Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 30 Jan 2026, 1:35 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 1:35 pm

This sounds familiar to anyone who has even engaged BV in anything. 

As you all know, I receive much joy in embarrassing BV publicly...like now.

Narcissists already know everything, especially things they learned 12 minutes ago on YouTube.

Note how in each instance "evidence" is limited to the above declarations.

And what does the OP go on to tell us about the conflict between AI and the Narcissist? 

AI is iterative. Narcissism is declarative.
AI learns. Narcissists proclaim

Copied me. No thoughts of your own. As predicted. Fail.

You lose again. 

Blackvegetable » 30 Jan 2026, 1:21 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 1:21 pm

Huey » 30 Jan 2026, 1:20 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 1:20 pm

Shrug.  It's over.  You lost.  Again.

Are these your yappy things?

It will be evidence based. You have to provide you own evidence. 

Both of my links are evidence.  The link you posted that I gave you years ago places the Colt Sporter on the Civilian list. Meaning it was NEVER  issued for combat.  Meaning it is not a combat weapon.

The other link shows the design changes that shows the exact design changes to the functioning of the rifle that make it NOT a combat weapon.

From the other citation posted:

As designed by Colt

Game.  Set.  Match.


Comparing a SPorter to a combat M 16 is like comparing a 6 cylinder mustang to the IMSA Mustang GT.  Just dumb.
 

Huey » 30 Jan 2026, 3:04 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 3:04 pm

Both of my links are evidence.  The link you posted that I gave you years ago places the Colt Sporter on the Civilian list. Meaning it was NEVER  issued for combat.  

 

That's not what it means...it means it is a variant of the original design.

That design was a component of the SCHV program...

Your extrapolations are not Evidence. 

Vegas » 30 Jan 2026, 2:19 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 2:19 pm

Copied me. No thoughts of your own. As predicted. Fail.

You lose again.

Are these my words?

Do you want to see me tear this from your rhetorical uterus and beat it insensate - with your own words? 
 

Blackvegetable » 30 Jan 2026, 3:07 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 3:07 pm

That's not what it means...it means it is a variant of the original design.

That design was a component of the SCHV program...

Your extrapolations are not Evidence.

No, the original Armalite 15 was.  Not the Colt Sporter.  Even the barbell twist was different.  

the more you post on this the dumber you look.  So please, keep talking.
 

Huey » 30 Jan 2026, 3:23 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 3:23 pm

No, the original Armalite 15 was.  Not the Colt Sporter.  

The evidence to the contrary is unambiguous.

It is listed as a variant of the original design.

Blackvegetable » 30 Jan 2026, 3:09 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 3:09 pm

Are these my words?

Do you want to see me tear this from your rhetorical uterus and beat it insensate - with your own words? 

You can't even use your own words to refute me.                                     

You literally have to copy. you just can't think for yourself. 

QED

Vegas » 30 Jan 2026, 3:32 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 3:32 pm

You can't even use your own words to refute me.                                     

You literally have to copy. you just can't think for yourself. 

QED

You contradict yourself...

Much less work...

Blackvegetable » 30 Jan 2026, 4:19 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 4:19 pm

You contradict yourself...

Much less work...

Yet, you offered no commentary to prove that. That would require you to have thoughts of your own. 

So, I take it you won't be rebutting this yourself again. Shocker.

1. Copy. Continue to refuse to provide his own thoughts. 

Vegas » 30 Jan 2026, 12:26 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 12:26 pm

This leads to a predictable outcome:

• The morons believe disagreement means bias, not probability or even certainty. 
• And the morons explain AI with supreme confidence while being wrong at a statistically impressive level.

In short:

AI learns. Narcissists proclaim.
AI updates. Narcissists double down. But I’m open to counterarguments, preferably ones that don’t begin with “Actually…” and end with total certainty.


 

@Blackvegetable  you proved this ^^^ from editing AI. Being wrong is unacceptable to you, so you edit AI to confirm your ****.       



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 » 30 Jan 2026, 5:18 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 5:18 pm

@Blackvegetable  you proved this ^^^ from editing AI. Being wrong is unacceptable to you, so you edit AI to confirm your ****.       

Busted your lying ***. 

AI's reply:

Your insistence that I  did so, absent any evidence, is yet more evidence of your incurable narcissism. 

Blackvegetable » 30 Jan 2026, 6:18 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 6:18 pm

Your insistence that I  did so, absent any evidence, is yet more evidence of your incurable narcissism.

The evidence was right below it. Youn refused to acknowledge it. That's your problem.

Blackvegetable » 30 Jan 2026, 4:19 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 4:19 pm

You contradict yourself...

Much less work...

There was no contradiction. Only the one in your delusional mind. 

1. Of course, you will copy again. No thoughts of your own. None. Ever.

Vegas » 31 Jan 2026, 12:21 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Jan 2026, 12:21 pm

The evidence was right below it. Youn refused to acknowledge it. That's your problem.

No.

 

Vegas » 31 Jan 2026, 12:22 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Jan 2026, 12:22 pm

There was no contradiction. Only the one in your delusional mind. 

1. Of course, you will copy again. No thoughts of your own. None. Ever.

As clearly demonstrated.

Blackvegetable » 31 Jan 2026, 12:45 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Jan 2026, 12:45 pm

No.

Yes.

1. And no, I am not going to repost it. Figure it out.

Huey » 30 Jan 2026, 3:23 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 3:23 pm

No, the original Armalite 15 was.  Not the Colt Sporter.  Even the barbell twist was different.  

the more you post on this the dumber you look.  So please, keep talking.

At least two of the rifles have modernized black rails mounted around their barrels, which allow accessories to attach more easily. These are Daniel Defense MFR M-LOK rails. 


For the M4 — the military equivalent of the AR-15 — U.S. Special Operations Command has championed the M-LOK, or modular lock, for its lighter weight and sturdiness when securing devices like lasers, flashlights and grips. Daniel Defense receivers and barrels are used across the U.S. military.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/28/us/i ... polis.html
 

Blackvegetable » 01 Feb 2026, 7:33 am » wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2026, 7:33 am

Huey » 30 Jan 2026, 3:23 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 3:23 pm

No, the original Armalite 15 was.  Not the Colt Sporter.  Even the barbell twist was different.  

the more you post on this the dumber you look.  So please, keep talking.

At least two of the rifles have modernized black rails mounted around their barrels, which allow accessories to attach more easily. These are Daniel Defense MFR M-LOK rails. 


For the M4 — the military equivalent of the AR-15 — U.S. Special Operations Command has championed the M-LOK, or modular lock, for its lighter weight and sturdiness when securing devices like lasers, flashlights and grips. Daniel Defense receivers and barrels are used across the U.S. military.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/28/us/i ... polis.html
 

 

OOOOOhhhhhh!  It has rails.  LMAO!

The idiots at The NY Times know about as much about the topic as you do.  And that ain't much.  Remember, the weapon under discussion is the Sporter.  Which is not comparable to the M4
 

Huey » 01 Feb 2026, 8:41 am » wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2026, 8:41 am

OOOOOhhhhhh!  It has rails.  LMAO!

The idiots at The NY Times know about as much about the topic as you do.  And that ain't much.  Remember, the weapon under discussion is the Sporter.  Which is not comparable to the M4

You keep asserting that....


I'm gonna go with all these citations...


 

Blackvegetable » 01 Feb 2026, 8:50 am » wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2026, 8:50 am

Huey » 01 Feb 2026, 8:41 am » wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2026, 8:41 am

OOOOOhhhhhh!  It has rails.  LMAO!

The idiots at The NY Times know about as much about the topic as you do.  And that ain't much.  Remember, the weapon under discussion is the Sporter.  Which is not comparable to the M4

You keep asserting that....


I'm gonna go with all these citations...


 

 

NYT?      

Like you,  guarantee the writer of the piece, and the editor, like you, have never handled, shot, field striped, cleaned and then shot either weapon.

You humor me.