Liberal Forum

Vegas » 02 Apr 2026, 10:22 am » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 10:22 am

All you have to do is scroll back , *******. 

 

I did.


And proved that your an idiot, twice.

Blackvegetable » 02 Apr 2026, 10:26 am » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 10:26 am

I did.

And proved that your an idiot, twice.

AI said you are full of ****, twice. The first one was you pretending that you didn't know what "that I did" meant. The second one gutted you good and hard. 


1. You will now say "No..." followed by a bunch of lies and ****.

Vegas » 02 Apr 2026, 10:29 am » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 10:29 am

AI said you are full of ****, twice. The first one was you pretending that you didn't know what "that I did" meant. The second one gutted you good and hard. 

1. You will now say "No..." followed by a bunch of lies and ****.

There's the evidence....


And then there are your goat fart fueled delusions....

Blackvegetable » 02 Apr 2026, 10:32 am » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 10:32 am

There's the evidence....

And then there are your goat fart fueled delusions....

Yes...I showed the evidence. As always, you can't read. Not my problem.

Blackvegetable » 02 Apr 2026, 5:56 am » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 5:56 am

**** idiot.

I defined it in my own words.

Of course I can come up with examples....but doing so was @Vegas  job.

Of course he welshed.

After months of running he posted two comically pathetic efforts....demonstrating that he doesn't even understand the concept of "net".....because he is a goat **** cretin.

There is a very obvious example to which there is almost daily reference here.

Once Vegas posts another tragic attempt, I  will reveal.

You are the one who ran a classic survivorship bias fallacy in the midst of his charge that you have no command of the concept - buttressing his position. 
 
 

Cannonpointer » 02 Apr 2026, 11:44 am » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 11:44 am

You are the one whoran a classic survivorship bias fallacy in the midst of his charge that you have no command of the concept - buttressing his position.

He will never admit it. Ever. He just needs to rip off the band aid and answer the multiple choice question. He just needs to get it over with. 

Watch this, if he is reading this he will lie and said that he already answered it...though he cannot give any evidence that he answered it. Except that he gave a definition.       

Vegas » 02 Apr 2026, 11:46 am » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 11:46 am

He will never admit it. Ever. He just needs to rip off the band aid and answer the multiple choice question. He just needs to get it over with. 

Watch this, if he is reading this he will lie and said that he already answered it...though he cannot give any evidence that he answered it. Except that he gave a definition.     

Similar to the missing cleanup of his retarded defense of the gender insanity fad.

Cannonpointer » 02 Apr 2026, 11:44 am » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 11:44 am

You are the one who ran a classic survivorship bias fallacy in the midst of his charge that you have no command of the concept - buttressing his position.

No, I didn't. 


I have a sufficient command to


Call shenanigans on his original ****.

Define it in my own words

Call shenanigans on his "examples".

Eliminate all the incorrect options in his question. 


Why have the two of you done, combined?
 

Vegas » 02 Apr 2026, 10:38 am » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 10:38 am

Yes...I showed the evidence. As always, you can't read. Not my problem.

You COMPLAINED about it...


 

Blackvegetable » 02 Apr 2026, 12:37 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 12:37 pm

You COMPLAINED about it...

No *******. You were the one that cried and whimpered about the grammar...that was correct anyway. 

Idiot. You are always an idiot. 

Vegas » 02 Apr 2026, 12:43 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 12:43 pm

No *******. You were the one that cried and whimpered about the grammar...that was correct anyway. 

Idiot. You are always an idiot.

...that was correct anyway. 

Yes, there is a primary grammatical error regarding preposition usage, as well as some stylistic awkwardness.
## 1. Preposition Error ("to which")The most significant error is the phrase "to which you are still trying to heal." In English, you do not heal to something; you heal from it. 
* Incorrect: "...to which you are still trying to heal."
* Correct: "...from which you are still trying to heal." 
## 2. Verb Transitivity
"Heal" can be used in two ways: 
* Intransitive (Self-repair): "The wound is healing."
* Transitive (Repairing something else): "The doctor healed the wound." In your sentence, you are using it intransitively (the person is doing the healing). Because "gutting" is the action that caused the injury, the relative pronoun needs to point back to that injury. 
* Revised: "I have gutted you in the definitions, from which you are still trying to heal." 
## 3. Stylistic & Semantic ClarityThe phrase "gutted you in the definitions" is highly metaphorical and a bit abstract. 
* If you mean you destroyed their identity or how they are defined, it works as poetic license.
* If you mean you "hollowed them out" using words, a clearer preposition might be "by" or "through" (e.g., "gutted you through the definitions"). 
## Recommended Corrections
Depending on how "poetic" you want to be, here are a few ways to fix it: 
*
 

Blackvegetable » 02 Apr 2026, 12:49 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 12:49 pm

Yes, there is a primary grammatical error regarding preposition usage, as well as some stylistic awkwardness.
## 1. Preposition Error ("to which")The most significant error is the phrase "to which you are still trying to heal." In English, you do not heal to something; you heal from it. 
* Incorrect: "...to which you are still trying to heal."
* Correct: "...from which you are still trying to heal." 
## 2. Verb Transitivity
"Heal" can be used in two ways: 
* Intransitive (Self-repair): "The wound is healing."
* Transitive (Repairing something else): "The doctor healed the wound." In your sentence, you are using it intransitively (the person is doing the healing). Because "gutting" is the action that caused the injury, the relative pronoun needs to point back to that injury. 
* Revised: "I have gutted you in the definitions, from which you are still trying to heal." 
## 3. Stylistic & Semantic ClarityThe phrase "gutted you in the definitions" is highly metaphorical and a bit abstract. 
* If you mean you destroyed their identity or how they are defined, it works as poetic license.
* If you mean you "hollowed them out" using words, a clearer preposition might be "by" or "through" (e.g., "gutted you through the definitions"). 
## Recommended Corrections
Depending on how "poetic" you want to be, here are a few ways to fix it: 
*

We already went through this you dumb mother ****. I showed you that the "that I did" part was you pretending that you didn't know, when you really did know. 

It is right there in the AI I gave you. It approved of my grammar. Both **** times. 

1. Here we go again. "Show me"  Jesus Christ. 

Post 111 and 112. 


Feel Lighter in Your Relationships
Feel Lighter in Your Relationships
Feel Lighter in Your Relationships
Feel Lighter in Your Relationships
Feel Lighter in Your Relationships
Feel Lighter in Your Relationships
Feel Lighter in Your Relationships
Feel Lighter in Your Relationships
Feel Lighter in Your Relationships

Blackvegetable » 02 Apr 2026, 12:00 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 12:00 pm

No, I didn't. 

I have a sufficient command to

Call shenanigans on his original ****.

Define it in my own words

Call shenanigans on his "examples".

Eliminate all the incorrect options in his question. 

Why have the two of you done, combined?

I love it when you **** up in a "scathing" reply.....sorta renders you impotent in the effort.

RebelGator » 02 Apr 2026, 12:54 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 12:54 pm

I love it 

Whack off out of sight...

RebelGator » 02 Apr 2026, 12:54 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 12:54 pm

I love it when you **** up in a "scathing" reply.....sorta renders you impotent in the effort.

He says "Eliminate all the incorrect options in his question. "       

This is textbook narcissism. he doesn't want to relinquish control, so instead of providing the correct answer, he gives the incorrect ones as a process of elimination. Then calls me stupid. It's the only way he can't think of not letting me win, but still think he answered. I won't let him get away with that. He will answer the question as is or I won't stop. **** his control issues. Not my problem. 


@Blackvegetable  

Vegas » 02 Apr 2026, 12:54 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 12:54 pm

We already went through this you dumb mother ****. I showed you that the "that I did" part was you pretending that you didn't know, when you really did know. 

It is right there in the AI I gave you. It approved of my grammar. Both **** times. 

1. Here we go again. "Show me"  Jesus Christ. 

Post 111 and 112. 


 

You lied.



 

Vegas » 02 Apr 2026, 1:03 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 1:03 pm

He says "Eliminate all the incorrect options in his question. "       

This is textbook narcissism. he doesn't want to relinquish control, 

why should I cede it?

Blackvegetable » 02 Apr 2026, 1:06 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 1:06 pm

why should I cede it?

Because you never answered. **** your control issues. 

Is the question asking what the answer isn't? 

1. Same old ****...call me stupid...still wont. Blah blah blah....

Blackvegetable » 02 Apr 2026, 1:04 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 1:04 pm

You lied.

Post 111 and 112. You lied. 

1. As usual, you will continue to repost some other post as a deflection. 

Vegas » 02 Apr 2026, 1:08 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 1:08 pm

Post 111 and 112. You lied. 

1. As usual, you will continue to repost some other post as a deflection.

Don't insist..

Show me.


You're a **** idiot. You're illiterate.