• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Inquisitor

  • Member Type
  • Birthday 05/27/1996

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Much of the Eastern culture has become commonplace in modern western scientific society.Things like meditation and yoga were of eastern origin yet have become staples in 'modern' medicinal practice in retaining scientifically defined 'healthy' lifestyle. My ideal application would be synthesis bewtween both worlds, as inspired by the saying: "Where there are two extremes, the truth lies in between." , which also brings up a dilemma of what the initial grounding of evidence actually was the signifies them and how. I.e. With the introduction of these spiritual practices, science jumped in hoping to gather information of their functionality; how they work, whether they can be practically applicable, etc. But which actually proves which? Did science prove spiritual practice as credible, or did the spiritual practice reinforce the credibility and functionality of scientific evidence as a basis? So for example, scientific understanding actually shows that meditation is actually beneficial for your health, but was it only proven because "science said so" or was science only the benefactor to the legitimacy of spiritual practices in the same vain as scientific endevour? The ironic thing about science is that, it attempts to understand fundamental reality by adapting and applying componentally. The most prominent example being the table of elements in the chemstry application. it's the most broadly linear example I know that shows this, but this effectively applies to all areas in the field. While there are some exceptions, it's essentially: "If it's not there or hasn't been found or proven, it does not exist." It's a problem I often come across when trying to explain topics within this concept such as the aormention stimulus dilemma and reality itself. It isn't trying to disprove it, but funamentalize it's inherency. Pain = stimulus reaction that triggers a chain of raction events, and that is fundamentally what it is, but is often misinterpreted as invalidation. Another example of commonplace practice, even in the scientific community as a form of jargon, depending on the context. Biology is classified as an intuitive state or function. Plants and beings just "know" how to grow, evolve, adapt etc, which can also be argued is due to natural "programmng", which then is that truly intuitive or preset motion of events? A psychic I was monitoring a while back proposed the "Cave Man Theory" which is essentially that humans had to learn to survive by instinct and that these insticts were the original form of near psychic expression of intuition and if this had not existed, humans would not exist today as there'd be no form of intuition or "gut feeling" - which feeds back to the whole stimulus thing - which was how they knew to detect danger , knew to use caves for shelter, develop a primitive form of cummunication which they knew what certain expressions were supposed to represent to each other, so so on that helped them manage to survive. Exactly. It would be somewhat close minded to assume anything at any point.
  2. Inquisitor

    Love that quote. Not sure if that was a referencing to Markus or Ghandi. "The world is ruled by fear...Fear of others...Fear of the Future...It's like me, too old. It's time for it to end. be careful when fighting monsters, that you don't become a monster yourself." - Carl Manfred, D:B.H. Tell ya what, when you're actually able to apply esoteric comprehension, then come back and say that. Far as I can see, you just fear and shun what you don't truly understand. 10 years, right... Should know better than that or have gotten out of the game completely at that point. Have a well rounded understanding or gotten out because it wasn't for you, but you still seem to be stuck in a limbo. Interest still seems to be there but still suspicious at the same time.
  3. Depends if it's 'limited to (because of)' / 'comes down to', or 'variation of', betweeen the physical and spiritual esoteric non corporeal renditions. "You feel oneness and love and all that because you're: recieving divine spiritual energies / simply because a chemical has released in your body that exudes that effect. (or) the chemicals are a / the physical manifestation of the spiritual process." Most people assuming only the former when physical evidence is applied and go to "If it's a physical process then spirituality has nothing to do with it." No one can really dissosciate "because of " the process and "part of" it.
  4. Inquisitor

    That would be a valid statement, especially if I wanted to continue to cause arguements, but that's the exact opposite of what I ever wanted. I'm all up for making peace but I doubt it would be recipricated. If MR wants a truce then I automatically accept. Hell, that's exactly what I've been trying for most of the time. This is coming from someone who has said multiple times across the forum that I'm tired of conflict and the bickering so not trying or intending to make myself sound innocent in the participation. That's kinda it. The "bad guy" always thinks they're right without question. The genuine "good" guy always evaluates themselves.
  5. Inquisitor

    "If you can't get rid of people for things you don't like because of things you don't agree with, rationalize it in a way that appears like they're breaking rules!" Still need to be pointed out that looking in the mirror before accusing of rule breaking would be prudent. You have more violations than nearly everyone on this site put together. They wouldn't or are unable to get rid of you on the heavy end of the spectrum so why would they with me or anyone else? I don't care for trolling and I don't really have time for it. I could be spending time doing literally anything else than trolling. I have more important things to be doing IRL. Coming to a forum to such an extent just for the purposes of "trolling" people on forum is a wasteful effort. This should be enough to consider for you to realize your claims are false. Like, the easiest way to explain how you see me (and a few other people, not just like with Scot or Done Now) is like those double image or sihlouette paintings that can be interpreted differently by different people. The more you repeatedly see it a specific way and the more you look at it like that, the more it appears. So say it would either be a bear or a pig. You see it as a bear. You come into that room everyday and see the paiting thinking it's a bear. The more this happens, the more that interpretation is reinforced in your mind that it's a bear. Somewhere along the line there was a miscommunication, which was probably a fault of my own for lack of doing so effectively, and you focus zoomed on something that seemed slightly off and basically had become lodged in that framing from there on,so everything you see becomes relatively compressed and smudged into this. It's like I said on the other thread where you said hw you've been on forums for years and I explained that you become part of the fabric in doing so as that's how you've become practiced in processing what's there. You see actual trolling behaviour, and then you see near similarities in others and you process this as the exact same principle regardless of circumstance or nuance. So say you see two parings of an older guy and a younger woman. Most may assume that they could both be father and daughter, but one of them might actually be a couple or a niece and uncle etc, or even just work collegues, a boss and an employee, and just the work collegue variation one alone, you could go further and even say that the younger woman is the boss with an older male employee. Indeed. You're going to the effort of fighting "these people." Reading the entirety of everything we both ever posted on every thread would be better. That would tak too long but you may either agree with that or just want her to see a selected portion of my posts in order to establish a precise incrimination. If you think "addressing" simply means applying a penalty on something simply because it's flagged, that's not actual moderation. Police don't go round arresting people just because someone reported or suspects them. There's a whole investigation process before that. I'm totally open to inestigation. I mean, hell, looking into stuff is what I do. Would be hypocritical to say "Oh I can investigate something but It's not allowed that I'm investigated."
  6. That's fate then. Fate and destiny are two seperate things. If you feel it genuinely works and has proven to show tangible answers, then no harm in using it. If you think it might just be some novelty or psychological tool, well it actually depends on the person. There are some who could be legit and some who tailor it to circumstantial consistencies. to match what is already there. Since you'be done it yourself, these are your own results. You've stated that your tarot sessions match coming events but depends if you're actually using in a psychological format or a divination one. I somewhat dislike that term. She's not the one who originated this idea. In some way, applying it only gives her more credit than is due. Attaching a premise of practice or ideology to a person isn't really correctly applicable. Something to think about might be "how did we start breathing from birth without thinking to do it?" Even subconciously, something happened in automation to set it off without human intervention, aside from making the baby, but even then, how does the sperm just 'know' to go (directly) to the egg if it did go directly to it? And how was the biological "Programming" (because I can't think of a better word become how it ) implemented in that function to form it?
  7. Inquisitor

    Thing is though, when you've been involved with them for so long, you start to become part of the fabric and perhaps start adopting certain traits of those around you. The good, the bad, the toxic, the SJW, the white knight, the pretentious white knight, If you hadn't actually been bombarding me with accusations, slanders, smear campaigns, I probably would've been long gone or at the very most, rarely said anything. In fact, you probably wouldn't have seen anything you can interpret, rehprom or use to say I was being malicious, though that said, you're always on guard, specifically looking for things like that regardless of the truth so it might not even matter. You could be smelling yourself and looking in a mirror all this time and not even realize it, seeing it as a mirage of something else. Regardless that in your mind you have to ratnionalize it in a way that works for you, if what you claim was objectively like that. Everyone would be going at me. Seriously, they would. Not everyone's so simple mindeda as you like to believe to not notice anything but since you've been looking for evidence of incrimination of tpeople for so long, that's now what you see full time. For example, you say I'm a manipulator or systematic, when you also say I'm not inteligent or a "psuedo-intellectual." You think I'm not clever by any regard. If this were true, I would obviously not be intelligent enough to do such schemes. Can only be one or the other mate. Think about what you're saying before jumping to conclusions and accusations or trying to use someting to discredit me. "Baited response.", lol. You chose to downvote that comment. It had no direct reflection of you to anyone there. To say someone "baited" someone is a very weakminded approach since you have total control of yourself and what you do and think reasonably. If you say you were baited, it implies you have a weak ability to rationally or methodically control over yourself and your behaviour, which would make sense with your rash decisions of immediate preferences and response of negative views and implementations. You're all about other people bringing proof to the table, or finding evidence 'against' them but none 'for' your own (often thinking that evidence against someone else is the same as evidence for your case, which is not. For all anyone knows you're just trying to discredit them for your own gain). This would be one such case to undeiably prove your credibility though I've actually somewhat dropped it a bit after realizing the amount off effort it would take. I've already showed / shown everything we talked about to a friend of mine but that doesn't really count so I was considering in bringing an external psychological consultant to go over everything, mine and yours to desipher who was really the insane one. All I actually did in the first place was explain certain dangers in some things. You took that as an impression of malicious intent without regard to the nuances. Define your interpretation of "flaming." then. My version of what flaming is, is someone being toxic, hateful and generally vulgar and offensive. Your version of offensive is probably simply me calling you out in certain things that you alternatively percieve as an "attack". It's also taking into account that when you're looking for incrimination, your mind is wired to see it everywhere in everything they do, even the slightest which is morphed into something major and devistating. Now I'm not saying you're a narcassist by doing this but it is a prominent trait of such. This thread I had no issue to cause until you made one. As I keep saying, I was only going for discussion about the topic. Nothing to do with your issues with me or anything to do with you at all, however you decided to redirect the thread about trying to discredit me and bagan remaking me as "spuedo-intelectual" etc. That's on you. Unless they themselvs are or have been deemd as a troll, or have a history of toxic behaviour. There is however some truth to that statement because I study people like you as a part time thing. I know how you operate, so of course I take a mthodical approach towards 'Render types'. You admit yourself of your own behaviour so it doesn't matter what it's called. Unlreated to you however, you still have people who are Narcassists, trolls, haters, toxic commenters, pretentious white knights, some real white knights as well but more often than not, they're only "protecting" others for their own self sense of security and validation. You are clearly looking for some form of validation by trying to rally people to your side, discrediting someone else to justify your cause etc and nulify the value of your own negative behaviour. The emphasis of use of slander, smear campaigns and lite fearmongering (saying I'm malicious, etc) only shows this and when you're called out on it, you say that people are "attacking" you or "trying to make you look bad" etc. "he this, he that". not "you this, you that." Clear evidence of desperation to be validated. Everything you say about me, you do yourself. The majority of your forum career is evidence of that. Look in the mirror before judging and/or accusing someone else, thogun atht epoint you're at it's probably covered with dust and smoke.
  8. Inquisitor

    Huh, Ok then. You can admit mistakes, unless yoFirst you said, "screw this stupid thread, he's just a narcissist". you're just saying that to disprove my statment about you unwilling to admit flaws, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt, this time. Not in those words though. I just said, and you can read for yourself: Again, what story? You mean me explaing to some random person how I'm only using GRM in some situation? That's hardly a story to claim accusation. There'd have been no reason for you to downvote it at all. If you felt like nercassism has nothing to do with you at all, my mention of GRM just by itself should have had no effect on you, but you made the concious decision to downvote it because you took offence to it, despite that it had no direct reference to link to you what'so'ever. My mention of it in our discussions could be unrelated as far as anyone knows. Anyone who saw it on the other thread probably only saw what they read there so no reason to think much of it. Technically, yeah but no one knew the wiser that it was relevant to you so I don't see how you saw a problem with a distance reference to only GRM, nothing directly about narcassism, though GRM being a related topic. "Look how insane you are Inquisitor" Oh boy the parallels. You actually chase me more-so. My first posts in this thread don't count since I wasn't trying to make an issue of anything. No accusations or "flaming" as you like the term. I was just going for open discussion. Nothing about or against you at all. The most I even did was quote you but in commenting the social dilemma, not to do with you, yourself what'so'ever. Doesn't matter because all you're concerned with was me "trying to make you look bad" which wasn't the case so the downvote was redundant. I wasn't talking about you directly or by name. I only ever referenced a situation that I was trying to use GRM in. That's literally it. Putting the pieces toegether, y'know, fair enough but as far as anyone on that thread was concerned, there was no incrinimation against you. All they likely would have saw was what I said there and that's it. So like, I said you might be a narcassist because you took offence that I was using GRM on A "situation" (you) despite that I didn't directly reference anything to do with you, but you decided to conciously downvote it which implied that if you truly felt that narcassism was in no way related to you, it would mean nothing to you, but yet you decided to react to it because you took offence to the notion of the use of GRM. In a nutshell I basically said to someone, a random person, that I was thinking of using it in a situation I'm in. All I said. You saw that, unrelated to do with anything significant at the time or as far as anyone was concerned and downvoted becuse you took offence. Far as anyone knew, it could have been some IRL person I was dealing with. Regardless of whether it was before or after my post with you, you incriminated yourself as the culprit of being a suspected narcassist when you downvoted simply by taking offence to the simple reference of GRM. You had no reason to do so, other than if I did reference you or said it to you directly, which on that thread didn't happen. It's like you going on another thread I'm not on and saying "Oh I'm dealing with this asshole and he's a insane malicious and annoying." Y'know, all the usual stuff you say about me, but never mentioned me by name. I see it and downvote it. Now I'd have incriminated myself as the culprit because there'd have been no reason for me to do so because no one would have been aware of my involvement and yet I would take offence to it, so people might start thinking. "Hmm, why did this guy downvote it? Why didn't he like that statement about someone being an asshole to this guy? Unless maybe he was the one he was refering to? Why would this guy take offence if it had nothing apparent to do with him?" Proving someone wrong is one thing, but saying "they're malicious", especially in saying it's being donw by intention is just attaching motives.
  9. Inquisitor

    Someones a try hard at discrediting and/or desperate to be validated. If that weren't true, that post wouldn't exist. Whatever the issue is is between me and you, looking for outside validation it's just a last minute strategy of desperation for you to try to get a backing to use as a self esteem boost. as you were then. Again, you seek me out and what "story"? Irony. Irony [2] You can never admit you're wrong but at least I'm open to dialogue and even said I'd rectify. You never do. You prefer t stay your stance of being "right" or "correct". The fact that you're always on the negative spectrum, preferring to shoot first, ask questions later shows this. I said I suspect you to be but I didn't say you were definitively. It's almost impossible to tell with your incoherent behaviour. I also said that people are innately bias of themselves. That includes most people, even me, but you are a clear cut case of this. Define your version of "fmaling", hell you flame me on your own threads, even when I'm not around. If you're going to bring up rules, look in the mirror. In fact this applies to everything about you. Morphing the meaning but stating morphing the meaning. Nice double standards bro. Mirror [2] By the way. No one cares. if they did they'd reply respond, like, dislike or whatever. Two people at a disagreement doesn't catch many people's attention. If they really wanted to know they can read themselves without you having to "explain" anything. They can literally read everything we both ever said. I'm really not fussed. Like I said once before, regardless of any legitimacy of the issues, you're then assigning motives to me by extension saying I'm "malicious" or whatever and trying to attach me as an object of focus as something to blame for any sort of negatively oriented inflection, even if it was unrelated to me what'so'ever. Honestly, to put so much effort in a negatively oriented endevour such as this is pathetic and only shows what level you're at. Have you ever actually stopped to consider yourself? Even if you're genuinely concerned about something, your application in dealing with it. I know quite a few people who if they were in your position and thought exactly as you do about the issues with me, would do a far better job at dealing with it, and get actual results, including the kind you're after. You don't because of your massive emphasis on the use of spite, hate and general negativity. I actually showed my forum records to a friend of mine who read everything, and he's basically nearly like you, rash and venomous (I know, some friend right, but he's good) and even he said, and in his own words, I shit you not and I don't care if you believe it or not since it's past the point where you care about anything I say, I doubt it'll matter much to you anyway but remember, he read it all for himself without a word from me, "Who does this F-ing prick think he is? This guy man. Like damn, and I thought I was a cunt. Dunno what you're on about in all these but quite frankly don't give a shit. I mean your version of bullshit is nothing compared to this F-head. Ha, he might even be F'd in the head for all we know." He and I don't always see eye to eye, mainly because he has issues with most people who know him. Sometimes it's banter, other times he just gets pissed off easily at the smallest things, but he's also brutally honest, so if he thinks I might be being a piece of shit, then I'm being a piece of shit. and on a good day he can channel that in a protective way towards his peers. As much as I'm not really sympathetic towards toxic or negative people, he keeps me grounded so if you're wondering, he does understand what you're trying to say since he knows me personally, he can see both sides: "Look mate, if you were really like that, I'd do you in myself but you're not and I know it. This gay twat is just some prick with a stick up his arse with nothing better to do with is sad life." and when he actually said that I was almost in shock practtically. Like damn. Never cross a brit on a bad day lol. Well that said, I'm British too but I'm nowhere like that.
  10. Inquisitor

    Thanks for doing the heavy lifting. I've been trying to look for it. They both say May 15. Check both timestamps. If we were able to find out what the precise times were, we'd know for sure. Probably just ask Garnet if that can be done when she comes back. Wasn't the comment itself I was after, but the time stamp. I knew it existed and wasn't denying I said it but I did say the only direct reference between GRM and you was posted directly to you. I didn't express that I was referring to you to other people, unless others actually read the thread. The only direct references to claiming or suspecting you as a narcassist was directly to you, but I still wasn't trying to for other people or on other threads. You can look for that to if you like. I would've also said that the reference of GRM doesn't necessarily define declarion of you being a narcassist, but it's probably obvious for a while on the directly related conversations between us that I've suspected it. Like I said. My father was a clinically diagnosed one and you have a near perfect match of signs to him. I only have that to go on but I still had the experience of recognizing narcassistic traits. There's no cetainty that you are, but there's no certainty that you're not. I don't know but I suspect you to be, you say you're not but everyone's biased to themselves anyway. You say I'm deluded or crazy and whatever else you can think of, which might be true. I know I'm a bit weird to most people but I don't see it as as problem as you don't see yourself as having any severe issues. Most people are nearly incapable of seeing themselves objectively without bias, but there's alsways that saying about someone being a horse. If one person says someons's a horse, they're crazy if two people say it, somethings up, if 3 or more say it, get a saddle. You've had about 4 - 5. I've had one.
  11. Inquisitor

    Or they don't care about two people squabbling. I wouldn't if I saw something like this. If that's what you tell yourself but if you're that determined, find and bring a screenshot of the timestamp of the one I said to you, but either way, there was no direct mention of a link between you and GRM to anyone else and you can check. Someone wants to be in a position of importance for self confidence. I doubt anyone would let you near a modding privelidge. Especially after you've been banned multiple times. This just shows you just want your own way. If I or someone else were in the position you were in, I wouldn't resort to being desperate to git rid of someone jsut because I don't agree with something I percieve as a danger. I'd monitor them and say like "y'know this might be slightly dangerous" but it's pointless to try to smear or discredit someone. If they deliberately intended maliciousness. This would be obvious to everyone, not just those looking to find incrimination because they want to see it. There's an entirely different jurisdiction for that. There are people out there who actually enforce the kind of thing against malicious or exploitary practices you're referring to or suspect me of doing in the spiritual community. though some of them are extremists like you so that might work well for you. Could go ask them. Actually, I suggest it if you're that serious. I don't really know of anyone in the US so I can't give you a good starting point.
  12. Inquisitor

    [Checking...] Nope, you did by decideing to negate any form of actual dialogue, instead opting to make fun of it / us. Literally the same day you posted that, you told me you were using the Grey Rock method on me. You said "Grey Rock Method: Activated" or something like that. Then, you went to another thread and said you were using it on someone. You're saying now, you weren't talking about me? I didn't incriminate myself. You told me you were using that method against me. But... It didn't even make any sense for you to use it against me. If anything, this forum should use it against YOU. Lying, manipulative, scum bag. Lie like lie lie lie. Trick. Decieve. Try to appear rational. That's all these people know. They know how to lie, decieve and character assassinate. That's what's happening. That was after and I know it was because I was in a conversation with someone discussing the mechanics of the GRM. As far as anyone was concerned they could be seperate incidents. I still didn't directly mention or infer to anyone seperately anything to do with you. Even if I did menton it before, I didn't mention any sort of direct correlation. The only direct reference to you, was to you directly. And, Bitch, please.
  13. Inquisitor

    Ok, yeah I know what I just said. Have a tantrum over it. I don't care. I really have no care to talk to you but at the same time, it doesn't really matter what you think because it practically has no real value. Now you've presented an opportunity to show your own dellusional paranoia. 1. It's still fearmongering. It's trying to scare people, make people afraid of an outcome, true or not. Have you seen the brexist bullshit that happened last year / 2 years ago? They utilized statistics, though somewhat backed up in a way to scare people into remaining. It doesn't matter if it was factual or not. They intended to use this as a scare tactic. That itself is brainwashing. 2. This had no reference towards you at all. You just reflected it as such or chose to view it that way. None of what I said here had any direct statements about you. I directed no issue or blame of it to you. I specifically stated that this had nothing to do with you, just in general about societal attiudes. You might be part of the drama by agreeing with a side of it but it ultimately had nothing to do with you. K then. What's the supposed to do by saying that, scare me into submision or make you lo tough? That aswell could be classified as fearmongering or perhaps gloating for power and status. "Oh look at how I'm going to get you banned." Just childish. Did you watch that video? "The superficial and manufactured appearance of power over things and people boulsters their idea of themselves... People are supposed to be so dazzled or intimidated by the narcassist that they never notice the inherent weakness of the narcasist. It never really occurs to them that those with true power and true strength don't need it to be validated by others in this way and anyone who knows true strength will know that. And just to point out. On a previous thread I was on a while ago, the topic was about narcassists. You were not involved but I mentioned that I was trying to use the Grey Rock method on a potential narcassist I know but I mentioned no names. However, you incriminated yourself by disliking that post, even though there was no direct or indirect reference to you. If you knew you were not a narcassist or saw no direct correlation to yourself, even though you think you don't anyway, you wouldn't have disliked the post regardless because there were no incriminating features of my statement about anyone specifically. Thus, this disproves your points about me trying to make you look bad or trying to make people see you as such in any way. Why did you dislike it if there was no mention of you what'so'ever and as far as anyone was concerned had nothing to do with you or even knew of your involvement. For some reason though still, you took offence to it. I'm afraid this may warrant the submission of that medical statement of mental health assessment. You can dsclose that to Garnet when you speak to her. Though she may decline it due to site policy. I don't know. Don't mind if you do it privately. I'll just ask her for a yes or no. it's practically directly tied to your overall credibility. If not, then you're either afraid of or hiding something, I mean other than personal info which I don't care for seeing anyway. If it states itself that it's a no then I shut up. Simple right?
  14. Inquisitor

    Well I only came here for an open dialogue but you seem intent to be negative, so since you're putting in so much effort: I would point out all the similarities but I can't be bothered, but practically almost everything in there describes it, Narc or no. As for this thread then. I'm done.
  15. Inquisitor

    Right, except when you want to start issues with me. Oh the irony. If you really don't care, don't involve yourself or say anything to me at all. Period. Besides it doesn't really matter what you think. Haters gonna hate right?... Thoguh practically everyone loses credibility with you when you have a disagreement with them so it makes no difference. Also my responses to that other thread you made had nothing to do with our issues what'so'ever. I wasn't even trying to make an issue with you about it, even trying to makre reparations on our relative issues, but it's clear you only see the negative in things. It's clearly not about if I was a "psuedo intellectual" which is very ironic but it was only mean't to be an open discussive debate, yet you had no interest in it simply because you'd rather focus on your reasons for trying to discredit or belittle me. That's all you ever focus on and that right there is evidence of that. You're the only one who goes to that lenght to hate someone even if you just think something might be a bit off. I suspect Teal of a few things, why I came to monitor her but I don't hate her. No reason to. It's just wasted effort and focus. A lot of yours could say the same, merely spewing hate and negativity pretty much. And this is why about 65 - 80% of the forum say the same about you. I actually don't know the real amount but from what I'm guessing of the geeneral vibe from many different conversations with people. It really is just uncalled for that you behave like this. Doesn't matter what the reasons are. Whether it's me or someone else who leaves or stays, makes no difference because there will always be other backwater pools like this within the community. You think intrenching yourself in one internet forum on a website because that's the only place you can go that will tolerate you does anything? If you've really been at this for 10 years so you claim, you should really know better by now. You should have either been at a point of more udnerstanding of mostly everything that's entailed in this kind of thing which gives no reason for the attitude or completely have lost faith in the whole thing and left it entirely. You still seem to be on the edge of uncertainty hence why you're suspicious of everything. Suspicion implies you don't know but in your case you want to see incrimination so you do see it. You honestly are, and this isn't me just going at you but I know you're going to have an ego attack / defence spike over it. You're just a hateful, spiteful little man. That's all you have and how you justify yourself by making everyone sound much worse than you could ever seem to be. You use that as a focus point so it looks like you're in the right and anything said against that would seem like nothing in comparison. Really, you may actually need to get those medical documents to an admin or something because even if you have no actual mental disorders, you have issues, even when you see no threats or trolls or whatever. You seem to be like that anyway. It's also the only way to shut everyone up about it otherwise all you have is a claim. There's no inherent credibility in just a claim. If he continues to think that negative = positive or two wrongs makes a right, then so be it... As I said. 'Haters gonna hate', cause that's all they know works for them. A one trick pony.