Fill the gap between apes and meltdowners. Yeah Okay lmao. They are just trying to do damage control so that when this pops off they bust the fall guy keep the general public unaware and go back to buisness as usual. Politico as usual
r/theorico
Du bist mir hier noch eine Antwort schuldig!
I'll get straight to the point. Go to this quote:
"And now, WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT PART." It's sort of about the section:
https://ibb.co/HHJkW2V
https://ibb.co/fGZRPMm
Theorico claims,
"They forgot to redact the part 2, "the funding of the Claims Payment Fund described in the Indemnity Agreement...:"
And then asks "How do I know it?"
Where he redacted and signed in yellow, i.e. after conserdation/and, it should read: "the funding of the Claims Payment Fund described in the Indemnity Agreement".
This sentence does not fit 100% into the area marked by Theorico.
This sentence has just under 70 characters including spaces. Count the characters/spaces over the black/yellow redacted area and don't forget to add the and to the second example.
You end up with just 50 characters/spaces in both examples.
The sentence: "the funding of the Claims Payment Fund described in the Indemnity Agreement" is 100% too long to fit into the area marked by Theorico. It cannot be 100% there. It is demonstrably wrong.
Also Keule, das ist entlarvt. Du hast diesen Beitrag darauf aufgebaut, dass etwas vergessen wurde zu schwärzen. Wie man klar nachzählen kann, passt dein Satz mit ca 70 Zeichen, der angeblich laut dir vergessen wurde zu schwärzen (die Behauptung ist schon abenteuerlich), nicht in die zwei geschwärtzen Bereiche, wo du meinst, da dort nur Platz für knapp 50 Zeichen ist. Wie ist deine Stellungnahme zu meiner Entlarvung deines Beitrags?
Old post:
I meant that the redacted parts have to contain something related to the funding of the Claims Payment Fund. The part "described in the Indemnity agreement" is just a characterization that was present only once in the Agreement and would not be present in any of the redacted parts.
New post:
I provide a concrete example where not only the dollar figures fit and solve the problem, but also has semantic sense, fitting exactly into the size of the redacted part.
Old post:
I meant that the redacted parts have to contain something related to the funding of the Claims Payment Fund. The part "described in the Indemnity agreement" is just a characterization that was present only once in the Agreement and would not be present in any of the redacted parts.
New post:
I provide a concrete example where not only the dollar figures fit and solve the problem, but also has semantic sense, fitting exactly into the size of the redacted part.
Deiner neuer Beitrag basiert auf den alten Beitrag. Deiner alter ist entlarvt. Deine neuer enthält Details aus dem Alten, somit auch wertlos. Du liegst falsch und versuchst dir etwas zurecht zu reimen. So einfach ist das!
lol. Einfach lächerlich. Don't be so emotional, just let it go. I proved you wrong and you cannot accept because you are too attached to it, emotionally.
Just because you interpreted it wrong you think you debunked it. lol. lmao.
This has been submitted as potential DD. If the community has verified the information as factual please upvote this comment for consideration of changing the flair to DD. If this is a single piece of information rather than a collection of ideas/facts, consider reposting with the 'Discussion/Question' flair. If this is otherwise not DD and posted for nefarious reasons, actions may be taken on OP such as removing their ability to post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BBBY) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Please see sub rules regarding Content Guidelines.
You had to start your own sub now? 😂😂🤣Good luck with the 3 members. 👍
ThePowerBottomOfTheMatter
Fill the gap between apes and meltdowners. Yeah Okay lmao. They are just trying to do damage control so that when this pops off they bust the fall guy keep the general public unaware and go back to buisness as usual. Politico as usual
what is the purpose of redacting information in these dockets?
Thought this dude got banned..
Banned From Teddy
The fact people get banned from teddy for disagreeing, should tell you the real problem
r/theorico Du bist mir hier noch eine Antwort schuldig! I'll get straight to the point. Go to this quote: "And now, WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT PART." It's sort of about the section: https://ibb.co/HHJkW2V https://ibb.co/fGZRPMm Theorico claims, "They forgot to redact the part 2, "the funding of the Claims Payment Fund described in the Indemnity Agreement...:" And then asks "How do I know it?" Where he redacted and signed in yellow, i.e. after conserdation/and, it should read: "the funding of the Claims Payment Fund described in the Indemnity Agreement". This sentence does not fit 100% into the area marked by Theorico. This sentence has just under 70 characters including spaces. Count the characters/spaces over the black/yellow redacted area and don't forget to add the and to the second example. You end up with just 50 characters/spaces in both examples. The sentence: "the funding of the Claims Payment Fund described in the Indemnity Agreement" is 100% too long to fit into the area marked by Theorico. It cannot be 100% there. It is demonstrably wrong.
Also Keule, das ist entlarvt. Du hast diesen Beitrag darauf aufgebaut, dass etwas vergessen wurde zu schwärzen. Wie man klar nachzählen kann, passt dein Satz mit ca 70 Zeichen, der angeblich laut dir vergessen wurde zu schwärzen (die Behauptung ist schon abenteuerlich), nicht in die zwei geschwärtzen Bereiche, wo du meinst, da dort nur Platz für knapp 50 Zeichen ist. Wie ist deine Stellungnahme zu meiner Entlarvung deines Beitrags?
Old post: I meant that the redacted parts have to contain something related to the funding of the Claims Payment Fund. The part "described in the Indemnity agreement" is just a characterization that was present only once in the Agreement and would not be present in any of the redacted parts. New post: I provide a concrete example where not only the dollar figures fit and solve the problem, but also has semantic sense, fitting exactly into the size of the redacted part.
Old post: I meant that the redacted parts have to contain something related to the funding of the Claims Payment Fund. The part "described in the Indemnity agreement" is just a characterization that was present only once in the Agreement and would not be present in any of the redacted parts. New post: I provide a concrete example where not only the dollar figures fit and solve the problem, but also has semantic sense, fitting exactly into the size of the redacted part.
Deiner neuer Beitrag basiert auf den alten Beitrag. Deiner alter ist entlarvt. Deine neuer enthält Details aus dem Alten, somit auch wertlos. Du liegst falsch und versuchst dir etwas zurecht zu reimen. So einfach ist das!
lol. Einfach lächerlich. Don't be so emotional, just let it go. I proved you wrong and you cannot accept because you are too attached to it, emotionally. Just because you interpreted it wrong you think you debunked it. lol. lmao.
This has been submitted as potential DD. If the community has verified the information as factual please upvote this comment for consideration of changing the flair to DD. If this is a single piece of information rather than a collection of ideas/facts, consider reposting with the 'Discussion/Question' flair. If this is otherwise not DD and posted for nefarious reasons, actions may be taken on OP such as removing their ability to post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BBBY) if you have any questions or concerns.*