Liberal Forum

Huey » 15 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

15 minutes ago

It was not AI slop.  It was 100% correct.  So, it seems YOU did not want to go there because YOU would receive yet another epic beatdown.

No.....

It would require you to acknowledge the facts presented. 

Explicitly. 




 

Huey » 22 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

22 minutes ago

I posted your words.  Contrary to what you claimed about the AI citation I posted it is 100% verified by the actual brief itself.

You lose.

Because I said you posted AI slop...

And you say you posted AI slop...

Contrary to what you claimed about the AI citation

BV running once again
 

Blackvegetable » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

11 minutes ago

Because I said you posted AI slop...

And you say you posted AI slop...

 

Are  you still ranting?

Why do you lie?

Huey » 27 minutes ago » wrote: ↑
27 minutes ago
I posted your words.  Contrary to what you claimed about the AI citation I posted it is 100% verified by the actual brief itself.

You lose.

Something that is 100% verified by the original source is not slop.  

Thank you for agreeing that the AI citation I posted is 100% verified. 

Slop is low-quality, mass-produced digital content created using artificial intelligence. [1, 2]

Common Examples of Slop

• Absurd or distorted videos on social media feeds

• Off-kilter advertising images and weird commercial graphics

• Fake news and misleading or cheesy propaganda

• Junk e-books and "workslop" reports that waste time

The citation is none of that.

Huey » 13 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

13 minutes ago

Are  you still ranting?

Why do you lie?

Something that is 100% verified by the original source is not slop.  

Thank you for agreeing that the AI citation I posted is 100% verified. 

Slop is low-quality, mass-produced digital content created using artificial intelligence. [1, 2]

Common Examples of Slop

• Absurd or distorted videos on social media feeds

• Off-kilter advertising images and weird commercial graphics

• Fake news and misleading or cheesy propaganda

• Junk e-books and "workslop" reports that waste time

The citation is none of that.

And so it begins...

Let's do this my way.

In order that we need never revisit this topic, you will explicitly acknowledge every objective fact stated.

Understood?

Unfortunately, 911 has become a money-making opportunity for most. NGO's and nonprofits are in it to make money. CEO's and executives of these so called no profits are getting rich.

Blackvegetable » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

10 minutes ago

And so it begins...

Let's do this my way.

In order that we need never revisit this topic, you will explicitly acknowledge every objective fact stated.

Understood?


 

No, that is not how we are going to do it.
What you are going to do is what you were asked earlier.  YOU will take each of these points and either  explicitly acknowledge them as facts or you show how they differ from the 6 Aug 2021 PDB that I posted for you.

You have posted nothing other than an unsourced citation.  You don't get to make demands.


 
 

Huey » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

No, that is not how we are going to do it.
 

That's a nonstarter.

 

Blackvegetable » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

That's a nonstarter.

 

 

I accept your surrender.  You have posted no facts, no sources, nor have you showed what is wrong inthe citation I posted, or the NBC article I posted.

Your mouth ran away from you and you are leaving with a severe head wound. 
 

Huey » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

I accept your surrender.  

If you decline to acknowledge objective facts, there is no contest.

Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

If you decline to acknowledge objective facts, there is no contest.

 

Well, since I am the only one who has posted objective fact with three different sources and you have not acknowledged, AND you have posted NOTHING, there is nothing for me acknowledge.

The objective fact you post needs to come from the PDB I posted.

PS.  Start posting your objective fact.  If it is not he PDB I will acknowledge the fact. 
 

Huey » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

Well, since I am the only one who has posted objective fact 

That's ****...


This is why it has to be my way...

You lie about everything, words don't mean what they say, and you will not acknowledge objective fact...

It's like debating really stupid moss...

Damn amazing how BV actually proves he is a *** ******* retarded liberal shill...

Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

That's ****...


This is why it has to be my way...

You lie about everything, words don't mean what they say, and you will not acknowledge objective fact...

It's like debating really stupid moss...

 

I accept your surrender, bitch.

You have yet to debate, my bitch.  Start posting these objective facts and I will do as I say.  Bitch, youu are surprised I said I would.  You had no intention of doing it, my bitch.  Post them or STFU.

Here are some objective facts for you to acknowledge, Bitch:

• No Specifics: The memo did not name specific targets, attack dates, or flight numbers.

• No Mention of Weapons: It did not warn that commercial airplanes would be used as guided missiles.

• Historical Context: Officials later testified that much of the intelligence cited was generalized, strategic, or based on older reporting from the late 1990s rather than a clear blueprint for an imminent domestic operation.

 

Huey » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

I accept your surrender,

Will you be acknowledging objective facts?

BV losing once again

Blackvegetable » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

11 minutes ago

Will you be acknowledging objective facts?

 

Acknowledge mine first, since they were posted first, then post your.  If yours align with the PDB I of course will.

But you have to stop **** whining, bitch, and post something factual.
 

Huey » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

Acknowledge mine first, 

No....the facts of the matter at hand will be established. 

Objective facts are immutable..

Let's be clear about for whom the NSA speaks..

It's Director is appointed by POTUS...

Your AI slop predictably turns to the NSA justification for its inaction.

Because AI is unaware of the unambiguous contradictions in the subsequent testimony of Condi Rice....



 

Blackvegetable » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

No....the facts of the matter at hand will be established. 

Objective facts are immutable..

Let's be clear about for whom the NSA speaks..

It's Director is appointed by POTUS...

Your AI slop predictably turns to the NSA justification for its inaction.

Because AI is unaware of the unambiguous contradictions in the subsequent testimony of Condi Rice....



 

 

Bring on the facts, Bitch, that shows the citation about the PDB are incorrect.  You talk to **** much, Bitch.  Until you bring these facts, my posts stand.


 

Huey » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

Bring on the facts, Bitch, that shows the citation about the PDB are incorrect.  You talk to **** much, Bitch.  Until you bring these facts, my posts stand.

Melty,

Pull yourself together...


https://youtu.be/CcrgeuLb3dQ?si=UokE4QbjWQJ-JmpH