@TheInterlooper Those, and the gun control crowd.

Yes, it's terrible that they make up all that stuff about the helpless Russians shooting rockets into civilian apartment blocks and digging up fake bodies that have supposedly been tortured and/or raped. All fake, just like how the Russians supposedly shot down Malaysia 17. They just made all that up, right. The Nazis did it if it happened at all.

Strawman argument: the logical fallacy of distorting an opposing position into an extreme version of itself and then arguing against that extreme version.

You could learn what the term actually means (though I doubt it - speaking of not having any brains; hilarious irony).

What did you think was extreme? (I didn't argue against anything.)

Well seeing as the conservatives estimate that hundreds of thousands of undocumented illegal immigrants have risked deportation in order to vote fraudulently... I'm not too sure about "conservative estimates"

@273kelvin When I say conservative estimate there, I mean that in the sense I am estimating towards the lower side of that figure as the real figure could be higher, and not in the sense from a strictly conservative/political point of view. Big difference there, and I don't see any sense in mixing politics in that, and since you brought it up can't say I agree with the conservatives on the US immigrant issue. I take it you didn't have the time to look up the term "conservative estimate"... [grammarhow.com]

@SpikeTalon I suggest you look up the term "pun".

@273kelvin That didn't seem like a pun, sounded like you were being serious there, but then again it can be hard at times to determine if a comment was serious in tone or joking regarding online interactions. If making a play on words was your aim there, then fair enough.

@SpikeTalon Semi-serious, semi-humorous, part of what used to be a part of what was called "political debate" before division pushed one side into being chauvinistic marks ready to believe any cockamamy idea, so long as it fits within their perceived victimhood paranoid mentality. So now you have forced me to get the big crayons out and explain the joke;
In your OC you maintain that the number of members on this site that are Pentagon bots is 60% and that is quote "a conservative estimate"? So let us examine your premise in the same way we might examine any other and see how much validity it has whence analysed.
1, Are there bots on here? Is there any proof? Have you or anyone else reported this?
2a, Is this site big or important enough to warrant attention from any outside source or agency?
b, Why the Pentagon in particular?
3, How much validity might a "conservative estimate" of 60% have?

1, I have yet to see any postings in the senate or any other site management forums regarding this matter but I will stand corrected if you can link them to me.
2a, Oh we wish that it was that big. If it was, we all might be able to find a date that was not halfway across the world/country. In short, it is not logical to be paranoid if you are insignificant. After all, this is not FB or Twitter. the very OP that we are commenting on only got 15 views so far. Not exactly an internet sensation.
b, The Pentagon? really? Not the DHS? (which would actually have the legal remit to keep surveillance on the site) I am not aware of that much discussion regarding Pentagon issues but again I would be glad to see any debates you think have been compromised and we can both bring these to the senate.
If (and that is a big "IF" ) any outside agency or faction did deem this site significant enough to meddle with who might they be?
DHS? Well, they would have some remit but they are not about to find any radical Muslims here, are they? Maybe the more right-wing conservative forums might pose significant enough of a threat to national security to monitor, you might know better than I about that. But to the extent of infiltrating the site to the extent of 60% of its membership? (a conservative estimate).
Considering the nature of the site and its antitheist membership my 1st hypothetical suspect is any talk of outside interference would be the Christian right in collusion with (either knowingly or unknowingly) Russia. The only possible threat a site like this might have to anyone is in uniting different sides of the political divide against the divisive push for America to become a theocracy. IMHO but it's a big "IF"

In conclusion sir; I find your assertion to have the logical validity of a JW and the delusions of a NY Jets fan with a Superbowl ticket. Much like the aforementioned illegal immigrant voting conspiracy, (another "conservative estimate" )

@273kelvin Based on my past interactions with you, you don't exactly have a history of kidding around with me, which is why I took your initial comment seriously as I had no reason to think otherwise. No need to "explain" anything, simply saying it was meant to be a joke would suffice. As for believing in cockamamie ideas, both political extremes are guilty of that (at least in the US anyways, don't know about the UK), and personally I care not for either extreme.

For the record, how do you know for sure my original comment was sincere and not sarcasm, being you didn't even bother to ask me. Yes, bots are/have been present on here and flagged by multiple members some of whom had even complained in the Senate group or raised the concern in the trolls and scammers group. And yes I've flagged some too, that pertained to sexual/romantic scams. As for the second question, I'd say no, the site isn't really important or sizable enough to warrant such monitoring, but that doesn't remove the fact there have been scammers on here and who some of them may have worked for is a mystery that won't get solved anytime soon. Instead of the Pentagon, would you have preferred the Ministry of Defence? If so, just ignore the Pentagon part there and substitute it with MOD. How much validity would a sixty-percent claim on such have you ask? Thank you for actually asking, and a more reasonable figure would probably be around five to maybe seven-percent or so, considerably lower than my sarcastic sixty-percent figure.

Some of those Senate posts go way back, and I don't have the spare time to backtrack and tag every one of them nor do I have any interest in doing so. Who said anything about being "paranoid"? If I were truly that concerned or paranoid about that sort of thing going on this site on a large scale, I would simply delete my account and move on. The mere fact that I'm still on here pretty much says that I'm not that worried. As for the views on the posts go, I wouldn't trust that figure, as someone with a link to just one public post could open that up in a web browser even while being logged-off, and then click links to view other posts, thus viewing the posts without being registered as a post view by not logging into the site in the first place. Still, I could agree that this site isn't exactly a huge sensation on the Net.

As for the Government spying, given some of the recent developments here in the US regarding the overturning of Roe versus Wade and subsequent talks among the anti-abortion fascist crowd thinking up laws to make all abortion procedures illegal for any and all reasons at the Federal level, and also the fact that such people have also suggested laws to monitor social media and messaging accounts in anti-abortion red states, I'm at the very least somewhat inclined to take those ideas (aka, veiled threats against abortion seekers and providers) seriously, and a site like this that is known to have a progressive-leaning bias and that generally promotes reproductive rights might just might attract the wrong type of attention. Sure hope I'm wrong about all of that and that I'm just needlessly worrying, but it is a possibility, as it's not a sound idea to underestimate the stubborness and stupidity of the radical anti-abortion movement in the US. So even if that be a big if scenario, it could still happen. Just my honest take on that.

My "assertion" was intended to be sarcasm, intentionally overblown. Not a serious answer in other words. If you wish to take that at face value, more power to you then I say. Also, I don't subscribe to the illegal immigrant voting conspiracy. While it may be true that there were some isolated incidents of cheating involving such individuals, by and large that conspiracy theory has been thoroughly debunked. If there be radicalized rightwingers out there who still choose to subscribe to such nonsense, good for them.

@SpikeTalon Well, it seems that we are both a victim of a sense of humour bypass. In consequence, I must apologise unreservedly. In mitigation, it is unfortunately not uncommon to encounter tin foil hat wearers here and they do not look like they might become an endangered species in the near future. Again I am sorry that your exaggeration led me to think that you might be one of their number, my mistake.
As for outside influences? Most of the trouble has either come from dating scammers, generic standard trolls or Christian evangelicals. These tend not to last too long on here. Our policing system is reasonably efficient, although I personally do not have a problem with the evangelicals. They are very easy to spot by their 1st profile answer and the subsequent intellectual beatings they receive from the weapons of faith destruction (ie. logic, reason and facts) can amount to a bloodsport not seen since Roman times.
I personally have not encountered any bots but then again I am not as active on here as formerly. But it does beg an interesting theological question. If a Christian sets up a bot and in that bot's profile, the existence of god is denied, Is that a sin?

@273kelvin All good, it happens, I understand. No shortage of screwballs on any site out there these days. Don't personally care for any political extremes.

Such accounts don't usually last long on here, true, but in the past year or so now I've noticed a slight increase in such accounts. I generally don't have any problems with them either, usually just ignore them.