Enjoy.

[HappyDaze]

That's all I need.

Your mistake is believing that anyone on theRPGsite is here to fulfill the needs of anyone else.

A strange claim.

I never said the troll came here in order to prove he was dishonest.

Point is he did it. The post is above on this page.

Let me clarify: if you think anyone here really truly cares about providing you what you claim is all you need, you're being foolish. Many here will likely deny you just out of spite, especially after a few rounds of your odious replies. If everyone is calling you an asshole, then you're probably an asshole...or it's just a day ending in "y" on theRPGsite.

[Zak S]

Let me clarify: if you think anyone here really truly cares about providing you what you claim is all you need...

I don't think that.

Or at least: I don't think the people posting care about that or care about any reasonable thing (they've frequently said as much). They are not the target audience.

No matter how often it's absolutely explicitly pointed out, it is very odd that crazed trolls can't get it through their heads that the misinformation they spread isn't fact-checked for their benefit or to make them like the person who fact-checks them. It's for the benefit of people reading them.

Now, on top of that: There may, in fact, be absolutely no reasonable and sane lurkers reading this. It's no biggie. Pointing out that liars are lying is not a terrible inconvenience, plus it's a moral obligation.

However, if they are out there and are reading, its important they see 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.

[deadDMwalking]

I think it is demonstrably true that I have explained why you're an asshole, not just made an unsubstantiated accusation.  I've also quoted other people who are not me explaining why you are an asshole.  There are people that I don't know and hadn't spoken to before who came into this thread to also add on that you're an asshole.

And none of that PROVES you're an asshole because you haven't offered a definition of asshole or listed criteria that you think we could establish someone is an asshole (but I have). 

But as Zak once said:

In the middle a conversation where 2 people don't agree and are talking about what assumptions lead to that disagreement, any time either party goes "Why won't you admit you're wrong?" that's a waste of time. Ok?

Here's a gem:

And what sort of retarded leap of not-thought is "anyone who isn't nice to me is clearly stupid." That's... something else.

And further; you are repeatedly demanding that people can't say anything vaguely insulting to you until they've convinced you that they are right to do so and you've given them permission or whatever bullshit impossible standards you're holding them to ("you can't be mean to me until I admit I'm wrong! If you do you lose na-na na-na boo-boo!"). Meanwhile, you are being the aforementioned complete and total dickbag all the same. No. That's not how it works. We're all grown ups here, and if you want to say mean things on the internet knock yourself out. But if you're going to say mean things on the internet while hiding behind falsely held standards of civility you don't even bother to pretend apply to you, you're just a fucking scumbag. The only one demanding civility here is you, because we pretty much don't care if we're kind of dicks to eachother. We are just very amused by your deeply hypocritical demands for civility.

[Zak S]

I think it is demonstrably true that I have explained why you're an asshole...

Already answered:

You're doing it again. Trying to change the topic from the firm and provable ground "you lied" to whether some trolls like me or not.

...if we accept 'your opinion' about 'things' because 'it's your opinion, man and we're all unique', you'd also have to accept our opinion about things because we're all unique....

I already pointed it out pages and pages ago:

So just as someone saying something antisemitic and getting caught might say "You're unamerican!" because it's easier to be vague about what's "American" people who are caught lying say "You're an asshole" because it's way easier to endlessly be vague about who is and isn't an asshole.

You got caught not telling the truth.

Up there. In that post that got posted over and over again.

That's what's important.

[deadDMwalking]

And as is always the case with you, I disagree with your presentation of events.  Of course, it is demonstrably true that when one person is posting new content and the other is just posting 'nuh-nuh times infinity' the person that is providing new information looks rational, sane and mature by comparison. 

But serious question, Zak. 

1) If someone says something that APPEARS stupid and or insulting, and you can in no way imagine that they could have meant it to be anything other than stupid and insulting, does that always mean that it IS stupid and insulting? 

A) What if English is not their first language? 
B) What if it was meant exclusively to refer to their gaming group preferences, not intended as a universal? 


I'm pretty close to being the foremost expert on your online attitude, and I feel like addressing these questions would be helpful in trying to elucidate what I think is at the root of the issue (I mean, besides you ARE an asshole, but addressing how your specific brand of misanthropy takes root in every conversation you participate in). 

[Tubesock Army]

Zak, your signature states that you won a jillion RPG design awards. There is no such number as "a jillion", and even if there was, you appear to have won something in the neighborhood of ten. Since this is an obvious lie, and you have been caught in it, nothing else you say can be taken seriously.

[Rob Necronomicon]

Since this is an obvious lie, and you have been caught in it, nothing else you say can be taken seriously.

100% and how very true.

But he will simply refer you to 518. It's a bit like '42' as it has all the answers of the universe. Wait... Am I now lying, or am I just being sarcastic? Maybe, I'll have to refer myself to 518. 

[deadDMwalking]

Zak, your signature states that you won a jillion RPG design awards. There is no such number as "a jillion", and even if there was, you appear to have won something in the neighborhood of ten. Since this is an obvious lie, and you have been caught in it, nothing else you say can be taken seriously.

'

Ah, but if you said something mean about Zak once (even if he said something mean about you, first [part of a double-standard he holds]) then your comments no longer matter, so you can't point out that he is lying (or lied first) because you are a non-person and do not deserve to function in society.  More importantly, this is a 'forever' situation - even if you were to improve as a person (assuming that you were even wrong or mean to begin with which is highly unlikely) - there's no way that Zak ever has to respond to you and your legitimate points.

I feel like there's some benefit to reminding Zak he's a loser.  I feel like there's some benefit to letting himself remind him of that:

you're a terminal loser. You have chosen a life path which trades time you could be spending having real fun trying to derive it from making innocent peoples' lives worse. Go display your scathing wit in a bar or something, where someone attractive might notice it.

I think starting this thread to do a victory lap about making people's lives harder by suing them in court is a fundamental proof of that. 


Edit - I've gone through about 100 pages of conversations (some I missed the first time around) and now found another 60 page conversation.  Putting everything in chronological order has been interesting. 

[Zak S]

1) If someone says something that APPEARS stupid and or insulting....

If it was a mere mistake on your part then the second the original speaker (me, in this case) goes "That's not what I meant" then the good faith response would be something like "Oh I am so glad you, the original speaker, are here to clarify, sorry there was a miscommunication-and about something high-stakes, let's continue this conversation in a different way now that I know I made a mistake or, at minimum, what I received was not what was intended".

You've never done that in all the many times the misinformation in your attacks was pointed out. Not in this case, nor in the case of the tongue-shoving fantasy, etc. It's not just the original misinformation, it's the failure to use or even respect any mechanism to check the attacking claim before releasing it into the world even when it was about whether a real human being did a bad thing or not. That is the ultimate proof of dishonesty. A honest person doesn't want misinformation accusing a person of a thing they did not do to exist, period.

But even that is academic, since whether it's a mistake or a blatant attempt to troll, the issue for the public is not weighing your soul. It's not that important whether the origin of your dishonesty is negligence or just trolling, it's whether your interpretations can be trusted. Whether you can be taken at your word when claiming something is a fact. And you can't.

Is the flat-earther waving his hands on the corner soapbox insane, evil, or stupid? Unless you're his good friend or therapist, the more important thing is just that he is not a reliable source of information.

And so placing your interpretation next to what happened like so:

\
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.

...allows people to decide whether your interpretations can be trusted.

[Zak S]

Zak, your signature states that you won a jillion RPG design awards. There is no such number as "a jillion", and even if there was, you appear to have won something in the neighborhood of ten. Since this is an obvious lie, and you have been caught in it, nothing else you say can be taken seriously.

Ok, if that's your evidence that I am dishonest then I am happy for the public to look at that and decide whether I am honest or not based on that claim.

[Zak S]

Ah, but if you said something mean about Zak once...

Literally never said that.

[deadDMwalking]

Why do you think this is about me? 

I'm specifically thinking of situations where someone made a statement that did not appear insulting in any way I can think of, but where you insisted that there was no way it could not be INTENDED to be insulting.  And therefore you did not owe any request for clarification because they had already PROVEN themselves the asshole. 

But you alternately claim that if you say something that I cannot conceive is meant in any way to not be insulting (like referring to someone as Shit-for-Brains) it is clearly because I have failed to understand that it is NOT insulting.  Or, that apparently you have a 'he did it first' defense for anything that you do that you also know to be wrong. 

Well guess what, hypocrite, 'he hit me first' is not a defense for hitting someone.  If hitting people is inappropriate behavior and you call people on it, you're the one being immature if you keep doing it.  If you don't think people should be insulting, try taking the high road even once.

[Zak S]

Well guess what, hypocrite, 'he hit me first' is not a defense for hitting someone.

An imperfect metaphor in this case but still not always true: self-defense is a thing.  You are an aggressor, it is important to address your aggression or else you will do more harm than if your aggression goes unaddressed.

There's absolutely no harm in going "Donald Trump is an asshole" --he made the first strike (for instance: he ran for president as a Republican and then, once elected, actually governed like one).

And on the imperfection of this: you began this round of harassment with first-strike-namecalling and lying  ( your entree:  https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/enjoy/375/ ) and then immediately moved to dodging issues raised in your victim's defense, then proceeded to lying more.

This is far "lower" than me merely fact-checking you--no matter how repeatedly I do it.

Why do you think this is about me? 

You are presenting misinformation so I must point that out so that naive people do not trust you. You are the aggressor.

Here is an example that proves you spread misinformation:

\
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.

[Tubesock Army]

Zak, your signature states that you won a jillion RPG design awards. There is no such number as "a jillion", and even if there was, you appear to have won something in the neighborhood of ten. Since this is an obvious lie, and you have been caught in it, nothing else you say can be taken seriously.

Ok, if that's your evidence that I am dishonest then I am happy for the public to look at that and decide whether I am honest or not based on that claim.

So now you're doubling down on your claim that you've won "a jillion" awards?

[Zak S]

Zak, your signature states that you won a jillion RPG design awards. There is no such number as "a jillion", and even if there was, you appear to have won something in the neighborhood of ten. Since this is an obvious lie, and you have been caught in it, nothing else you say can be taken seriously.

Ok, if that's your evidence that I am dishonest then I am happy for the public to look at that and decide whether I am honest or not based on that claim.

So now you're doubling down on your claim that you've won "a jillion" awards?

Jillion is an undefined number (as you appear to acknowledge), I am saying what I said above...

I am happy for the public to look at that and decide whether I am honest or not based on that claim.

...that's what I'm saying.