Enjoy.

[deadDMwalking]

I think saying I insult you habitually is misleading.  I also think that it is demonstrably true that you started name-calling before I did (years ago) but you think that anyone expressing a preference for other forms of play is insulting you. 

So I say that I am deliberately insulting you, not out of habit, but specifically because I think it is warranted.  Telling you that you are an asshole (and telling people why you're an asshole) is pro-social.  And unlike you, I believe people are capable of making up their own minds based on evidence, so I'm satisfied that conversation serves as the warning about your toxicity that I hoped it would. 

Keeping you focused on 'setting the record straight' here also hopefully keeps you from spreading your toxicity more widely.  This is your thread and everyone here knows what they're getting themselves into.

Remind me - are you still contending that people here are calling you an asshole unfairly?  Or are you admitting that you are an asshole but trying to claim that so is everyone else? 

[GeekyBugle]

I think saying I insult you habitually is misleading.  I also think that it is demonstrably true that you started name-calling before I did (years ago) but you think that anyone expressing a preference for other forms of play is insulting you. 

So I say that I am deliberately insulting you, not out of habit, but specifically because I think it is warranted.  Telling you that you are an asshole (and telling people why you're an asshole) is pro-social.  And unlike you, I believe people are capable of making up their own minds based on evidence, so I'm satisfied that conversation serves as the warning about your toxicity that I hoped it would. 

Keeping you focused on 'setting the record straight' here also hopefully keeps you from spreading your toxicity more widely.  This is your thread and everyone here knows what they're getting themselves into.

Remind me - are you still contending that people here are calling you an asshole unfairly?  Or are you admitting that you are an asshole but trying to claim that so is everyone else?

Objection!

I'm not an asshole, nor a pussy, I'm a dick!

[Zak S]

I think saying I insult you habitually is misleading.  I also think that it is demonstrably true that you started name-calling before I did (years ago) but you think that anyone expressing a preference for other forms of play is insulting you. 

Incorrect:

I didn't begin this aggression--I couldn't have. Obvious reason: You knew who I was and attacked me long before I had ever heard your name.

And you went beyond expressing a preference. You habitually make personal attacks on people who like other kinds of games. You go beyond "I like this" and "I don't like that" (which are fine things to say) and go (habitually) into statements like "People play other kinds of games have x or y personality problem". And these statements aren't ones you can prove.

That's habitually insulting. And, again, you did that to me and others long before I even knew who you were.

So I say that I am deliberately insulting you, not out of habit, but specifically because I think it is warranted.

You haven't proved it's "warranted". Only that you think it is because it's your opinion (and you also have no facts to justify it), which is what a bully would say.

I have, however, repeatedly proved you are dishonest.

That doesn't require pop psychology or quoting the particular dictionary definition I want to use, you baldly falied to tell the truth and after being caught haven't apologized or admitted the error.

Which is manipulative.

And bullying.

And trolling.

Keeping you focused on 'setting the record straight' here also hopefully keeps you from spreading your toxicity more widely.

Since I have no toxicity that's not valid either.

You are doing the same thing as before, so I'll just quote myself:

But you keep doing the same thing over and over--

Trying to shift focus from a serious, real, and measurable issue (honesty) to a silly subjective one (who you think is an asshole).

Here's more proof you two are dishonest, in case anyone missed it:

\
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]

And you went beyond expressing a preference. You habitually make personal attacks on people who like other kinds of games. You go beyond "I like this" and "I don't like that" (which are fine things to say) and go (habitually) into statements like "People play other kinds of games have x or y personality problem". And these statements aren't ones you can prove.

Are you lying or are you admitting that you don't have critica thinking skills?

This is very clearly an accusation.  I've said a lot of things and I KNOW I haven't said that people who like a particular type of game have a personality problem.  Now, to even maintain any semblance of credibility and fairness, I know you're going to quote me saying that.  Otherwise you'd be a lying liar and we're supposed to ignore everything you say ever because you've proven yourself to be a troll. 

Don't worry, I'm not going anywhere.   I'm sure you will have no problem providing the quote.  I'll wait. 

[Zak S]

And you went beyond expressing a preference. You habitually make personal attacks on people who like other kinds of games. You go beyond "I like this" and "I don't like that" (which are fine things to say) and go (habitually) into statements like "People play other kinds of games have x or y personality problem". And these statements aren't ones you can prove.

Are you lying or are you admitting that you don't have critica thinking skills?

This is very clearly an accusation.  I've said a lot of things and I KNOW I haven't said that people who like a particular type of game have a personality problem.  Now, to even maintain any semblance of credibility and fairness, I know you're going to quote me saying that.  Otherwise you'd be a lying liar and we're supposed to ignore everything you say ever because you've proven yourself to be a troll. 

Don't worry, I'm not going anywhere.   I'm sure you will have no problem providing the quote.  I'll wait.

I'm always happy to play fair:

Address all the points I've raised so far (and ever since you began your attacks on me, years ago) and I'll be happy to chase down a quote for you.

If you don't want to play fair, you don't get to make that request though, sorry.

[Tubesock Army]

Well, Zak, before you got unpersoned (lol) out of the OSR and the gaming hobby (let's face it, you're no longer part of it in any meaningful sense, and that's unlikely to change, ever), your notoriety and status in the industry (a jillion awards!) definitely put you on a different footing than those you harassed. This is why I called you a bully, and I stand by that statement. Your ability to bully has been severely curtailed (again, I say lol), but your instincts and behavior have not changed one bit.

I stand by every statement I've made about you in this thread, and everywhere else. The more you talk, or post, the more you validate all criticism of you.

[Zak S]

...put you on a different footing than those you harassed.

You just lied again, claiming I harassed people, so the premise of that argument is not valid.

I successfully sued someone who made the same claim. Nobody's ever been able to find a single instance of me harassing anyone, including the most aggressive collector-of-Zak-quotes in history (Ettin).

Moreover you can't simultaneously claim:

-What makes you a bully is fact-checking people you have power over

-You have no power over anyone int his thread

-Your interactions int his thread are proof you are a bully

...that doesn't make any sense.

You're essentially claiming disagreeing with you, an anonymous and provably dishonesttroll, is bullying.

But to shift the focus back to what matters (your claims can't be trusted), here's proof you are dishonest:

\
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]

...put you on a different footing than those you harassed.

You just lied again, claiming I harassed people, so the premise of that argument is not valid.

I successfully sued someone who made the same claim. Nobody's ever been able to find a single instance of me harassing anyone.

No lies, you have a long and well-documented history of harassment. And since you are admittedly not talking to me, but posting for the benefit of those who might see this and be led astray, I will do the same: Google Zak S., you will find a clear history of manipulation, abuse, bullying and lies. Don't take my word for it. And whatever you do, don't take Zak's.

I can see now why you insist on having evidence laid at your feet in this thread. You are attempting to keep the focus on a very narrow set of criteria. I, on the other had, encourage people to look far and wide, at the totality of your history and behavior online, and elsewhere. Doing so will tell a story that you can't wish away into the cornfield, Zak.

[Zak S]

No lies, you have a long and well-documented history of harassment.

No, I have a long history of trolls claiming I do and then failing to produce any proof of this alleged decades-plus history ( i started RPG blogging in 2009) and then failing to produce any proof when put on the spot.

This includes in court, where proving I harassed anyone would've been very helpful to them.

They couldn't and you couldn't. You are legitimately just echoing the claims made by the guy this thread is about. The guy who lost.

[Tubesock Army]

I'm not. I actually made and backed up my own claims, a fact you keep glossing over because it doesn't fit your narrative. Google Zak S., everyone, it'll tell you all you need to know.

[Zak S]

I'm not. I actually made and backed up my own claims, a fact you keep glossing over because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Oh you did? Where?

Googlr Zak S., everyone, it'll tell you all you need to know.

Well the opposition lawyers keep googling it and it told them "lots of trolls say this but none of them provide proof".

If you want to make the argumentum ad populum fallacy, then you're claiming to believe "all smear campaigns are true".

But to shift the focus back to what matters (your claims can't be trusted), here's proof you are dishonest:

\
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]

It's that post you keep claiming doesn't exist, even though you quoted it. Go get you some.

[Zak S]

It's that post you keep claiming doesn't exist, even though you quoted it. Go get you some.

Where?

Literally nobody but you seems to know where this post is.

[Tubesock Army]

I'm not. I actually made and backed up my own claims, a fact you keep glossing over because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Oh you did? Where?

Googlr Zak S., everyone, it'll tell you all you need to know.

Well the opposition lawyers keep googling it and it told them "lots of trolls say this but none of them provide proof".

If you want to make the argumentum ad populum fallacy, then you're claiming to believe "all smear campaigns are true".

But to shift the focus back to what matters (your claims can't be trusted), here's proof you are dishonest:

\
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.

"lots of"

Bro you've won ONE suit, in a country that is notoriously easy to win these types of suits in. Might not wanna count all those chickens just yet.

[Tubesock Army]

It's that post you keep claiming doesn't exist, even though you quoted it. Go get you some.

Where?

Literally nobody but you seems to know where this post is.

That's funny, you quoted it and someone else linked it today, in a post which you also quoted. Man, for someone who claims never to have seen this post, you've sure engaged with it multiple times, LMAO.