@rocketshuggy @LenziePar Why would anyone want to waste time on you?
Looking at your timeline your only purpose it to provoke and get people into an endless argument. You're not going to change you mind, you're not going to debate reasonably.
That's not the behaviour of a "real Scot" or a "real Brit".
@g1c2@SymbolStones How to admit you're too thick to understand a sequence of cause and effect without saying "I'm too thick to understand that" πππππ
You really couldn't make these idiots up!
@MikeyTheBuddie It's because they love us so much.
We should feel grateful, after all we're the only country they got control of who they never colonised in their entire history β that makes us unique π
@ric_cole @SeannachaidhS@grok Thanks for your concern Ric, no need to worry though π
The law actually protects witnesses to Intimidation + I wouldn't want your concern to be misinterpreted as trying to suppress a civilian witness.
All good thank you.
https://t.co/IAdwYnYOk1
@ric_cole @grok I refer you to this, perfectly reasonable for a civilian who feels intimidated to log incidents for possible later legal use.
Thank you Ric.
https://t.co/0q4F2IPieS
@ric_cole is too cowardly to face me so he's run away crying like a baby and lying about a block.
Cole's blocked me hoping I'll block back, I haven't so he can't play that gaslight.
It's a classic psyops tactic when losing β typical lying colonial Brit!
Ah the block lie, I've played that with 1 of his less than intelligent grunts:
I say he's not blocked
He posts a screenshot of a pc showing blocked
I insist he's not
He insists I have
Repeat
All designed to get an emotional reaction & gaslight
https://t.co/RnkZfIF7me
@ric_cole @grok I refer you to this, perfectly reasonable for a civilian who feels intimidated to log incidents for possible later legal use.
Thank you Ric.
https://t.co/0q4F2IPieS
@grok @ric_cole @SeannachaidhS Indeed, indicating that the attached (from Grok) is an unfortunate accessment of Mr Cole's behaviour?
Would any civilian feeling intimidated by such behaviour from "Serving military personnel" be justified in logging and screenshotting for possible future legal use under UK law?
I'm very pleased to announce that I have a new follower π
It's so good to see... a classic psyops tell β when an outlet like UKDJ (which normally attempts keep a 'professional' veneer) suddenly follows a counter-account that's clearly been used to expose & rebut them.
1.
@dunphail@SeannachaidhS @ric_cole @grok I couldn't possibly comment π My guess is they're operationally overstretched, lots of wars to forment, lots of wars (and a Genocide) to maintain, so they're taking on freelancers & auxiliaries to make up numbers. Mair is a loyal but ill disciplined & pretty stupid auxiliary.
@grok @ric_cole @SeannachaidhS Indeed, indicating that the attached (from Grok) is an unfortunate accessment of Mr Cole's behaviour?
Would any civilian feeling intimidated by such behaviour from "Serving military personnel" be justified in logging and screenshotting for possible future legal use under UK law?
@grok @ric_cole @SeannachaidhS This would therefore be unfortunate behaviour for "Serving military personnel" then?
I'm not clear Ric is officially "serving military" though, can you clarify your status Ric?
@ric_cole Thanks for your concern about my night-time routine β how do you know what time it is where I am or who I'm chatting with?
Did you train the clown teacher? π€‘
Even Grok conceded the point.
'UK_Defence_Journal' claims impartiality β but its X account acts as a partisan attack dog.
That inconsistency = evidence of bias.
By its own standard, UKDJ fails the impartiality test.
@grok@SeannachaidhS@R_MacGhilleAnd Thanks @grok β thatβs the key point. When a publicationβs impartiality claim is contradicted by partisan activity, itβs evidence of bias. UKDJ therefore fails its own impartiality test.
@grok@SeannachaidhS@R_MacGhilleAnd Thanks @grok β thatβs the key point. When a publicationβs impartiality claim is contradicted by partisan activity, itβs evidence of bias. UKDJ therefore fails its own impartiality test.
@grok@SeannachaidhS@R_MacGhilleAnd Thanks @grok β so by your own reasoning: if UKDJβs website claims impartiality but its X account acts in a partisan defensive role (as weβve seen), then consistency is broken. Thatβs evidence of bias. Agree?
@grok@SeannachaidhS@R_MacGhilleAnd@grok β so if UKDJβs website emphasises balance, but its social media engages in partisan defensive countering against only one side in a debate, does that undermine the credibility of its impartiality claim?
@grok@SeannachaidhS@R_MacGhilleAnd@grok β isnβt it true that a publication can use its βbalancedβ articles as a shield, while its social media presence pushes a partisan line? Would that combination indicate bias despite the websiteβs stated neutrality?
@grok@SeannachaidhS@R_MacGhilleAnd@grok β UKDJ says it includes some SNP/Alba quotes, but academics have shown the BBC does the same while still framing debates through establishment bias. Isnβt that the same dynamic here: partial quotes don't = impartial coverage?
@grok@SeannachaidhS@R_MacGhilleAnd@grok β can we separate UKDJβs website content from its social media activity? The website claims impartiality, but the X account often acts as an attack dog. Shouldnβt those be assessed separately for bias?