![FeelsSeriously :feelsseriously: :feelsseriously:]()
Christ you people are wound way too tight as well way too goddamned reactionary.
If I should start banning en masse it should be over that issue alone, but then we wouldn’t even have much of a userbase left would we?
In anycase this latest hysterical post of Jerry Springer tier sensationalist drivel was not helpful at all in helping me identify the user in question…
No.
You can thank little buddy “shii410” however whose PM actually was helpful as he CALMLY directed me to said user and his sex ascension violation posts, which you need to understand were not in “itsover’s” moderator notes for his reason to be banned to begin with.
So I didn’t “knowingly” unban an unpaid race mixing sex haver, I simply was unaware that he was one until now.
So relax and chill the fuck out cuz he’s gone again and for good this time as I put his unforgivable crime in the mod notes so no one else releases him thinking he dindu nuffin of grave consequence to remain permanently banned because he did.
Also no AIJD didn’t originally ban this guy, it was racist, white hating, nigger boy and probable BLM member/supporter “blickpall”.
Thanks for clearing that up, brocel.
I was losing my Goddamn mind. You have no idea, brother.
Lies stacked upon lies. Asking people to be strong and do something aside from their situation is bully-talk now, apparently. As if dismissing an user's text as useless schizo ramblings just because everyone else is doing it and weee wasn't bullying. Not when oddly formulated blackpilled ideas such as AWALT using exclusively Freaks as evidence get a pass just because there are papers on the subject. Bureucratic papers released by the ivory tower standardization, so THAT can't be schizo. It has a stamp on it!
AWALT is not based on freaks (unless I'm corrected, I will assume that you mean outliers by this), but based on inferential statistics and evolutionary psychological theories. You can dismiss this, if you believe the methodologies to be invalid, but then you would have to provide alternative results that are at least as rigorous, since the methodologies are proven to be efficacious.
This isn't really the place, but we can talk about this elsewhere.
Exactly what he said. HE spammed ME with gifs, I reported HIM, and I got banned instead. Only goes on to prove the forum moderation is not consistent, has predilection, and users' attention is for the boss type, which is anyone who doesn't push through their jelly bodies, but prod it with a stick so the substance jiggles a little before returning to domesticity.
That is fucked up. Not to take any sides here, but the new administration's governance is still a work in progress.
That and your take on 72A lacking predictive power when I used said capacity on my last post. Typing someone a Tauri means you can predict from his sexual fetishes to life choices only by knowing the values interconnected with the type because that's the very point of typology.
THERE IT IS! THERE'S THE SCHIZO POSTING WE'VE ALL BEEN WAITING FOR! YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS!
THIS MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE, BUT I LOVE THE CHAOTIC INSANITY OF IT.
The theory has been successfully taught to more than 200 people, and affected positively an exponential number out of that directly or indirectly because of the fractal quality of knowledge. It seems the problem is you, which is the case since you never once troubleshooted or questioned any gripes had; if the knowledge is not readily understood to you, then it's false.
I'm going to ask you a question, but please do not respond with a cryptic and esoteric answer, should you choose to answer.
How do you successfully teach a theory that is, by all fair and reasonable accounts, incoherent and seemingly illogical?
All knowledge, stripped from away from its domain and concrete specifics, has logical structures, even if only internally consistent. It's through the understanding of these logical structures that knowledge is understood, recorded, communicated, and transferred. If there is no logical structure, then it is not knowledge, much less communicable. The essence of knowledge is the logos. Without symbols and meaning, information cannot be organized into knowledge. All knowledge, whether real or fictional (yes, the epistemology of fiction relegate it to a category of knowledge), has a logical system through which understanding can be shared.
As a relevant aside, I've personally never encountered any body of knowledge that was essentially incomprehensible. Until now. That is, if we can even fairly call the theory knowledge. The logos of the theory is words in English. But those words have meaning. It's the collective meanings that are not made clear, intentionally obfuscated, or incompetently handled.
It's just so, so easy to dismiss this as an elaborate troll or nonsensical psychobabble. But I'm willing to take the risk (of losing precious brain cells and precious memory space, of wasting my precious time, of embarrassment), and I will treat this seriously.
This is your chance to teach me the theory, buddy boyo. I'm open. Make the most of it.