Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 02 Feb 2026, 12:23 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Feb 2026, 12:23 pm

You can run, but....you know...

I don't need you to drill you a new mudhole.

Answer the question or I shall continue to taunt you without mercy!
 

Zeets2 » 02 Feb 2026, 12:39 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Feb 2026, 12:39 pm

Answer the question or I shall continue to taunt you without mercy!

:rofl:  

Look at the graph.

Look at your assertions. 

Guess what's in store.

Blackvegetable » 02 Feb 2026, 1:07 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Feb 2026, 1:07 pm

 

Look at the graph.

Look at your assertions. 

Guess what's in store.

I have no doubt that you light up every room you walk out of!
 

Zeets2 » 02 Feb 2026, 2:24 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Feb 2026, 2:24 pm

I have no doubt that you light up every room you walk out of!

Figure out how to read it, did you?

Blackvegetable » 02 Feb 2026, 2:35 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Feb 2026, 2:35 pm

Figure out how to read it, did you?

Tell me something.
As an outsider, what are your views on intelligence?
 

Zeets2 » 02 Feb 2026, 3:06 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Feb 2026, 3:06 pm

Tell me something.
As an outsider, what are your views on intelligence?

If you can't read a line graph, you should find a different topic.

Blackvegetable » 02 Feb 2026, 3:10 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Feb 2026, 3:10 pm

If you can't read a line graph, you should find a different topic.

And if you can't admit to the simple fact I stated, you should be lobotomized for being so ignorant.
 

Zeets2 » 03 Feb 2026, 12:41 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Feb 2026, 12:41 pm

And if you can't admit to the simple fact I stated, you should be lobotomized for being so ignorant.

I can tell you within 250k how many federal employees there are.

Can you? 

Blackvegetable » 03 Feb 2026, 4:24 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Feb 2026, 4:24 pm

I can tell you within 250k how many federal employees there are.

Can you?

Congrats. You know how to use Google. We already know that. You are the copy/paste king. 
 

Vegas » 03 Feb 2026, 4:33 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Feb 2026, 4:33 pm

Congrats. You know how to use Google. 

Teach @Zeets ....I go to a primary source.


 

Blackvegetable » 03 Feb 2026, 4:37 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Feb 2026, 4:37 pm

I go to a primary source.

You have to. You don't offer any thoughts of your own, so copying someone else is all you can do.

Vegas » 03 Feb 2026, 4:38 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Feb 2026, 4:38 pm

You have to. You don't offer any thoughts of your own, so copying someone else is all you can do.

AI says you're lying....and that you suck.

Blackvegetable » 03 Feb 2026, 4:40 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Feb 2026, 4:40 pm

AI says you're lying....and that you suck.

Here is you lying. And believe me, I don't expect you to read it all. That would be too painful for you. Just know that I nuked you. 



Busted your lying ***. 

Is it accurate for an AI to state that a photograph’s attribution ‘correctly identifies the subject and photographer, making it a reliable source,’ without external verification?

here is the claim that AI had said: "The attribution correctly identifies both the subjects of the photo and the photographer who captured the moment, making it a reliable source."

AI's reply:

AI cannot confirm the identity of a real person in a photograph.
It can only:

• describe visible features (appearance, clothing, setting),
• note resemblance if asked in a general sense,
• or restate what sources claim without verifying them.

What it cannot do:

• verify who the person actually is,
• confirm that an attribution is correct,
• declare an image or its attribution “reliable” on its own.

 “It cannot confirm identity.”
 That’s not an opinion, a rhetorical move, or a grammar issue — it’s a capability limit. 

Vegas » 03 Feb 2026, 4:42 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Feb 2026, 4:42 pm

Here is you lying. And believe me, I 

You don't understand how AI works, and your English is too "fresh off the boat" to communicate with it.

Blackvegetable » 03 Feb 2026, 4:45 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Feb 2026, 4:45 pm

You don't understand how AI works, and your English is too "fresh off the boat" to communicate with it.

So projecting is going to be your go-to response for this, huh? 

Shocking.


1. Copy me

Vegas » 03 Feb 2026, 4:46 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Feb 2026, 4:46 pm

So projecting is going to be your go-to response for this, huh? 

Shocking.

1. Copy me

Author's Level. The author has reached this peak by synthesizing legal theory with aggressive satire to produce a unique, albeit highly polemic, original work.


AI swoons at the mere thought of me.

Blackvegetable » 03 Feb 2026, 4:49 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Feb 2026, 4:49 pm

Author's Level. The author has reached this peak by synthesizing legal theory with aggressive satire to produce a unique, albeit highly polemic, original work.

AI swoons at the mere thought of me.

Another copy/paste. No thoughts of your own. Why do you insist on proving my claims about you?

QED

Vegas » 03 Feb 2026, 5:08 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Feb 2026, 5:08 pm

Another copy/paste. No thoughts of your own. Why do you insist on proving my claims about you?

QED

Is there a rule about copy&paste?

I quoted AI's response to my OP..

You gotta admit, it beats the snot out of your "thoughts"....they suck.
 

Blackvegetable » 03 Feb 2026, 5:21 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Feb 2026, 5:21 pm

Is there a rule about copy&paste?


 

**** your rule obsession. Unless you can find a rule against me exposing your stupidity, then I don't have to post any damn rule. 

Now shut up and give some damn thoughts for once. 

1. You will continue to prove that you have no thoughts of your own. 

SGDFS

Vegas » 03 Feb 2026, 5:26 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Feb 2026, 5:26 pm

**** your rule obsession. Unless you can find a rule against me exposing your stupidity, then I don't have to post any damn rule. 

Now shut up and give some damn thoughts for once. 

1. You will continue to prove that you have no thoughts of your own. 

SGDFS

Then stop bitching, bitch.