Nope, didn’t lie. Keep digging deeper, I guess?
Comment on .ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 2 days agoYou absolutely 🎶diiiiiiiiiiiiiid🎶 and you are humiliating yourself here.
…
(Hey so I’m gonna go do something more interesting than listen to you recite the narcissist’s prayer, I’ll get back to your next limp accusation of “perverted debate behavior” or not making a point or w/e in a while mmk? mmk.)
(Bye for now!)
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 2 days ago
You’re still… doing this? You lied, dude. You knowingly presented a source to support your claim as being public, when it isn’t, and even better you’d never even seen the data. That’s just lying, there’s no way to whine or insult your way out of it. You are a liar. It is established.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
It is available to the public, though. Here’s Arnaud Bertrand talking about it. I’ve seen the data. I am not a liar, you seemed to have an extremely particular definition of publicly available and derailed the conversation on those ground alone. Very strange.
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Dear god, a twitter link? how quaintDo… you ever actually read your sources?
It had to be given to the author of that thread by the lead researcher, it isn’t available to the public.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
Jesus, how did you become so obnoxious?
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Honestly? When they started trying to make up nonsense to excuse away intentionally misleading people.
I don’t particularly care if someone uses a bad source, but it does annoy me when someone with a history of using bad sources never ever gets called on it. The source they cite they’ve never read, and they’re trying to claim that “not available to the public without a very selective application that requires a business email, one that they clearly did not pass” is the same thing as “publicly available”. It’s obnoxious.
I was very nice up until that point, but now we’ve reached comment depth and despite admitting that what they did was shitty they’re still trying to spin it like they did nothing wrong. He just used a bad source, right? But he can’t admit that was a mistake. It’s damning behavior, really.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
I mean how did you become a parody of a smug, obnoxious redditer who seems to have learned to talk solely from Joss Weadon movies and anime?
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 day ago
It is rather effective, isn’t it? I mean, anyone can see what I’m doing there. It’s not subtle.
But, weirdly, they still have to respond. I know that was childish; I mean obviously, that was the whole point. Drawing attention to how they backed themselves into an ideological corner and sceded me the bulk of the social power in this… whatever it is. I can say anything and they still have to respond, and as you point out I’ve very effectively demonstrated that concept.
Seriously, if they were arguing in good faith or were really the bigger person or didn’t care or so on, why are they still talking to someone that mocks them with emoji? It’s the lowest form of engagement - ideas so void of originality that they can be represented as a symbol. And yet, apparently still engaging enough…