Sociopath Community

Golden_Eagle said: 

Turncoat said: 

Golden_Eagle said: 

You were pretty cunty back then too, so any approaches would have to be a gentle one. 

Hahaha, what? 

How is he 'cunty', rather than pedantic? 

For your sake I'll point out how that sentence is past tense. I also included how he's changed, though you left that part out.

This is why I always say our conversations are backward. When it comes to you I always have to stall and circle a single point, then I'll eventually decide to release you from adding more lost questions.

You presume something immediately and are stubborn to correct it. I am resistant to coming to conclusions over how I keep seeing that there's more to it. We're not the same, and it shows when you debate people of actual rigor... rather than people like yourself who'd lie to you to make the conversation go smoother. 

Personally, I appreciate honesty, and my being forward speaking and asking 'rude' questions is a lot of how I got people to find it refreshingly real, opening them to do the same. Most people are tired of fake shit, but there'll always be people like you who find lying easier than telling a hard truth... short of them triggering you enough to say it out of anger. 

I'll leave it to BT to interpret as he's without a doubt intellectual.

...until he doesn't take your side and then you devalue his opinion, of course. 

M.E. and Luna had a falling out. Maybe it was a power struggle over who would rule the forum Luna created, so deals were off pretty early after SC's launch, so M.E. would have severed any links to SC.

A user got M.E. Thomas to notice how the forum spoke about her and the state of it, which she saw as poisonous towards her trying to sell her book and being taken seriously. 

Her interview with Dr. Phil, and the book itself, were true works of comedy. 

Dr. Phil ambushed her. Wanted everyone to see how he handles someone like Professor Jamie Lund. Called her a fake, though she did get to advertise her book to millions of people. The wig and large shades weren't enough to protect her and she ended up losing her job probably from the things she said in her book. I'm not a fan of hers, as her physical presence would probably disturb me, but I did watch the episode to see who this M.E. is that created the forum. 

If that's an ambush then she didn't do her research, and she was trying to be a fucking edgelord on low brow television. It's idiotic when it comes to selling her book, but she did it anyway because she's a total narc. 

It was hilarious, and if you read her book you'd stop projecting all over her. Her book is silly, it's one of the silliest reads I've ever found, and I'm glad I read her book as a pure, untapped, true form of comedy without even one ounce of tongue in cheek. She is a disturbed narcissist trying to call herself ASPD, and it shows in her work. I highly recommend her book, I can even send you a digital file of it if I dig through my old files. 

Dr Phil also has also made it apparent that he hates narcs and ASPD, he did an entire powerpoint presentation over it and the guy seems damaged. Someone like Jamie Lund is basically so triggering for a dude like him it's practically bait, especially with that cheap ass wig and claiming to be an actor she hired. Bro hates bullshitters and he could smell her during the segment before her. 

The Kiwis were only here for a limited time, they were like "they attack one another instead of others" and never found much in terms of what they look for in these pages. They were friendlier than the hackers from Facepunch who hacked Luna's SC before Michael had to use a restore point and patch the exploit. Facepunch wasn't interested in staying here either. 

It was an untapped well of potential, we had people who wanted to come here because they could have shlong in their avatars without being moderated and they found that fascinating. 

...shame about Luna, if they found this place after she retired they'd have stuck around I bet. 

If they stayed I'd be long gone since I'd advise keeping a distance from people who'd at some point try to hack or wreck you for sport.  

I miss Dynastia, his energy was good shit. The dude made a reputation-career of sorts out of breaking down structures, but SC survived him save for Luna flipping shit. 

Turncoat said: 

Golden_Eagle said: 

Turncoat said: 

Hahaha, what? 

How is he 'cunty', rather than pedantic? 

For your sake I'll point out how that sentence is past tense. I also included how he's changed, though you left that part out.

This is why I always say our conversations are backward. When it comes to you I always have to stall and circle a single point, then I'll eventually decide to release you from adding more lost questions.

You presume something immediately and are stubborn to correct it. I am resistant to coming to conclusions over how I keep seeing that there's more to it. We're not the same, and it shows when you debate people of actual rigor... rather than people like yourself who'd lie to you to make the conversation go smoother. 

What is something ?

When I said he "was" cunty, you question how "is" he cunty.

As for what I said, there's no need for me to correct anything, as my earlier experiences with BT were like handling a vagina. It gets irritated easily and needs a gentle approach. 

Personally, I appreciate honesty, and my being forward speaking and asking 'rude' questions is a lot of how I got people to find it refreshingly real, opening them to do the same. Most people are tired of fake shit, but there'll always be people like you who find lying easier than telling a hard truth... short of them triggering you enough to say it out of anger. 

Sorry, but what am I lying about ? Thinking BT used to be cunty ? lol I totally thought so. I used to call him out for being a white knight all the time too.

I'll leave it to BT to interpret as he's without a doubt intellectual.

...until he doesn't take your side and then you devalue his opinion, of course. 

You honestly don't know me and never will, cause your conclusions and assumptions are regularly painted to fit your so called "personal truth" which is as real as you being a female. 

I honestly don't expect BT to give a shit in all honesty, and it's not a matter of taking sides. That past is the past, and I don't rewrite it. 

I think most people around here have a better grasp on what I say. It's always you twisting and perverting what I have to say and no one else really does that. Oh yeah, it's very noticable, though you most likely don't realize how much of a spiteful bitch you seem to be while thinking you're some bekon of sane logic. 

I'll leave it to BT to interpret as he's without a doubt intellectual.

...until he doesn't take your side and then you devalue his opinion, of course. 

You honestly don't know me and never will, cause your conclusions and assumptions are regularly painted to fit your so called "personal truth" which is as real as you being a female. 

I honestly don't expect BT to give a shit in all honesty, and it's not a matter of taking sides. That past is the past, and I don't rewrite it. 

I think most people around here have a better grasp on what I say. It's always you twisting and perverting what I have to say and no one else really does that. Oh yeah, it's very noticable, though you most likely don't realize how much of a spiteful bitch you seem to be while thinking you're some bekon of sane logic. 

Turncoat might not know everything about you, but he's very on point with this. He's not the only person saying you evaluate arguments, situational context, and intellect based on who, in your mind, is 'opposing' you. As concrete evidence of this, you never had any problems at all with my relationships with Inquirer until you got angry at me. Then everything I did was morally questionable and unintelligent and needed fixing. If TC were not correct, you would've pointed out all of this during the 12 years when you had a chance to do so, and not only after turning. You 100% do exactly what TC says you do. You do it all the time.

Another example is that you have a tendency to corner the person as an outlier when it's one person telling you you're wrong, and then you have a tendency to say TC or whoever manipulated the person into fighting you if it's 2-3 people, and if it's literally everyone, then it's a conspiracy and bias against you. It never actually matters to you how many people disagree with you, because you label them enemies the moment they don't agree with you. 

Everyone's world is to some degree contextual, but yours is in particular.

Jada said: 

...until he doesn't take your side and then you devalue his opinion, of course. 

You honestly don't know me and never will, cause your conclusions and assumptions are regularly painted to fit your so called "personal truth" which is as real as you being a female. 

I honestly don't expect BT to give a shit in all honesty, and it's not a matter of taking sides. That past is the past, and I don't rewrite it. 

I think most people around here have a better grasp on what I say. It's always you twisting and perverting what I have to say and no one else really does that. Oh yeah, it's very noticable, though you most likely don't realize how much of a spiteful bitch you seem to be while thinking you're some bekon of sane logic. 

Turncoat might not know everything about you, but he's very on point with this. He's not the only person saying you evaluate arguments, situational context, and intellect based on who, in your mind, is 'opposing' you. As concrete evidence of this, you never had any problems at all with my relationships with Inquirer until you got angry at me. Then everything I did was morally questionable and unintelligent and needed fixing. If TC were not correct, you would've pointed out all of this during the 12 years when you had a chance to do so, and not only after turning. You 100% do exactly what TC says you do. You do it all the time.

You have no examples of me flipping my opinion on someone for disagreeing with me. The material behind that accusation comes from an deluded individual, and you agree for the sake of argument. 

While you say I haven't in the 12 years when I had the chance, I point out Nate's fake claims about me all the time. Amazing, you say I never did, but damn Legga, it's literally the flag ship of my interactions with Nathan. It's an endless process and he actually does it to annoy me, and not worth correcting him all the time. 

As for your endless tension with Inq, I asked about it all the time, but this time let's be honest, you spoke shit. You say I'm angry or jealous of your intelligence or whatever. I'm actually shedding light on the subject.

- Inq is not BT.

- Inq is not all those scandinavians. 

- Inq is not here.

- Inq is not plotting and scamming anyone here. 

- Inq never played me like a piano.

- You have no idea what Inq is up to

The guy really doesn't come here anymore.

What upsets you is how I delivered the truth, and that's pointing out your flimsy scheme to paint a picture of the guy to be a crock of shit. You don't even make clear where you get your information from cause it would only shame you.

You have no examples of me flipping my opinion on someone for disagreeing with me.

Show me a single example of you voicing similar disapproval regarding my relationship with Inquirer like you do now throughout the 12 years I've been here, before you flipped your general stance on me. If you can't, then that's your example.

(...) you agree for the sake of argument.

Do you understand how this demonstrates what TC and I are saying?

While you say I haven't in the 12 years when I had the chance, I point out Nate's fake claims about me all the time.

You've hated TC with great passion for I don't know how long. You flipped your opinion regarding my relationship with Inquirer faster than pachycephalosaurus when it prepares to ram its thick skull against an opponent after I said I'm smarter than you.

I dont understand what the rest of what you said means, I wasnt talking about you doggedly hating everything TC does.

As for your endless tension with Inq, I asked about it all the time

Give me a single example where you expressed your current opinion before you started your tirade.

What upsets you is how I delivered the truth, and that's pointing out your flimsy scheme to paint a picture of the guy to be a crock of shit. You don't even make clear where you get your information from cause it would only shame you.

I'm not upset. I'm observant. I can't take what you say seriously when it so obviously comes after your general tirade against me started, and you never had an opinion on the matter before. Everything you say is so obviously painted by the context of you actively hating the fact that I'm intelligent. If it's not, then give me an example where within the 12 years up until now, before you started to actively dislike me, you ever expressed similar opinions.

Jada said: 

You have no examples of me flipping my opinion on someone for disagreeing with me.

Show me a single example of you voicing similar disapproval regarding my relationship with Inquirer like you do now throughout the 12 years I've been here, before you flipped your general stance on me. If you can't, then that's your example.

My opinion on your relationship with Inq hasn't changed, I've always found it irrational, the difference this time is that you're lying about the guy now, and I have something to say. 

(...) you agree for the sake of argument.

Do you understand how this demonstrates what TC and I are saying?

I can see how it's being twisted to suit your narrative, but it's not true.

While you say I haven't in the 12 years when I had the chance, I point out Nate's fake claims about me all the time.

You've hated TC with great passion for I don't know how long. You flipped your opinion regarding my relationship with Inquirer faster than pachycephalosaurus when it prepares to ram its thick skull against an opponent after I said I'm smarter than you.

You're backpedaling now. Your claim was that I never corrected Nathan about myself not once "in the 12 years" when I had the chance, now that's been dispelled and you have no leg to stand on in that false claim, you want to argue how I hated the guy for 12 years. 

I've forgiven Nate for various offences which includes listing phone numbers from a phone book of everyone with my last name in this city, posting my Father's company number and address, and images of my siblings and cousins, for weeks on end, with threats. He came to me at some point saying it was him and that episode is over. He apologized, I said okay it's fine, zip it let's not talk about it. Skip the mushy stuff. Today he still likes acting up and talking shit, it's whatever. I could've loved him, and while he thinks I don't recognize when he's being smart or manipulative, I can see it, then starts the loop of offset and endless questions and drawn conclusions for the sake of annoyance. But I do think Nate is a smarter than you are. 

What I would never do is go around making up stories about Nate. Never have and never will so if I dislike the guy with reason, it certainly isn't a sick one. 

I dont understand what the rest of what you said means, I wasnt talking about you doggedly hating everything TC does.

What you've done was cut out what I had to say, dismissing it as something you don't understand. The message is clear and counters your claim of me never correcting Nathan's fake claims about me. It's then easy to see how I mentioned the obvious, which is making a stand when Nathan spreads lies about me, cause it happens ALL THE TIME. Dude. That's not even a debate there. 

As for your endless tension with Inq, I asked about it all the time

Give me a single example where you expressed your current opinion before you started your tirade.

You just said for argument sake my opinion about you and Inq's relationship hasn't changed in years, but I always had something to say. The difference is now you're being dishonest about him now, spreading lies, saying he's here scamming. You crossed a line now. I'd always say over and over how Inq is docile, and questioning your hatred for him.

What you call a tirade is really an intervention, and my message to you is, stop lying, you're a proclaimed scientist okay, fucking act like one and stick to finding, not guesses that come from your heart that will lead others astray.

That OP, complete trash. Now fencing with me is literally fencing with the truth in the matter. 

What upsets you is how I delivered the truth, and that's pointing out your flimsy scheme to paint a picture of the guy to be a crock of shit. You don't even make clear where you get your information from cause it would only shame you.

I'm not upset. I'm observant. I can't take what you say seriously when it so obviously comes after your general tirade against me started, and you never had an opinion on the matter before. Everything you say is so obviously painted by the context of you actively hating the fact that I'm intelligent. If it's not, then give me an example where within the 12 years up until now, before you started to actively dislike me, you ever expressed similar opinions.

 No your not observant. I'm sticking up for Inq in the face of a spiritually compromised and conflicted man. Spreading lies. It really looks like you've scammed yourself into believing the shit you write WITHOUT any evidence of your accusations. Not even TC agrees with you and finds you lacking in wisdom. Wisdom is the ability to utilize knowledge correctly, which you're failing to do. You honestly cannot say you're observant and be taken seriously at this point while the source of your hatred for Inq can only discredit you, now you want to lay claim that you're observant. Denied.

Now you're throwing questions and asking for examples while getting crushed, I will just stick to my claim how you cannot provide any examples of me flipping my opinion on someone for disagreeing with me. You and I had disagreements, and you're famous for "Let's just agree to disagree" I say fine, and shits the same.  On top of that you're guy who often claims "It's lonely up here at the top, I need to find another community, no one understands me" while having the capacity to stir shit about an opponent which is low IQ behavior. The question is nothing new, what the hell did Inq actually do for you to spread false witness, to witnesses ?

Is it because he's still more popular than you are ? How when history is brought up his name will pop up from the mouths of others but nothing all that good would be said of you ?

Jada said: 

Another example is that you have a tendency to corner the person as an outlier when it's one person telling you you're wrong, and then you have a tendency to say TC or whoever manipulated the person into fighting you if it's 2-3 people, and if it's literally everyone, then it's a conspiracy and bias against you.

It's caused him to burn bridges with people he used to be friendly with here too, it's crazy to watch it in action. Even those who'd not take him seriously and otherwise be fake with the guy to steer his behaviors eventually grew tired of it once it extended to them or those they're friends with. Even topics where I don't get involved has him presume ringleader, even with people I don't talk to. He's left entire groups of people too once he felt like they were suddenly all against him, and he's given similar 'ringleader' stories over people-problems he's faced in real life too. 

To him, he knows "the truth", one he often proclaims is 'obvious'. Following that, any reason people'd disagree with him is always taken by him as if misdirection and/or idiocy, blatantly insulting their intelligence the second he sees them as if "on my side" even when they try to lay it on him soft or even try to help him reason through it. To him he's smart, so those who agree with him must also be smart via alignment, via which side they've taken in his perception of binary conflicts. 

When you see who he pays compliments to it's always over how often they do or don't disagree with him out loud. Then there's issues like his -isms and other generalizing patterns that your average person grows irritated over once they notice he's being honest about those things instead of weird or ironic somehow. For women for example he tends to try to be softer on them over Sexism which, once they've noticed many have found... problematic over how they don't feel taken seriously, especially once he flips the script when he feels betrayed or whatever. 

He doesn't see how he sabotages himself in order to maintain his worldview, it's classic narcissism pitfalls. He acts confused how his behaviors could be taken poorly, like how he was during Tales from the Creep back when he'd found himself at odds with women on this website (again) as a... softer example. People he could be calling smart on Monday he'll call dumb on Tuesday once he sees them no longer in his corner. He's even gone as far as to blame the community as a whole when otherwise out of thread to pull on. 

Golden_Eagle said: 

Turncoat said: 

Golden_Eagle said: 

For your sake I'll point out how that sentence is past tense. I also included how he's changed, though you left that part out.

This is why I always say our conversations are backward. When it comes to you I always have to stall and circle a single point, then I'll eventually decide to release you from adding more lost questions.

You presume something immediately and are stubborn to correct it. I am resistant to coming to conclusions over how I keep seeing that there's more to it. We're not the same, and it shows when you debate people of actual rigor... rather than people like yourself who'd lie to you to make the conversation go smoother. 

What is something ?

When I said he "was" cunty, you question how "is" he cunty.

Now look who's being pedantic. 

As for what I said, there's no need for me to correct anything, as my earlier experiences with BT were like handling a vagina. It gets irritated easily and needs a gentle approach. 

So in other words you take him less seriously than other people? 

Personally, I appreciate honesty, and my being forward speaking and asking 'rude' questions is a lot of how I got people to find it refreshingly real, opening them to do the same. Most people are tired of fake shit, but there'll always be people like you who find lying easier than telling a hard truth... short of them triggering you enough to say it out of anger. 

Sorry, but what am I lying about ? Thinking BT used to be cunty ? lol I totally thought so. I used to call him out for being a white knight all the time too.

It's a general statement, and you've even admitted recently that you'd rather lie to people. 

I'll leave it to BT to interpret as he's without a doubt intellectual.

...until he doesn't take your side and then you devalue his opinion, of course. 

You honestly don't know me and never will, cause your conclusions and assumptions are regularly painted to fit your so called "personal truth" which is as real as you being a female. 

Ad hominem attacks to ignore your problems, classic Spatial. 

I honestly don't expect BT to give a shit in all honesty, and it's not a matter of taking sides. That past is the past, and I don't rewrite it. 

BT has opinions, but I guess he doesn't talk to you about them very often. 🤷

Or you forgot. 

I think most people around here have a better grasp on what I say. It's always you twisting and perverting what I have to say and no one else really does that. Oh yeah, it's very noticable, though you most likely don't realize how much of a spiteful bitch you seem to be while thinking you're some bekon of sane logic. 

You just don't like how people clearing away the shrouds, omissions, and softenings has you face actual consequences for your mistakes. 

...then you act like I put them all up to it which is literally crazy. 

Golden_Eagle said: 

You have no examples of me flipping my opinion on someone for disagreeing with me. The material behind that accusation comes from an deluded individual, and you agree for the sake of argument. 

You... can't even remember the friends whose bridges you've burnt over this. That's... pretty bizarre, comparatively I tend to remember when I've burnt a bridge over how I don't have the room to talk to them anymore, but you've just... erased the experience entirely. That's such a profane coping mechanism, how are you supposed to improve as a person if you just bury it all? 

What you referred to as "Flying Monkeys", and issues with multiple women who were once on this website as mild as you being repellant to as blatant as you insulting them for pages while acting confused over their responses to you. Those two alone should be more than enough room for you to remember your blunders. 

I point out Nate's fake claims about me all the time.

And now we're back to the senile loop of claiming proof doesn't exist when it's been linked to you repeatedly for years. 

It gets linked, you express narc wounding that has you act bizarre and manic while lending to unrelated tangents as ad hominem strikes to handle the claims less credibly, then you black out that it ever happened later as a cope for your present worldview while spamming the chat and stuff. You then take a small break, claim to be tired, and then return as if nothing ever happened somehow. 

It's this effectively, but a lot louder: 

Turncoat said: 

He doesn't see how he sabotages himself in order to maintain his worldview, it's classic narcissism pitfalls. He acts confused how his behaviors could be taken poorly, like how he was during Tales from the Creep back when he'd found himself at odds with women on this website (again) as a... softer example. People he could be calling smart on Monday he'll call dumb on Tuesday once he sees them no longer in his corner. He's even gone as far as to blame the community as a whole when otherwise out of thread to pull on. 

Using a parody thead against me. Oh my serious business. 

You do something for fun, and they weaponize it and bring it back while gaslighting you. He's this ! and he's that !

While you understand Legga lacks wisdom, and disagree with him yourself, you fuel the very attributes that causes him to stumble like he did here.

Legga is in your hands now.

Wisdom is just bullshit. Why does legga need to be "in your hands?" He's a smart and independent guy and also you are not a dependable person in general as you've accounted how women with you end up devalued and put in harms way.