Varyk

what are you talking about?

you called me sugar.

you are implying that you get to police what gender people find acceptable?

besides, I literally said those are the facts Jack.

which is a very common phrase and Jack isn't even a gendered name.

Why are you assigning gender to it?

"You're closer to Trump's ideology than I am"

Trump is obsessed with gender.

I'm not.

you seem obsessed with gender.

so who's closer to trump?

"I really just don't want to sit and argue with you."

... so you proceed to write a treatise?

"You can call that rabbit-hole diving or tangential if you want. I call it critical thinking."

that should make you feel better, and accurate though and maybe.

We have nine computer scientists talking about facts.

One of which goes one step further.

you think that maybe he is wrong.

based on you thinking that maybe he is wrong.

fine. maybe he is.

doesn't change anything about the other eight scientists linked or any of the relevant facts.

"probably at too much length at this point."

definitely, with some unnecessary redundancy.

"I'm not interested in an extended argument "

yeah, I can tell by all your rehashed arguments that you're not interested in arguing.

thanks for those.

go ahead and call me sugar, Jack.

Why is Jack used in a common phrase a gendered name to you?

do you get angry if people say "guys" to a mixed group?

your concerns seem unnecessarily exhausting. for you.

true that. exactly.

do the manual recounts since the software was compromised and tons of computer specialists are worried about that and let's put it to rest.

"Guess which one is horrible?"

are they the ones you're making up?

"That's what the madman shouting gibberish at the town square claims"

literally what you said in the last comment, you're calling yourself a mad man.

"Sugar, you're adorable"

Thanks, Jack.

"Willie doesn't care."

you should, Willie. it means you've basically been arguing against yourself this whole time because you didn't know that it's all already happened before.

don't be a trump, take personal responsibility and adjust your behavior accordingly.

your gender?

what the tangent are you talking about?

okay, you don't understand how manipulating software means voting machines could be compromised.

dang, really?

I'm going to try and analogize this....

okay, you can think about compromising a software program like physical sabotage.

so let's say you have an ice cream machine with two levers sticking out front that gives out chocolate and vanilla ice cream.

If you pull the chocolate tap, you'll get chocolate ice cream.

If you pull the vanilla tap, you'll get vanilla ice cream.

let's say you only like chocolate and have access to the inside of the ice cream machine.

so if you can get inside the machine, you connect both lovers to the chocolate press tab but remove the vanilla press tab, so now, pulling either the chocolate or vanilla will only dispense chocolate ice cream.

The machine might look normal on the outside, but now regardless of the input, it's giving you the output that you want.

so if you get inside something, you can change how it works, so that it gives you the result you want.

does that make sense?

you can do the same thing with a computer program.

you can go inside, change what it says, to do what you want.

*courtroom admissions

okay, that one was pretty bad.

sorry, I've got like three other people who have never heard of the fake elector's plot talking to me at the same time as you are, so I have to basically explain it over and over to you guys.

and then you're like yeah. but what about conspiracies not being real?

haha, nope, there are groups of people that do things together.

happens all the time.

"you're trying to engineer some disagreement with me"

nope.

I disagree with your inaccuracy and tangential rabbit hole diving.

you're criticizing one instance of limited speculation with your own limited speculation, and ignoring the majority of other scientists who are only using unassailable facts, that is "the crux of the matter".

you're sticking with this one detail of this one guy so that you don't have to come to terms with the facts.

I'm not engineering anything, you're upset that I'm not allowing you to fabricate an inaccurate narrative.

don't pretend you're not the one holding those goalposts.

Unless you actually believe that you're not...in which case, take a deep breath, read your comments through again, and try to pare down what you're saying to the things that actually make a difference instead of just argumentative quibbling.

you agree with everything I'm saying, you don't like how I'm saying it because I'm not being polite to your less consequential narratives.

well, I'm not going to be polite because you started making things up or changing the topic either so, don't go that route.

so you don't mind edits, but then you tell me that you specifically think me editing my comments is a terrible way to write?

yeah dude if you don't understand what I'm saying that's on you.

"I'd like a quote."

bully for you. I'm not getting bogged down in your tangential nitpicking.

Jack.

what, did I guess your actual name accidentally? The most common name in the states?

maybe don't broadcast that.

it's insane you don't know about the fake electors scheme and you have the hollow temerity to speak about politics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot

okay, but I guess if you don't even know about the fake electric spot I understand why you keep making things up and don't understand what I'm talking about.

I'll let the rest of this slide

go read up on the conspiracy that involved voting and fabricating votes 4 years ago, maybe you'll find it less outlandish that your buddy Trump might be trying it again.

diaper? is that what magaheads are called now?

no, that one looks good.

edit: forgot a comma