gOoDbyE

BS. Hentai Haven is godly and you know it.

lmaoo

The OP in this thread is only up to seven likes, the fake goodbye got thirty-three. That this thread lead to cries to the moderators of the unfairness to Flat Earthers, is worth at least a few more...

That post by Ragnar encapsulates the 'gang up on and mock into silence' concept of approaching anyone suspicious of NASA at all, let alone other conspiracy theorists. "Hey, they're asking for it, the fucking retards actually believe that? Hahaha make fun of them, good job!" is a mentality of sheep who think they're wolves, picking on intelligent goats that think for themselves.

If you got reasons why it's wrong, stop mocking the believer. It's nothing short of strategised bullying.

Also the concept of rewarding someone for humiliating someone else requires a toxic mentality to propagate in the first place.

I challenged you to a debate on the flat earth, but you refused as you felt the burden of me needing to prove the earth is not flat beyond reasonable doubt was unfair and unreasonable.

So, it’s more the sheep who think they’re wolves picking on the intelligent chicken.

Why not debate on the forums? We both know that the 'authority of the source' will hold up as a constant safety net for your side. 

All you need to do is again and again say 'it makes perfect sense what RM is saying but it's ridiculous to believe that over our trusted and government-endorsed NASA, just come on animated or not we should trust their videos and photos... Why would they fake it? Oh yeah, money and resource-control over Antarctica and the Arctic alike... Well, come on he needs to prove with concrete proof that NASA is corrupt, where's his BoP met?"

Guess what, they didn't wipe evidence, there never was any left to begin with. You're talking about corruption at a level where there is literally no paper trail at all, even though the main motive was money, because all the money is either top secret and funded NSA, CIA etc or was payed on extremely private means (Switzerland, Panama, British Virgin Island banks etc) and it's literally left no verifiable trail at all. It doesn't matter how many "coincidences" I bring up, the room to deflect it based on 'plausible, realistic assumption' and notions like that will win you the debate. I know that already. The worst part is I will be putting myself in jeopardy for actually going so far to accurately explain and prove things. At the moment I'm just a blabbering tin foil hat wearer, the depth and extent of logic I'd use in a debate like that would stop people laughing at me and start getting people researching and stuff, even get me talked about on the Internet in other circles after it becomes visited enough to get high on Google search results.

I wouldn't want that, ever. I want to maybe prove it to a very select few but that's about it. The power of a truth-seeking movement lies in the idea that it's the only movement where you can kill the 'leader' and all the others can keep 'doing what they do' AKA finding the truth, knowing the truth and spreading it just as much without him/her. Never make yourself the only one who can spread the truth, nor capitalise on a unique talent or access to a website/medium that lets you debate that truth. Chit chat here and there but angle everything in a way that will get people who think for themselves to go 'ah I get it, let me research this myself and make my own mind up.' That way the authorities have no motive to kill you off, since leaving you alive and laughed at is extremely beneficial to them and they know the type of people you're getting to find the truth themselves are going to do so regardless, you were just one of many catalysts for that journey.

I know what I'm doing here, my job isn't to prove that the earth is flat to people hellbent on either laughing at me for it or killing me for fully explaining all the proof behind it. I never want that for myself, I merely want it to be clear that not only morons believe in it and that the set of things leading to it require you to see patterns, study history harder than what is obvious and to keep an open mind at all times.

So not willing to debate? Ok.

Would you like to debate “The majority of shareholder votes in Google are owned by the Google board/employees” you can be con.

You were very emphatic for many posts that this was not the case, and that I was stupid/ignorant for suggesting it is so. As you’re obviously more knowledgeable, and have more facts on this matter: I would be happy to have a debate on this...

Thank you guys very much 😇

Why not tag you? Everyone should know of this!

I agree 110%. This heartfelt message doesn’t deserve to get trumped by a FAKE APOLOGY

@RM (since he blocked me for no reason)

I don’t think you can exactly call yourself a GOAT.

I let my medals do the talking. What do you let do the talking?

And as for Ramshutu, when you are a major shareholder in Google, you become a board member of Google even if you don't 'work for' them originally in any shape or form. You're arguing semantic tautologies, as I pointed out in those posts. I'm not interested in explaining how results of a semantic alteration are not the same thing as 'actual' but you don't get it yet. Google is owned by many investment firms that are pool-funded by the Elite from many walks of life (well not poor ones) and it gives most say to the 'Google board members' who invested the most. It's true that the major ones include a couple who were/are the diehard founders and Chairman etc of Google but in no shape or form is that the one(s) who has/have most say. NSA have quite the hand in Google, whether it's on a report or not. Do some digging, work out the truth for yourself. Stop turning everything into 'waste weeks of your life formally debating me just to realise that I can semantically win.'

I know you can win a debate by twisting words and going by popular interpretation of things, you and oromagi are great at that and your rankings show how important a skill that is on a debate website. I'm not going to engage you on the unpopular side, I actually want my rating here to go up.

@RM (seriously, it’s pointless to do this if you’re blocking me)

How long have have you been on here? 

Also, your attitude clearly isn’t GOAT worthy.

You tell me I cannot define myself as a GOAT, then you go ahead and discredit an objective measure of achievement to garner the 'greatest of all time' and say 'your attitude disqualifies you by my arbitrary measure'.

Your attitude is fucking vile in my personal opinion but I don't go around shitting on it unless you come knocking on my door putting my name in your mouth. My taste in attitude and my opinion of you have no bearing on your achievements being real or not.

A.) I typically let my debate content do the talking. 100 wins is good, at a 66% loss rate is not.

B.) You didn’t say any of that in the debate. Claiming that you did is untrue.

C.) You dares me to find any major company where the majority voting stock is not publicly traded. The majority of google voting stock is not publically trases

D.) You demanded me to show you that the private voting stock were owned by the company employers or board. I showed you that it was.

E.) You now seem to have forgotten the false claims you made; and are now making ANOTHER false claim that somehow you buy shares to become a board member - then get voting shares. If you were smart, or any form of tactical genius you would have googled googles proxy statement which tells you who owns the voting stock.

If you had done that, you would have noted that 56.6% of the 58% voting stock is owned by Sergei Brin, Larry Page, and Eric Schmidt. Three people who were at Google before any shares existed.

So nope; that’s the third objectively false claim you’ve made about google.

Given that I’ve already shared you googles SEC filings, it strikes me as odd that for a third time, you’ve simply made stuff up instead of searching for the information.

 

Also GOATs don’t forfeit half of their debates

Another arbitrary disqualifier made up as you go along.

"You didn't say any of that" says Ramshutu. :)

How is that arbitrary? Forfeiting is bad conduct according to the objective standards of the CoC.

Still the GOAT in spite of it, that's what you're missing.

You never saw Kawhi Leonard forfeit a game.

@RM

You said that private equity could buy class B stocks (They cant), and “are regarded as directors of sorts” (they’re not) - you didn’t say what you just said.

However, it’s still flat out false either way.

So, let’s recap.

“You will never ever find that the majority of stocks in any firm at all is non-voting, that is a total waste of investment for the firms because they want to steer the company as time goes by.”

Yes you can: Google. Your claim is false.

“Google is one of the hugest corporations on Earth, you cannot possibly tell me that you are so naive to think it's anywhere near being even 40% owned by its workers (even at the top level).”

I can, and it is. Your claim is false.

“but please reveal your source that shows that the owners of B stocks are in any way guaranteed to be Google employees, I'll sit here and wait.”

I did: SEC filing show 56.6% of voting stock is owned by the two founders, and original

CRO of google...

This claim is false.

“what's also true is that by owning enough of the class B stocks while they were for sale”

class B stocks were never for sale: this claim is false.

“when you are a major shareholder in Google, you become a board member of Google even if you don't 'work for' them originally in any shape or form”

this claim is also false

“It's true that the major ones include a couple who were/are the diehard founders and Chairman etc of Google but in no shape or form is that the one(s) who has/have most say”

These 3 hold 56.6% (Most Say) of voting stock... this claim is false.

I’m not sure how many times you want to be wrong about something on a row; but it is kind of fun watching you make vehement claims about what is definitely true, only for a trivial google search to reveal it is in fact, wrong.

You don't see when someone forfeits a basketball game, they don't turn up or get shown. LOL!

Aside from that, if you seriously think he is the GOAT of basketball, what metrics are you basing it on and why is him 'not being seen forfeiting a match' an important element of that?

I said 'goats' it was an analogy with sheep and wolves but since you want to refer to GOAT, I can play along. You're looking for any reason to fight me at all, it's sad.

I'm sure a Google search will tell you all the secrets of Google.

#sarcasm

Try using duckduckgo and try using your brain to interpret the data, too. I don't need to fight you Ramshutu, you can keep mocking me all you want. You get upvoted because people love the tone you talk to me with and how 'wrong' you can make me seem with your sweeping logical fallacy paintbrush.

Private Equity is literally what all stocks and shares are based on. I don't expect a socialist to understand capitalism.

The way you get B stock with private equity is by investing in a pool that invests on the behalf of all the investors.

The only time Equity becomes public is if the private investors want it to be.

this website is a perfect example of how the very guy who founded, funds and runs it is having private equity even as a chairman/founder/owner.

I got MVP award too, you probably don't know what that is.

^ that's not the voting thread(s) but you get the idea. Ramshutu will most likely win the 2019 one given how the society has changed here, who has been driven off vs stayed active and attitudes towards me and others. I'm fine with that, I will work to get my rep as a formidable debater up, focus on only 1-2 at a time etc. Hopefully I win the 2020. :)

I wish you the best of luck. I’ll be sure to congratulate you on your win in 2020...

oh wait...

I can’t 

you blocked me