Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

2u2me

Overheal wrote: »

He's told you:

You were the cause of those threads being shutdown overheal. You were acting like a troll and you were incessantly posting gibberish on those threads before they closed.

You're the main culprit in this **** and you're here to say it's 'gaslighting'.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

You were combining two different points in my discussion with baggly, basically adding 2+2 and getting 5, like usual. Fantastic way of obfuscating from the main argument I'm attempting to discuss.

Baggly

2u2me wrote:

When you tell me you don't understand when I ask you what this means, this is the behaviour from you that leads to me to ask you to be honest; because it seems you are just being purposefully obtuse.

I'm not. It's a fairly straightforward response. I don't understand your confusion. I'm asking you to help me understand so I can alleviate it as best I can.

2u2me wrote:

Perhpas you could offer me the same courtesy I have been offering you by providing evidence and facts and logic, but instead you prefer just to screech 'it's not happening' like the rest of them.

Screech? I've answered how many of your queries and responded to most if not all of your posts, and done so in timely and reasoned manner. You seem to be attributing a tone to my posts that just isn't there. There isn't much I can do about that to be honest. I haven't seen anyone 'screech' at you so this is a highly disingenuous thing to say.

You asked earlier in this thread to give you a straight answer to your questions. It's what I did just now. I cant prove there isn't a grand conspiracy or a loophole because there is nothing there to disprove. No evidence exists because no conspiracy or loophole exists. If you cant take my word for it that is regrettable but again, doesn't seem to be anything I can do about that, despite several attempts on my part to be open and earnest, and answer your queries.

2u2me

Baggly wrote: »

I'm not. It's a fairly straightforward response. I don't understand your confusion. I'm asking you to help me understand so I can alleviate it as best I can.



Screech? I've answered how many of your queries and responded to most if not all of your posts, and done so in timely and reasoned manner. You seem to be attributing a tone to my posts that just isn't there. There isn't much I can do about that to be honest. I haven't seen anyone 'screech' at you so this is a highly disingenuous thing to say.

You asked earlier in this thread to give you a straight answer to your questions. It's what I did just now. I cant prove there isn't a grand conspiracy or a loophole because there is nothing there to disprove. No evidence exists because no conspiracy or loophole exists. If you cant take my word for it that is regrettable but again, doesn't seem to be anything I can do about that, despite several attempts on my part to be open and earnest, and answer your queries.

The loophole exists as I have already shown.

What part are you in disagreement with? You just keep repeating 'it doesn't exist without explaining what part of my argument is incorrect. That's why I call it screeching.

Threads get shutdown if there is too much bickering.
There is an active cohort on boards (antifa/anti-free speech activists) that are happy to have threads shutdown, in fact that is what they advocate.

Thus loophole. Which part are you in disagreement with? Please just don't shout it doesn't exist again, it's not in anyway helpful without explaining what you mean by that.

Timberrrrrrrr

2u2me wrote: »

The loophole exists as I have already shown.

What part are you in disagreement with? You just keep repeating 'it doesn't exist without explaining what part of my argument is incorrect. That's why I call it screeching.

Threads get shutdown if there is too much bickering.
There is an active cohort on boards (antifa/anti-free speech activists) that are happy to have threads shutdown, in fact that is what they advocate.

Thus loophole. Which part are you in disagreement with? Please just don't shout it doesn't exist again, it's not in anyway helpful without explaining what you mean by that.

It only exists in your head.

Baggly

2u2me wrote: »

The loophole exists as I have already shown.

What part are you in disagreement with? You just keep repeating 'it doesn't exist without explaining what part of my argument is incorrect. That's why I call it screeching.

Threads get shutdown if there is too much bickering.
There is an active cohort on boards (antifa/anti-free speech activists) that are happy to have threads shutdown, in fact that is what they advocate.

Thus loophole. Which part are you in disagreement with? Please just don't shout it doesn't exist again, it's not in anyway helpful without explaining what you mean by that.

Ok im leaving it at this unless there is something new.

You didnt show there is a loophole. I refuted each of your points and you didnt not come forward with any new evidence or any further development of your theory.

If you keep asking the same question and keep getting the same answer, its not screeching. Its me telling you the answer hasnt changed since the last time you asked.

The bolded bit is the issue, for me. You know my answer is going to be the same so you try to preclude me from repeating it, despite it being the truth. This leads me to believe you arent actually interested in my answer.

Ill leave it there. Thanks for the discussion anyway.

2u2me

Baggly wrote: »

Ok im leaving it at this unless there is something new.

You have not offered anything except; "there is no loophole". I'm happy to leave the discussion there as well.

2u2me

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

It only exists in your head.

It is funny the type of people this has touched a nerve with, perhaps those people are unhappy to have their tactics exposed to the sunshine.

Timberrrrrrrr

2u2me wrote: »

It is funny the type of people this has touched a nerve with, perhaps those people are unhappy to have their tactics exposed to the sunshine.

Who has had a nerve touched?

Overheal

2u2me wrote: »

You were the cause of those threads being shutdown overheal. You were acting like a troll and you were incessantly posting gibberish on those threads before they closed.

You're the main culprit in this **** and you're here to say it's 'gaslighting'.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

You were combining two different points in my discussion with baggly, basically adding 2+2 and getting 5, like usual. Fantastic way of obfuscating from the main argument I'm attempting to discuss.

Wow tell me how you really feel. Speaking of touched nerves ^

Any example of "gibberish" I posted?

2u2me

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Who has had a nerve touched?

Care to address the issue of a loophole existing that can be exploited by the woke among us?

They purposefully create accounts and mass report to have discussions shutdown, aided by many moderators.

Any opinion on that? I'd prefer to stick to point and not be further obfuscated by these insincere arguments.

Timberrrrrrrr

2u2me wrote: »

Care to address the issue of a loophole existing that can be exploited by the woke among us?

They purposefully create accounts and mass report to have discussions shutdown, aided by many moderators.

Any opinion on that? I'd prefer to stick to point and not be further obfuscated by these insincere arguments.

There is no loophole! If the bolded is true then name and shame the accounts here, who are these master new accounts that have done this?

Overheal

2u2me wrote: »

Care to address the issue of a loophole existing that can be exploited by the woke among us?

They purposefully create accounts and mass report to have discussions shutdown, aided by many moderators.

Any opinion on that? I'd prefer to stick to point and not be further obfuscated by these insincere arguments.

Now we're getting into a Conspiracy Theory.

Which accounts?

2u2me

Overheal wrote: »

Now we're getting into a Conspiracy Theory.

Which accounts?

This was the mod note from the Antifa thread one page before it closed.

Mod: Jesus Christ lads, seriously? Can you not debate this without taking potshots at each other?

This was the very next reply in that thread from you overheal, not actioned.

Then have it in private.

This is a public access forum where users have a right to engage. If you don’t want to be called out for being hypocritical, well, that’s entirely avoidable on your end.

A few pages towards the end of the george floyd thread you were constantly parroting the line.

What report says he was high during his arrest? Nobody on thread has offered one that I can honestly recall, I just see a lot of amateur commentary that he was "high as a kite" etc.

In fact that very information was in a report that YOU SUPPLIED. Numerous posters continually told you this but you continually obfuscated like you are doing here.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/working-stiff/86913

Quote:https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/working-stiff/86913
They listed arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease, fentanyl intoxication, and recent methamphetamine use as other significant conditions contributing to death.
The link provided by Overheal.

Acting like a troll, free from consequence. Then when the thread gets shutdown you thank the mod post that did it and come in here all happy that the thread has been shutdown. It's absolutely vile and disgusting.

Overheal

2u2me wrote: »

This was the mod note from the Antifa thread one page before it closed.



This was the very next reply in that thread from you overheal, not actioned.

A mod warning at 29-07-2020, 17:12, a post at 29-07-2020, 17:13. Had I reasonable time to see the warning? Nope, and I imagine the mod took that into consideration.

A few pages towards the end of the george floyd thread you were constantly parroting the line.

In fact that very information was in a report that YOU SUPPLIED. Numerous posters continually told you this but you continually obfuscated like you are doing here.

The link said "high as a kite?" I think not. It said trace amounts of drugs were in his system in his autopsy - levels I might add which aren't consistent with people who are known to have died under the influence of those drugs. But we aren't here to reopen the thread.

Acting like a troll, free from consequence. Then when the thread gets shutdown you thank the mod post that did it and come in here all happy that the thread has been shutdown. It's absolutely vile and disgusting.

You seem to really not grasp what trolling is if you think what I did was trolling. I thanked the mod because I supported the mod decision, despite not being something I would have voted for. Other people thanked it as well, are they my co-conspirators?

biko, Brian?, CtevenSrowder, ExMachina1000, Foxtrol, nullzero, Overheal, protonmike, Tipperary animal lover

Names in bold are people I've been in recent and heated disagreements with, including Nullzero, whom you quote me replying to above, as "trolling." Is he my sockpuppet account? :eek:

2u2me

Overheal wrote: »

A mod warning at 29-07-2020, 17:12, a post at 29-07-2020, 17:13. Had I reasonable time to see the warning? Nope, and I imagine the mod took that into consideration.


The link said "high as a kite?" I think not. It said trace amounts of drugs were in his system in his autopsy - levels I might add which aren't consistent with people who are known to have die under the influence of those drugs. But we aren't here to reopen the thread.




You seem to really not grasp what trolling is if you think what I did was trolling. I thanked the mod because I supported the mod decision, despite not being something I would have voted for. Other people thanked it as well, are they my co-conspirators?

biko, Brian?, CtevenSrowder, ExMachina1000, Foxtrol, nullzero, Overheal, protonmike, Tipperary animal lover

Names in bold are people I've been in recent and heated disagreements with, including Nullzero, whom you quote me replying to above, as "trolling." Is he my sockpuppet account? :eek:

My accusation was against you. You were trolling the Antifa and george floyd threads before they got shutdown. I invite anyone to search those threads from the quotes I provided to show how everyone was showing you up as a lying ideologue shortly before the thread was shutdown.

Overheal

2u2me wrote: »

My accusation was against you.

Clearly, but to remain consistent you would have to also include nullzero in your "vile and disgusting" remarks, he thanked the mod who locked the thread.

You were trolling the Antifa and george floyd threads before they got shutdown. I invite anyone to search those threads from the quotes I provided to show how everyone was showing you up as a lying ideologue shortly before the thread was shutdown.

What did I lie about?

2u2me

Overheal wrote: »

What did I lie about?

You can read from this post in the George Floyd thread and this post from the Antifa thead.

I invite everyone else to do the same. You were trolling and acting like a jerk and weren't sanctioned and instead the threads got shutdown and here you are being vocal about it.

2u2me

2u2me wrote: »

My accusation was against you. You were trolling the Antifa and george floyd threads before they got shutdown. I invite anyone to search those threads from the quotes I provided to show how everyone was showing you up as a lying ideologue shortly before the thread was shutdown.

He wasn't trolling the thread from what I saw. Him disagreeing with your points isn't trolling. And shouting that a person is a "lying ideologue" is just a pretty baseless personal attack. You seem to be treating the thread as a personal rant.

Overheal

2u2me wrote: »

You can read from this post in the George Floyd thread

Not seeing the lie. No report concluded he was high as a kite. I certainly don't recall seeing one.

this post from the Antifa thead.

I'm not seeing a lie here, either.

You were trolling and acting like a jerk and weren't sanctioned and instead the threads got shutdown and here you are being vocal about it.

I'm here being vocal about it because you called me out by name and have made it personal. You got upset because I pointed out salient bits from Baggly's posts to PM him for discussion on the 'facts' you are screeching about. I wasn't trolling, and your opinion of me as a jerk is irrelevant.

2u2me

Deleted User wrote: »

He wasn't trolling the thread from what I saw. Him disagreeing with your points isn't trolling. And shouting that a person is a "lying ideologue" is just a pretty baseless personal attack. You seem to be treating the thread as a personal rant.

I wasn't involved in either discussion. Except one point in the george floyd thread to point out the argument overheal said wasn't happening was reported in the very link that he provided.

So your argument holds no water. Did you really read all that in less than two minutes and have the time to make a reply here?

2u2me

2u2me wrote: »

I wasn't involved in either discussion. Except one point in the george floyd thread to point out the argument overheal said wasn't happening was reported in the very link that he provided.

So your argument holds no water. Did you really read all that in less than two minutes and have the time to make a reply here?

I was following the thread at the time... This seems to boil down to a personal gripe with a user at this stage.

Overheal

2u2me wrote: »

I wasn't involved in either discussion. Except one point in the george floyd thread to point out the argument overheal said wasn't happening was reported in the very link that he provided.

So your argument holds no water. Did you really read all that in less than two minutes and have the time to make a reply here?

Not true at all. That link doesn't mention he was high as a kite. Reported blood levels in his autopsy were below those of being actively intoxicated when he died. This was discussed in the thread before it closed.

2u2me

Overheal wrote: »

Not true at all. That link doesn't mention he was high as a kite. Reported blood levels in his autopsy were below those of being actively intoxicated when he died. This was discussed in the thread before it closed.

You can move the goalposts all you want but it's here recorded in text for all to see Overheal.

Overheal
What report says he was high during his arrest? Nobody on thread has offered one that I can honestly recall, I just see a lot of amateur commentary that he was "high as a kite" etc.

Eric Cartman
the full autopsy report, which indicated that the cause of death was "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression," and that the manner of death was homicide. They listed arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease, fentanyl intoxication, and recent methamphetamine use as other significant conditions contributing to death.

from your own link.

Here Eric Cartman said 'from your own link' referencing the link that overheal had previously provided himself.

Overheal
Then who is spoofing, so, because here are reports to that effect:

https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/working-stiff/86913 (<--this link)

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/o...ort-drugs.html

https://knsiradio.com/news/local-new...ds-cause-death

Your circular argument hasn't budged. The drugs could be present in his system for hours, days, weeks, months after the use.

EmmetSpiceland

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I was following the thread at the time... This seems to boil down to a personal gripe with a user at this stage.

And the mods.

Overheal

2u2me wrote: »

You can move the goalposts all you want but it's here recorded in text for all to see Overheal.





Here Eric Cartman said 'from your own link' referencing the link that overheal had previously provided himself.

As I've already said twice in the last 10 minutes: the autopsy shows trace amounts of drugs in his system, it does not support that he was high at the time of his death.

see 2013 study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3576505/

The manners of death included 40 accidents, 36 natural, 8 suicides, 5 therapeutic complications, and 3 undetermined deaths. Among the accidental fentanyl intoxication deaths, 32 of 37 involved substance abuse. The majority (95 %) of the 37 accidental deaths involving fentanyl were multi-drug intoxications. The substance abuse deaths had a mean fentanyl blood concentration (26.4 ng/ml or μg/L) that was over twice that of the natural group (11.8 ng/ml). Our analysis suggests a relationship between total patch dosage and mean postmortem fentanyl concentration up to the 100-μg/h dose.

How much fentanyl was in George Floyd? 11.0 ng/mL, Therefore: he was not high when he died.

Tokyo

Deleted User wrote: »

He wasn't trolling the thread from what I saw. Him disagreeing with your points isn't trolling.

I would estimate that somewhere between 40-50% of our reported posts are down to this singular fact.

To clarify:

• Someone disagreeing with you ISN'T trolling.
• Someone whose opinion you don't like ISN'T trolling.
• Someone who can argue their point better than you ISN'T trolling.
• Someone having an out there or idiotic opinion ISN'T trolling.

• Someone who is posting solely to get a reaction or get others wound up and doesn't fit in to any of the above categories IS more likely to be a troll.

We have a few posters who are in the habit of telling us on a daily bassis - via reported posts - we should ban posters with whom they disagree as trolls, and they're getting shriller. That's not how it works. You can either debate the point at hand, or you can ignore them, especially if you suspect them to be a troll.

For genuine trolls, ceasing to reply to these posters and/or putting them on ignore is the foolproof way of dealing with them. Do not read them. Do not reply to them. Do not insult them. Do not engage. Continuing to engage and then getting mad at the mods for not intervening is not the way to deal with it.

2u2me

mike_ie wrote: »

I would estimate that somewhere between 40-50% of our reported posts are down to this singular fact.

To clarify:

• Someone disagreeing with you ISN'T trolling.
• Someone whose opinion you don't like ISN'T trolling.
• Someone who can argue their point better than you ISN'T trolling.
• Someone having an out there or idiotic opinion ISN'T trolling.

• Someone who is posting solely to get a reaction or get others wound up and doesn't fit in to any of the above categories IS more likely to be a troll.

We have a few posters who are in the habit of telling us on a daily bassis - via reported posts - we should ban posters with whom they disagree as trolls, and they're getting shriller. That's not how it works. You can either debate teh point at hand, or you can ignore them, expecially if you suspect them to be a troll.

For genuine trolls, ceasing to reply to these posters and/or putting them on ignore is the foolproof way of dealing with them. Do not read them. Do not reply to them. Do not insult them. Do not engage. Continuing to engage and then getting mad at the mods for not intervening is not the way to deal with it.

Constantly giving into these people will only make things worse.

As James Lindsay put it:

1) pack the court with enough sympathizers (~15% is enough)
2) find or manufacture precipitating event
3) RAISE HOLY HELL about it
4) divide and conquer: racists vs. antiracists with no neutral allowed (on team racist)
5) press until owned or dead.

"That's Evergreen. That's the New Atheism Movement. That's Ravelry, the knitting forum. That's Young Adult Fiction. That's Romance Fiction. I could go on. That's the Critical playbook to stage a coup. If they conquer or kill the institution it doesn't matter to them because both are a win. Conquered: it's theirs. Killed: one less irredeemably racist institution."

They raise holy hell about people stating their opinion that Biden has dementia. You then ban all talk about the topic unless proof is supplied. If you ignore them and do the right thing they call you a racist and compare you to 4chan etc...

How is this for proof of that from sky news Australia? Can we now speculate again since a network like Sky news also do?

Overheal

How is this for proof of that from sky news Australia? Can we now speculate again since a network like Sky news also do?

You do realize Sky and Fox News are ultimately controlled by the same entity?

Tokyo

2u2me wrote: »

Constantly giving into these people will only make things worse.

As James Lindsay put it:


1) pack the court with enough sympathizers (~15% is enough)
2) find or manufacture precipitating event
3) RAISE HOLY HELL about it
4) divide and conquer: racists vs. antiracists with no neutral allowed (on team racist)
5) press until owned or dead.

"That's Evergreen. That's the New Atheism Movement. That's Ravelry, the knitting forum. That's Young Adult Fiction. That's Romance Fiction. I could go on. That's the Critical playbook to stage a coup. If they conquer or kill the institution it doesn't matter to them because both are a win. Conquered: it's theirs. Killed: one less irredeemably racist institution."

You seem to believe that's your call to make. It's not.

The forum charter has outlined the terms of taking part in the forum (which are by no means restrictive), and mods have outlined the terms and conditions of engaging the thread. The 'dementia' and 'shaky Joe' angles have been done to death, and had become a go-to response for anyone who just didn't like the opposing point of view. I would argue that if your entire argument hinges on hearsay and conjecture rather than anything measurable, or you have to resort to the same old trope any time someone disagrees with you, then it's not a very good argument. While the bar may not be as high in CA/IMHO as it is in Politics for example, we still aspire to something a little better than "Youtube comments section'.

To quote a poster from earlier:

He wasn't trolling the thread from what I saw. Him disagreeing with your points isn't trolling. And shouting that a person is a "lying ideologue" is just a pretty baseless personal attack. You seem to be treating the thread as a personal rant.

From what I have seen of your posts thus far, I would tend to agree. The thread is there for discussion - it's not your personal soapbox.

2u2me wrote: »

How is this for proof of that from sky news Australia? Can we now speculate again since a network like Sky news also do?

I think we have very different definitions of 'proof'. A Friday night opinion piece on a show that prides itself on taking a controversial point of view, using terminology such as "muddled rants, inexplicably bizarre outbursts and Charlie Sheen levels of confusion" would not be what I could call a reputable source.

2u2me

mike_ie wrote: »

You seem to believe that's your call to make. It's not.

Everything is your call. You are the grand power, you are the admin. Not once have I said things are my call. This is ridiculous argumentation. I'm presenting a case that there are loopholes in your rules that allow people to cancel discussions that they don't like and I'm also asking questions.

The forum charter has outlined the terms of taking part in the forum (which are by no means restrictive), and mods have outlined the terms and conditions of engaging the thread. The 'dementia' and 'shaky Joe' angles have been done to death, and had become a go-to response for anyone who just didn't like the opposing point of view. I would argue that if your entire argument hinges on hearsay and conjecture rather than anything measurable, or you have to resort to the same old trope any time someone disagrees with you, then it's not a very good argument. While the bar may not be as high in CA/IMHO as it is in Politics for example, we still aspire to something a little better than "Youtube comments section'.

I have no problem with the forum charter. I have a problem with the bias way in which it is implemented. You don't even address the evidence I present but prefer to attack me and my sources (sky news australia). Anyone with an iota of rational thought in their head would be questioning Biden's cognitive ability based on the evidence.

To quote a poster from earlier:



From what I have seen of your posts thus far, I would tend to agree. The thread is there for discussion - it's not your personal soapbox.

The best way to beat my arguments is with argumentation. But easier to juts say I'm soap boxing. Next I'm sure you'll say I'm engaging in circular arguments and threadban men, I've seen the form from you before.

I think we have very different definitions of 'proof'. A Friday night opinion piece on a show that prides itself on taking a controversial point of view, using terminology such as "muddled rants, inexplicably bizarre outbursts and Charlie Sheen levels of confusion" would not be what I could call a reputable source.

That 'proof' showed clips of Biden's cognitive decline. That you choose to ignore those clips because of the show that presents it is yet more evidence of your bias. What sources exactly are endorsed by the ministry of truth?