Enjoy.

[deadDMwalking]

One of the things that I think is important is to point out that calling you out on your asshole behavior is that while I agree with MANY other people who have called you an asshole, I am not the first (and certainly won't be the last) to do so. 

Here's a gem:

So you, being a total fucking moron just see one word referring to an argument you have lost repeatedly and just jump right back cancerous spamming of your ongoing claim you totally refuted that issue. Expired rancid spam which dates back well before the last five or five thousand times that people have pointed out your refutation is a pile of shit and that your altruism issues are still a big pile of smelly smelly poop.

I maintain that you have misinterpreted the post; your insistence that everyone else is instead mistaken is a further proof that you are an asshole.  And for at least the last 8 years, you have been doing exactly this - that makes it a consistent pattern of behavior. 

I've focused on your behavior (as demonstrated in this thread); there are a lot of things that can come out about ridiculous unprovable claims you've made about yourself that would make you, at a minimum, super-human.

[Zak S]

One of the things that I think is important is to point out that calling you out on your asshole...

You're trying to change the subject from you lying.

Or, if we're really generous, being fantastically, (assholishly) negligent in checking your false accusation before making it.

I'm gonna repost post 518 just to show everyone again:

\
Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "...I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications." ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

[deadDMwalking]

You're trying to change the subject from you lying.

Already rebutted. 

[Zak S]

You're trying to change the subject from you lying.

Already rebutted.

I'm 100% comfortable with readers looking at what you did here in post 518:

\
Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "...I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications." ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

...and deciding whether you are honest or not.

[deadDMwalking]

A little harsh, no?  Of course it's especially harsh when you define 'disagreeing with Zak' as 'trolling'. 

Actually, if I remember correctly I was responding to someone saying literally "I was trolling you". So: the definition of trolling there is the troll's, not mine.

Since you have perfect recall of your rulings at the table, I would expect you to have perfect recall of this type of evaluation as well.  As far as I can tell, Tiac made a comment that you didn't like, you confused it with Kaelik, then admitted you made a mistake, then pretended that Kaelik admitted to trolling you.  I'm reading through so many wonderful posts that detail why you are an asshole and it makes me feel so YOUNG that you haven't changed in the last 10 years. 

Here's some direct quotes:

You see, this is not a DM advice forum, it is a game design forum. MTP is a bad thing in game design because no one needs rules to come up with MTP. If you write rules under the expectation that everyone will change them, then your product is worthless.

Also, while Kaelik is most certainly NOT a real person, he has made statements about how "some" or "many" people do things.  He has not been as universal in his proclamations as you seem to claim.

No, incorrect: he said a rule system designed to be customized was "worthless". That is a universal proclamation--"without worth". This is like a Size M person deciding Size L shirts were "worthless"--it is so breathtaking in its lack of awareness of the human condition and basic observable realities it makes you wonder how the person making it manages to find the keyboard to type on.

No, incorrect: he said a rule system designed to be customized was "worthless". That is a universal proclamation--"without worth". This is like a Size M person deciding Size L shirts were "worthless"--it is so breathtaking in its lack of awareness of the human condition and basic observable realities it makes you wonder how the person making it manages to find the keyboard to type on.

You know what is a breathtaking lack of awareness? Your complete inability to fucking read you psychotic lying sack of shit.

I never said that at any point, and you are a lying sack of shit.

The following sentence will be the first and second use of the term "worthless" by me in this thread: While you Zak S are not personally worthless as a human being, it is only because your body will feed microbes subsequent to your death, because while currently alive, you are of negative net worth, because you are a lying sack of shit.

To be fair to Kaelik, since your statement was untrue (and easily checked since it appeared only a few posts higher on the page) him calling you a liar liar followed your established pattern.  Except it didn't require any deliberate misinterpretation - I mean, you were guilty of misinterpreting Tiac, but arguing that Kaelik said that and to say some really shitty things certainly provoked that response. 

There is a gap of a few months, but since you said Kaelik admitted to trolling, you should post that quote you lying sack of shit. 

[Zak S]

Again, you're trying to change the subject.

Burden of proof is on the accuser and you're the one who accused me of having some silly nonstandard definition of "troll" that you made up and of wanting to participate in your strange tongue-shoving fantasy and or of all kinds of labyrinthine pretzel-logic things I can't even follow.

You want to accuse me of those beliefs--or of believing the earth is flat, or of believing in talking mice, or any other silly thing you made up and decided to post on the internet--the burden of proof is on you. The accuser.

Do we trust you?

Again, I'm 100% comfortable with readers looking at what you did here in post 518:

\
Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "...I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications." ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

...and deciding whether you are honest or not.

[deadDMwalking]

Being such a dick that nobody wants to engage you usually insulates you from having to hear rational objections to what you say. Maybe that's, subconsciously, why you do it.

[Zak S]

Again, you're still trying to change the subject from how you don't have rational objections because your grievances are fabricated:

Proof is here, in post 518:

\
Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "...I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications." ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

[deadDMwalking]

I've just finished the 29 pages of the original thread where you proposed your social currency rule.  I did not find any instance of Kaelik admitting to being a troll.  I did not find any quotes you provided where he admitted to being a troll.

I found lots of examples of you mischaracterizing people's posts.  I found plenty of examples where you insist that there is only one possible interpretation of intent and that anyone that disagrees with you is a liar.  I have seen people explaining the definitions of basic words like 'liar' that you insist on using incorrectly, repeatedly.  And I have seen many people characterize your behavior negatively. 

They have also surmised that you continue to do it because you think it is helpful to you. 

I'm glad that you think me agreeing with someone else that you misinterpreted a post proves that you're very smart and won this thread.  I don't think it it does that. 

But in going back and looking at what other people have said, I can quote other people calling you an asshole for the same reasons, and even if I were to believe that I'm a lying liar and couldn't be trusted, other people who are not lying liars coming to the same conclusion would be...strange.  Broken clock is right twice a day. 

Say what that is now[/b], or else apologize for believing an irrational thing.[/b]

See, this again. This is another five year old thing. See, everyone knows you are an arrogant prick. And you might think that is because you claimed that you make 100% perfect rulings in seconds that never ever backfire, but you would be wrong. We all knew you were an arrogant prick long before that. It is really easy.

See, the thing is, every single time someone says you are wrong about something, you say, "You didn't understand what I said/meant* if you didn't understand, why didn't you ask clarifying questions, you should have asked questions."

Then, every time you want to tell someone they are wrong, you turn around and say this shit quoted above. You literally never ask questions, you never ask clarifying questions, you never even consider for a second that you might not know exactly what people meant.

Instead you make absurdly stupid sounding demands as if you have any authority at all, and you phrase them in the most baldfacedly arrogant manner that they could possibly be phrased.

On this page, page 16, you have used a question mark once so far. You used it to make a rhetorical question that didn't address K's argument. On the other hand you have demanded that people:

1) accept you challenge.
2) Reread your posts (you have made this demand in literally every single post on this page).
3) Seek professional (presumably psychiatric) help.
4) Stop speaking in public.
5) Make a statement of evidence or apologize.
6) Stop talking about something that the person in question never talked about.
7) Demand they ask clarifying questions.

and you made empirical statements about what people are allowed to do (which includes the statement that they are not allowed to disagree with you unless they present their arguments to you, something patently stupid and false).

It is the mind blowing hypocrisy of your method of "discussing" in which you demand from others extremely specific and often irrelevant responses instead of asking questions, but whine about how anyone who disagrees with what you plainly said or doesn't find your arguments compelling must ask an assortment of clarifying questions to narrow down your future goal post shifting before they can criticize what you said that indicates you are an arrogant prick.

So if you don't understand something, ask clarifying questions instead of making up bad faith challenges or demanding that someone say something. You shitfuck.

[Zak S]

You're claiming I did all kinds of bad things, and now trying to quote some rando behaving like you and reliigating a thread from forever past. No proof in stereo is still no proof. And nothing changes what you actually did or are doing:

You are doing it to distract from how you are dishonest.

And not only does this show you not being honest here in post 518:

\
Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "...I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications." ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

But the absolute proof is how you keep wiggling and tap-dancing rather than just acknowledging this huge moment, right here, where you so obviously got caught and, at minimum, at least trying to explain it. (Apologizing is clearly beyond you as well but, seriously, nobody expected that.)

Because you can't. You are pretending you can't read post 518 or something.

But anyone reading this thread can see it right there.

[Tubesock Army]

post 518

post 518:

post 518:

post 518

ZakBot is glitching

[Rob Necronomicon]

post 518

post 518:

post 518:

post 518

ZakBot is glitching

Now that's funny!! 

[GeekyBugle]

post 518:

\
Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "...I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications." ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

Now, I'm not a native speaker so I migh be wrong, but appears is like saying seems, it's a statement of opinion, not of fact.

So, even if WokemanWalking's opinion is wrong that doesn't make him a liar.

I fail to see the lie, maybe someone can explain to me how it's not an opinion but a statement of fact or how an opinion can be a lie.

[Zak S]

I am 100% ok with any person looking at this.....

\
Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "...I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications." ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

But the absolute proof is how you keep wiggling and tap-dancing rather than just acknowledging this huge moment, right here, where you so obviously got caught and, at minimum, at least trying to explain it. (Apologizing is clearly beyond you as well but, seriously, nobody expected that.)

Because you can't. You are pretending you can't read post 518 or something.

But anyone reading this thread can see it right there.
[/quote]

...and using that to decide whether the trolls on here are honest or not.

[Tubesock Army]

It's hilarious that Zak expects everyone to take his ridiculous arguments as seriously as he does, and also that his arguments rely wholly on their doing so.

Zak, please put a "post 518" Easter egg in your next project. I mean, I won't buy it, and neither will anyone else, but please do it anyway.