Would be very cool to be able to host a Signal homeserver.

Entitled to what…?

I literaly never said you did

Yeah, no one should care about abuses of power if its only for 5 days!

In summary, for the court:

Cowbee told a bold-faced lie about me:

you claimed nothing in the screenshotted text was bolded when it was.

This sealioning, gaslighting, and HYPOCRISY is surely ban worthy.

Just kidding, that would make you a PTB. :)

Lemmy.world is fine with political trolls and drama farming, though.

In your mind, sure.

This isn’t going to go anywhere, I’m disengaging.

After telling a bold-faced lie about me. Cool hypocrisy, bro.

You never conceded, you insulted me the entire way through

Not mutually exclusive. Stop whining about insults, you’ve insulted me this whole time as well. No one cares.

Was not an answer.

Yes it was. The answer is that Lemmy World wanted nothing to do with an instance obsessed with political rhetoric, that has identified them as housing enemy ideologies.

You can sub in any political ideology and that answer holds true.

Additionally, a single user saying I have a “reputation” after you displayed such bad-faith argumentation means very little.

Good thing there’s a whole community of users here. Man, you love fishing for little gotchas :)

Oh, yes – I did think you were a mod and the one that banned me, based on how things came to my inbox.

Nevermind, you’re just a Cowbee orbiter. Yawn.

No, you intentionally misinterpreted what I said by placing too much of a focus on the words “NATO” and “IMF” when the point was clearly about the line “It is in the Left’s interest for these organizations to be demolished.”

I didn’t “intentionally misinterpret” anything. I thought you were talking about that one line, and thought it was funny that you called out the only line without any actual bold in the formatting. I then said proceeded to move on and answer your question regardless of the perceived gaff.

When you decided that was your hill to die on, I gave you the concession because it was completely irrelevant to the discussion and invited you several times to engage with my answer. You refused.

I answered your question. 3 times. I linked you to it. What more do you want?

Now you’re here claiming that I said there was no bolded text at all. I see why other comments here are talking about your reputation.

Oh sorry, I assumed you used bans appropriately. My bad. Guess that sorta resolves this post though!

You could have said that @Cowbee@lemmy.ml worded it incorrectly, and that you never said that, you only said that a specific line wasn’t bolded (at least I assume that is what you are trying to get at here)

I literally conceded that he could have that point, because it was literally completely irrelevant to the discussion. I then invited him to rejoin the discussion multiple times after that, but he continued to accuse me of lying, instead of just agreeing to disagree and move on. Yet you deem my behavior as more harmful to the community.

Why are you both so fixated on that hyper-specific, non-sequitor?

You sure did. Quote the line I said.

You won’t. Because we were quibbling about which particular bullet point you meant, based on me making a non-sequitor jab.

You just can’t help but misrepresent, can you?

you claimed nothing in the screenshotted text was bolded when it was.

Quote me claiming “nothing in the screenshotted text was bolded” for the court please.

You’re right, will update now. Thanks, PTB

Probably should have said “looking at your phone” instead of “have your headphones on”.

No you didn’t. You just made a completely irrelevant point about truth.

They just explained how to use AI in a way where “truth” isn’t relevant.