HorrorMovieFans.com

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote:

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote:I wasn't trying to bury you. I sincerely thought you and zomb must have been PMing each other with the way you worded that. I quickly took it back when you said it wasn't true.

no one pm's me unless i do it first. don't drag me into this.

I'm not. What is going on here?

i'm not sure... i just don't want to be mixed up into it.

It’s nothing but a personal thing between two people. You were a residual part of it but he meant to hurt me, not you.

Right, and I was wrong about it...

Yes, you were wrong for lying. But you did it so it felt right at some point. It is what it is.

How is that a lie? I accused of something that wasn't true and I owned up immediately.

I don’t doubt you wish you could take it back. It was a really stupid thing to pull. Oh well.

The only thing your phony intervention did was show badly you actually hate me. I'm done engaging in the discussion, now.

And I’d never make something up to hurt your reputation here the way you did, so what does that say about you? Total scum.

Don’t bother interacting with me in any way from this point forward.

Headhunter wrote:And I’d never make something up to hurt your reputation here the way you did, so what does that say about you? Total scum.

Don’t bother interacting with me in any way from this point forward.

1) I never made anything up. I accused you of something I assumed to be true and I was wrong and owned up. Ten times now.

2) You made up that I have no respect for anybody, you tried to sabotage my relationship with every person on here and set the board against me. What you did was worse.

I might interact with you. You're the one with all the hate. Just don't respond to me.

Was going to try and highlight the new 96,000 patient study where Hydroxychloroquine was found to make no improvements and to actually worsen outcomes as a public service, and had to wade through a lot of pages of Drama.

Head has never influenced me on my opinion of you, Jason, you do that all on your own. I line your music and film choices, I feel for your health challenges, I admire your tenacity given your shitty time, and I feel bad that jobs aren’t easy to come by. Your politics are very ugly in my book and you are hard to argue with as you are far too dismissive of your counterparts points as being from bad sources or from bad intentions meaning they aren’t required to be discussed. The Ad Hominem logical fallacies (meant here as the actual logical fallacy not as internet short-form for personal attacks) get tiresome to argue with as it’s never on the substance itself. And I’m with Z that the dismissive “If only you stopped reading the mainstream stuff and found the REAL truth” feel to many of your posts is just dull to read.

Hope that sets the record straight.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co ... d-52779309

Study showing not yo take HCQ and that it worsens outcomes.

I agree, Seb. I know I need to be much better in here, and it goes both ways. Some of you laugh me out the room when I say that I get the majority of my information from independent journalism on youtube. Why do you think I almost never list my sources on here? None of you have taken it seriously when I actually have listed my sources and toss it in the garbage because it isn't mainstream enough. When a news outlet has shown me just one or two instances of partisan bias, I throw it out the window. This is why all the mainstream outlets don't have a chance with me. Yes, Fox News is equally ignored. It doesn't mean that every single article from those outlets are fake or partisan, I just choose to get information from totally unbiased and independent journalism, and some find that hilarious, for whatever reason.The improvement in here is a two way street. I'm not the only one who's been shitty. But I can only start and end by reiterating my opinion of anyone will never change in here, because I know as well as the rest of you that this board often turns into a shit show. And I know Head meant well and maybe some good will come of this for this board in the long run, hopefully. But nearly all of us are gross and shitty to each other, and I'm gonna do my part to be better, as well.

have your sources been dismissed, for the same reasons that you dismiss fox news or cnn etc? i'm genuinely asking. but i can recall some of the project veritas stuff being dismissed or ridiculed because of seeing previous stuff by them. i do try to focus on whatever particular bit of news, pundit opinion, or theory that you're presenting.

zombie wrote:have your sources been dismissed, for the same reasons that you dismiss fox news or cnn etc? i'm genuinely asking. but i can recall some of the project veritas stuff being dismissed or ridiculed because of seeing previous stuff by them. i do try to focus on whatever particular bit of news, pundit opinion, or theory that you're presenting.

I'm not exactly sure the reason. I don't really follow project veritas. I don't know if they do news stuff, but when a substantial leak occurs from them that's irrefutable and on camera of corruption it still has gotten dismissed. Which is weird, but whatevs. Mainstream outlets are caught posting nonsense a lot and contradicting themselves. Too much partisan bias for my taste.

Jason wrote:

zombie wrote:have your sources been dismissed, for the same reasons that you dismiss fox news or cnn etc? i'm genuinely asking. but i can recall some of the project veritas stuff being dismissed or ridiculed because of seeing previous stuff by them. i do try to focus on whatever particular bit of news, pundit opinion, or theory that you're presenting.

I'm not exactly sure the reason. I don't really follow project veritas. I don't know if they do news stuff, but when a substantial leak occurs from them that's irrefutable and on camera of corruption it still has gotten dismissed. Which is weird, but whatevs. Mainstream outlets are caught posting nonsense a lot and contradicting themselves. Too much partisan bias for my taste.

it just feels like you want people to take the sources you present as differently than you tend to treat a lot of sources.

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote:

zombie wrote:have your sources been dismissed, for the same reasons that you dismiss fox news or cnn etc? i'm genuinely asking. but i can recall some of the project veritas stuff being dismissed or ridiculed because of seeing previous stuff by them. i do try to focus on whatever particular bit of news, pundit opinion, or theory that you're presenting.

I'm not exactly sure the reason. I don't really follow project veritas. I don't know if they do news stuff, but when a substantial leak occurs from them that's irrefutable and on camera of corruption it still has gotten dismissed. Which is weird, but whatevs. Mainstream outlets are caught posting nonsense a lot and contradicting themselves. Too much partisan bias for my taste.

it just feels like you want people to take the sources you present as differently than you tend to treat a lot of sources.

I don't care how anyone might take my sources. I still love you, regardless. But mine also aren't accepted. And that's fine. You dont have to accept mine.

Jason wrote:

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote:

zombie wrote:have your sources been dismissed, for the same reasons that you dismiss fox news or cnn etc? i'm genuinely asking. but i can recall some of the project veritas stuff being dismissed or ridiculed because of seeing previous stuff by them. i do try to focus on whatever particular bit of news, pundit opinion, or theory that you're presenting.

I'm not exactly sure the reason. I don't really follow project veritas. I don't know if they do news stuff, but when a substantial leak occurs from them that's irrefutable and on camera of corruption it still has gotten dismissed. Which is weird, but whatevs. Mainstream outlets are caught posting nonsense a lot and contradicting themselves. Too much partisan bias for my taste.

it just feels like you want people to take the sources you present as differently than you tend to treat a lot of sources.

I don't care how anyone might take my sources. I still love you, regardless. But mine also aren't accepted. And that's fine. You dont have to accept mine.

i guess i just don't understand if this is something you feel like should be improved, as a "two way street" or something?

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote:

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote:

zombie wrote:have your sources been dismissed, for the same reasons that you dismiss fox news or cnn etc? i'm genuinely asking. but i can recall some of the project veritas stuff being dismissed or ridiculed because of seeing previous stuff by them. i do try to focus on whatever particular bit of news, pundit opinion, or theory that you're presenting.

I'm not exactly sure the reason. I don't really follow project veritas. I don't know if they do news stuff, but when a substantial leak occurs from them that's irrefutable and on camera of corruption it still has gotten dismissed. Which is weird, but whatevs. Mainstream outlets are caught posting nonsense a lot and contradicting themselves. Too much partisan bias for my taste.

it just feels like you want people to take the sources you present as differently than you tend to treat a lot of sources.

I don't care how anyone might take my sources. I still love you, regardless. But mine also aren't accepted. And that's fine. You dont have to accept mine.

i guess i just don't understand if this is something you feel like should be improved, as a "two way street" or something?

I don't think we need to tackle anything specifically. Just be better in here, is all. And that goes for me too, obviously. Wing it, I guess. Take it as it comes. The thing is, I get why people wouldn't trust my sources. They're not an established source that reaches out into the mainstream, but that's why I like them. Their predictions and viewpoints prove to be correct and they will call out any bull shit from any party. This is why I stocked up in January while nobody else did. Those are just the sources I trust.

Jason wrote:

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote:

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote:

zombie wrote:have your sources been dismissed, for the same reasons that you dismiss fox news or cnn etc? i'm genuinely asking. but i can recall some of the project veritas stuff being dismissed or ridiculed because of seeing previous stuff by them. i do try to focus on whatever particular bit of news, pundit opinion, or theory that you're presenting.

I'm not exactly sure the reason. I don't really follow project veritas. I don't know if they do news stuff, but when a substantial leak occurs from them that's irrefutable and on camera of corruption it still has gotten dismissed. Which is weird, but whatevs. Mainstream outlets are caught posting nonsense a lot and contradicting themselves. Too much partisan bias for my taste.

it just feels like you want people to take the sources you present as differently than you tend to treat a lot of sources.

I don't care how anyone might take my sources. I still love you, regardless. But mine also aren't accepted. And that's fine. You dont have to accept mine.

i guess i just don't understand if this is something you feel like should be improved, as a "two way street" or something?

I don't think we need to tackle anything specifically. Just be better in here, is all. And that goes for me too, obviously. Wing it, I guess. Take it as it comes. The thing is, I get why people wouldn't trust my sources. They're not an established source that reaches out into the mainstream, but that's why I like them. Their predictions and viewpoints prove to be correct and they will call out any bull shit from any party. This is why I stocked up in January while nobody else did. Those are just the sources I trust.

fair enough. i've always tried to take the stories or videos sourced here, as worth checking out and talking about, cause it's important enough for a member to post about. that's just my approach.

That's a really cool take, Zombie.

Just on Project Verona’s specifically they deliberately edit and put out videos explicitly to prove a point that wasn’t really being proven and is deliberately misleading. You can almost certainly get an edit together of a guy answering a question and then you recut it and remove bits to then get what you want which has been a thing proven to be the case. This basically disqualified them from serious discourse in my book. You can’t deal with substance when the substance is altered to suit a skewered reality. That’s a basic starting point. It’s not possible to engage when it’s lies to start and in some obscurity.

If you want to keep getting information from independent journalists that’s fine but at some point if the only source of info is that source then there’s no discussion to be had. If the one source is contrary to all other sources then the balance of probabilities suggests it isn’t an informed source precisely because it takes many people many hours of work to get to a refined position in complex global political issues and often needs multiple sources in multiple places. But if they seem to not be liars and frauds then a real journalists facts are admissible for debate, sure.

I get not wanting to parrot mainstream views but if your views are never aligned to any mainstream take in any context that’s not a great sign for discourse.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52806572

police like this, including those who tried to cover for it, need to be held accountable. it needs to be more than just firing them, in my opinion.

we need to be better as a nation.

They should be in prison. Disgusting.

Everything about criminal justice in this country is broken beyond repair. From the bottom up, it’s complete shit.

The murderer cop “taking a knee” on George Floyd’s throat is unfortunately perfectly symbolic.

Protesters then got tear gassed. Which after the COVID armed white protesters got literally nothing isn’t a great look.