Ok thank you. For some reason I was searching for NIC and couldn’t find a link. Definitely would have made a business entity search a first course of action, but I think it’s a stretch to say that Drey’s confidently making any connections, she seemed to be open to being wrong. I don’t think it’s a stretch to think Elon Musk would be up to some Mengele-esque debauchery. She wasn’t accusing doctor Song. I also wouldn’t say having a legit nuero-radiologist involved necessarily disproves anything she’s saying either. Nor do I think it distracts from the real issue of moving detainees around. In my eyes, all this does is draw attention to it, and raise the alarm that abuse could happen and no one would know. Calling it a smoking gun may have been a stretch, but aside from that, I am still curious to know more.
"Open to being wrong" doesn't make broad stroking connections nor insinuate, behind the plausible deniability of a disclaimer, that someone could be performing such cruel acts.
This entire post reads of objectivity. It's irresponsible at best, dishonest more likely, though.
Good catch, I did mean "behind", I just needed commas. It's hard 'cause the keyboard lags and the comment input gets hidden on Chrome on my phone so it's a pain to be precise.
I don't know what to say about your first "sentence". It makes zero sense. Putting up a disclaimer is a perfectly legit way to establish plausible deniability.
Name one thing she lied about or learn what the word "dishonest" means.
I'm not sure where the disconnect is on the first sentence, I think it's pretty clear I'm pointing out some bias. The person she decided to correct wasn't even the instigator.
It seems like you might have a poor grasp of the English language. You might know what you were trying to say, but it's not at all clear to me. There are at least 7 gramatical errors depending on what you were trying to type. "insinuate behind" is a nonsense coupling of words. "'open to being wrong' doesn't make broad-stroke [not stroking] connections" what? You never finished that clause.
You said she (Drey?) is being dishonest. How? What, specifically, did she lie about? Give me a quote where she said something false.
Of course the author is bias. That doesn't make anything she said a lie.
Also you're acting condescending while conflating 2 individual points I've made to be the same but questioning my grasp on the English language?
I said she was bias towards the person she was calling out, dip shit. Spend more time trying to comprehend a comment before going full neck beard.
Intellectual dishonesty is when you build a narrative on a foundational piece of evidence that was incorrect. If you're curious what that is, read the thread you're replying in.
The idea that I have to give you every single piece of context to the conversation that's ongoing for you to be able to decipher what I'm saying is moronic. If you want to prance around acting condescending, how about amass some authentic intelligence instead of this neck beard regurgitation?
WTF does your first sentence even mean? Is it intentional gibberish or are you possibly under-educated and out of your depth? Either way, I'm not hearing from you again.
Ok thank you. For some reason I was searching for NIC and couldn’t find a link. Definitely would have made a business entity search a first course of action, but I think it’s a stretch to say that Drey’s confidently making any connections, she seemed to be open to being wrong. I don’t think it’s a stretch to think Elon Musk would be up to some Mengele-esque debauchery. She wasn’t accusing doctor Song. I also wouldn’t say having a legit nuero-radiologist involved necessarily disproves anything she’s saying either. Nor do I think it distracts from the real issue of moving detainees around. In my eyes, all this does is draw attention to it, and raise the alarm that abuse could happen and no one would know. Calling it a smoking gun may have been a stretch, but aside from that, I am still curious to know more.
"Open to being wrong" doesn't make broad stroking connections nor insinuate, behind the plausible deniability of a disclaimer, that someone could be performing such cruel acts.
This entire post reads of objectivity. It's irresponsible at best, dishonest more likely, though.
They just need you to change “behind” to “beyond and it’ll make more sense…
Good catch, I did mean "behind", I just needed commas. It's hard 'cause the keyboard lags and the comment input gets hidden on Chrome on my phone so it's a pain to be precise.
I don't know what to say about your first "sentence". It makes zero sense. Putting up a disclaimer is a perfectly legit way to establish plausible deniability.
Name one thing she lied about or learn what the word "dishonest" means.
All of that is available above in the thread.
I'm not sure where the disconnect is on the first sentence, I think it's pretty clear I'm pointing out some bias. The person she decided to correct wasn't even the instigator.
It seems like you might have a poor grasp of the English language. You might know what you were trying to say, but it's not at all clear to me. There are at least 7 gramatical errors depending on what you were trying to type. "insinuate behind" is a nonsense coupling of words. "'open to being wrong' doesn't make broad-stroke [not stroking] connections" what? You never finished that clause.
You said she (Drey?) is being dishonest. How? What, specifically, did she lie about? Give me a quote where she said something false.
Of course the author is bias. That doesn't make anything she said a lie.
Friend, you're also being intellectually dishonest & playing the same kind of games.
You're being a weirdo & I don't care to humor it.
Giving real aCkShAlLy energy here.
Also you're acting condescending while conflating 2 individual points I've made to be the same but questioning my grasp on the English language?
I said she was bias towards the person she was calling out, dip shit. Spend more time trying to comprehend a comment before going full neck beard.
Intellectual dishonesty is when you build a narrative on a foundational piece of evidence that was incorrect. If you're curious what that is, read the thread you're replying in.
The idea that I have to give you every single piece of context to the conversation that's ongoing for you to be able to decipher what I'm saying is moronic. If you want to prance around acting condescending, how about amass some authentic intelligence instead of this neck beard regurgitation?
You're shit at this
WTF does your first sentence even mean? Is it intentional gibberish or are you possibly under-educated and out of your depth? Either way, I'm not hearing from you again.