Gromnir
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Gromnir
-
-
10 minutes ago, Zoraptor said: It's not illogical in the slightest. It's the result of your writing in pidgin, which is a choice you make.
*chuckle*
you began with a grammar argument... remember your "plural" claim? regardless, as already noted, our "pidgen" could confuse you regarding subject agreement, but it wouldn't make the action plural. perhaps you realized arguing grammar were not gonna be helpful to your efforts? regardless, you then shifted away from grammar (devil) and then indulged a logic fallacy: argumentum ad populum (deep blue sea.)
On 2/3/2026 at 11:20 AM, Zoraptor said: If you told anyone that you actually meant the sheep bleated once, they'd think you mental.
you should be embarrassed. the only thing that surprises us after multiple weeks o' this most recent zor nonsense is your capacity to repetitive self own but either 'cause o' stubbornness or a lack o' self awareness, you keep plugging away with new and improbably more infantile arguments.
18 minutes ago, Zoraptor said: That's in the context of you not providing sources and congratulating you for finding one that time.
again, that is utter irrelevant given the context o' the share was your attempt to prove how Gromnir has accused you of bringing up blix constant. the thing is, the context o' your share is that it comes AFTER you brought up blix and did the comical "mythical hans Blix video," bit. talk about context, eh? beyond reason and good sense, you made blix relevant in a a discussion about gary johnson and his aleppo blunder. your claim that our "ps" is proof that Gromnir is accusing you o' constant bringing up blix appears positive divorced from reality... especial given context.
unfortunate, am having little faith you are gonna get this context thing.
30 minutes ago, Zoraptor said: Really? You called looking for reza pahalvi ridiculous, on this very page, to whit:
oh, and go ahead and keep repeating to us that we said that "your" targeted search of pahlavi were ridiculous, 'cause am hopeful beyond hope that maybe you finally recognize your mistake. your targeted search is indeed ridiculous given the context (you were moved by context moments aggo. strange) o' your effort to prove relevance o' pahlavi or an effort by western media to embiggen.
15 hours ago, Gromnir said: if you were trying to learn something about a specific person, pahlavi in this case, a search engine is a swell start. age? date of birth? what pahlavi said at a news conference? am having pointed out that if you wanna find info about even the most obscure and irrelevant subjects, search engines is wonderful tools: eg., quail egg recipes. am able to populate page upon page o' quail egg recipes. however, doing so don't prove anything about the relevance o' quail eggs in western cooking. a targeted search won't show us whether or not western culinary media is attempting to embiggen quail eggs. you were trying to use search engine population results to prove the relevance and o' pahlavi and the western media's effort's to embiggen him.
your lack of critical thinking skills is astounding.
'course is maybe just another grammar fail on your part. 'cause o' your reading comprehension difficulties and grammar misunderstands, you thought we were claiming that all targeted searches everywhere is flawed? would be a curious reading seeing as how we singled out your search specific and then observed who targeted searches can be useful when retrieving facts and data and such, but that for assigning relevance and a western effort to embiggen, your targeted search were positive impotent... and a lie. gonna count that actual number o' western stories in the list o' 73 we saved from the day in question? here is a hint: is considerable less than 54.
every zor source needs be checked. you misrepresent as with ps: hans blix, or you flat out lie. 'course the lying is not a shock as you are the low character guy who don't see anything the wrong with accusing journalists, politicians, cops and others o' moral turpitude before there is enough information to make such accusations reasonable... and your flaccid whataboutism does not in any way rehabilitate or excuse your lack o' character. is just who you are.
HA! Good Fun!
-
As cold-stunned invasive iguanas fall from trees, Floridians scoop them up for killing
Temperatures in Jupiter, Florida, where the 27-year-old social media star lives, had dipped well below 50 degrees, as a cold front swallowed much of the East Coast in snowfall and record-breaking low temperatures. As flurries fell on parts of the state, residents braced for the inevitable: Cold-stunned green iguanas — one of Floridians’ most reviled invasive pests — began to lose consciousness and fall out of trees.
The dry, scaly deluge is a familiar forecast in those parts. These cold-blooded reptiles’ nervous systems shut down when temperatures dip into the 40s and below. They become paralyzed and fall from their leafy perches. This time, for some unlikely conservationists, as well as state officials, that meant killing season.
...
am gonna admit to having recollected the relevant simpsons episode
HA! Good Fun!
-
-
2 hours ago, Zoraptor said: And you'd know they were bleating more than once.
perhaps you would make that reasonable and nevertheless illogical assumption, but you would do so because they are sheep and not because of grammar. replace the sheep in your example with mother teresa and nobody but zor thinks mention o' the saint's bleating is a reference to a chronic habit of the founder and most famous member o' the missionaries of charity... nevertheless, such an observation also ignores how you were wrong about "plural" and basic freaking grammar rules.
and needing basic grammar explained to you by a guy who posts as does Gromnir should be embarrassing, but am suspecting you are beyond the capacity for such self reliction.
3 hours ago, Zoraptor said: Funny thing is, you very obviously do think what I claim, since every argument you make is semantic about me not proving it rather than just saying outright that you don't.
ok, that's a nonsense sentence and am not complete sure what is the "I claim," in this instance. your claim that Gromnir accused you o' constant bringing up blix? something else? is up to you to support the claim... so get to it. so far, your efforts to support have been complete turds, though if it makes you feel better, the only two times am recalling you bringing up blix is with your initial fumble, and the "mythical Hans Blix video" self-own. btw, thanks for the segue opportunity.
2 hours ago, Zoraptor said: In the context of you refusing to source something, not wmd.
irrelevant. again, you brought up blix.
the notion that our response o' ps: hans blix berkeley is an accusation o' zor constant bringing up blix is even more bizarre than your bleating grammar fail. given how, excepting all reason and rationality, zor invoked blix outta the ether in a gary johson aleppo post, our response were limited to pointing out, not for the first time, just how easy it was to discover the mythical video. you provided us with perfect fodder to question why Gromnir and blix were living rent free in your head, but instead o' picking up the gauntlet, we limited our response to "ps: hans blix berkeley," but thanks for highlighting. am not requiring any help, but your self immolation efforts is comedy gold.
2 hours ago, Zoraptor said: bsolute lol. If you're looking for something about a specific person you shouldn't search for them, according to Gromnir.
ok, see, now that is strawman. we made no such claim. if you were trying to learn something about a specific person, pahlavi in this case, a search engine is a swell start. age? date of birth? what pahlavi said at a news conference? am having pointed out that if you wanna find info about even the most obscure and irrelevant subjects, search engines is wonderful tools: eg., quail egg recipes. am able to populate page upon page o' quail egg recipes. however, doing so don't prove anything about the relevance o' quail eggs in western cooking. a targeted search won't show us whether or not western culinary media is attempting to embiggen quail eggs. you were trying to use search engine population results to prove the relevance and o' pahlavi and the western media's effort's to embiggen him.
your lack of critical thinking skills is astounding.
2 hours ago, Zoraptor said: You do exactly the same, you're just a hypocrite about it.
and so it goes, around and around and around. your response is as we predicted.
4 hours ago, Gromnir said: you rush to judgement and make claims o' wrongdoing even before there is any possibility o' there being a provable wrong, and you don't see anything wrong with your low character efforts. your only defense? whataboutism. also typical zor.
so... how many o' those seventy three pahlavi articles were western news sources? want us to count 'em for you and then have you explain the discrepancy 'tween your 54 and the much smaller number from the real world?
you just can't stop lying. is why am gonna continue to check your sources.
HA! Good Fun!
-
1 hour ago, Zoraptor said: The sheep were bleating. If you told anyone that you actually meant the sheep bleated once, they'd think you mental. So, show your homework.
if we were told the sheep were bleating, we would wonder when were the were bleating. sheep are frequent silent, so am wondering what is the significance o' the bleating observation. kinda a weird observation sans any other context. your single sentence don't prove what you think it does. a normal and not mental person might read the surrounding sentences to determine meaning. the sentence, the sheep were bleating, tells us nothing more than that at some unspecific point in time, more than one sheep was engaged in past continuous action o' making plaintive and feeble crying.
'course we aren't talk about sheep bleating are we? if we had observed that, mother terresa was bleating, and zor made the accusation that our observation about the dead saint were that she were "constant" making feeble and plaintive cries, everybody would think you are mental, and who would we be to gainsay them? 'course people would think Gromnir were mental for making such a vague and unspecific claim... unless we had supplied context in subsequent sentences.
homework were shown, but you are too reading comprehension challenged to realize that fact. is not our problem you don't know english rules even when shown and provided links, and what you think doesn't matter to us. "were bleating," as used by Gromnir, is past continuous verb; "plural" is wrong. plural for a past continuous adjective clause only applies to subject agreement, and anybody who knows english would realize you is ignorant or lying by describing the action as plural. truthfully, on this am guessing you were talking out your arse when you first made the plural claim. now?
also, anybody reading the post 'bout which you are revealing your grammar ignorance, would think you were mental to conclude Gromnir had accused o' constant bring up blix.
19 hours ago, Gromnir said: you got us having specific having identified the fact that you most certainly did not wanna talk about blix... that the video was not mythical, that blix were one o' the people other than Gromnir in existence who believed that the administration believed wmds were present in iraq (never claimed the admin were free o' all lies regarding the iraq invasion and specific said otherwise... so another lie from zor,) and that mr. blix had specific rebutted your claim that he were subjected to coercion by the administration.
your english grammar ignorance is disappointing but is unlikely to be unique. the bigger problem is your reading comprehension. is how we got your week+ failure to realize Gromnir were critical o' israel's recent attack on iran. that was amusing btw.
am seeing you wanna skip our observation,
19 hours ago, Gromnir said: "ps 'hans blix berkeley'"
as somehow revealing an accusation o' your constant bringing up blix. is possibly the first intelligent thing you have done in a couple weeks.
you posted about blix, unprompted by Gromnir, in a post about gary johnsosn's aleppo blunder... and then somehow tried to twist Gromnir's response into being proof o' an accusation that you are constant bringing up blix. lazy? ignorant? liar? either you didn't realize that you had made blix relevant without any prompting from Gromnir, or you knew and were trying the gaslight routine you employ whenever we catch you in one o' your all-too-common tyson fury impersonations.
even so, am gonna admit am utter baffled by your continued efforts to fix your, "one wonders..." gaff. have given up on attempting to figure out your ongoing efforts to extricate yourself from the one wonders blunder, save to observe,
On 1/26/2026 at 11:24 AM, Zoraptor said: I mean, you're the one writing dissertations to restate the same thing over and over. At least I'm spending two minutes on it.
uhm...
2 hours ago, Zoraptor said: So, according to Gromnir searching for the thing you're looking for is 'ridiculous'. So, so, if you're looking for a specific recipe, just do a search for 'recipe'.
but finding articles that include a mention o' pahlavi is incidental to what you were claiming to be doing. your claim were in regards to the mythical western efforts to embiggen, and pahlavi showing up in headlines and search blurbs were evidence o' the embiggen efforts. 'course you aren't even going with the headline effort anymore.
if you had claimed that western cooking sites were disproportionate promoting a specific cooking ingredient as the fantabulous new thing, then it would be more than passing curious that by going to a dozen o' the most popular western food sites we could find no mention o' the ingredient, quail eggs perhaps, "above the fold" or displayed anywhere prominent. no mention o' quail egg souffle or quail egg toast or quail egg omelet. worse, what kinda quail egg relevance would there be if when doing a search on quail eggs specific, one would discover that a few o' the western cooking sites do indeed have quail egg recipes available, but most such recipes made effort to explain that quail eggs weren't enhancing dishes; an expensive ingredient with questionable upside.
pahlavi appearance in headlines and ledes (HA!) were s'posed about relevance... but you even lie about existence. wanna go through that list we shared o' 73 and see just how many western stories there were in the bunch? already immortalized, so you can't fib your way outta the misrepresentation.
and again, the biggest issue is your character problem. you don't mind accusing cops, politicians, un inspectors/diplomats and others o' moral turpitude without any evidence to back up the accusations. you rush to judgement and make claims o' wrongdoing even before there is any possibility o' there being a provable wrong, and you don't see anything wrong with your low character efforts. your only defense? whataboutism. also typical zor.
HA! Good Fun!
-
Edited by Gromnir
“If you do win an award tonight, don’t use it as a political platform to make a political speech,” Gervais advised in 2020. “You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg.”
ok, he is right... and wrong. or rather, we agree and disagree. is no good reason for paying attention to greta, but...
"again, am in favor o' greta using her celebrity to advocate for changes to individual and national behaviours in an attempt to prevent cataclysmic climate change. am nevertheless annoyed by the participation trophy generation who chose greta to be the face o' a movement. is literal thousands o' brilliant scientists and scholars who has been advocating for environmental causes longer than greta has been alive, but what those folks didn't know is if they wanted to get the attention o' the millennial crowd, they needed be a rich kid with impulse control issues. greta not having done anything is ok for for participation trophy folks who learned that what matters is being in the game and not who scored most or who won. what matter is greta is... participating?
"oh, and being chosen isn't greta's fault, so am not belittling her."
that americans, and a whole lotta not-americans, care about the political opinions o' bad bunny and billie eilish is unfortunate, but that don't change the fact that bad bunny and billie eilish have much more influence over public opinion than even a relative famous historian such as heather cox richardson.
...
'course when somebody such as kid rock or jon voight use their "celebrity" to promote ignorance and division, we near inevitable sneer, grumble or guffaw... typical all three.
edit:
trump trying it on to see how it fits.
HA! Good Fun!
-
1 hour ago, Zoraptor said: ...do you know what the word 'bleating' means. Do you know what 'were bleating' means.
why yes. to bleat is a verb... a feeble or plaintive cry. the way used were as a past continuous adjective clause describing your action. the subject-verb agreement, which we purposeful butchered with Grom-speak, doesn't make the action plural. zor was v. they were. got it? "zor is the guy," is singular. if we had written, "zor and sharp_one are the pair who were bleating about blix," what woulda' been plural? not the action, but rather the subjects.
and no, continuous don't make it "plural." gotta anticipate every stoopid argument. "dying" can be past continuous, but for most o' us it is a one-time occurrence, posting, writing, bleating, texting. "continuous" is by definition, "uninterrupted."
am expecting you to link to a grammar site and then misrepresent.
'course, even if the Grom-speak magical made the observation that zor were bleating a "plural" action (again, you are using plural wrong in this context,) your clumsy grammar sophistry would hardly equate to proof o' an accusation o' constant bringing up blix, especial since in the same freaking post you got us having specific having identified the fact that you most certainly did not wanna talk about blix... that the video was not mythical, that blix were one o' the people other than Gromnir in existence who believed that the administration believed wmds were present in iraq (never claimed the admin were free o' all lies regarding the iraq invasion and specific said otherwise... so another lie from zor,) and that mr. blix had specific rebutted your claim that he were subjected to coercion by the administration.
is freaking surreal and is literal the same post you try and use as proof that Gromnir accused you o' constant bringing up blix via a misunderstanding o' gerunds. " 'course zor don't wanna talk 'bout blix who explicit rejects his position in spite o' zor being the guy to use blix as an authority. is tough to gaslight the video, but he sure has tried." yeah, that sure sounds like an accusation that you constant brought up blix.
that said, and admitted ironic
1 hour ago, Zoraptor said: No it wasn't.
yes it was. honest, what sorta self hypnosis do you suffer from to continue this behaviour?
your post, without any recent mention o' blix by Gromnir, made the following observation:
"Still, at least this time you've managed to find a transcript, unless your mythical Hans Blix video, and it's actually relevant. Small improvements, baby steps, but credit where due."
we responded with,
"ps 'hans blix berkeley'"
...
you somehow read as proof that Gromnir claimed you have, "constant brought up blix"?
you don't understand basic reading comprehension. is something fundamental broken, such as the fraud o' reimagining imagine hook + essential facts as = summary opinions. you just constantly shovel bs and expect people to swallow it.
so, show the proof.
1 hour ago, Zoraptor said: Or you're just arguing perpetually in the hope the other person gives up
that is more appropriate our line. again, your "one wonders" complaint made zero sense for multiple reasons, not least o' which is 'cause you asked, After we fully explained (no getting around that point,) and your question ignored the fact we were offering mutually exclusive alternatives. is why we specific observed how you musta' missed the "or."
1 hour ago, Zoraptor said: FTR: 70 results for iran protests today. 54 for reza pahlavi.
chuckle
there were 100 results for iran + protests past day search.
kinda funny that the indian version o' the story on Erfan Soltani
the western version does not.
don't know if we decided where to put israel sourced media, but no.
mirror might not be real news but it at least is western. still, no.
euro news? uh, no.
even down under they is ignoring pahlavi.
Iran threatens a regional war if US follows through on threat to strike
Iran protests European Union's terror tag for Revolutionary Guard (AP)
is same article with a different title as
Iran summons EU ambassadors to protest Revolutionary Guard being listed as a terror group
the above three stories show up dozens o' times, and none mention pahlavi.
Iran's Supreme Leader Warns Against Potential US Attack (is actually a pbs story)
is a handful o' repetitions and no pahlavi. the floridian and texas politics?
were a couple repeats o' a canadian story... with no mention o' pahlavi.
Hegseth: U.S. 'more than prepared' if Iran nuclear talks go nowhere
no pahlavi... and so on and so forth.
got way more than sixteen no-shows, so at that point we knew you were fibbing... again.
and nowhere in headlines or search population blurbs did pahlavi appear which a short time ago you thought were significant. recall how this cycle o' stoopid started? just like last the first time, you don't show actual embiggen. how many o' those 54 stories (all western? wouldn't wanna catch you in another lie or misrepresentation), 'cause he ain't being embiggened by story placement. what western news sites has a pahlavi headline or lede showing up "above the fold" or anywhere visible w/o using a search engine. quit being low effort. keeps getting you in trouble. show your work .
heck, we did a ddg search just for pahlavi and the situation were only a little better.
we got 73 results, so close to your ridiculous targeted search product. how many were western, not ai generated sites and not wiki entries or blogs? for chrissakes, one were a national press corps event announcement? far less than half. wanna take a guess at how many o' those few stories embiggen pahlavi?
54? HA!
there is an old bit o' pith your circular self immolation reminds us: “if you have the law, hammer the law. if you have the facts, hammer the facts. if you have neither the law nor the facts, hammer the table."
you couldn't support your embiggen pahlavi silliness with your lazy search engine effort, so you shifted to ledes, summary opinions, options and anything else you could think o'. now? you are a monkey hammering a table.
HA! Good Fun!
-
Edited by Gromnir
am wondering if texas republicans are concerned about their redistricting efforts, which were largely influenced by trump's improvement with latino voters and assumed latino indifference during midterms.
New congressional maps will test the Latino vote in the 2026 election
and
is a whole lotta time 'tween now and the mid-terms. will dems also tyson fury themselves as they has done so frequent in recent years? will trump invoke the insurrection act or use some other means to interfere with the elections? dunno, but for the moment, the primary rationale for much o' the tx redistricting looks to be far less certain that it were last summer... and even then it were kinda iffy.
@Gorth we make frequent jokes about our contemplation o' a smaug portfolio.
reality is we only have a small amount in gold... but a fair amount in silver even though it is more volatile than gold. am s'posing is because silver tends to be more volatile that we bought it. at the close o' market on a day in march o' 2020, we discovered that we had been cosplaying as nelson bunker hunt without even realizing it. gonna admit to having completely forgoten about the rather insane buy order we had for silver.
...
serious considered unretiring that day.
HA! Good Fun!
-
1
-
-
Edited by Gromnir
13 hours ago, Zoraptor said: No asking to prove a negative there; show your homework.
what on earth are you talking about? where in the portion you quote do we claim you "constant brought up blix"? again, we specific observed that you don't like talking about blix and his "mythical video" where he not only contradicts your claims that the bush administration lied about wmds, but that he were coerced during his investigations.
oh and,
13 hours ago, Zoraptor said: "Still, at least this time you've managed to find a transcript, unless (sic) your mythical Hans Blix video, and it's actually relevant"
you brought up blix in the context o' gary johnson and aleppo? you did so outta the blue and w/o any prompting.
our response, which you gratifyingly linked (thanks,) were little more than a brief recognition that the video were quite real and ridiculous ez to find: "hans blix berkeley." did low effort zor do a search for blix posts by Gromnir and then forget to look at his own post that inspired our response? classic. that would at least explain the blunder.
am suspecting similar lazy is what led you to list a bunch of rando pahlavi quotes from stories which were largely ambivalent and equivocal regarding his significance in the current iranian protest movement.
13 hours ago, Zoraptor said: You presented it as an option you'd consider, hence the use of the first person. You then said you'd never actually do it- not a surprise to anyone, I'm sure. So, why list it as an option in the first person? At this point I'll just answer for you: grandstanding. Classic Gromnir.
you are going beyond obtuse. we also suggested checking every one o' your sources. obviously we could not do both ignore AND check sources.
duh... again.
we presented multiple alternatives. for people not Gromnir, we explained how ignoring you was a best option, but that we would not be doing so 'cause o' this kinda nonsense, where you lie, fabricate and dissemble. the fact that we did indeed choose one o' the options we highlighted should not come as a shock. more perplexing is how after explaining why we chose the not ignore alternative, you blundered into the following query:
On 1/30/2026 at 12:41 PM, Zoraptor said: One might wonder why you bothered saying it as an option then, if you were so adamant about not doing it
you are a gift. we could not invent you if we tried. the lengths you go to self-own is challenging our imagination.
13 hours ago, Zoraptor said: As previous, non specific searches has been a favourite tactic of the sophist since altavista became a thing. So, I crossreferenced the general search with a specific one for Pahlavi.
page one, and above the fold, or page 28... or maybe buried somewhere deep in the middle east section of world news? doing a targeted search don't tell you relevance. without digging, doing a targeted search, you can't find pahlavi in a headline at the bbc site, not even their world news headlines. washington post? not even their middle east section reveals a pahlavi headline... because there is no effort to embiggen him.
again, you had to add "pahlavi" into the search and that still wouldn't have produced pahlavi showing in the headlines or ledes which you earlier thought were important. the fact pahlavi gets any mention at all in stories about iranian protests is hardly evidence o' a western effort to embiggen him. *snort* our "extraordinarily long list" were every return for iran + protests for the day via a ddg search. not a single return had pahlavi in a headline or blurb snippet... which you curious imagined as "summary opinions" or some such. use any browser "find" function for word "pahlavi" in our supplied list. no western news articles. do same for a ddg week search for iran protests and pahlavi gets only a couple mentions in the first 60+ western headlines/blurbs, neither o' which embiggen him. for an "any time" search for iran + protests, pahlavi appears in headlines and blurbs 2x in the first 130+ returned western stories, and neither story embiggens his relevance... which comes as no shock 'cause the original quotes you did not link or attribute came from stories which were, for the most part, tepid about pahlavi's significance to the moment.
converse, "erfan soltani" received numerous mentions for a past day search o' iran + protests. even if we had no idea who is erfan soltani, the fact he shows up in so many stories suggests to us he is newsworthy, at least during the past day's news cycle. next week? if erfan keep showing up in daily returns for iran +protests next week, then his relevance is undeniable. and of course a targeted search for erfan is gonna generate returns next week and likely next month.
duh.
even on the day when tv stations were hacked in iran by his supporters or when held a news conference, pahlavi couldn't get more than two mentions in the first 60+ headline returns for an iran + protests search.
but you are gonna ride this bit o' western embiggening nonsense beyond exhaustion, aren't you?
in any event, thanks for your gary johnson + hans blix mythical video bit o' fatuity.
what a hoot.
HA! Good Fun!
-
5 hours ago, rjshae said: I'm wondering where the ACLU is with all these ongoing 4th amendment violations by the administration? ICE is claiming they can issue their own warrants without a need for the court. What a joke. They are invading the homes of American citizens then arresting and detaining them. Talk about unreasonable search and seizure. This is completely abrogating their oath of office.
American Civil Liberties Union
One Year In: Defending the Constitution Under a Second Tr...
The ACLU reflects on hard-won lessons and what the organization is preparing for next.the first year o' trump 2.0 was a busy one for the aclu and similar groups o' legal advocates.
HA! Good Fun!
-
-
Hebb’s song had actually been written in 1963, after John F Kennedy and then Hebb’s brother Harold were murdered on consecutive days. He felt the world — and perhaps he himself — needed a little cheer, and wrote a song to serve that purpose.
HA! Good Fun!
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Zoraptor said: If you assert I constantly brought Blix up- as you did- then you have to show it first.
again, we didn't. we observed how multiple times you have claimed that the administration lied about wmds in spite o' the fact one o' your own wmd sources said the exact opposite. how the hell do expect us to prove a negative? is your claim that Gromnir accused you o' bringing up blix. is another lie. is untrue. blixing. we even linked a post where we did observe how 'course you would wanna avoid the topic o' blix. you revealed your clownish fibbing with blix, so 'course you avoid... with a couple weird exceptions.
your linked posts do not show us making an accusation that you' "constant brought up blix." they do show how, time and time again, Gromnir observed that a source you identified in the context o' wmds most certainly did not believe that the administration were lying and counter to your claims, blix specific noted he had never felt like he were coerced.
your first link o' a Gromnir post most certain does not show that we made an accusation that you, "constant brought up blix." show your work. share a link and the accusation don't make any more true than your ridiculous list o' quotes for pahlavi.
oh, and
1 hour ago, Zoraptor said: ps "hans blix berkeley"-- also October 26, same page as above
was a response to you bringing up blix as what we assume were a kinda bumbling attempted gothca... which by now everybody should realize were a self own.
we responded to this silliness with "ps 'hans blix berkeley'"
again, with your blixing. you share quotes and sources that misrepresent truth, and am expecting you will double down again in your typical blixing fashion. you brought up blix with your "mythical hans blix video," self admission o' ignorance. why? lord only knows why.
nevertheless, we were again happy to invoke blix 'cause you kept making your ignorant wmd claims, such as," Unfortunately Gromnir has a bit of a habit of this. He's about the only person in existence who believes there were no lies from the US about Iraqi WMDs, they were just 100% honestly mistaken in their conservative and well researched attributions."
blix. hans blix is another person in existence. am quite happy to have hans blix in our corner as 'posted to zor. anybody eles wanna choose 'tween zor and blix?
1 hour ago, Zoraptor said: Oh, so it was presented as an option then. Why?
dude.
On 1/29/2026 at 7:20 PM, Gromnir said: "you are the one clown am not gonna ignore anytime soon. even expressed our admitted wishful thinking that others begin verifying your source and fact checking when dealing with zor. why would we ignore you when you have provided us with multiple opportunities respond to and illuminate your misrepresentations since only the middle o' last year, and that is with us being in absentia for weeks and even a month at a time. we offered advice on how boardies should deal with you. ignore is indeed best, at least until you stop lying reflexive. converse, check all your claimed sources and experts.
"doveryay, no proveryay
"bad advice when dealing with zor. don't trust. "
yeah, Gromnir presented as an option, which is why your question made no sense after we fully explained not only why we didn't personal choose the ignore option in spite o' identifying it were the choice o' wisdom, but that we would not be ignoring you for the foreseeable future.
is something serious busted with you. we most certain explained "why" and we did so before you asked, "One might wonder why you bothered saying it as an option then, if you were so adamant about not doing it."
oh, and a 1 day ddg search for pahlavi returns:
nothing in headlines and blurbs, but giving you the benefit o' the doubt, we searched for a week. two additional articles produced:
While some people praised Pahlavi for inspiring protesters, others asked whether he was responsible for sending them to detention and possible death, as some believed Trump was for similarly encouraging the protesters.
For the last 15 years, Pahlavi has intensified his efforts to unify the political opposition and gain greater exposure, culminating in him emerging as a central figure in the latest protests.
Yet there remain questions about whether he is viable as an opposition leader or is simply an opportunist.
His message about a democratic future for Iran has been largely consistent. However, his father’s repressive and imperial legacy, combined with his own royal pedigree and American and Israeli proximity, prevent him from finding favor with Iranians who oppose monarchy and prioritize sovereignty.
Now, the prospect of Iranians across the country rallying around Pahlavi remains as much of an open question as whether they will succeed in creating the conditions for his return by toppling the regime.
...
this one don't look helpful to your position
other:
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/thema/iran
uh, sure.
if we do an iran + protests search with no date limitations, we find 1 within the first 60 western stories which makes any mention o' pahlavi in the headline or blurb inclusion: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-protests-executions-protests-trump-strikes-b2901981.html. is an independent article from 16 jan 2026.
the next story, a fair bit past 60 western options (is story 130, 132... am assuming you count israel sources as western, but if not) we discovered an old friend,
A leader for a future Iran?
Pahlavi's efforts to position himself as a leader for a future Iran have prompted sometimes heated debates inside and outside the country. And while protesters have shouted in support of the shah in some protests, it is not clear whether that is support for Pahlavi himself or a desire to return to a time before the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
His public support of Israel has prompted significant criticism in the past from ordinary Iranians and other members of opposition groups, particularly after the 12-day war launched by Israel in June 2025.
He has sought to have a voice through social media videos, and Farsi-language news channels such as Iran International have highlighted his calls for protests. In press interviews, Pahlavi has repeatedly raised the idea of a constitutional monarchy, perhaps with an elected rather than a hereditary ruler, but has also stated it is up to Iranians to choose.
is a 10 january 2026 npr article we already shared to rebut your embiggen nonsense.
pahlavi appears in the address for a cbs story but not in the headline or snippet supplied. pahlavi also showed up for a couple wikipedia entries, but you wouldn't be so naughty as to include wiki entries... would you?
so...
HA! Good Fun!
-
Edited by Gromnir
1 hour ago, Zoraptor said: I constantly brought up Hans Blix (hilarious really, last time you posted a list of links showing my obsession and it was you mentioning him first every time, you even found the link to your mythical video after I said I wouldn't watch it even if you did) etc etc: you're just consistently lying to yourself.
show your work. you near always misrepresent, so show where we made the accusation o' how you, "constant brought up hans blix." (edit: just one post where we specific note zor's reluctance to talk about blix given his error,) that you has brought up the accusation that the administration lied about wmds more than once, which is especial curious as one o' your supplied sources (blix,) has made it quite clear he did not feel coerced (also one o' your claims) and he believed that bush and the people around him were telling truth as they believed it. when finally confronted with the video evidence that your portrayal o' blix were inaccurate, you suggested that blix were being untruthful, 'cause y'know, blix is a diplomat.
your blixing were dishonest and revealed a distinct lack o' character, just as your indifference to maligning cops, journalist or anybody regardless o' the fact that, as often as not you have no evidence o' a wrong... or make up evidence. it's your thing. Gromnir has a bizarre posting style, and you lie w/o remorse. we all got our thing, eh?
and you did indeed share with us that you don't care about slandering journalists in the absence o' any support for your accusations o' their moral turpitude. if you stopped at suggesting reporters are incorrect, that would not be problematic, but you don't mind ascribing ill-intent to their work product. am not arguing that you failed to explain but am rather pointing out that your explanation is in fact an admission even if you fail to recognize the problem... another character issue we s'pose.
quoting an academic, particular as we were using him as support, were hardly impugning his good name... not at all like your blixing. as we noted earlier, we opined that you has effective turned blix into a verb. obviously you don't want to talk about blix as you got caught misrepresenting his statements and when you were caught, you resorted to claiming blix were the dishonest one.
low character and pathological dishonest. is also weird you would still refer to the video o' blix at berkeley as "mythical." you just can't give up on any stoopid claim no matter how ridiculous, eh?
what a natural segue.
1 hour ago, Zoraptor said: but it was also shared after you posted this:
but nevertheless, still before, this
1 hour ago, Zoraptor said: "One might wonder why you bothered saying it as an option then, if you were so adamant about not doing it."
...
serious dude. even if it had been the only option we presented, if all we said were to ignore you,
1 hour ago, Zoraptor said: "One might wonder why you bothered saying it as an option then, if you were so adamant about not doing it."
would not necessitate the recognition o' alternatives simply 'cause you had included "an option." and you clear did not recognize that we had fully dispelled the "one might wonder why," part o' the query. we explained, painfully, how and why we had no intention o' putting you on ignore anytime soon, and yet, even so, you wondered,
1 hour ago, Zoraptor said: "One might wonder why you bothered saying it as an option then, if you were so adamant about not doing it."
maybe repetition will finally fill the mouth o' this zombie issue o' yours with enough salt to prevent your next resurrection effort. bets?
this is a turin horse situation. am not knowing why you thought "option" had such significance, but it didn't, doesn't and is kinda a silly bit o' deflection... but that is also a zor thing, along with habitual blixing and making claims o' wrong doing before there is even the possibility o' meaningful evidence in support o' such a conclusion.
btw, another day goes by and another day w/o pahlavi getting a mention in the headline or snippet share from an incognito google news return o' iran + protests stories up to a count o' 60. curious, there is now a britanica entry for the iranian protests o' 2026 (is listed as 2 days old and pahlavi is mentioned in the entry, but even zor would have difficulty making bread outta that flour,) and the following story, which we personal found interesting.
Writers’ Voices Increasingly Missing in Iran Protests As Regime Targets Democracy Advocates
Among those arrested at the December memorial service was Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Narges Mohammadi, who is emblematic of the enduring role of writers in Iran. Winner of the 2023 PEN/Barbey Freedom to Write award for imprisoned writers, Narges has used her voice to bind her personal sacrifice to Iranians’ collective struggle for democracy and freedom. She has spent more than a decade of her life in prison, separated from her husband and children. Just over a year ago, in December 2024, she was granted a temporary medical release. Despite the constant threat of being re-arrested, she immediately resumed her outspoken advocacy and stayed in Iran to keep up the fight. She has been a ceaseless, fearless voice capable of uniting people behind calls for equal rights, justice, and democracy. For that, the regime has returned her to prison.
somehow we missed the news about narges mohammadi, which is about 7 weeks old at this point. nevertheless, if we type narges + iran into a search, am positive flooded with articles about her arrest. based on a mindless search return for narges + iran, a person who don't know how search engines work, or who is patent dishonest, might conclude that western media were trying to turn narges mohammadi into the sympathetic face o' the iranian protests... which would be a stoopid exaggeration o' reality, no?
HA! Good Fun!
-
Edited by Gromnir
Don Lemon arrested by federal authorities after protest at Minnesota church service
Lemon was arrested by the FBI and Homeland Security Investigations in Beverly Hills at approximately midnight, according to a federal warrant issued in another district.
Details of the charges against the four were not immediately available. However, the Justice Department promised to pursue charges against Lemon after the independent journalist covered the protest at a church in St. Paul on Jan. 18.
A federal magistrate judge had previously rejected a criminal complaint against Lemon. A source familiar with the matter, described Bondi as “enraged” by the decision.
...
am having no idea the mechanism used to arrest lemon and others, did the feds do as with sandwich guy and find a misdemeanor? did they appeal to a higher power on an emergency basis (unlikely)? did they successful convince a grand jury? trespassing charges woulda' made sense for the protesters who were already arrested, and am not sure if bondi tried that with lemon... after the fact.
as with so much doj theatre, am s'posing is more about the arrest than the charges, but it will be interesting to see how they managed this seeming first amendment abuse.
edit:
am unsure if the following is real, 'cause is kinda daliesque
HA! Good Fun!
-
FBI raid in Georgia highlights Trump's preoccupation with the 2020 election
The FBI last week moved to replace its top agent in Atlanta, Paul W. Brown, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a non-public personnel decision. It was not immediately clear why the move, which was not publicized by the FBI, was made.
...
got no meaningful insights. is a whole lot about this situation which is out o' the ordinary: dni tulsi gabbard being present during the search, the named prosecutor for the warrant is the acting us attorney from missouri and not georgia, and o' the two fed statutes which got mention in the warrant, one is 'bout the requirement to retain election documents for 22 months following an election... the 2020 election, etc.
am not having any idea what evidence the magistrate looked at to come to their determination.
wsj has a story about tulsi involvement
the part from the story which worries us is,
"She is expected to prepare a report on her work, the people said. The administration has discussed executive orders on voting ahead of the midterm elections, two of the officials said."
got a plan and are looking for an excuse to implement it?
or maybe not.
is a whole lotta unknowns save to recognize that fulton county's 2020 election were already investigated a bunch o' times without anybody finding intentional and widespread voter fraud. is there new evidence? if there is new evidence, why is tulsi the one involved, particularly as she personal dismantled the FMIC.
is there any there there in fulton county? not enough info to make a meaningful call.
HA! Good Fun!
-
10 minutes ago, Zoraptor said: The only reason I care about you questioning the integrity of those 'quacks' (most professional article writer evar! most convincing evidence evar!) is because of the hypocrisy, not because of some concept of their honour.
...
thanks for doubling down on our point. you don't care about honesty, facts, truth or maligning just about anybody, sans any kinda evidence. you blix all the time, and reflexively. it's your defining board characteristic.
...
your post, with this query, "One might wonder why you bothered saying it as an option then, if you were so adamant about not doing it."
was shared after our post.
"you are the one clown am not gonna ignore anytime soon. even expressed our admitted wishful thinking that others begin verifying your source and fact checking when dealing with zor. why would we ignore you when you have provided us with multiple opportunities respond to and illuminate your misrepresentations since only the middle o' last year, and that is with us being in absentia for weeks and even a month at a time. we offered advice on how boardies should deal with you. ignore is indeed best, at least until you stop lying reflexive. converse, check all your claimed sources and experts.
"doveryay, no proveryay
"bad advice when dealing with zor. don't trust. "
and lord knows you trying to lede and summary your way out o' your new "option" fumble is complete expected. "One might wonder why you bothered saying it as an option then, if you were so adamant about not doing it," doesn't change meaning if Gromnir only provided the recommendation to ignore you. your insistence that posting "option" signaled your awareness o' our "or" alternatives is unconvincing especial since when we read the entire sentence, it is clear you also missed our explanation for why we were not gonna ignore you anytime soon. there were no plausible "one might wonder why," when you made the query.
duh... again
maybe now you will try and convince us you didn't notice or didn't realize post placement 'cause you haven't really been paying attention... or that we got owned by you for following you down your "an option" rabbit hole o' nonsense?
btw, no pahlavi in the headlines or "ledes" o' the first 60 stories for iran + protests produced by our search engine lazy effort. much embiggening, eh?
HA! Good Fun!
-
Edited by Gromnir
13 minutes ago, Zoraptor said: lolwut.
Saying it was an option does not preclude there being other options- indeed, it more than implies that there are other possibilities offered, or it wouldn't be an option. That isn't exactly university english.
this has gone to a bizarre place. you cannot be serious.
if the only option we had presented were ignoring you, your response o'," One might wonder why you bothered saying it as an option then, if you were so adamant about not doing it," would remain ridiculous seeing as how we fully answered that question BEFORE you asked it. but the fact you put the word "option" into the query would not have been perplexing to us in light o' the fact we supplied only one option. our singular recommendation would have indeed been "an option."
duh.
if we suggested that purchasing a huge life insurance plan and then indulging murder by cop was an excellent retirement plan for your family, you coulda responded exact the same way with, "One might wonder why you bothered saying it as an option then, if you were so adamant about not doing it," and if Gromnir had fixated on the word option, railing about how we had not presented an "or" alternative, we would look positive insane with that bit o' nonsensical deflection... and yet here we are, with zor playing the role o' the most obtuse person ever.
29 minutes ago, Zoraptor said: attacking the character o' individuals before relevant facts has had been established all too often makes the accuser look like a fool
you got a long history o' blixing, so...
edit: zor's biggest reveal from the current bumbling response chain weren't his lazy reliance on an internet search population or his mendacity regarding ledes and summaries... which were just plain silly. nope, we let it slide at the time, 'cause we didn't want to go to a full on character evaluation, but since you is ok with it,
"lol, the poor unfortunate journalists, it's their eternal good fortune that Gromnir is on the case to defend them from vile calumny on the Obsidian forums. Of course, works a bit less well when you've just thrown a Harvard Professor under the bus to avoid admitting you were wrong. And when you've accused Trump's medical staff of effectively lying about his health to prop up your speculation about it."
you make clear that you honest don't see anything wrong with attributing bad intent to journalists, cops, soldiers, politicians or just about anybody else, regardless o' any evidence to support such claims. even when your claims is proved wrong, there is no remorse. am finding that sorta behaviour to be disquieting.
academics is unlikely to mind if you quote them. observe how a professor predicted a likely currency collapse if drastic measures were not taken is not gonna enrage a typical academic, but am seeing how that might bother zor. converse, if we had claimed the professor had predicted a currency collapse if severe austerity measures were not taken, and the professor had actually opined that russia were never in any danger o' economic pain from sanctions coupled with the oil situation, then am thinking he would have cause for outrage. if we blixed him, calling the academic a liar when our own misrepresentation were revealed, then am thinking it would show a serious flaw in our character. and yeah, am suspicious o' the claims made by trump's doctors. seeing as how there has been questions about the truthfulness o' trump doctor claims since at least 2018, one wonders why zor is so credulous. regardless, doesn't look like we rushed this one either.
am not perfect. no doubt am having proverbial jumped the gun more than once in spite o' our admonishments that doing so is wrong. am recalling that we accused rittenhouse (mention him as he is back in the news) o' taking a firearm across state lines when such was not the case. sure, we qualified that we hadn't been paying much attention to the trial, but we were wrong about the state line issue and we shoulda' self-educated more thorough before opening our gob on that point. our bad.
we got all kinda character flaws; no argument. one reason we dislike trump so much is his constant lying. am not sure why in 2026 it is more important to have a viral take than to provide an honest and reflective response. lack o' fairness also triggers us more than it should. maybe we will work on such... maybe after we see zor ease up on the reflexive blixing?
HA! Good Fun!
-
1 hour ago, Bartimaeus said: I'd be a lot more curious if we hadn't already heard from him a handful of months ago and he was still pulling the old "it'd be just as bad under Kamala" nonsense...
for gd to give up they are all bad is an admitted heavy ask. his entire political identity is premised on the notion you should abandon voting democrat or republican. choose trump to prevent biden from becoming President or choosing harris instead o' trump is a deal with the devil and the americans will never see anything better from our government as long as people keep making the same pointless mistake.
is a whole lotta self-described libertarians who feel as gd, and while we did not share his pov, we were sympathetic to it... up until muslim ban.
gd didn't vote for trump like the maga faithful who see him as their savior from dei and the scourge of illegal immigration. gd didn't vote for rfk jr 'cause o' vaccines. gd didn't vote trump like so many relative indifferent voters who nevertheless continue to view trump as a successful businessman who could lower the cost o' groceries. gd ain't like the democrats who lost faith in the biden administration 'cause o' gaza or perceived weakness on the environment and voted trump or third party in protest. gd voted other 'cause he was certain that democrat v. republican is a no-win option, but he failed to recognize just how much a guaranteed loss a trump victory would be. gd were voting as a matter o' principle, may God have mercy on his soul..
post jan 6, we realized that they are all bad is a religious belief and not a political position. is gonna take a road to damascus event to convince gd that lesser of two evils is anything other than surrendering to evil.
HA! Good Fun!
-
2
-
-
Edited by Gromnir
3 hours ago, Gromnir said: you didn't bother to read, eh? it were an "or" option. again proving how obtuse you are. am agreeing it is a best approach to ignore zor, but until am seeing you tone down the reflexive and habitual fibbing, am gonna call it out when we see it. no doubt won't be a long wait.
again, are you this thick? we did not just supply "an option," but multiple. how could you pretend as if we did not offer multiple options while explaining why ignore were best? you tacit recognize this fact but nevertheless question why we would mention the ignore possibility? 'cause it were indeed a choice, a choice between multiple options, an "or" kinda choice, and we specific answered your query o'
3 hours ago, Zoraptor said: why you bothered saying it as an option then, if you were so adamant about not doing it.
with,
5 hours ago, Gromnir said: you are the one clown am not gonna ignore anytime soon. even expressed our admitted wishful thinking that others begin verifying yourr source and fact checking when dealing with zor. why would we ignore you when you have provided us with multiple opportunities respond to and illuminate your misrepresentations since only the middle o' last year, and that is with us being in absentia for weeks and even a month at a time. we offered advice on how boardies should deal with you. ignore is indeed best, at least until you stop lying reflexive. converse, check all your claimed sources and experts.
you can see it right... how we explained why we would offer it as an option before you asked the question.
dude.
how do you miss the "or" and the already supplied explanation for your question?
serious? gonna go this obtuse with the sophistry and word parsing, eh?
you cannot be this willful obtuse, although the fact this is the hill you want to fight on does serious undermine the sophistry complaints, no?
HA! Good Fun!
ps am honest reaching the turin horse point where we begin to feel guilt.
-
Edited by Gromnir
23 minutes ago, Gfted1 said: These are new to the grocery store I shop at and they are awesome: Pretzilla Pretzel Sf Bites 12.5oz Tub with Nacho Cheese Cup - Walmart.com Until now Ive only ever seen them offered as an appetizer in restaurants and my wife and I both love them.
just an fyi as am knowing there is a few costcos in the chicago burbs. have never personal eaten 'em, but the word o' mouth from people we trust is good. ~.30¢ an ounce at our local costco in norcal and is one o' those items, like the chicken bakes and frozen meatballs, am having seen every time we visit costo.
HA! Good Fun!
-
1
-
-
Edited by Gromnir
well, maybe not his best effort, but it speaks to us for some reason... and we wouldn't be shocked if maga adopted it in some form as an attempted lib own.
HA! Good Fun!
-
1
-
-
Edited by Gromnir
bought two 22oz bags o' the miss vickie's spicy dill pickle chips.
am not certain how am gonna eat all the chips before they go stale. sell by date is april 21, and am s'posing we got at least a few weeks past that point for an unopened bag... maybe?
...
they are good chips and costco doesn't carry 'em all the time, so...
also, made a pork tenderloin crusted with crushed pecans and panko bread crumbs. we go light on brown sugar, but heavy on a creole seasoning mix as well as a fair bit o' sage. red onions and red pairs is also involved, but is relative simple as is most pork tenderloin recipes.
am gonna have pork tenderloin for a while, but not near as long as the chips... and sadly, am not believing the chips would compliment the pork as am having prepared it... but y'know, we do have a dill, garlic-aioli and panko crust technique for pork tenderloin. am suspecting the chips would make a fine substitute/addition to panko.
HA! Good Fun!
-
Fed holds key interest rate steady as economic view improves
am certain trump's response will be cogent and sober.
HA! Good Fun!
The All Things Political Topic - world tidings
in Way Off-Topic
·
Edited by Gromnir
judge biery opinion and order (edit: the opinion length is ~500 words)
for those unaware o' the liam conejo ramos story.
HA! Good Fun!