Ross said that the "time out" was because of "complaints on comments in the 2020 candidates thread". Over in that thread, Mr. Ross had said, "Nan - care to get back on topic instead of your very tired Anti-Hillary / Bernie rants? This is about the 2020 Candidates- let's discuss who is in the running." That's what that "report" button is for. I didn't imply anything, I pointed to how people can react instead of just having someone get a time-out.
paulsurovell said:
Your graphic on "silence" wasn't a generic statement about "not responding." It was directed at "people who just don't want to understand." Another insult.
Yes, it was a generic statement about how anybody can react to a poster instead of repeatedly responding. Not a personal insult, obviously.
paulsurovell said:
With regard to my comment that you've "done stuff like that before," I direct your attention to this post, which you made within minutes of the shutdown of my collusion thread, knowing that I couldn't respond.
In the post, you say:
"OK, now we can kill the thread" followed by a gleeful edit that "this thread was put out of its misery."
And then you sent me a link to the post to make sure that I saw what I couldn't respond to.
This is my favorite "whataboutism" of all the "whataboutisms" in your non-responsive response.
Back at the time, Mr. J. Ross closed your thread-that-doesn't-end about "Hillary Colluded", because it kept sitting at the top of the front page of HIS website. He came up with the work-around to let the thread continue without intruding on his business - which he didn't have to do.
Your claim that you couldn't respond gets as many Pinocchios as possible, since if you really wanted to refute my discussion of the FISA warrant, you could have posted in or started another thread about the FISA warrant - don't pretend you were banned or given a "time out", because you weren't.
I hope people click the "this post" link in your post, because they'll see the insult from you, that I was responding to. I had disagreed with the faulty criticism (which you got from one of those Trump-supporting internet characters) of the Justice Department lawyers who had obtained a FISA warrant on Carter Page. Your response to me was -
I hope for your clients' sake that you don't "identify" sources of information or witnesses in court the way the FBI did on this application.
That assumes you follow the ABA code of professional conduct. Do you?
Please don't try to pretend its neither an insult nor that you didn't intend it to be one.
I was lucky to be able to get a detailed response in before Mr. Ross temporarily shuttered the thread. I was also able to add material from an article by an actual expert in the subject, which supported what I had written (and refuted your claim that I was embracing unprofessional conduct).
I sent you a "in case you missed it" message, in case you didn't go back to the thread. I had nothing to do with your choice to voluntarily not post anywhere, if you really had a legitimate response (which, of course, you couldn't, because you had no legitimate legal analysis to refute the point).
I'm glad we had this little chat.
sbenois said:
paulsurovell said:Nohero, if I recall correctly you already explained the closure of that thread, the late post and the courtesy you exhibited by sending that link in order to transparency.
With regard to my comment that you've "done stuff like that before," I direct your attention to this post, which you made within minutes of the shutdown of my collusion thread, knowing that I couldn't respond.
In the post, you say:
"OK, now we can kill the thread" followed by a gleeful edit that "this thread was put out of its misery."
And then you sent me a link to the post to make sure that I saw what I couldn't respond to.
Oh well.
You remember me better than I remember me, Mr. Sbenois! I did have to respond about that, back in September, when Mr. Surovell shoveled a load of misleading insults at me at that time.
At the end of my response, I wrote: "I sent you a private message because, since the thread had been closed, I wasn't sure you were going to go back to it. I had written an overlong response to your cheap insult of me about legal ethics, and wanted to be sure you saw it. In retrospect, a little childish on my part, but there it is."
I'd like to add another graphic to this discussion of those who doth protest too much in their denialism of attacking Nan. Not directly related or to be taken literally, but it speaks to the mentality behind their attacks.
What we see above by Ridski, nohero and sbenois is a perfect case study of the old saw, "They can dish it out but they can't take it."
Laughable.
paulsurovell said:
What we see above by Ridski, nohero and sbenois is a perfect case study of the old saw, "They can dish it out but they can't take it."
Laughable.
I also have a graphic to share.
paulsurovell said:
What we see above by Ridski, nohero and sbenois is a perfect case study of the old saw, "They can dish it out but they can't take it."
Laughable.
That was your takeaway from ridski’s post?
paulsurovell said:
What we see above by Ridski, nohero and sbenois is a perfect case study of the old saw, "They can dish it out but they can't take it."
Laughable.
It's ridski with a lower-case 'r', no need to aggrandize me any further.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:There are degrees of "attacks," some blatantly offensive, others more subtle.
I am, however, extremely disappointed with Mr. Surovell.
paulsurovell said:I'm not persuaded that you actually interpreted my comment as an attack. If you did, you're showing some seriously deficient reading comprehension ability.
nan said:Good observations. He's done stuff like that before. It's a character flaw.
nohero said:You attack me when I can't respond. You claim that you don't want to argue with people that "don't understand" but your actions show that 1) you continue to participate in these discussons, even when the person you are arguing with can't answer, and 2) "don't understand" in this context means "does not agree with me" Cause I understand your point of view fine.
ridski said:Agreed. Two other points.
Jesus, Jamie. Really? This is already in the basement, just pretend it doesn’t exist.
1. I think the "troll" option under the report button should help take care of one of your concerns.
2. We all have the option of just not responding. Silence does not mean agreement, it just means there's no point in responding.
Low blow.
And you followed up with a personal attack. Here's my comment to Jamie on that: "I'm not suggesting a 'time out', but please keep a tally of everyone's experience with his attacks."
Ridski's remark that you agreed with was insulting.
Your implication that Nan is a troll is insulting.
Your graphic on "silence" wasn't a generic statement about "not responding." It was directed at "people who just don't want to understand." Another insult.
With regard to my comment that you've "done stuff like that before," I direct your attention to this post, which you made within minutes of the shutdown of my collusion thread, knowing that I couldn't respond.
In the post, you say:
"OK, now we can kill the thread" followed by a gleeful edit that "this thread was put out of its misery."
And then you sent me a link to the post to make sure that I saw what I couldn't respond to.
Nan,
I have taken the liberty of reporting, on your behalf, this off-topic post. I know how concerned you are regarding keeping this thread all about Magnitsky.
You are welcome.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:Yes, it was a generic statement about how anybody can react to a poster instead of repeatedly responding. Not a personal insult, obviously.
Your graphic on "silence" wasn't a generic statement about "not responding." It was directed at "people who just don't want to understand." Another insult.
It's a total personal insult because you are saying they don't want to understand and implying that they don't understand "the truth" that you seem to think you have. In reality it's that they don't agree with you and you can't handle that. But, it's not generic and by placement it was directed.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:Mr. Ridski already covered your false characterization of his comment.
There are degrees of "attacks," some blatantly offensive, others more subtle.
Ridski's remark that you agreed with was insulting.
Your implication that Nan is a troll is insulting.
As for my reference to the "troll option under the report button", that's the option to report a comment for "user is trolling and/or hijacking a discussion". I mentioned it because Mr. J. Ross said that the "time out" was because of "complaints on comments in the 2020 candidates thread". Over in that thread, Mr. Ross had said, "Nan - care to get back on topic instead of your very tired Anti-Hillary / Bernie rants? This is about the 2020 Candidates- let's discuss who is in the running." That's what that "report" button is for. I didn't imply anything, I pointed to how people can react instead of just having someone get a time-out.
You accuse Paul of making a false characterization while making one yourself Jamie's comments, based on his opinion, were actually inaccurate if you actually read what I wrote, but I was banned a bit later while discussing negative facts about Beto, whom Jamie likes. I was not banned for saying anything about Hillary or Bernie, or anything untruthful.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:That was your takeaway from ridski’s post?
What we see above by Ridski, nohero and sbenois is a perfect case study of the old saw, "They can dish it out but they can't take it."
Laughable.
He acknowledges that his use of pejoratives -- "in the basement" and "pretend it doesn't exist" -- could be taken as insults ("The meaning, which I thought was clear"), but instead of apologizing, he blames the comments on "exasperation" and feigns surprise that such terms could be taken as insults.
paulsurovell said:
DaveSchmidt said:He acknowledges that his use of pejoratives -- "in the basement" and "pretend it doesn't exist" -- could be taken as insults ("The meaning, which I thought was clear"), but instead of apologizing, he blames the comments on "exasperation" and feigns surprise that such terms could be taken as insults.
paulsurovell said:That was your takeaway from ridski’s post?
What we see above by Ridski, nohero and sbenois is a perfect case study of the old saw, "They can dish it out but they can't take it."
Laughable.
You know, I’m right here.
paulsurovell said:
DaveSchmidt said:He acknowledges that his use of pejoratives -- "in the basement" and "pretend it doesn't exist" -- could be taken as insults ("The meaning, which I thought was clear"), but instead of apologizing, he blames the comments on "exasperation" and feigns surprise that such terms could be taken as insults.
paulsurovell said:That was your takeaway from ridski’s post?
What we see above by Ridski, nohero and sbenois is a perfect case study of the old saw, "They can dish it out but they can't take it."
Laughable.
Is "sub-basement" less perjorative? That's what nan called it when jamie moved the thread from the Soapbox: All Politics section.
I wasn't aware nan was insulting anyone when she repeatedly called this section of the site the sub-basement. Like she does here
Are you asking nan to apologize for this "perjorative"? No. Because it isn't. You're trying too hard.
sub-basement is pejorative. That's why I call it that. It's not right that some topics are treated like second class citizens. Separate is not equal.
nan said:
sub-basement is pejorative. That's why I call it that. It's not right that some topics are treated like second class citizens. Separate is not equal.
It's subjective. I was on a community board for years that had nothing to do with politics and anyone could read the posts whether they had joined or not, but it did keep one section private for members only, and that's where all the political stuff went, and if you tried posting anything controversial, boom, into that group it went. This stuff happens all the time on moderated message boards. You want to know what unmoderated message boards are like? Try the old nj.com forums, they had to close in 2016 because of the craziness going on there.
I'm fine with jamie moving topics he doesn't want to see on the homepage to a sub-forum. What I objected to at that time was that he gave you a time-out for what appeared to be no reason at all, and I asked him why he couldn't just ignore us while we have this conversation as it's away from the main site anyway.
This second-class citizen nonsense, however, is ridiculous.
ridski said:
paulsurovell said:Is "sub-basement" less perjorative? That's what nan called it when jamie moved the thread from the Soapbox: All Politics section.
DaveSchmidt said:He acknowledges that his use of pejoratives -- "in the basement" and "pretend it doesn't exist" -- could be taken as insults ("The meaning, which I thought was clear"), but instead of apologizing, he blames the comments on "exasperation" and feigns surprise that such terms could be taken as insults.
paulsurovell said:That was your takeaway from ridski’s post?
What we see above by Ridski, nohero and sbenois is a perfect case study of the old saw, "They can dish it out but they can't take it."
Laughable.
https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/bill-browder-and-the-magnitsky-act-humanitarian-act-or-big-scam?page=next&limit=750#discussion-replies-3418927
I wasn't aware nan was insulting anyone when she repeatedly called this section of the site the sub-basement. Like she does here
https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/bill-browder-and-the-magnitsky-act-humanitarian-act-or-big-scam?page=next&limit=1050#discussion-replies-3431093
https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/america-the-farewell-tour?page=next&limit=120#discussion-replies-3426728
https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/julian-assange-being-turned-over-to-uk?page=next&limit=750#discussion-replies-3423409
https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/bill-browder-and-the-magnitsky-act-humanitarian-act-or-big-scam?page=next&limit=930#discussion-replies-3422581
https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/who-colluded-more-hillary-or-trump?page=next&limit=3060#discussion-replies-3421276
https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/bill-browder-and-the-magnitsky-act-humanitarian-act-or-big-scam?page=next&limit=810#discussion-replies-3420434
Are you asking nan to apologize for this "perjorative"? No. Because it isn't. You're trying too hard.
Three points need repeating:
(1) You doth protest too much
(2) You can dish it out but you can't take it.
(3) An apology is in order.
nan - can you provide your findings on what happened to the money ($230 million)?
Has any of your sources followed the money after Magnitsky's death? You probably provided it, but I'm trying to figure out this part of the story.
jamie said:
nan - can you provide your findings on what happened to the money ($230 million)?
Has any of your sources followed the money after Magnitsky's death? You probably provided it, but I'm trying to figure out this part of the story.
http://magnitskyact.com/offshorealertlondon
Check the timeline.
ok, where in the timeline does it mention the second filing in 2009 for $240 million?
https://www.reportingproject.net/proxy/jdownloads/Death%20of%20a%20Lawyer/doc_magnitsky_03.pdf
Page 14 highlights the additional money.
jamie said:
nan - can you provide your findings on what happened to the money ($230 million)?
Has any of your sources followed the money after Magnitsky's death? You probably provided it, but I'm trying to figure out this part of the story.
http://magnitskyact.com/offshorealertlondon
Check the timeline.
ok, the doc I referenced includes a total of 470 million dollars of fraud - where is that on the timeline?
For Sale
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
Wasn't specific to me, but posted on a thread I started on an obscure topic in the sub-sub-sub forum where few ever venture. But, Yeah, out there for the general public, not me. Right.