Enjoy.

[sombodystolemyname]

I think you're expecting overly formalized communication on what is a very informal channel.

I don't expect shit off this list. I expect you to not play fair as I expect the other trolls on the site to not play fair.

Formality is less important than the fairness that the form enables.

If there's another way to be fair--to make sure that people are held accountable for their claims and don't do unnecessary harm in pursuing the truth, I am open to hearing your suggestions.

Also, if there's some genuine reason any of this is bad (beyond "Me like troll. Troll funny. Funny more important than true lol") nobody's been able to articulate it.

Basically the obvious problem is the is/ought fallacy. People ought to be responsible for what they say. The social norm here is they are not. Nobody has ever said why that's good, only that the anonymity of the internet makes it common and easy.

You say this forum ought to be something other than what it is and that people here ought to be responsiblefor what they post. Why do you believe it ought to be that way?

If people post things that aren't true and enough people spread it around, it gets really hard to separate the misinformation from the truth. 

[HappyDaze]

I googled him as well and the second entry was https://www.fredericksfreisergallery.com/artists/zak-smith.  Looked pretty positive to me.  So saying that none of it paints him in a positive light doesn't seen right.

My phone showed 5 entries per page, and that shows up on page 3 as the 11th entry. I didn't browse to page 3.

If you google Zak Smith you will get the same results as I did I believe.

I Googled Zak S.

[HappyDaze]

I think you're expecting overly formalized communication on what is a very informal channel.

I don't expect shit off this list. I expect you to not play fair as I expect the other trolls on the site to not play fair.

Formality is less important than the fairness that the form enables.

If there's another way to be fair--to make sure that people are held accountable for their claims and don't do unnecessary harm in pursuing the truth, I am open to hearing your suggestions.

Also, if there's some genuine reason any of this is bad (beyond "Me like troll. Troll funny. Funny more important than true lol") nobody's been able to articulate it.

Basically the obvious problem is the is/ought fallacy. People ought to be responsible for what they say. The social norm here is they are not. Nobody has ever said why that's good, only that the anonymity of the internet makes it common and easy.

You say this forum ought to be something other than what it is and that people here ought to be responsiblefor what they post. Why do you believe it ought to be that way?

If people post things that aren't true and enough people spread it around, it gets really hard to separate the misinformation from the truth.

The battle for truth is long lost here. In this case you're talking about truth related to specifics about one person, but this is a site where wild-ass conspiracy theories are gleefully embraced, so don't be surprised if the little lies live here too.

[sombodystolemyname]

I googled him as well and the second entry was https://www.fredericksfreisergallery.com/artists/zak-smith.  Looked pretty positive to me.  So saying that none of it paints him in a positive light doesn't seen right.

My phone showed 5 entries per page, and that shows up on page 3 as the 11th entry. I didn't browse to page 3.

If you google Zak Smith you will get the same results as I did I believe.

I Googled Zak S.

Yeah I apologize, I should have been more specific when I said him.

[Tubesock Army]

I can't help but wonder if this mysterious white knighting noob is a Zak sockpuppet.

Maybe not, but Zak does have a history of both defending and attacking himself with sock accounts.

[Zak S]

I can't help but wonder if this mysterious white knighting noob is a Zak sockpuppet.

Maybe not, but Zak does have a history of both defending and attacking himself with sock accounts.

You're lying again.

Again, this is a claim that Ettin made before he got sued. Ettin never bothered to actually check the stuff he said about sockpuppets.

But, as HappyDaze pointed out above, being responsible for the things you say isn't normal on this this site, so you said it anyway.

Here's proof you're 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]

Maybe Ettin didn't, but I do. Here's a pic from the time you fucked up and Zakposted using your SApplecline sock account on reddit:



What's really funny is this happened AFTER someone alse accused you of using the SApplecline account, and you denied it. Only to then go and accidentally post using that account. Oopsie!



...but sure, Zak, you never use zakpuppet, er, SOCKpuppet accounts.

[Zak S]

...but sure, Zak, you never use zakpuppet, er, SOCKpuppet accounts.

Yeah that's not what that picture shows.

That's also addressed in the video.

And you are actually doing the same thing: thinking or pretending to think anyone who disagrees with you about me is me.

[Tubesock Army]

...but sure, Zak, you never use zakpuppet, er, SOCKpuppet accounts.

Yeah that's not what that picture shows.

That's also addressed in the video.

Ceci n'est pas une pipe, eh, Zak?

And not really, because I said "I wonder", and "Maybe not." I haven't assumed that that poster is you, but I do wonder.

[Zak S]

Ceci n'est pas une pipe, eh, Zak?

Again, you're doing that thing where you're point's addressed, then because you don't want to be held accountable for what you said, not responding to the point.

You're provably dishonest, it doesn't require any elaborate narrative or gloss or relying on a debunked sued guy to set up or frame 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]

Ceci n'est pas une pipe, eh, Zak?

Again, you're doing that thing where you're point's addressed, then because you don't want to be held accountable for what you said, not responding to the point.

You're provably dishonest, it doesn't require any elaborate narrative or gloss or relying on a debunked sued guy to set up or frame 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.

Honestly, the only thing I've ever read by Ettin is his forced apology to you. I know you NEED this info to be from Ettin for your narrative, sorry to disappoint.

Mods plz change Zak's handle to SApplecline, for old times' sake, TIA.

[Zak S]

Honestly, the only thing I've ever read by Ettin is his forced apology to you. I know you NEED this info to be from Ettin for your narrative, sorry to disappoint.

It doesn't really matter what you read or think you read:

Ettin made the claims you are making. Then he failed in court because his claims weren't true.

This whole necro of this thread started with a guy posting a video which addresses pretty much all the claims you've made. You're just dodging and moving to the next thing.

You already said you have no proof of the things you say and are leaning on second-hand accounts. Then when the problem with that was pointed out you dodged.

You've made lots of easily disproved claims, here an obvious example:

\
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.

If you were telling the truth, you'd be able to back up what you say. You can't and just dodge to the next thing.

[Tubesock Army]

[Tubesock Army]

Oh, I have backed up my statements, Zak. And I never said what you just claimed I said.

Like I told you previously, repeating something doesn't make it true.

And neither does spamming the one thing you inexplicably think makes you immune to everything over and over and over...

Keep on glitching bro.

[Mistwell]

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!

Sustained.