All i see from everyone is them casting
https://www.wowhead.com/spell=871/shield-wall
with all those walls of text
The dumbest god to ever exist apparently, i am dionysus, ra, horus, vishnu, the infinity
Maninist said:It's common knowledge. The only person I ever attacked, is Legga. Tbh. You never attacked any of my ideas before. lol. Why ?“Common knowledge” is not evidence, and admitting that you attacked Legga already disproves the absolute claim that you never strike first. I have repeatedly criticized your ideas about birth, violence, hierarchy, religion, and suffering. You keep recasting disagreement as a personal attack because that is easier than answering the criticism. As for why you threatened me, that is for you to explain. The fact that you now ask “why?” does not erase that you initiated it.
Saying I threatened you isn't evidence that I did.
Saying I threatened you isn't evidence that I did.
You admitted in this thread that you said you would “slap me silly” and described me being “choked out.” You have also made death threats against groups you explicitly placed me within. Those are threats of violence, so the evidence is contained in your own statements.
The remaining issue is chronology. I said I would crush you only after you had already threatened me. Denying that now does not reverse the order. Show the earlier exchange if you believe otherwise.
Saying I threatened you isn't evidence that I did.
You admitted in this thread that you said you would “slap me silly” and described me being “choked out.” You have also made death threats against groups you explicitly placed me within. Those are threats of violence, so the evidence is contained in your own statements.
The remaining issue is chronology. I said I would crush you only after you had already threatened me. Denying that now does not reverse the order. Show the earlier exchange if you believe otherwise.
I have better memory than you. You're switching showcases your envy.
The true chronology is an issue for you cause it was kinda the other way around. I know cause of my policy.
I also spared you from any threats cause I don't attack people smaller and weaker than myself.
Spatial Mind said:I have better memory than you. You're switching showcases your envy. The true chronology is an issue for you cause it was kinda the other way around. I know cause of my policy. I also spared you from any threats cause I don't attack people smaller and weaker than myself.
That is a recurring tactic: blame the other person, vaguely insist the chronology favors you, and expect them to locate evidence against a version you have not supported. If the order was really the opposite, show the earlier exchange yourself.
Your “policy” proves nothing either. Saying you spared me because I am supposedly smaller and weaker is still intimidation, and it assumes without evidence that you would easily beat me in a fight. You do not know my current size, strength, or ability to defend myself. I also weigh at least twenty pounds more now than I did then, so your confidence is based on an outdated and largely imagined picture of me.
It also conflicts with your references to slapping me, choking me out, and threatening groups you placed me within. Calling that “sparing” me does not erase the threats. It lets you posture as both the aggressor and the merciful superior. So provide the earlier threat you claim I made. Your selective memory, self-described policy, and imagined physical superiority are not proof.
last edit on
7/29/2026 2:20:00 AM
Spatial Mind said:I have better memory than you. You're switching showcases your envy. The true chronology is an issue for you cause it was kinda the other way around. I know cause of my policy. I also spared you from any threats cause I don't attack people smaller and weaker than myself.Claiming you have a better memory is not evidence. Your memory appears highly selective whenever the missing detail would show that you initiated the threat. You conveniently retain whatever supports your version, drop the parts that do not, and then place the burden on everyone else to reconstruct every exchange for you.
That is a recurring tactic: blame the other person, vaguely insist the chronology favors you, and expect them to locate evidence against a version you have not supported. If the order was really the opposite, show the earlier exchange yourself. Your “policy” proves nothing either. Saying you spared me because I am supposedly smaller and weaker is still intimidation, and it assumes without evidence that you would easily beat me in a fight. You do not know my physical ability, and boasting about a hypothetical victory does not establish one. It also conflicts with your references to slapping me, choking me out, and threatening groups you placed me within. Calling that “sparing” me does not erase the threats. It just lets you posture as both the aggressor and the merciful superior. So provide the earlier threat you claim I made. Your selective memory, self-described policy, and imagined physical superiority are not proof.
I also weight at least 20 pounds more now than I did then.
I don't need evidence to be right. I'm right. I can disprove everything you say if I wish. Because...
1. My policy to maintain moral high ground ( Never strike first )
2. Stick to the truth. This is something you fail at. Reason being your output is governed by rage. That thing you do attacking conservative minds or capitalism or people who work hard and get wealthy under a system they cannot change. It's the same demon that drives you into fooling yourself.
That is all really. This is why the simple minded are always come back for more. You can't put your finger on it, but I can see what's happening while you think I cannot.
Here's evidence....
Yes this is true. Trump wins, people crying on the street, tantrums, Antifa, BLM, White people hating on white people and racism toward white people mostly by white people. 4 assassination attempts on the President. Charlie Kirk. It really doesn't stop there.
Here's what you had to say and my response.....
The self proclaimed nihilist trying to switch positions for the sake of winning an argument. Weakness.
Let's do this again....
"I have better memory than you. You're switching showcases your envy.
The true chronology is an issue for you cause it was kinda the other way around. I know cause of my policy.
I also spared you from any threats cause I don't attack people smaller and weaker than myself."
I don't need evidence to be right. I'm right. I can disprove everything you say if I wish. Because...
1. My policy to maintain moral high ground ( Never strike first )
2. Stick to the truth. This is something you fail at. Reason being your output is governed by rage. That thing you do attacking conservative minds or capitalism or people who work hard and get wealthy under a system they cannot change. It's the same demon that drives you into fooling yourself.
That is all really. This is why the simple minded are always come back for more. You can't put your finger on it, but I can see what's happening while you think I cannot. Here's evidence....
Yes this is true. Trump wins, people crying on the street, tantrums, Antifa, BLM, White people hating on white people and racism toward white people mostly by white people. 4 assassination attempts on the President. Charlie Kirk. It really doesn't stop there. Here's what you had to say and my response.
The self proclaimed nihilist trying to switch positions for the sake of winning an argument. Let's do this again.
"I have better memory than you. You're switching showcases your envy. The true chronology is an issue for you cause it was kinda the other way around. I know cause of my policy. I also spared you from any threats cause I don't attack people smaller and weaker than myself."
“I don’t need evidence to be right. I’m right” is not reasoning. It is an admission that you treat your certainty as sufficient proof. Saying you could disprove everything I say “if you wish” is equally meaningless until you actually provide the evidence. Your supposed policy of “never strike first” does not establish the chronology. A rule you claim to follow is not proof that you followed it in this exchange. It is especially unreliable when you repeatedly classify people as “left,” dangerous, immoral, or “out of line,” then describe punishing them as righteous action. You can simply redefine disagreement or political opposition as the first attack and portray whatever you do afterward as defense.
The screenshots show that I said I would defend myself if you attacked me. That is conditional self-defense. You then referred to having my picture, called me scrawny, claimed you could overpower me mentally and physically, and said the “monster” in you would enjoy slapping me to “wise me up.” That is the direct personal threat in the exchange. Calling yourself a de-escalator or claiming you later “spared” me does not erase what you wrote. You also assume, without evidence, that I am smaller, weaker, and incapable of defending myself. You do not know my present size or physical ability. Your confidence about winning a hypothetical fight is just another unsupported declaration.
The political material does not prove the chronology either. Trump, Antifa, BLM, capitalism, wealthy people, assassination attempts, and Charlie Kirk have no bearing on whether you threatened me first. They are there to construct a broad psychological story in which I belong to a hostile “left” and everything I say is supposedly driven by rage. The Kirk example is particularly weak. Investigators initially said the motive remained uncertain. Officials described the accused shooter as having left-leaning views, but he was unaffiliated, had little voting history, came from a conservative family, and had no established connection to an organized left-wing group. Reducing an ambiguous individual history to “the left did it” is partisan compression, not careful reasoning. (Reuters)
Even a completely unambiguous left-wing attack would not make ordinary left-wing people collectively responsible. By the same logic, you would have to assign conservatives collective responsibility for repeated and much clearer right-wing violence. Anti-abortion extremists have murdered doctors, attacked clinics, committed arson and bombings, and made violent threats for decades. The Justice Department created a national task force specifically to address clinic violence following murders and other attacks. (Department of Justice). Brenton Tarrant is an even clearer example. New Zealand’s Royal Commission described the Christchurch attack as driven by an extreme right-wing, Islamophobic ideology. He murdered 51 people and attempted to murder another 40. Unlike your Kirk example, that ideological connection was not vague or dependent on partisan inference. (Christchurch Inquiry). None of this makes conservatives collectively violent. It shows why your standard is selective. An ambiguous attacker who disliked a conservative becomes representative of “the left,” while explicitly right-wing terrorists and anti-abortion attackers disappear from the analysis. You treat violence by your opponents as ideological proof and violence by people closer to your side as isolated individual behavior.
Calling my position “rage,” a “demon,” or an attempt to switch sides for victory does not solve this. A nihilist can still distinguish between initiating violence and defending against it. Nihilism does not require me to tolerate threats, approve of political violence, or accept your classification of me as part of an enemy group. Your argument remains self-sealing. If I disagree, I am dishonest. If I clarify, I am switching. If I say I would defend myself, I am the aggressor. If you describe hitting me, it becomes discipline, mercy, or righteous correction. If evidence is requested, you announce that you do not need evidence because you are right. So provide the earlier statement in which I supposedly threatened to initiate an attack, with its date and surrounding context. Your policy, selective political examples, psychological speculation, and confidence in your own superiority do not establish the chronology.
lol.
It amazes me how you even have something to say. Not going to read all that. It's too long and I can't spend too much time reading the same old "This is not, that is not".
All you have is doubt and bitterness, and while we cannot help but judge others, no one in their right mind would want to be judged the way I'm judging you.
Thanks for boosting my sense of self worth, and you're welcome for posting evidence.
o/
I would not call your screenshots a deliberately partisan selection so much as the recordkeeping of an unreliable narrator. You anticipate an unreasonable level of scrutiny toward everyone else, so you collect statements that you think expose them, while applying far less scrutiny to your own threats, contradictions, and escalation.
The irony is that you previously accused me of selectively feeding AI information about you. Yet your own evidence is filtered through the assumption that you are already right and that the other person is the problem. That is why even the screenshots you chose still contain material contradicting your account. You focus intensely on anything that might make the other person look aggressive, dishonest, or inconsistent, but fail to notice your own statements about overpowering, slapping, punishing, or correcting them. So the problem is not merely missing context. It is that your interpretation of the context is unreliable and consistently favorable to yourself.