The Weiner Thread - Page 3

BTFLCHLD · #31 06-08-2011, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beachwood Mac

I may be naive but not everyone takes pictures of their junk and sends it out in to cyberspace.

as always, you're adorable.

In reading the transcripts, IMO weiner is totally guilty of being immature and desperately horny. Knowing the inflamed reaction that would ensue should he be caught, one would think he would have used that last remaining brain cell to create a pseudo screenname.

KarmaContestant · #32 06-08-2011, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

I hate to break it to you, but morality clauses are a way of life for many people in public life. Celebrities, athletes, politicians must follow a certain code of conduct, regardless of whether or not it is spelled out or is legally binding. The right to privacy for public figures is not always assured.

And...people thinking this is ok is part of the problem. This is also why stars like Madonna and Gaga do so well - they don't care one iota about what "the public" think or say about them and what they do. People admire that quality. "And I'm not sorry - it's human nature" Perhaps it would have been best for Mr. Weiner if he had just said "Yeah, that's my junk. You like it? If not, mind your own business." Too little, too late I guess.

You can't deny that whoever the person, or whatever the situation, this country has a sick obsession with what everyone else is doing behind closed doors. It's not right, but maybe it's just human nature as well.

daniellaaarisen · #33 06-08-2011, 02:51 PM

Why the HELL would he use Twitter for this? That's PUBLIC. And loaded photos on YFrog are directly linked with your account so it's not like he could get out of it....

I'm just amazed that he was stupid enough to use Twitter for this.

APerfectLie · #34 06-08-2011, 03:09 PM

^ I don't think he meant to use twitter, but if so then he is hella retarded.

My only problem with the whole thing is that he was asked "How did you know these women weren't underage?" His response: "I didn't."

markolas · #35 06-08-2011, 03:24 PM

What women?

APerfectLie · #36 06-08-2011, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markolas

What women?

The women he was sending the pics to.

markolas · #37 06-08-2011, 03:44 PM

I thought he just put it on Twitter.

BTFLCHLD · #38 06-08-2011, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markolas

I thought he just put it on Twitter.

weiner timeline of events

markolas · #39 06-08-2011, 04:19 PM

Twitter confuses the hell out of me, but how can you tweet something to just one person. I thought whatever you posted, anyone who had access to your feed could see.

Other than that, it looks like he was just swapping dirty pictures with a woman he met on FB. Sketchy, but not really any of my business.

ontheEdgeof17 · #40 06-08-2011, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markolas

Twitter confuses the hell out of me, but how can you tweet something to just one person. I thought whatever you posted, anyone who had access to your feed could see.

I think he was texting these women pictures, but somehow, one ended up on his twitter that everyone could see, and in turn, he said his Twitter was hacked.

KarmaContestant · #41 06-08-2011, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17

I think he was texting these women pictures, but somehow, one ended up on his twitter that everyone could see, and in turn, he said his Twitter was hacked.

That's my understanding as well. He didn't post the photo on Twitter himself - he sent it to a 'friend' and it ended up on Twitter without his knowledge or consent.

So....when it first started being talked about, he denied it, and rightfully so in my opinion, because it was private and never meant to be made public.

You can never, ever trust anyone with a lewd photo of yourself.

Just don't do it!

Beachwood Mac · #42 06-08-2011, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17

I think he was texting these women pictures, but somehow, one ended up on his twitter that everyone could see, and in turn, he said his Twitter was hacked.

This is from an article about how it apparently happened. The title of the article:

Simple typo that exposed weiner

It's extremely easy to slip-up and turn a private Twitter message into a public posting. Weiner apparently confused a DM with an "@ mention," a public Twitter post directed at a specific user but visible to anyone on the service.

To send a DM to a Twitter follower using TweetDeck, the Twitter application Weiner was reportedly using when he sent the fateful photo, a user prefaces a tweet with the letter D, followed by the Twitter username of the person he or she wants to communicate with privately (e.g. "D bbosker"). To send an @ mention, a user would preface a tweet with the @ symbol followed by the Twitter username of the person he or she wants to converse with in a targeted, but public, way (e.g. "@ bbosker").

RickRobert · #43 06-08-2011, 04:55 PM

HAHAHA what a great name. Almost as great as this guy from around here called Dick Cockroft...

markolas · #44 06-08-2011, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beachwood Mac

This is from an article about how it apparently happened. The title of the article:

Simple typo that exposed weiner

It's extremely easy to slip-up and turn a private Twitter message into a public posting. Weiner apparently confused a DM with an "@ mention," a public Twitter post directed at a specific user but visible to anyone on the service.

Okay, that makes sense. I think the people who created the Twitter interface must've done so while they were high. It's the most arcane thing ever.

Dodfather · #45 06-08-2011, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

I think the whole thing is silly and a waste of time and media coverage.

If the guy campaigned as "the moral authority" or the "family values guy" than I could understand there being some outrage. As it is, I'm tired of politicians being held to some sort of church-leader role-model standard. If you look back through history, our elected leaders are far from role models - many of them led downright scandalous lives. That doesn't make the things they do ok, but it does make the public look like a bunch of stuck up prudes and pervs for hanging on every word as if the fate of the nation depends on who saw or touched so-and-so's body parts. These men and women have private lives too, and should be allowed to live them without media coverage. It's embarrassing to me to see this all over the news when there are FAR MORE IMPORTANT THINGS to talk about.

Yawn. Sorry but is that it? A politician in a quasi-sex "scandal"? Nothing to see there!