Liberal Forum

Because it is so rare that this imbecile stops running to actually answer a question put to him, I  thought we might celebrate the occasion with another JuCo roast..

First, the searing heat of Objective Fact.

It wasn't his place, ****...

He was the presiding judge, as such it was his obligation to respond to all post verdict petitions.

Such a petition was filed by Team Grifty, for reasons which matter to Grifty.

he instructed the jury to review all testimony and evidence and to come to a unanimous verdict based on current law...

Not exactly.....because this was a civil procedure it was not subject to criminal.law...the criminal definition was only used for the purpose of "finding" as opposed to verdict - as "rape" was not what informed the request for damages. Damages were sought specifically for "Defamation" and "Sexual Battery"


What you keep insisting is not the jury's verdict...to resolve that question, Judge Kaplan's decision says as follows

Both parties submitted proposed “special verdict” forms to distribute to the jury. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49, which governs jury verdict forms and questions, “[t]he court may require a jury to return only a special verdict in the form of a special written finding on each issue of fact.”40 A special verdict stands in contrast to a general verdict form, which typically asks jurors to answer only the ultimate questions of liability and the damages amounts

an "after the fact" opinion is just that....worthless...

As Presiding Judge he musr respond. In responding to the petition, he must respond directly to the questions therein.

pick up your limbs and take the L...
 

Having established the facts of the matter, we will next move on to what makes people like Rog62 so **** g'ddammned stupid...

Blackvegetable » Today, 3:19 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 3:19 pm

Because it is so rare that this imbecile stops running to actually answer a question put to him, I  thought we might celebrate the occasion with another JuCo roast..

First, the searing heat of Objective Fact.

He was the presiding judge, as such it was his obligation to respond to all post verdict petitions.

Such a petition was filed by Team Grifty, for reasons which matter to Grifty.

Not exactly.....because this was a civil procedure it was not subject to criminal.law...the criminal definition was only used for the purpose of "finding" as opposed to verdict - as "rape" was not what informed the request for damages. Damages were sought specifically for "Defamation" and "Sexual Battery"

What you keep insisting is not the jury's verdict...to resolve that question, Judge Kaplan's decision says as follows

Both parties submitted proposed “special verdict” forms to distribute to the jury. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49, which governs jury verdict forms and questions, “[t]he court may require a jury to return only a special verdict in the form of a special written finding on each issue of fact.”40 A special verdict stands in contrast to a general verdict form, which typically asks jurors to answer only the ultimate questions of liability and the damages amounts

As Presiding Judge he musr respond. In responding to the petition, he must respond directly to the questions therein.

Having established the facts of the matter, we will next move on to what makes people like Rog62 so **** g'ddammned stupid...

Cry to Deezer.
Ok BV. Let's compare our definitions of Survivorship Bias and why yours is as useless as you. - Liberal Forum Political Chat Room

Deal:

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.

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.
 

NB @Huey  


This is a case...

Blackvegetable » Today, 3:19 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 3:19 pm

I am one pathetic coward.

Cry to Deezer.
Ok BV. Let's compare our definitions of Survivorship Bias and why yours is as useless as you. - Liberal Forum Political Chat Room

Deal:

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.

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

Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

This is a case...

You can always ban me...so I can bypass it.         


Cry to Deezer.
Ok BV. Let's compare our definitions of Survivorship Bias and why yours is as useless as you. - Liberal Forum Political Chat Room

Deal:

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.

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

Blackvegetable » Today, 3:19 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 3:19 pm

Because it is so rare that this imbecile stops running to actually answer a question put to him, I  thought we might celebrate the occasion with another JuCo roast..

First, the searing heat of Objective Fact.

He was the presiding judge, as such it was his obligation to respond to all post verdict petitions.

Such a petition was filed by Team Grifty, for reasons which matter to Grifty.


Not exactly.....because this was a civil procedure it was not subject to criminal.law...the criminal definition was only used for the purpose of "finding" as opposed to verdict - as "rape" was not what informed the request for damages. Damages were sought specifically for "Defamation" and "Sexual Battery"


What you keep insisting is not the jury's verdict...to resolve that question, Judge Kaplan's decision says as follows

Both parties submitted proposed “special verdict” forms to distribute to the jury. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49, which governs jury verdict forms and questions, “[t]he court may require a jury to return only a special verdict in the form of a special written finding on each issue of fact.”40 A special verdict stands in contrast to a general verdict form, which typically asks jurors to answer only the ultimate questions of liability and the damages amounts



As Presiding Judge he musr respond. In responding to the petition, he must respond directly to the questions therein.



Having established the facts of the matter, we will next move on to what makes people like Rog62 so **** g'ddammned stupid...

There are two ways the show called humanity can end? By choice or extinction.

ET is on the Epstien List?

The show just keeps getting better.

JFK was gonna dox ET..  Now Trump is thinking about it..   All's swell that at the ends.

youtu.be/eB9QTXBwe5M?si=6wgy2QGaIC4E4uIF[DUH CUM]
 

Blackvegetable » Today, 3:19 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 3:19 pm

Because it is so rare that this imbecile stops running to actually answer a question put to him, I  thought we might celebrate the occasion with another JuCo roast..

First, the searing heat of Objective Fact.

He was the presiding judge, as such it was his obligation to respond to all post verdict petitions.

Such a petition was filed by Team Grifty, for reasons which matter to Grifty.

Not exactly.....because this was a civil procedure it was not subject to criminal.law...the criminal definition was only used for the purpose of "finding" as opposed to verdict - as "rape" was not what informed the request for damages. Damages were sought specifically for "Defamation" and "Sexual Battery"

What you keep insisting is not the jury's verdict...to resolve that question, Judge Kaplan's decision says as follows

Both parties submitted proposed “special verdict” forms to distribute to the jury. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49, which governs jury verdict forms and questions, “[t]he court may require a jury to return only a special verdict in the form of a special written finding on each issue of fact.”40 A special verdict stands in contrast to a general verdict form, which typically asks jurors to answer only the ultimate questions of liability and the damages amounts

As Presiding Judge he musr respond. In responding to the petition, he must respond directly to the questions therein.

Having established the facts of the matter, we will next move on to what makes people like Rog62 so **** g'ddammned stupid...

If a professional rape victim / story teller had you convicted of rape without a shred of any evidence you would cry like a little baby non stop until the day you died.
Yet here you are celebrating the same exact scenario.
Hypocrisy is a form of dishonesty...you being the one who is dishonest with yourself.
you see yourself as some sort of Beacon of Virtue but you are actually a very wormy, double standard loving  piece of ****.

*GHETTOBLASTER » 09 Feb 2026, 8:16 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2026, 8:16 pm

If a professional 

Shut up, Ghetto.

Blackvegetable » Today, 3:19 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 3:19 pm

Because it is so rare that this imbecile stops running to actually answer a question put to him, I  thought we might celebrate the occasion with another JuCo roast..

First, the searing heat of Objective Fact.

He was the presiding judge, as such it was his obligation to respond to all post verdict petitions.

Such a petition was filed by Team Grifty, for reasons which matter to Grifty.

Not exactly.....because this was a civil procedure it was not subject to criminal.law...the criminal definition was only used for the purpose of "finding" as opposed to verdict - as "rape" was not what informed the request for damages. Damages were sought specifically for "Defamation" and "Sexual Battery"

What you keep insisting is not the jury's verdict...to resolve that question, Judge Kaplan's decision says as follows

Both parties submitted proposed “special verdict” forms to distribute to the jury. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49, which governs jury verdict forms and questions, “[t]he court may require a jury to return only a special verdict in the form of a special written finding on each issue of fact.”40 A special verdict stands in contrast to a general verdict form, which typically asks jurors to answer only the ultimate questions of liability and the damages amounts

As Presiding Judge he musr respond. In responding to the petition, he must respond directly to the questions therein.

Having established the facts of the matter, we will next move on to what makes people like Rog62 so **** g'ddammned stupid...

brown, **** your peanut gallery ****...go buy some balls and have a real discussion...
 

Blackvegetable » 09 Feb 2026, 3:19 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2026, 3:19 pm

Because it is so rare that this imbecile stops running to actually answer a question put to him, I  thought we might celebrate the occasion with another JuCo roast..

First, the searing heat of Objective Fact.

He was the presiding judge, as such it was his obligation to respond to all post verdict petitions.

Such a petition was filed by Team Grifty, for reasons which matter to Grifty.

Not exactly.....because this was a civil procedure it was not subject to criminal.law...the criminal definition was only used for the purpose of "finding" as opposed to verdict - as "rape" was not what informed the request for damages. Damages were sought specifically for "Defamation" and "Sexual Battery"

What you keep insisting is not the jury's verdict...to resolve that question, Judge Kaplan's decision says as follows

Both parties submitted proposed “special verdict” forms to distribute to the jury. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49, which governs jury verdict forms and questions, “[t]he court may require a jury to return only a special verdict in the form of a special written finding on each issue of fact.”40 A special verdict stands in contrast to a general verdict form, which typically asks jurors to answer only the ultimate questions of liability and the damages amounts

As Presiding Judge he musr respond. In responding to the petition, he must respond directly to the questions therein.

Having established the facts of the matter, we will next move on to what makes people like Rog62 so **** g'ddammned stupid...

 "rape" was not what informed the request for damages. Damages were sought specifically for "Defamation" and "Sexual Battery"

brown, did the verdict or the opinion determine damages? did the court " require a jury to return only a special verdict"? and if so, what was it specifically?

so what's your **** point?

it looks as "rape" does not come into play in the jury's verdict nor does it come into play for determining damages...

the judge's opinion looks as if he's trying to make it something it isn't...


 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 9:02 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 9:02 pm

Shut up, Ghetto.

If a professional rape victim / story teller had you convicted of rape without a shred of any evidence you would cry like a little baby non stop until the day you died.
Yet here you are celebrating the same exact scenario.
Hypocrisy is a form of dishonesty...you being the one who is dishonest with yourself.
you see yourself as some sort of Beacon of Virtue but you are actually a very wormy, double standard loving  piece of ****.

Blackvegetable » 09 Feb 2026, 3:19 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2026, 3:19 pm

Because it is so rare that this imbecile stops running to actually answer a question put to him, I  thought we might celebrate the occasion with another JuCo roast..

First, the searing heat of Objective Fact.

He was the presiding judge, as such it was his obligation to respond to all post verdict petitions.

Such a petition was filed by Team Grifty, for reasons which matter to Grifty.

Not exactly.....because this was a civil procedure it was not subject to criminal.law...the criminal definition was only used for the purpose of "finding" as opposed to verdict - as "rape" was not what informed the request for damages. Damages were sought specifically for "Defamation" and "Sexual Battery"

What you keep insisting is not the jury's verdict...to resolve that question, Judge Kaplan's decision says as follows

Both parties submitted proposed “special verdict” forms to distribute to the jury. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49, which governs jury verdict forms and questions, “[t]he court may require a jury to return only a special verdict in the form of a special written finding on each issue of fact.”40 A special verdict stands in contrast to a general verdict form, which typically asks jurors to answer only the ultimate questions of liability and the damages amounts

As Presiding Judge he musr respond. In responding to the petition, he must respond directly to the questions therein.

Having established the facts of the matter, we will next move on to what makes people like Rog62 so **** g'ddammned stupid...

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 5:03 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 5:03 pm

NB @Huey  

This is a case...

Another PG call out thread.  I’m out.   

EL&P... "Welcome Back My Friends"!

Luara Loomer: "Why is Bad Bunny dancing on electrical transmission poles? Puerto Rico is not noted for having a great power grid"
Maybe the point will bean her in the fat forehead someday.. Right between the evil eye brows... If she Botoxed those lips any more Trump could launch an invasion force and trade the territory with China for Greenland.


youtu.be/0VsifANR96s?si=_hUkrzDXnG8Ne84o[DUH CUM REQUIRED]

ROG62 » 09 Feb 2026, 11:33 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2026, 11:33 pm

 "rape" was not what informed the request for damages. Damages were sought specifically for "Defamation" and "Sexual Battery"

brown, did the verdict or the opinion determine damages? did the court " require a jury to return only a special verdict"? and if so, what was it specifically?

so what's your **** point?

it looks as "rape" does not come into play in the jury's verdict nor does it come into play for determining damages...

the judge's opinion looks as if he's trying to make it something it isn't...

 

brown, did the verdict or the opinion determine damages?

The Verdict.

The "opinion" addressed WHY the jury awarded 2 million.

did the court " require a jury to return only a special verdict"?

The "special verdict" was at request of and by agreement of both parties.

It was not required by the court.

and if so, what was it specifically?

A "finding"

so what's your **** point?

That you're a **** idiot. 

Duh.

it looks as "rape" does not come into play in the jury's nor does it come into play for determining damages...

Why did it award 2 million?

Why did Team Grifty petition for a reduction?

why did Judge Kaplan uphold the award?

Damn, are you a stupid **** human.

the judge's opinion looks as if he's trying to make it something it isn't...

How much of it have you read, JuCo? 
 

Blackvegetable » 09 Feb 2026, 3:19 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2026, 3:19 pm

Because it is so rare that this imbecile stops running to actually answer a question put to him, I  thought we might celebrate the occasion with another JuCo roast..

First, the searing heat of Objective Fact.

He was the presiding judge, as such it was his obligation to respond to all post verdict petitions.

Such a petition was filed by Team Grifty, for reasons which matter to Grifty.

Not exactly.....because this was a civil procedure it was not subject to criminal.law...the criminal definition was only used for the purpose of "finding" as opposed to verdict - as "rape" was not what informed the request for damages. Damages were sought specifically for "Defamation" and "Sexual Battery"

What you keep insisting is not the jury's verdict...to resolve that question, Judge Kaplan's decision says as follows

Both parties submitted proposed “special verdict” forms to distribute to the jury. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49, which governs jury verdict forms and questions, “[t]he court may require a jury to return only a special verdict in the form of a special written finding on each issue of fact.”40 A special verdict stands in contrast to a general verdict form, which typically asks jurors to answer only the ultimate questions of liability and the damages amounts

As Presiding Judge he musr respond. In responding to the petition, he must respond directly to the questions therein.

Having established the facts of the matter, we will next move on to what makes people like Rog62 so **** g'ddammned stupid...

Interesting.  You call me to a thread and then PG my response.  What is this? Your 25th attempt at making a case about this?
 

Huey » 10 Feb 2026, 7:24 am » wrote: ↑

10 Feb 2026, 7:24 am

Interesting.  You call me to a thread and then PG my response.  What is this? You 25th attempt at making a case about this?

You didn't respond to the thread.

You 25th attempt at making a case about this?

if you doubt my case is made, gird your loins and contest it.

But it would only mean your 26th humiliating defeat....on this topic.

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 3:19 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 3:19 pm

First, the searing heat of Objective Fact.

Oh the priority of objective facts leading to a planned tomorrow's outcome worked into fruition today current population working against he natural rhythm of evolving in plain sight as genetically positioned one at a time ancestrally here since conception living as an ever changing form balancing by heartbeats added now.

Your subjective behavior patterns fit exactly in your social behavior cradle to grave regardless which ancestral lineage you came from.

*31stArrival » 10 Feb 2026, 8:41 am » wrote: ↑

10 Feb 2026, 8:41 am

Oh the priority of objective facts leading to a planned tomorrow's outcome worked into fruition today 

Start over...

youtu.be/Wp8UlgvCVlI?si=1fVJ-ViR7xfA39i6[FROM THE BEGINNING]