The thread of Campus Crazy Hijinks

[Forty Two]

I haven't refused to admit or deny anything, and even if I did refuse, such a refusal is not dishonest. I owe you no explanation or confirmation, or denial, or admission. Nothing.

Oh, you're 98% sure, are you? Good for you! In order to substantiate your allegation that I "outright denied" something, you would need to present evidence. You haven't. As usual.

I take this where you refer to CES in the third person multiple times amongst a group of other third persons as a denial. What are you trying to hide? It's outright dishonest.

Thanks for posting the detailed summary about how the link in your signature page does not show any lie on my part. It shows I was right - in detail, with detailed examination of the posts.

You "take" it as such, do you? Oh, wonderful! I'll still await your evidence of the "outright denial." You don't have one, do you? So, will you admit that you were wrong, or are you afraid?

It's not an "if" it's not wrong to set up a sock puppet. It's NOT wrong to set up a sock puppet. I've shown you that by posting Rachelbean's comment stating exactly that. You see, when I make an assertion, I tend to post evidence to support it. Why are you afraid to admit that it would not be wrong here to set up a sock puppet account?

Because the rightness or wrongness of it has nothing to do with whether you are dishonest in denying you are a sockpuppet of CES.

I never admitted or denied. And, failing to admit or deny doing something that is not wrong is not dishonest.

Also, you aren't even using the term "sock puppet" correctly. A sock puppet is where one account is the hand up the ass of the other account, talking for it, to make it seem like there are multiple different people at work (either to troll another person or to show support for one's own opinion). Let's get straight what you are on about here. You say that a person who you don't know created an account called CES some years ago and used it for a period of time. Then some years later, a new account was created called Forty Two. You think that there is something wrong with the same person using two successive accounts, and you are demanding an explanation and an admission. and you're claiming that the failure to "come clean" about this use of successive accounts over a period of years is "dishonest."

LOL. Go fuck yourself.

And, why are you afraid to admit that since it would not be wrong, and since you are not in any position of authority here, refraining from providing you with an explanation is not dishonesty?

Because it's go nothing to do with whether being a sockpuppet is wrong. This is simple English even a first generation immigrant like you and CES should be able to get.

LOL, your view of first generation immigrants is duly noted. It's always virtue signalling asshats who have these kinds of meanspirited viewpoints.

Having a sockpuppet is not wrong. Having two separate successive accounts is not wrong. I have neither admitted nor denied anything about it, and I don't have any intention on dignifying your self-appointed queen-bee status by providing you with an explanation. If I respected you at all, I might.

Pretending to be someone else? Everyone with an account in other than their real name is pretending to be someone else. What the fuck are you talking about?

Don't play dumb. You are pretending to be someone other than the person who was behind the CES account. Why are you doing that? Why the dishonesty??

It's a big plan to troll people. When CES posts an attack on you, then Forty Two can come in and join the fray, and it will be like two people are ganging up on you. Oh, also, when either CES or Forty Two post something, then the other comes in and posts ideologically supportive stuff, to make it appear that there are more people here that are in agreement with their positions. You can see that just by checking all the times those two accounts have been used together, have posted on the same thread, and have been involved in the same discussions.

There, happy now?

You're really harping on, and bitching and moaning, about the idea that someone would pretend to be a given username until date X, and then start some years later again pretending to be a different username? Are you fucking insane?

Dude, I'm pointing out a massive case of your dishonesty. This is patently simple stuff.

So let's have it, are you CES or not? If you don't answer, what have you got to hide?

All will be made clear to you when the time is right. Until then, turn your short wave radio to 11565 kHz every Monday at 2030. Listen for my coded updates.

[pErvinalia]

I haven't refused to admit or deny anything, and even if I did refuse, such a refusal is not dishonest. I owe you no explanation or confirmation, or denial, or admission. Nothing.

Oh, you're 98% sure, are you? Good for you! In order to substantiate your allegation that I "outright denied" something, you would need to present evidence. You haven't. As usual.

I take this where you refer to CES in the third person multiple times amongst a group of other third persons as a denial. What are you trying to hide? It's outright dishonest.

Thanks for posting the detailed summary about how the link in your signature page does not show any lie on my part. It shows I was right - in detail, with detailed examination of the posts.

You "take" it as such, do you? Oh, wonderful! I'll still await your evidence of the "outright denial." You don't have one, do you? So, will you admit that you were wrong, or are you afraid?

Dude, you referred to CES as another person. You are clearly implying that you aren't him.

It's not an "if" it's not wrong to set up a sock puppet. It's NOT wrong to set up a sock puppet. I've shown you that by posting Rachelbean's comment stating exactly that. You see, when I make an assertion, I tend to post evidence to support it. Why are you afraid to admit that it would not be wrong here to set up a sock puppet account?

Because the rightness or wrongness of it has nothing to do with whether you are dishonest in denying you are a sockpuppet of CES.

I never admitted or denied.

So why did you refer to CES as another person? That's dishonest, as we all know you are him.

Let's get straight what you are on about here. You say that a person who you don't know created an account called CES some years ago and used it for a period of time. Then some years later, a new account was created called Forty Two. You think that there is something wrong with the same person using two successive accounts,

What is wrong with you and your constant misrepresentation of what others say?? I said nothing at all about the rightness or wrongness of sockpuppeting (as it's known colloquially; nice equivocation, by the way ), as it's irrelevant to the question of whether you are being honest or not. I've literally said this three times now. Are you going to keep misrepresenting? ask:

and you are demanding an explanation and an admission. and you're claiming that the failure to "come clean" about this use of successive accounts over a period of years is "dishonest."

Of course it's dishonest. You are pretending to be two different people. It's the fucking definition of dishonest.

And, why are you afraid to admit that since it would not be wrong, and since you are not in any position of authority here, refraining from providing you with an explanation is not dishonesty?

Because it's go nothing to do with whether being a sockpuppet is wrong. This is simple English even a first generation immigrant like you and CES should be able to get.

LOL, your view of first generation immigrants is duly noted. It's always virtue signalling asshats who have these kinds of meanspirited viewpoints.

The nuance you failed to get was me pointing to one of the many pieces of evidence that you are CES. You are both first generation immigrants, who live in Florida, married to an immigrant, and someone(s) who passionately hates illegal immigration.

Having a sockpuppet is not wrong. Having two separate successive accounts is not wrong.

I never said it was wrong. Why do you keep raising this point? Trying to divert from the fact that you've been caught out in a big lie, perhaps?

I have neither admitted nor denied anything about it,

Unmitigated bullshit. You referred to CES as a different person to yourself. That's implicit denial that he is you.

and I don't have any intention on dignifying your self-appointed queen-bee status by providing you with an explanation. If I respected you at all, I might.

No you wouldn't. You've been caught out in a big lie, and what makes it even more deliciously ironic is that you have been trying to defend yourself in regards to honesty and integrity. There's nowhere for you to go but to keep digging downwards.

Pretending to be someone else? Everyone with an account in other than their real name is pretending to be someone else. What the fuck are you talking about?

Don't play dumb. You are pretending to be someone other than the person who was behind the CES account. Why are you doing that? Why the dishonesty??

It's a big plan to troll people. When CES posts an attack on you, then Forty Two can come in and join the fray, and it will be like two people are ganging up on you. Oh, also, when either CES or Forty Two post something, then the other comes in and posts ideologically supportive stuff, to make it appear that there are more people here that are in agreement with their positions. You can see that just by checking all the times those two accounts have been used together, have posted on the same thread, and have been involved in the same discussions.

There, happy now?

Of course not, as it doesn't factually address why you are pretending to be two different people.

[Forty Two]

"outright denial." Those were your words.

You can infer anything you want from what I wrote. Clearly, plenty of people refer to themselves in the third person, and references in the third person are not assertions that the person is someone else. It's not an admission or a denial. You "take it" how you want. One thing is absolutely certain, you're claim of "outright denial" is false.

Why did I refer to CES? None of your business. Nothing dishonest here. Not giving you an explanation you demand is not dishonest. Fuck you.

Pretending to be username X from January 1 to June 1 and then username Y from June 2 to December 31 is dishonest? What planet are you from? People can use whatever usernames they want, and particularly if they are used successively - it's not dishonest. There is no obligation to tell anyone "hey, guys! Look! I just created a new account called Y, but don't worry, it's still me - someone you don't know - the same guy that used to pretend to be X, now pretending to be a username Y!" It's not dishonest. Now, if I told you a lie about it, well, that would be dishonest. But, not living up to your expectations, or honoring your demands? The last thing that is is a lie.

You claim I was caught in a big lie? What lie? Link to it. What lie? A lie is something I said that was false when said, intended to deceive. What are you claiming is a lie? If I used an account before, and then created a new account after a long hiatus, that's not a lie, and not telling you about it is not a lie, and not kowtowing to your demands is not a lie either.

Oh, and lastly, I'm not pretending to be two different people. I'm one person. Usernames are not people. One person can have several usernames, and as noted it's not against the rules here, nor is there any rule that the person disclose how many accounts they have. Even if they were all being used in the same time period. What you're accusing me of is not even being one person using two user names. You're accusing me of being one person who, in the distant past, used one username, and now uses another, but doesn't use that distant past username anymore. How the fuck is that "pretending [present tense] to be two different people?" Answer: It's not. At most it's "pretended" to be CES, and is now "pretending" to be Forty Two.

If you ever get a job again in your life, I can see you getting caught on tape dressing down some grad student for playing the wrong video in class. That's the kind of person you come across as. Serious. Pervinalia Rambakkuna. "You know, it's problematiiiiic... like... when you used to use a usernaaaame... and then, like, you stopped using that usernaaaammme... and, like, like, you started using a new usernaaaame.... it's like, so offensiiiivvveee... and it, like, harms some of the people on this foruuuuummmmm... like, they, used to think they were talking to someone they didn't knoooooowwww... and now, now, they think they're talking to someone else they don't knoooowww... and, like, they have a right to know that they are talking to the person they used to talk to three years agooooooo....."

You might want to up your meds a bit. Things are starting to loosen up in your head.

[Forty Two]

....oh, and in case you missed my subtle implication in the above.... for all you know, I am currently using another username and engaged in active communication as two different usernames at the same time on this forum.

[pErvinalia]

You can infer anything you want from what I wrote. Clearly, plenty of people refer to themselves in the third person, and references in the third person are not assertions that the person is someone else. It's not an admission or a denial.

Classic 42 level equivocation. You weren't referring to yourself in the third person, as that's not something you ever do. You were being dishonest.

Why did I refer to CES? None of your business. Nothing dishonest here.

Yes yes, black is white.

Not giving you an explanation you demand is not dishonest. Fuck you.

Have a cry in your safe space. You really are a piece of work. Inherently dishonest, and do what all conservatives do when they get caught out in a lie, bung on the outraged indignation - like 'how dare anyone question ME!'..

You claim I was caught in a big lie? What lie? Link to it. What lie?

I did link to it. This was after months of us accusing you of being a sockpuppet of CES, and you then referred to CES as another person. You were lying.

A lie is something I said that was false when said, intended to deceive.

Yep. Claiming CES is someone other than you, when we all know it's you, is a clear intent to deceive.

Oh, and lastly, I'm not pretending to be two different people. I'm one person. Usernames are not people. One person can have several usernames, and as noted it's not against the rules here, nor is there any rule that the person disclose how many accounts they have. Even if they were all being used in the same time period. What you're accusing me of is not even being one person using two user names. You're accusing me of being one person who, in the distant past, used one username, and now uses another, but doesn't use that distant past username anymore. How the fuck is that "pretending [present tense] to be two different people?" Answer: It's not. At most it's "pretended" to be CES, and is now "pretending" to be Forty Two.

Why do you keep going on about what is allowed? No one has ever said that you can't have multiple accounts. So stop using this as a transparent tactic to divert from the fact that you were caught out lying.

If you ever get a job again in your life, I can see you getting caught on tape dressing down some grad student for playing the wrong video in class. That's the kind of person you come across as. Serious. Pervinalia Rambakkuna. "You know, it's problematiiiiic... like... when you used to use a usernaaaame... and then, like, you stopped using that usernaaaammme... and, like, like, you started using a new usernaaaame.... it's like, so offensiiiivvveee... and it, like, harms some of the people on this foruuuuummmmm... like, they, used to think they were talking to someone they didn't knoooooowwww... and now, now, they think they're talking to someone else they don't knoooowww... and, like, they have a right to know that they are talking to the person they used to talk to three years agooooooo....."

Cool story, bro...

[pErvinalia]

....oh, and in case you missed my subtle implication in the above.... for all you know, I am currently using another username and engaged in active communication as two different usernames at the same time on this forum.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least, given your general disposition to be dishonest and try and deceive people.

[Forty Two]

You can infer anything you want from what I wrote. Clearly, plenty of people refer to themselves in the third person, and references in the third person are not assertions that the person is someone else. It's not an admission or a denial.

Classic 42 level equivocation. You weren't referring to yourself in the third person, as that's not something you ever do. You were being dishonest.

Of course I'm equivocating. I'm neither admitting nor denying, which is what I've been doing all along. Now, your allegation of "outright denial" -- false. But, you've moved on from that. You've changed your view now to you interpreting something I said to mean what you want it to mean. Typical of you.

Why did I refer to CES? None of your business. Nothing dishonest here.

Yes yes, black is white.

No. Not denying is not denying. Not admitting is not admitting. None of your business is fuck you.

Not giving you an explanation you demand is not dishonest. Fuck you.

Have a cry in your safe space. You really are a piece of work. Inherently dishonest, and do what all conservatives do when they get caught out in a lie, bung on the outraged indignation - like 'how dare anyone question ME!'..

I'm not crying. I'm just telling you to fuck off. I'm not outraged, nor have I said how dare you question me. I simply said I'm not obliged to answer to you. Ask all you want. Demand all you want. Lie about what I said all you want. I owe you nothing, I've done nothing wrong, and I've not lied. you've not identified a lie, and yet you keep on about it, as if you repeat it enough someone might accept it.

You claim I was caught in a big lie? What lie? Link to it. What lie?

I did link to it. This was after months of us accusing you of being a sockpuppet of CES, and you then referred to CES as another person. You were lying.

Us? Are you more than one person?

A lie is something I said that was false when said, intended to deceive.

Yep. Claiming CES is someone other than you, when we all know it's you, is a clear intent to deceive.

I never made that claim. You inferred that claim. Big difference.

Oh, and lastly, I'm not pretending to be two different people. I'm one person. Usernames are not people. One person can have several usernames, and as noted it's not against the rules here, nor is there any rule that the person disclose how many accounts they have. Even if they were all being used in the same time period. What you're accusing me of is not even being one person using two user names. You're accusing me of being one person who, in the distant past, used one username, and now uses another, but doesn't use that distant past username anymore. How the fuck is that "pretending [present tense] to be two different people?" Answer: It's not. At most it's "pretended" to be CES, and is now "pretending" to be Forty Two.

Why do you keep going on about what is allowed? No one has ever said that you can't have multiple accounts. So stop using this as a transparent tactic to divert from the fact that you were caught out lying.

Once again, you're full of shit. I am not "pretending" to be CES and Forty Two. If I was CES, then I pretended to be CES years ago. I'm now pretending to be Forty Two. I'm not pretending to be two different people.

If you ever get a job again in your life, I can see you getting caught on tape dressing down some grad student for playing the wrong video in class. That's the kind of person you come across as. Serious. Pervinalia Rambakkuna. "You know, it's problematiiiiic... like... when you used to use a usernaaaame... and then, like, you stopped using that usernaaaammme... and, like, like, you started using a new usernaaaame.... it's like, so offensiiiivvveee... and it, like, harms some of the people on this foruuuuummmmm... like, they, used to think they were talking to someone they didn't knoooooowwww... and now, now, they think they're talking to someone else they don't knoooowww... and, like, they have a right to know that they are talking to the person they used to talk to three years agooooooo....."

Cool story, bro...

LOL - keep on dreaming about who I am and which usernames I use. It's so important. Oh, no! He won't admit that years ago he used a different username, and I just know it was him. I just know it. He has to admit it. Cuz, like, I have to know. Anyone who does not admit or deny whether they used to use a different username is a liar!

[Forty Two]

....oh, and in case you missed my subtle implication in the above.... for all you know, I am currently using another username and engaged in active communication as two different usernames at the same time on this forum.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least, given your general disposition to be dishonest and try and deceive people.

[Forty Two]

can't get this link to embed - good video interview with Gad Saad and Lindsey Shepherd -
http://youtu.be/ZwUMk8DtuQ0

[Forty Two]

[pErvinalia]

LOL - keep on dreaming about who I am and which usernames I use. It's so important. Oh, no! He won't admit that years ago he used a different username, and I just know it was him. I just know it. He has to admit it. Cuz, like, I have to know. Anyone who does not admit or deny whether they used to use a different username is a liar!

I don't give a rats arse whether you admit it or not. The whole point of this exercise is to show how you are dishonest. Admitting it now after you've been outed won't all of a sudden make you not dishonest. You are a habitual liar. It's why you get no respect here.

[Brian Peacock]

Jo Johnson to tell universities to stop 'no-platforming' speakers

Universities could face fines for failing to uphold free speech if their student unions do not give a platform to speakers such as Germaine Greer and Peter Tatchell, the higher education minister has said.

Jo Johnson said some student campaigners were trying to stifle debate as he confirmed plans to allow the newly created Office for Students (OfS) to fine or suspend institutions that fail to protect freedom of speech on campuses.

The government’s Boxing Day announcement does not name universities or student campaigners that have suppressed free speech and follows a similar one in October.

But speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Johnson suggested fines could be one of the punishments used to deal with “no platforming” of campaigners with controversial views.

Asked about cases where students had tried to deny speaking slots to Tatchell, a gay rights campaigner, and Greer, a feminist writer, over their views on transgender issues, he said: “The Office for Students will have a range of remedies at its disposal which do include fines at the more extreme end of the spectrum. I think it is important that we look at the cases mentioned.

“These are speakers who have been potentially banned or harried under no-platforming or safe spaces decisions. On all reasonable definitions, they are advocates of openness and liberal values and should be welcomed on our campuses.”

He claimed that at some universities students had insisted on extensive lists of “trigger words” that should not be used and had demanded the removal of books from their libraries...

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... -of-speech

Tell me again why people must have a right to be free to publicly express their opinions without anybody else objecting?

[pErvinalia]

Because FREEDUM!

[PsychoSerenity]

Jo Johnson to tell universities to stop 'no-platforming' speakers

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... -of-speech

Tell me again why people must have a right to be free to publicly express their opinions without anybody else objecting?

Jo Johnson apparently as much of an arse as his brother. Reserving the right for the government to proscribe groups and criminalize speech as they see fit (which may well be reasonable in some cases), but then punishing student groups for - not criminalizing, not banning - merely protesting (which in itself is an expression of freedom of speech) and limiting the use of one of many platforms available to a controversial speaker that they object to but that the government deems acceptable, as if it's all black and white and the government always gets it right. And doing so whist claiming to be standing up for freedom of speech?

The reality of this is that universities will be damned if they do and damned if they don't, the government will have more power, while activists and protesters get less, and transphobia and right-wing religious bigotry gets the privilege of an uncontested pulpit in universities.

[JimC]

Of course students should be able to protest loudly and robustly, even to the point where a visiting speaker is made uncomfortable, but when it gets to the point where demonstrators are absolutely determined to prevent a speaker saying his piece, and have the power to do so, there are potentially freedom of speech issues. However, for neo-Nazi speakers spouting clear hate speech, perhaps such issues are outweighed by a greater public good.