Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 03 Dec 2025, 2:07 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Dec 2025, 2:07 pm

Just to calibrate the Intelligence, I offered a piece of my own for analysis...

AI responded as follows..

The provided text has an advanced reading level, likely at the college or post-graduate level, due to its complex vocabulary, long and involved sentence structure, and use of sophisticated, abstract concepts and cultural allusions.

 Readability Analysis
 Complex Vocabulary:
The passage uses a high density of multi-syllable and specialized words such as "literal minded," "figurative comparison," "cavil," "apparent," "iconography," "risible," "twixt," "agonizingly," "reconcile," and "manicured". Many of these words are not on common word lists for average readers, which increases the text's difficulty.

 Sentence Length and Structure:

The sentences are generally long and complex, featuring multiple clauses and parenthetical asides (e.g., "...though I won't cavil with a figurative comparison (for reasons soon to become apparent)"). Long sentences with intricate syntax typically result in a lower Flesch Reading Ease score and a higher grade level score.

 Abstract Ideas and Allusions:

The text requires a significant amount of prior knowledge to fully understand its meaning. It makes reference to:

 "Tom of Finlandization": An obscure cultural and artistic reference to the work of Finnish artist Touko Laaksonen, known for his highly stylized homoerotic art.

 "MAGA iconography": A political and cultural reference requiring knowledge of contemporary American politics and associated visual symbols.
 "Florida Man": A meme and cultural reference.

 Figurative Language:

The passage explicitly uses and distinguishes between literal and figurative comparisons, requiring the reader to understand nuanced language. 

 Conclusion

Based on standard readability formulas (like Flesch-Kincaid), the text would likely score in the "difficult to read" range, typically associated with an audience of university graduates or professionals in a specialized field. It is not suitable for a general audience (which usually reads at an 8th-grade level) without significant effort and external knowledge.

in short, totally Level 27 stuff.

Then I asked the same question, substituting "thoughts" from @Vegas  ..

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Job Creation: 
 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's true health.

Blackvegetable » 03 Dec 2025, 2:14 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Dec 2025, 2:14 pm

I literally cut and pasted @Vegas ' words into the prompt.

Anyone want to guess at the result?

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Blackvegetable » 03 Dec 2025, 2:17 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Dec 2025, 2:17 pm

Anyone?

Bueller?

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Blackvegetable » 03 Dec 2025, 2:39 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Dec 2025, 2:39 pm

FAIR WEATHER BITCHES MAKE ME WANNA PUKE ON @Vegas'  BEHALF!

Let me prove how predictable you narcissists are. Watch this:

1. Phase 1: You will say that you answered it.
Phase 2: I will remind you of :"are these your words?" from yesterday and if "will" is future tense. 
Phase 3: You will deny that I showed you, because of your meltdown with my link provided...and then you will say "I didn't ask for a link."
Repeat

2. 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..

3. 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.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Blackvegetable » 03 Dec 2025, 2:39 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Dec 2025, 2:39 pm

FAIR WEATHER BITCHES MAKE ME WANNA PUKE ON @Vegas'  BEHALF!

Let me prove how predictable you narcissists are. Watch this:

1. Phase 1: You will say that you answered it.
Phase 2: I will remind you of :"are these your words?" from yesterday and if "will" is future tense. 
Phase 3: You will deny that I showed you, because of your meltdown with my link provided...and then you will say "I didn't ask for a link."
Repeat

2. 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..

3. 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.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Blackvegetable » 03 Dec 2025, 3:03 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Dec 2025, 3:03 pm

It looks like there's no response available for this search. Try asking something else.

Let me prove how predictable you narcissists are. Watch this:

1. Phase 1: You will say that you answered it.
Phase 2: I will remind you of :"are these your words?" from yesterday and if "will" is future tense. 
Phase 3: You will deny that I showed you, because of your meltdown with my link provided...and then you will say "I didn't ask for a link."
Repeat

2. 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..

3. 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.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Blackvegetable » 03 Dec 2025, 3:07 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Dec 2025, 3:07 pm

Am I too cruel?

Let me prove how predictable you narcissists are. Watch this:

1. Phase 1: You will say that you answered it.
Phase 2: I will remind you of :"are these your words?" from yesterday and if "will" is future tense. 
Phase 3: You will deny that I showed you, because of your meltdown with my link provided...and then you will say "I didn't ask for a link."
Repeat

2. 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..

3. 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.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Blackvegetable » 03 Dec 2025, 5:34 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Dec 2025, 5:34 pm

Not even AI can be compelled to read @Vegas  ' ****....and it has no volition.

@Vegas  ' **** must really suck.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Blackvegetable » 03 Dec 2025, 5:43 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Dec 2025, 5:43 pm

How bad must you suck for AI to hate on you?

No, seriously