Is it that you know you spread lies?

Why won't you explain how on god's green earth Obama having been executed is a "Q-driven theory"?

On 9/23/2019 at 12:36 PM, william.scherk said:

Mike Rothschild has some analysis ...

 

Why did you delete Mike's analysis, Billy?

Is that what you are doing now with the old, now proven-to-be-stupid shit that you have reposted?

It really doesn't get any more intellectually dishonest than that, Billy.

You know, Idiot, that all of it will have to be deleted eventually if you adopt this approach.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just stop posting?

On 9/14/2019 at 11:17 AM, Ellen Stuttle said:

I agree about "Climate Change" being a core (not the core, but part of the core) leftist religious belief.

Furthermore, William has many leftist beliefs.

However, contrary to the dominant opinion here, I don't think that William's belief in AGW comes from leftist, or more narrowly environmentalist religionism.  I think that in his case the belief comes straight from scientific ineptitude.

I don't see William talking about "The Environment" in reverential tones, as if speaking of the Holy of Holies with a quaver in the voice.  I don't see him going on about vanishing caribou herds, or hunters clubbing baby seals to death, or the (prodigiously baby-seal-eating) polar bears.

I think that William's big worry is the permafrost.  And I think that he believes that he learned the basic science needed from Spencer Weart and that the case for AGW is now clear cut - see the melting Arctic sea ice, what else do you need?  I think that that's the poor competence level of his reasoning - as he's given away with some things he's said.

Ellen

Bill doesn't express his views. Not as such. Not on anything important. Sometimes a minor view may escape from the cage. I think he did better on SOLO where L P called him a "schism junky." Regardless, to engage him is not to dismay him.

--Brant 

30 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Bill doesn't express his views. Not as such. Not on anything important. Sometimes a minor view may escape from the cage. I think he did better on SOLO where L P called him a "schism junky." Regardless, to engage him is not to dismay him.

--Brant 

He constantly pushes his views. As such.

He just makes sure to do it in a way that he can never quite be quoted as asserting anything specific.

That way, he imagines, he gets to express himself yet will never have to defend or support anything clear or specific, he gets to lie and yet can't quite be quoted lying.

An intellectual con and coward.

That's so foreign to me. Maybe he's just feeding us info for us to animadvert upon. And, you know, the left is so intellectually dead maybe he comes here for brainwork--at least of a sort. I can't explain my affection for him, which is neither deep nor broad, except I grew up surrounded by academic liberals.

--Brant    

Perhaps William is suffering from left intellectual banishment. Wandering about on his own he stumbled onto this Objectivist melieu. Better than nothing, no?

--Brant

Maybe he's here to disrupt the intended nature of the site and diminish people and ideas he hates.

5 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

... animadvert... 

Brant,

I had to look that word up.

For anyone else who doesn't know what it means, it means to bash with words.

Michael

5 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Perhaps William is suffering from left intellectual banishment.

Brant,

Or maybe longing for an audience where feels he can make a difference...

Whether that difference is good or misguided is another issue. 

Michael

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Or maybe longing for an audience where feels he can make a difference.

Maybe simply longing for an audience, even a small one, and this is the only place he gets noticed.

Ellen

Ellen,

I wish there were an emoticon for a wry chuckle.

Michael

14 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Why did you delete Mike's analysis, Billy?

"Did you delete Mike's analysis?"

No. It is where it was -- embedded in the comment on the previous page. When we quote a post containing an embedded tweet, we need to include in our selection the 'white space' that follows the tweet. Eg,

Voici ...

20 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Bonus: young Mike Rothschild utters intemperate criticism ...

 

On 9/23/2019 at 1:02 PM, Jon Letendre said:

He notices the magnitude now?

And I love how he casually cites suppressed social media stats like they may be honest.

Where are you losers at, regarding Q? Trump says to let him know when you figure out who it is, but you’re still struggling to guess, aren’t you? You morons are endless entertainment, thank you so much.

You lie, Billy.

Go to the previous page and look at your post that says a Mike R. Tweet follows, yet nothing follows, your post is empty. I quoted that empty post yesterday.

Then look at the next comment, it’s from me, saying that Mike has finally noticed the scale of the Q movement.

You have since gone back and deleted his Tweet. It’s not where it was and it is not anywhere else either, you deleted it.

And now you’re lying.

On 9/23/2019 at 12:36 PM, william.scherk said:

Mike Rothschild has some analysis ...

 

Mike’s Tweet was there. It was about the scale of the Q movement.

7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

Or maybe longing for an audience where feels he can make a difference...

Whether that difference is good or misguided is another issue. 

Michael

Michael, can you tell me whether Billy can edit his blog perpetually?

My posts are editable, by me, for only, I’m not sure, is it 24 hours?

Can he edit his and our posts, in friends foes, indefinitely?

See above, he seems to be doing so.

And still no word from you, Billyboy, on how a theory of Obama having already been executed is Q-driven. You happily reposted it, again, in the post above this. Why do you refuse to support anything you promulgate here? Whether climate doom or hilarious insinuations that Q has said Obama is gone already, you throw things around but you are not intellectually serious.

Just a bomb thrower.

Frederick Brennan has an opinion about 8kun:

It adds up ...

15 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Why did you delete Mike's analysis, Billy?

Is that what you are doing now with the old, now proven-to-be-stupid shit that you have reposted?

It really doesn't get any more intellectually dishonest than that, Billy.

You know, Idiot, that all of it will have to be deleted eventually if you adopt this approach.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just stop posting?

Why are you going back and editing the record, Billy? It’s dishonest. Your refusal to address your deletion of the Mike R. Tweet is telling. Your deflecting lie didn’t work and now you’ll say not another word. You think this works?

Are you now trying to get ejected? You seem to be doubling down on intellectually shitty behaviors you know this community disapproves of.

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

Go to the previous page and look at your post that says a Mike R. Tweet follows, yet nothing follows, your post is empty. I quoted that empty post yesterday.

Then look at the next comment, it’s from me, saying that Mike has finally noticed the scale of the Q movement.

You have since gone back and deleted his Tweet. It’s not where it was and it is not anywhere else either, you deleted it.

I gave readers a straightforward explanation -- how to make sure a quote will comprise a tweet from an earlier comment.

The Mike Rothschild tweet remains where it was posted. Nothing was deleted.

Intelligent readers will most likely accept a parsimonious explanation -- that the attempted quote failed to include the 'white-space' following the embedded tweet -- and thus failed to show.

Anyone can check to see if the "missing" tweet is still there ...

On 9/23/2019 at 12:36 PM, william.scherk said:

Mike Rothschild has some analysis ...

 

You really are this stupid, aren’t you? Or you’re gaslighting me?

For the third time, lying little asshole, I am talking about the above post of yours that came before the one you keep pretending I am talking about. It contained a Mike R. Tweet that you deleted. The Mike R. Tweet that you deleted from the post quoted above acknowledged the considerable scale of the Q movement.

On 9/23/2019 at 11:36 AM, william.scherk said:

Mike Rothschild has some analysis ...

 

I have changed nothing in the comment above. When I checked just now in several browsers, the OL software attempts to fill in the tweet code and display it, but fails and shows nothing. This could mean that the original tweet (from around or before the 23rd) was deleted by Mike or was hobbled by some Twitter AI.  

I made a mistake in assuming Jon Letendre was yapping about the later tweet. My bad. I'll try to track down the tweet-hole or tweet that Mike may have altered or retweeted or what have you. I did nothing to alter the comment being yapped about.

For those who care about the content of the tweet that is not showing up, this link leads to Twitter Advanced Search results for Mike's tweets between the 22nd and 24th of September 2019.

If Michael is paying attention to this wee ruckus, he can examine the HTML of the comment in question -- and discover the code inside it (which I have no access to) and perhaps what the OL software is attempting to do with the 'invisible in browser' code.

I could easily believe Mike R. deleted it, because it was a bit of a backfire. He intended a put-down but indirectly confirmed worldwide Q influence. Also easy to understand why Billy would twice pretend to be confused about which backfiring Mike R. Tweet I have been very clearly addressing.

When a Tweet no longer exists then an icon remains in its absence. We have many cases of this at OL.

Billy’s post doesn’t have the missing Tweet icon because Billy deleted the Mike R. Tweet, and/or the residual icon, a week after our conversation.

17 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

On 9/23/2019 at 11:36 AM, william.scherk said:

Mike Rothschild has some analysis ...

 

Why did you delete Mike's analysis, Billy?

Is that what you are doing now with the old, now proven-to-be-stupid shit that you have reposted?

It really doesn't get any more intellectually dishonest than that, Billy.

You know, Idiot, that all of it will have to be deleted eventually if you adopt this approach.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just stop posting?

My best guess is that on the 23rd, Mike Rothschild posted the same content (relying on Twitter cards to populate the tweet with an image and website ID) four times or more times, with minor differences in whether an iteration included an @somebody or differences in whom the tweet-content was addressed to.  Either he deleted one of the group or he addressed one of the several to a Twitter account that blocked him shortly thereafter. This can sometimes result in an AI-deletion, from my experience. There may be another explanation that escapes me.

I changed nothing in the tweet that appears to have agitated an OL member. 

This is I think most likely to be the tweet-content at issue:

11:16 AM

12:07 PM

12:42 PM

59 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

When a Tweet no longer exists then an icon remains in its absence. We have many cases of this at OL.

Can anyone demonstrate this (icon remains) happening?  Or give an example?  If so, please do so.

Quote

Billy’s post doesn’t have the missing Tweet icon because Billy deleted the Mike R. Tweet, and/or the residual icon, a week after our conversation.

This is, as they say, false -- a false allegation.

Following will be three tweets that I will have posted to test the "Icon Remains" claim/hypothesis -- while other active members may perhaps fork up supporting warrants. I will leave them up for an hour, then delete them ... to see what kind of remnant is retained once they disappear from Twitter.

Members, feel free to do your own experiments here with tweets that are subsequently deleted via your Twitter account. I don't know if Jon Letendre has an active Twitter account, but expect that if he does he can then easily test his contention about 'icon remains' ...