((("What reasons do the people bent on destroying you have?")))
It's always been a groupthink sparked by an individual who claims not to like my personality. It has to do with how I coped with my dox, and handled my doxer, in a time when the forum lead to serious consequences for some users, till now. It never phased me like they wanted it to. It just made me stronger. I did however express some disrespect toward them which made for this entanglement, so up to this day, I'm told to fuck off while further defamation attempts are made every now and then. I don't really consider the groupthinkers a big deal. Just the other day in the chatlog that Blanc character was dropping the cliché line "Fuck off Tony". Now blanc for example is a noob guest who doesn't really have any reason for cursing me, other than flocking up with some other groupthink sheeple. Whenever I point out how they are, it usually then gives them a reason for their projection, which results in some further entanglement cause no one wants to admit not thinking without their own evaluation. These projections never happens without a guide.
((("Thinking back now I may be able to remember to remember a time or two when turncoat has agreed with something someone else said earlier, though no instance immediately comes to mind. In my limited time talking to Turncoat, its been like the less argumentative something is presented as, the less argumentative his response, after factoring in the presenter. The last part of the statement just takes into account that there are some people he just enjoys arguing with.")))
He did mention himself that he is a devil's advocate. I labeled him a lawyer and that title still lingers in him somewhere in the background. He'll challenged rationality and often will he be the first of a group effort of debate. When he imposes loaded questions that implicate his views on your thoughts, that's when he's putting words in your mouth, and ignoring it will result in his apparent gain. Just dispel his loaded questions efficiently, in one sentence if you can, and move on with what you really have to say. He'll come at you again in the future, though he's not really all that boring to cope with when he begins his deluded prosecutions.
((("Also, out of curiosity who are your aggressors? Besides Edvard, that's clear cut enough.")))
Just him really. The rest are groupthinkers who I think of as temporary aggressors, cause there always has been temporary aggressors before moving on to their own judgement of me. Generally the temporary aggressors get along with him just fine, and over the years it just stands out to me, the ones who come at me do it because Ed wanted them to. These groups usually are quick to judge. Notice how on the first page how haart started reacting the way she did over nothing, as though it's up to me redeem myself over what ? So later in the chat log she started feeding me some bullshit about members hating me, naming off Sugar as one who hates me. When asked, Sugar was like WTF ? What she was doing is a tactic Ed himself has used, as he clearly wants others to hold his hand in his ridiculous conquest to belittle me.
.
.
.
My battle tactics are always based on defense. So I employ tactic like reversals and I use whatever truth stands before me against the attacker. I've choke slammed a list of women here and got away with it, cause it was me replying to efforts against me.
The only one here that really beat me I'd say is Daniella, which is crazy right ? The reason I couldn't gain the upper hand on her, is because in her case I was the aggressor, and her way of dealing with my prosecution was to maintain the moral high ground, and use factual claims on my behavior in the discussion, so I end up looking like, and actually being the ass.
I've said it long ago, it's required for me to be "attacked first", otherwise I'll loose, the same way the sheep and aggressors come across as petty to me.