The most dangerous man on the Planet- Don the Con is back!!!!

[Ootohere]

He funds lots.  Does lots of good. I have no idea if he cons others out of money. 

@EnterName  You put up a quote from a post where i have a screenshot  with 'Projects' he supports. 

Head for thinking, feet for dancing and no real thinking needed for Conspiracy theories. 

Edited 8 April by Rooted

[mac11irl]

7 hours ago, Rooted said:

He funds lots.  Does lots of good. I have no idea if he cons others out of money. 

@EnterName  You put up a quote from a post where i have a screenshot  with 'Projects' he supports. 

Head for thinking, feet for dancing and no real thinking needed for Conspiracy theories. 

 

George,

dont bother. He isnt a right leaning / trump believer. he simply goes around repeating the bs that gets put out by trump and his followers to stir the pot and be antagonistic just for the sake of it so he can try prove his own point anout how "the left" will close down any argument made from the other side. "Entryism" i believe he called it back when he was a new member, and had a big post about how it works. crock of dog eggs, but he's still at the same thing, trying to cause arguments where there is agreement.

[EnterName]

On 08/04/2024 at 08:50, Rooted said:

He funds lots.  Does lots of good. I have no idea if he cons others out of money. 

@EnterName  You put up a quote from a post where i have a screenshot  with 'Projects' he supports. 

Head for thinking, feet for dancing and no real thinking needed for Conspiracy theories. 

I disagree, but if you think Soros is a force for good, then that explains your perspective.

[EnterName]

On 08/04/2024 at 16:04, mac11irl said:

 

George,

dont bother. He isnt a right leaning / trump believer. he simply goes around repeating the bs that gets put out by trump and his followers to stir the pot and be antagonistic just for the sake of it so he can try prove his own point anout how "the left" will close down any argument made from the other side. "Entryism" i believe he called it back when he was a new member, and had a big post about how it works. crock of dog eggs, but he's still at the same thing, trying to cause arguments where there is agreement.

God forbid anyone deviate from the "consensus".

My thread on "Entryism" certainly flushed out a few wannabees.

As usual all you come out with is an attempt at character smears without saying anything specific and stating why it is wrong.

"Dogs eggs"?

Have a look through your own posts.

[Ootohere]

Deviate as and when you wish. Diversity and inclusion or whatever is all allowed in the lands of the free.  Global super power the USA is all encompassing as long as you except doing as you are told.    The UK is as well as it does what it is told.      Call me Dave made a house call.  Hedging his own bets and those of whom he represents.  We are all in this together. 

[Ootohere]

@EnterName  do you understand when someone points stuff out it does not mean they agree with it, or oppose it.     You seem not to be just here for the banter. You appear to have beliefs of some sort.  Personally I do not give a damn.   

[EnterName]

10 minutes ago, Rooted said:

Deviate as and when you wish. Diversity and inclusion or whatever is all allowed in the lands of the free.  Global super power the USA is all encompassing as long as you except doing as you are told.    The UK is as well as it does what it is told.      Call me Dave made a house call.  Hedging his own bets and those of whom he represents.  We are all in this together. 

Yes, Dave has been doing the rounds recently, hasn't he?

It's almost as though there's a bit of a panic on.

[EnterName]

On 08/04/2024 at 08:50, Rooted said:

Does lots of good.

10 minutes ago, Rooted said:

do you understand when someone points stuff out it does not mean they agree with it, or oppose it.

Sometimes the line between cryptic and contradictory gibberish gets blurred.

[EnterName]

38 minutes ago, Rooted said:

 You seem not to be just here for the banter. You appear to have beliefs of some sort.

I think you have already answered yourself on that point.

On 08/04/2024 at 08:50, Rooted said:

Head for thinking, feet for dancing and no real thinking needed for Conspiracy theories. 

Indeed!

[Ootohere]

@EnterName  George Soros does lots of good, and does it because he has the money to.  Nothing cryptic.  My statement & quite clear really. 

Edited 10 April by Rooted

[@Lee]

27 minutes ago, Rooted said:

@EnterName  George Soros does lots of good, and does it because he has the money to.  Nothing cryptic.  My statement & quite clear really. 

 

Lots of conspiracy theories about Soros for those who are hard of thinking or just like falling down rabbit holes or maybe even internet trolls who go on social media or even forums to wind people up. 

 

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros_conspiracy_theories

[mac11irl]

9 hours ago, EnterName said:

God forbid anyone deviate from the "consensus".

My thread on "Entryism" certainly flushed out a few wannabees.

As usual all you come out with is an attempt at character smears without saying anything specific and stating why it is wrong.

"Dogs eggs"?

Have a look through your own posts.

in the scientific method, when all evidence from several sources points in the same direction and conclusion that is accepted as being the correct answer - consensus. So, when there is literally boxes of evidence of wrongdoing by person A, accused of said wrong doing, it is somewhat consensual that wrongdoing occurred. when person B is accused of wrongdoing but no evidence can be provided to support the claim then there cant be consensus that person B did as accused. similarly, when the vast majority of people agree that an individual should be allowed to live their best life in whatever form makes them happy without fear of prejudice then that too is consensus, and those that try to force their own beliefs on others ( sometimes through physical force...) are, for want of better phraseology, wrong. Where this wonderful line of "tolerance" hits a brick wall is when it lands in the inevitable Catch-22 position where - if everyone is allowed to do as they please, then those who wish to be racist (as an example) should also be tolerated, but racism is intolerant therefore should not be allowed, but that becomes intolerant....

 

I'm not sure what wannabees youre talking about? wannabee whats?

 

I am not preventing you from sharing an opinion, nor am I attempting character smears or ad hominum attacks on you. I simply highlight when i see content being posted which is clearly designed to try and either cause an argument or illicit a response which can be used as evidence to support the theory which you yourself have detailed previously in other threads and when the theory is put together in a way that makes any effort at disproving it appear to naturally prove the theory ,it makes it hard to navigate. Credit where its due, its quite a cleverly setup honeytrap, but it does make difficult to trust what you post here as being anything other than further attempts at disruption.

 

Pointing out when someone is acting in a way that appears to be baiting others into starting an argument doesnt constitute a personal attack either. its simply raising awareness of a situation that is developing so the participants can chose a different route and avoid the inevitable battle, especially wgen that is what 1 party is looking for.

 

what might a dog lay that may be somewhat egg shaped?

Im quite happy with my posts, thanks, as they are my opinion based on the information I have read/watched from multiple reliable sources and pieced together into my views. 

[EnterName]

9 hours ago, mac11irl said:

in the scientific method, when all evidence from several sources points in the same direction and conclusion that is accepted as being the correct answer - consensus.

Wow! Taking the "scientific method" is a rather radical approach for you, bravo.

Tell me, at what point is "the science settled", whereafter all research and investigation into the issue is halted, according to the "scientific method"?

[EnterName]

Actually your post covers far more than the point about adherence to "the scientific method", but I was so surprised by your sudden appreciation of a methodological and data-driven approach to tackling issues, I forgot to respond to the rest of your post. So...

10 hours ago, mac11irl said:

So, when there is literally boxes of evidence of wrongdoing by person A, accused of said wrong doing, it is somewhat consensual that wrongdoing occurred. when person B is accused of wrongdoing but no evidence can be provided to support the claim then there cant be consensus that person B did as accused. similarly, when the vast majority of people agree that an individual should be allowed to live their best life in whatever form makes them happy without fear of prejudice then that too is consensus, and those that try to force their own beliefs on others ( sometimes through physical force...) are, for want of better phraseology, wrong. Where this wonderful line of "tolerance" hits a brick wall is when it lands in the inevitable Catch-22 position where - if everyone is allowed to do as they please, then those who wish to be racist (as an example) should also be tolerated, but racism is intolerant therefore should not be allowed, but that becomes intolerant....

What a lot of words to say not very much. Reading (hopefully correctly) between the lines, I can assure you that I don't care what you do with your meat & veg, or what you consensually do with other adults' meat & veg. The idea that anyone to the right of Stalin is a raving homophobe is silly. (GB News is full of gay men, for example.) From my perspective, the problem you seem to have with me, is that I tend to treat people equally. So regardless of race, sexual orientation or gender, I endeavour to treat people the same, extending privileges to people I like, not based on what they identify as. This only causes problems with people who are used to being pandered to on account of their privileged identity.

It is as though being able to identify as "X", means that any criticism of them is x-phobia or x-ism. They are also notable for their unwillingness to extend the same protection to anyone they consider an ideological opponent.

 

10 hours ago, mac11irl said:

I'm not sure what wannabees youre talking about? wannabee whats?

Wannabe censors in positions of power with the ability to silence dissent. Reporting people for wrong-think gives them a brief fix, but it doesn't seem to really slake their thirst for power.

 

10 hours ago, mac11irl said:

I am not preventing you from sharing an opinion, nor am I attempting character smears or ad hominum attacks on you. I simply highlight when i see content being posted which is clearly designed to try and either cause an argument or illicit a response which can be used as evidence to support the theory which you yourself have detailed previously in other threads and when the theory is put together in a way that makes any effort at disproving it appear to naturally prove the theory ,it makes it hard to navigate. Credit where its due, its quite a cleverly setup honeytrap, but it does make difficult to trust what you post here as being anything other than further attempts at disruption.

When you label someone a "troll", as you have me, it's reasonable to interpret that as an ad hominem attack.

Perhaps it's a cultural difference, perhaps it's an ideological difference, but when I disagree with someone, I try and quote what they have said, and correct it with what I believe to be correct.

I think this is very much at odds with approach of some on here, who assume that dissent from their perspective can only be due to malice.

 

Example:

https://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/381123-the-most-dangerous-man-on-the-planet-don-the-con-is-back/page/83/#comment-5782768

 

10 hours ago, mac11irl said:

Pointing out when someone is acting in a way that appears to be baiting others into starting an argument doesnt constitute a personal attack either. its simply raising awareness of a situation that is developing so the participants can chose a different route and avoid the inevitable battle, especially wgen that is what 1 party is looking for.

Making allegations of intent is not "pointing out".

Given that people often find it difficult to detect sarcasm or humour online, your ability to not only interpret posts with 100% clarity, but also be able to discern the intent behind the post with absolute clarity would be remarkable, if you actually possessed it. I respectfully suggest that you do not.

 

Put simply, all you have to do is quote what I say and then post what you believe to be a more accurate reflection of reality is. I am quite happy to be corrected when I am in error.

Dismissing what I say as "dogs eggs" is, I respectfully suggest, somewhat below you.

[skomaz]

So...   Regardless of all the above back and forth I can sum up... 

 

A large number of people, and probably the majority here on Briskoda, would rather not have Donald Trump as President of the US because of what he has said, done or his beliefs. 

 

End of. 

 

You can disagree and that is your prerogative but the fact above remains, regardless. 

[@Lee]

13 minutes ago, skomaz said:

So...   Regardless of all the above back and forth I can sum up... 

 

A large number of people, and probably the majority here on Briskoda, would rather not have Donald Trump as President of the US because of what he has said, done or his beliefs. 

 

End of. 

 

You can disagree and that is your prerogative but the fact above remains, regardless. 

 

As Mac said, he's trying to cause an argument where there is none. 

[EnterName]

1 hour ago, @Lee said:

 

As Mac said, he's trying to cause an argument where there is none. 

BriSkoda's mind-readers are legion.

[EnterName]

1 hour ago, skomaz said:

A large number of people, and probably the majority here on Briskoda, would rather not have Donald Trump as President of the US because of what he has said, done or his beliefs. 

 

End of. 

 

You can disagree and that is your prerogative but the fact above remains, regardless. 

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

Of course, any detailed objections against a specific act or belief will remain elusive, with the simple dogma of "Orange man bad!" being enough for his detractors, but at least we have a point of...consensus. 😉

[@Lee]

6 minutes ago, EnterName said:

BriSkoda's mind-readers are legion.

No Derren Brown or Mystic Meg stuff. Just observing the reality. 

[skomaz]

15 minutes ago, EnterName said:

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

Of course, any detailed objections against a specific act or belief will remain elusive, with the simple dogma of "Orange man bad!" being enough for his detractors, but at least we have a point of...consensus. 😉

 

Oh dear...   Once again you do the same and simply suggest we are deciding orange man bad and not giving any evidence but there is plenty out there and freely available in media, news reports, court presentations etc.  Feel free to post evidence to the contrary (which I note you do not and have not done to-date) and why everyone else is wrong about him

Edited 11 April by skomaz

[mac11irl]

3 minutes ago, EnterName said:

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

Of course, any detailed objections against a specific act or belief will remain elusive, with the simple dogma of "Orange man bad!" being enough for his detractors, but at least we have a point of...consensus. 😉

 

i made an entire post a couple of pages back comparing the good and bad of both Biden and Trump. 

the way you reply to peoples' posts always in the same way claiming they are "elusive" is fairly boring now to be honest as well as the use of "Orange man bad". your counter argument doesnt provide any reasoning beyond "Orange man not bad".

 

on your other posts, I have always been on the side of science and real data. Im an engineer, i do it for a living. i may not always post the supporting evidence of my position, but its always based on verified facts. 

when does the science stop? it doesnt. new evidence is peer reviewed and verified. and then other research is carried out. if said research uncovers a flaw or previously unknown factor and that peer review verifies this, then that becomes part if the new knowledge base and mistakes are admitted. we know alot more now compared to 100yrs ago, and many previous beliefs and understandings have been over ruled in 100s of cases..

 

 

[@Lee]

1056 examples of 'orange man bad' from February 10, 2011 up until January 20, 2021. Comments and actions that included Sexual Misconduct, Harassment, & Bullying White Supremacy, Racism, Homophobia, Transphobia, & Xenophobia.
And don't forget, incitement to insurrection and rape.
 

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/the-complete-listing-atrocities-1-1-056 

 

Now where's the 1056 nice things he did between the same dates? 

[J.R.]

Incitement to rape?

[@Lee]

12 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Incitement to rape?

 

No. Rape. 

[Lady Elanore]

He really isn't a very pleasant man