14 hours ago, Gromnir said:

perhaps you would make that reasonable and nevertheless illogical assumption,

It's not illogical in the slightest. It's the result of your writing in pidgin, which is a choice you make. As it stands, I'll take it as that though because this is even more boring than the rest.

14 hours ago, Gromnir said:

irrelevant. again, you brought up blix.

That's in the context of you not providing sources and congratulating you for finding one that time. Highly relevant, given your conduct here.

And congratulations even if- or perhaps more so because- it showed what I was saying was correct.

14 hours ago, Gromnir said:

ok, see, now that is strawman. we made no such claim.

Really? You called looking for reza pahalvi ridiculous, on this very page, to whit:

On 2/3/2026 at 2:15 PM, Gromnir said:

we got 73 results, so close to your ridiculous targeted search product.

Oh dear.

14 hours ago, Gromnir said:

you just can't stop lying. is why am gonna continue to check your sources.

Well, someone can't it seems, though you do seem to be predominantly lying to yourself. Makes things easy for me, I just have to check your posts on the same page since you can't be consistent between them.

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!

judge biery opinion and order (edit: the opinion length is ~500 words)

for those unaware o' the liam conejo ramos story.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 4Feb 4 by Gromnir

Good grief. A see two posters who need their own rant thread.

(Seen on FARK.) Meanwhile, DJT is again wanting to turn the page on the whole Epstein affair. The problem is he's on that pages as well, and the next, and the next...

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-cuts-contact-with-polish-parliament-speaker-over-trump-insults-2026-02-05/

MAGA sure are thin skinned.

6 hours ago, rjshae said:

Good grief. A see two posters who need their own rant thread.

i'm just waiting for them to kiss

I think Gromnir's pretty safe from that at least.

On 2/5/2026 at 10:59 AM, Gromnir said:

you began with a grammar argument... remember your "plural" claim?

You deliberately write badly, then blame others for their 'misinterpretations'.

This happens very frequently and has happened at least three times in this thread. It's also happened to others. It's very much a you problem.

Again, I'm specifically not arguing with you, that's why everything is just repeated. Took long enough for you to notice, since I told you in the very first reply.

Bonus, takes me nearly no time at all. Probably 75% is mucking around with quotes and the disappearing cursor.

On 2/5/2026 at 10:59 AM, Gromnir said:

talk about context, eh?

OK, you brought up Blix, in the context of WMD, per the quote of yours that you keep on ignoring (this is a pattern). I just brought him up to show you didn't provide sources. Very relevant here, since you complained about me not providing them.

On 2/5/2026 at 10:59 AM, Gromnir said:

oh, and go ahead and keep repeating to us that we said that "your" targeted search of pahlavi were ridiculous,

OK, you kept repeating that searching for information about Reza Pahlavi when you wanted information on him was ridiculous while searching for iran protests was the thing to do. I even quoted you doing so the post previous.

On 2/5/2026 at 10:59 AM, Gromnir said:

whataboutism

Another literal lol. Pointing out that you do exactly what you accuse others of is not whataboutism, nor is it gaslighting or any other phrase those who cannot argue their way out of a paper bag use reflexively; it's just the truth. The first defence of anyone caught out in hypocrisy is to scream whataboutism (we're talking about what is wrong with you only! anything else is whataboutism!) and the only reason you're doing it here is because you don't have an actual refutation, because you cannot have an actual refutation. All those things you've accused me of you've done yourself.

I'm generally of the opinion that even people I don't like or don't value the opinion of are at least worth listening to, but this and you... I even feel bad laughing at this point.

after labour accomplish nothing with 1 year in power

now there are another mandelson scandal

guess uk politic can always become more pathetic

In the great primate Media posting wars...

If you had to pick just one, is DJT more like a baboon or an orangutan? Curious people want to know.

I mean, some baboons have that yellow hair, but orangutans are more orange.

spain will follow australia and demand verification for access internet

as expected one nation get away with it lead all other to follow

edit

usa are trying to get rid of section 230

also in the name of think of the children

Edited Sunday at 02:03 AM3 days by uuuhhii

Is it going to be harder to circumvent than the Aussie one? My nephew and all his friends are still happily posting on their toktiks, chatsnaps and instagrammes months into the ban, and he's a pretty obvious 12 year old.

25 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

Is it going to be harder to circumvent than the Aussie one? My nephew and all his friends are still happily posting on their toktiks, chatsnaps and instagrammes months into the ban, and he's a pretty obvious 12 year old.

already have difficulty making account on some many website

this will certainly make it worse

3 cheers for the corporate surveillance state. For my money the kids will take no harm from lacking addictive scrolling apps, but as we know, that's not likely to be the end goal.

11 hours ago, uuuhhii said:

usa are trying to get rid of section 230

also in the name of think of the children

USA really is the last on earth to do anything in the name of protecting children.

1 hour ago, Lexx said:

USA really is the last on earth to do anything in the name of protecting children.

Depends who you are, rich and powerful people live under different rules and different laws. You go to prison when you can't afford the bribe.

18 hours ago, Lexx said:

USA really is the last on earth to do anything in the name of protecting children.

Can you or others just summarize what is the real issue around age verification?

Its necessary to primarily ensure under 16 cant access SM and adult sites anymore

Do you object to that development, so do you believe under 16 should be able to access SM ?

Or do you object to the fact SM will now request your age?

I dont mind confirming my age or other details, I already do this on dozens of other online services and I have been doing that for years

Here is a link around the countries that now require age verification

Mashable

All the states and countries that have age-verification l...

This list will likely grow longer.

@rjshae @Zoraptor if you could also comment that would be helpful so I can understand what you fundamentally concerned about?

How is this going to change your life in a negative way?

so japan and italy go full fascist

germany conservative will fold to afd any time now

guess all this is less alarming than what usa are doing right now

Can you or others just summarize what is the real issue around age verification?

For me at least, it's primarily a question of privacy. Age verification requires identity verification, which can aid criminal behavior and potentially allowing retaliation for some posted comment. This in turn limits freedom to speak one's mind and increases risk.

This surprised me. Exports to the US growing year on year despite the tariffs.

https://infogram.com/dansk-eksport-til-usa-1hnq41opvgd1k23

12 hours ago, BruceVC said:

How is this going to change your life in a negative way?

Answer is that it probably wouldn't inconvenience me much, since I doubt I'd have much problem circumventing anything short of a full Great Firewall of New Zealand.

However, compulsory use of the internet for storage of important information like your identity needs opposing on principle, especially when it's done mostly so politicians can take An Achievement to The Electorate.

Last month a compulsory use privately run health database got hacked here that was used by a third of the country's population. It appears they gained access through brute forcing a password, and much of the data wasn't encrypted- about as basic mistakes as it's possible to make. So far, zero consequences for the guys running it.

You also know that people will go full UK and let Peter Thiel/ Meta/ Cambridge Analytica et alia have access to all that lovely data.

11 hours ago, Gorgon said:

This surprised me. Exports to the US growing year on year despite the tariffs.

https://infogram.com/dansk-eksport-til-usa-1hnq41opvgd1k23

The US is still the worlds strongest consumer driven economy and its hard to replace that as an export market for countries

Also Trump has flip-flopped on certain tariffs and cut deals so its hard to determine what has really been tariffed and what its impact is if any

19 hours ago, Gorgon said:

This surprised me. Exports to the US growing year on year despite the tariffs.

https://infogram.com/dansk-eksport-til-usa-1hnq41opvgd1k23

Note that companies stocked up in advance of the tariff application, so many of the costs weren't passed along to the consumers in 2025 and may not be reflected in the statistics. That will change this year since those stockpiles have become exhausted. I've noticed some significant changes in store prices of late, so the tariffs are starting to bite.

On 2/9/2026 at 7:23 AM, BruceVC said:

Can you or others just summarize what is the real issue around age verification?

Its necessary to primarily ensure under 16 cant access SM and adult sites anymore

Do you object to that development, so do you believe under 16 should be able to access SM ?

Or do you object to the fact SM will now request your age?

I dont mind confirming my age or other details, I already do this on dozens of other online services and I have been doing that for years

Here is a link around the countries that now require age verification

Mashable

All the states and countries that have age-verification l...

This list will likely grow longer.

@rjshae @Zoraptor if you could also comment that would be helpful so I can understand what you fundamentally concerned about?

How is this going to change your life in a negative way?

It's not about porn, it's about censorship. The government can now ban sites that it deems "dangerous". It's a soft ban, but it will slow traffic to a crawl given that most people want nothing to do with the government id app that would be needed to unlock said sites. Said soft ban could be used as leverage for any number of political or repressive reasons. Soon enough there will be "dangerous ideas" that the children must be protected from.

You can't just hope that governments won't abuse their power, they will, given enough time. So you have to be certain of your rights instead.

"As everyone knows, the Country of Canada has treated the United States very unfairly for decades. Now, things are turning around for the U.S.A., and FAST! But imagine, Canada is building a massive bridge between Ontario and Michigan. They own both the Canada and the United States side and, of course, built it with virtually no U.S. content. President Barack Hussein Obama stupidly gave them a waiver so they could get around the BUY AMERICAN Act, and not use any American products, including our Steel. Now, the Canadian Government expects me, as President of the United States, to PERMIT them to just “take advantage of America!” What does the United States of America get — Absolutely NOTHING! Ontario won't even put U.S. spirits, beverages, and other alcoholic products, on their shelves, they are absolutely prohibited from doing so and now, on top of everything else, Prime Minister Carney wants to make a deal with China — which will eat Canada alive. We’ll just get the leftovers! I don't think so. The first thing China will do is terminate ALL Ice Hockey being played in Canada, and permanently eliminate The Stanley Cup. The Tariffs Canada charges us for our Dairy products have, for many years, been unacceptable, putting our Farmers at great financial risk. I will not allow this bridge to open until the United States is fully compensated for everything we have given them, and also, importantly, Canada treats the United States with the Fairness and Respect that we deserve. We will start negotiations, IMMEDIATELY. With all that we have given them, we should own, perhaps, at least one half of this asset. The revenues generated because of the U.S. Market will be astronomical. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"

Vance is going to be President in a couple of months, isn't he.

11 hours ago, Gorgon said:

It's not about porn, it's about censorship. The governmcent can now ban sites that it deems "dangerous". It's a soft ban, but it will slow traffic to a crawl given that most people want nothing to do with the government id app that would be needed to unlock said sites. Said soft ban could be used as leverage for any number of political or repressive reasons. Soon enough there will be "dangerous ideas" that the children must be protected from.

You can't just hope that governments won't abuse their power, they will, given enough time. So you have to be certain of your rights instead.

Thats definitely a concern and something I wasn't aware of

I am very interested in how this unfolds, if you could post examples as time goes on of what sites get banned for " dangerous ideas" or other similar things that would be helpful

I can see the anxiety because words like " dangerous ideas" are very subjective and open to abuse depending on the government and its ideological views

I found this link specifically around how Denmark has implemented age verification, Im not sure how accurate it is but its similar to other countries

Denmark To Set 15-Year Minimum Age for Social Media Use

Denmark becomes the first EU country to set a 15-year minimum age for social media, aiming to protect youth well-being and regulate harmful online exposure.

So basically

"Under the agreement, individuals under 15 years old will be prohibited from self-registering on designated platforms. Children aged 13 and 14 may access social media only if a parent or guardian permits them.

Complementing the age rule, the agreement includes measures to tighten digital “gate-keeping”: monitoring offensive content, preventing aggressive marketing to minors, and limiting the use of children in advertising.

In practical terms, enforcement will lean on Denmark’s advanced digital infrastructure. The government plans to use its national electronic ID system and create or require age-verification tools for online platforms. In case of rules being violated, the regulated social platform may face liability for non-compliance with age checks up to 6% of its yearly turnover across the globe, as provided in the EU Digital Services Act (DSA)."

So it all seems at the moment to be targeting under 16 only but I understand your concern because it can be extended to now include adults and websites government decides are problematic

Personally I dont support any type of ID age verification for children or adults because of how it has to be implemented, its too invasive when you have to use your actual ID. I realized I actually dont normally give my ID but just my date of birth which is fine

I think parents should be more involved and deciding what there kids can or cant see and I dont think the state should enforce these types of measures. But I also understand why we at this point, we have heard endless stories over the last 10 years of the negative impact SM has had on many kids so now governments are acting but they going about it in a way that is getting understandable criticism for the reasons we have discussed