She didn't "point out a historical fact." You're conveniently ignoring the part of her statement where she then compared the experience of Jews during the holocaust to PEOPLE BEING MEAN ON TWITTER.

Minimizing or co-opting the experience of Jews during the Holocaust is core anti-semitism, and has a long, long history.

You are absolutely, unquestionably wrong. This doesn't seem complicated - in fact, it seems like just about the most straightforward thing imaginable - but I'll assume you're speaking in good faith and explain it.

Both co-opting Holocaust imagery for one's own purposes or minimizing the reality of the Holocaust by comparing it to something trivial - i.e. in this case "someone was mean to me on Twitter!" have a long history, and yes, we Jews find both things to be offensive and anti-Semitic.

Also, it's really, REALLY weird that you think one random org's "working definition" of anti-semitism is "the official definition."

Nobody is calling the STORY anti-semitic. The anti-semitic part was then comparing SOMEONE BEING MEAN ON TWITTER to the experience of the Jews during the Holocaust.

Both co-opting Holocaust imagery for one's own purposes or minimizing the reality of the Holocaust by comparing it to something trivial - i.e. in this case "someone was mean to me on Twitter!" have a long history, and yes, we Jews find both things to be offensive and anti-Semitic.

You need to read the whole statement.

Co-opting Holocaust imagery for one's own purposes or minimizing the reality of the Holocaust by comparing it to something trivial - i.e. in this case "someone was mean to me on Twitter!" both have a long history, and yes, we Jews find both things to be offensive and anti-Semitic.

This doesn't seem complicated - in fact, it seems like just about the most straightforward thing imaginable - but I'll assume you're speaking in good faith and explain it.

The problem was not with the part of the statement you mentioned. The problem was with the NEXT part, where she goes on to compare people being mean on Twitter to the treatment of the Jews during the Holocaust.

Both co-opting Holocaust imagery for one's own purposes or minimizing the reality of the Holocaust by comparing it to something trivial - i.e. in this case "someone was mean to me on Twitter!" have a long history, and yes, we Jews find both things to be offensive and anti-Semitic.

You need to read the whole statement.

You are weird. Stop working on forensics and work with attorneys for a week. This is a trivially small e-discovery project. Depending on the parameters, and the amount of money you want to spend, I could do this in two days.

Nowhere have I read anyone interviewing, talking to, etc, people who do exactly this kind of thing all day - attorneys. This process is literally what electronic discovery IS.

As an attorney who works on these types of issues, 650k emails is a trivially small corpus. Even if they were all responsive, and no duplicates, I would expect a decently-sized team to take about ten days to go through that number of emails. Of course, realistically, in most cases you are going to filter that down by 90% or more before a human being looks over a single email... depending on the process and work hours, a single person can easily look at 1k emails a day, and that's when you're doing legal analysis on them... if all you're doing is figuring out "Bullshit/not bullshit" and kicking it upstairs for further analysis 2k emails is not unreasonable for a 12 hour shift. Although it wouldn't be fun to be doing...

But still, at 100 emails/hour that's 6500 man hours of work if you want a human being to comb through every single email, or a hundred people working one 65-hour workweek, which even gives Comey the luxury of a full day to set up the process.

So when you read some idiot saying that it's not possible to have looked through that many emails... yes, yes it certainly is. A big document review team will comb through a million documents a week or more, and that includes doing legal analysis on them as well.

And I already know that Assange is full of crap. So why would I read this?

Most people in the US are against the government being able to confiscate people's guns like this. You aren't, clearly, but this seems like a good middle ground between your "guns are something the feds allow you to have" and what the constitution says.

You are totally right. Because most of the guns used in America are used to prevent people from being "stabbed by a crazy" or shot by a terrorist.

Oh wait. Yeah, I can live with the 1/10,000 chance because THOSE THINGS NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPEN EXCEPT IN YOUR IMAGINATION. Or do you think the "liberal media" is covering up the hundreds of thousands of people who use guns to prevent themselves from being stabbed in our (incredibly safe) country every day?

(Bears aside - and you're usually not in a quick-draw situation against a bear. Well, maybe YOU are, Rambo, but most of us aren't.)

Because that incredibly small number of theoretical deaths is miniscule compared to the large number of REAL deaths caused by accidental/unauthorized use of guns.

Linking to an article that uses a sentence like this:

"This is just stupidity but it is common of the combination of ideology driven faux-science (see manmade global warming) and gaslighting that the left relies upon to influence public policy."

is probably not going to convince me that POSTOL is the ideological nutcase here.

What the hell was that inserted for? It was an idiotic point made on a site which clearly has a political axe to grind. It wasn't made well. Anyone claiming to engage in a scientific debate with the phrase "by my own observation" deserves to be laughed out of the room.

This is supposed to be Slashdot, not Fox. Why the hell was this included?

I'm not sure where you see me saying "And this is all okay." Or suggesting that they didn't happen. It's obviously NOT okay, and I don't think I was unclear on that. It's a gross violation of equal protection, and it was stupid to boot. But there's a difference between stupidity and a scandal.

You... you know the actual story, right? Not just the fox news version?

This isn't an issue of "politicization". The IRS was finally DOING ITS JOB and reviewing the applications of groups applying for tax-exempt status. They thought it would save time to, rather than investigate, just assume that groups with certain key words in their name - among them "tea party" and "occupy" - were engaged in political activity which should deny them that status. Amazing how Fox never reports on any groups OTHER than their chosen ones having had problems due to this, isn't it? Well, it's much easier to change the facts to match your preconceived notions than to change your notions to match the facts. And yelling about impeaching Obama is just so durned much fun!

In any case, the whole issue is about two things - 1. It's bad to profile people, anyone, anywhere, and 2. There is a strong group in Washington that doesn't want the IRS to be doing ANY kind of job, let alone stopping people from improperly receiving tax breaks for influencing elections. The ability to pretend it's some type of political cover-up is just gravy.