Sociopath Community

yeah no shit, the whole thing is his shitty sense of humor

Cawk said: 

yeah no shit, the whole thing is his shitty sense of humor

 No he's 100% genuine and exposed, this will haunt him forever 

Xadem said: 

Legga. The one pestering Inquirer for over 3 years now, if not longer. He seems to be keen on the story of Inquirer and SensitiveSoul being the same person. In 2017 Legga announced that he'd expose Inquirer. The day before the given date, he stopped coming online.

Fastforward a year later, Legga comes onto SC claiming that Inquirer and SensitiveSoul are the same person. Not a word about his previous absence. Not a shred of evidence. He demanded to be in a call with Inq and Sensy. Which happened. According to Legga's own testimony, Inquirer and Sensy spoke separately in VC with him. Legga however, refused to speak.  

On top of all of that, any valid criticism towards Legga will be promptly and conveniently ignored by him. Whether it's Edvard, or MissCommunication, or Systematic shedding doubt on his story, he will refuse to address any of the issues. This leads me to conclude that Legga is lying. 

Now I ask, why does he lie? 

 I don't ignore any valid criticism, I only ever refused to engage in stuff like "Legga is a poop head" because I don't want to kill all my brain cells yet. Other than that, I've probably missed a few things here and there, but I never knowingly ignored valid criticism.

But I'm bored, so I might as well take some time to reply to you Xadem.

First of all, I never did any of that. I never said I'd "expose" Inquirer back in 2017 and then stopped coming for a year. I was moving around most of that year, and simply didn't have time to come here.

I didn't demand that Inquirer and Sensy have a chat with me, others did that. It was their idea, and I just complied. We had a short Skype call after 2 hours, when "SensitiveSoul" finally showed up on the call. I have no way to tell if that was SensitiveSoul or someone else, and the two hours of preparation time sure didn't help in convincing me.

Also, nobody ever demanded anything of me. They agreed to the call, but nobody demanded I say a word or do anything if I lose the bet.

As for evidence: Inquirer is a caricature of a character, he and SensitiveSoul always show up together, take breaks off SC together, have exactly the same active times (much more so than their other Swedish counterparts), and there are 6 fucking Swedish people here on this forum. There are even two SensitiveSouls now. All of this can't be a coincidence.

Xadem, you accuse me of ignoring others when it is convenient for me. When I address your post, you do the very thing that you accuse me of.

Legga said: 

Xadem said: 

Legga. The one pestering Inquirer for over 3 years now, if not longer. He seems to be keen on the story of Inquirer and SensitiveSoul being the same person. In 2017 Legga announced that he'd expose Inquirer. The day before the given date, he stopped coming online.

Fastforward a year later, Legga comes onto SC claiming that Inquirer and SensitiveSoul are the same person. Not a word about his previous absence. Not a shred of evidence. He demanded to be in a call with Inq and Sensy. Which happened. According to Legga's own testimony, Inquirer and Sensy spoke separately in VC with him. Legga however, refused to speak.  

On top of all of that, any valid criticism towards Legga will be promptly and conveniently ignored by him. Whether it's Edvard, or MissCommunication, or Systematic shedding doubt on his story, he will refuse to address any of the issues. This leads me to conclude that Legga is lying. 

Now I ask, why does he lie? 

 I don't ignore any valid criticism, I only ever refused to engage in stuff like "Legga is a poop head" because I don't want to kill all my brain cells yet. Other than that, I've probably missed a few things here and there, but I never knowingly ignored valid criticism.

But I'm bored, so I might as well take some time to reply to you Xadem.

First of all, I never did any of that. I never said I'd "expose" Inquirer back in 2017 and then stopped coming for a year. I was moving around most of that year, and simply didn't have time to come here.

I didn't demand that Inquirer and Sensy have a chat with me, others did that. It was their idea, and I just complied. We had a short Skype call after 2 hours, when "SensitiveSoul" finally showed up on the call. I have no way to tell if that was SensitiveSoul or someone else, and the two hours of preparation time sure didn't help in convincing me.

Also, nobody ever demanded anything of me. They agreed to the call, but nobody demanded I say a word or do anything if I lose the bet.

As for evidence: Inquirer is a caricature of a character, he and SensitiveSoul always show up together, take breaks off SC together, have exactly the same active times (much more so than their other Swedish counterparts), and there are 6 fucking Swedish people here on this forum. There are even two SensitiveSouls now. All of this can't be a coincidence.

 No, you actually did proclaim that you were going to expose Inquirer, and I supported you throughout like a good husband. Then ONE day before you were going to do it, you vanished for a year. And it doesn't matter why, you still just were gone. And yes you did demand to chat with them, you even convinced Inq in chat. That's two things which you lied about AGAIN, and I'm barely halfway through your post. 

Your evidence is anecdotal at best, you've already shown yourself to lie, and also you're a poop head. 

Well, I don't know what to tell you except that I didn't. It was the crowd throwing in suggestions.

My evidence is based on the Bayesian approach and statistical arguments. These are not anecdotal. If you believe in science, you should trust me too.

You're butchering statistics to get your arguments.

user22212 said: 

You're butchering statistics to get your arguments.

 V for Vendetta, I literally just said the opposite -- I utilize statistics to get to my arguments.

If you have doubts about my integrity or how I arrive at my evidence, please check this scientific paper published on viXra (it's half a page):

http://vixra.org/abs/1906.0012

At the core of all statistics is at least one heuristic bias.

Your assumptions are ridiculously wrong.

You assume people from a specific sample are uniformly attracted to sc, which is wrong. A better way to get that probability is to see what % of internet users have no life and like shitposting on obscure forums. Due to the way social security works in sweeden, you will find that the % of sweeds with no life is higher than your estimate.

Furthermore, due to how friendships between people work, it's likely that simply having one sweede on a forum will bring in more sweeds -his friends-.

You're not doing statistics right over there, you're just making some wild assumptions and drawing a probably correct conclusion from those assumptions. The assumptions you are using are wrong, so the conclusion is also wrong. This is why I said you're butchering statistics.