wtfwhateven

Your spineless and egregiously dishonest neurotic babbling isn't convincing at all.

Lol that shut it up. Such evil dishonesty too, why did it even think its neurotic babbling made it look good or credible?

Your reply is essentially spam. Please stop.

>Why do you see the truth as a lie?

I don't. Read what I said again. You were lying about what the other person said, i.e. attacking a strawman.

>Except there is plenty of evidence across the world for over twenty years of "meaningful fraud that could change election results" happening.

No there isn't, not in the US. Substantiate your claim.

Why are you lying about what the other person said? They said "no meaningful fraud" as in there's not an amount of fraud that can actually change the results.

What strings are attached? I thought they reverted the API usage changes

You, obviously, have neither. A person without a spine is one thing but one without both is just vile, abhorrent cowardice incarnate.

At the time of writing your post 90% of them were talking about the article. That, obviously, necessitates talking about the administration. I guess you interpreted people saying anything other than "I love this admin" as "uncivil". But, well, you already moved from "none of the threads are civil" to "90% of the threads aren't complimenting enough".

You know that, of course, which is why you refused to explain how the people talking about their experience having to avoid specific words in their grant request were somehow uncivil. Very dishonest and abhorrent.

The only one in an echo chamber is you, apparently one you've hallucinated into existence. The only 'individual' here being uncivil is you trying to gaslight everyone into believing any and all criticism of an administration is "uncivil".

And, no, I didn't downvote you.

I accept your concession.

There's numerous civil conversations happening. Why would you tell such an easily disprovable lie?

Could you explain how the people talking about their experience having to avoid specific words in their grant request were somehow uncivil? I'm not sure I understand. Was the objectively ridiculous nature of the situation being laid bare to you uncomfortable and thus "uncivil"?

>Why is this bad?

I don't think anyone voted for the gov to use a crude, ridiculous keyword list with many more false positives than not to terminate the funding of any and all research that simply uttered a bad word regardless of context. I'm not sure why you're pretending they did.

I suggest you actually read the first amendment. Maybe you'll understand then.

None. It's lying, as usual.