Liberal Forum

Vegas » Today, 4:09 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 4:09 pm

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

Best posts?

Did he have any?

RebelGator » 22 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

22 minutes ago

Best posts?

Did he have any?

His best post is "**** idiot." That's the best we can expect from him.

Blackvegetable » Today, 6:54 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 6:54 pm

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

Didn't click it. I will not entertain your stalking. How many **** times....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHhyPttsGsk

Blackvegetable » Today, 5:45 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 5:45 pm

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.

Uggghhhh... If I accuse you of plagiarism, I need evidence.

But if you claim authorship, you need evidence.
 
Rejecting an unsupported claim is not the same thing as proving the opposite.
 
That distinction is doing all the work your argument refuses to do.

Nod. 
 
 

Vegas » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

Didn't click it. I will not entertain your stalking. How many **** times....


 

They're my posts...

No need for a tantrum.


But we both know the real reason.

You're too **** stupid to use AI...

 

Blackvegetable » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

2 minutes ago

They're my posts...

 

I don't believe a word you say. You can't be trusted. Ever.

Vegas » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

Uggghhhh... If I accuse you of plagiarism, I need evidence.

But if you claim authorship, you need evidence.
 
Rejecting an unsupported claim is not the same thing as proving the opposite.
 
That distinction is doing all the work your argument refuses to do.

Nod.

No...I don't. 

Unless you are suggesting it's not my work.

Rejecting an unsupported claim is not the same thing as proving the opposite.

But it remains rejecting the unsupported claim.

That distinction is doing all the work your argument refuses to do.

It's not an abstract matter.

Unsupported accusations of plagiarism don't require debunking.
 

Vegas » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

I don't believe a word you say. You can't be trusted. Ever.

But you're too stupid to use AI.

I'm not....


Let's see what it says...
 

RebelGator » 37 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

37 minutes ago

Best posts?

Did he have any?

Stick around, Slack Jaw....it's about to get funny.

Blackvegetable » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

But you're too stupid to use AI.

I'm not....

Let's see what it says...

Are you still bitter at that time I took a giant **** on your head when I caught you lying about AI? 

         

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=99819
BV gets busted lying again.
 

Blackvegetable » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

11 minutes ago

No...I don't. 

Unless you are suggesting it's not my work.

But it remains rejecting the unsupported claim.

It's not an abstract matter.

Unsupported accusations of plagiarism don't require debunking.

Nobody said unsupported accusations of plagiarism require debunking. The point is simpler: your authorship claim is also unsupported.“I wrote it” is a claim.

“I don’t have to show anything unless you prove plagiarism” is just a convenient escape hatch.
You want full credit for authorship while providing zero evidence of authorship.

That is not logic. That is a self-awarded trophy.
 

Vegas » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

Are you still bitter at that time I took a giant **** on your head when I caught you lying about AI? 


 

No retellings, LOTS

Here's AI


The probability that these two passages were written by the same person is extremely high (above 95%).
Unlike the previous comparison, which featured conflicting registers and structures, these two texts share an identical, highly idiosyncratic stylistic DNA. They display matching vocabulary choices, structural habits, rhythmic cadence, and psychological profiles.


## 1. Shared Idiosyncratic Vocabulary and Tone 

* The Use of "Risible": Both passages deploy the relatively uncommon, sophisticated adjective "risible" ("the risible flimsiness of Heller and Bruen" vs. "the risible contrast twixt image and subject").

* Elevated Satire: Both passages blend high-level academic/archaic vocabulary ("shibboleths," "unstinting," "cavil," "twixt," "festooned") with biting, deeply partisan political satire. This specific "high-low" mix—using elite linguistic tools to mock political opponents—is a highly unique authorial fingerprint. 

## 2. Matching Syntactic Habits and Pacing 

* Parenthetical Digressions: Both texts rely heavily on cynical, self-aware parenthetical interjections to add a layer of condescension or irony ("...with the predictably hilarious result of Bruen" and "I'll forgo drawing the risible contrast... in the spirit of Christian charity").

* Sentence Rhythms: The cadence of the sentences is identical. Both use dramatic, drawn-out introductory clauses followed by a sharp, punchy, or mocking conclusion. 

## 3. Identical Psychological Vibe and Motifs 

* Mocking Masculinity/Physique: Both texts display a specific fixation on mocking the physical attributes or projected masculinity of their political targets. Passage 1 mocks Antonin Scalia ("smothered under a fat kid") and Clarence Thomas ("intellectually narrow, child bearing shoulders"). Passage 2 mirrors this exact psychological angle by mocking the over-compensated masculinity of MAGA followers ("agonizingly closeted male, probably driving a large vehicle festooned with the symbols of your faux heterosexuality").* The "Teacher" Persona: In both snippets, the author adopts the persona of a weary, intellectually superior observer explaining obvious concepts to an inferior audience ("Need I labor the obvious inspiration here?" / "As his legions of Hatahs is painfully aware"). 

## Summary

The two passages display an identical voice. They share a specific vocabulary bank, identical rhetorical structures, the same niche grammatical flourishes, and a highly distinct satirical strategy. They were almost certainly penned by the same forum poster.------------------------------ https://share.google/aimode/KvalaRwBqZy1P2ZML

 

Vegas » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

Nobody said unsupported accusations of plagiarism require debunking. The point is simpler: your authorship claim is also unsupported.“I wrote it” is a claim.

“I don’t have to show anything unless you prove plagiarism” is just a convenient escape hatch.
You want full credit for authorship while providing zero evidence of authorship.

That is not logic. That is a self-awarded trophy.

No...it is how it works.

You wouldn't know because you don't read.
 

Blackvegetable » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

2 minutes ago

No retellings, LOTS

Here's AI

The probability that these two passages were written by the same person is extremely high (above 95%).
Unlike the previous comparison, which featured conflicting registers and structures, these two texts share an identical, highly idiosyncratic stylistic DNA. They display matching vocabulary choices, structural habits, rhythmic cadence, and psychological profiles.

## 1. Shared Idiosyncratic Vocabulary and Tone 

* The Use of "Risible": Both passages deploy the relatively uncommon, sophisticated adjective "risible" ("the risible flimsiness of Heller and Bruen" vs. "the risible contrast twixt image and subject").

* Elevated Satire: Both passages blend high-level academic/archaic vocabulary ("shibboleths," "unstinting," "cavil," "twixt," "festooned") with biting, deeply partisan political satire. This specific "high-low" mix—using elite linguistic tools to mock political opponents—is a highly unique authorial fingerprint. 

## 2. Matching Syntactic Habits and Pacing 

* Parenthetical Digressions: Both texts rely heavily on cynical, self-aware parenthetical interjections to add a layer of condescension or irony ("...with the predictably hilarious result of Bruen" and "I'll forgo drawing the risible contrast... in the spirit of Christian charity").

* Sentence Rhythms: The cadence of the sentences is identical. Both use dramatic, drawn-out introductory clauses followed by a sharp, punchy, or mocking conclusion. 

## 3. Identical Psychological Vibe and Motifs 

* Mocking Masculinity/Physique: Both texts display a specific fixation on mocking the physical attributes or projected masculinity of their political targets. Passage 1 mocks Antonin Scalia ("smothered under a fat kid") and Clarence Thomas ("intellectually narrow, child bearing shoulders"). Passage 2 mirrors this exact psychological angle by mocking the over-compensated masculinity of MAGA followers ("agonizingly closeted male, probably driving a large vehicle festooned with the symbols of your faux heterosexuality").* The "Teacher" Persona: In both snippets, the author adopts the persona of a weary, intellectually superior observer explaining obvious concepts to an inferior audience ("Need I labor the obvious inspiration here?" / "As his legions of Hatahs is painfully aware"). 

## Summary

The two passages display an identical voice. They share a specific vocabulary bank, identical rhetorical structures, the same niche grammatical flourishes, and a highly distinct satirical strategy. They were almost certainly penned by the same forum poster.------------------------------ https://share.google/aimode/KvalaRwBqZy1P2ZML

Oh you mean the AI that you prompted to praise yours and trash mine? Yeah, nice try. 

If you give me your original writing, I'll do the same. Easily. 

1. Of course you won't. You know how easy it is to create biased prompts. QED
 

Blackvegetable » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

No...it is how it works.

You wouldn't know because you don't read.

Here. Let me get the crayons out for you.

My claim: I climbed Mt Everest.
Evidence: I don't have to prove it. It's your job to disprove it (a negative). 

Your logic. Not mine. ^^^

Vegas » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

Here. Let me get the crayons out for you.

My claim: I climbed Mt Everest.
Evidence: I don't have to prove it. It's your job to disprove it (a negative). 

Your logic. Not mine. ^^^

Anyone looking at you would laugh at your assertion.

Authorship need only be asserted - once claimed it can be falsified, but only with evidence.

Looking at the evidence of your "thoughts", AI could easily conclude that the probability of you writing anything coherent is very remote.
 

Vegas » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

10 minutes ago

Oh you mean the AI that you prompted to praise yours and trash mine? Yeah, nice try. 

If you give me your original writing, I'll do the same. Easily. 

1. Of course you won't. You know how easy it is to create biased prompts. QED

I already did.

You refused and threw a tantrum.
 

Blackvegetable » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

Anyone looking at you would laugh at your assertion.

Authorship need only be asserted - once claimed it can be falsified, but only with evidence.

Looking at the evidence of your "thoughts", AI could easily conclude that the probability of you writing anything coherent is very remote.

“Authorship need only be asserted.”                 Do you have any idea how many times you have accused others of asserting without evidence? 

Excellent. I assert that I wrote your best arguments.Now falsify it with evidence.
See the problem yet, or should I draw a diagram for the burden of proof?
 

Blackvegetable » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

I already did.

You refused and threw a tantrum.

Doubt that. But I am not like you. I am not going to spend hours in your profile looking for it. 

@Blackvegetable  You need to stop.You are not arguing anymore. You are running in circles around your own contradiction.“Authorship need only be asserted” is just “because I said so” with a vocabulary upgrade.You messed up. Admit it. The goalpost is exhausted.


1. "prove me contradiction." Pffftttt...I don't need to. I just need to assert it. Prove you didn't
Your logic ^^^  


Just stop already. You screwed up. Now kill yourself.