Liberal Forum

For a while now, several people have wondered whether @Blackvegetable 's  account is being operated by more than one person. I have no way of proving that, of course, but moments like this certainly do not help the defense.
Here is what happened.I said that if someone claims to have authored a piece of writing, the burden is on that person to show he wrote it. Pretty simple. You claim authorship, you support the claim.His reply was supposed to destroy me. Instead, he wrote:“If you claim you wrote something, the burden is on you to show you wrote it.”
Exactly.  That was my argument.

So either he accidentally agreed with me while trying to insult me, or the second shift logged in without reading the previous pages.Either way, this was a beautiful little moment. The man tried to throw a punch, missed me completely, and somehow hit his own argument in the back of the head.And then, as usual, he sprinkled in the insults afterward, probably hoping nobody would notice that the actual substance of his reply was: “You are wrong, because I agree with you.."

Outstanding work.

Vegas » Today, 11:59 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 11:59 am

For a while now, several people have wondered whether @Blackvegetable 's  account is being operated by more than one person. I have no way of proving that, of course, but moments like this certainly do not help the defense.

Here is what happened.

^^^         

Whoops!  ^^^

Exactly.  That was my argument.

So either he accidentally agreed with me while trying to insult me, or the second shift logged in without reading the previous pages.Either way, this was a beautiful little moment. The man tried to throw a punch, missed me completely, and somehow hit his own argument in the back of the head.And then, as usual, he sprinkled in the insults afterward, probably hoping nobody would notice that the actual substance of his reply was: “You are wrong, because I agree with you.."

Outstanding work.

 

Otherwise, I hereby claim I wrote Hamlet, and you have to disprove it.Congratulations. I’m Shakespeare now.

  Blackvegetable

That is exactly how it works.
 

Blackvegetable » 21 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

21 minutes ago

  Blackvegetable

That is exactly how it works.

    . no *******. it doesn't.   

Vegas » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

10 minutes ago

:rofl:   :rofl:   :rofl:. no *******. it doesn't.   

You left out the simplicity of it does in his nurtured mind since he hasn't used the brain he was conceived with after birth and performing in character daily here staying on message come hell or high water/climate change by temperate zones(latitudes) equator to each polar cap of rotation solstices to equinoxes.

Vegas » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

10 minutes ago

    . no *******. it doesn't.

Explain how one proves authorship. 

Blackvegetable » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

11 minutes ago

Explain how one proves authorship. 

Relative time logistical history compared to actual time genetically added to the species as specifically ancestrally present in the atmosphere conception to dead or cradle to grave doesn't change the person, just the time frame existed since conception and the often 0-9 months missing before date of birth that gets ancestor counted for in facts existed socially one at a time as recorded daily so far.

Eliminate how reasonable doubt is applied in every society throughout history.

Blackvegetable » 41 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

41 minutes ago

Explain how one proves authorship.

Drafts. Notes. Timestamps. Earlier versions. Metadata. A history of similar writing. The ability to explain the argument without needing a search party.

You know ...evidence.. 

Not “trust me, bro, the AI said I’m post-doc.”
 

@Blackvegetable  Let's see if your rules apply to you, narcissist boy. Be prepared to prove your narcissism. 

I have now authored the following paragraph. I know I authored it because I say I authored it. Under the newly discovered Rules of Forum Authorship, that should be sufficient unless someone can disprove it.

The philosophical significance of authorship lies not merely in the production of sentences, but in the continuity between intention, argument, style, and intellectual responsibility. A text is not simply a sequence of propositions arranged in grammatical order; it is the residue of a mind attempting to make itself answerable to a claim. To claim authorship, therefore, is not merely to assert possession over words, but to assume responsibility for the conceptual architecture that gives those words their force. Where that responsibility is absent, authorship becomes a performance of ownership detached from the labor of thought itself.

There. I wrote it. Now prove I didn’t.

And remember: according to your own standard, I do not have to prove authorship. You have to disprove it.

Good luck. Try not to injure yourself moving the goalposts.
 

Vegas » 48 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

48 minutes ago

Drafts. Notes. Timestamps. Earlier versions. Metadata. A history of similar writing. The ability to explain the argument without needing a search party.

You know ...evidence.. 

Not “trust me, bro, the AI said I’m post-doc.”

You're a **** idiot.

Blackvegetable » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

You're a **** idiot.

Translation. You can't prove ****. 

Vegas » 56 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

56 minutes ago

@Blackvegetable  Let's see if your rules apply to you, narcissist boy. Be prepared to prove your narcissism. 

I have now authored the following paragraph. I know I authored it because I say I authored it. Under the newly discovered Rules of Forum Authorship, that should be sufficient unless someone can disprove it.

There. I wrote it. Now prove I didn’t.

And remember: according to your own standard, I do not have to prove authorship. You have to disprove it.

Good luck. Try not to injure yourself moving the goalposts.

assess the probability that the following two passages were written by the same person

 "The philosophical significance of authorship lies not merely in the production of sentences, but in the continuity between intention, argument, style, and intellectual responsibility. A text is not simply a sequence of propositions arranged in grammatical order; it is the residue of a mind attempting to make itself answerable to a claim. To claim authorship, therefore, is not merely to assert possession over words, but to assume responsibility for the conceptual architecture that gives those words their force. Where that responsibility is absent, authorship becomes a performance of ownership detached from the labor of thought itself."  

and 

"The numbers from the Senile Pedo and the Ho didn't reflect the gross, only the net job creation. Their job creation figure typically reflects net jobs added only. The problem with that is that this figure does not account for jobs that were lost during the same period or workers who exited the labor market entirely. Some industries have experienced significant job losses that are overshadowed by growth in other areas. AI being one example of the growth that overshadowed the loss of manufacturing jobs. However, only the AI jobs were counted, while not accounting for the loss of manufacturing jobs. That's just one example uthat happened under the senile pedo and Ho. A focus on job creation without accounting for the quality or sustainability of these jobs skews the perception of the labor market' ..."

The probability that these two passages were written by the same person is extremely low (under 5%).

While it is impossible to completely rule out an author intentionally adopting radically different personas or masks across different contexts, a stylometric, lexical, and psychological analysis suggests entirely different origins.
## 1. Lexical and Register Dissonance 

* Passage 1 operates entirely within a high academic and philosophical register. It relies on abstract, Latinate vocabulary ("conceptual architecture," "propositions," "continuity," "intellectual responsibility"). The vocabulary is precise, objective, and elevated.

* Passage 2 uses a highly polarized, informal internet-slang register. It features highly charged, derogatory political epithets ("Senile Pedo," "the Ho") paired with casual conversational phrasing ("That's just one example uthat happened..."). 

## 2. Syntactic Structure and Complexity 

* Passage 1 demonstrates a sophisticated mastery of complex, balanced syntax. It uses parallel structures ("lies not merely in... but in..."), restrictive relative clauses, and multi-clause sentences that resolve into dense conceptual summaries. The grammar is flawless and polished.

* Passage 2 relies on simple, repetitive sentence structures ("Their job creation figure typically reflects...", "The problem with that is..."). It also includes an uncorrected typographical error ("uthat"), signaling a lack of proofreading or spontaneous, unedited drafting. 

 
 

Vegas » 16 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

16 minutes ago

Translation. You can't prove ****.

## 3. Argumentative Mechanics and Cognitive Style 

* Passage 1 develops an internal, abstract definition of authorship. It explores the meta-relationship between a thinker and text. It uses an analytical and introspective framework detached from immediate emotional or external events.

* Passage 2 targets a specific real-world topic (labor market statistics under a specific political administration) using an externalized, highly reactive framework. The argument uses a hyper-focused example (AI vs. manufacturing) to validate an existing partisan conclusion rather than to explore an abstract concept. 

## Summary

The structural syntax, vocabulary selection, emotional temperature, and editing standards are diametrically opposed. To conclude they share an author requires assuming a single individual went to extraordinary lengths to completely mask their natural writing habits, syntax patterns, and vocabulary preferences across the two texts.  
 
 
 

Blackvegetable » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

## 3. Argumentative Mechanics and Cognitive Style 

* Passage 1 develops an internal, abstract definition of authorship. It explores the meta-relationship between a thinker and text. It uses an analytical and introspective framework detached from immediate emotional or external events.

* Passage 2 targets a specific real-world topic (labor market statistics under a specific political administration) using an externalized, highly reactive framework. The argument uses a hyper-focused example (AI vs. manufacturing) to validate an existing partisan conclusion rather than to explore an abstract concept. 

## Summary

The structural syntax, vocabulary selection, emotional temperature, and editing standards are diametrically opposed. To conclude they share an author requires assuming a single individual went to extraordinary lengths to completely mask their natural writing habits, syntax patterns, and vocabulary preferences across the two texts.

Perfect. You just used evidence to challenge authorship: Syntax. Vocabulary. Tone. Structure. Style. That is exactly the standard I asked you to apply to your own authorship claim. So now do yours.

Show evidence that connects you to the writing you claimed was yours.  “I said so” died the moment you started doing amateur CSI: Paragraph Unit.

*As a side note It was obviious that you prompted AI to say what it did. Post your manuscript and I'll prove it.
 
 

Vegas » 20 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

20 minutes ago

Perfect. You just used evidence to challenge authorship: Syntax. Vocabulary. Tone. Structure. Style. That is exactly the standard I asked you to apply to your own authorship claim. So now do yours.

No...that's YOUR job
 

Blackvegetable » 14 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

14 minutes ago

No...that's YOUR job

Shifting the burden of proof again.  No, it is your job to support your own claim.If you claim authorship, show evidence of authorship. My job is not to disprove every unsupported thing you say.

Otherwise, I wrote your best posts. Now prove I didn’t.
 

@Blackvegetable  I was going to wait, but you have a serious problem not understanding what "shifting the burden of proof" means. Just like Survivorship Bias. 

So, I am going to come up with a multiple-choice question to test you, just like last time. You will evade for a year or more again, but oh well. It will be fun watching you squirm. I'll have it ready for you tomorrow. 

Vegas » Today, 11:59 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 11:59 am

For a while now, several people have wondered whether @Blackvegetable 's  account is being operated by more than one person. I have no way of proving that, of course, but moments like this certainly do not help the defense.
 

Black Vegetable Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.. Sheeshus Xrist man.. Give it a **** rest.

Here is what happened.

^^^         

Whoops!  ^^^

Exactly.  That was my argument.

So either he accidentally agreed with me while trying to insult me, or the second shift logged in without reading the previous pages.Either way, this was a beautiful little moment. The man tried to throw a punch, missed me completely, and somehow hit his own argument in the back of the head.And then, as usual, he sprinkled in the insults afterward, probably hoping nobody would notice that the actual substance of his reply was: “You are wrong, because I agree with you.."

Outstanding work.

 

Vegas » Today, 4:09 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 4:09 pm

Shifting the burden of proof again.  

I assumed the burden of proving you were not the author of the piece in question. 

And proceeded to do so.

That is how assertions of plagiarism are supported.

The burden of proving that I am not the author of my posts is on you.

 

Vegas » Today, 4:20 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 4:20 pm

@Blackvegetable  I was going to wait, but you have a serious problem not understanding what "shifting the burden of proof" means. Just like Survivorship Bias. 

So, I am going to come up with a multiple-choice question to test you, just like last time. You will evade for a year or more again, but oh well. It will be fun watching you squirm. I'll have it ready for you tomorrow.

Don't hide...

Just ask AI whether these two posts were written by the same person.

viewtopic.php?p=2648221#p2648221

https://archive.liberalforum.net/p/739657
 
 

:die:   :die:   :rofl:   :rofl:   :die: