1.They did remove the cameras. No suspected nuclear enrichment sites were ever kept from inspections. Military bases are not nuclear enrichment sites. Now you are going beyond the scope of the agreement.
2. I gave you a factual account. You have claimed that isn't so. You have zero evidence to support that. Once again you simply say that sometimes memories can be inaccurate as some weak azz argument.
Quote
I've given numerous examples of you changing other people's words
3. Now you claim that not using the exact wording as someone else used is a lie. That's exactly what desperation looks like and certainly not evidence someone is lying.
You used the fact that Iran has said death to America as a reason on your list of reasons to justify a war. I get it. When someone cuts out the BS, fluff and empty hyperbole and gets to the crux of the matter you wish to label it deceptive or a lie.
So the leaders of other nations and top government officials of other countries are not "people" then? And don't even attempt to pretend that "people" don't fully understand global situations and understand the difference between war mongering and a need for war. I know you seem to think everyone but you is incapable of rational thoughts on complex issues but that's not true.
How many more? You haven't presented the first one yet. The examples you gave were just the perceptions you created in your own mind.
I think you missed your calling. You would have made a great defense attorney convincing jurors just how unreliable eye witnesses are.
1. Again you're just making stuff up. How do you know no suspected nuclear enrichment sites were ever kept from inspections? You don't. Here's a link showing suspected nuclear activities in the Parchin Military Complex link
Here's further evidence of Iran hindering investigations with mention of Parchin if you don't trust the first source. link
Yes, there are instances of Iran cooperating. There are many instances of them not, though. When you're only compliant when you want to be, you're non-compliant.
2. It can't be a factual account because it is now unverifiable. Again you don't seem to understand how facts work. It's hearsay at best. It's your account, but we all know how (un)reliable you are.
3. No, I don't claim one needs exact wording. One does need to at least maintain the meaning and not change the meaning to something they didn't say.
Yes, expressing intent is one of the many reasons I listed. I never claimed it was enough on its own.
Yes, leaders are people. Yet, the people I was talking about weren't leaders. You can't just mash together two separate ideas changing the meaning of both whenever you want to further your agenda.
Some people do have some understanding, some people don't. No one "fully" understands global situations. It's not possible. Everyone is operating from limited information. Some have more than others. Some are idiots that don't know what they don't know.
I don't think everyone is incapable of rational thought, you've just shown that you don't restrict yourself to it.
Thank you for the compliment. Helping people to understand that you are an unreliable witness is a pretty low bar, though.
1.They did remove the cameras. No suspected nuclear enrichment sites were ever kept from inspections. Military bases are not nuclear enrichment sites. Now you are going beyond the scope of the agreement.
2. I gave you a factual account. You have claimed that isn't so. You have zero evidence to support that. Once again you simply say that sometimes memories can be inaccurate as some weak azz argument.
Quote
I've given numerous examples of you changing other people's words
3. Now you claim that not using the exact wording as someone else used is a lie. That's exactly what desperation looks like and certainly not evidence someone is lying.
You used the fact that Iran has said death to America as a reason on your list of reasons to justify a war. I get it. When someone cuts out the BS, fluff and empty hyperbole and gets to the crux of the matter you wish to label it deceptive or a lie.
So the leaders of other nations and top government officials of other countries are not "people" then? And don't even attempt to pretend that "people" don't fully understand global situations and understand the difference between war mongering and a need for war. I know you seem to think everyone but you is incapable of rational thoughts on complex issues but that's not true.
How many more? You haven't presented the first one yet. The examples you gave were just the perceptions you created in your own mind.
I think you missed your calling. You would have made a great defense attorney convincing jurors just how unreliable eye witnesses are.
They were hindering inspections before the bombing.
[1]Speaking of erroneous. But yes, let's ignore that. Shall we call it a lie?
Quote
Memory is inherently biased. That's just the way memory works. It's not locked whole and frozen in time in our synapses. "Memories" are constantly rewritten and adapted. Then there's the whole metaphysics side of what your senses are sending to your brain isn't objective reality in the first place. I don't really expect you to understand that.
[2]I understand now that you have been cornered you're trying to play armchair psychologist and wiggle your way out of your previous assertion. Something you neither have a degree in nor are qualified to do. AKA - Diversion tactic.
Quote
I also don't think I know better than you about your life, I just know that you are an inveterate liar, with the evidence to support this position constantly growing, so I don't blindly believe your stories about it.
[3]There you go again. Trying to undermine my honesty while providing no evidence to support it as per usual. If you're going to keep saying that, often times repeatedly in several posts, at least lay some cards on the table instead of repeating meaningless rhetoric. Your crude attempt to undermine those who have brought a lot of evidence to the table is lame. But we have seen it a lot lately in politics. If you keep repeating the same thing over and over again even when providing zero evidence to support it, people will begin to believe it.
That only works with and for the weak minded.
1. There are numerous examples of Iran refusing inspections. Delaying inspections for up to 24 days. Refusing inspections of anything the Ayatollah considered a military site. Iran removing IAEA cameras. Exceeding limits they agreed to. Just do a quick google search and you'll find hundreds of sources.
2. I stand by my previous assertion. It's not hard to read articles on memory and find evidence that no one's memory is unbiased.
3. Telling lies over and over until you believe them doesn't make you honest, your being weak minded or not. I've given numerous examples of you changing other people's words, and your claiming you said one thing when you said something completely different. Going back to find them all doesn't seem worth the time. But here go a couple quick examples just from this thread over the past few days.
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
"Well if they stop saying mean things I'll stop saying we should blow them up"
Presenting this as my words is disingenuous, AKA - a lie
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
Quote
People want to believe it's not possible because the thought is scary and uncomfortable. Politicians downplay it because they don't want to cause panic.
Sure, that's it. That would be ignoring the fact and pretending that other nations and their leaders don't use intel and they just rely on "their beliefs". We both know that isn't true.
Your responding to what I say with something completely different than what you quote is twisting the truth. Talking about "people" (i.e, you) is not making any claim on leaders. I made no claims on leaders using intel in the quote. Politicians downplay fears to avoid public panic, that has nothing to do with intel or actions, or even their beliefs. Yes, your made up position that I never proposed in what you quoted wasn't true. Changing what was said to something completely unrecognizable and pretending that is what someone else said is... telling a lie.
How many more examples do you want? I can go with maligner, demogogue, or gaslighter if you prefer those labels to liar.
RFK Jr. is preparing himself for his future career as a snake handling preacher in The Appalachian Mountains once the Trump administration term has ended.
They were hindering inspections before the bombing.
Speaking of erroneous. But yes, let's ignore that. Shall we call it a lie?
Quote
Memory is inherently biased. That's just the way memory works. It's not locked whole and frozen in time in our synapses. "Memories" are constantly rewritten and adapted. Then there's the whole metaphysics side of what your senses are sending to your brain isn't objective reality in the first place. I don't really expect you to understand that.
I understand now that you have been cornered you're trying to play armchair psychologist and wiggle your way out of your previous assertion. Something you neither have a degree in nor are qualified to do. AKA - Diversion tactic.
Quote
I also don't think I know better than you about your life, I just know that you are an inveterate liar, with the evidence to support this position constantly growing, so I don't blindly believe your stories about it.
There you go again. Trying to undermine my honesty while providing no evidence to support it as per usual. If you're going to keep saying that, often times repeatedly in several posts, at least lay some cards on the table instead of repeating meaningless rhetoric. Your crude attempt to undermine those who have brought a lot of evidence to the table is lame. But we have seen it a lot lately in politics. If you keep repeating the same thing over and over again even when providing zero evidence to support it, people will begin to believe it.
Trump destroyed the deal that had open inspections. I already gave you the evidence that inspections were still taking place right up until trump bombed their nuclear sites. The fact you refuse to accept that is a you issue and no basis that anyone else lied. But that's your general premise and has been all along. If you don't like the source or the evidence presented you just label it a lie.
The deal wasn't only with Trump. Trump backed out of the deal to reimpose sanctions. Iran didn't (officially) "back out" of the JCPOA until after the bombing. But, they already weren't following their side of it.
Quote
July 2019–January 2020: Iran rolls back its JCPOA compliance in several steps, including exceeding limits on levels of enriched uranium, centrifuge development, and heavy water stock. However, it claims it will continue to cooperate with the IAEA.
March 2020: IAEA report finds Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium had almost tripled since November 2019, totaling much more than 300 kilograms.
January 2021: The country resumes enriching uranium to 20 percent purity, far exceeding the 2015 Nuclear Deal guidelines.
November 2022: The IAEA director reports Iran produced uranium at 60 percent purity.
February 2023: Uranium particles enriched to 83.7 percent purity are found in Iran's Fordow nuclear facility. [...] A top US Defense Department official warned the country was only days from being able to make one nuclear bomb.
Yes, inspections were happening, but those inspections were revealing that Iran was breaking the agreement with all those still in the JCPOA, which included Iran.
It's not about liking the sources. It's about your interpretation of what is in the sources being erroneous.
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
So you, as person who wasn't even around me growing up has determined that my recollection of my childhood is biased? Do you have any clue just how crazy that sounds? But we get it. Somehow in your mind you know even more than the people who were there. I should have known.
Memory is inherently biased. That's just the way memory works. It's not locked whole and frozen in time in our synapses. "Memories" are constantly rewritten and adapted. Then there's the whole metaphysics side of what your senses are sending to your brain isn't objective reality in the first place. I don't really expect you to understand that.
I also don't think I know better than you about your life, I just know that you are an inveterate liar, with the evidence to support this position constantly growing, so I don't blindly believe your stories about it.
What threat was Venezuela to the U.S? What actual threat has Cuba been to the U.S.?
Here's a hint. None.
You can invent enemies any time you wish to make illegitimate excuses to take actions against them even when they were no viable threat to us at all.
What you see is a mirage that has been packaged and delivered to you because you lack any ability to think for yourself.
I actually think these leaders are terrible people.
But then Sadam was a terrible person too. How many of our young men and women died,lost limbs and suffer lifelong PTSD from that war which was based on lies? Maybe it's time to put the troops first and your political idols last.
Let me show you how stupid things you are saying sound like................
You do not love, respect or honor our troops because you want to put their lives on the line by supporting they go fight wars that aren't necessary!
That's what posting dumb crap looks like and that's exactly the way you sound. Only at least there's some ring of truth to this.
How long does a Country have to say death to America before they are believed??? Wait for them to act? That would be stupidity. I do not want to see another 9/11 in my lifetime.
How long can someone keep screaming death to America without acting on it until someone uses it as an excuse for war? The answer? 47 years.
Your just mad your political idols like the Aho tolah, Modero in Venezuela, and soon to be Castro in Cuba are getting removed. I see enemies of the US being taken out and our citizens being safer.
Again - you are mixing things up. Probably deliberately I do not know.
The issue is not whether Iran is a threat. It is a question is whether Iran was about to imminently get a nuke. Those are not the same thing. Not even in the same ball park.
One is a sweeping generalization - the other is specific and the alleged reason for going to war.
No, the issue is that Iran is a threat. That's the big issue.
How close to a "nuke" ultimately isn't that important. (It's important, but certainly not the only thing of importance.)(and an ICBM is a kind of nuke, not the only kind.) I think they were closer than you understand. It's irrefutable that they were getting closer to a "nuke." They are avoiding observation. And a "nuke" isn't the only way to weaponize the material.They are working with internationally recognized terrorists. Terrorists that have active networks in Latin America. They are already in a "shadow war" with Israel through those terrorist proxies. They do chant "Death to America." Those terrorist proxies they're already using against Israel aren't just based in the Middle East. They have cells in Venezuela (and elsewhere.) They are "on our doorstep." Those terrorist proxies don't restrict themselves to "traditional" military methods. Unobserved HEU isn't as difficult to move concealed as you may believe.
Pivot
For the last 4 pages I've been explaining and saying that there is no evidence Iran imminently about to acquire a Nuclear weapon. The reason given to start a war with them.
You tried to argue otherwise starting with how easy it is to make a nuclear weapon ... To which I said arguing that something is easy isn't a good basis for launching a war.
Then we were talking about EU and NATO allies not saying anything about Iran's alleged imminent accusations of nuclear capability and steadfastly refusing to aid what they say as an illegal war of choice.
Now you are pivoting to ... It's all ok because Iran is a threat no matter how close or otherwise they are to a nuke.
As I said a while ago .. your not holding a conversation in good faith. Enjoy your pivots and hypotheticals. I won't engage.
Again - you are mixing things up. Probably deliberately I do not know.
The issue is not whether Iran is a threat. It is a question is whether Iran was about to imminently get a nuke. Those are not the same thing. Not even in the same ball park.
One is a sweeping generalization - the other is specific and the alleged reason for going to war.
No, the issue is that Iran is a threat. That's the big issue.
How close to a "nuke" ultimately isn't that important. (It's important, but certainly not the only thing of importance.)(and an ICBM is a kind of nuke, not the only kind.) I think they were closer than you understand. It's irrefutable that they were getting closer to a "nuke." They are avoiding observation. And a "nuke" isn't the only way to weaponize the material.They are working with internationally recognized terrorists. Terrorists that have active networks in Latin America. They are already in a "shadow war" with Israel through those terrorist proxies. They do chant "Death to America." Those terrorist proxies they're already using against Israel aren't just based in the Middle East. They have cells in Venezuela (and elsewhere.) They are "on our doorstep." Those terrorist proxies don't restrict themselves to "traditional" military methods. Unobserved HEU isn't as difficult to move concealed as you may believe.
Pivot
For the last 4 pages I've been explaining and saying that there is no evidence Iran imminently about to acquire a Nuclear weapon. The reason given to start a war with them.
You tried to argue otherwise starting with how easy it is to make a nuclear weapon ... To which I said arguing that something is easy isn't a good basis for launching a war.
Then we were talking about EU and NATO allies not saying anything about Iran's alleged imminent accusations of nuclear capability and steadfastly refusing to aid what they say as an illegal war of choice.
Now you are pivoting to ... It's all ok because Iran is a threat no matter how close or otherwise they are to a nuke.
As I said a while ago .. your not holding a conversation in good faith. Enjoy your pivots and hypotheticals. I won't engage.
How long does a Country have to say death to America before they are believed??? Wait for them to act? That would be stupidity. I do not want to see another 9/11 in my lifetime.
How long can someone keep screaming death to America without acting on it until someone uses it as an excuse for war? The answer? 47 years.
Trump destroyed the deal that had open inspections. I already gave you the evidence that inspections were still taking place right up until trump bombed their nuclear sites. The fact you refuse to accept that is a you issue and no basis that anyone else lied. But that's your general premise and has been all along. If you don't like the source or the evidence presented you just label it a lie.
So you, as person who wasn't even around me growing up has determined that my recollection of my childhood is biased? Do you have any clue just how crazy that sounds? But we get it. Somehow in your mind you know even more than the people who were there. I should have known.
You are right about the difference between a theory and a hypothetical. A theory has some rational to back it up. A hypothetical is just something someone makes up. I was giving you too much credit. My bad.
When the consequences become starting a war because "someone doing wrong" questioning if starting a war is the proper response is not defending anyone. That's questioning if it's a proper response. War is the ultimate cost to both sides. It should always be questioned if it was needed and worth the reasoning to start it.
You do realize just going around screaming, "You lied! You lied" You lied!" doesn't prove anything, right? It seems not. But you just keep on screaming without showing proof. For some strange reason you think that's working for you.
You can call them balls if you like. But you still haven't managed to score a run.
How long does a Country have to say death to America before they are believed??? Wait for them to act? That would be stupidity. I do not want to see another 9/11 in my lifetime.
They've been "avoiding observation" since their nuclear sites were hit last June when trump tried to blow them up. Oh, no, wait, excuse me. When trump bombed them.
So they shouldn't hide them once someone tried to destroy them? No wait, saying that made you claim I was defending Iran.
Speaking of telling lies.....
They were hindering inspections before the bombing. They were enriching more HEU than they were supposed to, to a higher percentage than they were supposed to before the bombing.
You defending someone doing wrong because they had to face consequences for doing wrong, and pretending someone else did wrong first is very on brand.
If you're speaking, lies are quite frequently being told.
Alleged childhood? Are you claiming I was never a child? lmao
If that's your "goal" you have failed miserably. During this entire thread you have done little more than make up far fetched what ifs as though they are viable theories.
Here is a hint for future reference. When someone makes fun of you for the absurdity of your actions, they aren't "bothered by you." they're laughing at your expense. All you're weakly attempting to do is pretend it's fine for you to go after someone else but when they respond in kind you scored some kind of points. You truly are deluded.
If anyone is pitching a shut out here, it's not you.
No, I'm saying your recollection of your childhood is biased, if you aren't making up this particular story altogether, which seems likely. Making up BS and rewriting history is what you do. To me, You fantasizing alone with the imaginary friend in your head creating imagined injustices seems a much more likely childhood for you.
No, you're still telling lies, and I'm still going to call them out. I don't need the validation of the one telling the lies to accomplish my goal.
A hypothetical isn't a theory. I understand that the meanings of words aren't important to you.
Except you're not laughing at my expense. You're laughing to deflect from your lies. It's pathetic. Calling a liar out for his lies is different from making up lies and attacking someone because they told the truth about you. Perhaps you believe your own lies, but, as you like to say, that's a you problem.
You're the only one trying to pitch a shut out. I'm just calling your wild pitches into the stands balls instead of pretending they're strikes.
DOJ quietly shelves Biden autopen investigation that Trump demanded
President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed former President Joe Biden used an autopen without knowing the contents of what he signed.
The Justice Department shelved an investigation into former President Joe Biden's use of an autopen, a person briefed on the matter told NBC News on Wednesday.
Justice Department pardon attorney Ed Martin, the former “weaponization” czar, opened the probe while he was interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. It wound down recently under Jeanine Pirro, the current U.S. attorney, who is a longtime Trump ally and former Fox News host.
The autopen case was never presented to a grand jury, unlike the case that Pirro's office tried to bring forward last month against six members of Congress who participated in a social media video that urged members of the military and intelligence communities not to follow unlawful orders.
It is difficult to bring a criminal case when there is not even a readily identifiable and applicable criminal statute, the person briefed on the matter said.
The White House referred an inquiry about the matter to the Justice Department. A spokesman for Pirro’s office, citing Justice Department policy, said the office does not confirm or deny the existence of criminal probes.
President Donald Trump in June demanded a wide-ranging investigation into Biden and officials in his administration after he claimed that Biden's aides used "autopen" signatures to hide Biden's "cognitive decline."
The Republican-led House Oversight Committee investigated Biden's use of an autopen, writing in a report in October that some executive actions he signed with an autopen were "illegitimate," because he suffered from mental decline and could have been unaware of the contents.
Trump, who has repeatedly claimed that Biden used an autopen on many of his executive orders, said in November that he was canceling executive orders signed using Biden’s autopen.
It's unclear how often Biden used an autopen, as there is no official government record of when it is used. In a statement in June, Biden responded to Trump’s claims, saying, "Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency.”
"I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations," he said in the statement. "Any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false."
Biden's use of the autopen was investigated as Trump has directed the Justice Department to investigate a number of his political foes since he returned to office.
The Justice Department tried to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. A federal judge tossed out the criminal charges against both in November.
It also sent out criminal subpoenas in January to various state and local government offices in Minnesota, including Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, claiming they conspired to impede law enforcement during its immigration operations there. Neither have been charged, and legal experts have widely condemned an investigation that they say is based on a flimsy legal premise and has a chilling effect on free speech.
They've been "avoiding observation" since their nuclear sites were hit last June when trump tried to blow them up. Oh, no, wait, excuse me. When trump bombed them.
So they shouldn't hide them once someone tried to destroy them? No wait, saying that made you claim I was defending Iran.
No one is surprised that you may have felt threatened by prepubescent girls back in the day, that you apparently stalked one to see what she said about "your friend," that you didn't believe what she said because your "friend" denied it, or that she made you and your alleged "friend" feel like idiots. It's hard to ignore a stalker that won't stop following you around and lies about you. One should tell others about it. I sympathize with that possibly imaginary girl for having to put up with you and your "friend." The situation she apparently was in sounds horrible. It would have been uncomfortable for a little girl to be harassed by "big, strong football players." If true, it seems you haven't changed, as you still act like a bully that gets offended when people don't let his and his posse's BS pass by uncommented on.
Aw, how precious. Nobody was threatened by her or you. She was and you are both hilarious! And she said it out loud. Nobody had to stalk her. Is this the nonsense you mean by "Bull, horns, you know the drill"? Because if it is you have a lot of work to do. It seems a very basic message flew right over your head. Only cowards ignore people while sending some backhanded negative comment about them via a third party. I hope that clears up your obvious confusion.
Posse? Do you feel like there's a "posse" on here? A group of people temporarily gathered for a specific purpose? That makes you sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist.
Quote
I know you didn't say anything about "an entire civilization." I did, and you pretended I said something else. You're the one with the voice in your head that makes things up and/or lacks reading comprehension.
I asked if bombing a county doesn't mean blowing them up? Because when they drop a bomb on them it blows up. Speaking of a lack of comprehension. Let me guess, in BS land I needed to list each specific site they bombed because "blowing them up" was too much of a generalization for your mind to deal with?
Quote
When you break out fiction from your alleged childhood to compare me to a little girl, you're clearly unbothered. Nope, nothing landed to cause that.
My goal is just to point out your lies. It's going just fine.
Alleged childhood? Are you claiming I was never a child? lmao
If that's your "goal" you have failed miserably. During this entire thread you have done little more than make up far fetched what ifs as though they are viable theories.
Here is a hint for future reference. When someone makes fun of you for the absurdity of your actions, they aren't "bothered by you." they're laughing at your expense. All you're weakly attempting to do is pretend it's fine for you to go after someone else but when they respond in kind you scored some kind of points. You truly are deluded.
If anyone is pitching a shut out here, it's not you.
Again - you are mixing things up. Probably deliberately I do not know.
The issue is not whether Iran is a threat. It is a question is whether Iran was about to imminently get a nuke. Those are not the same thing. Not even in the same ball park.
One is a sweeping generalization - the other is specific and the alleged reason for going to war.
No, the issue is that Iran is a threat. That's the big issue.
How close to a "nuke" ultimately isn't that important. (It's important, but certainly not the only thing of importance.)(and an ICBM is a kind of nuke, not the only kind.) I think they were closer than you understand. It's irrefutable that they were getting closer to a "nuke." They are avoiding observation. And a "nuke" isn't the only way to weaponize the material.They are working with internationally recognized terrorists. Terrorists that have active networks in Latin America. They are already in a "shadow war" with Israel through those terrorist proxies. They do chant "Death to America." Those terrorist proxies they're already using against Israel aren't just based in the Middle East. They have cells in Venezuela (and elsewhere.) They are "on our doorstep." Those terrorist proxies don't restrict themselves to "traditional" military methods. Unobserved HEU isn't as difficult to move concealed as you may believe.
I remember someone just like you from decades ago. She acted the same way you are about a friend of mine I played football with back in school.
She made up a bunch of BS about him and then eventually said she was going to ignore him but she would certainly talk about him to other people.
But then she was the the most immature girl on the Junior High football cheer leading squad.
Quote
Saying I claimed bombing a location isn't blowing it up is yet another falsity. I said blowing a facility up is different than blowing "them" (an entire civilization) up. Go figure, you did exactly what I described that you tried to characterize as a personal attack.
Using semantics as some sort of point is hilarious. If you are bombing places all over Iran you are blowing up Iran. I didn't say anything about "an entire civilization". That's just an assumption you made in your mind.
If you think anything you have posted is......................... "Bull, horns, you know the drill" you are sadly mistaken. You have fallen well short of your goal.
No one is surprised that you may have felt threatened by prepubescent girls back in the day, that you apparently stalked one to see what she said about "your friend," that you didn't believe what she said because your "friend" denied it, or that she made you and your alleged "friend" feel like idiots. It's hard to ignore a stalker that won't stop following you around and lies about you. One should tell others about it. I sympathize with that possibly imaginary girl for having to put up with you and your "friend." The situation she apparently was in sounds horrible. It would have been uncomfortable for a little girl to be harassed by "big, strong football players." If true, it seems you haven't changed, as you still act like a bully that gets offended when people don't let his and his posse's BS pass by uncommented on.
I know you didn't say anything about "an entire civilization." I did, and you pretended I said something else. You're the one with the voice in your head that makes things up and/or lacks reading comprehension.
When you break out fiction from your alleged childhood to compare me to a little girl, you're clearly unbothered. Nope, nothing landed to cause that.
My goal is just to point out your lies. It's going just fine.
Nope, nothing landed to cause that.