Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 05 Sep 2025, 11:46 am » wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2025, 11:46 am

Only in the retelling

Same with you. 

So....anyway. Your cowardice only encourages me more to continue. So, this continues. 

Vegas » 05 Sep 2025, 11:55 am » wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2025, 11:55 am

Same with you. 

So....anyway. Your cowardice only encourages me more to continue. So, this continues.

No...I can quote you.

Blackvegetable » 05 Sep 2025, 11:57 am » wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2025, 11:57 am

No...I can quote you.

All you do is quote people. You keep piling up the evidence that you have no thoughts of your own. 

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

1. Your next move will be to claim that you answered it by giving your definition, to which I replied that isn't the question...etc...etc...blah...blah...blah...
2. You will also say that you answered through your non-answers. 

Moron.

Deal: If Veghead can prove that he answered the survivorship multiple choice question, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back for as long as I live. 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. 

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. 
 

Blackvegetable » 05 Sep 2025, 11:57 am » wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2025, 11:57 am

No...I can quote you.

Wait....wait a minute. That means you would have to quote my example where my definition is. Ok, go for it. Do it.

Blackvegetable » 05 Sep 2025, 10:20 am » wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2025, 10:20 am

Vegas » 05 Sep 2025, 9:48 am » wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2025, 9:48 am

As you already know, the question was posted long after Rico...find someplace else to hide.

Deal: If Veghead can prove that he answered the survivorship multiple choice question, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back for as long as I live. 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. 

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.

As you know, Rico was banned because the syphilitic combucket concluded that ANY answer is good enough.

 

 

R. » wrote:

29 Jan 1970, 1:05 am

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/13/investin ... index.html

In urging Dark Brandon to go, they awakened a sleeping giant...

I fear to think of where he'll turn his attention next....

If Dark Brandon was an animal, he'd be a Liopleurodon.

Here he is dropping by Mar a Lago...

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxGcqt1cCL2j ... qSN-rjGZ6G
 

 

Now that was easy.  

By the way, how is that sleeping giant?  He is no giant but he was sleeping
 

*Huey » 05 Sep 2025, 12:08 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2025, 12:08 pm

Now that was easy.  

By the way, how is that sleeping giant?  He is no giant but he was sleeping

Ouch! Boom!!!
@Blackvegetable  

Where did they dig up this cretin?

https://youtu.be/CXoom5DrKqQ?si=jQJtoVKPRrhZls-i

Blackvegetable » 05 Sep 2025, 12:14 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2025, 12:14 pm

Where did they dig up this cretin?

https://youtu.be/CXoom5DrKqQ?si=jQJtoVKPRrhZls-i

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

1. Your next move will be to claim that you answered it by giving your definition, to which I replied that isn't the question...etc...etc...blah...blah...blah...
2. You will also say that you answered through your non-answers. 

Moron.

Deal: If Veghead can prove that he answered the survivorship multiple choice question, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back for as long as I live. 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. 

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. 
 

Vegas » 05 Sep 2025, 12:15 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2025, 12:15 pm

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

1. Your next move will be to claim that you answered it by giving your definition, to which I replied that isn't the question...etc...etc...blah...blah...blah...
2. You will also say that you answered through your non-answers. 

Moron.

@Deezer Shoove  


cc me on the email you claim you sent to your pet.

Vegas » 05 Sep 2025, 12:15 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2025, 12:15 pm

I admit it.
I'm a narcissist.....and a moron.

You're right....you've always been right, about everything. 

It will be an honor to disembowel myself in your immense shadow.

Hurry

Blackvegetable » 05 Sep 2025, 12:18 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2025, 12:18 pm

cc me on the email you claim you sent to your pet.

     

Blackvegetable » 05 Sep 2025, 12:19 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2025, 12:19 pm

cc me on the email you claim you sent to your pet.

The deal is your chance to get rid of me forever...do it. 


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

1. Your next move will be to claim that you answered it by giving your definition, to which I replied that isn't the question...etc...etc...blah...blah...blah...
2. You will also say that you answered through your non-answers. 

Moron.

Deal: If Veghead can prove that he answered the survivorship multiple choice question, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back for as long as I live. 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. 

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.

 

Vegas » 05 Sep 2025, 12:12 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2025, 12:12 pm

Ouch! Boom!!!
@Blackvegetable  

For one who is a self described superior intellect he can't handle the simple stuff.  In this case I simply went to my notifications, sorted R. Suave and then clicked on his name which of course goes to that SOK's profile page.  There you can find the digest and thread started.

I know that he has messages from his SOK in his notifications.

The other way he could do it his on the upper left of the page there is a something called Quick links.  Choose members, sort by click "r" and then sort by the user name.  His will come up first.

Also what is odd is last activity for that the user R. Suave was YESTERDAY:Last active: Yesterday, 9:39 pm

memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=7892

*Huey » 05 Sep 2025, 12:26 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2025, 12:26 pm

For one who is a self described superior intellect he can't handle the simple stuff.  In this case I simply went to my notifications, sorted R. Suave and then clicked on his name which of course goes to that SOK's profile page.  There you can find the digest and thread started.

I know that he has messages from his SOK in his notifications.

The other way he could do it his on the upper left of the page there is a something called Quick links.  Choose members, sort by click "r" and then sort by the user name.  His will come up first.

Also what is odd is last activity for that the user R. Suave was YESTERDAY:Last active: Yesterday, 9:39 pm

memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=7892

He is an idiot. R.Suave isn't even relevant to the conversation. He brought him up to desperately deflect to something. 

He used to ban me from his PG threads. However, I can easily bypass his ban without creating another account. I reply to his OP...that he banned me from. He can't figure out how I do it.     
 

Vegas » 05 Sep 2025, 11:37 am » wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2025, 11:37 am

   You really have no idea how dumb you are, do you?

I have an idea...


 

Vegas » 05 Sep 2025, 12:01 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2025, 12:01 pm

Wait....wait a minute. That means you would have to quote my example where my definition is. Ok, go for it. Do it.

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

What a **** idiot.

Blackvegetable » 05 Sep 2025, 1:37 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2025, 1:37 pm

What a **** idiot.

Yeah, and? Also, well done in omitting the rest of it. Big surprise.

Vegas » 05 Sep 2025, 1:38 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2025, 1:38 pm

Yeah, and? Also, well done in omitting the rest of it. Big surprise.

You're a **** moron.

Blackvegetable » 05 Sep 2025, 2:20 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2025, 2:20 pm

You're a **** moron.

Just what I thought. You can't refute it. 

You never can. Like ever. 
 

Mr. Trump, who regained control of the White House on promises of faster growth and lower prices, has established policies that are having precisely the opposite effect. Inflation data, due next week, is expected to show that consumer prices rose more quickly in August as companies increasingly pass along the cost of higher tariffs. 

“We’ve got a private sector that’s caught in a pinch here between these higher cost pressures and reduced demand,” said Gregory Daco, chief economist for the consulting firm EY-Parthenon. “Both measures, whether it’s inflation or employment, are moving in the wrong direction. They’re moving toward a stagflationary environment.”

Economists and former B.L.S. officials across the political spectrum denounced the moves and contested Mr. Trump’s assertions that the data had been manipulated to harm him — a claim for which the president and his advisers provided no evidence. And they warned that by politicizing the data, Mr. Trump was threatening to make it harder for policymakers, investors and business leaders to gauge the true state of the economy. 

“It’s like gouging our eyes out,” said Aaron Sojourner, an economist at the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. “It makes it hard for us to see what’s happening around us and it worsens the decisions we make.” He added:

“All just because the news is a little embarrassing.”

 
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/05/us/p ... tions.html


Seriously, you MAGAts are idiots.