Enjoy.

[Zak S]

"lots of"

Yes lots of trolls saying the same thing is how a smear campagng works.

Bro you've won ONE suit, in a country that is notoriously easy to win these types of suits in.

Actually that's just a meme a Something Awful dude posted. Australia's defamation laws are a lot like the UK and other countries in the english-speaking RPG sphere.

But let's not shift away from the important thing:

You are an anonymous internet troll and do not make reliably true claims. Proof:

\
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]

Be sure and Google Zak S. everyone, and there are also online repositories of his online behavior, such as this one:
https://tabletopsmissingstairs.blogspot.com/2019/02/zak-s-and-other-horrible-tabletop-people.html

Sadly, not all of these links are current, but enough to gove you a picture of Zak's behavior, WELL before the Mandy allegations.

[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.

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.

Oh the only post by you I referenced and quoted was fully addressed in post 625.

Since you are not now addressing the claims I made, you're conceding they are true and so your claim isn't valid.

[Zak S]

Be sure and Google Zak S. everyone, and there are also online repositories of his online behavior, such as this one...

Yeah I sued someone saying that shit and won.

You're literally just pointing to a troll claiming I did some things and then totally failing (despite the fact this is the internet and they've had over a decade to find it) not backing it up with any proof.

[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.

Oh the only post by you I referenced and quoted was fully addressed in post 625.

Since you are not now addressing the claims I made, you're conceding they are true and so your claim isn't valid.

I conceded no such thing, Zak, if you have to put words in other people's mouths, your arguments must be very weak indeed.

And while you may have "addressed" my claims, you did not, to my satisfaction (nor, I'll wager to anyone's but your own), "rebut" or "refute" them.

[Zak S]

And while you may have "addressed" my claims, you did not, to my satisfaction (nor, I'll wager to anyone's but your own), "rebut" or "refute" them.

Then address them and say, one by one, the reason my points aren't valid.

Since burden of proof is on you, the accuser, until you do that it's irrational to claim your accusation is valid.

Do you have to do these things because your victim asked you to?

No you don't have to do anything.

But if you don't it means there is no rational reason to believe you. Especially in light of how you got caught lying many times before.

[Tubesock Army]

Be sure and Google Zak S. everyone, and there are also online repositories of his online behavior, such as this one...

Yeah I sued someone saying that shit and won.

You're literally just pointing to a troll claiming I did some things and then totally failing (despite the fact this is the internet and they've had over a decade to find it) not backing it up with any proof.

I love this. There are many different links there, to accounts by LOTS OF (actually used correctly this time) people. In fact, the link to Ettin's blog post is no longer working, so, no, I'm specifically NOT pointing to Ettin here. Which you know, but again, you're lying in the hopes that no one will click that link, or any of the links it contains. And they really should, because it contains years and years of testimonials, many with receipts, about your twisted behavior and odious personality.

Welcome to the light, Zak. I'm sure you won't enjoy it. But, then, you're always welcome to scurry back under the refrigerator.

[Zak S]

I love this. There are many different links there, to accounts by LOTS OF (actually used correctly this time) people.

Why on earth would someone making accusations of internet harassment rely on "accounts"?

With internet harassment you don't rely an "account" (a claim something happened), you don't tell a story, you just post the proof. It's the internet, it got recorded.

Ten years and no recordings?

Ettin claimed these accounts were true, got sued about that, it didn't work out for him.

There's no need for me to post a mere account of you being dishonest, for example, I can prove it by posting 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.

[Tubesock Army]

And while you may have "addressed" my claims, you did not, to my satisfaction (nor, I'll wager to anyone's but your own), "rebut" or "refute" them.

Then address them and say, one by one, the reason my points aren't valid.

Since burden of proof is on you, the accuser, until you do that it's irrational to claim your accusation is valid.

Do you have to do these things because your victim asked you to?

No you don't have to do anything.

But if you don't it means there is no rational reason to believe you. Especially in light of how you got caught lying many times before.

Why, though, Zak? It doesn't matter. You will simply move the goalposts again, or redefine terms. You will never concede anything, Zak, because you're incapable of recognizing when you are wrong. That's why I have no need or desire to convince you of anything. Instead, I post for others, that they may be given sufficient information to avoid you.

[Zak S]

Why, though, Zak? It doesn't matter.

It only matters if you want to make a rational case.

But you are a troll so you don't you just want to type.

Proof:

\
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]

I love this. There are many different links there, to accounts by LOTS OF (actually used correctly this time) people.

Why on earth would someone making accusations of internet harassment rely on "accounts"?

With internet harassment you don't rely an "account" (a claim something happened), you don't tell a story, you just post the proof. It's the internet, it got recorded.

Ten years and no recordings?

Ettin claimed these accounts were true, got sued about that, it didn't work out for him.

There's no need for me to post an account of you being dishonest, for example, I can prove it by posting 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.

Because, Zak, there are two alternatives here: You're either the victim of a vast, far-reaching, and long-standing conspiracy to defame you, or you're just a prick. I'm kind of an Occam's razor kind of guy. And Occam's razor says you're a prick.

[Tubesock Army]

You know, you could just make that glitch part of your sig. It would save you C+Ping it over and over.

[Zak S]

Because, Zak, there are two alternatives here: You're either the victim of a vast, far-reaching, and long-standing conspiracy to defame you, or you're just a prick.

You've ignored the obvious third option: there's no conspiracy, it's just the internet doing what it does all the time: spread misinformation through normal social processes and people trolling.

Also, this post proves you just admitted you have no rational reason to believe I'm guilty and are relying on the Something Awful (et al) trolls. So the previous posts where you claim to have proof of me doing anything bad are invalidated.

[Tubesock Army]

It's also funny how I can list multiple examples of your being a total dickhead at any given time, while you just have to keep spamming the same exact post over and over. That all you got?

[Tubesock Army]

Because, Zak, there are two alternatives here: You're either the victim of a vast, far-reaching, and long-standing conspiracy to defame you, or you're just a prick.

You've ignored the obvious third option: there's no conspiracy, it's just the internet doing what it does all the time: spread misinformation through normal social processes and people trolling.

Weird, even polarizing figures like Pundit, Venger, Grim Jim et. al., have many supporters and fans. You could never, and will never, garner the type of support they do. So much for the internet doing that to people "all the time".