I have reread this.
I still really have no idea what you thought you were highlighting here.
I note that you chose to not copy and paste the bits that show my focus was on Riley Gaines who you still have not shown has any intention of campaigning to ban abortion.
I think all you have done is show that I have remained consistent in my posting.
It must really infuriate you. But I am quite sure, since you clearly have a superior intellect, that you will point out exactly where I have deviated in my discussion about Riley Gaines as you have accused me of.
I mentioned Riley first on page 11 at 18.25 where I posted a list of feminists (9 episodes initially) appearing on Tucker Carlson in the past two years discussing this issue. In response to the claims there has been enough feminists on Tucker Carlson’s show so why would the feminist who made a film with feminists voices go on the show.
And yes, I included someone that perhaps is not a feminist and agreed to drop the list to 8. Then the discussion about Riley Gaines started in earnest. I even offered pages later to just exclude Riley and say there were just 7 episodes - 3 with Kara Dansky. But your ‘guilt by association’ accusations against Riley just continued with no evidence but your theory based on guilt by association.
You seemed to have missed copying and pasting all my posts discussing how you used that guilt by association on the preceding pages ( page 11 to 15) before you started to copy and paste. Because they are relevant to the context and paint a whole different story to your claim.
However, Specifically your claim of:
”you’re going to try and just sweep it under the carpet….with a meh it’s not even relevant”
seems rather dishonest.
Even on some of the posts you snipped from: (for convenience, page 15 is where your snips start)
“Helleofabore · 05/01/2023 19:21
I have today looked at Riley Gaines. I have found no information as to her opinion towards abortion
While much has been made of her ‘campaigning’ with Rand Paul,… (shortened for relevance)
So… clearly a post about Riley’s belief and you’re leveraging your interpretation of a man she did some campaigning with on women’s sport.
The post on the 5th Jan at20.06 was my reply to delphinium about …. Riley Gaines.
The post on the 6th Jan at 08.16 again discussed Riley Gaines.
The post on the 6th Jan at 11.33 included the link to the article about his co-sponsoring of a law to legalize abortion up to 20 weeks. Because you had twice stated that my reference (that being the January 2022 bill) referred to something a decade old
Here at 6th January 09.48
”You posted a sentence he said over a decade ago in which he merely states the States should decide on abortion when he was pushing for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. I have posted what is currently in his webpages. He is seeking to ban abortion in his State.”
and
Then again at 10.10
“Unless the evidence is their actions, because that don’t mean shit to Helleofabore . She only goes by what people say. And she prefers to cut and paste comments said a decade ago out of context as her evidence instead of what they’re saying today, right now on their own professional webpages.”
That was the only reason I posted the link in the first place (interestingly you posted the same bill in your later post- not sure you realised that).
Your snipped bit about that 11.33 post is quite enlightening when readers now read your contributions on this thread.
In any case the 11.33 post also was focused on Riley Gaines and your accusations against her.
And the final supposed gotcha was the one at 11.34. Which was again directly relating to your post at 6th January 10.10 posted in its entirety above.
It was the only post you selected that did not include a bringing back of the topic to Riley Gaines. Because it came directly after the 11.33 post. I didn’t think I needed to again mention Riley Gaines.
And I feel confident about my statements of your posts showing you hold views based on thinking that is “polarised, absolutist, exaggerating his views, intent on discrediting, peddling half truths.” in light of the factual errors in some of your statements.
( yes, I misread your intention in posting the bill about prohibiting congress making laws about abortion for the state - apologies, I am on a small screen)
Particulary the factual errors you repeated in the quote I posted being about statements ‘from a decade’ ago and that Paul was responsible for Kentucky “banning abortion” and even that he was responsible for ‘banning’ abortion in the fullest sense of the word, while CO-SPONSORING three bills legalising abortion to 20 weeks Ie; not just remove funding, provide adequate counselling to women and girls before the decision is final, and his expectation that parents of minors should know, and that the states should make decisions themselves.
I don’t agree that his actions has shown he has ‘banned’ abortion in the absolutist way you have described, using highly emotionally manipulative tactics. And you agreed that England has not ‘banned’ abortion with its limited access.
Your posts around this man lack consistency. But from what I can gather, despite all your posts into the deep dive to prove otherwise, nothing I said in the post of 05/01/2023 19:21 , which you have posted most of in the quoted text, above was incorrect.
It is your own conclusions, and determination to ignore the three co-sponsored bills that seems to be the issue. You have remained entrenched in what you believe every person who is ‘pro-life’ in turn believes.
And so.
Would you like to explain your post about how I supposedly pivoted that brought you to declare this :
”you’re going to try and just sweep it under the carpet….with a meh it’s not even relevant”
and this;
”you decide to pivot and say it’s all irrelevant anyway…everything you posted.”
Because I find your post quite dishonest and bewilderingly. It is no surprise though. I am not seeing me sweeping anything under any carpet and have consistently maintained that my focus was Riley Gaines.
I really do not think your posts shows what you meant it to show.
Oh. And please explain without the personal attacks.
(By the way, I post all this partly in an attempt to fulfill you challenge the other day where you said of my method of posting ‘It is academically dishonest and wouldn’t pass journalistic ethics much less any peer review.’)
** I have used hard dates for clarity for future readers.