Leupold BX-4 Rangefinding Binoculars

The End

Have you responded to this topic?

  • If you’ve sent a SINGLE moderator request regarding this topic…

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Delete your user account and renew membership to either crybaby.com or NAMBLA

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    91
Status
Not open for further replies.
Risque thread title change and Buzz has entered the chat.

In before the lock

Edit to make this post relevant to thread title change, and matters being discussed:

OM thinking gif - Copy.gif


WF gentlmans mouth wash gif - Copy.gif
 
Last edited:
1710780580100.png
I'll bet your man isn't laughing. Who'd a thought a multibillionaire could not come up with a half billion, if they needed to.

He needs your help, so stop posting and start donating. This is time sensitive.
99 more & he's close...
 
Berenson was censored on twitter for saying the Covid 19 vaccination did not stop transmission of the virus. That is easily looked up, I’m sure a quick google search will pull it up.

I'm not aware of Twitter specifically saying, "These are the tweets we are banning you for posting."

I'm sure one could find lots of factual stuff that Berenson said, and lots of incorrect things that are still incorrect. I'm not inclined to participate in the logical fallacy that because he made one tweet that was factual all of his were, or vice versa. I'm sure he was prolific and I'm sure we could cherry pick examples until the cows come home. Hence my question for specifics.

His case settlement had nothing to do with the veracity or lack thereof of his posts but on the way twitter communicated and administered their policies.
 
60+ pages, 1K+ views.

Still a fraction of "is the 7mm08 enough" or "6.5CM for elk?", or even "not looking for any honey holes but ...." WEAK.

I am certain the politicians mentioned in this thread spend an equal amount of time worrying and thinking about us.
 
I'm not aware of Twitter specifically saying, "These are the tweets we are banning you for posting."

I'm sure one could find lots of factual stuff that Berenson said, and lots of incorrect things that are still incorrect. I'm not inclined to participate in the logical fallacy that because he made one tweet that was factual all of his were, or vice versa. I'm sure he was prolific and I'm sure we could cherry pick examples until the cows come home. Hence my question for specifics.

His case settlement had nothing to do with the veracity or lack thereof of his posts but on the way twitter communicated and administered their policies.
Are you implying twitter wasn't an advocate of left of center narrative and conversely a suppressor of opposing narrative...without assigning homework?
 
Are you implying twitter wasn't an advocate of left of center narrative and conversely a suppressor of opposing narrative...without assigning homework?
I'm stating what happened in that specific matter, and saying that as far as the content of the tweets; I didn't read them, I haven't seen a summary of the objectionable ones and therefore can't engage on the topic.
 
Are you implying twitter wasn't an advocate of left of center narrative and conversely a suppressor of opposing narrative...without assigning homework?

Isn't it pretty irrelevant, even if true? Twitter is the final arbiter of what they allow on their platform. They are not the government. Just as on this board, we are not without restriction to what we post. We have no legal recourse if we are silenced.

Any cooperation between Twitter and and a governmental agency, is at the end of the day, a voluntary action by Twitter. A person could argue the GOP and Fox news have enjoyed a similar relationship for many years. Twitter and Fox for that matter have the final say of what is censored and what isn't.

Trump did not like Twitter and created an alternative platform to maintain the ability to get his voice heard. It is one of the few things I'll give him a tip of the hat for doing. You can bet that they censor what stays up on their platform.
 
Isn't it pretty irrelevant, even if true? Twitter is the final arbiter of what they allow on their platform. They are not the government. Just as on this board, we are not without restriction to what we post. We have no legal recourse if we are silenced.

Any cooperation between Twitter and and a governmental agency, is at the end of the day, a voluntary action by Twitter. A person could argue the GOP and Fox news have enjoyed a similar relationship for many years. Twitter and Fox for that matter have the final say of what is censored and what isn't.

Trump did not like Twitter and created an alternative platform to maintain the ability to get his voice heard. It is one of the few things I'll give him a tip of the hat for doing. You can bet that they censor what stays up on their platform.
Twitter as an extension of the DNC would've been sufficient....and that is what I posited.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top