My god dude. Okay, sure. This next is a two part message (1/2)
Me
I'd like you to create a report on Linkerbaan's level of good faith engagement in this comment chain. You'll have to be a little bit careful to observe the nested structure of the comments, which ones are replies to which, and then make a detailed report -- in the format of a formally structure report like a UN presentation of fact-finding, divided into chapters, sections, and then subsections where appropriate.
Some of the main chapters I'd like to include are:
Unanswered questions: Things people asked Linkerbaan that they never responded substantively to
Misrepresentation: Claiming that someone else said something, or some source said something, when it never happened that way
Any others you feel are appropriate. Either positive or negative characterizations of Linkerbaan's engagements in the conversation would be appropriate as you determine.
At the end, a concrete list of "recommendations" -- a bulleted list of things that would be good for Linkerbaan to answer, or provide, in order to move the conversation forward productively.
Here is the comment chain that I'd like you to summarize in that way. Bear in mind that the topic is a fairly sensitive topic.
(comment chain is redacted)
GPT
Report on the Engagement of Linkerbaan in the Comment Chain
Chapter 1: Unanswered Questions
Section 1.1: Key Instances of Unanswered Questions
Question from @Belastend:
Original Question: "Who keeps blocking the real UN rape investigations again? Oh right, israel."
Response: Linkerbaan repeatedly redirected the conversation back to this point without addressing other questions asked by different users. For example, in response to a direct question about the UN report's evidence of sexual assault, Linkerbaan reverted to asking, "Why does israel keep blocking the UN investigation?" without providing substantive answers to the other points raised.
"Where in the report did you find information about how the hostages were treated?"
"Can you explain more about the logic, why this would follow?"
"What parts of the report are there that debunk the entire report?"
Response: Linkerbaan did not provide direct answers to these questions. Instead, they repeated their assertion that Israel is blocking a UN investigation without engaging with the specific questions asked.
Section 1.2: Repeated Evasion of Specific Queries
Throughout the conversation, Linkerbaan consistently evaded specific queries about the details of the UN report and evidence presented within it. Despite repeated requests for clarification and specific details, Linkerbaan’s responses focused on a single point regarding Israel blocking investigations, without addressing the nuanced questions posed by other participants.
Chapter 2: Misrepresentation
Section 2.1: Misrepresentation of Sources
Claim about the UN Report:
Original Claim by Linkerbaan: "Not sure why you keep citing a report that has no legal base. The only thing Patten concludes is that there is grounds to do a real investigation."
Misrepresentation: Linkerbaan's statement downplays the content of the UN report, which included findings of reasonable grounds for sexual assaults occurring, thus misrepresenting the conclusions of the report to undermine its credibility.
Section 2.2: Misrepresentation of Other Users’ Statements
Claim by Linkerbaan: "You have dodged every question the last time around and you keep dodging the question."
Misrepresentation: This statement misrepresents @mozz's engagement, as @mozz provided detailed responses and posed specific questions that Linkerbaan did not address substantively.
Chapter 3: Positive Engagement
Section 3.1: Points of Constructive Dialogue
Acknowledgment of Counterpoints:
On a few occasions, Linkerbaan acknowledged the need for a thorough investigation and expressed concerns about the suppression of evidence, which can be seen as a constructive element in their engagement.