Your claim is that I share your personal information. False. Yes I have your image, that YOU POSTED HERE. Your image is NOT personal information, it's public information. Also doxxing is not illegal, and I never doxxed your image, you did that yourself. Your image is in these pages in a post you wrote. I have no intention of posting your image. I only do this under consent, or if you're going crazy posting pictures of yourself. Your personal insecurities doesn't dispel the reality of how I handle what personal information people share with me.
What I mentioned about those people in here, is the very evidence that will shut you up. Saying that I share people's personal information is false and very unfair. Y'know what. I'll do something special for you. When it comes to you, and just you since you want to accuse me of fumbling the business the regulars have entrusted with me, even though you have no fucking examples... Since you want to say I do this, I can make your case a self fulfilling prophecy, and you'll remain the ONLY person I ever did this too. Dumb ass. Your image still isn't private information. Especially where the source where I acquired it is by your hand in this very forum. You doxxed yourself. I don't need your consent to save what you put on MY SCREEN. You will recognize this as the law, and respect this from now on.
And don't forget this from the other day.....
Gemini said:
The Social and Physical Cost
While these individuals think their intense doubt keeps them safe, psychological research proves it does the opposite. Stanford University's Social Neuroscience Lab notes that cynicism is rising sharply, yet chronic doubters are statistically more prone to loneliness, depression, and fractured relationships. Their suspicion creates a self-fulfilling prophecy: by treating people with constant distrust, they alienate others and push them away, which they then use to "prove" that people cannot be trusted.
^ You're just proving this section at the moment.
On a side note, I'm calling out your performance, but go ahead and call this personal information, I insist.
You're still arguing against something I didn't say. I never claimed you secretly obtained my image, doxxed me, or violated some specific law by possessing it. I said that I never consented to you retaining, discussing, or repeatedly invoking my personal information, and that your behavior gives me reasonable grounds to question your trustworthiness.
Calling the image “public information” doesn't change that. Publicly accessible and personal aren't mutually exclusive categories. I posted that image years ago and don't even remember where I originally posted it. You have been bringing it up for years, including using it to insult me and as an ad hominem. “You posted it yourself” explains how you originally obtained it. It doesn't establish perpetual consent to retain it, repeatedly discuss it, or use it against me.
You also still haven't established that everyone whose information you possess or discuss consented to you retaining and talking about it. Listing people's names and saying that you keep their information private is an assertion, not proof. I don't need to produce a catalog of every instance you've ever mishandled information to justify being cautious about what I share with you.
Your response actually gives me more reason to question your trustworthiness. You say, “I can make your case a self fulfilling prophecy” specifically because I criticized how you handle information, and then call me a “Dumb ass.” That's not evidence of someone calmly demonstrating how trustworthy they are. It's retaliatory and openly hostile. You're essentially saying that because I accused you of behavior, you can deliberately engage in it toward me to punish me for making the accusation.
Also, I never said that my “intense doubt” keeps me safe. That's from the Gemini passage you're quoting, not from me. You place that passage immediately after telling me you can “make your case a self fulfilling prophecy,” followed by “You're just proving this section at the moment.” I'm not claiming you explicitly threatened physical harm, but connecting my safety to a retaliatory statement in that context makes the reference unnecessarily ominous.
The argument is circular. You're telling me that my distrust is irrational because distrust can damage relationships, while simultaneously giving me additional reasons to distrust you. If I become more cautious after you tell me you'll retaliate specifically against me, that doesn't prove I have pathological distrust. It means I'm responding to what you actually said.
And calling the rest of my argument “irrelevant nonsense” or saying I'm having a “meltdown” doesn't address any of it. It's another example of turning disagreement into a judgment about my psychological state instead of answering the criticism.
As for narcissism, your response doesn't undermine that interpretation either. You previously dismissed the criticism as groupthink, yet now openly acknowledge having a “light spectrum of narcissism.” You're free to characterize it as mild, but the pattern I've described seems considerably more pronounced: status framing, superiority, admiration-seeking, aggressive reactions to criticism, attribution of hostile motives, and repeatedly positioning yourself as the person who sees through everyone else.
I'm not diagnosing you. I'm explaining why I think narcissistic traits are a plausible interpretation of your behavior. Your reaction to criticism is part of the reason I think that interpretation has substance.
