Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 27 Jan 2026, 7:42 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 7:42 am

https://youtube.com/shorts/lHjRwJq0m5A? ... p4Lgg39dQy

Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why.  His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.

Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Blackvegetable » 27 Jan 2026, 7:42 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 7:42 am

https://youtube.com/shorts/lHjRwJq0m5A? ... p4Lgg39dQy

Blackvegetable » 27 Jan 2026, 7:42 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 7:42 am

https://youtube.com/shorts/lHjRwJq0m5A? ... p4Lgg39dQy

 

Huey » 27 Jan 2026, 11:09 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 11:09 am

Lets Pull a BabyVegetable with this one:

What was your original source for that?

Blackvegetable » 27 Jan 2026, 11:18 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 11:18 am

Google prompt.

1st time...

Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why.  His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.

Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Blackvegetable » 27 Jan 2026, 11:18 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 11:18 am

Huey » 27 Jan 2026, 11:09 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 11:09 am

Lets Pull a BabyVegetable with this one:

What was your original source for that?

Google prompt.

1st time...


 

 

Blackvegetable » 27 Jan 2026, 7:42 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 7:42 am

MAGAts, who dutifully averted their eyes from the Jan 6th Hearings, will confidently assert that one of the witnesses - whose testimony MAGAts refuse to watch - has been contradicted under oath and therefore "impeached".

To "prove" this, the will refer to a snippet from a Press Release of the House's Revisionist Version of Events (a THIRD derivative of The Record), as follows:

During the Select Committee’s sensationalized prime-time hearings, Hutchinson was their surprise, "star witness". Hutchinson testified under oath that she heard that Trump had lunged at the steering wheel of the presidential SUV and engaged in a physical altercation with his lead Secret Service agent after being told they were not going to the Capitol on January 6, 2021. 
Our Subcommittee's "Initial Findings Report" released in March shows that other White House employees did not corroborate Hutchinson’s dramatic account, and instead directly refuted it. The Select Committee was in possession of these accounts but chose to hide them, and instead promoted Hutchinson’s scandalous narrative.

https://cha.house.gov/2024/10/new-texts ... -unethical

Note the COMPLETE absence of particulars.

Because ****, like @ROG62  , take what is fed to them by their **** sources as gospel.

But given the actual facts of the matter, how does the subcommittee get there?

https://cha.house.gov/_cache/files/d/9/ ... report.pdf

Watch how stupid people manipulate Scrapie ravaged sheep...

 

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Huey » 27 Jan 2026, 11:27 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 11:27 am

Blackvegetable » 27 Jan 2026, 11:18 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 11:18 am

Google prompt.

1st time...

Vegas » 27 Jan 2026, 10:05 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 10:05 am

Ok BV. Let's compare our definitions of Survivorship Bias and why yours is as useless as you. - Liberal Forum Political Chat Room[/url]

Deal:

Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?

A) Believing that reading business books increases revenue after finding many CEOs recommend them.
B) Concluding that most startups fail after analyzing bankrupt companies.
C) Thinking entrepreneurship is easy because most media profiles focus on successful founders.
D) Surveying customers to understand why they chose your product over competitors