Iran closes Strait of Hormuz again.

[gfm7175]

And how do you get "information from sources" without using google search or AI to find what you know exists?

There are various methods for accessing information from a primary and/or authoritative source. They CAN involve use of internet searches, but they don't have to.

Are you manually searching each web site to see who is reporting the facts without using google or AI to aggregate the facts?

I'm using primary and/or authoritative sources rather than leftist propaganda.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

And how do you get "information from sources" without using google search or AI to find what you know exists?

Are you manually searching each web site to see who is reporting the facts without using google or AI to aggregate the facts?

Don't expect a fact-based reply nor anything but opinion from a MAGA moron much less someone who doesn't have the keys to the front door of his domicile.

There are various methods for accessing information from a primary and/or authoritative source. They CAN involve use of internet searches, but they don't have to.

I'm using primary and/or authoritative sources rather than leftist propaganda.

QED

 

[gfm7175]

Logic is not a proof but you are too stupid to understand that.

Logic is a closed system that is used to form a proof, but you are too stupid to understand that.

The application of logic is an individualistic thing as each an every person on the planet has their own capacity for logic and if we say "logic is proof' then every single person on the planet is correct by just saying "i used my logic" so that is proof.

Logic isn't subjective, Q-tip.

Of course only a stupid person thinks that, and thus why you do.

so again you have provided no proof,

You can't just ignore it away, Q-tip...

 

[QP!]

There are various methods for accessing information from a primary and/or authoritative source. They CAN involve use of internet searches, but they don't have to.

I'm using primary and/or authoritative sources rather than leftist propaganda.

Right but AI and Google cite the primary sources in their searches and are not just offering AI and Google opinion. the AI links i post are citing the primary source.

But tell me how do you find the right primary source? If a claim is made about bombing in the Strait, tell me your process for 'identifying' and 'getting to' primary source.

I use google and Ai as an aggregator so i can quickly see and identify the primary sources and then read them and post my reply while citing the AI search that gave me that data. explain to me how you get to that same primary source without using search engines or AI?

 

[QP!]

Logic is a closed system that is used to form a proof, but you are too stupid to understand that.

Logic isn't subjective, Q-tip.



You can't just ignore it away, Q-tip...

Right but what you are too stupid to understand is that "logic' is applied by the individual.

So a stupid person saying 'i have solved this complex question using my logic' and a smart person saying "i have also solved it using logic but my conclusion is very different than his', can and does absolutely happen.

You as the stupid person keep repeating to the smart person 'but i used my logic thus what i say has to be right' and that is just stupid. Stupid like you.

Your logic and its application is individualistic and only as good as the person applying it. so in your case, garbage.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Right but AI and Google cite the primary sources in their searches and are not just offering AI and Google opinion. the AI links i post are citing the primary source.

But tell me how do you find the right primary source? If a claim is made about bombing in the Strait, tell me your process for 'identifying' and 'getting to' primary source.

I use google and Ai as an aggregator so i can quickly see and identify the primary sources and then read them and post my reply while citing the AI search that gave me that data. explain to me how you get to that same primary source without using search engines or AI?

Agreed. Also, like Wiki, which MAGAts often badmouth, it's best to check the sources listed for verification.

 

[QP!]

Agreed. Also, like Wiki, which MAGAts often badmouth, it's best to check the sources listed for verification.

magats live in their world of alternative facts where they think their own ''logic' is all the proof they need.

So they hate, by default, any use of google or AI being brought to an argument quickly aggregating facts and proof from original sources that they are wrong.

What they want is argument where instead they say 'you are wrong.... no i am right and you are wrong...' and no facts or proofs are ever presented and it the entire argument remains opinion based on our individual logic, as that then makes them feel they are correct as anyone else.

it is stupid but @T. A. Gardner tried to make the same argument before as well.

 

[gfm7175]

Right but AI and Google cite the primary sources in their searches and are not just offering AI and Google opinion. the AI links i post are citing the primary source.

But tell me how do you find the right primary source? If a claim is made about bombing in the Strait, tell me your process for 'identifying' and 'getting to' primary source.

Military operation information is more difficult to discern the "on the ground" truth (without literally being there for yourself) because governments tend to outright lie and/or embellish the truth to make themselves sound better/more powerful/etc.

Some primary sources with regard to the current US military operations in Iran would be President Trump (who ultimately authorizes the operations), Pete Hegseth (who advises the President re: the operations), and Brad Cooper (Commander of CENTCOM, who is actively overseeing the carrying out of the President's authorizations re: Iran).

I use google and Ai as an aggregator so i can quickly see and identify the primary sources and then read them and post my reply while citing the AI search that gave me that data.

You are lazy and outsource your thinking to others.

explain to me how you get to that same primary source without using search engines or AI?

I never said that a search engine couldn't be used, but one does need to be careful whenever using search engines... AI is just plain too wrong too often, especially if one doesn't use it in an extremely specific manner for extremely specific purposes.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

magats live in their world of alternative facts where they think their own ''logic' is all the proof they need.

So they hate, by default, any use of google or AI being brought to an argument quickly aggregating facts and proof from original sources that they are wrong.

What they want is argument where instead they say 'you are wrong.... no i am right and you are wrong...' and no facts or proofs are ever presented and it the entire argument remains opinion based on our individual logic, as that then makes them feel they are correct as anyone else.

it is stupid but @T. A. Gardner tried to make the same argument before as well.

Correct. It's proof they are irrational. IMO, most of them are demented due to age. One of them seems to have early onset dementia since he is in his 60s. Are few are simply low IQ, poorly educated dumbasses who follow the flock.

 

[QP!]

Military operation information is more difficult to discern the "on the ground" truth (without literally being there for yourself) because governments tend to outright lie and/or embellish the truth to make themselves sound better/more powerful/etc.

Some primary sources with regard to the current US military operations in Iran would be President Trump (who ultimately authorizes the operations), Pete Hegseth (who advises the President re: the operations), and Brad Cooper (Commander of CENTCOM, who is actively overseeing the carrying out of the President's authorizations re: Iran).

You are lazy and outsource your thinking to others.

I never said that a search engine couldn't be used, but one does need to be careful whenever using search engines... AI is just plain too wrong too often, especially if one doesn't use it in an extremely specific manner for extremely specific purposes.

I agree Trump and hegseth are good primary sources.

So if you and i disagree on what they have said or done and you are not believing or agreeing with what i said I will use AI or google to bring in reporting, videos, facts all aggregated from multiple sources to back up my argument and i will provide it with all citations.

If you are offering up what you say Trump or Hegseth did, how will you provide me anything but your 'logic' to substantiate what you said?

I want an explanation of HOW you get to the information to inform your view if you did not witness them saying it first hand either in person or a live statement on tv, etc?

I want to know how the not-lazy person gets to that info and data?

And i am careful about using AI and google. I ALWAYS check that they are citing the original source and with citations which i provide and that is what you complained about saying it should not be used so you are just lying now.

 

[gfm7175]

I agree Trump and hegseth are good primary sources.

Yup. They are the people who are overseeing those operations. Brad Cooper (CENTCOM Commander) is also directly involved with overseeing said operations. I would consider those three people to be good primary sources for what is happening in Iran.

That doesn't mean that they're necessarily being honest (or dishonest) about what's happening, as it's difficult to know the full truth about those events unless one travels there and sees it for oneself.

So if you and i disagree on what they have said or done and you are not believing or agreeing with what i said I will use AI or google to bring in reporting, videos, facts all aggregated from multiple sources to back up my argument and i will provide it with all citations.

Feel free to do that. I'll be glad to let you know whenever AI gets it wrong.

If you are offering up what you say Trump or Hegseth did, how will you provide me anything but your 'logic' to substantiate what you said?

If Trump or Hegseth did something that is documented, I'll point directly to their documented statements. For example, if Trump gave a speech, then I will point directly to the speech (whether documented via video or transcript). If the information was posted on his Truth Social account, then I will point directly to his Truth Social account post.

What I will NOT do is point to some fake news writer's opinion about it, or to some "people familiar with the matter" that fake news claims are "in the know" about it. This is the sort of thing that AI loves to pull from and where AI tends to "get it wrong".

I want an explanation of HOW you get to the information to inform your view if you did not witness them saying it first hand either in person or a live statement on tv, etc?

It depends on the specific circumstance. If it's about something that Trump said regarding military operations in Iran, then I will go directly to Trump's full context statement itself (whether that be an interview, speech, posted video, Truth Social post, etc etc). What I will not do is go to CNN, FOX, or any other fake news website of the sort. What I will not do is go to "a source familiar with the matter".

I want to know how the not-lazy person gets to that info and data?

If CNN claims "Trump said ____________", I don't instantly take CNN's word for it. I will go to the primary source data itself (Trump's speech, Trump's Truth Social post, an official document, etc etc) to verify the veracity of CNN's claim for myself. I will verify that CNN's claim was not taken out of context or purposely omitted key information.

And i am careful about using AI and google. I ALWAYS check that they are citing the original source and with citations which i provide and that is what you complained about saying it should not be used so you are just lying now.

Including a citation to the original source is only a starting point.

 

[QP!]

Yup. They are the people who are overseeing those operations. Brad Cooper (CENTCOM Commander) is also directly involved with overseeing said operations. I would consider those three people to be good primary sources for what is happening in Iran.

That doesn't mean that they're necessarily being honest (or dishonest) about what's happening, as it's difficult to know the full truth about those events unless one travels there and sees it for oneself.

Feel free to do that. I'll be glad to let you know whenever AI gets it wrong.

If Trump or Hegseth did something that is documented, I'll point directly to their documented statements. For example, if Trump gave a speech, then I will point directly to the speech (whether documented via video or transcript). If the information was posted on his Truth Social account, then I will point directly to his Truth Social account post.

What I will NOT do is point to some fake news writer's opinion about it, or to some "people familiar with the matter" that fake news claims are "in the know" about it. This is the sort of thing that AI loves to pull from and where AI tends to "get it wrong".

It depends on the specific circumstance. If it's about something that Trump said regarding military operations in Iran, then I will go directly to Trump's full context statement itself (whether that be an interview, speech, posted video, Truth Social post, etc etc). What I will not do is go to CNN, FOX, or any other fake news website of the sort. What I will not do is go to "a source familiar with the matter".

If CNN claims "Trump said ____________", I don't instantly take CNN's word for it. I will go to the primary source data itself (Trump's speech, Trump's Truth Social post, an official document, etc etc) to verify the veracity of CNN's claim for myself. I will verify that CNN's claim was not taken out of context or purposely omitted key information.

Including a citation to the original source is only a starting point.

Trump and Hegseth are good primary sources but that DOES NOT mean what they say is truth or fact just as with any human on this planet who can lie and exaggerate.

I assume that you, as i do, think politicians or all stripes lie and deceive more than others.

So are you SOLELY looking to their words on Truth Social or other such forums for your PROOF and do you not seek out any actual data or facts?

And if you do where do you look and how do you find it? Be specific.

 

[gfm7175]

Trump and Hegseth are good primary sources but that DOES NOT mean what they say is truth or fact just as with any human on this planet who can lie and exaggerate.

I assume that you, as i do, think politicians or all stripes lie and deceive more than others.

I agree with this.

So are you SOLELY looking to their words on Truth Social or other such forums for your PROOF and do you not seek out any actual data or facts?

This question is based on numerous buzzwords ('actual data', 'facts') so it is ultimately meaningless.

And if you do where do you look and how do you find it? Be specific.

I thought I had explained what I would do re: any "Operation Epic Fury" news. As to anything else, it all depends upon the precise thing. I'd need a precise example of an event and then I'd tell you precisely how I'd go about it.

 

[QP!]

I agree with this.

This question is based on numerous buzzwords ('actual data', 'facts') so it is ultimately meaningless.

I thought I had explained what I would do re: any "Operation Epic Fury" news. As to anything else, it all depends upon the precise thing. I'd need a precise example of an event and then I'd tell you precisely how I'd go about it.

right so once again you confirm 'data' and 'facts' mean nothing to you.

so if i argue with you that Trump was at place X,Y,Z and you say he was not, and i say he was, what you do not want is any data and facts as those are buzz words.

Meanwhile i use google or AI and provide articles reporting him to be at that place and pictures of him at that place and cite that data and facts.

that is where i know i will always differ from the idiot magats as they would hand wave that data and facts away and just insist they were right, via their own logic.

 

[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]

Tehran’s Message from Hormuz: Equal Security or Shared Costs​

Tehran’s Message from Hormuz: Equal Security or Shared Costs

NOURNEWS – The Islamic Republic of Iran’s emphasis on “security for all or for no one” in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman constitutes a strategic response to US policies of sanctions, warfare, and restrictions on maritime transit. This approach is framed not as a threat, but as a legitimate...

nournews.ir

 

[gfm7175]

right so once again you confirm 'data' and 'facts' mean nothing to you.

so if i argue with you that Trump was at place X,Y,Z and you say he was not, and i say he was, what you do not want is any data and facts as those are buzz words.

This is very easy to verify. There would be an official statement from Trump re: where he was. The President's public schedule is, well, public.

Meanwhile i use google or AI and provide articles reporting him to be at that place and pictures of him at that place and cite that data and facts.

I would just take a gander at his public schedule or at his public statements and I'd verify his whereabouts that way.

that is where i know i will always differ from the idiot magats as they would hand wave that data and facts away and just insist they were right, via their own logic.

 

[QP!]

This is very easy to verify. There would be an official statement from Trump re: where he was. The President's public schedule is, well, public.

I would just take a gander at his public schedule or at his public statements and I'd verify his whereabouts that way.

It is not easy to find 'official statements' or 'public schedule' on every place 'citizen and POTUS' Trump has visited in his entire life.

So again i ask you, if I state Trump has been to XYZ place and you state he has not, and i can use AI or google to quickly prove it with articles and pictures, but you will not accept Ai or google how do you counter.

Lets use Toronto Canada as an example. If you believe Trump has never been there prove to me that. Show me how you can use "official statements' or 'public records' to back up your position he has not been? I want specifics. Also very specifically explain how you find his "public schedule".

meanwhile i can easily prove he has been with google and AI but you say we should not use that and should use 'logic'. how does that work. Be specific.

 

[gfm7175]

It is not easy to find 'official statements' or 'public schedule' on every place 'citizen and POTUS' Trump has visited in his entire life.

So again i ask you, if I state Trump has been to XYZ place and you state he has not, and i can use AI or google to quickly prove it with articles and pictures, but you will not accept Ai or google how do you counter.

Lets use Toronto Canada as an example. If you believe Trump has never been there prove to me that. Show me how you can use "official statements' or 'public records' to back up your position he has not been? I want specifics. Also very specifically explain how you find his "public schedule".

meanwhile i can easily prove he has been with google and AI but you say we should not use that and should use 'logic'. how does that work. Be specific.

I'm not claiming that he hasn't been to Toronto.

 

[QP!]

I'm not claiming that he hasn't been to Toronto.

right but you have methods to prove something is true or not, not using google or Ai, so how would you go about it.

replace Toronto with 'city XYZ' if you want. the issue is you and one person are disagreeing and your 'logic' tells you Trump has never been to 'XYZ', so how can you substantiate your argument not using google or Ai and if you are telling the person you are arguing against not to use it?

Be specific? I want to know beyond 'logic' how you can determine such an answer.