upRootNutrition/obsidian
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://gitlab.com/upRootNutrition/obsidian.git synced 2025-06-15 15:45:11 -05:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

vault backup: 2024-10-26 19:09:25

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Nick 2024-10-26 19:09:25 -05:00
parent b28a4c38b3
commit bc4a72379c
2 changed files with 26 additions and 13 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

17
🛡️ Debate/Opponents/Jamey.md
View file

@ -102,6 +102,23 @@
>
> Also, if you have a critique, you shouldn't need to ask clarifying questions. If you need clarification, then you don't have a critique because you don't even understand the view. Fucking retard.
**Jamey:**
> Imagine telling someone that the dodger-list is a catalogue of past behaviours lol. I never had any doubts about the dodger-list reflecting things that were said in the past by people and I don't really believe that all of your extended debate invitations are not pending and that you wouldn't arrange something if people actually got back to you. Stop playing games.
> The correction is clearly visible in the video: The Nutrivore won't own up to his mistakes.
> As of the video. You changed the number 53 (risk ratio number) to a different number.
> Here's our reddit exchange too: Can anyone debunk the Nutrivore? : r/StopEatingSeedOils
> I decided to skip ahead to other topics and not focus on the video thing given your displayed insincerity in your first reply. Not taking into account that part and your first reply, the chronological order would be from my first reply. However, if you wanna go back to the video thing, we can do that.
> We had our last conversation exchange on reddit less than 30 days ago. I am quite surprised that you're struggling this bad with recalling things from the past. Are you OK? You also seem to be struggling with spotting a very visible correction in the video. Thirdly, I never said that I had a critique of the thing you said about comparing risk ratios being dubious. I asked for clarification to see if I had something to present you with. Exactly, I had no critique of that particular claim, which is why I asked for clarification. How can you not grasp this? So I guess you're the retard, correct?
> Given that you gave advice to Vegan Bazooka about employing bad faith tactics like interpreting people in a bad faith manner, I don't believe for a second that you misunderstood Brian's claim. Your bad faith behaviour is potentially supported by other things as well. Isn't it just time to admit that you're a dodging, bad faith interlocutor who has nothing going for him?
> I only see a dodging chicken who is chickening out. Now that we've established that a correction was made to the article (as shown in the video) and you made a clear mistake, we can move on. If you wanna keep denying that you corrected the article, then that is merely a reflection of the type of person you are - a dishonest person.
> All of this is being documented, you know that right? This is just gonna further reinforce people's notions about you being a bad faith clown.
> Address my 1st reply now. Go ahead.
**Nick:**
> Fuck sakes, your mother should have swallowed you.
---
# Hashtags