NationStates Jolt Archive

Student's tall tale revealed (http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/12/24/students_tall_tale_revealed/)
Confesses fabricating US surveillance story
By Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff | December 24, 2005

It rocketed across the Internet a week ago, a startling newspaper report that agents from the US Department of Homeland Security had visited a student at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth at his New Bedford home simply because he had tried to borrow Mao Tse-Tung's ''Little Red Book" for a history seminar on totalitarian goverments.

The story, first reported in last Saturday's New Bedford Standard-Times, was picked up by other news organizations, prompted diatribes on left-wing and right-wing blogs, and even turned up in an op-ed piece written by Senator Edward M. Kennedy in the Globe.

But yesterday, the student confessed that he had made it up after being confronted by the professor who had repeated the story to a Standard-Times reporter.





WELL WELL WELL. I hope everyone in the thread about this that were bitching likes the taste of shoe, because it seems you all put your foot in your mouth.

Another liar trying to get people worked up over laws that protect us. All I have to say is HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Another liar trying to get people worked up over laws that protect us. All I have to say is HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Laws that protect you from scary books?

What a surprise. I mean these sorts of stories seem to get so much attention there are bound to be some people leaping on the bandwaggon.
But why is there a bandwaggon? Mainly because there have been serveral cases where people have seen their rights being abused.

And this is supposed to prove something?

And this is supposed to prove something?

The Bushevik Double Standard. One lie is enough to absolve the Adminstration of all charges, whereas nothing short of a confession from Shrub himself is enough to substantiate an accusation of abuse and mismanagement.

And this is supposed to prove something?
Wellll... be fair. If the situation was reversed, and it was someone admitting they'd made up a story to make a case _for_ the Patriot Act or similar, I know I'd be full of schafenfreude and wanting to crow unpleasantly about it.

No, it wouldn't prove anything, and I'd be wishing I hadn't bothered to make a fuss about it the next day, but I totally get the desire.

Laws that protect you from scary books?

Shhh...don't tell

Elgesh']Wellll... be fair. If the situation was reversed, and it was someone admitting they'd made up a story to make a case _for_ the Patriot Act or similar, I know I'd be full of schafenfreude and wanting to crow unpleasantly about it.

No, it wouldn't prove anything, and I'd be wishing I hadn't bothered to make a fuss about it the next day, but I totally get the desire.

Beat me to it. I even think that the Patriot Act is an unconstitutional violation of our civil rights but I got to admit you're right about the schafenfreude.....

And this is supposed to prove something?

It is supposed to prove that jumping to conclusions on these type of things will make one look dumb. Wasn't it "The Nazz" that posted about this exact subject. My response was that it was bs. Appears I was right.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=459773

And this is supposed to prove something?
Actually ,yes it is. And it does. It proves that people who don't like the Patriot Act are willing to lie about it, and the next time someone conveniently tells you about their Patriot Act horror story, don't believe them without proof.

It proves that people who don't like the Patriot Act are willing to lie about it...
That's a bit of a generalisation from a sample of One, hey?

...and the next time someone conveniently tells you about their Patriot Act horror story, don't believe them without proof.
Considering that the proof is generally held secret by whoever does the investigating (at least it is in Australia) that could be a problem.

Actually ,yes it is. And it does. It proves that people who don't like the Patriot Act are willing to lie about it, and the next time someone conveniently tells you about their Patriot Act horror story, don't believe them without proof.

Politicians for the Patriot Act are willing to lie as well - when they conveniently say it's for your own good, don't believe them without proof either :)

Realistically, every human lies, a little or a lot, or slants the truth to further their particular point of view. This particular incident does tell us to question people for their proof before accepting what they say as truth, particularly on the internet.

I just think, damn, this kid got media attention. Not bad at all.

Well there was a kid investigated for taking out books on bridges and he was only 8.

Student's tall tale revealed (http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/12/24/students_tall_tale_revealed/)
Confesses fabricating US surveillance story
By Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff | December 24, 2005

It rocketed across the Internet a week ago, a startling newspaper report that agents from the US Department of Homeland Security had visited a student at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth at his New Bedford home simply because he had tried to borrow Mao Tse-Tung's ''Little Red Book" for a history seminar on totalitarian goverments.

The story, first reported in last Saturday's New Bedford Standard-Times, was picked up by other news organizations, prompted diatribes on left-wing and right-wing blogs, and even turned up in an op-ed piece written by Senator Edward M. Kennedy in the Globe.

But yesterday, the student confessed that he had made it up after being confronted by the professor who had repeated the story to a Standard-Times reporter.





WELL WELL WELL. I hope everyone in the thread about this that were bitching likes the taste of shoe, because it seems you all put your foot in your mouth.

Another liar trying to get people worked up over laws that protect us. All I have to say is HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I never heard of this story until after it was discredited.

To the extent you think this means all concerns about domestic spying/the Patriot Act are discredited, you are making the logical error of hasty generalization (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html).

Hasn't anyone thought of the possibility that the college student in question recevied more attention/subtle threats from even more Men In Black (no pund intended), and so went back on his own story?

It would make sense, someone in the intelligence organs decided that since the story has gone public, a reversal would put a dent into the credibility of the same stories in the future

Actually ,yes it is. And it does. It proves that people who don't like the Patriot Act are willing to lie about it, and the next time someone conveniently tells you about their Patriot Act horror story, don't believe them without proof.

Meh. You are merely trying to distract from the real Patriot Act horror stories that have been documented.

Oh goody. More generalizations. Lets take it a step further. This person, whom I assume is an American, lied, presumably for the attention. Hence, all Americans are attention grabbing people who use lies for when it suits them. Hey, MIB is an American too. That probably means he's lying about this. See where generalizations get us?

Besides, this topic has already been posted before. Why are you posting it again? So you can feel good about yourself?

Oh goody. More generalizations. Lets take it a step further. This person, whom I assume is an American, lied, presumably for the attention. Hence, all Americans are attention grabbing people who use lies for when it suits them. Hey, MIB is an American too. That probably means he's lying about this. See where generalizations get us?

Besides, this topic has already been posted before. Why are you posting it again? So you can feel good about yourself?
Yep! :D

WELL WELL WELL. I hope everyone in the thread about this that were bitching likes the taste of shoe, because it seems you all put your foot in your mouth.

Another liar trying to get people worked up over laws that protect us. All I have to say is HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Since you obviously missed it, I posted a mea culpa about the story when it first appeared--about two weeks ago. Jeez, get with the program. :rolleyes:

It is supposed to prove that jumping to conclusions on these type of things will make one look dumb. Wasn't it "The Nazz" that posted about this exact subject. My response was that it was bs. Appears I was right.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=459773
See the post above this one.

People who chooses security over freedom deserve neither.

I don't know who wrote that, but I think it applies very nicely to The Patroit Act.

People who chooses security over freedom deserve neither.

I don't know who wrote that, but I think it applies very nicely to The Patroit Act.

I gotta feeling it was Washington or someone like that, (non-american here so i apologise in advance)

I gotta feeling it was Washington or someone like that, (non-american here so i apologise in advance)


It was Franklin. The only reason I know is because he was just quoted in Civilization IV :)

It was Franklin. The only reason I know is because he was just quoted in Civilization IV :)

cheers:)

clearly another rope-a-dope by karl rove, just like he fooled dan rather with the fake bush AWOL memos.
just proves, that bush is even more hideous and evil!

(in reference to Man in Black)
Besides, this topic has already been posted before. Why are you posting it again? So you can feel good about yourself?

Why not? He certainly has no other reason to...:D

clearly another rope-a-dope by karl rove, just like he fooled dan rather with the fake bush AWOL memos.
just proves, that bush is even more hideous and evil!

Rather acts on bad intel: Rather's fault. Nobody dies.

Bush acts on bad intel: Everybody else's fault. A lot of people die.

Don't you love how this works?

Rather acts on bad intel: Rather's fault. Nobody dies.

Bush acts on bad intel: Everybody else's fault. A lot of people die.

Don't you love how this works?

Bushevism is an enigma worthy of a college field study innit?

i would say it is a kind of religion, whose primary dogma is: blame bush for everything.

the bushhaters are so obsessed with the potus, it is funny.

i would say it is a kind of religion, whose primary dogma is: blame bush for everything.

the bushhaters are so obsessed with the potus, it is funny.

It's not hatred of Bush so much as an incredulous disbelief that an entire nation can worship an incompetent draft dodging fratboy as the utter embodiment of the American Spirit. He bankrupted three businesses his father handed to him, yet a vast number of people in the country still believe he's capable of running this nation. He's capable of running it into the ground maybe, but not running it properly. He's avoided serving in war, yet people believe he's one of the greatest military commander this country has ever had.

Bushevism is a Personality Cult- no different than the one Kim Jong-Il has in North Korea- centered around the worship of George W. Bush. Worship to the point where his every missteps are justified and apologized for, and where anyone who criticizes him is seen as The Enemy.

If a CEO or some other business executive ran things the way Bush did, they would have been fired on the spot at the first warning sign or fuckup. But Shrub? He gets light slaps on the wrists, a toilet paper roll of Get Out of Jail Free Cards and even a massive case of Stockholm Syndrome from the general public he is undermining with his ineptitude.

shame on us for believing a story that is entirely in line with multiple other documented (and even officially acknowledged) cases of state harrassment, spying, and intimidation against people suspected of not joining the cult of bushinality. how dare we reasonably conclude that a story that is actually less of a scary and offensive abuse of state power than other known incidents (but fits the general pattern none the less) was probably true?!

i would say it is a kind of religion, whose primary dogma is: blame bush for everything.

the bushhaters are so obsessed with the potus, it is funny.

Yes, I blame Bush for the girl who resisted my charms on New Year's eve. I blame Bush for the tsunami. I blame Bush for the poor quality of television these days. :D

What's funny is that the Bush defenders are completely blind to what is legitimate criticism and what isn't. They consider any criticism whatsoever to be Bush-hating. It's sad and pathetic really.

Kossackja, why do you love Bush more than you love America?

Yep! :D

But since you're an American, you're a liar, ergo, you're a masochist who does this to feel bad about himself.

Behold, the power of generalizations. :p

shame on us for believing a story that is entirely in line with multiple other documented (and even officially acknowledged) cases of state harrassment, spying, and intimidation against people suspected of not joining the cult of bushinality. how dare we reasonably conclude that a story that is actually less of a scary and offensive abuse of state power than other known incidents (but fits the general pattern none the less) was probably true?!

Don't you realise that a student lying about being picked up is infinitely worse than, say, a president lying about WMDs in order to invade a country? Shame on you, don't you love freedom?