Please stop avoiding answering the question.

Please stop acting like a troll and bot. Then i will consider it (though i have already answered it implicitly if you read and understand my previous responses).

The only instance of this happening with me is through you

Buckle up.

That's fine, I never thought that it would

Then quit making disingenuous suggestions the way a troll (and/or bot) does and return to the topic and productive discussion - if you can.

Don't respond otherwise, or i'll have to block you. You've wasted far too much of my time, and ignore/can't read anything i say.

Calling you out for your behavior is not being a troll

No; abandoning the conversation, topic, and your own (supposed/claimed) principles to maintain them in order to continue to willfully derail and avoid the topic of discussion is what makes you a troll. You need to be aware of (and admit) your own actions if you are to possibly do any better.

Then there's no sense continuing

Better quit the internet! The bots are everywhere, and you will continue to be accused of being one with some (likely increasing) frequency - especially if you continue to act like one! I highly recommend you take my advice and work to develop the discipline to stay focused on discussions, maintain their topics, and avoid/suppress distraction and reactionary emotion. It takes a lot of work, and is impossible for a bot - but if you can, i highly recommend that you should!

because clearly then you do not respect me

If you are a bot, no - i do not respect you or your developer. However, i have shown nothing but unreasonable/unjustified respect for you in continuing to indulge your absolute trolling and waste of time for these dozen+ comments.

or the conversation

As i've said many times (and you have ignored / been unable to parse due to being a bot or otherwise lacking reading comprehension), the entire reason for calling out your bot like behavior was due to my respect for the conversation and interest in it being productive.

I'm hoping you'll answer this question!

I'm saying that you have already failed the turing test. Assuming that you are NOT a bot, what does that tell you about the turing test?

The best way to prove that I can handle video discussion

You are already failing to handle a discussion. Video won't help anything or fundamentally change any of your abilities or behaviors. It is stupid to think it would or should.

Correct, I did!

Then you abandoned that to act like a troll :( That's sad.

as you still question whether or not I'm a bot

And i always will, especially with you exhibiting bot like behavior. You are foolish for not questioning the same about me, and any other entity you interact with online.

Enough to pass the Turing test?

You're failing the turing test already. It's not all it's cracked up to be, and of course - subjective.

It's something I can handle quite well

Then prove it and become competent of productive discussion, staying on topic, and avoiding bot (and troll) like behavior. Waiting on you, champ.

And it was no mistake

Then you are a troll and a liar. You said you wanted the conversation to be productive and to stay on topic, yet you are the one doing everything in your power to prevent that.

If you can, grow up. Admit your mistake, and do better in the future. Pride keeps you weak.

My intention, currently, is to set the record straight

The record was and is straight. It required and requires no clarification from you. You said you wanted the conversation to be productive and stay on topic, but you lied (to yourself in the name of pride, i suspect).

Through real-time interaction through voice and/or video.

Again, you don't seem to be able to read. Bot detection +1

As i've said repeatedly, bots can already generate real time interaction through generated voice and/or video.

and discuss them together

You are already utterly failing to discuss at this speed. Moving to a medium which requires faster response and better comprehension would be even harder for you :(

You said I have to admit to my mistake.

Correct. And i also explicitly told you what that mistake was. Go back and read it, if you are capable.

I have made no mistake in my interaction here

If your intention was to derail the conversation, abandon its topic, and continue doing that ad infinitum - then i suppose that might be true. If you truly wanted to keep the conversation on topic and avoid distraction/tangent (as you claimed) then you have made nothing but mistakes since overreacting to a minor comment a dozen or so posts ago.

Pride is a fool's fortress and shame's cloak. Cast it off if you can.

and avoid the confusion of whether or not I'm a bot in that moment.

That's just my point. We can't avoid that confusion. Real time bots are already capable of generating such real time content.

But as i said, it's all moot - because if you cannot remedy/avoid the bot like tendencies that are preventing the conversation from being worthwhile - then it doesn't matter what forum/medium this conversation takes place in or if your are a bot or not.

This format is vastly better for such discussions anyway. It gives you unlimited time to compose your thoughts, and to respond to specific content which you have a concrete record of (as opposed to a real time discussion in which, typically, you have neither).

In this case, calling out your attempts to distract and use non-sequitur is no mistake.

Who said it was? It sounds like you, once again, need to re-read what i have written. I already clarified explicitly what your mistake was in the previous comment... Speaking of things bots cannot do - reading comprehension is high on the list.

In what way does an AI/avatar become human later?

They are swapped out. The human is invoked (sometimes) to circumvent the bot detection, then the bot goes back to work. Or a bot account which has been discovered is replaced with a real human in an attempt to hide the fact that they were a bot. There are many examples.

You again acknowledge that what you wrote was a distraction

You again fail to grasp context :( Bot detection +1.

It was interpreted by you (incorrectly) as "baseless accusation" and "distraction" designed to derail the conversation. As a result YOU proceeded to derail the conversation. If it had been intended to derail the conversation, you would have done all my work for me.

Calling out your attempts to distract and use non-sequitur is nothing I need to apologize for.

Who said it was? I said you ought recognize and admit your mistake (derailing the conversation and continuing to abandon its topic) to yourself, so you can hopefully avoid it in the future!

No one has asked for any apology in any case.

You can voice your concern about my understandings without making baseless assumptions.

Sadly they were not baseless :( If only they were baseless, we could have skipped this utter waste of breath. If you act like a bot - or otherwise in a manner that prevents the conversation from being productive or of any value - i'm going to tell you. Call it a distraction if you wish, but without addressing and remedying those behaviors the conversation is fruitless and thus over. It was, and is, only out of respect for the discussion that i made those comments and always will when appropriate.

What do you mean, specifially, by "bot"?

What you think, more or less. "AI"/programmatically generated; whole or in part. Yes, there are visual avatars with human-like speech which can also perform their actions in a "discord" or other video based forum in real time.

You also seem to be overlooking the very real possibility that although a human can be employed to circumvent a bot detection (such as a captcha, or in this context a "video call/conference" to "prove" they are human) - that does not and cannot prove that they were not a bot in the past or will not be a bot in the future once that bot detection is circumvented.

You're acknowledging that you were wishing to derail the conversation

Of course not! You merely misinterpreted the cause and meaning of my "push" - which i have explicitly clarified (including purpose/reasoning for making such comments) repeatedly.

it was my fault for falling for it?

Yes. It was your fault for choosing (and continuing to choose) to abandon the discussion and the topic thereof. You did not need to do that, and if you let your reactionary emotion rule your actions you help do your enemies work for them. I am not your enemy, and did not in any way seek to derail the conversation with my comment (precisely the opposite!) - but had i been (as MANY are) you would have done all my work for me.

If you want the conversation to be productive and stay on topic, then you must work to ensure that. Suppressing/ignoring such "baseless accusation" and other distraction is just one thing you must do to achieve that goal. Controlling your emotion [being disciplined] is another.

I agree!

Then grow up, recognize/admit your mistake, and try to do better next time! Doubling down on "you started it, so all of my subsequent actions are your fault", as you are currently doing, is embarrassing and childish :(

Of course, the above council assumes you are capable of (and willing to do) that, which i hope for your sake - that you are.

You have not done well through your continuous showing of disrespect.

As i've already told you, it is not disrespectful to make you aware of your bot like actions which both mire/prevent useful conversation and cause me to conclude that you are a bot and/or otherwise incapable of doing any better.

It is, of course, your choice to be offended however - though no offense was intended (quite the opposite!).

I am requesting you take responsibility for your own actions

Don't waste your breath. I already have. This is about you, and your continued derailing of the conversation as well as continued abandonment of its topic. If you truly cared about the topic of conversation, then you would abandon this distraction and get back to it!

Your actions have been to continuously bring up questions on whether or not I'm a bot

If you want that to stop, you must stop acting like a bot. If you can't, then there is nothing more to discuss.

then it's best we move to a medium where it wouldn't be.

You don't seem to understand. There is no superior medium. Having some visible avatar (real or generated) as well as audio (real or generated) proves nothing, and even if you were not a bot during that brief interaction would not establish that you weren't a bot in previous or future interactions. All of this is moot however, because if you can't avoid bot like tendencies that are preventing the discussion from being useful - it doesn't matter if you are a bot or not - you are simply not capable of meaningful rational discourse.

"I pushed you, but it was YOUR fault you fell"

Now you are getting it. The discipline required not to fall is what you lack, and apparently are choosing to proudly continue to lack. I urge you to reconsider. It is within your power not "to fall", not to give in to reactionary emotion and end up serving those who wish to derail the conversation (of which you claim, but notably do not act, that you are one).

You are not doing it

You are completely missing the point. Even if that were true (which it isn't) i take no responsibility for YOUR actions/response. "They started it" is not a valid defense, period.

You have chosen to derail the conversation and abandon the topic of it because of some minor comments which you believe (incorrectly) were only designed to do exactly that. So your response to someone attempting to derail a conversation is to help them derail that conversation :( If you wanted the conversation to stay on topic, you have both failed to ensure that and played directly into their hands to actively help them abandon it.

It's your responsibility as well to keep the conversation on topic,

I agree, and one that i take seriously.

but you intend to distract instead

I intend to have a productive conversation, if that is possible. If it isn't, then i intend to have no conversation at all. Not telling you that your habits/actions within the conversation are that of bots and allowing you to continue willfully misunderstanding and repeating the same mistakes over and over again is simply "how to keep an idiot busy". If you can't do better, you can't continue to make progress in the conversation. It is as simple as that, regardless of wether you are a bot or not.

I'm helping you break your bad habits and actions

You can lead a horse to water, and you can suggest anything you like. The onus for derailing the conversation and abandoning the topic is entirely on you, and continues to be now. I cannot and will not take any responsibility for your actions. It is extremely childish to assume that i should.

It is good to help others and to provide useful advice, but you can only hope to have control (and even then, only through years of disciplined training) of your own actions.

Even if i did intend to derail the conversation with a few minor comments - YOU still did the derailing through your reaction. You should recognize and take responsibility for that, or it will keep happening in the future. I was not seeking/trying to manipulate you, but you are making it very easy for those who do/will by childishly trying to blame them for your own actions/reactions.

It starts with you.

Practice what you preach! People will often fall short of your expectations of them, including yourself - but you can only have agency over yourself.

Your actions demonstrate you don't respect me or the conversation topic

I can't (and won't) tell you how to feel, but it is you abandoning the conversation and topic thereof, and has been for MANY comments now. Own it, or you will do it again the future.

This is your doing

Part of growing up is recognizing and taking responsibility for your actions. Don't shirk it - it's for your benefit!

Even if it were true that my criticisms of your bot-like actions/behavior were a distraction from the conversation (which they were not, or at least certainly not intended as) it was YOUR choice to derail and entirely focus the subsequent conversation on those minor comments. If it is important to you, as it is to me, to keep the conversation on topic - then you have to learn how to suppress and/or ignore such distractions. "They started it" is not a valid defense on the playground, or in a conversation for the exact same reasons!

with someone who continues to make baseless accusations

If only they were baseless! We could have skipped this whole waste of time. It is because they are not baseless that this utter waste of breath is transpiring.

It shows you do not respect the conversation, so why would I?

As i've said - i explicitly made such comments because of my respect for the conversation. But even if that were not the case, and i was intentionally trying to derail and disrespect the conversation - that is your excuse for so devotedly helping me to do that? Again, such "they started it" "logic" is embarrassingly childish and best avoided.

You would respect the conversation and seek to keep it on topic merely because you choose to, and for no other reason. Don't ever let the bad habits and actions of others compel you to be worse and stoop to their level! When you let that happen, you become lesser; you become like your enemy.

But you are not a bot.

Perhaps. Or perhaps i am not a bot now, but will be in the near future. As the spooks say : trust, but verify.

That isn't under question

It must always be, sadly. When an online entity exhibits bot like behavior, concluding that they are or may be a bot is completely prudent and warranted.

However, you are deciding to question whether I am

Based on you actions, yes! If you wish to avoid such accusation in the future, then you must work to avoid their behavior and to engage in behavior which they cannot emulate.

so I would be more interested in directly addressing that before I would take what you say seriously.

I think you are being far too sensitive about all this. I receive so many routine baseless accusations online that perhaps i have become a bit callous regarding it, but i am doubtful that this is your first experience with such things if you've spent any significant time on online forums.

As for "taking me seriously", that is completely up to you. I do not seek to manipulate (aka convince) you in any way; quite the opposite in fact. I do my utmost to be both earnest and honest, but that will, can, and should only become evident to you through repeated interaction and demonstration. Even then, such things can change at the drop of a hat and those who deserved to be taken seriously in the past can suddenly stop being worthy (and vice versa, but that is quite a bit more rare).

Continued from https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/17rmSnG7lZ/x/c/4Z7SQHmaQAT due to reaching thread limit - again! Yet another good reason not to let tangent derail conversations from their specific topic. Hopefully something you can recognize and work on ;)

It is not

It is meant to. I recognize that you are not allowing it to, and are using it as an excuse to further derail and avoid the actual conversation. You should stop that.

then all you deserve now is a proper proof that I'm a real human being.

You are being far too sensitive about this. If you aren't a bot, then laugh such baseless accusations off and work on avoiding bot like behavior in the future (which i explicitly outline in my comments).

You can't prove you are a real human being any other way in this forum.

Incorrect. It is YOUR responsibility to not use them in the first place.

Not if you want the conversation to stay on topic. If you want the conversation to stay on topic, as i do, then it is your responsibility to work towards ensuring that (which includes ignoring/suppressing tangent, distraction, and red herring). If you don't want the conversation to stay on topic, then just keep doing what you're doing - but don't delude yourself into believing the lie that you want the conversation to stay on topic or continue.

A literal, parenthetical, non-sequitur in action.

You don't seem to understand. The fact is, you could be a bot. The fact is, i could be a bot. That isn't going to change. It is just something you are going to have to come to terms with. It is a facet of the technological hellscape we inhabit. There is nothing we can do about it - but we can avoid exhibiting the traits/habits of bots as well as engage in meaningful conversation and other actions that they simply cannot perform.

In the meantime, try not to take any offense. None is intended.

You are not telling me I am acting like one. You are directly questioning whether I am

They are effectively one and the same. I am telling you that i am getting closer to concluding you are bot because of the actions which i outline explicitly in the comments which make you appear that way. I am always questioning wether or not you are a bot, and always will be. I highly recommend you do the same with any online discourse - it is the prudent thing to do.

one case lament that you have to assume that I am.

The lament is likewise omnipresent. I would be happier if this hellscape did not involve bots, and there was no possibility that you were one. Alas, reality does not allow it.

They are non sequiturs

No. Perhaps you want them to be, but when the other person in a discussion repeatedly ignores and/or willfully misinterprets what is said - they should be called out on that and corrected. Otherwise there is no conversation, and certainly no reason to continue one. It is absolutely relevant, and furthermore - critical, to the discussion.

meant to throw the conversation off topic.

Not at all! Meant to get the conversation back on topic and making forward progress in communication - if the other party is capable of that! Even if it were red herring designed to do that, it is YOUR responsibility to discard such non-sequitur and continue to stay on the topic of conversation. You are utterly failing to do that right now. Just fyi.

If you wish to continue conversation with me

Only if you are both earnest and capable (though assuming you are not a bot, i have increased tolerance for the latter).

Otherwise, you’re fully demonstrating that you do not respect me, nor the conversation at hand.

It is because i respect the conversation at hand that i call you out on patterns/habits/actions you take within it which (ostensibly intentionally) mire and derail its (potential, at least) progress and usefulness.

Not respecting you would likewise warrant no such earnest and needed critique. A bot, and/or any other disearnest participant deserves silence - not help (they they do not seek and cannot use) in correcting their behavior to (potentially, at least) have a more fruitful conversation.

You may say you work very hard not to lie or divert the topic

I say it because it is true. You cannot quote/cite a single lie i've made in this interaction as a result - nor an instance of me diverting from the topic. Telling you you are acting like a bot/shill/troll is not a diversion from the conversation, but both central to it and necessary as i have explained in detail.

You stray from the topic each and every time you decide to question whether or not I’m a bot

Not at all! The topic remains the same throughout. I understand that the comments are bothering you, but they are always to do with the topic we are speaking about.

When you repeatedly ignore (or can't comprehend/parse - due to being a bot or otherwise) the things discussed on the topic, I'm going to point that out and tell you so. You may consider such commentary "meta" to the conversation proper, but without addressing (and remedying) it the conversation is impossible/moot - so such commentary is critical and as such is, of course, very much on topic to the discussion.

Please don’t lie

I work very hard not to. Practice what you preach!

You don’t ask questions to determine for certain whether I’m a bot

Not always, no. Admittedly determining "for certain" wether you (or any online entity) are a bot or not is certainly becoming harder with each passing year.

A human being can easily appear to be a bot by exhibiting enough of their common traits/patterns - for one example of many.

showing you’re not really interested in having discussions in good faith.

Cry me a river. I've been extremely accommodating to your absolute waste of my time, and continue to be despite my better judgement and good evidence that you are willfully disearnest, and/or a bot.

in practicing what you preach

In what way am i not practicing what i've preached (i.e. what, specifically, have i preached that i am violating in practice, what is the specific violation, and how/why does it violate it)? Speaking of the many questions you ignore.... throw this one on the pile.

It makes it seem like you do not respect the conversation or me.

My patience is admittedly extreme, but even i have my limits. I respect the topics (and conversations thereabout) very much - though my respect for you has certainly waned along with your evident competence in earnestly engaging in such discussions.

then let’s be direct instead of trying to steer the topic off the trajectory.

After you! I rarely if ever stray from the topic. This aside in and of itself is yet another example that you don't share that trait.

If you want to insist that my status as a bot is still up in the air

It is, and it will remain that way. It's just the way it is in the modern technological hellscape we find ourselves in. I would be somewhat disappointed (though, that would perhaps be expected from a bot) if you never considered the possibility in reverse (i.e. that i am a bot).

Assuming you are not a bot, please try not to take any offense by it. I don't accuse a bot of being a bot to hurt their feelings! If you want to demonstrate that you are not a bot, and furthermore are both earnest and capable of rational discourse - then try and avoid those bot like tendencies (that i explicitly outline) moving forward.

You say you have made calculations based on guesses (assumptions)

Not in this comment thread, no. Must you constantly indulge irrelevant non-sequitur?

You've also made assumptions that I am a bot, instead of asking questions

I ask lots of questions! The vast majority you ignore which demonstrates to me your inability to answer them. This (among many other evidences) leads me to conclude that you are a bot.

Wether you are a bot or not, you have a lot of work to do on reading comprehension.

Seems that you do not practice what you preach.

Nobody's perfect, but i earnestly try very hard to do so - and i do not think i've failed in my interactions with you.

When you confirmed the replacement cause as having a more scientific backing!

Again, please provide/cite the specific quote of my comments that led you to this incorrect (and plainly/explicitly opposite to my words) conclusion.

You don't appear to be listening, or are not capable of it outright... Bot detection +2.

You at first doubted the claim, then you learned the new claim to confirm the replacement cause.

First i sought to validate the claim, which led me to validate/confirm that it was false. It did not involve new claims. Are you truly this dense, or are you simply an inept troll and/or bot?

Right here:

Ah. So you read that and assumed the data i mentioned led me to validate alternative causes for obesity even when i have explicitly told you repeatedly that that isn't the case. That's dumb.

You must know what happens when you assume...

Next time, try asking questions instead of assuming!

It's what you said.

And yet you don't (or can't :() listen! Even when i plainly, explicitly, and repeatedly correct your misunderstanding... Bot detection +1

Through learning the proper causes!

Nope! For confirming that the suggested cause was wrong. There is a big (and important) difference between that and validating a replacement cause (what you are calling "proper causes") which you seem to be struggling to grasp.

Correct, they are not the same!

Exactly.

They are two separate steps of the process

Wrong! When you validate (or invalidate, as it is in this case) a single claim you don't (and shouldn't!) validate other claims at the same time. You merely validate/invalidate the singular claim you are evaluating.

I thought you said you understood that they are separate operations!

You invalidated the previous claim in part through the method of validating a separate one.

Completely wrong. Please reread my previous comments and quote/cite what i said that led you to this incorrect (and plainly opposite to the text) conclusion.

But in this particular case, what you have described yourself doing is gaining knowledge of the actual causes of obesity

Wrong again!

To begin with i didn't know wether it was true or not.

Correct. To begin with i did not know wether the "fact" that consuming fat was significantly responsible for the obesity epidemic was true or not. Then i confirmed that it wasn't. The end.

Invalidating a claim is NOT the same as validating a separate one, and does not require a "replacement claim" to help you sleep at night.

So you learned the actual reason for the causes of obesity, leading you to fully discount the previous assertion.

Wrong! Invalidating a possibility is not the same as confirming another one. They are two separate and distinct operations. All i did was confirm that fat consumption was not the major cause of weight gain / obesity as was claimed. That is an invalidation of the claim, not a validation of a wholly different claim!

You've come a long way.

And you have so much farther to go :( But i'm happy to help if i can. In this conversation i have not come any distance whatsoever. My position now is exactly the same as it was at the outset. No "distance" has been travelled for me. The "distance" you are mistaking for mine is (hopefully) just your corrected understanding of what i initially stated.

Now apply this to the discussion on the shape of the earth :)

Exactly! Practice what you preach!

Which gave you the understanding of why what you originally thought was impossible, by finding hard data?

I, like most people, didn't initially find the premise that eating a diet high in (especially animal) fat was bad for you impossible - this was the reason for the "low fat craze". The public (including many physicians and dietitians) bought the marketing, hook line and sinker. It was through further study, of which data (generally compiled by others, though consistent with my own anecdotal observations) is one part, that i came to determine that this "fact" was false.

Objective study is not possible if you begin from a biased conclusion and then go out to (selectively) confirm that bias. To begin with i didn't know wether it was true or not.

This isn't an "if" statement.

"But it can contribute to obesity." ... IF you eat huge volumes of it.

Because eating huge volumes of ANYTHING digestible can contribute to obesity (obviously) AND we weren't talking about extreme volumes of consumption... It is all irrelevant nonsequitur.

You didn't "magically" get the correct answer by not believing in what ended up being incorrect. You learned the correct answer.

No, i didn't. I merely removed/discounted/discarded/refuted/invalidated a wrong answer by determining it incorrect through study/research.

I unlearned the incorrect answer! There's a big difference!

When you identify something is not correct, that - obviously - doesn't automatically give you the correct answer to replace it with.

"Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon"

Meaning your comment is (once again) an irrelevant aside/non-sequitur. And now you are doubling down because ... ?

The "fact" that most everyone learned or was exposed to was that eating fat was largely responsible for being/becoming fat. This is what i was saying was (and is) incorrect, and recognized that fact through research on the subject without replacing it with something new.

This is the nature of critical evaluation. The vast majority of the times you critically evaluate something to be incorrect, it does not lead to (and never provides, in and of the critical evaluation itself) the correct answer to replace it (that would sure be nice though!)

Not typically, no.

The "low fat" craze was/is all marketing, and bad for your health.

Connected to this was also the incorrect idea that (especially animal) fat consumption was related to cholesterol and heart problems - none of which is correct. The half life of facts in physiology is around 25-50 years (meaning in 25 to 50 years, half of everything you were taught about the human body and its working will be known to be false).

Once you recognize something you were taught is false, you don't automatically gain the correct answer to replace it by gnosis. The correct answer to the majority of questions is "We/i don't know", and likely will always be.

No need to get bogged down in the "exception proves the rule"/"hair splitting" just to avoid understanding what i'm saying so you can half heartedly feign disagreement ;)

Replying to https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/17rmSnG7lZ/x/c/4Z7RBNw30ke (sadly thread limit was reached :()

Is there another time in your life where this happened, where you were confident something was false without knowing the real answer?

Of course! It happens to all people who think critically. It (almost) never happens to those who don't.

It isn't so much a "confidence", as a conclusion based on reasonably rigorous research. Of course i do have confidence in that conclusion, and - like everyone else - have been wrong many times in the past.

I just want to make clear the distinction between a suspicion / gut instinct that something is incorrect and what we are discussing.

An example, one of many, is that consumption of large amounts of fat caused and/or contributed to obesity. I concluded that was false long before it was commonly known.

Knowing it isn't fat consumption causing mass obesity in industrialized nations, sadly - and for the exact same reasons, does not automatically provide you with the true root/primary cause. This is just the way critical evaluation works.

Right well that's my whole point

I don't think it is.

Why funnel a bunch of money ...

I'm going to have to stop you there. It seems you have answered your own question doesn't it? They steal huge amounts of taxpayer money for the money. It isn't hard to understand!

instead of putting it to research

Who said money isn't going to research?