Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
American Sharia? Don't Be Silly....
American Sharia? Don't Be Silly....
By Blackvegetable
8 Jan 2026 6:12 am in No Holds Barred Political Forum
8 Jan 2026 9:37 am
Lame. If you were so concerned about space, then you would end this.
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 » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
8 Jan 2026 9:50 am
Vegas » 08 Jan 2026, 10:37 am » wrote: ↑ Lame. If you were so concerned about space, then you would end this.
I'm not.
Coozie is.
on your behalf.....
of course, now he's confounded.
8 Jan 2026 9:51 am
Blackvegetable » 08 Jan 2026, 10:50 am » wrote: ↑ I'm not.
Coozie is.
on your behalf.....
of course, now he's confounded.
That is a lie.
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 » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
8 Jan 2026 9:55 am
Just look at your avatar.....
Whom did you fellate, fraud?
8 Jan 2026 9:58 am
3Blackvegetable » 08 Jan 2026, 10:55 am » wrote: ↑ Just look at your avatar.....
Whom did you fellate, fraud?
1. Veghead:
“Are these your words” or posting my threads
My reply:
Are these my words?I will not entertain your stalking by agreeing to approve of you creeping around in my profile to dig up posts.God you are so **** dense. STUPID! STUPID! STUPID!
2. Veghead:
For your “The attribution correctly identifies both the subjects of the photo and the photographer who captured the moment, making it a reliable source."
My reply:
My prompt: Is it accurate for an AI to state that a photograph’s attribution ‘correctly identifies the subject and photographer, making it a reliable source,’ without external verification? here is the claim that AI had said: "The attribution correctly identifies both the subjects of the photo and the photographer who captured the moment, making it a reliable source."AI's reply:AI cannot confirm the identity of a real person in a photograph.It can only:What it cannot do:
- describe visible features (appearance, clothing, setting),
- note resemblance if asked in a general sense,
- or restate what sources claim without verifying them.
“It cannot confirm identity.” That’s not an opinion, a rhetorical move, or a grammar issue — it’s a capability limit. And Busted you good and busted you hard. Boom!Prompt: Attribute this photograph to Donald Trump.Reply: I can’t confirm or verify the identity of a real person in a photograph.I can describe what’s visible: the image shows an older man with light skin and swept-back blond hair, wearing a dark suit jacket, white dress shirt, and a red tie, with a small U.S. flag pin on the lapel. He has a serious expression and is photographed indoors with a softly blurred background. At most, someone might say the person resembles Donald Trump, but confirming or attributing the photograph to him as an identity claim isn’t something I can do.
- verify who the person actually is,
- confirm that an attribution is correct,
- declare an image or its attribution “reliable” on its own.
3. For your demands/question
Reply:
**** your questions. You don't answer my questions, so I owe you nothing. ↓
↓
↓
↓Is your toothbrush REALLY clean?
4. For your usual lies about answering the survivorship Bias question
Reply:
The question is not asking for definitions.
The question is not asking what the answer is not: it is asking what it is.
5. For you accusing me of what you are guilty of.
My reply:
projecting again
6. For your incessant copying of me:
My reply:
Copies me again. pile up that evidence.
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 » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
8 Jan 2026 10:04 am
I don't see an answer.
But it is pretty clear...
The list of suspects is very short....
8 Jan 2026 10:04 am
3Blackvegetable » 08 Jan 2026, 11:04 am » wrote: ↑ I don't see an answer.
But it is pretty clear...
The list of suspects is very short....
1. Veghead:
“Are these your words” or posting my threads
My reply:
Are these my words?I will not entertain your stalking by agreeing to approve of you creeping around in my profile to dig up posts.God you are so **** dense. STUPID! STUPID! STUPID!
2. Veghead:
For your “The attribution correctly identifies both the subjects of the photo and the photographer who captured the moment, making it a reliable source."
My reply:
My prompt: Is it accurate for an AI to state that a photograph’s attribution ‘correctly identifies the subject and photographer, making it a reliable source,’ without external verification? here is the claim that AI had said: "The attribution correctly identifies both the subjects of the photo and the photographer who captured the moment, making it a reliable source."AI's reply:AI cannot confirm the identity of a real person in a photograph.It can only:What it cannot do:
- describe visible features (appearance, clothing, setting),
- note resemblance if asked in a general sense,
- or restate what sources claim without verifying them.
“It cannot confirm identity.” That’s not an opinion, a rhetorical move, or a grammar issue — it’s a capability limit. And Busted you good and busted you hard. Boom!Prompt: Attribute this photograph to Donald Trump.Reply: I can’t confirm or verify the identity of a real person in a photograph.I can describe what’s visible: the image shows an older man with light skin and swept-back blond hair, wearing a dark suit jacket, white dress shirt, and a red tie, with a small U.S. flag pin on the lapel. He has a serious expression and is photographed indoors with a softly blurred background. At most, someone might say the person resembles Donald Trump, but confirming or attributing the photograph to him as an identity claim isn’t something I can do.
- verify who the person actually is,
- confirm that an attribution is correct,
- declare an image or its attribution “reliable” on its own.
3. For your demands/question
Reply:
**** your questions. You don't answer my questions, so I owe you nothing. ↓
↓
↓
↓Is your toothbrush REALLY clean?
4. For your usual lies about answering the survivorship Bias question
Reply:
The question is not asking for definitions.
The question is not asking what the answer is not: it is asking what it is.
5. For you accusing me of what you are guilty of.
My reply:
projecting again
6. For your incessant copying of me:
My reply:
Copies me again. pile up that evidence.
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 » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
8 Jan 2026 10:06 am
8 Jan 2026 10:07 am
Pretending he gives a **** ^^^
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 » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
8 Jan 2026 10:22 am
you a here to defend reasonable doubt builds better artificial tomorrows than living just simply equally alive adapting forward by heart beats so far.
8 Jan 2026 12:04 pm
Blackvegetable » 08 Jan 2026, 11:04 am » wrote: ↑ I don't see an answer.
But it is pretty clear...
The list of suspects is very short....
BEES aren't going to waste time explaining to FLYS why honey tastes better than ****!!
Live with that FACT and try to make the association if that is within your mental ability.
Liberals are spoiled children, miserable, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic & useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats ~O'Rourke
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
8 Jan 2026 12:05 pm
8 Jan 2026 12:08 pm
Deal:
Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. 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. His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.
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.
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
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 » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
8 Jan 2026 12:10 pm
Post the rule on questionsVegas » 08 Jan 2026, 1:08 pm » wrote: ↑ Deal:
Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?
8 Jan 2026 12:15 pm
Post it yourself.
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 » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
8 Jan 2026 12:51 pm
What manner of **** coward runs from his own rules?
8 Jan 2026 12:53 pm
Blackvegetable » 08 Jan 2026, 1:51 pm » wrote: ↑ What manner of **** coward runs from his own rules?
You are the only one that claims I had rules. Where?
Post these so-called rules of mine.
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 » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
8 Jan 2026 12:56 pm
I'll oblige you to invoke two.Vegas » 08 Jan 2026, 1:53 pm » wrote: ↑ You are the only one that claims I had rules. Where?
Post these so-called rules of mine.
Are these your words?
viewtopic.php?p=2166697#p2166697
8 Jan 2026 12:57 pm
1.Blackvegetable » 08 Jan 2026, 1:56 pm » wrote: ↑ I'll oblige you to invoke two.
Are these your words?
viewtopic.php?p=2166697#p2166697
Idiot.
1. Veghead:
“Are these your words” or posting my threads
My reply:
Didn't click it
I will not entertain your stalking by agreeing to approve of you creeping around in my profile to dig up posts.
2. Veghead:
For your “The attribution correctly identifies both the subjects of the photo and the photographer who captured the moment, making it a reliable source."
My reply:
My prompt: Is it accurate for an AI to state that a photograph’s attribution ‘correctly identifies the subject and photographer, making it a reliable source,’ without external verification? here is the claim that AI had said: "The attribution correctly identifies both the subjects of the photo and the photographer who captured the moment, making it a reliable source."AI's reply:AI cannot confirm the identity of a real person in a photograph.It can only:What it cannot do:
- describe visible features (appearance, clothing, setting),
- note resemblance if asked in a general sense,
- or restate what sources claim without verifying them.
“It cannot confirm identity.” That’s not an opinion, a rhetorical move, or a grammar issue — it’s a capability limit. And Busted you good and busted you hard. Boom!Prompt: Attribute this photograph to Donald Trump.Reply: I can’t confirm or verify the identity of a real person in a photograph.I can describe what’s visible: the image shows an older man with light skin and swept-back blond hair, wearing a dark suit jacket, white dress shirt, and a red tie, with a small U.S. flag pin on the lapel. He has a serious expression and is photographed indoors with a softly blurred background. At most, someone might say the person resembles Donald Trump, but confirming or attributing the photograph to him as an identity claim isn’t something I can do.
- verify who the person actually is,
- confirm that an attribution is correct,
- declare an image or its attribution “reliable” on its own.
3. For your demands/question
Reply:
**** your questions. You don't answer my questions, so I owe you nothing. ↓
↓
↓
↓
↓
↓Is your toothbrush REALLY clean?
4. For your usual lies about answering the survivorship Bias question
Reply:
The question is not asking for definitions.
The question is not asking what the answer is not: it is asking what it is.
5. For you accusing me of what you are guilty of.
My reply:
projecting again
6. For your incessant copying of me:
My reply:
Copies me again. pile up that evidence.
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 » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
8 Jan 2026 1:00 pm
Who is online
In total there are 5870 users online :: 11 registered, 16 bots, and 5843 guests
Registered users: Johnny You, Blackvegetable, ROG62, RebelGator, Beekeeper, jerra b, SouthernFried, Cannonpointer, Deezer Shoove, nefarious101, Huey
Bots: TTD-Content, DuckDuckBot, aiohttp, ADmantX, Bolt, okhttp, facebookexternalhit, Googlebot, Applebot, proximic, Mediapartners-Google, CriteoBot, YandexBot, Baiduspider, bingbot, curl/7