Alex Jones found guilty in Connecticut Sandy Hook defamation case.

but being the primadonna that you are yours are filled to the brim with feeling and opinion. your dishonesty is that you cannot admit that to yourself so you project on to everyone else. so much emotion and opinion that you cannot convey your message without name calling its as if the point is not the important thing the name calling is the only point

i admire your effort and agree with what you say. this though is beyond the level of involvement that UA is capable of he will not comprehend any of this. shoot you might even get a jck off emogi as a reward

You don't speak for everyone, you arrogant prick. Plenty of people reject that "your rights end where my feelings begin" stupidity.

Instigated to the point of billions in damages? No, that's ridiculous. And either way, I do not answer for his deeds.

If you said that into a mirror you'd die.

No, he deliberately, intentionally misrepresents what was said, like that's some kind of clever tactic. Where? I point it out every time, and if you can't be bothered paying attention to that you should exclude yourself from that conversation.

When he knowingly says something that is not true, and sticks to the lie after it is pointed out, it's not some ambiguous matter of interpretation. He is a fucking liar.

If he keeps trepeating that in response to being explicitly given the correct measurement, it is a lie.

He definitely thinks he's clever, but all he has done is forfeited the benefit if the doubt.

A lie is a lie, even if he thinks he's making a point.

Once a liar, always a liar. I do not abide dishonest people.

Rejecting your will is not speaking for you.

If you want a cookie, and I demand you have a cookie, and you say "fuck you, I don't want a cookie now", that's not defying my will, and that's cutting your own dick off.
Enjoy being painted into a corner by your own oppositional defiance disorder.
I'll certainly enjoy your self-inflicted misery.

UA, I've certainly seen examples of where you have accused Crosis of dishonesty in this thread, in the Defund the Police thread and elsewhere. And fair enough, he could have been being dishonest in each of those instances, or the majority of those instances. But it is not a matter of objective fact that he was being dishonest in each of those instances, or necessarily any of those instances. In almost all the instances that come to mind, it could just as easily be a matter of perspective and a reasonable person could interpret the statements you take issue as true, or mistaken but not a deliberate falsehood, or something else. You have inferred that he is "deliberately" misrepresenting what has been said, but it could just as easily be in some cases that he misunderstands what has been said, or it could be that he is trolling (i.e. telling a joke).

When you talk about him "knowingly" saying something that isn't true, you don't have objective proof that shows this. That is an opinion of yours. It may be true. It may be supported by lots of facts and context. But it is not objectively true, if by "objective" one means something that is beyond reasonable dispute.

There are lots of possibilities why someone might keep repeating a falsehood after being told an objective truth other than them lying. They may be stupid, crazy, or have reasons to disbelieve the objective truth. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are trying to deceive or dishonest.

In terms of not abiding dishonest people, I don't really understand something. You believe Crosis is dishonest. Yet you "abide" him by engaging in all sorts of back and forth with him. Why not just put him on ignore? That would be not abiding him as a dishonest person.

That has exactly fuckall to do with anything in the real world.

I'm fine, thanks.

When he attributes a meaning opposite of what I said, he is lying. It's not a tactic. It's not a debate method. It is a lie told to be annoying, and I'll entertain no more debate on that.

And I don't use the ignore function.

You don't say...

Oh, so you have an opinion about how poor Alex Jones was unjustly punished for overtly lying about grieving parents to enrich himself, but you just don't know what to think about an innocent man gunned down by ICE?

I see.

It's impossible to attribute any meaning to what you say, as you work so hard to make sure you actually end up saying nothing. And you fight damn hard to make sure you stand for nothing.
So sure, I "lied" because I take what you say at face value. If that's the case, learn to communicate better so there's no wiggle room. There's a reason everyone thinks you're all in on book banning, for instance, no matter how many times you call me a liar.

Send UA back to the 1950's with amnesia of his time of origin, and he'd totally be howling with the mob as they burned Elvis records.
There's no doubt in my fucking mind.

He'd be saying lynching victims wouldn't have been strung up if they'd just cooperated.

Now, Mike, why on Earth would you say that? How could you possibly misconstrue Al's thoughts on these ideas so badly? Surely he's made it clear how much he would oppose such things...

So when you state an inferred meaning to others words here, even when they clarify that isn't what they meant, that is lying?

oh i am not so sure of that you ignore your failings and you ignore common deciency when it would serve you just as well. you in fact ignore everything that might make you a decent person. your personal ignore list has turned you into what you are now an easily manipulated puppy. you can be and have been played by numerous people throughout the history of WORDFORGE. of what you are you should not be proud.

God damn, you are exhausting.

I don't give a shit about jones and his bat shit conspiracy theories, but I do think the cash award was silly.

Until I see the body cam footage, the only takeaway is "need more body cameras in the field."

Is that clear enough to prevent you lying your fat ass off? Probably not

I am clear every time. I just don't choose from the options your arrogant ass presumes to dole out and don't answer for your distortions.

Is the inference an obvious example of dishonest bad faith, like his?

You lahve heem.

Your whole schtick is desperately wanting people to believe the things you think they should believe

You lahve heem.

https://bsky.app/profile/realinfowars.bsky.social/post/3mqfdwzrqba2p

So you don't care that he knowingly lied about grieving parents and put them in harms way in order to enrich himself to the tune of millions of dollars.
Which is interesting considering your "concern" over children having to be exposed to the very concept of LGBT people in school.
And your righteous outrage over my supposed "lies".
Sounds like you're very selective indeed when it comes to your outrage.

Of course you do. But you also supported the J6 pardons and passionately advocated that Matt Gaetz wasn't a sex creep, so your judgment is, at best, suspect.

Interesting how a lack of bodycam footage didn't impede your thoughts on Renee Goode or Alex Pretti.

Oh, it's very clear. Just not in the way i think you wanted.

It's the "in harm's way" part that doesn't pass the smell test, and without that it's just "he offended us and we should get paid."

You just did it again. No reasonable interpretation of my posts supports the conclusion that I care if they are exposed to the concept. My objection has always explicitly been that you cannot be programming other peoples' kids with what you feel are the "correct"opinions on the subject. Neutral presentation of fact versus editorializing. Big fucking difference that your lying ass will never acknowledge.

Save it for the next approved destructive riot, you fucking fraud.

SOME of them, you lying cock wart. That wasn't a mistake. You've stuck to it despite being corrected multiple times. You are a piece of shit liar, period.

Another outright fucking lie. Have some shame.

Bullshit it didn't. My replies were ABOUT the bodycam footage.

Death threats from his followers.
I know, you don't believe incitement is a thing, but that's just a soothing balm for your own shriveled soul.

"If you can read it in front of a gym full of kids, then I will allow it."

Save it for the next approved destructive riot, you fucking fraud.[/quote]
So, J6 wasn't a destructive riot?
Fascinating.

Most.
And only after changing your opinion when everyone pointed out your hypocrisy.

No, they were about how Renee Goode shouldn't have taken part on a riot.
The riot in question, by the way:


So, for those keeping score at home:
1) You think Alex Jones was unfairly treated for lying about the parents of grieving children.
2) You claimed Gaetz did nothing wrong.
3) You've defended every ICE shooting that's occurred.
4) You've defended the J6 pardons (All at first, only most later)
5) You've advocated banning LGBT books from libraries.
6) Oh, and you wanted to make sure we all knew that technically Trump wasn't a CRIMINAL rapist.

I mean, you've made your bed pal. Now lie in it.

I'll believe incitement when I can see him saying "go make death threats."

"They are crisis actors" doesn't sound like incitement to me. I would go after the people making the threats, but their pockets aren't as deep, right?

"If you can read it in front of a gym full of kids, then I will allow it."
[/quote]

And informed parental consent will never be a ban, no matter how often your lying ass insists it is.

So, J6 wasn't a destructive riot?
Fascinating.
[/quote]

Sure it was. I can admit that because my terms don't vary with the political affiliation of the perpetrators, unlike your fraud hypocrite ass.

No, I am re-stating my position again because you kedp lying. My position on all offenses is that the punishment should fit the crime without considering the bitchy personal politics of impotent noise makers like you.

Board keeps throwing in extra quote tags. Done trying to fix it.