Author: PressF4Respect

Posts

Read-only
Total: 158
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
Actually their ratings are entirely due to free wins, if you mean the top 2. I can pinpoint the overall rating gains from such wins and also elaborate on when/where they knew the user was banned beforehand or would be angry and useless because it's someone who was furious and didn't care about winnning at the time of writing.
Schpincterpedia strikes again.

Please list all of my “free wins”, and please elaborate on when/where we knew the user was banned beforehand or would be angry and useless.






RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Somebody

Type1 - AKA Sparrow (who you knew was Type1 from CreateDebate account as well as me exposing him there and to you on the Trello and also you accepted it after noticing he got banned which was due to me outing him to the mods, I didn't accept his debates as back then I thought banned users had debates deleted and that there was a standard to be upheld by the CoC that bsh1 and virtuoso expliticly said wasn't there but conveniently went back on many months later when it suited them) I accepted Sparrow's debates much, much later on in his account's debate creating history after I realised you all got free wins from him and that it didn't matter what I exposed, you were allowed to keep them.

I saw many of these later-linked debates unaccepted. I didn't accept them. I reported them, assuming they'd be deleted as he got banned and they violated CoC, I was wrong.

Here examples of how far you take abusive bad faith debating against him in ways you'd punish me for doing against any other debate in your votes, but because it's Sparrow and you have such a high social standing on the site, your 'homies backed you up' with your bullshit angle: AKA Raganar and Oromagi...


I can give you others but you'll say they weren't free wins, just Christians you defeated by hard work so whatever, you couldn't lose against them if you tried since you have no Ramshutu after you in the votes with any excuse to worry about, especially not me as I don't want you revenge-voting me,
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Here's your latest:

pure defence, no counter explanation of the universe than what she offered etc. I know if I vote against you, grudge voting will come to me so I'm debating whether or not to vote.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
So 2 “free wins” from type1 at his lowest ranking; the rest were actual debates that required arguments.


Also - note that in section 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, I provide a scientific counter explanation of the cited examples.

Our_Boat_is_Right
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 334
2
3
10
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Our_Boat_is_Right
2
3
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Note i said they didn't binge accept debates like you.  Their ratings aren't due to your 5 examples of them getting free wins.

This dude is actually psychotic with the flat earth stuff.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
I find it truly exhilarating that those on the top are complaining about how easy i had it amd crying. LOL you got your rewards man, lighten up.  Why the fuck is everyone at my throat seriously, get the fuck over yourselves literally who even are half of you? Irrelevant until you abuse me, thats what.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
What makes you think i am psychotic with the flat earth stuff, as opposed to paranoid?
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
trigfgered
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
@RM

The only person who’s crying on here is you, bud.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
No, I'm not. You're the one trying to make me cry though, you sadistic sociopath. Seriously, I think you get on the Internet and are like 'who's an easy prey to pick on with my limited intelligence and EQ'... Oh look, others are picking on him, let me join in F** yeahh!!!!! woooooooo! I'm so powerful!!!!!!!


Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10

Bump -

Eric Schmidt was not involved in venture capital and was just the CEO of Novell prior to google.

You seem to have been making everything up.


I’m still waiting for you to debate me on Google class B shares were publicly traded - as you are super confident, and are totally not making that fact up!

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
you're the one who mentioned venture capital.


Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
Bahahahahahahahahah 

That’s you’re source??

childTraffickingOrgans.blogspot.com 

Aim4truth?



How do you not fall down more?

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
perhaps because i'm too busy thinking rather than laughing, bullying and sheepishly following the media i'm told is reliable.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
I guess you actually looked up google class B shared - realized that you were completely wrong and they have never been traded, and are mow
trying not to mention them again.
/
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
the debate with cogent was about voting shares, whether it was type b or type a they were the type of share he was comparing. you, in that context, brought up a ton of points and focused only one one tiny semantic thing about Google that ignores the fact that behind Schmidt are many private equity investors with extremely corrupt agendas at times.

I don't understand how that in any shape or form disproves that he's the very 'broker' who simply bought his way into Google that I described (buy in then call themselves Google).
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
If you were actually thinking, you’d quickly realize that uncorroberated rumours posted by anonymous bloggers with no factual or journalistic credibility of any kind - who’s work cannot be distinguished from any random asserted nonsense or made up conspiracy theories - at not trust worthy sources: whether or not any other media source is trustworthy or not. 

#Genius #OopsBullshit #Sphincterpedia.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Actually, you'd find the opposite. When not anonymous, that's when people are most obligated (especially over mediums that google censors, such as YT, blogspot and Google search itself) to conform to their agenda in order to get seen and not killed for it etc.

#think
#sheep


Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
I got RM's thread shut down,LOL
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
great achievement, probably the only noteworthy thing you did on your time on DART, right?
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
oh please, what have you done on here on DART
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Became the easiest and most difficult guy to have beef with all at once.

I could go back to a post I made a few hours ago and list what I've done but there's no point, I am pathetic and useless.

And yet, I'm still more relevant than you'll ever be.



Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
the debate with cogent was about voting shares, whether it was type b or type a they were the type of share he was comparing. you, in that context, brought up a ton of points and focused only one one tiny semantic thing about Google that ignores the fact that behind Schmidt are many private equity investors with extremely corrupt agendas at times.
And let’s throw the anchor, tie it around your leg, and haul you back to reality! Because frankly you don’t seem to remember what happened properly, and don’t seem too bothered about repeatedly saying factually false things.

a.) In your debate you didn’t realize that there was a difference between voting and non voting shares, you seemed to be arguing that workers must own 50% of the company. As a result - you lost, as you were just posting irrelevant made up opinions with which your opponent had brought actual linked facts.

b.) You appeared to realize the major blunder you made; but not being capable of admitting error, you quickly completely changed your argument to talk about voting shares in the comments - even though the debate never made mention or distinction and you made a completely new argument - yet implies this was your argument all along. This is when you made up your claims about no companies having majority of voting shares held by the company.

c.) So because you messed up your argument, then made up some nonsense to make it sound like you were right - I linked the SEC filings showing you were wrong,  instead of quitting while you were behind, you changed your argument again to incredulity and some
nonsense about class B shared being traded and voting control being bought.

D.) at each point you’ve been proven wrong - your inability to admit error leads you to make yet another ridiculous claim, so that what started out as a routine error of understanding in your debate, which you could have shrugged off - it’s turned into this bullshitappolooza, with you literally making stuff up.

Pretty much you’ve claimed about Google has been factually false; and you have to be robustly ignorant or strategically illiterate to keep making these claims you know you’re making up when you know I’m here, ready to fact check you.

So yeah: this google stuff is just a result of you trying to bullshit your way out of a stupid loss, badly: and me just calling you out on the litany of bad facts.


FYI: Class B stocks have never been traded.... did I say that already?
Our_Boat_is_Right
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 334
2
3
10
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Our_Boat_is_Right
2
3
10
And you wonder why you aren't respected.  Maybe you take a look at yourself and get over your ego.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
because hating myself is a sure fire way to be respected.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
a.) In your debate you didn’t realize that there was a difference between voting and non voting shares, you seemed to be arguing that workers must own 50% of the company. As a result - you lost, as you were just posting irrelevant made up opinions with which your opponent had brought actual linked facts.

the thing is this is the entire point at which you go wrong. I didn't at all fail to realise that. You did and so did cogent.
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
go ahead, haa
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
If you read either round of my debate I clearly elaborate on votin gshares and how investment firms own them in all corporations that are large enough.

Our_Boat_is_Right
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 334
2
3
10
Our_Boat_is_Right's avatar
Our_Boat_is_Right
2
3
10
" I am pathetic and useless.

And yet, I'm still more relevant than you'll ever be."

I'd rather be irrelevant than infamous.

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
good, then shut up and stay irrelevant or admit you just lied.