XPost: can.politics, talk.politics.misc   
   From: katt@gmail.com   
      
   On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 11:19:39 -0800,Alan says   
      
   > >>> Nice spin. You literally walked away from many threads   
   > >>> when called on your bullshit.   
   > >>   
   > >> I'm calling you out: produce a single time I've been asked for provide   
   > >> my sources and haven't.   
   > >   
   > > He said you ran away, faggot. He never said anything about sources.   
      
   > The explicit claim was about me not providing sources when challenged to   
   > do so.   
      
   Nope.   
      
   "Nice spin. You literally walked away from many threads when called on your   
   bullshit."   
      
   Phrase not found: Sources being the reason you run away   
      
   "What part of outing underaged victims needlessly do you   
   not get, scuzzbunny?"   
      
   No one disagrees with redacting the victims   
   information   
      
   but this was much more than that.   
      
   "Bullshit, you have proven NOTHING, scuzzbunny obsessor."   
      
   Ah, but unlike you and your ilk, I can always back up my   
   claims. (your "claims" are common knowledge)   
      
   "But instead all you do is LOL and run away."   
      
   (he never implied you run away BECAUSE you don't provide cites and/or sources)   
      
   Nope. If someone asks for the cites, they can have them!   
      
   "You have ran from many in the last couple weeks. It's what   
   you do."   
      
   (STILL never implied you run away because you don't provide cites and/or   
   sources)   
      
   You can't show one time I've run away from providing my   
   sources when asked to provide them.   
      
   (because that's not what he's saying)   
      
   "Nice spin. You literally walked away from many threads   
   when called on your bullshit."   
      
   (see? What part of "nice spin", do you not understand? He knows you're trying   
   to weasel out of his accusation of you "running away")   
      
   I'm calling you out: produce a single time I've been asked for   
   provide my sources and haven't. (but, HAVE you been asked?)   
      
   "I'm calling you out: produce a single time I've been asked FOR PROVIDE my   
   sources and haven't." (English spoken here)   
      
   (He still didn't say you run away because someone asked you for sources and   
   you never provided any)   
      
   I'm calling you out for walking away from so many threads.   
      
   (and STILL no implication of you running because you never provided a source.   
   I believe the implication here is, that when you get snout-smacked, like the   
   MANY   
   times I have, i.e., railcar placards you THEN run away. I've ended MANY a   
   conversation after proving you wrong, or a complete sophist, not being able to   
   directly address the topic, often arguing the bullshit that doesn't matter one   
   bit)   
      
   Show one where I've walked away after making a claim and not   
   supporting it when asked.   
      
   (show us the EXACT phrasing, that links him saying you run away because you   
   have no cite or source. If you're talking about THIS progression of the   
   "argument":   
      
   Nope. If someone asks for the cites, they can have them!   
      
   You have ran from many in the last couple weeks. It's what   
   you do.   
      
   It's not YOUR place to interpret that. Just because he said you have run away   
   after you said you can provide cites, does NOT automatically means what YOU   
   think it means. This is a bulletin board-style medium. MANY people write   
   what's on their mind at the time and it might not be directly addressing the   
   previous   
   statement, regardless of what YOU think. Why don't YOU ask HIM what he meant?   
   Pretty sure it's just that when proven wrong, you run away. Since he didn't say   
   "you run because you can't provide source(s)", THEN you might have an   
   argument. Until then? PHRASE NOT FOUND - You run, because you got   
   snout-smacked)   
      
   You just disappear.   
      
   We've all seen it, so many times   
      
   hmmm "so many times". Were ALL of those times you ran, because you couldn't   
   provide sources?   
      
   Thought so.   
      
   =============================================================================   
      
   "Trump Derangement Syndrome" Is a Real Mental Condition   
      
   All you need to know about "Trump Derangement Syndrome, " or TDS.   
      
   "Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is a mental condition in which a person has   
   been driven effectively insane due to their dislike of Donald Trump, to the   
   point   
   at which they will abandon all logic and reason."   
      
   Justin Raimondo, the editorial director of Antiwar.com, wrote a piece in the   
   Los Angeles Times in 2016 that broke TDS down into three distinct phases or   
   stages:   
      
   "In the first stage of the disease, victims lose all sense of proportion. The   
   president-elect's every tweet provokes a firestorm, as if 140 characters were   
   all   
   it took to change the world."   
      
   "The mid-level stages of TDS have a profound effect on the victim's   
   vocabulary: Sufferers speak a distinctive language consisting solely of   
   hyperbole."   
      
   "As TDS progresses, the afflicted lose the ability to distinguish fantasy from   
   reality."   
      
   The Point here is simple: TDS is, in the eyes of its adherents, the knee-jerk   
   opposition from liberals to anything and everything Trump does. If Trump   
   announced he was donating every dollar he's ever made, TDS sufferers would   
   suggest he was up to something nefarious, according to the logic of TDS.   
   There's   
   nothing - not. one. thing. - that Trump could do or say that would be received   
   positively by TDSers.   
      
   The history of Trump Derangement Syndrome actually goes back to the early   
   2000s - a time when the idea of Trump as president was a punch line for   
   late-night   
   comics and nothing more.   
      
   Wikipedia traces its roots to "Bush Derangement Syndrome" - a term first   
   coined by the late conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer back in 2003. The   
   condition, as Krauthammer defined it, was "the acute onset of paranoia in   
   otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency - nay -   
   the very   
   existence of George W. Bush."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)