I agree and he eats lots of bans (probably most even justified). What he doesn’t deserve is people making up ways to attack him (there are plenty of legitimate things to attack him on without contorting his statements to say something he didn’t actually say).
5 Likes
I thought he was “drama rage quitting” but maybe you’re right!
1 Like
This is not Riverman! Now all the references to “meb” make sense.
2 Likes
I mean, sure, but if he wasn’t constantly bullshitting and provoking people he’d draw less heat. Play silly games, win silly prizes.
Same goes for jman and the rest who roll around in the dirt trolling and insulting one another.
You’re deflecting, but yes I agree jman was out of line here.
How am I deflecting?
Somewhat clumsily.
You seem to say I am avoiding talking about some issue. What issue am I deflecting from. Ask the question you think I am avoiding.
aka trolling
Some people refer to it as aggregating news articles.
1 Like
Do you agree or disagree with Trolly saying that churchill is “constantly bullshitting and provoking people”? Do you bring up jman and others to engage in whataboutism and deflect from answering that sort of question?
Since you have not banned Trolly like you have jman, I assume that means that you don’t think his accusation of what churchill is doing is an inflammatory and false post, that you think it is a reasonable thing to believe based on churchill’s posting.
No. I don’t think Trolly understands my posting and, to be honest, I think his posts are trolling a good 50% of the time.
If I add a single sentence to the articles I quoting, he’ll say it’s wrong without giving any reason. If I write paragraphs, he’ll cherry pick the one line where I use an expression and rip that apart.
I disagree with him. There is a big difference between troll trollson saying he thinks Churchill is doing so and so in the moderation thread and what jman did. Seriously, just imagine jal made up that post about an opposing poster. He’d get banned for a week? Two weeks? Quite a while anyway. Same with church, and I’d like to hear anyone say that’s not true with a straight face.
Here’s churchill clearly insinuating that kids don’t need to be vaccinated despite rising hospitalization numbers of kids with covid:
The quote about myocarditis is literally why the UK held out for a long time on giving kids the vaccine, despite the fact that myocarditis from covid is both more severe and more common. To argue that myocarditis is a reason not to vaxx kids is vastly overstating the relative risk. Whatever you think about the degree of danger being claimed, it’s clearly being used to argue against vaccinating kids, which only makes sense if the argument is that the claim is that vaccines are harmful compared to covid in kids, or that the vaccines are not effective enough against covid to justify that risk.
2 Likes
Horseshit.
Can we not do this?
Yeah, you’re miss understanding or misrepresenting that. As the person I replied to will be aware.
But you will forget his predictions about alpha.