In case congress has a change of heart and wants to hold Bondi, Patel, Blanche in contempt of congress for violating the EFTA.
Example: EFTA02440040
In case congress has a change of heart and wants to hold Bondi, Patel, Blanche in contempt of congress for violating the EFTA.
Example: EFTA02440040
Why would it be censored otherwise? You didn’t say why. It just happened to match Trump’s name, though. Weird. Curious, even. It definitely wasn’t a victim’s name or anything like that, was it?
it doesn’t match trump’s name though. it sortof matches trump’s name in a weird shortening i’ve never seen before.
no, context makes it obvious that the word censored was “don’t” which i already acknowledged.
yes it is weird. it does make me curious. but by itself, that’s all it is. just weird.
it’s not for the skeptic to prove the negative. the claimant needs to meet a burden of proof to defeat the null hypothesis first. there are a dozen other entirely plausible ways to explain this. accidents happen. people make mistakes, yes even nazis covering up the most heinous child sex crimes.
like, maybe? sure it could be the first drop of a bucketful of evidence that supports the claim. or maybe it’s just the thing you already wanted to believe. maybe this single unqualified outlier is just a coincidence. comb through those millions of pages and show a pattern matching this claimed behavior. you say it seems like the thing that happened? cool, then you’ll be able to show other instances that show a pattern of “don’t” being redacted.
if you wanna ask me a question i’ll be glad to answer. if you arent satisfied by my answer i’ll explain a different way. if you show me im wrong i’ll spin my beliefs around on a dime and thank you for the correction.
but address me in a civil tone next time you reply. i didnt slap your mom, you got no reason to be talking to me like you have been. i dont have to spend time out of my day explaining the burden of proof or the basics of skeptical inquiry to you, and i dont choose to continue in dialogue with a partner who has decided to be stubborn, snarky, belligerent, belittling, deliberately provocative, and knowingly sarcastically hypocritical in any event.
It does match his name. This was a regex search, looking for variations (Don/Donald + T). This is some newbie shit regex searching because this regime hires fucking dipshits. They probably did a search for don(ald)? (t.*)? because they are morons and just blanked out whatever it found. This isn’t even a smart redaction. There isn’t another option that fits as perfectly as “don t” (And I think anyone would bet thousands on that being the exact spelling censored.) So, yes, it is evidence that they are censoring instances of Trump’s name. You might not like it, but this is basic regex search failing that a first job programmer would do because their standards are paste-eaters and wife-beaters. Sorry that you feel that it isn’t evidence, but it definitely is, and you have no counterpoint to that.
Regardless, bad faith actors (like yourself) always attack the attitude and never the substance and pretend to be victims, so I don’t particularly feel bad for you. I frankly believe you should be banned from this site for your fake haughtiness.
you clearly do not know the meaning of the word haughty. i demonstrate:
yes, i understand the original claim that a regular expression was used to “auto censor Don T resulting in blacked out ‘don’t’ words.” im quite sure you will recall from having actually read the comment, but that claim is the thing i was pointing out as needing substantiation in the first place. per my previous comment,
you: “YoU aTtAcK tHe AtTiTuDe NoT tHe SuBsTaNcE”
literally me:
and what aubstance am i supposed to attack? your bad attitude is the only thing approaching substance to respond to. expanding on the technical details of the claim, insisting on your claimed explanation’s plausibility (which i have repeatedly acknowledged), speculating on the specific spelling of the redacted word (i may have strained a muscle in my eye rolling it at this vapid piece of sophistry) are not demonstrations of a larger pattern. you are the one saying this regex redaction is definitely censoring “don t”. if thats true, there are literally millions of chances to show other instances of the word being redacted. do the work lazybones, its called a burden of proof for a reason. for my part, i suspect that since this is the first and only time im hearing about this, and because ive read his wholeass name dozens of times in there, youre gonna be looking for a while.
i dont give a cold turd what you feel about me oor whether you think im a victim or how badly youd like to punish me: i particularly dont feel good for you. go get an instance if you want the thrill of cheap power. mod spots are to be had for the asking on .world.
now i dun tried to be polite with you and you ain takin the hint, so since youve decided to be so frank with me (not to say forthright) im sure you wont mind if i return your kindness to you: frankly, get the fuck out of my inbox, buddy.