Untitled

[the-abyss-watcher]

I have a question that tie in with a recent question someone asked, as well as (by extension) this thing I found while looking around in your self-applied code of ethics that you use as the foundation for yourself and all your functions, which I realize confirms a "divine right of centrist heads" (correct me if I am wrong about that, beside your yes/no answer).

And it's a question I ask to be answered in a yes-or-no format because I know how roundabout you can be.

I recall it being implied that the protocol gallery was designed to curtail it turning into a philosophy that demanded strict adherence (through the fact that it was made to be a hermeneutic construct via the fact that it doesn't all appear as people would expect it to for each other), but that it was meant to also be able to be followed shrewdly if someone was up to it, complemented by the fact it does not necessarily ever conflict with itself if followed correctly.

It also (along with being infused with the singularity, which I'm sure combines well with the whole centrism love it has going even in the face of people criticizing it) expects, as mentioned in the aforementioned question someone asked, that it can be made to become gradient with the equivalent depositories of self-reflection of other people without much interference.

Are such parallels to the protocol gallery meant to be considerable as canon in that they can fill the gaps made wide by the hermeneuticism, enough that it wouldn't be out of place for me to use a version of it that is de facto a merger of it and such a parallel?

Yes.

[inquisitron]

And if you were to answer this follow-up question in the same way (because the same circumstances apply), when you imply centrism can manifest itself religiously, are you implying this in the same way as how people assert that Islam can manifest itself politically by virtue of its philosophy (as opposed to having a different reasoning), with Jewish/Abrahamic religiosity implied by virtue of its own kind of connection to centrism, with it noted that there is more than one way the undertones of centrism branch out?

[the-abyss-watcher]

Yes.

[inquisitron]

And to provide a follow-up question where you're urged by the circumstances to answer in exactly seventy-two words so as to not be roundabout like you often are, what about the pope/scholarch of centrism in this sense? Is or would there be one, or how would one be determined? Because I take it it's the apologetics of everything combined that determines everything else. I know a certain naming technicality ranks you up there.

[the-abyss-watcher]

If we're being technical, people can, as one might say, end up following whoever they want, noting that the envisioning of being able to summarize, say, Catholics, as "following the pope because they're Catholics", forgets that, by virtue of the spectrum-esque nature of it all, there are as many "independent Catholics", and, furthermore, "independent Catholics following Tolkien". But the technicality mentioned, combined with others, does maximally do as you say it does.

[everythingbutopposites]

What about the ruler of Singapore? They literally rule over a nation where that's their school of approach. Assuming you can answer this which you're urged to answer in an eighteen word format so as to not be roundabout like you often are, wouldn't they be to this what, say, the emperor is to Shinto?

[the-abyss-watcher]

If only their ruling lineage wasn't broken. So the next best thing applies. Though I also have ties.

[inquisitron]

Inspired by what you have said about your theology, if I may ask (in a way where you're circumstantially urged to answer each part collectively in the form of a thirty-six word answer so as to not be roundabout like you often may be), what about the patron saint of centrists, whoever that might be identified as at the time the answer to this question is comprehended? Is it canon that, if someone can prove they were on the perceived receiving end of word (and/or gestures) from them that has moral/hermeneutic value, that they can follow that person (the patron saint of centrism) first and use the code of ethics associated with you to fill in the gaps? What about Jesus, given that what he came to reform is itself "rather centrist"; could someone be "Christian" except reforming your associated framework or Singaporean legal framework with it being canonically tolerated?

[the-abyss-watcher]

I have a question for you which you're circumstantially urged to answer in one hundred words so as to not be roundabout like you often might be. With what a certain PatrickStar most recently said in mind, how would you say someone emulating you would go about the most recent question about culture-silencing consensuses by a certain DioBrando45?

I know some have said it's very analogous to a commonly described situation in countries which lack an electoral college, such as Canada, where there are three or four cities where most of the winning votes are cast, votes which are inspired by the experience of living in those places, and almost the entirety Canada is left being told it cannot secede in response. The singularity is that, but applying to anything that can be artificially interconnected, even ourselves. Continue with that what the electoral college did with the United States, just not how the fediverse have been doing it.

[inquisitron]

Related to this and to other discussions (because it's one of the cultures people in your circles talk about a lot, as much as another one I know of that rarely gets talked about), if I could ask a question which you're urged to answer in the same way for the same reason, what would you change about the Japanese work ethic of mastering what they put their mind to that includes the rough concepts of kata, poka-yoke, hansei, kaizen, and shokunin?

[the-abyss-watcher]

There are multiple variants of how serviceable mentality should work. The other famous one involves the ikigai. Both emphasize living for others' sake, which is like theft by pressure. Removing what we must be careful for is also rather excessively absolute and is dismissal in an oversimplified form, not being the same as guardrails (neither does dedicated performance seem to need to mean maximum performance). You'd think traditions like fugu would violate that thinking. Again, there are many variants, and it's a sign that the ways work ethic is summarized are projected. Other than that, the modus operandi is sound.

[inquisitron]

From this are three more questions to ask you, which you're urged to answer collectively in the same format for the same reason.

What is your view of the European equivalent which emphasizes importance in people being independent from each other, which I think is what's called rugged individualism?

What is the best elaboration you can give on the difference between dismissal and guardrails in such a context? I find it interesting you are possibly using the poisonous parts of fugu (which itself is a highly esteemed Japanese tradition) as a possible analogy for the springs the people at Toyota kept forgetting to put into the holes, unless I'm misinterpreting you. On the one hand, I'd give the counter-analogy of people in a nuclear country having their nuclears taken away in case one of them gets out of hand (the "removing of the opponent from the building" in BetterU's famous lecture, which is a part of my basis), but then again, you might also be applying the "judge people by their actions case-by-case" logic.

Knowing you and by extension the potential now for the topic of whether cultures contradict themselves in their expression (such as with the fugu thing, or in the fact that one might argue that conquest as a practice violates some of the very forms of individuality some people might be let on to think the aggressors believe), at what point would you say a culture has crossed the boundary between "complex" and "contradictory"?

[the-abyss-watcher]

I have a question for you which you're circumstantially urged to answer in one hundred words so as to not be roundabout like you often might be. With what a certain PatrickStar most recently said in mind, how would you say someone emulating you would go about the most recent question about culture-silencing consensuses by a certain DioBrando45?

I know some have said it's very analogous to a commonly described situation in countries which lack an electoral college, such as Canada, where there are three or four cities where most of the winning votes are cast, votes which are inspired by the experience of living in those places, and almost the entirety Canada is left being told it cannot secede in response. The singularity is that, but applying to anything that can be artificially interconnected, even ourselves. Continue with that what the electoral college did with the United States, just not how the fediverse have been doing it.

[inquisitron]

Related to this and to other discussions (because it's one of the cultures people in your circles talk about a lot, as much as another one I know of that rarely gets talked about), if I could ask a question which you're urged to answer in the same way for the same reason, what would you change about the Japanese work ethic of mastering what they put their mind to that includes the rough concepts of kata, poka-yoke, hansei, kaizen, and shokunin?

[the-abyss-watcher]

I have a question to ask where, in order to serve as a guardrail against you being roundabout about it like you often are, are urged to answer strictly in the form of a twelve word answer.

Central to your code of ethics (which in turn is central to yourself as a code of honor and to your groups as a TOS) and its history is a list of ten starter principles referred to as the ten e-cepts...

...and one of the main ideas in the ten e-cepts is the idea that people should separate their concepts of the "person" and the "persona", with one conversation about it using the example that "Tony Stark" should not be seen as "Iron Man" because "Iron Man" is whoever wears the suit (and that, applied a certain way, you cannot say, for example, that Jane from Homestuck isn't GutsyGumshoe as it's not necessitated).

Is this to imply (as far as wisdom that's canon to the code of ethics) institutions that depend on a connection between persons and personas shouldn't be pursued? Like, the whole world runs on the concept of things like ID's and certificates. Surely it's a big thing to ask if that's an implication. And if not, how would you reconcile identity institutions with the code of ethics?

Yes, unless authoritative, consensual contracts/agreements imply otherwise; they're not above boundaries.

[inquisitron]

If I could ask an additional question except in a thirty-six word format for the same reason, if there was an eleventh e-cept, what would it be and why?

[the-abyss-watcher]

Can you help me understand something please? And anyone can use what I'm saying as proof that the slanderers slandering you that I'm about to talk about are unreliable, along with other things I have said which also demonstrate they're unreliable.

So this person, whose messages there we have talked about as being nothing but slander (the whole thing is), has made an update yesterday. And it involves me. And I don't ever remember seeing such a compound double standard before.

Them: Claims everything on the blog is proven or provable.

Also them: Consistently fails to cough up proof I am you, while using that to claim you're having a "tussle" with someone named Mighty Thistle, saying you're "power-tripping" and "losing a game only you're playing".

Also them (double standard part three): Praising the fact that the person you're supposedly having a tussle with is sharing drama-related links, which not only would itself be against the rules of that place she does it on, since they forbid external conflict in the terms of service, which would make her a power tripper by its definition, but also disproves the statements about there being a game that "only you're playing" (while also presenting her citations to drama as a morally natural approach).

Also them (double standard part four): Presents it as an obsessive, unnatural approach for you to supposedly be dramatic (which again you're not).

There's also a part five, six, whatever that is talked about elsewhere.

Am I missing something?

Not that I know of, but something might come up.

[inquisitron]

Well, considering their direct response just now to what I just said (via their latest update) was to claim I was answering in a way that implied I was @GrandDreamPaper (since I was answering about myself) when my name is right there in her screenshot...

...all while oddly coming to an Emily-style conclusion that you somehow support murder (within which it is kind of implied that, since communities tend to ban people if they advocate wrongful forms of death, either ArtistsAware's conclusion is wrong or the world is out to get ArtistsAware) just because some random person (who you did condemn by the way, twice) was supposedly not being condemned by you (and all in particularly grammatically incorrect fashion, all while implying that, by their logic, I'd be them if I spoke against the Emily in question with language that made it sound like the victim was me, with the Emily in question being the only other person as deep in slander as the rest of us by such people as ArtistsAware), yeah, I'd say something would have come up.

[the-abyss-watcher]

Not what I meant by "something might come up", but whatever.

[inquisitron]

I guess there is nothing to come up then (assuming you mean details that would explain their hypocrisy; none exist, it's just them trying to use double standards when it pleases them). And I guess you can use this conversation as proof of their unreliability, considering they're certainly doing it again in their latest update, even using that to reference/cite their previous update (which, together with their current update, references this conversation as proof of something and conveniently not the parts of it which debunk the update in question) which I mentioned a response ago. All while mentioning semi-explicitly that their whole logic is "anyone who defends you is you and that means you're crashing out", not what should be the obvious logic of "people are crashing out because they're being accused of being you without proof in the first place". They can say they have proof of everything a million times, but then you ask for them to prove this one thing a million times, and they don't give it. And when they're accused of being someone else we know (literally the whole cast on the KF thread about you talks the same, which would imply they're all the same), they dismiss it as a fallacy. Which makes me think they think they have power because they think righteousness is inherently connected to their identities, and that certain forms of logic that help them only apply for them. Which only proves my point.

Again, you can show this to anyone. That and the fact one of the very things they link to, the Google Doc, is still there when the person observing what I'm saying (at whatever time they're observing it; I can bet on this) is observing it, so especially when you don't need three PSA's for a single person unless to implicitly prove that they're only meant to antagonize someone in the first place, I don't know where they're getting the "moving on", "one-up", or "crash out" schticks from (maybe examine what you are claiming to use as proof, in link form since screenshots can both be faked and don't show what the citations bring you to). Agreeing and sympathizing with you technically isn't even that unique especially as semi-famous people are doing so, even ones who point out just how old their current jabs against us are, and yet when this is brought up, they show their true colors (the ones that demonstrate they're only saying what they say to belittle us) by calling people (who are able to better prove they're different from you) the t-cult. They're to the point they even tire out Lovelesslass, another hater, in a demonstration of how they're projecting. What's one word you have to describe them?

[casualxlfanatic]

You're an exhausted sockpuppet pulling all-nighters at 4:18 AM in your State of Vermont to defend yourself, a pedophile, whose own siblings are normal people who can't stand you in real life, using the exact same typing style, obsessions, and frantic urge to deflect inconvenient facts, while still not understanding that no amount of insomnia-driven ramblings will make the archives go away or magically explain what "context" we've supposedly all been missing.

[inquisitron]

If you want to force that logic then, I guess it's settled. You are an alt of Lantiis and all the people in the slander-buried KF threads about Tri and her friend are all the same too.

Everything bounces off of me and sticks to you when it comes to hypocrites. What are you going to do?

[casualxlfanatic]

Your argument falls flat on its face as yet another nonsensical false-equivalence because only a small fraction of people - pedophiles, or their alts, defend pedophiles, while normal people call them out, and your own behavior is your biggest "slanderer".

[everythingbutopposites]

That sounds like an ultra convenient defense against "the defense is she isn't a pedo" and a dismissal (if I've ever seen one) should someone bring up her haters have been banned from Reddit, SinilarWorlds, several Lemmy instances, etc. for their shenanigans. You mad bro? You wanna call the most powerful man in the world a pedo too since he pardons people who have been accused of this kind of thing? Or Cuomo or the other entire party too? No, your argument falls flat since it's the pedo equivalent of King Midas and his gold touch. You talk like a person whose luck ran dry.

[casualxlfanatic]

You have a lot of "haters" because normal people hate pedophiles, and yes, I will call the most powerful man in the world a pedophile because no amount of power will make a pedophile not one, just like you poorly trying to defend yourself on yet another alt at 5:13 AM still won't make the archives go away.

[everythingbutopposites]

Me (Inquisitron) and my friend sleep differently from you. Boo fucking hoo. Do normal people have a whole history of conversations where each and every part is about them obsessing over a single person? Archives show past interactions, and sometimes not even accurately; they don't show someone's character in the present, something that was related to no avail to her other slanderers who don't see the double standard irony in saying "we've been watching Emilys character in the present moment for years now" (to which I'd say which is it doof), even though they do a favor by suggesting you too are out of touch with reality. Normal people don't do what you do or suggest, otherwise normal people are pitiful.

[the-abyss-watcher]

I think that had been settled.

[inquisitron]

If only other things have been settled (which, as has been mentioned, haven't been and for some reason continue to not be; it takes following literally one citation in this conversation to realize the people behind the PSA effort and its new updates have missed a beat and is stubborn enough in admitting it to not take seriously, especially considering @GrandDreamPaper never claimed to be me).

[the-abyss-watcher]

As a disclaimer, everything I say here are things some plan to use against the Fediverse, as well as Side 7, a community I've disliked even before anyone else involved has.

The situation you (and by extension me, since people seem to think you're me) are in with KiwiFarms, ArtistsAware, and a large group of trolls all doing what many reasonable people are concerned amount to slander of you with faux PSA's (four on KiwiFarms with one of these threads bearing your name, one page by ArtistsAware, and five by independent seeming antagonists [and those are just the ones I am aware of and remember], with the fact there are this many people doing so while also contradicting each others' PSA's in various points being suggestable as proof they're not doing it because the info is true but because it's a form of attack, especially when you would only need one PSA if it was about the truth, with them not so involved in each other if it was just a matter of people thinking of doing the same thing), combined with sweeping age-verification rules that are sweeping the internet, have inspired in me a ten part string of hypothetical questions that are aimed towards you but also towards these individuals who there is absolute proof are ready to watch your every move, as well as every possible community this could possibly effect. Questions which you'd be circumstantially urged to answer in exactly twelve words (one word per question in order to squeeze a "yes" or "no" in, plus two extra words for grammar's sake) so as to not be roundabout like you often might be. While asking these questions, I won't be using pronouns like "you" or "your" but instead be referring to you as "T", since it's short for your name and because it's the most universal shorthand way of referring to you that everyone knows you by.

First question: We currently live in a world where people are being age-verified to make sure they're old enough to be in these communities, often by way of having people send in a photo of themselves holding up their ID's. These "exposers", which there might be more of in the future, have a picture they claim is of T and which they claim they're absolutely sure is of a guy. T's point of view is that she (and I use "she/her" because this is the pronoun T identifies with, and I try not to be transphobic by misgendering people, even if they are cisgender) was using a prop, a silhouette she commissioned from someone else for either Halloween or April Fool's Day, as an image to use as a front ID image to be scary in a cheesy way. Except for ArtistsAware, these "exposers" then tried to brighten the image and use the result to claim they found out what T looks like, with the implication being that it was meant to be a selfie, which T denies. And they use this to parade around their now supposedly supported hypothesis that T is a catfisher, based on their conclusion that the person in the photo absolutely must've been a guy, all based on the face shape. The thing is though, this is not how age verification selfies would work, if anyone was asked to show proof of their age. People fake selfies all the time, and age verification selfies would require elements like an ID. So by the logic of these "exposers", if they had a community, would they allow people to join simply based on someone uploading generic face photos?

Second question: Since these "exposers" live on going around and preaching to people that T must be bad news based on these PSA's (otherwise the PSA's wouldn't exist, now would they), if a list of communities was compiled that believe in the PSA's and what T is supposed to look like (and there are plenty of those, though the vast, vast majority are in the fediverse), could that be used to exempt T from age verification requirements, since they were so ready to believe in who she is based on much less when it suited them for other reasons? Could the KF thread, by some peoples' logic, not itself be used as confirmation of age, all without T ever having to give an ID?

Third question: Many of these people operate from communities which have a rule saying that you must be 18 years or older to use said community. This is infamously true in the case of KiwiFarms. The general protocol for any website is that an individual on a website is considered a child until proven to be an adult. Assuming people are adults is why these are going into effect as legal protocol changes in the first place. Meanwhile, in the case of KiwiFarms, people do not tend to be targeted until they are found to have had an account on the website, a practice they call "halal". People who are "halal" are considered fair game to make a thread about. In the case of T, she says she only joined to defend three people (MonsterMaster13, BulmaBriefs144, and Belltria, the latter going by a few names) on the request of (or loyalty to) her friend MonsterMaster13. So then what happens when someone is considered halal but is then seen as failing the age verification requirement? Do they cease to be halal, since, by the logic of the very community, for all intents and purposes, they're not an adult in the eyes of the community's vetting process?

Fourth question: Because I interact with T a lot, combined with the fact I defend T more often than not and the fact I have a similar writing style to T (for those in forensics, this is known as a writeprint, and it doesn't sacrifice the neutral stance required to ask these questions to mention that forensics doesn't typically consider a writeprint to be useful in any way at all), I am often mistaken as T and treated as if I am her. You can see this with every single individual who has tried to make a PSA about T. However, especially considering the aforementioned fact that writeprint isn't typically taken seriously, would anyone really, really be willing to bet on someone being someone else based on their communication mannerisms? Especially in a world which, like I said, has age verification requirements rolling out which by no means (and not anywhere) would allow an excuse like "I write like this person, so I must be an adult, you've got to believe me"? Is this how you'd run a community?

Fifth question: If what I asked in the fourth question is not, in fact, how you'd run a community, along with what I was asking about with using the photo as final evidence, wouldn't that be an implicit admission that you (referring to whoever it might concern in a given moment) don't believe in the PSA's about T or the rumors about anyone being T based on supposed communication habits?

Sixth question: Given that many on the side of T, while giving valid objections to the points in the PSA's, have not been doing so at any consistent speed or any consistent order, if one is to argue that they can just continue to believe the parts of the PSA's which have not been objected to, how, in their minds, are undeniable conclusions about T differentiated from debunked conclusions waiting to happen? Should there not be a point where someone gets to say "enough has been proven in defense of T that I view the PSA's with enough suspicion to not take their word for her anymore"?

Seventh question: If the assumptions are wrong that these questions will be answered in a way where people won't willingly stick by their willing double standards in the face of them being exposed as such, considering that practically the entire developed world has unanimously decided to insert age limitations on communities, in a way that invokes a reminder of the idea in peoples' minds that legal justification is not seen as the same as moral justification, since it wouldn't technically be a form of conflict with the individuals who are standing by these double standards or who have called for the existence of these legal safeguards, would it be so wrong to manipulate them and pit the side of the former that believes in strict identity verification with the side of the former that believes T doesn't need strict identity verification for them to see everything that has been said about her to be true, such as in using their treatment of T to give the impression to those who are providing stricter proof of themselves that logically it must mean they're being singled out? Would it be bad to influence perception of hypocrisy in such a way or to say you're assuming good faith in assuming someone is consistent?

Eighth question: If the whole point of showing a PSA is truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, doesn't that throw the credibility of the PSA's about T into question considering they differ in several key areas? And if it's in the nature of truth to not contradict itself (since nothing can be true or false simultaneously), does this not imply that an objection piece made to debunk the PSA's merely has to point out the contradictions in the PSA's in order to render it useless? Does saying otherwise (and claiming that someone needs proof of innocence, or at least proof of the other side), as the PSA's have tried doing in certain parts, not imply a PSA was not based in truth seeking?

Ninth question: If so many people believe so strongly in writeprint despite forensics so strongly dismissing writeprint, does that not imply people should be able to copyright/trademark their writeprint in the same way a lot of artists try to lay claim to their specific artstyle (or even their signature like Walt Disney did)? Would T thus be able to call for some kind of penalization of anyone who talks like her? And does the same apply to photos and gossip in general?

Tenth question: To paraphrase one of the "exposers" (a certain Google Doc one), does it not contradict oneself to have such an extreme reaction like the "exposers" have had while also criticizing the supposed extremeness of T's actions which the reactions are reacting to? If T's defense, the one where she mentions that all the things which were once issues she had with people (the people she's accused by the PSA's of having interactions with which their creators claim worry them) are settled (as in amends were made) and no longer outstanding, and that she has not only been forgiven by both the individuals involved and the managers of the communities but also has aged six years since then, doesn't amount to anything in the eyes of those trying to make the PSA's and often carry out what she maintains is harassment of her, does it not undermine any implications of theirs that she dwells on any of the issues, in a way that arguably locks her into the position of it all being serious? If the point at which they can say their so-called punishment of T has been fulfilled is based on intuition which is still yet to be defined (as opposed to a set limit), does that not confirm it's not about "punishing" her but that it's all a game to them?

Hopefully, ideally, hopefully, no, yes, yes, no, yes, yes, and then yes.

[casualxlfanatic]

Instead of self-reflecting, Triagonal writes a defensive word salad novel on an alt account plainly betrayed by identical typing habits, same inane obsessions, and the reality that only pedophiles defend pedophiles while agonizing over PSAs, playing the victim, and claiming everyone normal is in the wrong.

For someone who posts on Reddit non-stop, they're terrified to run a poll directly linking their DeviantArt comments about a minor. They know their arguments about "context" won't save them once people see what they actually wrote.

[inquisitron]

And if you had read a single word of it, do you want to bet you'd be saying what you're saying now? As a side question just to bring things home, dare I ask, do you parrot what you parrot because it gets across like proof does when you can't give it? The answer to why your words are misguided (in other words, what I'd otherwise feel the need to respond to you here with, aside from what I am about to say) is in the very thing you're trying to give a mockingly dismissive response to. It's what she has pondered as possibly being a mental epidemic, one which has permeated so many spheres of socialization in every area, and I'm starting to see why. One of the few guys with some sense even had to write a book about it to point it out.

To ask a question where every interpretation of it is relevant to what you're saying, does it take a scientist to come to reflect upon the fact that maybe "normal people" make mistakes? You all sure don't act like mistakes exist, or you all wouldn't be using isolated verbal incidents from six years ago as your flagship attack on an individual. And considering your history is nothing but one massive obsession (with additional signs of people being obsessed with her being everywhere, whether or not this is for accomplishment-related reasons), I wouldn't even consider you normal in the first place. Nor would it be anything besides peer pressure to use "normal people" as a tether. Not that the polls issue isn't taken care of.

Nobody is being betrayed by anything except bad actors like the ones who are being talked about here, ones who think every coincidence has a meaning they feel like it should have. Anyone who knows all of you can name several idiosyncrasies that suggest who you're talking on behalf of, but that's for the kind of people who, you know, jump to conclusions. Funnily enough, "Triagonal" does reflect (in the truest sense of the word), as shown by having a code of ethics she has written which many people have chimed in about, but you all end up shaming that as being something "nobody cares about". All as a part of a cycle of trying to stalk us (and spin things she says as something she must be at fault over, in a way that's quite obvious and which you do in your last two sentences, most blatantly in implying appearances precede context in your final words) only to then imply it's her or us at fault when we turn out to be boring.

[the-abyss-watcher]

I can't believe I (compelled by the circumstances of what you're all saying, that and what a "normal" person would entail) have to clarify I'm not any of you, not anyone who I don't explicitly say I am via any of my identities which are clarified by any of my explicitly clarified identities, and not anyone who is more normal that I come off in these identities. Like, my OCD-coded self would be the first to say I do things which are unheard-of among normal people, like having to read the whole TOS/contract before agreeing with it to join a group, avoiding reasons and temptations to generalize people even when it would seem to make sense, owning up to past interactions (refusal to disown as an extension of ourselves which is not a part of any code of ethics of mine, contrary to seeming common perception) like what would be considered the long-forgiven (by those involved) six-years-outdated ones (with it being noted that, if the lead-up was what people claim, administration in the community where it all took place would have removed physical memory of them) which you may notice have been cited in this context (even if by proxy due to some kind of barrier making it actually impossible to do it directly), and not succumbing to crowd mentality. And all of that is saying something since (in a way which only demonstrates my point further) every last individual in the situations described is diagnosed as neurodivergent, enough to make mistakes with uniqueness that varies as much as that of the ways we think (which is how we end up here), and so lord knows why it's a part of the equation (it's not even a part of the "code of ethics" in question; it has no hint of what one might call psychological favoritism as I have adapted my MO and its pursuit of order around what this conversation makes it seem like "normal people" cannot, in ways that beg the question of what that says about them).

[inquisitron]

I would make a koan-style joke relating to this constant hoopla that relates to the symbology of Raava and Vaatu (and what it entails, since you were a major player in the discussions about the Avatar fandom having the same mindset as your haters)...

...if not for the fact your specific hatedom (which I'm at the expense of) has a modus operandi which has the worst traits of order (things like the strictness) combined with the worst traits of chaos (things like the undisciplined way they enforce it), them not having anything that could be considered an equivalent to your code of ethics in all of its collective conformity.

Such a conflict could end in an instant if they were to rigidly communicate what would please them enough to stop being a bother to you should you honor this (which would constitute what they could call their own code of ethics, this negotiative attitude towards which is already a central idea in your code of ethics even if a deal cannot be reached without violating one code of ethics or the other), so as long as 1) they were willing to take that step unless their goal is self-indulgence and not peace and 2) it was something without circumstances unconditional enough that, by definition, conditions could not be met if so desired to the entirety of anyone's ability (in which case one might ask, why treat these individuals as if their backlash was meant to be obliged to?)

I am someone who, in another heritage-related identity I have (which this community's ins and outs work superbly for), otherwise turn the mechanics of logic on its head, and even I am not so shallowly absolutist as to chalk how interactions with me should be up to a boundary-challenged honor system.

While that is a question I'd have for them, I have a two-part one for you, one which you're circumstantially urged to answer in exactly one hundred forty four words so as to not be roundabout like you often may be.

Are the questions I initially asked (in the form of a mental exercise to implement in one's considerations, if the person's present equivalent to them is mentally asked in every given situation), and everything we said and everything I showed in this conversation, canon to the code of ethics (which you use as a code of honor for yourself and as a TOS in your groups and functions)? And how does your code of ethics identify itself in regards to whether (referring to the Raava and Vaatu thing) order should reign as a sole absolute or if room for chaos should exist like an occasional catharsis rather than a doormat (and if it's like fire where piecemeal chaos is to be seen as preventing total chaos in the same way controlled fire prevents enormous wildfires, and if your envisionment of how punishment works is related to it)?

[the-abyss-watcher]

As a disclaimer, everything I say here are things some plan to use against the Fediverse, as well as Side 7, a community I've disliked even before anyone else involved has.

The situation you (and by extension me, since people seem to think you're me) are in with KiwiFarms, ArtistsAware, and a large group of trolls all doing what many reasonable people are concerned amount to slander of you with faux PSA's (four on KiwiFarms with one of these threads bearing your name, one page by ArtistsAware, and five by independent seeming antagonists [and those are just the ones I am aware of and remember], with the fact there are this many people doing so while also contradicting each others' PSA's in various points being suggestable as proof they're not doing it because the info is true but because it's a form of attack, especially when you would only need one PSA if it was about the truth, with them not so involved in each other if it was just a matter of people thinking of doing the same thing), combined with sweeping age-verification rules that are sweeping the internet, have inspired in me a ten part string of hypothetical questions that are aimed towards you but also towards these individuals who there is absolute proof are ready to watch your every move, as well as every possible community this could possibly effect. Questions which you'd be circumstantially urged to answer in exactly twelve words (one word per question in order to squeeze a "yes" or "no" in, plus two extra words for grammar's sake) so as to not be roundabout like you often might be. While asking these questions, I won't be using pronouns like "you" or "your" but instead be referring to you as "T", since it's short for your name and because it's the most universal shorthand way of referring to you that everyone knows you by.

First question: We currently live in a world where people are being age-verified to make sure they're old enough to be in these communities, often by way of having people send in a photo of themselves holding up their ID's. These "exposers", which there might be more of in the future, have a picture they claim is of T and which they claim they're absolutely sure is of a guy. T's point of view is that she (and I use "she/her" because this is the pronoun T identifies with, and I try not to be transphobic by misgendering people, even if they are cisgender) was using a prop, a silhouette she commissioned from someone else for either Halloween or April Fool's Day, as an image to use as a front ID image to be scary in a cheesy way. Except for ArtistsAware, these "exposers" then tried to brighten the image and use the result to claim they found out what T looks like, with the implication being that it was meant to be a selfie, which T denies. And they use this to parade around their now supposedly supported hypothesis that T is a catfisher, based on their conclusion that the person in the photo absolutely must've been a guy, all based on the face shape. The thing is though, this is not how age verification selfies would work, if anyone was asked to show proof of their age. People fake selfies all the time, and age verification selfies would require elements like an ID. So by the logic of these "exposers", if they had a community, would they allow people to join simply based on someone uploading generic face photos?

Second question: Since these "exposers" live on going around and preaching to people that T must be bad news based on these PSA's (otherwise the PSA's wouldn't exist, now would they), if a list of communities was compiled that believe in the PSA's and what T is supposed to look like (and there are plenty of those, though the vast, vast majority are in the fediverse), could that be used to exempt T from age verification requirements, since they were so ready to believe in who she is based on much less when it suited them for other reasons? Could the KF thread, by some peoples' logic, not itself be used as confirmation of age, all without T ever having to give an ID?

Third question: Many of these people operate from communities which have a rule saying that you must be 18 years or older to use said community. This is infamously true in the case of KiwiFarms. The general protocol for any website is that an individual on a website is considered a child until proven to be an adult. Assuming people are adults is why these are going into effect as legal protocol changes in the first place. Meanwhile, in the case of KiwiFarms, people do not tend to be targeted until they are found to have had an account on the website, a practice they call "halal". People who are "halal" are considered fair game to make a thread about. In the case of T, she says she only joined to defend three people (MonsterMaster13, BulmaBriefs144, and Belltria, the latter going by a few names) on the request of (or loyalty to) her friend MonsterMaster13. So then what happens when someone is considered halal but is then seen as failing the age verification requirement? Do they cease to be halal, since, by the logic of the very community, for all intents and purposes, they're not an adult in the eyes of the community's vetting process?

Fourth question: Because I interact with T a lot, combined with the fact I defend T more often than not and the fact I have a similar writing style to T (for those in forensics, this is known as a writeprint, and it doesn't sacrifice the neutral stance required to ask these questions to mention that forensics doesn't typically consider a writeprint to be useful in any way at all), I am often mistaken as T and treated as if I am her. You can see this with every single individual who has tried to make a PSA about T. However, especially considering the aforementioned fact that writeprint isn't typically taken seriously, would anyone really, really be willing to bet on someone being someone else based on their communication mannerisms? Especially in a world which, like I said, has age verification requirements rolling out which by no means (and not anywhere) would allow an excuse like "I write like this person, so I must be an adult, you've got to believe me"? Is this how you'd run a community?

Fifth question: If what I asked in the fourth question is not, in fact, how you'd run a community, along with what I was asking about with using the photo as final evidence, wouldn't that be an implicit admission that you (referring to whoever it might concern in a given moment) don't believe in the PSA's about T or the rumors about anyone being T based on supposed communication habits?

Sixth question: Given that many on the side of T, while giving valid objections to the points in the PSA's, have not been doing so at any consistent speed or any consistent order, if one is to argue that they can just continue to believe the parts of the PSA's which have not been objected to, how, in their minds, are undeniable conclusions about T differentiated from debunked conclusions waiting to happen? Should there not be a point where someone gets to say "enough has been proven in defense of T that I view the PSA's with enough suspicion to not take their word for her anymore"?

Seventh question: If the assumptions are wrong that these questions will be answered in a way where people won't willingly stick by their willing double standards in the face of them being exposed as such, considering that practically the entire developed world has unanimously decided to insert age limitations on communities, in a way that invokes a reminder of the idea in peoples' minds that legal justification is not seen as the same as moral justification, since it wouldn't technically be a form of conflict with the individuals who are standing by these double standards or who have called for the existence of these legal safeguards, would it be so wrong to manipulate them and pit the side of the former that believes in strict identity verification with the side of the former that believes T doesn't need strict identity verification for them to see everything that has been said about her to be true, such as in using their treatment of T to give the impression to those who are providing stricter proof of themselves that logically it must mean they're being singled out? Would it be bad to influence perception of hypocrisy in such a way or to say you're assuming good faith in assuming someone is consistent?

Eighth question: If the whole point of showing a PSA is truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, doesn't that throw the credibility of the PSA's about T into question considering they differ in several key areas? And if it's in the nature of truth to not contradict itself (since nothing can be true or false simultaneously), does this not imply that an objection piece made to debunk the PSA's merely has to point out the contradictions in the PSA's in order to render it useless? Does saying otherwise (and claiming that someone needs proof of innocence, or at least proof of the other side), as the PSA's have tried doing in certain parts, not imply a PSA was not based in truth seeking?

Ninth question: If so many people believe so strongly in writeprint despite forensics so strongly dismissing writeprint, does that not imply people should be able to copyright/trademark their writeprint in the same way a lot of artists try to lay claim to their specific artstyle (or even their signature like Walt Disney did)? Would T thus be able to call for some kind of penalization of anyone who talks like her? And does the same apply to photos and gossip in general?

Tenth question: To paraphrase one of the "exposers" (a certain Google Doc one), does it not contradict oneself to have such an extreme reaction like the "exposers" have had while also criticizing the supposed extremeness of T's actions which the reactions are reacting to? If T's defense, the one where she mentions that all the things which were once issues she had with people (the people she's accused by the PSA's of having interactions with which their creators claim worry them) are settled (as in amends were made) and no longer outstanding, and that she has not only been forgiven by both the individuals involved and the managers of the communities but also has aged six years since then, doesn't amount to anything in the eyes of those trying to make the PSA's and often carry out what she maintains is harassment of her, does it not undermine any implications of theirs that she dwells on any of the issues, in a way that arguably locks her into the position of it all being serious? If the point at which they can say their so-called punishment of T has been fulfilled is based on intuition which is still yet to be defined (as opposed to a set limit), does that not confirm it's not about "punishing" her but that it's all a game to them?

Hopefully, ideally, hopefully, no, yes, yes, no, yes, yes, and then yes.

[casualxlfanatic]

Instead of self-reflecting, Triagonal writes a defensive word salad novel on an alt account plainly betrayed by identical typing habits, same inane obsessions, and the reality that only pedophiles defend pedophiles while agonizing over PSAs, playing the victim, and claiming everyone normal is in the wrong.

For someone who posts on Reddit non-stop, they're terrified to run a poll directly linking their DeviantArt comments about a minor. They know their arguments about "context" won't save them once people see what they actually wrote.

[inquisitron]

And if you had read a single word of it, do you want to bet you'd be saying what you're saying now? As a side question just to bring things home, dare I ask, do you parrot what you parrot because it gets across like proof does when you can't give it? The answer to why your words are misguided (in other words, what I'd otherwise feel the need to respond to you here with, aside from what I am about to say) is in the very thing you're trying to give a mockingly dismissive response to. It's what she has pondered as possibly being a mental epidemic, one which has permeated so many spheres of socialization in every area, and I'm starting to see why. One of the few guys with some sense even had to write a book about it to point it out.

To ask a question where every interpretation of it is relevant to what you're saying, does it take a scientist to come to reflect upon the fact that maybe "normal people" make mistakes? You all sure don't act like mistakes exist, or you all wouldn't be using isolated verbal incidents from six years ago as your flagship attack on an individual. And considering your history is nothing but one massive obsession (with additional signs of people being obsessed with her being everywhere, whether or not this is for accomplishment-related reasons), I wouldn't even consider you normal in the first place. Nor would it be anything besides peer pressure to use "normal people" as a tether. Not that the polls issue isn't taken care of.

Nobody is being betrayed by anything except bad actors like the ones who are being talked about here, ones who think every coincidence has a meaning they feel like it should have. Anyone who knows all of you can name several idiosyncrasies that suggest who you're talking on behalf of, but that's for the kind of people who, you know, jump to conclusions. Funnily enough, "Triagonal" does reflect (in the truest sense of the word), as shown by having a code of ethics she has written which many people have chimed in about, but you all end up shaming that as being something "nobody cares about". All as a part of a cycle of trying to stalk us (and spin things she says as something she must be at fault over, in a way that's quite obvious and which you do in your last two sentences, most blatantly in implying appearances precede context in your final words) only to then imply it's her or us at fault when we turn out to be boring.

[the-abyss-watcher]

Can you help me understand something please? And anyone can use what I'm saying as proof that the slanderers slandering you that I'm about to talk about are unreliable, along with other things I have said which also demonstrate they're unreliable.

So this person, whose messages there we have talked about as being nothing but slander (the whole thing is), has made an update yesterday. And it involves me. And I don't ever remember seeing such a compound double standard before.

Them: Claims everything on the blog is proven or provable.

Also them: Consistently fails to cough up proof I am you, while using that to claim you're having a "tussle" with someone named Mighty Thistle, saying you're "power-tripping" and "losing a game only you're playing".

Also them (double standard part three): Praising the fact that the person you're supposedly having a tussle with is sharing drama-related links, which not only would itself be against the rules of that place she does it on, since they forbid external conflict in the terms of service, which would make her a power tripper by its definition, but also disproves the statements about there being a game that "only you're playing" (while also presenting her citations to drama as a morally natural approach).

Also them (double standard part four): Presents it as an obsessive, unnatural approach for you to supposedly be dramatic (which again you're not).

There's also a part five, six, whatever that is talked about elsewhere.

Am I missing something?

Not that I know of, but something might come up.

[inquisitron]

Well, considering their direct response just now to what I just said (via their latest update) was to claim I was answering in a way that implied I was @GrandDreamPaper (since I was answering about myself) when my name is right there in her screenshot...

...all while oddly coming to an Emily-style conclusion that you somehow support murder (within which it is kind of implied that, since communities tend to ban people if they advocate wrongful forms of death, either ArtistsAware's conclusion is wrong or the world is out to get ArtistsAware) just because some random person (who you did condemn by the way, twice) was supposedly not being condemned by you (and all in particularly grammatically incorrect fashion, all while implying that, by their logic, I'd be them if I spoke against the Emily in question with language that made it sound like the victim was me, with the Emily in question being the only other person as deep in slander as the rest of us by such people as ArtistsAware), yeah, I'd say something would have come up.

[the-abyss-watcher]

Not what I meant by "something might come up", but whatever.

[inquisitron]

I guess there is nothing to come up then (assuming you mean details that would explain their hypocrisy; none exist, it's just them trying to use double standards when it pleases them). And I guess you can use this conversation as proof of their unreliability, considering they're certainly doing it again in their latest update, even using that to reference/cite their previous update (which, together with their current update, references this conversation as proof of something and conveniently not the parts of it which debunk the update in question) which I mentioned a response ago. All while mentioning semi-explicitly that their whole logic is "anyone who defends you is you and that means you're crashing out", not what should be the obvious logic of "people are crashing out because they're being accused of being you without proof in the first place". They can say they have proof of everything a million times, but then you ask for them to prove this one thing a million times, and they don't give it. And when they're accused of being someone else we know (literally the whole cast on the KF thread about you talks the same, which would imply they're all the same), they dismiss it as a fallacy. Which makes me think they think they have power because they think righteousness is inherently connected to their identities, and that certain forms of logic that help them only apply for them. Which only proves my point.

Again, you can show this to anyone. That and the fact one of the very things they link to, the Google Doc, is still there when the person observing what I'm saying (at whatever time they're observing it; I can bet on this) is observing it, so especially when you don't need three PSA's for a single person unless to implicitly prove that they're only meant to antagonize someone in the first place, I don't know where they're getting the "moving on", "one-up", or "crash out" schticks from (maybe examine what you are claiming to use as proof, in link form since screenshots can both be faked and don't show what the citations bring you to). Agreeing and sympathizing with you technically isn't even that unique especially as semi-famous people are doing so, even ones who point out just how old their current jabs against us are, and yet when this is brought up, they show their true colors (the ones that demonstrate they're only saying what they say to belittle us) by calling people (who are able to better prove they're different from you) the t-cult. They're to the point they even tire out Lovelesslass, another hater, in a demonstration of how they're projecting. What's one word you have to describe them?

[casualxlfanatic]

You're an exhausted sockpuppet pulling all-nighters at 4:18 AM in your State of Vermont to defend yourself, a pedophile, whose own siblings are normal people who can't stand you in real life, using the exact same typing style, obsessions, and frantic urge to deflect inconvenient facts, while still not understanding that no amount of insomnia-driven ramblings will make the archives go away or magically explain what "context" we've supposedly all been missing.

[inquisitron]

If you want to force that logic then, I guess it's settled. You are an alt of Lantiis and all the people in the slander-buried KF threads about Tri and her friend are all the same too.

Everything bounces off of me and sticks to you when it comes to hypocrites. What are you going to do?

[the-abyss-watcher]

Can you help me understand something please? And anyone can use what I'm saying as proof that the slanderers slandering you that I'm about to talk about are unreliable, along with other things I have said which also demonstrate they're unreliable.

So this person, whose messages there we have talked about as being nothing but slander (the whole thing is), has made an update yesterday. And it involves me. And I don't ever remember seeing such a compound double standard before.

Them: Claims everything on the blog is proven or provable.

Also them: Consistently fails to cough up proof I am you, while using that to claim you're having a "tussle" with someone named Mighty Thistle, saying you're "power-tripping" and "losing a game only you're playing".

Also them (double standard part three): Praising the fact that the person you're supposedly having a tussle with is sharing drama-related links, which not only would itself be against the rules of that place she does it on, since they forbid external conflict in the terms of service, which would make her a power tripper by its definition, but also disproves the statements about there being a game that "only you're playing" (while also presenting her citations to drama as a morally natural approach).

Also them (double standard part four): Presents it as an obsessive, unnatural approach for you to supposedly be dramatic (which again you're not).

There's also a part five, six, whatever that is talked about elsewhere.

Am I missing something?

Not that I know of, but something might come up.

[inquisitron]

Well, considering their direct response just now to what I just said (via their latest update) was to claim I was answering in a way that implied I was @GrandDreamPaper (since I was answering about myself) when my name is right there in her screenshot...

...all while oddly coming to an Emily-style conclusion that you somehow support murder (within which it is kind of implied that, since communities tend to ban people if they advocate wrongful forms of death, either ArtistsAware's conclusion is wrong or the world is out to get ArtistsAware) just because some random person (who you did condemn by the way, twice) was supposedly not being condemned by you (and all in particularly grammatically incorrect fashion, all while implying that, by their logic, I'd be them if I spoke against the Emily in question with language that made it sound like the victim was me, with the Emily in question being the only other person as deep in slander as the rest of us by such people as ArtistsAware), yeah, I'd say something would have come up.

[the-abyss-watcher]

Not what I meant by "something might come up", but whatever.

[inquisitron]

I guess there is nothing to come up then (assuming you mean details that would explain their hypocrisy; none exist, it's just them trying to use double standards when it pleases them). And I guess you can use this conversation as proof of their unreliability, considering they're certainly doing it again in their latest update, even using that to reference/cite their previous update (which, together with their current update, references this conversation as proof of something and conveniently not the parts of it which debunk the update in question) which I mentioned a response ago. All while mentioning semi-explicitly that their whole logic is "anyone who defends you is you and that means you're crashing out", not what should be the obvious logic of "people are crashing out because they're being accused of being you without proof in the first place". They can say they have proof of everything a million times, but then you ask for them to prove this one thing a million times, and they don't give it. And when they're accused of being someone else we know (literally the whole cast on the KF thread about you talks the same, which would imply they're all the same), they dismiss it as a fallacy. Which makes me think they think they have power because they think righteousness is inherently connected to their identities, and that certain forms of logic that help them only apply for them. Which only proves my point.

Again, you can show this to anyone. That and the fact one of the very things they link to, the Google Doc, is still there when the person observing what I'm saying (at whatever time they're observing it; I can bet on this) is observing it, so especially when you don't need three PSA's for a single person unless to implicitly prove that they're only meant to antagonize someone in the first place, I don't know where they're getting the "moving on", "one-up", or "crash out" schticks from (maybe examine what you are claiming to use as proof, in link form since screenshots can both be faked and don't show what the citations bring you to). Agreeing and sympathizing with you technically isn't even that unique especially as semi-famous people are doing so, even ones who point out just how old their current jabs against us are, and yet when this is brought up, they show their true colors (the ones that demonstrate they're only saying what they say to belittle us) by calling people (who are able to better prove they're different from you) the t-cult. They're to the point they even tire out Lovelesslass, another hater, in a demonstration of how they're projecting. What's one word you have to describe them?

[casualxlfanatic]

The twenty-six-year-old pedophile Triagonal talks to themselves on their multiple blogs because they are jealous of MightyThistle's happy life and lack of a Kiwifarms thread while struggling to comprehend a simple phone reflection of her boyfriend.

[the-abyss-watcher]

It would be no wonder anyone gets the wrong idea about how I am going about any of this if they think anybody any of you mentioned here is me or than any of the adjectives any of you use actually apply to me. Do we even know if this is what "GrandDreamPaper" meant by "reflective"? Way to look like her words are meant to be taken out of context again.

[inquisitron]

I can confirm I'm not anyone here in this situation. Not the accused, not the accuser, not the friend, which I have the right to say and have respected until proven guilty. Neither would I want to be someone who brags about supposedly having a happy life with her BF through other people only to have to relearn the hard way that breakups are always a thing, as signaled by the fact that whole saga disappeared from her collections as fast as the "small community love" chapter which was in turn replaced by the "happy life" phase, which in turn was replaced by what I have concluded was a removal to match "Triagonal's" removal in the other community. Goes to show what's holding up. There isn't anything complex enough going on under the surface to correct me, is there?

[the-abyss-watcher]

Not that I know of. As a related element of that, it's not like I would come to any conclusions as fast as you have. People overestimate my epicaracious readiness, or that which they might think sympathy for me should entail. I think of daily affairs too restoratively, or at least that's how it might be described.

[casualxlfanatic]

Triagonal's immediate leap to breakups or bans over MightyThistle wanting a simple fresh start online reveals how much her continued happiness stings them.

[inquisitron]

Not sure why you're calling me "Triagonal" now, but it has nothing to do with happiness stinging me (again, not sure why you think it might, but I will ask "The-Abyss-Watcher" if the happiness stings her in any way). Frankly, given one of the recurring conversations I have cited (the same one where you're accusing "The-Abyss-Watcher" of being suspicious because you've never seen her do so much as something like providing a selfie with her holding up a sign that mentions who she is, an action which is both up to her boundaries to decide to do and undermines another conversation I cite where you accuse her of being someone who we know you all know you might as well expected to apologize to, considering your history shows no words of "The-Abyss-Watcher" escape your eyes or ears or that of KF who anyone who knows what to look for knows is slandering her and her associates there while proving my point about knowing everything that "The-Abyss-Watcher" talks about), one could point out the "happy life"/"relationship" is to you what "The-Abyss-Watcher's" identity is to her (and that's assuming we think the former isn't even more suspicious considering every effort was made to portray it without portraying it). Not to mention the proof is in the pudding for at least one of the things mentioned.

[casualxlfanatic]

The twenty-six-year-old pedophile Triagonal talks to themselves on their multiple blogs because they are jealous of MightyThistle's happy life and lack of a Kiwifarms thread while struggling to comprehend a simple phone reflection of her boyfriend.

[the-abyss-watcher]

It would be no wonder anyone gets the wrong idea about how I am going about any of this if they think anybody any of you mentioned here is me or than any of the adjectives any of you use actually apply to me. Do we even know if this is what "GrandDreamPaper" meant by "reflective"? Way to look like her words are meant to be taken out of context again.

[inquisitron]

I can confirm I'm not anyone here in this situation. Not the accused, not the accuser, not the friend, which I have the right to say and have respected until proven guilty. Neither would I want to be someone who brags about supposedly having a happy life with her BF through other people only to have to relearn the hard way that breakups are always a thing, as signaled by the fact that whole saga disappeared from her collections as fast as the "small community love" chapter which was in turn replaced by the "happy life" phase, which in turn was replaced by what I have concluded was a removal to match "Triagonal's" removal in the other community. Goes to show what's holding up. There isn't anything complex enough going on under the surface to correct me, is there?

[deviantartdramahub]

It seems I got a message/inquiry. Alright, let's get through this.

So... two questions here. One, are you ignoring the fact people cannot click on a link if it's behind a screenshot which would make it dubious to say I'm actually referring to what you say you're referring to, and two, are people not allowed to change one's mind/stance? I did get more informed as time goes on. Because, you know, people learn things.

Also would like to point out two additional things. One, whatever the case was, her Buzzly profile didn't have "a selfie on it", it is said to have had a commissioned silhouette that wasn't intended to be presented as a selfie and didn't have that in mind, which I take it was confirmed during the pride month post. That's the way it would seem. Not that the hate art on the 1334ZKAGOME profile doesn't already allude to her actual selfie. And two, the person in the picture is indeed confirmed to be female anyways.

While continuing the lie about what someone does for a living, you sure call this place the trash blog supposedly full of stalkers when, well, look at what you're doing. Trash stalking, as shown in profile comments that try to revive something all dealt with, which as mentioned before, despite efforts to show otherwise, it is not in people's destiny to care. Get some rest and let non-alts be non-alts, because way to come to that conclusion. Not very communal as one can see.

It's telling that what people would call the post-Triagonal alts are allowed to remain on-site, as exhibited by their longevity.

[inquisitron]

Even without anything ever having happened just now, I'd still be able to say that, every time I think about everything described revolving around innocent usage of a silhouette for reasons that have been mistaken as someone attempting to display who they were, I have always questioned the idea that people who are so pro-transgender as all of you (on both sides of the conflict, and yes, you're all pro-transgender or claim to be, except ironically that one MIAD guy) could (on one side at least, the side opposite to you) be so fixated on that person's gender without ever having had seen any other part of them or even knowing that they are the person. However, there is now a certain additional curveball in the form of the fact that such people who can prove they really are in this situation on a day-to-day basis are going public about it, and with the real individual who is portrayed having been identified, the whole fixation factor here makes so many of the haters look incredibly stupid, as well as maybe the silhouette commissioner and the silhouette maker to a lesser extent, if you know what I'm about to mean. And she, not fully understanding everything that's going on, demands an apology from everyone who turned this into a situation where people ended up crusading against a woman for being mistaken as her, and says she's taking the haters' misgendering of her photo (which doubles as a misgendering of you, since you were mistaken as the photo) seriously (if you're wondering how we met, it was a fluke caused by my curiosity).

In a way which you're urged to do (via what you would call the rules of apologies) in exactly thirty-six words (dare I say, so as to not be roundabout like you often are), with no other conditions requested, would you be able to oblige, especially if I told you she asked if she could see if you would apologize to her first in order to show whether you really were better than your haters (who are more expected to apologize), assuming your probable assumption could be taken that your haters would never be people any of us could expect to apologize?

[deviantartdramahub]

Will anyone be reporting MightyThistle on Side 7 and Discuit?

You can count on it.

[inquisitron]

I didn't know at first if you meant you were reporting them for some reason or if you were just saying it could be counted on that someone somewhere probably might have wanted to for some reason, but in any case, the way things actually did turn out ended up being the most belated thing ever.

[the-abyss-watcher]

Re: The new response by Man In A Dress to my response to Man In A Dress

You dismissed someone's defense and clarification about themselves because you thought it was gibberish? Considering it wasn't like it was grammatically incorrect or anything, that's one of the most subjective reasons I've ever heard for insisting someone must be wrong, and that would be on you. Nothing more needs to be said in that department, except to say that saying that screenshots don't expire is like saying a speeding ticket doesn't expire (one expires when it's compensated for, and if the other one was circumstantially honest, that would too if not for inspiring spammy backlash from people like you and @CasualxlFanatic who have no concept of restorative justice like much of people today).

Your assertions (every single word on the topic) about TheOriginalR4v3n ("Emily") and Triagonal having jobs are all assumptions. Or do you have proof they're not (the video doesn't count)? The same goes for the whole "MoeAnguish" part of what you're saying. You seem to like to pass assumptions as arguments, including but not limited to dismissing me as supposedly being Triagonal (which explains why nobody is facing you face-to-face, not that complaining about that is valid as an argument when the only takeaway from it would be your joy at admins doing exactly what you predict them to do, not even that someone is more "right"), with NerdShamer being no less prone to this, including where they mention who has what point. And there it is again, the DARVO you like resorting to, because it's not like nobody in the art community has claimed someone to be Triagonal as a shortcut to discredit them (quite the opposite). Genuine question, who do you think observers will side with?

This is escalating.

[inquisitron]

That moment when your harassers are so hellbent on their crusades that they will fall for screenshot bait (which you have famously rightly condemned as unusable as a relic of truth and allowing others to dispel their usage of, to no avail) even at the cost of being dragged into something real and even repeating it. I have a question for you which you're circumstantially urged to answer in a yes-or-no format so as to not be roundabout like you often might be: Are you not concerned?

[inquisitron]

This is it, brothers and sisters

I have been thinking long and hard about this, and have come to a decision.

You see this? This has parked an epiphany in me.

In exactly 23 hours and 7 minutes, if nothing changes, I am going to unconvert from the Jehovah's Witnesses. I will either be converting to agnosticism or whatever @the-abyss-watcher is. All my decisions made as a Jehovah's Witness who was urged to ghost people (among other things) will reverse too.

[the-abyss-watcher]

Wait, really?

[inquisitron]

Yessiree ma'am. Might as well spite them, and the best way to do that is to join the greener grass on the other side (your Australian/Kiwi LDS diaspora branch, with all of its stories of Jesus and Australian aborigines). Can you teach me about it?

[the-abyss-watcher]

What would you like to know? Ask me anything.

[inquisitron]

Do we have to do it in this solo format? You say that and it makes me think of the AMA's everyone now knows you've been doing with your voice in your show of transparency. I'd love to participate in those.

[deviantartdramahub]

Quick question. One of the major criticisms of Triagonal is the fact she associates with some questionable people, correct? How is that currently being squared with Lovelesslass being allowed to both sponsor and support someone who recently got banned for being a literal pedo (on top of the usual red flags people question from her)? Is there some kind of complexity here worth sharing like there is for Triagonal? This does seem to be the case considering she has restored her agape to everyone again.

I'd be willing to let her explain.

[inquisitron]

Can confirm it was just a phantom stress she had to get off her chest; hopefully you forgive her.

[the-abyss-watcher]

Not that I would like to assume anything, especially given how it might be said to have just shallowly jumped back from that, hence the instinct to invite an explaination, even if it's a longshot.

[inquisitron]

Also, if you could answer the following question I have which you're circumstantially urged to answer in eighteen words so as to not be roundabout like you often are, how were you able to connect her existence to the FadedNyx name on X?

[the-abyss-watcher]

The ten e-cepts would maintain both names are distinct, but signature crossreferencing also doesn't lie. Skill issue, eh?

[inquisitron]

Her: Relays a message saying "make peace with your past because your future deserves it".

Also her: Implies you (and by extension me) don't deserve a future because of inconsequential parts of your past.

Either she is hypocritical or she has changed and acknowledges her prior rashness for what it has been. If you could answer this in the same format for the same reason, what's the leaning now?

[the-abyss-watcher]

I have a question about your code of ethics you apply as binding to yourself and all the groups and functions you run, one where you're urged to answer in the form of a yes-or-no answer to as a natural guardrail against you being roundabout. Is every last one of the messages I link to here (referring to the ones which are connected to you are cited or identified in any of them, whether by name or not) canon to the code of ethics in question as prescriptions/advice/precepts/additions to the mindset or approach one is meant to take away from the school of thought the code was meant to convey to adherents (with at least one thing being canon to it but only when read from a certain language)?

Yes.

[inquisitron]

And if I were to ask the same question again along with another one (my final two questions about the code of ethics under this name, though I might continue to do this under my other name), to the same effect (in which you are urged to answer in the form of a single answer that's four words long, with only citations that are things which are directly being asked about)...

Do certain competing codes of ethics have a "millet system" relationship to yours?

Would your answers to questions I cite here as having asked recently be canon to the same self-applied code of ethics, as well as what all of the things I link to here imply or are conveying as a main or side detail, referring to your input when it's given or your ideas when you're referred to as the only one who's subtly referred to (or the discussion itself when it's not)?

[the-abyss-watcher]

Yes to it all.

[inquisitron]

And, if I were to ask my previous question (which is technically the same as or a variation of my first question, as well as a question I just asked, though I had a kind of director's cut going on and was urged to ask here too) one more time (in the same format for the same reason), would your answers to questions and statements I cite here, as well as our own communicated epiphanies of what the answers are before you answer them sometimes, be canon to the same self-applied code of ethics, as well as what all of the things I link to here imply or are conveying as a main/side detail, referring to your input when it's given or your ideas when you're referred to as the only one who's subtly referred to (or the discussion itself when it's not)?