Elon Musk has said an Axios report that the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had concluded there was no evidence of a Jeffrey Epstein client list was the “final straw”.
The report also said the agencies had concluded there was no credible evidence the disgraced financier and pedophile blackmailed high-profile and prominent individuals, and confirmed that surveillance footage showed Epstein had killed himself in prison.
“So… umm… then what is Ghislaine Maxwell in prison for?” Musk posted to his X platform, referring to Epstein’s former girlfriend and associate who procured underage girls for him to abuse.
So I can tell you to leave me the fuck alone.
Remind me again who made contact with whom? I’m pretty sure it was you making contact with me to make a pedantic point you’d subsequently get too worked up about. So conventionally when someone makes contact with someone else and made it very clear that your repeated unwanted contact is becoming problematic we generally call that harassment.
Leave me alone, I can’t reply if you don’t go out of your way to contact me again knowing full fucking well I’d rather you shoot yourself to the moon then speak at me.
Similarly you’re really gonna go with that “then why you dress like that” rapist mentality bullshit?
You do realize that you’re on a social media platform in which people interact with other people, right? Again, if you want to stop the conversation, you’re free to stop replying to me at any time.
You do realize that’s still harassment.
What is?
@madison420 why?
They laid out the uses for the apostrophe very clearly.
All you needed to do was read, understand, then clarify.
You’re using the apostrophe incorrectly and now you’ve acted like an angry pedantic individual.
Nearly anyone who’s bothered to read your garbage has disagreed with you.
Are you even a person -with your obstinance, you’re behaving like an LLM.
That is to say, you’re confidently incorrect while hallucinating the facts.
Why what?
Tell me your alt without telling me your alt.
Regardless of how you arrived here, your attitude is not vibing with 420 at all, not of late.
A normal human user would understand the context and respond appropriately.
Because I don’t let people talk down to me? Yeah I’m not a doormat and you don’t know me ya judgy twat.
A normal human user wouldn’t start with insults and preconceptions they refused to be swayed from despite all reason and logic.
And again it’s specifically and explicitly again sub rules to call people chatbots, read the fucking rules or at the very least take that chucklefuckery away from me.
I’m my own person, look at my post history.
I’m reading a thread and responding to someone thrashing irrationally due to their own error.
It sure reads like exchanges I’ve experienced with LLMs of late.
Confident incorrectness has been a characteristic of both of these instances.
I don’t have any other federated accounts, by any other name(s).
So - you’re still denying the fact that you used the apostrophe incorrectly? The other guy spelled it out for you, and tried to be nice it seems.
I’m about to give you a link about the proper usage, to reflect your prior posting attitude.
You’re being a dishonestly rude individual.
No thanks.
No, you’re reading a dispute about the intent of my point. He made a grammatical correction that is an editorial error so when he says he’s right he’s incorrect. Did they bother to inquire further instead of insulting my intelligence as you are right now? No because their wish is to win not to be correct hence the unwillingness to admit their own error that I can’t help not notice you haven’t mentioned.
It’s explicitly against this subs rules to call people chatbots so I’m not even going to bother delving into the stupidity required to assume an llm can carry a reasonable conversation not can’t figure out English syntax.
Correct, he’s confidently incorrect while I may have made a error in the formation of a sentence which btw I haven’t denied he’s made an error in demanding he knows the writers intent better then the writer which is both absurd and incredibly egomaniacal.
I don’t care about your accounts boss.
I haven’t over denied I used it incorrectly, I’ve denied their assertion that it was an attempt to pluralize Clinton rather then imply possession as a slight to the Clinton family and Trump as well.
Notice I haven’t denied proper usage, I’ve denied his assertion that I’m wrong about my intent.
I’m rude? You started by calling me a chatbot how fucking kind do you think that one is? So I may be rude to the person who’s second comment to me was essentially a sarcastic “is it really?” Implying I’m lying or I don’t know what my own point is. Why exactly should I be kind to that person when they’re at the jump unions to me like you’re being now.
You’ve been rude, and refused to acknowledge context. Your usage didn’t match the intent you expressed and wouldn’t clarify.
Read Rule # 3. I accused you of behavior of being like something else. It’s not the same as calling you that other thing.
You obviously think I have multiple accounts as you’ve accused me of such.
I walked in on a conversation with over 30 replies and most of them were you ignoring the context and providing content that was trying to walk all over a valid point without moving the conversation forward. Yeah - You failed to explain yourself and ignored context.
When everyone else thinks you’re wrong, perhaps - just perhaps - you could be wrong. Use a tool to look at all the folks who downvoted you. You’re not standing up for yourself. You’re standing up for incorrect usage, and you’re not following the rules.
Your entire exchange falls under rule 4 violations. Goodbye, I’ll follow the guidance. You’ve subtracted from the conversation.
I’ve responded in kind to a person who’s second comment questioned my honesty, integrity and intelligence based on a errant belief that I was trying to pluralize Clinton. I was not trying to pluralize anything hence the statement to that effect previously and my insistence that a “correction” that removes intent is gross editorial error and refusing to accept a reasonable answer as to why their correction is flawed at best is just egomaniacal. And to be clear I’ve never denied they’re could be a mistake I’ve said the correction they attempted is not a correction it’s an editorial error so am I ignoring context or are all three of you ignoring the context I’ve provided in multiple?
I understand, I still think you’re all the same person because you speak the same and the chances that I found three separate incessant pendants that all make the same error and all insist on their opinion of me meeting factual dispite what I think we have to agree is at the very least a plausible answer is nigh zero.
I believe you’re all the same person, correct regardless of if you are or not you’re all taking the same stance with the same wording and insisting “altogether” that I cannot know the intent of a statement I made more than any of you “three” know my intent so I ran into three egomaniacs or one with far too much time and far too few communication skills.
I didn’t ignore the context, I ignore the insistence that it was a pluralization error and not a possession error. I implore you to find a denial that their might be a mistake, the most I’ve ever done is say that the mistake they insist on is not the error they insist it to be.
Sure the majority is always save and correct right? We got trump because clearly group think is flawless and people would never pile on because it feels good to be part of something even if it’s attempting to tear someone else down for a minor error. And again you insist the same error they do despite multiple admission there might be an error it’s not the error they insist it is.
Their second comment violates rule two by attacking the commentor rather then the comment. Your position only makes sense if you’re certain for whatever reason that I’m a liar.