LostUruk
@losturuk.bsky.social
The world is run by small, frightened people who want you to be as small and frightened as they are.
Always remember you are strong.
Always remember you are strong.
I have repeatedly heard a very similar song but some of the words were different.
December 25, 2025 at 11:34 PM
I have repeatedly heard a very similar song but some of the words were different.
I'm up for the G and Ts
December 24, 2025 at 6:13 PM
I'm up for the G and Ts
FFS
It really isn't important.
found or planted if they use the photo to imply wrongdoing that is not there it is still wrong. Nefarious if you like. I prefer dishonest.
And unnecessary - there are plenty of other photos from the files you could just point at and say "Yeah? what about this?"
It really isn't important.
found or planted if they use the photo to imply wrongdoing that is not there it is still wrong. Nefarious if you like. I prefer dishonest.
And unnecessary - there are plenty of other photos from the files you could just point at and say "Yeah? what about this?"
December 21, 2025 at 8:50 PM
FFS
It really isn't important.
found or planted if they use the photo to imply wrongdoing that is not there it is still wrong. Nefarious if you like. I prefer dishonest.
And unnecessary - there are plenty of other photos from the files you could just point at and say "Yeah? what about this?"
It really isn't important.
found or planted if they use the photo to imply wrongdoing that is not there it is still wrong. Nefarious if you like. I prefer dishonest.
And unnecessary - there are plenty of other photos from the files you could just point at and say "Yeah? what about this?"
I accept that 1) is unevidenced but
strong probability is that 2) is accurate.
Not certain, but strongly probable enough not to be dismissed.
strong probability is that 2) is accurate.
Not certain, but strongly probable enough not to be dismissed.
December 21, 2025 at 8:36 PM
I accept that 1) is unevidenced but
strong probability is that 2) is accurate.
Not certain, but strongly probable enough not to be dismissed.
strong probability is that 2) is accurate.
Not certain, but strongly probable enough not to be dismissed.
From Angus thread - "The conclusion, which I believe to be false as well, is that the DOJ planted the photo on the left in the archives for nefarious purposes."
This contains two propositions:
1) that the idea that the photo was planted was false
and
2) that it was for nefarious purposes
-->
This contains two propositions:
1) that the idea that the photo was planted was false
and
2) that it was for nefarious purposes
-->
December 21, 2025 at 8:34 PM
From Angus thread - "The conclusion, which I believe to be false as well, is that the DOJ planted the photo on the left in the archives for nefarious purposes."
This contains two propositions:
1) that the idea that the photo was planted was false
and
2) that it was for nefarious purposes
-->
This contains two propositions:
1) that the idea that the photo was planted was false
and
2) that it was for nefarious purposes
-->
And my point is that it doesn't matter. They took the same picture, or if you like two pictures of the same thing but that's being too pedantic even for me (except for mathematics). What matters is the content and the fact that there are two different photos of that content does not invalidate it.
December 21, 2025 at 8:16 PM
And my point is that it doesn't matter. They took the same picture, or if you like two pictures of the same thing but that's being too pedantic even for me (except for mathematics). What matters is the content and the fact that there are two different photos of that content does not invalidate it.
Two photographs taken same time, same place, same people, same pose by two different photographers. The proposition given by Angus and Charles (and you) is that because these were taken by two different photographers if doesn't matter that they show exactly the same thing.
Justify this proposition.
Justify this proposition.
December 21, 2025 at 8:06 PM
Two photographs taken same time, same place, same people, same pose by two different photographers. The proposition given by Angus and Charles (and you) is that because these were taken by two different photographers if doesn't matter that they show exactly the same thing.
Justify this proposition.
Justify this proposition.
no, but you have taken the same picture, even though not as good.
The distinction between a specific instance (a photograph) and the general class (a picture)
The distinction between a specific instance (a photograph) and the general class (a picture)
December 21, 2025 at 7:52 PM
no, but you have taken the same picture, even though not as good.
The distinction between a specific instance (a photograph) and the general class (a picture)
The distinction between a specific instance (a photograph) and the general class (a picture)
Yes. A specific photo of an event is copyrighted to the photographer but multiple photos showing the same event are related and can be considered the same picture even though taken by different photographers. Therefore dismissing the picture because there are different photographs of it is pedantic.
December 21, 2025 at 7:50 PM
Yes. A specific photo of an event is copyrighted to the photographer but multiple photos showing the same event are related and can be considered the same picture even though taken by different photographers. Therefore dismissing the picture because there are different photographs of it is pedantic.
The law also did not say "do not release any picture of Trump and redact any which did, accidentally, get released"
December 21, 2025 at 7:46 PM
The law also did not say "do not release any picture of Trump and redact any which did, accidentally, get released"
I'm saying it does not matter because the picture itself was totally innocent so why spent so much time denying that.
December 21, 2025 at 7:45 PM
I'm saying it does not matter because the picture itself was totally innocent so why spent so much time denying that.
Entirely my point. This photo proves absolutely nothing, it is entirely innocent. So why think up excuses to dismiss it?
December 21, 2025 at 7:43 PM
Entirely my point. This photo proves absolutely nothing, it is entirely innocent. So why think up excuses to dismiss it?
But i do know the difference between a specific photograph of an event and multiple pictures of the same event.
December 21, 2025 at 7:41 PM
But i do know the difference between a specific photograph of an event and multiple pictures of the same event.
To be perfectly honest I would respect their argument a lot more if they just posted some of the other, more dodgy, photos of Clinto from the Epstein files and said "Yeah? well what about this?"
December 21, 2025 at 7:36 PM
To be perfectly honest I would respect their argument a lot more if they just posted some of the other, more dodgy, photos of Clinto from the Epstein files and said "Yeah? well what about this?"
Irrelevant? that someone in the DOJ used a perfectly innocent photo to imply wrongdoing?
The implied argument from Angus and Charles was that even thought the picture was perfectly innocent, that doesn't mean there was no wrongdoing.
-->
The implied argument from Angus and Charles was that even thought the picture was perfectly innocent, that doesn't mean there was no wrongdoing.
-->
December 21, 2025 at 7:35 PM
Irrelevant? that someone in the DOJ used a perfectly innocent photo to imply wrongdoing?
The implied argument from Angus and Charles was that even thought the picture was perfectly innocent, that doesn't mean there was no wrongdoing.
-->
The implied argument from Angus and Charles was that even thought the picture was perfectly innocent, that doesn't mean there was no wrongdoing.
-->
And you're a worthless pedant desperate to deny the obvious.
Go well
Go well
December 21, 2025 at 5:37 PM
And you're a worthless pedant desperate to deny the obvious.
Go well
Go well
"the nefarious purpose requires there to be a planting in the first place"
seriously?
"you can't have a purpose floating around without an action"
Very Zen.
seriously?
"you can't have a purpose floating around without an action"
Very Zen.
December 21, 2025 at 5:36 PM
"the nefarious purpose requires there to be a planting in the first place"
seriously?
"you can't have a purpose floating around without an action"
Very Zen.
seriously?
"you can't have a purpose floating around without an action"
Very Zen.
I'm a scientist by training with a degree in Computing and Mathematical Sciences. I think I know how to draw inferences from data.
December 21, 2025 at 5:31 PM
I'm a scientist by training with a degree in Computing and Mathematical Sciences. I think I know how to draw inferences from data.
but the nefarious purpose?
December 21, 2025 at 5:30 PM
but the nefarious purpose?
There's that pedantry again.
December 21, 2025 at 5:29 PM
There's that pedantry again.
but Angus said "The conclusion, which I believe to be false as well, is that the DOJ planted the photo on the left in the archives for nefarious purposes." so that's exactly what he was implying.
December 21, 2025 at 5:26 PM
but Angus said "The conclusion, which I believe to be false as well, is that the DOJ planted the photo on the left in the archives for nefarious purposes." so that's exactly what he was implying.
I used a loose version of in the public domain. What I meant was you can go to the Getty website and see the photo for yourself. There's that pedantry again.
www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-...
www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-...
Singer/Songwriter Michael Jackson, his children children Michael...
Singer/Songwriter Michael Jackson, his children children Michael Joseph Jackson, Jr. and Paris Michael Katherine Jackson are photographed with President Bill Clinton, Diana Ross, and her son Evan...
www.gettyimages.co.uk
December 21, 2025 at 5:24 PM
I used a loose version of in the public domain. What I meant was you can go to the Getty website and see the photo for yourself. There's that pedantry again.
www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-...
www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-...
Different photos, same picture. read my post again. More carefully.
December 21, 2025 at 5:21 PM
Different photos, same picture. read my post again. More carefully.