Seriously, @Baron -

1) You may want to slow down a bit and think about what you're about to post before you hit the "post" button. Most of what I've seen you say is word salad that is almost incomprehensibly nonsensical. Use a [insert your language here] to English dictionary or better yet, Google translate if you have to.

2) in case you haven't caught on yet, "you don't go well" doesn't really make any sense in English. That's why it's so funny to us, and it's become a bit of a running gag.

3) you really need to learn to lighten up a bit and take a joke. I'm almost willing to bet that I'll have another unhinged, broken-English rant from you waiting on my notifications before I finish this, saying your usual:

no it is you who doesn't go well. You are literally projecting not going well while being a donkey virgin incel gypsy.

@Antelope

I fully expect that you won't read this, but here goes anyway. Sometimes Sisyphus enjoys pushing that boulder.

3 months ago, you were already making fun of this guy There was no interest in 'help'.

A) you can simultaneously help someone and make fun of them.

Ever notice how much I bust balls on here?

It's testing the other person.

It gets them to reveal how secure they are in themselves, and whether they have a sense of humor.

Alternatively, it gets them to reveal that they're humorless dolts who take themselves way too seriously.

If they can take a joke, or better yet, dish one out in return while catching the help buried within, then great.

Otherwise, I'll just make fun of them. That's all they're good for.

There was no interest in 'help'.

Four months ago I tried to help him in a more obvious way, sans the ball-busting (at first).

If you had bothered to seek the entire truth instead of just stopping when you found something that helped push the conclusion you prematurely decided upon, you'd know this. May's SOTM award is linked in the June one that you linked, and within May's is a link to that forums post. That's how I found it again so quickly.

Again, if you bothered to look beyond surface-layer findings that reinforce the conclusion you'd already chosen, you'd have seen that.

I said that twice, because this is a major shortcoming of yours, and I hope you'll wrestle with it a bit.

You said:

What you keep calling a "dogpile" was not organized in any way, but rather several individual users responding as individuals to his idiocy.

The above shows that is false.

Not at all.

A) what you kept calling a "dogpile" was about a different user.

B) I already explained to you within that thread that you linked in the words "you said" how many people had previously tried to help that dude, across many of his usernames and many different askTRP forum posts.

In fact, this tribe [Sperg Of The Month] is dedicated to collating the people you choose to dogpile

So I'm a dogpile of one man?

The above shows that is false

Not at all, for the reasons I already showed.

You say this every fucking time someone points out one of your shortcomings, and I have yet to witness a single occurrence of actual projection.

That was said by me, to @baron, and given the context and his history, I stand by those words.

The projection should be rather apparent at this point

Not at all.

Telling him that his writing is borderline nonsensical is an observation about his writing. There's nothing psychological about it whatsoever, and thus his response of "no you are literally projecting about nonsensical writing" is a misuse of the term and just a further demonstration that my observation is right.

You have failed, primarily because your research was incomplete, and you went in with your mind made up with a complete unwillingness to even notice anything contrary to your previously-chosen conclusion.

You do that a lot.