Big D vs Twitter
- Thread starter Mors
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Man you really went total Syd Barrett on all the acid didn't you ?
Here's a nice US based one for you
https://money.yahoo.com/fact-check-claims-electoral-fraud-020827880.html
Here's a nice US based one for you
https://money.yahoo.com/fact-check-claims-electoral-fraud-020827880.html
Erm.. the article is from USA Today
This thread, on multiple levels, reminds me how fucked the world is.
Liverpool is fucked anyway by the looks of things
Do you have a credible link for how fucked the world is? Or did you just make that up?
Google is not a trustworthy source of information.
There’ll be Nigerian “businessmen” salivating at the thought of getting their hands on Ross & Dantes email addresses.
We have the proof that Donald the Trump was cheated - but we need you to send me your credit card & bank account details so as we can safely bring the information to the rest of the world - PLEASE SEND NOW - TRUMP NEEDS YOU!!!!
We have the proof that Donald the Trump was cheated - but we need you to send me your credit card & bank account details so as we can safely bring the information to the rest of the world - PLEASE SEND NOW - TRUMP NEEDS YOU!!!!
How little you know ...
I'm actually 5 grand up from my interactions with Nigerian businessmen. True story
That, I could well believe.
They’d probably pay Dantes to go away and stop interacting with them as well.
I’m looking forward to Trump taking on Arnie.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...es-trump-kristallnacht?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Maybe Big D can get a role in the next Expendables film where they uncover an international plot involving the FBI, CIA, MI6, Italian PM, an Italian defence company and a server in Frankfurt...
If Tom Cruise hasn’t nabbed the story for the next Mission Impossible film.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...es-trump-kristallnacht?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Maybe Big D can get a role in the next Expendables film where they uncover an international plot involving the FBI, CIA, MI6, Italian PM, an Italian defence company and a server in Frankfurt...
If Tom Cruise hasn’t nabbed the story for the next Mission Impossible film.
Yes, the source predicts the credibility of the information in that circumstance.
The source incorrectly predicted the credibility of the affidavit in this circumstance that you asked about. So you made the wrong prediction. I didn't, I was right because I chose to discount the weight of the source. That's the reasoning skill you lack, and that's why you'll get things wrong again and again. Except for the odd time you get it right by luck or by it being a Nigerian Prince.
Just to clarify - you believe, with some certainty, that Obama stole money from an Iranian slush fund to pay off an Italian IT guy to hack the Leonardo a server in Frankfurt via a satellite, in order to change votes from Trump to Biden and steal the election.
And don’t give me some shite about how you’re only pointing out that there exists a piece of paper with stuff written on it that someone’s signed and there’s a video of some old bloke saying - yep there exists a piece of paper with that stuff on it.
So you either think the stuff on the piece of paper is credible or you think it’s nonsense.
Which way are you leaning?
Just to clarify haha. You're clarifying something that appears to be a figment of your imagination.
I believed the affidavit was genuine, because the likelihood of it being falsified was miniscule. You believed it was fake. I then linked the university document with the professor's signature. You then joked about oh wow a match guess it must be real. At this point I couldn't fathom how you could seriously entertain the notion it was forged, without being tremendously dumb.
Then you asked about the affidavit being in English. To again say it's a fake. By now the video was released of the prof reading his affidavit out loud. I guess you now realise it wasn't a fake bit of paper. Still incredible you didn't know this immediately.
So now, your imagination kicks in and you pretend we're arguing about whether the hacker did the thing he has said. We're not. I told you at the start that the affidavit was real, and offered that the hacker could be mentally ill or lying to save his skin. You overlooked that in your clarification. You overlooked it at the time too in order to pointlessly question the source, the paper, the lack of letter headed paper, the lack of Italian language. That's what happened.
I believed the affidavit was genuine, because the likelihood of it being falsified was miniscule. You believed it was fake. I then linked the university document with the professor's signature. You then joked about oh wow a match guess it must be real. At this point I couldn't fathom how you could seriously entertain the notion it was forged, without being tremendously dumb.
Then you asked about the affidavit being in English. To again say it's a fake. By now the video was released of the prof reading his affidavit out loud. I guess you now realise it wasn't a fake bit of paper. Still incredible you didn't know this immediately.
So now, your imagination kicks in and you pretend we're arguing about whether the hacker did the thing he has said. We're not. I told you at the start that the affidavit was real, and offered that the hacker could be mentally ill or lying to save his skin. You overlooked that in your clarification. You overlooked it at the time too in order to pointlessly question the source, the paper, the lack of letter headed paper, the lack of Italian language. That's what happened.
On your question though, I don't know and don't care. I knew the affidavit was real before definitive proof that it was real was produced. Likewise, I knew the election was rigged before proof was produced.
Now no definitive proof will ever be produced because it is moot. Definitive means 100%. Right now it's at 90%. The difference between us is you have no means to get the 90%, for you it's at 0% until it is 100%. That's shocking to me that people think like that.
So in America there are millions of well armed people who think it's 90% too. The government has no way to prove to them that it's 0%. Nor can they prove its 100%. They refused to resolve it because it was racist or something. That's why I don't care, and am looking forward to them paying the price for it.
Now no definitive proof will ever be produced because it is moot. Definitive means 100%. Right now it's at 90%. The difference between us is you have no means to get the 90%, for you it's at 0% until it is 100%. That's shocking to me that people think like that.
So in America there are millions of well armed people who think it's 90% too. The government has no way to prove to them that it's 0%. Nor can they prove its 100%. They refused to resolve it because it was racist or something. That's why I don't care, and am looking forward to them paying the price for it.
Grindr?
Interesting thread here on Parler.
Created by a no-hoper in Silicon Valley who met a mysterious Russian model, went back to Russia for a significant period and then returned to the USA to start a social network that is backed by Rudy Guiliani's former law firm? NB: And coincidentally he was also in Russia at the same time as Rudy.
Created by a no-hoper in Silicon Valley who met a mysterious Russian model, went back to Russia for a significant period and then returned to the USA to start a social network that is backed by Rudy Guiliani's former law firm? NB: And coincidentally he was also in Russia at the same time as Rudy.
This is a thread which have shown and continue to show two very weird individuals.
Question: 2 + 2 = 4, would you say that is correct?
Ross: "You are so gullible, its laughingly stupid. Thats what the lizards want you to believe. Proof? Google Enigma and German professor Humperdinck. The Czechs discovered a math cover up by the Germans during WWII, its 5. To suggest 4 is fraudulent to math. Cant find it? Do your own research. The fraud is there and obvious. Its so obvious. Its 5 Check the Enigma, or the Little Nutty professor calculator for kidz."
Dantes: *First you have to imagine that there is a 20% chance it could be 3. There is also a 13% chance it could be 7. If you visualize your math professor having an off day when he was calculating this and his glasses were covered with syrup. He could have written 5. If you look closer to this case his student from '99 signed an affidavit that said the professor said 5, but his glasses were clean. So, when I suit up in court that will result in it being 5 on the base of that ethidence.
There are also the graphs of pencil sales from Kentucky to look at. With there being an increase in sales of the number 5 pencil, that indicates a clear path to that your belief of the number 4 to be incorrect in this math question.
I dont care if its 3, 4 or 6. The signed affidavit says 5. So its 5. Remember that there is a 90% chance the student was correct, and 10% chance that he cant read. Oh look, Pfizer stock are down, and you cant see the correlation. Laughable. You didnt see it. People are selling the stock as their CFO got a C in math, just because he said this was a definite 4. He was suckered by the fake news and the fraudulent math learning books. Big D wouldnt have been. Thats why he says 5."
Similar threads
