Now, you're a grammar Karen? So be it. It should have been 'falsely characterizing'. And the subject matter has always been about Catturd. Now, you're shifting again. It seems no one believes your rhetoric by disapproval rate.
This topic is about Catturd. Always has been. Reread my posts. For the 3rd time, I'm asking you verbatim , "how you know that Catturd's SWATing was a "spoofed number made over voip originating from a server in Russia..."? Otherwise, I know you're wasting my time with wild speculations.
Could you quote to me when I said catturd's SWATing was a "spoofed number made over voip originating from a server in Russia...".
Let's go over the sequence of comments again. You said:
Do you actually believe your own statement? In the digital age everything is compromised. Everything is traced. And yes, the cops have the means to do it.
I said:
If they want to invest very significant time and resources into it then yeah maybe they'd be able to trace it. If you can show me an example of police tracing a call using a spoofed number made over voip originating from a server in Russia or something, just for one swatting, I'd love to see it.
You said in the digital age everything is compromised and traced. I provided a counterpoint for a method that would be almost impossible for a local police station to trace. Never once did I say catturd's caller used this method. Please stop falsely mischaracterizing my comments.
"... while I never said that catturd's caller used those techniques. I was providing an example of a phone call that could not be "instantly traced" by a police department."
But I was specifically talking about Catturd. That's the big difference here.
This is seen from early on in my 2nd response to you. Then you much later, in your 7th response to me, said you, "never said that catturd's caller used those techniques." And suddenly shifted your position.
The topic has always been about Catturd. The posting is about Catturd being SWATted. You seem to be speculating on 'something' that is not germane to the topic. Now, you're obfuscating yet again with your last comment. Shame on you. Keep the comments to Catturd and stop shifting on what you really meant.
Now, you're a grammar Karen? So be it. It should have been 'falsely characterizing'. And the subject matter has always been about Catturd. Now, you're shifting again. It seems no one believes your rhetoric by disapproval rate.
Keep deflecting
This topic is about Catturd. Always has been. Reread my posts. For the 3rd time, I'm asking you verbatim , "how you know that Catturd's SWATing was a "spoofed number made over voip originating from a server in Russia..."? Otherwise, I know you're wasting my time with wild speculations.
Could you quote to me when I said catturd's SWATing was a "spoofed number made over voip originating from a server in Russia...".
Let's go over the sequence of comments again. You said:
I said:
You said in the digital age everything is compromised and traced. I provided a counterpoint for a method that would be almost impossible for a local police station to trace. Never once did I say catturd's caller used this method. Please stop falsely mischaracterizing my comments.
You said the following :
But I was specifically talking about Catturd. That's the big difference here.
This is seen from early on in my 2nd response to you. Then you much later, in your 7th response to me, said you, "never said that catturd's caller used those techniques." And suddenly shifted your position.
The topic has always been about Catturd. The posting is about Catturd being SWATted. You seem to be speculating on 'something' that is not germane to the topic. Now, you're obfuscating yet again with your last comment. Shame on you. Keep the comments to Catturd and stop shifting on what you really meant.