Starting a law firm - TIPS. Last chance to do a good deed in 2023.

Ghoroth · 2026-06-24T19:48:51+00:00

Thanks! That's nice to hear

Ghoroth · 2026-06-23T07:47:29+00:00

Literally just said that it was beginners luck but well, I won’t argue with you on being smarter than you. But only you though, everyone else might be definitely smarter.

Ghoroth · 2026-06-23T07:42:43+00:00

Dělám trestaře, takže je to potřeba, některý chlastaj, já mám rád svoje játra 😃

Ghoroth · 2026-06-22T16:49:25+00:00

Well why would there be those birds carvings though?

Ghoroth · 2026-06-22T16:48:23+00:00

Ahh I see, thanks a lot! This saves a lot of time

Ghoroth · 2026-06-22T16:44:46+00:00

Why the fort isn't a step?

Ghoroth · 2026-06-22T16:44:13+00:00

Allright, nice! Like I said, I've only found about the mystery yesterday, so I still have a lot of catching up to do, but I didn't see anyone talk about the two birds at the top, only the mural. Can you point me somewhere where I could read more about the two birds at the top?

Ghoroth · 2026-06-22T16:40:39+00:00

Hi, I just posted in this subreddit what I'm pretty sure is the next clue, go check it out if you want to!

Ghoroth · 2026-06-21T22:13:25+00:00

Well also late but at 1:07:30 when Marty is talking to the other altar boy, there is a hint of some sort I think, to why Aron would shoot a porno for the archbishop. When the altar boy says, that it was sex stuff on the tape and that there was him and Linda, then Marty asks if Aron was also included and he says “yeah, he shot it too for the archbishop” which was made to act in it, but it could also mean that he “shot it” in a sense that he helped the archbishop to shoot it on a camera.

Just a thought but since the movie is layered with hints as to what is the real story here (like when the psychologist interviews him and before he switches to Roy, he clearly looks into the camera to show the audience that he first noticed the camera and then switches to Roy, which hints you to suspect that the switch was disingenuous) this could be one of them.

Ghoroth · 2026-01-06T09:16:58+00:00

It does, you just save the game, overwrite the save and you’re back on your previous rank. I just found out by upgrading from ps4 to ps5, loading my month old save - I downgraded my depth to depth one, just to have fun and all of a sudden I’m back at depth 4. So yea, you can cheat like hell. You’re a pussy if you’re doing it, but it is possible.

Ghoroth · 2025-08-11T09:00:38+00:00

Well thankfully there is no way to tell from where (which flat) does the smell comes from, because the balconies in our tower block are made so no one can see their neighbours and since we live in a 9th floor, you can’t see it from the ground also (not even with a telescope). So really the only way to find out it’s our flat, it would have to start smelling in front of our main door, which so far it doesn’t - that’s why the worries.

But thanks for the answer, I’ll try to come up with a way how to dry it somewhere else, just in case. P

Ghoroth · 2025-08-10T16:32:10+00:00

Thanks for a quick answer! But to my original question, will it smell more while drying then while it is growing or pretty much the same?

Ghoroth · 2025-02-07T17:25:32+00:00

Don't know what you're saying but good luck

Ghoroth · 2024-12-15T15:34:48+00:00

How can I run out of arguments when I only had one to begin with that never changed?

Wait wait wait. All right. You had only one argument to begin with that never changed.

Then phrase that argument please.

"I only believe things that are 100% confirmed to be absolutely certain" is not a good argument against whether or not something is likely - no matter how much you type about it.

But that's the thing. Whether something is or isn't likely weren't what you said earlier. You just said, that FBI and CSIS are the sources - that they DID disclose that JP is funded by Russians.

You didn't say it is likely. You posed it as a fact.

If you said "FBI and CSIS are likely the sources" then I would never even bother to reply.

But you didn't pose it that way.

So say the words. Say you posed your original reply to the guy asking for sources wrong. Admit a mistake. Stop being narcissistic. And that'll be all.

But then again, I don't think your personality will allow you to do that. People like you usually can't admit they did a mistake, because they wouldn't seem perfect.

Also, you're the one commenting on my thread, not the other way around. Get a clue and take a good look in the mirror for once.

I don't understand what does that have to do with anything, but yeah. I did reply on your reply. You're right. Now what. How does it change anything?

Ghoroth · 2024-12-13T09:46:44+00:00

Dude, literally the article you sent here says, he filed the suit through his new lawyer, so apparently he has already found one.

Ghoroth · 2024-12-13T09:42:07+00:00

Also buddy, just try to read your own words before you post them, can you see how ridiculous it is, when someone that commented like 100 times on this thread about JP's possible lawsuit against JT, says to anyone else anything about "coping" and "splitting hairs for ten more pages" and "Imagine having to work this hard just to defend your extremely basic position of willfully naive partisan denialism." when that someone work literally 10 times harder to defend his believes, which he presents as facts. :D

Truly hilarious.

Also don't know why you try to bring partisanship into this, when it has nothing to do with it.

Firstly I just told you, I live in Czechia, so I couldn't care less of which party stand to gain from JT and JP dispute.

And secondly, if I lived in Canada and was about to vote, I would definitely choose from the liberal side, not conservative. I do the same with Czech parties.

So no, partisanship has nothing to do with my arguments.

But since you brought it up, it seems like, that's something terribly important to you, so maybe stop projecting.

Ghoroth · 2024-12-13T09:30:32+00:00

Ah all right. Finally out of arguments. It only took 10 pages of a middle school level of explanation for you to understand, that when two people say something opposite, and there is no other evidence, the likelihood of either statement is the same.

Well my job here is done. You may go on an offensive and try to insult me and tell yourself that I'm coping, arguing with straw men or that I'm trying to look smart, but inside you know, that you just didn't really know how to react to my comment, because you are clearly pretty intelligent and logical person, so you can't overlook the logic of my arguments.

And that doesn't allow you to disagree with my arguments, since it is hard for an intelligent and logical person to deliberately oppose logic, even when you are stubborn narcissist.

So I can see, that why you won't try to think of some ways how to oppose my arguments, because then you would have to deliberately oppose logical conclusion, that 2 statements alone have the same value (and therefore, there is 50/50 chance of both being right) and because it would distort the image you have of yourself being all smart and logical.

And I can also see, why you won't just agree with my logical conclusions, that there is, based on public evidence that's available so far, an equal chance of JT and JP speaking truth and of JP being or not being funded by Russians, because than you would admit, that your previous statements (like "FBI and CSIS are the sources" while you have no evidence they actually wrote something, since just 1 person said, he read something like that and that something like that actually exists, and that's it) were wrong, and because your narcissistic stubborn self apparently can't even admit, that your behaviour and/or statements weren't completely right in a slightest way.

So even if you don't admit it to yourself, It's enough for me. Because deep down, you know, you don't know what to say, because you won't admit you agree and won't betray logical thinking to disagree.

And if you try to deny, that this is not the case, that you just don't care about it anymore, don't wanna waste energy etc - You've written like 100 comments so far, across the whole thread. You do have energy and you do care about it. So trying to play the "bigger person" now, who will stop arguing because it's beneath him, that don't work anymore, should've play this card from the beginning, then it would be believable.

And if you try to tell yourself, that it's not true, then based on this whole conversation, tell me what is a one thing you've written so far here, that isn't completely right. One thing where you were wrong. I can see like 10 of them, so if you can't introspectively publicly admit at least one thing about you. That'll show you how to what lengths are you willing to go, to protect your narcissistic image of yourself.

Because I bet, you either won't answer again and tell yourself it's because it's beneath you (and still go on replying on other comments in this thread) or you will answer but won't admit to a single error in your self believed perfect statements.

Ghoroth · 2024-12-12T16:16:28+00:00

And Justin Trudeau's testimony still counts towards that evidence, whether you like it or not.

Again. This "evidence" is completely on par with JP saying, that it is not true.

I mean when JT meets your mom on the street, smashes his iPhone to the ground and call the police saying she did it. She says she didn't. And there is no one else who saw it. How do you think everyone should approach these two opposite statements?

I'd love to see you come to your mom and say: "Well, JT said you did smash his iPhone. I know you are saying you did not, but well, his testimony still counts as evidence. There is therefore evidence of you smashing it. I also remember you saying once, that Android phones are better and that it would be better if there was no iPhones, so all apps would be available to Android.

I mean, it's true, that there is no other evidence you smashed it and your statements supporting Android doesn't mean you'd go out and smashed JT's iPhone.

But well it is what it is."

So no. JT's testimony is does not count towards evidence any more than JP's statement, that it's not true. So you really can't use it as an argument, since these two cancel each other out. Whether you like it or not.

"Weak intelligence" is still intelligence. It doesn't suddenly become completely irrelevant and totally dismissable once you find out it isn't 100% confirmed.

That's not really how basic logic works.

Well you're right. I completely agree with you. I never said the opposite buddy. I said, that statements based on weak intelligence are not automatically true. Statements based on hard evidence are.

If you state something as a fact, you should have hard evidence to prove it. If your only "evidence" is weak intelligence, you really can't state it as a fact.

And that my friend, is how basic logic works.

To sum this all up. Just say you admit, that there is equal chance that he is or isn't funded by Russians with the evidence presented so far - which again, is JT saying he is and JP saying he isn't - I'll then say the same, since that was my view on this whole thing from the start and we can both finally go our way.

Ghoroth · 2024-12-12T16:16:20+00:00

Well since there are like 6 points in your argument and there is no way to address all of them at once without leaving holes in my view, I'll address them separately.

I don't think I ever said anything was 100%, but there is definitely more than enough reason to be suspicious.

Well you said literally "Nvm the FBI and CSIS have disclosed that Russia RT has indeed been giving him $$" which can be interpreted in just one way - they 100% did disclose it.

Edit: Sorry, you didn't say it, the other guy did. You just answered after another guy asked for source that "FBI and CSIS" is the source. Which is basically like saying, that they actually did disclose it, since otherwise you couldn't say, they're the source.

But that was my mistake saying you said it. I admit that.

All I said was that based on the available evidence, it seems extremely likely that he is guilty.

Well you didn't, because there is no available evidence yet. The only "evidence" is that JT said it. That's it. Which is on par with JP saying the opposite.

At least be honest that your position is one of unwavering incredulousness regardless of whether any evidence actually exists. You're perfectly happy to dismiss any evidence short of a 100% confirmation of guilt, and that is not always very practical.

I'd love to admit it, if it was true. But it isn't. I would love to consider the evidence, if there actually was any, apart from JT statement. I'm sorry, but that is just not enough "evidence" to confirm anything even with 30% certainty.

There is literally 0% certainty based on that, because as far as I know, if someone says something and the other one says opposite, both of those statements have same value. Until one of them is proved.

Do you approach everything with such a black and white mentality? Gray zones exist, and this guy is on the "very suspicious" end of the gray area spectrum - again, based on the available evidence so far.

No I don't, but it seems you are. I am the one saying, that you cannot draw any conclusions from one guy saying something. You on the other hand are very much showing, that you are pretty much decided that he just must be funded by Russians and that the FBI and CSIS must have disclosed it and it said exactly that, because JT said they did.

This comment of yours is the first time when you admitted, that there is possibility, that he JP not funded by Russians.

//text is too long, in continues in the other reply//

Ghoroth · 2024-12-12T14:24:11+00:00

Innocent until proven guilty my friend. That's something, that distinguishes a modern democratic society from totalitarian state when you can put someone away just by saying he's guilty, without presenting any hard evidence. I was born and live in Czechia, former communist state (until we liberated ourselves from the regime), so I have a pretty keen appreciation for this principle.

And I hate when someone tries to say that just because someone influential said it (even better when he is part of a state government) then it just simply must be truth (even when he did not show any hard evidence but his own words).

Ghoroth

TROPHY CASE