Planet Rugby Forum

Santa wrote:

dargotronV.1 wrote:

paddyor wrote:

dargotronV.1 wrote:

zt1903 wrote:
Far fetched you say

A conspiracy based on Fox's twitter being on blackout, despite a well publicised reason why they are boycotting twitter.

And Drudge deleting their tweets? Wikileaks?

You should probably check the twitter account tbh.

I did. I'm not saying that I've bought the theory I'm just looking to understand why Fox, Drudge, Wikileaks have ceased action simultaneously on twitter. Really don't think the "well publicised" reason is enough for Fox to cease all activity but even if it is, why the others?

Waiting patiently for zt to answer.

So... you're waiting for zt to tell you why the conspiracy that you don't really buy isn't real? Or just for zt to tell you why several different organisations of which he is not a part have decided to act in certain ways. If he doesn't, will that strengthen your belief in the conspiracy?

You are trying too hard.

dargotronV is allowed to speculate on these matters.

Your escalation to a full on conspiracy theory comes across as hysterical.

Rinkals wrote: You are trying too hard.

dargotronV is allowed to speculate on these matters.

Your escalation to a full on conspiracy theory comes across as hysterical.

I didn't escalate, you thick fudge. It started with the idea of a conspiracy, you thick fudge. A conspiracy that dargotron apparently doesn't fully believe. Not fully. Yet.

So, to be clear, then

Editorialising about CIA = OK
Editorialising about FNN = Not OK

Santa wrote:

Rinkals wrote: You are trying too hard.

dargotronV is allowed to speculate on these matters.

Your escalation to a full on conspiracy theory comes across as hysterical.

I didn't escalate, you thick fudge. It started with the idea of a conspiracy, you thick fudge. A conspiracy that dargotron apparently doesn't fully believe. Not fully. Yet.

It started with speculation.

Speculation is (normally) allowed.

If you want to behave in an hysterical manner, that's entirely up to you.

Rinkals wrote:

Santa wrote:

Rinkals wrote: You are trying too hard.

dargotronV is allowed to speculate on these matters.

Your escalation to a full on conspiracy theory comes across as hysterical.

I didn't escalate, you thick fudge. It started with the idea of a conspiracy, you thick fudge. A conspiracy that dargotron apparently doesn't fully believe. Not fully. Yet.

It started with speculation.

Speculation is (normally) allowed.

If you want to behave in an hysterical manner, that's entirely up to you.

What on god's green earth are you on about? Where did I say that speculation is not allowed? Nowhere that's where. My point, which you have unsurprisingly failed to grasp, is that dargotron had set up or introduced a situation about which even he admitted scepticism, and then asked zt to defend or explain it, which is simultaneously disingenuous and standard fare from your side of the aisle.

Santa wrote:So... you're waiting for zt to tell you why the conspiracy that you don't really buy isn't real? Or just for zt to tell you why several different organisations of which he is not a part have decided to act in certain ways. If he doesn't, will that strengthen your belief in the conspiracy?

Cheers Rinkals.

Santa, thanks for explaining that ZT isn't a part of Wikileaks, Fox or Drudge.

ZT's response indicated that there is nothing to see in Fox lack of activity on twitter. He asserts that there is a perfectly good reason to be found elsewhere. OK, whatever, doesn't add up for me but fair enough if that's what he thinks.

He also thinks it funny that I suggested the theory (not a conspiracy, a theory) is far fetched; Rather than simply taking my qualified take on face value he asserts half of it as BS and leaves the other half hanging in the air. Fair enough. I am questioning now if he is as confident about Drudge and Wikileaks lack of publicity on the medium. Perhaps he doesn't know, perhaps he does and can enlighten us. Why would Drudge delete all their tweets? I am speculating, not dealing in conspiracies, and I think it is entirely odd that all 3 are down at the same time.

Feel free to add to the debate rather than accuse others of peddling conspiracies.

Santa wrote:

Rinkals wrote:

Santa wrote:

Rinkals wrote: You are trying too hard.

dargotronV is allowed to speculate on these matters.

Your escalation to a full on conspiracy theory comes across as hysterical.

I didn't escalate, you thick fudge. It started with the idea of a conspiracy, you thick fudge. A conspiracy that dargotron apparently doesn't fully believe. Not fully. Yet.

It started with speculation.

Speculation is (normally) allowed.

If you want to behave in an hysterical manner, that's entirely up to you.

What on god's green earth are you on about? Where did I say that speculation is not allowed? Nowhere that's where. My point, which you have unsurprisingly failed to grasp, is that dargotron had set up or introduced a situation about which even he admitted scepticism, and then asked zt to defend or explain it, which is simultaneously disingenuous and standard fare from your side of the aisle.

Side of the aisle, get a grip man.

Uthikoloshe wrote:Bracknell houts?

That’s where dozy says I live, when he “hacked” me.

Santa wrote:

Rinkals wrote:

Santa wrote:

Rinkals wrote: You are trying too hard.

dargotronV is allowed to speculate on these matters.

Your escalation to a full on conspiracy theory comes across as hysterical.

I didn't escalate, you thick fudge. It started with the idea of a conspiracy, you thick fudge. A conspiracy that dargotron apparently doesn't fully believe. Not fully. Yet.

It started with speculation.

Speculation is (normally) allowed.

If you want to behave in an hysterical manner, that's entirely up to you.

What on god's green earth are you on about? Where did I say that speculation is not allowed? Nowhere that's where. My point, which you have unsurprisingly failed to grasp, is that dargotron had set up or introduced a situation about which even he admitted scepticism, and then asked zt to defend or explain it, which is simultaneously disingenuous and standard fare from your side of the aisle.

I didn't say you did.

dargotronV's comment was about speculation on Trump's health based on the activity of some right wing sources.

You introduced the notion (well, actually I see that it was ZT, but you continued with it) that it was a conspiracy theory. I rather suspect that you are, in concert with ZT, suggesting that it's a conspiracy theory in order to belittle dargotronV.

It just strikes me that you are trying too hard. But carry on, by all means.

Fox has stated that it is boycotting the platform because Twitter did nothing about the doxing of Tucker Carlson despite it being clearly against their terms of use. Add to that that there is an acknowledged liberal bias inside Twitter and and possible bias in its banning behaviour (i'm not especially sold on this particular one) then we have a specific and very good reason for Fox's behaviour and a broader context. All of that takes about 1 minute to put together.

Is Mueller going to move against all of them this Friday? I'm going to go waaaaaay out on a limb here and say no. Nope. No he is not.

Rinkals wrote:

Santa wrote:

Rinkals wrote:

Santa wrote:

Rinkals wrote: You are trying too hard.

dargotronV is allowed to speculate on these matters.

Your escalation to a full on conspiracy theory comes across as hysterical.

I didn't escalate, you thick fudge. It started with the idea of a conspiracy, you thick fudge. A conspiracy that dargotron apparently doesn't fully believe. Not fully. Yet.

It started with speculation.

Speculation is (normally) allowed.

If you want to behave in an hysterical manner, that's entirely up to you.

What on god's green earth are you on about? Where did I say that speculation is not allowed? Nowhere that's where. My point, which you have unsurprisingly failed to grasp, is that dargotron had set up or introduced a situation about which even he admitted scepticism, and then asked zt to defend or explain it, which is simultaneously disingenuous and standard fare from your side of the aisle.

I didn't say you did.

dargotronV's comment was about speculation on Trump's health based on the activity of some right wing sources.

You introduced the notion (well, actually I see that it was ZT, but you continued with it) that it was a conspiracy theory. I rather suspect that you are, in concert with ZT, suggesting that it's a conspiracy theory in order to belittle dargotronV.

It just strikes me that you are trying too hard. But carry on, by all means.

That's dargotron's 'theory'? Christ that's even stupider than the idea that they're all doing it out of fear of the Meuller investigation.

By the way, arguing with you is like arguing with a squishy ball of snot. You can't hold your shape from one post to the next. You are worse than TurboGoat.

Goodness, isn't Santa being an excitable wee tinker.

Turbogoat wrote:Goodness, isn't Santa being an excitable wee tinker.

It’s certainly, interesting, yes

Santa wrote:

Rinkals wrote:

Santa wrote:

Rinkals wrote:

Santa wrote: I didn't escalate, you thick fudge. It started with the idea of a conspiracy, you thick fudge. A conspiracy that dargotron apparently doesn't fully believe. Not fully. Yet.

It started with speculation.

Speculation is (normally) allowed.

If you want to behave in an hysterical manner, that's entirely up to you.

What on god's green earth are you on about? Where did I say that speculation is not allowed? Nowhere that's where. My point, which you have unsurprisingly failed to grasp, is that dargotron had set up or introduced a situation about which even he admitted scepticism, and then asked zt to defend or explain it, which is simultaneously disingenuous and standard fare from your side of the aisle.

I didn't say you did.

dargotronV's comment was about speculation on Trump's health based on the activity of some right wing sources.

You introduced the notion (well, actually I see that it was ZT, but you continued with it) that it was a conspiracy theory. I rather suspect that you are, in concert with ZT, suggesting that it's a conspiracy theory in order to belittle dargotronV.

It just strikes me that you are trying too hard. But carry on, by all means.

That's dargotron's 'theory'? Christ that's even stupider than the idea that they're all doing it out of fear of the Meuller investigation.

By the way, arguing with you is like arguing with a squishy ball of snot. You can't hold your shape from one post to the next. You are worse than TurboGoat.

No, it's not his "Theory". He linked to a twitter account which said that some outlets (specifically Fox News and Drudge) had gone silent and speculated that the cause may be Mueller issuing an ultimatum or Trump's health was failing: there was an image of the Trump Blimp exploding, I presume that was what it meant.

I am not arguing with you: I have merely repeated my opinion that you are trying too hard and set out why I think so.

Sorry if that upsets you.

For myself, I’d like to re-visit Sneaker as Apollo

I think Hermes would be a better choice. God of trade, Messaging, commerce, even a bit of thievery. Not a bad resume, really

Importantly though, he was in charge of Immigration.

Yes. Vote 1 for Sneaker as Hermes

Even more interestingly, iirc Hermes spawn included Hermaphrodite...

Seneca of the Night wrote:

dargotronV.1 wrote:

Santa wrote:So... you're waiting for zt to tell you why the conspiracy that you don't really buy isn't real? Or just for zt to tell you why several different organisations of which he is not a part have decided to act in certain ways. If he doesn't, will that strengthen your belief in the conspiracy?

Cheers Rinkals.

Santa, thanks for explaining that ZT isn't a part of Wikileaks, Fox or Drudge.

ZT's response indicated that there is nothing to see in Fox lack of activity on twitter. He asserts that there is a perfectly good reason to be found elsewhere. OK, whatever, doesn't add up for me but fair enough if that's what he thinks.

He also thinks it funny that I suggested the theory (not a conspiracy, a theory) is far fetched; Rather than simply taking my qualified take on face value he asserts half of it as BS and leaves the other half hanging in the air. Fair enough. I am questioning now if he is as confident about Drudge and Wikileaks lack of publicity on the medium. Perhaps he doesn't know, perhaps he does and can enlighten us. Why would Drudge delete all their tweets? I am speculating, not dealing in conspiracies, and I think it is entirely odd that all 3 are down at the same time.

Feel free to add to the debate rather than accuse others of peddling conspiracies.

Can I add to this debate by giving it the name 'The Dargotron Conjecture', and can I suggest Mark Wahlberg as Matt Drudge and Michael Caine as the dirty digger.

For someone willing to embrace the "You can't prove there aren't lepers in the caravan" type arguments you're being awfully cynical.

His politics, to the extent that they’ve ever been legible, have always been off-the-rack big city tabloid bullshit—crudely racist exterminate the brutes/back the blue authoritarianism in the background and ruthless petty rich person squabbling in the front. His actions since becoming president have been those of a dim, cruel child playacting at being a powerful man—giving orders without quite knowing what they mean or how they might be carried out, taunting enemies, beating up the people he can afford to beat up without having to be called to account for it, lying as needed or just for yuks. He hasn’t changed a thing since graduating from punchline to president. It’s been clear for decades that Trump was both an asshole and a dummy; this is now a problem not just for the odd unlucky cocktail waitress and his staff of cheesy apparatchiks but for literally every person on earth.

https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/this- ... 1830329753

Turbogoat wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

dargotronV.1 wrote:

Santa wrote:So... you're waiting for zt to tell you why the conspiracy that you don't really buy isn't real? Or just for zt to tell you why several different organisations of which he is not a part have decided to act in certain ways. If he doesn't, will that strengthen your belief in the conspiracy?

Cheers Rinkals.

Santa, thanks for explaining that ZT isn't a part of Wikileaks, Fox or Drudge.

ZT's response indicated that there is nothing to see in Fox lack of activity on twitter. He asserts that there is a perfectly good reason to be found elsewhere. OK, whatever, doesn't add up for me but fair enough if that's what he thinks.

He also thinks it funny that I suggested the theory (not a conspiracy, a theory) is far fetched; Rather than simply taking my qualified take on face value he asserts half of it as BS and leaves the other half hanging in the air. Fair enough. I am questioning now if he is as confident about Drudge and Wikileaks lack of publicity on the medium. Perhaps he doesn't know, perhaps he does and can enlighten us. Why would Drudge delete all their tweets? I am speculating, not dealing in conspiracies, and I think it is entirely odd that all 3 are down at the same time.

Feel free to add to the debate rather than accuse others of peddling conspiracies.

Can I add to this debate by giving it the name 'The Dargotron Conjecture', and can I suggest Mark Wahlberg as Matt Drudge and Michael Caine as the dirty digger.

For someone willing to embrace the "You can't prove there aren't lepers in the caravan" type arguments you're being awfully cynical.

Similarly, you can’t prove that rain grounded the helicopter, that he would’ve if he could’ve..

That Bill Wyman shagged them many burds, that Gary Sinise actually liked Forrest Gump and that a 4-star Marine General takes kindly to being talked down to by a fvcking abject coward

Seneca of the Night wrote:

dargotronV.1 wrote:

Santa wrote:So... you're waiting for zt to tell you why the conspiracy that you don't really buy isn't real? Or just for zt to tell you why several different organisations of which he is not a part have decided to act in certain ways. If he doesn't, will that strengthen your belief in the conspiracy?

Cheers Rinkals.

Santa, thanks for explaining that ZT isn't a part of Wikileaks, Fox or Drudge.

ZT's response indicated that there is nothing to see in Fox lack of activity on twitter. He asserts that there is a perfectly good reason to be found elsewhere. OK, whatever, doesn't add up for me but fair enough if that's what he thinks.

He also thinks it funny that I suggested the theory (not a conspiracy, a theory) is far fetched; Rather than simply taking my qualified take on face value he asserts half of it as BS and leaves the other half hanging in the air. Fair enough. I am questioning now if he is as confident about Drudge and Wikileaks lack of publicity on the medium. Perhaps he doesn't know, perhaps he does and can enlighten us. Why would Drudge delete all their tweets? I am speculating, not dealing in conspiracies, and I think it is entirely odd that all 3 are down at the same time.

Feel free to add to the debate rather than accuse others of peddling conspiracies.

Can I add to this debate by giving it the name 'The Dargotron Conjecture', and can I suggest Mark Wahlberg as Matt Drudge and Michael Caine as the dirty digger.

That or Diagnosis Dargotron would work for me

Santa wrote:Fox has stated that it is boycotting the platform because Twitter did nothing about the doxing of Tucker Carlson despite it being clearly against their terms of use. Add to that that there is an acknowledged liberal bias inside Twitter and and possible bias in its banning behaviour (i'm not especially sold on this particular one) then we have a specific and very good reason for Fox's behaviour and a broader context. All of that takes about 1 minute to put together.

Is Mueller going to move against all of them this Friday? I'm going to go waaaaaay out on a limb here and say no. Nope. No he is not.

agreed, i think the only logical solution is to pull the plug on twitter - they've never made money, maybe we can just get a creditor to force them to file for bankruptcy

your side of the aisle

Remember folks, this is coming from an alleged neutral

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Hong Kong wrote:

your side of the aisle

Remember folks, this is coming from an alleged neutral

Someone standing in the aisle can refer to either side of the aisle as your side of the aisle.

Santa is essentially a thread usher.

Troo dat

the other ...

Seneca of the Night wrote:And I accept, it is a tough gig. After all, here is one side of the aisle:

Tucker Carlson would be proud that diversity has not reared it's ugly head in that audience...

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Laurent wrote:the other ...

I've got no idea why you might think that would upset me. I'm not DAC you know.

true you're DAClite.

Rinkals wrote:

Santa wrote:

Rinkals wrote:

Santa wrote:

Rinkals wrote: You are trying too hard.

dargotronV is allowed to speculate on these matters.

Your escalation to a full on conspiracy theory comes across as hysterical.

I didn't escalate, you thick fudge. It started with the idea of a conspiracy, you thick fudge. A conspiracy that dargotron apparently doesn't fully believe. Not fully. Yet.

It started with speculation.

Speculation is (normally) allowed.

If you want to behave in an hysterical manner, that's entirely up to you.

What on god's green earth are you on about? Where did I say that speculation is not allowed? Nowhere that's where. My point, which you have unsurprisingly failed to grasp, is that dargotron had set up or introduced a situation about which even he admitted scepticism, and then asked zt to defend or explain it, which is simultaneously disingenuous and standard fare from your side of the aisle.

I didn't say you did.

dargotronV's comment was about speculation on Trump's health based on the activity of some right wing sources.

You introduced the notion (well, actually I see that it was ZT, but you continued with it) that it was a conspiracy theory. I rather suspect that you are, in concert with ZT, suggesting that it's a conspiracy theory in order to belittle dargotronV.

It just strikes me that you are trying too hard. But carry on, by all means.

I think you need a wee lie down, you’ve lost the plot.

EverReady wrote:

shanky wrote:For myself, I’d like to re-visit Sneaker as Apollo

I think Hermes would be a better choice. God of trade, Messaging, commerce, even a bit of thievery. Not a bad resume, really

Importantly though, he was in charge of Immigration.

Yes. Vote 1 for Sneaker as Hermes

Even more interestingly, iirc Hermes spawn included Hermaphrodite...

I think I was Diana Princess of Wales

Does that make you Candle in the Wind? Or Tiny Dancer?

zt1903 wrote:

Rinkals wrote:

Santa wrote:

Rinkals wrote:

Santa wrote: I didn't escalate, you thick fudge. It started with the idea of a conspiracy, you thick fudge. A conspiracy that dargotron apparently doesn't fully believe. Not fully. Yet.

It started with speculation.

Speculation is (normally) allowed.

If you want to behave in an hysterical manner, that's entirely up to you.

What on god's green earth are you on about? Where did I say that speculation is not allowed? Nowhere that's where. My point, which you have unsurprisingly failed to grasp, is that dargotron had set up or introduced a situation about which even he admitted scepticism, and then asked zt to defend or explain it, which is simultaneously disingenuous and standard fare from your side of the aisle.

I didn't say you did.

dargotronV's comment was about speculation on Trump's health based on the activity of some right wing sources.

You introduced the notion (well, actually I see that it was ZT, but you continued with it) that it was a conspiracy theory. I rather suspect that you are, in concert with ZT, suggesting that it's a conspiracy theory in order to belittle dargotronV.

It just strikes me that you are trying too hard. But carry on, by all means.

I think you need a wee lie down, you’ve lost the plot.

Of course I have.

EverReady wrote:

shanky wrote:

EverReady wrote:

shanky wrote:For myself, I’d like to re-visit Sneaker as Apollo

I think Hermes would be a better choice. God of trade, Messaging, commerce, even a bit of thievery. Not a bad resume, really

Importantly though, he was in charge of Immigration.

Yes. Vote 1 for Sneaker as Hermes

Even more interestingly, iirc Hermes spawn included Hermaphrodite...

I think I was Diana Princess of Wales

Does that make you Candle in the Wind? Or Tiny Dancer?

Whatever he wants. He is scoring me at the moment on a chart he has on his bedroom wall

Yes, that's a bit how the discourse with Santa and ZT feels.

I suspect they never get tired of all the winning scores they post.

Uthikoloshe wrote:

You're a saffa, aren't you?

Good cobus!

Looks like Avenatti 2020 is dead(arrested for domestic violence). Been a good month for the Democrats.

paddyor wrote:Looks like Avenatti 2020 is dead(arrested for domestic violence). Been a good month for the Democrats.

Will wait for the details etc but that guy has been nothing but bad news. Can’t believe so many people gave him a platform.

paddyor wrote:Good cobus!

Looks like Avenatti 2020 is dead(arrested for domestic violence). Been a good month for the Democrats.

No Avenatti would be good for the Dems.

happyhooker wrote:

Uthikoloshe wrote:

You're a saffa, aren't you?

I think it's worth looking at why the vote counting is taking so long:

https://www.quora.com/How-can-Democrats-justify-absentee-ballots-with-invalid-signatures-being-counted-Doesn-t-a-non-matching-signature-indicate-the-ballot-is-fraudulent

In Orange County, like most of the rest of California and the nation, the vast majority of votes are cast vote by mail or Permanent Absentee Voter (“PAV”) ballots. In Orange County less than half of the votes are cast at a voting booth on Election Day. Some 600,000 PAV ballots were cast.

If you follow the process described, there are 4 levels of verification, all of which takes time.

In close races, the process would probably need to be examined more stringently because verifying a signature which may have changed over time is problematic.

As I understand it, some States (like Florida) have mandatory recounts if the margin falls below 0.5%.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/14/18095025/2018-midterm-elections-katie-porter-florida-congress

Not ideal, I agree, but disenfranchising the voter should not be an option.

paddyor wrote:Good cobus!

Looks like Avenatti 2020 is dead(arrested for domestic violence). Been a good month for the Democrats.

Is it bad that I want to see Trumps tweet on this?

EverReady wrote:

zt1903 wrote:

paddyor wrote:Good cobus!

Looks like Avenatti 2020 is dead(arrested for domestic violence). Been a good month for the Democrats.

Is it bad that I want to see Trumps tweet on this?

'While I do condone rape and domestic violence in a marriage setting this guy is still a prick'

"What kind of a lawyer assaults someone without getting an NDA signed first? SAD"

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

EverReady wrote:

zt1903 wrote:

paddyor wrote:Good cobus!

Looks like Avenatti 2020 is dead(arrested for domestic violence). Been a good month for the Democrats.

Is it bad that I want to see Trumps tweet on this?

'While I do condone rape and domestic violence in a marriage setting this guy is still a prick'

"What kind of a lawyer assaults someone without getting an NDA signed first? SAD"

"Find a good lawyer to pay her off."

Really weak guys.

1/10 wnb