InfoWars' main YouTube channel is two strikes away from being banned...Hahahahahahaha

[Bud Plug]

https://www.facebook.com/Mediamatte...DzE5zMTajsyOuyPzU0W8ydV-YIjkzjbwTAag9Sp970q5I

Always a hoot. I stumbled on the big video of Jones's wackiest conspiracy rants. I always chuckle when I watch this and I try to guess which wacky-ass rants Bud Plug thinks are "legitimate news items"!!... Probably the gay frogs - LOL. Damn fine reporting on THAT story!

I "probably" think Jones stories on gay frogs are the legitimate news stories? That's some top notch argument, counsel! LOL!

You challenged my criticism of YouTube putting strikes on Infowars videos about Parkland students being crisis actors and, in general, the merits of YouTube deciding which political opinions are "facts" and which are "hoaxes". I responded directly to YOU with respect to that challenge. Rather than continue with a response to my answer, instead you want to titter about me to your internet buddies. So high school! Really, how could anyone take you seriously once they observe how you conduct yourself? I certainly can't.

 

[Promo]

In post #28 you stated:

p.s. You are aware, aren't you, that YouTube already removed one of the two strikes against InfoWars, following their appeals (and YouTube's acknowledgement regarding misapplication of its policy to right wing sites)?

In post #33 I stated:

Really BP? Where is your proof (Don't bother posting an Infowars URL) - is this an example of a lie that I described above? One video has gone back-up, but not the one associated with the strike 2. Nothing on Google. Nothing on the news feeds. Nothing on Youtube comments. Yet today this happens: YouTube Terminates Account of InfoWars Bureau Chief Jerome Cori: https://gizmodo.com/youtube-terminat...ief-1823439792

Again I ask, can you provide proof of your statement? I believe you lied. And if you lied on something so easy to check, why would we believe anything you say?

 

[Promo]

More insults. Very angry man.

I've been exposed,... what a fucking laugh.

I posted a definition,... and another possible example,... you have posted nothing,... except to open another window into promo's damaged psyche.

When you decide to find the time in your exciting life,... why don't you provide a quote.

Or do you have to rely on your frustrated comrade,... for a reply,... ???

OH,... and when have I ever insulted you,... ???

No ......... You said being called alt-right was an insult and offered up a unreferenced quote/definiton as proof. You refused 3 times to provide the source of your quote. Why? Because you realized that the rest of the article would prove you wrong so you chose to hide it. Very cowardly approach when debating.

 

[Bud Plug]

In post #28 you stated:


In post #33 I stated:


Again I ask, can you provide proof of your statement? I believe you lied. And if you lied on something so easy to check, why would we believe anything you say?

Ok, since I know sources are everything to you, let's use one that I'm sure you'll accept:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/us/infowars-youtube-videos-trnd/index.html

This is an updated story (see the reference to this fact at the bottom of the article). Originally, it was reported that there were 2 strikes on InfoWars main channel videos. Under YouTube policy, that would mean that InfoWars was one strike away from the account being terminated. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2802032?hl=en (3 strike policy).

However, the story was updated to reflect that InfoWars is two strikes away from termination - meaning that one of the two strikes originally reported was withdrawn. Satisfied?

Since you accused me of lying, an apology from you would be the courteous thing. Is that something you do?

 

[mandrill]

I don't believe I've ever called you a Libtard, snowflake or looney leftie, so why the label? I thought you were against that kind of thing? Isn't that why you have Kathleen on ignore? LOL!

As to the previous post you refer to, it appeared to me from that thread that you either didn't know there were doctrinal differences between the groups under discussion, or didn't think the differences mattered. I don't recall you disagreeing with me as to the differences I pointed out. Or are you just insinuating that anyone who would know the differences must be an active participant in one of these groups? Seems like that's what you're saying. I guess every journalist on that beat should get off it right now, because according to that logic, learning about these groups is the same as being a member!

Your reasoning is shockingly poor.

You're either an active participant in the alt right or a warm sympathizer. Because no one else would bother to learn the differences, unless - as you pointed out - they were a journalist or an author.

For instance, if you were to give me the differences in doctrine between a Trotskyite or a Maoist, I'd have to say you were very, very interested in the intricacies of the extreme left. Ditto if you explained the differences between Anglican and Episcopalian, I would guess you were an adherent of one of those two creeds.

 

[apoptygma]

You're either an active participant in the alt right or a warm sympathizer. Because no one else would bother to learn the differences, unless - as you pointed out - they were a journalist or an author.

For instance, if you were to give me the differences in doctrine between a Trotskyite or a Maoist, I'd have to say you were very, very interested in the intricacies of the extreme left. Ditto if you explained the differences between Anglican and Episcopalian, I would guess you were an adherent of one of those two creeds.

But you're talking to BP. It is incredibly difficult for him to NOT be omniscient. Exhaustingly so.

 

[shack]

I've been exposed,... what a fucking laugh.

I posted a definition,... and another possible example,... you have posted nothing,..

I posted a legitimate question that you could have very easily answered but for some reason (this is where the insult you were hoping for would have been placed) you couldn't bring your self to do it.

I posted a definition,... and another possible example,... you have posted nothing,... except to open another window into promo's damaged psyche.

When you decide to find the time in your exciting life,... why don't you provide a quote.

Or do you have to rely on your frustrated comrade,... for a reply,... ???

OH,... and when did I initiate insulting,... ???

When did I say you did? That is the second time today that you are claiming I said something and both of those are lies.

BTW, what are these comments that I bolded to be considered, compliments?

Once again, your posts/points are so flimsy, refuting them is like shooting fish in a barrel with an AR-15.

 

[Bud Plug]

You're either an active participant in the alt right or a warm sympathizer. Because no one else would bother to learn the differences, unless - as you pointed out - they were a journalist or an author.

For instance, if you were to give me the differences in doctrine between a Trotskyite or a Maoist, I'd have to say you were very, very interested in the intricacies of the extreme left. Ditto if you explained the differences between Anglican and Episcopalian, I would guess you were an adherent of one of those two creeds.

That is just bad thinking. It's certainly an anti-education stance. It's logically contradictory. How can anyone know what they should think of some new development unless they learn about it? You sound like those ideologues who would say "I already know everything I NEED to know about [insert subject]". You seem to have the outlook of a heretical inquisitor.

Like most people, I am very interested in what is happening in the US, and I was particularly interested in what happened in Charlottesville. Unlike some, I don't accept what media reports blithely tell me, especially when their accounts are logically problematic on their face. (There are a few people around TERB who simply reproduce media reports, or links to reports, as if they are indisputable truth!) Specifically, the attempt of the media to lump a number of disparate groups together into an amorphous "alt right" didn't make sense to me. After all, these groups recognized, themselves, that they were not an amalgum - thus the "Unite the Right" initiative in Charlottesville. That got me to researching who these various groups were, and what their political objectives were. Simple as that.

From there, Charlottesville happened. The reporting wasn't reliable. It forced anyone with even a low level of curiosity (i.e. those who were not satisfied with the media's narrative) to look at the available evidence. There are significant social consequences when the media/police get a politically charged case like this wrong, even if the charges merely overreach (rather than have no basis at all). Why would someone be interested in something like that? I guess it would be the same reasons the media covered it, and the same reasons they covered the riots in Ferguson, or the riots in Baltimore, or the reaction in both places following the unsuccessful criminal trials.

As to why I have a curiosity about this subject, or any other subject, you'll just have to speculate, but no one should ever have to justify their curiosity in any subject to you, and you're making a mistake in thinking you can reach a conclusion based merely on someone's interest in a subject.

 

[Frankfooter]

I was particularly interested in what happened in Charlottesville. Unlike some, I don't accept what media reports blithely tell me, especially when their accounts are logically problematic on their face.

....

As to why I have a curiosity about this subject, or any other subject, you'll just have to speculate, but no one should ever have to justify their curiosity in any subject to you, and you're making a mistake in thinking you can reach a conclusion based merely on someone's interest in a subject.

Yes, lets speculate on why BP spent so much time defending a nazi terrorist in the face of damning evidence, video and eyewitness testimony.
As noted, the MSM appears to have gotten the story correct, with Fields now facing murder charges based on video evidence not available to BP.

Given that the MSM reported the story correctly, it appears, where would he get this 'more reliable reporting'?

Here's what the MSM Newseek says:

The man accused of murdering antiracist activist Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, Virginia following the collapse of a white nationalist rally in August is being touted as a “prisoner of war” by neo-Nazis. It is part of an ongoing, false conspiracy that the suspect, 20-year-old white supremacist James Fields, has somehow been framed by the state to make a public example out of their movement.

“The Jews will use their guns to try to stop us, but also their pigs and courts to try to break our spirits,” Matthew Heimbach, the leader of Traditionalist Worker Party (TWP), a neo-Nazi group, claimed this week in a blog post that depicts Fields and other white men as political prisoners of what he believes is a Jewish-controlled state. “It is our God given duty and responsibility to not only memorialize the dead, but to stand arm-in-arm with our Prisoners of War throughout their entire sentence.”

Conspiracy theories about Fields and the activist Heyer erupted quickly after the melee at the doomed Unite the Right rally on August 12. White supremacists first posited a false explanation about how the 32-year-old Heyer died, arguing that she had a heart attack that was somehow unrelated to Fields’s Dodge Charger allegedly plowing into her and a crowd of peaceful demonstrators. When the Central District Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in Richmond, Virginia declared to Newsweek in October that Heyer died of “blunt force trauma to the torso,” conspiracy peddlers willfully ignored the disclosure, insisting that the news was deliberately faked by what they imagined to be a Jewish-controlled state apparatus. When prosecutors in December elevated the charge against Fields to first-degree murder from second-degree, the fabulists ramped up their conspiracy theory that the state was coming down on their ally to make a point.

http://www.newsweek.com/neo-nazi-co...ville-killer-james-fields-prisoner-war-778793

Feel free to speculate on what drives BP or where he's getting his insight from.

 

[mandrill]

That is just bad thinking. It's certainly an anti-education stance. It's logically contradictory. How can anyone know what they should think of some new development unless they learn about it? You sound like those ideologues who would say "I already know everything I NEED to know about [insert subject]". You seem to have the outlook of a heretical inquisitor.

Like most people, I am very interested in what is happening in the US, and I was particularly interested in what happened in Charlottesville. Unlike some, I don't accept what media reports blithely tell me, especially when their accounts are logically problematic on their face. (There are a few people around TERB who simply reproduce media reports, or links to reports, as if they are indisputable truth!) Specifically, the attempt of the media to lump a number of disparate groups together into an amorphous "alt right" didn't make sense to me. After all, these groups recognized, themselves, that they were not an amalgum - thus the "Unite the Right" initiative in Charlottesville. That got me to researching who these various groups were, and what their political objectives were. Simple as that.

From there, Charlottesville happened. The reporting wasn't reliable. It forced anyone with even a low level of curiosity (i.e. those who were not satisfied with the media's narrative) to look at the available evidence. There are significant social consequences when the media/police get a politically charged case like this wrong, even if the charges merely overreach (rather than have no basis at all). Why would someone be interested in something like that? I guess it would be the same reasons the media covered it, and the same reasons they covered the riots in Ferguson, or the riots in Baltimore, or the reaction in both places following the unsuccessful criminal trials.

As to why I have a curiosity about this subject, or any other subject, you'll just have to speculate, but no one should ever have to justify their curiosity in any subject to you, and you're making a mistake in thinking you can reach a conclusion based merely on someone's interest in a subject.

Most people are perfectly content to assume that Field got charged with murder because he drove his car into an innocent woman - in front of many witnesses who had cameras - and killed her. It takes someone obsessed with defending fascists to "look beyond" that plain fact. I assume you defend fascists because you sympathize with them, because I don't see you out there defending liberals. So you're pretty selective about who you defend and that suggests that your sympathies are engaged.

That in itself, suggests to me that you are a neo nazi sympathizer. And then there are your posts on TERB.......

If someone looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and goosesteps like a duck..... He's probably a "duck".

 

[FAST]

I posted a legitimate question that you could have very easily answered but for some reason (this is where the insult you were hoping for would have been placed) you couldn't bring your self to do it.

When did I say you did? That is the second time today that you are claiming I said something and both of those are lies.

BTW, what are these comments that I bolded to be considered, compliments?

Once again, your posts/points are so flimsy, refuting them is like shooting fish in a barrel with an AR-15.

I told you why I didn't give the source,... and I was proven right not to,.... by the actions of your hero,... the psycho.
And still no quotable definitions from you,... !!!

You initiated insulting directed at me in this thread,... that is NOT a lie.

So you know the old saying,... "if you can't take the heat,....."

 

[shack]

I told you why I didn't give the source,... and I was proven right not to,.... by the actions of your hero,... the psycho.
And still no quotable definitions from you,... !!!

You initiated insulting directed at me in this thread,... that is NOT a lie.

So you know the old saying,... "if you can't take the heat,....."

No heat on me. I said nothing that needs defending.

Thank for tacitly admitting that those claims you made about what I said were lies.

What was proved by promo was the reason you shirked from giving your source to prove your credibility is that it proved you don't have the credibility. What you left out proved that your point was wrong. Calling somebody alt-right is not an insult as proved by source of your definition.

 

[Promo]

Ok, since I know sources are everything to you, let's use one that I'm sure you'll accept:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/us/infowars-youtube-videos-trnd/index.html

This is an updated story (see the reference to this fact at the bottom of the article). Originally, it was reported that there were 2 strikes on InfoWars main channel videos. Under YouTube policy, that would mean that InfoWars was one strike away from the account being terminated. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2802032?hl=en (3 strike policy).

However, the story was updated to reflect that InfoWars is two strikes away from termination - meaning that one of the two strikes originally reported was withdrawn. Satisfied?

Since you accused me of lying, an apology from you would be the courteous thing. Is that something you do?

lolol - this is going to be fun.

The OP's post #1 is the same CNN story as your URL. Fortunately the Original Poster included the first few paragraphs with his #1 post. There is no tag from vBulletin indicating that the original post has since been modified. I call attention to:
"InfoWars' main YouTube channel is two strikes away from being banned"
"If the account receives two more strikes in three months, it will be terminated."
^^ ---- clearly the article is talking about the 1st strike

You will notice the date on the CNN article is "Updated 9:40 AM ET, Sat February 24, 2018" The OP posted this thread on February 27. You are claiming this is an updated story ....... yet that update occured before the OP and your comments!! Therefore nothing you are saying is true as this thread was always about the 1st strike and your claim "YouTube already removed one of the two strikes against InfoWars" is untruthful.

In full disclosure, Youtube also removed a 2nd video on a different day and for different reasons, but this action did not include a strike. The video was later allowed to go back up, but not the video associated with the strike. This occurred before the 24th.

However, if you actually read Infowars version of the story, Infowars claimed they received three strikes total and one strike was rescinded and a video was restored. <-- that story is a complete lie.

Regardless, none of the articles you provided as proof included any reference to "YouTube already removed one of the two strikes against InfoWars," or "YouTube's acknowledgement regarding misapplication of its policy to right wing sites".

BP, your quick-one didn't work. An apology from you would be the courteous thing. Is that something you do?

 

[Bud Plug]

Most people are perfectly content to assume that Field got charged with murder because he drove his car into an innocent woman - in front of many witnesses who had cameras - and killed her. It takes someone obsessed with defending fascists to "look beyond" that plain fact. I assume you defend fascists because you sympathize with them, because I don't see you out there defending liberals. So you're pretty selective about who you defend and that suggests that your sympathies are engaged.

That in itself, suggests to me that you are a neo nazi sympathizer. And then there are your posts on TERB.......

If someone looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and goosesteps like a duck..... He's probably a "duck".

You ought to know better.

Most people believe what they want to believe, and don't challenge themselves to justify their beliefs based on evidence. A lawyer, however, should know better.

I don't think you could have spent any time looking at videos of this event. If you had, your first question would be "where was Heyer in relation to the crash"? You'd ask this, because she is not in any of the videos of the crash itself, taken from a variety of angles, by a variety of participants/sources (security footage, media footage, protester footage, amateur footage). God help your clients, if you wouldn't ask this question! Your next question would be, "how could the crash have directly or indirectly caused the blunt trauma leading to her cardiac arrest?" And then your next question would be "Could anything else have caused the blunt trauma?" A lawyer would understand how the answers to these questions would affect the legal outcome of the incident.

And anyone who has ever watched the news would understand what the social and political impact is of a high profile prosecution that doesn't go as expected.

How would you know how "selective" my arguments are? And what would that even mean? I've had nothing to say about the evidence in the Parkland shooting. Does that mean I'm politically aligned against that shooter (hasn't he been accused of being a white supremacist)? I had a lot to say about the failings of the evidence in the Ghomeshi case. Does that mean I support Ghomeshi, or abuse of women? How about the man accused of Kate Steinle's murder? I didn't have anything to say about that case. So am I pro illegal immigrant? Anti-teenage white girl? Or maybe I'm not pro-Shields as much as I'm anti-Heyer? You're chasing your tail. What I am is pro-evidence.

Do you know what kind of people who talk about how ducks walk, quack, and look? Usually people who couldn't tell a duck from elephant, and don't want to learn how.

The publicly available evidence in Charlotteville just is what it is, until more is released. Right now, that evidence is deficient. It's unusual and counterproductive for the prosecution to let it sit that way.

Of course, if you have a link to some video which clearly shows how the collision impact resulted in her blunt trauma, I'd be happy to look at it.

 

[Bud Plug]

lolol - this is going to be fun.

The OP's post #1 is the same CNN story as your URL. Fortunately the Original Poster included the first few paragraphs with his post. There is no tag from vBulletin sayin that the original post has since been modified. I call attention to:
"InfoWars' main YouTube channel is two strikes away from being banned"
"If the account receives two more strikes in three months, it will be terminated."
^^ ---- clearly the article is talking about the 1st strike

You will notice the date on the CNN article is "Updated 9:40 AM ET, Sat February 24, 2018" The OP posted this thread on February 27. You are claiming this is an updated story ....... yet that update occured before the OP and your comments!! Therefore nothing you are saying is true as this thread was always about the 1st strike and your claim "YouTube already removed one of the two strikes against InfoWars" never happened.

In full disclosure, Youtube also removed a 2nd video on a different day and for different reasons, but this action did not include a strike. The video was later allowed to go back up, but not the video associated with the strike. ALl this occurred before the 24th.

However, if you actually read Infowars version of the story (not the CNN version), Infowars claimed they received three strikes total and one strike was rescinded and a video was restored. <-- that story is a complete lie. There was only one strike and a seperate video (which never had a strike and occured in a different point in time) was allowed back up.

Regardless, none of the articles you provided as proof included any reference to "YouTube already removed one of the two strikes against InfoWars," or "YouTube's acknowledgement regarding misapplication of its policy to right wing sites".

BP, your quick-one didn't work. An apology from you would be the courteous thing. Is that something you do?

How did you manage to mess this up?

Look, I gave you the CNN link because the OP article was a reprint and OMITTED the reference to the story being UPDATED. You clearly don't comprehend the significance of this. It means that the original article had different information. It wasn't YouTube's 3 strikes rule that changed. It was the report of how many strikes InfoWars had that changed.

Bottom line - it takes 3 strikes to be banned. If Infowars has 2 to go, that means they only have 1. Both CNN and Infowars reported that originally there had been 2 strikes. Now there is 1. If you can't follow this math, there is no help for you.

 

[FAST]

Still waiting,...

No heat on me. I said nothing that needs defending.

Thank for tacitly admitting that those claims you made about what I said were lies.

What was proved by promo was the reason you shirked from giving your source to prove your credibility is that it proved you don't have the credibility. What you left out proved that your point was wrong. Calling somebody alt-right is not an insult as proved by source of your definition.

I did not admit to anything,... you initiated insults directed at me in this thread,... if you can't be a man and own up to it,... not my problem.

So are you saying the definition I quoted is false,... ???
Care to elaborate,... !!!

And still no quotable definitions from you,... !!!

A quick question for you,... why would you call a Canadian,... alt-right,... ???

 

[Promo]

I told you why I didn't give the source,... and I was proven right not to,.... by the actions of your hero,... the psycho.

Your stated reason for not including your source was: "What difference does it make,... one can always discount the source." I wonder if students, scientists and professionals could use the same excuse for not quoting their sources in formal papers?

Pretty stupid argument since your URL includes a history of the term that shows from 2010 to early 2017, the term was NOT considered an insult. Further the values and leaders of the alt-right community got Trump elected! Bannon, Flynn and Stone stayed on as advisors, continued with the alt-right platform and both repeatedly used the term to describe themselves well into 2017.

Word definitions evolve. For example GAY has gone through many iterations. You've chosen to take just one iteration of alt-right in an effort to pick a fight with everyone.

You initiated insulting directed at me in this thread,... that is NOT a lie.

I've relooked at every one of Shacks posts in this thread. He was polite at all times. Not a single insult towards you. Every terbite that reviews this thread will come to the same conclusion.

Yet, you've hurtled multiple insults:
- at least have a clue about what they are posting
- usual baseless rants
- seems your native language isn't English
- try to make it simple for you
- explain why you had trouble comprehending
- if you need more help with the English language
- the definition applies to Islamic terrorist supporters here,... got that LT56
- who don't have anything intelligent to respond to a post
- what a fucking laugh
- promo's damaged psyche
- When you decide to find the time in your exciting life
- Or do you have to rely on your frustrated comrade
- psycho inevitably stuck his nose in
- by the actions of your hero,... the psycho

In the last day you've attacked at least 5 others in various threads. Very angry individual!

 

[Promo]

How did you manage to mess this up?

People do get banned for constantly insulting others. You really need to stop.

Look, I gave you the CNN link because the OP article was a reprint and OMITTED the reference to the story being UPDATED. You clearly don't comprehend the significance of this. It means that the original article had different information. It wasn't YouTube's 3 strikes rule that changed. It was the report of how many strikes InfoWars had that changed.

.
No ........
1) The OP started this thread AFTER the article was updated. He omitted nothing, because the correction notice was always there since the 24th. The OP even included a cut-and-paste of the first several paragraphs and nothing has changed.

2) Regardless of #1, The correction said only the title was changed, The content was not modified and it matches the OP's cut-and-paste. <-- Regardless YOUR CLAIMS were about Youtube, not CNN. Your redirection isn't going to work BP.

3) Google search renders multiple different news sources that also carried the story. All same the same thing. None in the first 10 have corrections. <-- You have tried to latch onto a minor detail in just one story. However 20+ other news agencies reported the story correctly as of the date of the OP.

4) Not that it matters, but you have no idea what the original CNN title or article said. I know what you are trying to now trying to claim, but you have no proof, because you never saw it. You are trying to twist a story to save face.

Bottom line - it takes 3 strikes to be banned. If Infowars has 2 to go, that means they only have 1.

That's what I've been telling you all along.

Both CNN and Infowars reported that originally there had been 2 strikes. Now there is 1. If you can't follow this math, there is no help for you.

No ......
1) Infowars (still) incorrectly reportes 3 strikes ( https://www.infowars.com/the-truth-behind-youtubes-purge-of-conservatives/, there are at least 3 other Infowars storeis claiming the same )
2) Provide proof that CNN originally reported 2 strikes. I've even gone back and looked at the videos. But it doesn't matter, because that is not our original debate.
3) So, back to the original debate, still waiting for you to provide proof of: "YouTube already removed one of the two strikes against InfoWars," and "YouTube's acknowledgement regarding misapplication of its policy to right wing sites"

You now seemed focused on the argument that CNN got the story wrong. Therefore you are arguing there never was two strikes. Based on that logic, how could Youtube have "removed one of the strikes" and "acknowledged misapplication of its policy to right wing sites" Proof you did lie.

 

[Bud Plug]

People do get banned for constantly insulting others. You really need to stop.

.
No ........
1) The OP started this thread AFTER the article was updated. He omitted nothing, because the correction notice was always there since the 24th. The OP even included a cut-and-paste of the first several paragraphs and nothing has changed.

2) Regardless of #1, The correction said only the title was changed, The content was not modified and it matches the OP's cut-and-paste. <-- Regardless YOUR CLAIMS were about Youtube, not CNN. Your redirection isn't going to work BP.

3) Google search renders multiple different news sources that also carried the story. All same the same thing. None in the first 10 have corrections. <-- You have tried to latch onto a minor detail in just one story. However 20+ other news agencies reported the story correctly as of the date of the OP.

4) Not that it matters, but you have no idea what the original CNN title or article said. I know what you are trying to now trying to claim, but you have no proof, because you never saw it. You are trying to twist a story to save face.


That's what I've been telling you all along.



No ......
1) Infowars (still) incorrectly reportes 3 strikes ( https://www.infowars.com/the-truth-behind-youtubes-purge-of-conservatives/, there are at least 3 other Infowars storeis claiming the same )
2) Provide proof that CNN originally reported 2 strikes. I've even gone back and looked at the videos. But it doesn't matter, because that is not our original debate.
3) So, back to the original debate, still waiting for you to provide proof of: "YouTube already removed one of the two strikes against InfoWars," and "YouTube's acknowledgement regarding misapplication of its policy to right wing sites"

You now seemed focused on the argument that CNN got the story wrong. Therefore you are arguing there never was two strikes. Based on that logic, how could Youtube have "removed one of the strikes" and "acknowledged misapplication of its policy to right wing sites" Proof you did lie.

Last pass.

1. Telling you that you're messing this up is not a personal insult, it's a criticism of your reasoning. That's exactly what happens in any disagreement. No one will ever be banned for that. If there was a policy of doing so, you'd be gone along with me and almost everyone else.

2. You didn't read the InfoWars article you linked, did you? In that article, they affirm: 1) that there were two strikes, 2) that one of the two strikes was removed, and 3) a "third strike" was THEN registered as a result of YouTube reversing a decision to remove a strike from an unrelated earlier video. So, according to them, they have 2 strikes (not 3) as a result of a strike AFTER the date of the OP story.

3. The OP omitted CNN's note that the article had been updated. That may not have been important for the purpose of the OP, but it was important for our exchange.

4. CNN has not preserved access to their original article. However, based on the wording of their update notice, changing their headline is only consistent with the conclusion that their previous headline overstated how close InfoWars was to being terminated, consistent with earlier information that 2 strikes were issued, and that conclusion happens to be wholly consistent with InfoWars own reporting on the factual background of the story. Can you think of a reason why InfoWars would overstate how many videos had been struck, thereby encouraging complainants to try to deliver the death blow? I can't. Also, I've seen no denials from YouTube disputing InfoWars reporting about the number/timing of strikes. Do you have an image of the prior CNN story and headline? If not, why wouldn't you accept the InfoWars account? Because they're InfoWars? Kind of circular.

5. I'm not arguing that CNN got the story wrong. I'm arguing that they got the story right, and amended it to keep it right.

 

[shack]

,..."The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely-connected and somewhat ill-defined grouping of white supremacists, neo-Confederates, neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, and other far-right fringe hate groups. Alt-right beliefs have been described as isolationist, protectionist, ]anti-Semitic and white supremacist, frequently overlapping with neo-Nazism, nativism and Islamophobia, antifeminism, misogyny and homophobia, right-wing populism and the neoreactionary movement".

The next time a member uses that term to describe some one here,... maybe they should look in a mirror.

Or at least have a clue about what they are posting.

This is the first post where we responded to one another.

Allow me to continue:
My complete response and all subsequent responses to each other in their totality:

Source, please.

Actually, I would consider that a description of radical right. Not alt-right.

Just to clarify, is that your definition or copied from another source?

Not my definition.

What would your definition of an alt-right be ?

Other definitions simply relate it to an American phenomena,... which would mean that nobody here,... Canadians could be called one.

Except by those who don't have anything intelligent to respond to a post,... other than a childish racist insult.

OK accuser. I dare you to find any insults I hurled, childish, racist or otherwise.

More:

Whose definition is it?

What difference does it make,... one can always discount the source.

If you don't agree with it,... quote an alternative.

At least no insults there. Simply trying to avoid being exposed but due to good work by others, a major fail.

My first negative comment below but it wasn't even aimed directly at you. I was trying to help you bond with your fellow alt-righters and painted you all, admittedly, with the same brush.

Being on TERB, you very well know that the source can make a difference.

The fact that you refuse to answer, is an admission that it comes from some site with a political agenda and you have accepted that you clearly lost this debate.

Typical for the dishonest "right". Posting dishonest info and then not having the conviction to back up what you say. Pitiful.

I've been exposed,... what a fucking laugh.

I posted a definition,... and another possible example,... you have posted nothing,... except to open another window into promo's damaged psyche.

When you decide to find the time in your exciting life,... why don't you provide a quote.

Or do you have to rely on your frustrated comrade,... for a reply,... ???

OH,... and when did I initiate insulting,... ???

And you were doing just fine,... until the psycho inevitably stuck his nose in.

4 insults in one post.
And I have answered your question. I not only did not claim you initiated insulting, but this post undeniably shows that you actually did.

Which brings us here:

I posted a legitimate question that you could have very easily answered but for some reason (this is where the insult you were hoping for would have been placed) you couldn't bring your self to do it.

When did I say you did? That is the second time today that you are claiming I said something and both of those are lies.

BTW, what are these comments that I bolded to be considered, compliments?

Once again, your posts/points are so flimsy, refuting them is like shooting fish in a barrel with an AR-15.

I told you why I didn't give the source,... and I was proven right not to,.... by the actions of your hero,... the psycho.
And still no quotable definitions from you,... !!!

You initiated insulting directed at me in this thread,... that is NOT a lie.

So you know the old saying,... "if you can't take the heat,....."

It is now on record for all to see. YOU initiated the insulting, so now you are not only an insult initiator but you are a BIG, FAT, LIAR. (Can stating a fact be considered an insult?)

No heat on me. I said nothing that needs defending.

Thank for tacitly admitting that those claims you made about what I said were lies.

What was proved by promo was the reason you shirked from giving your source to prove your credibility is that it proved you don't have the credibility. What you left out proved that your point was wrong. Calling somebody alt-right is not an insult as proved by source of your definition.

I did not admit to anything,... you initiated insults directed at me in this thread,... if you can't be a man and own up to it,... not my problem.

So are you saying the definition I quoted is false,... ???
Care to elaborate,... !!!

And still no quotable definitions from you,... !!!

A quick question for you,... why would you call a Canadian,... alt-right,... ???

Your line up there is very apt. Time for you to man up.

YOU OWE ME AN APOLOGY.