I vaguely remember asking for your permission to create a test sockpuppet to test whether the registration was automatic. I think I did this during the sockpuppet era of Screech Owl to gauge your integrity on related matters of sockpuppet knowledge and foreknowledge. But at no time did I keep this information from you, the administrator ... nor did I ever use the test sockpuppet (if I actually did create one, can't remember, it's been more than two years) to post anything.

I've only ever used my own identity to post my arguments. And this is true for all the forums that i've ever visited. When Zook speaks, he speaks in broad daylight on a public lectern, not in the shadows that you sometimes prefer, Chico (e.g Heebert).

The fact that you would attempt to spin my purported test sockpuppet as mischief ... well, that speaks volumes, doesn't it?

Pax

ps: I'm not addressing the rest of your post because it is anchored in a deluded perspective; and I'm trying to cut down on my time wastages.

Your memory is dirt poor. You had to create the test sockpuppet without my permission and without my knowledge in order for it to be a true test.


Exactly right.


I hope you can see that you were correct to keep it from me, otherwise it would have been a meaningless "test".


You did create one. You asked me to delete it after the test was complete and published, which I did. You did not post anything using that sockpuppet.

All of that is from my memory, Zook, which is evidently much more reliable than your memory, which you typically use with great certainty to construct your perspective of past forum events.


I didn't present it as mischief. The fact that you would claim I did is what actually speaks volumes.


After what you have just demonstrated, I think we can better understand how ironic it is to see you claim that the rest of my post is "anchored in a deluded perspective."

No. We had a problem with mysterious sockpuppets. I did not want to contribute to the mystery by creating a sockpuppet - even a test sockpuppet - without your knowledge. You are the administrator. You are the protector of the forum. So me telling you in advance was the correct thing to do. I certainly wasn't going to create a sockpuppet without your knowledge for the reason that I wanted full transparency on my side so that you wouldn't have the ability to accuse me of being a sockpuppetteer. As we can see by your attempt here to frame me as a sockpuppetteer when I've never engaged in sockpuppetting (no doubt to deflect attention away from my accusation of your Heebert sockpuppetting on Universal) ... my concern was warranted.



I was correct not to keep it from you, given the increasing mistrust between you and me at that time. This wasn't meant to be a true test of anything.

IIRC, my test creation of a second account ... was meant merely to satisfy my own curiosity on whether you would stop me from creating an additional account to the one I had (from the same IP address) ... not whether you could stop me. I told you of my intentions in advance so that you would be obliged as a proper administrator to stop me (that is, if you could).

If you didn't stop me even after having full knowledge of my intentions, then that would have meant that you were (a) truly powerless to stop the Screech Owl from creating sockpuppets ... or that (b) you were playing a game by pretending to be powerless. But if you did stop me, then that would have indicated that (c) you allowed Screech Owl to deliberately sabotage the forum (for your own gaming purposes).

I just wanted to see whether you would stop me (or not) so that I could eliminate case (c). That said, my recollection of unimportant events more than two years ago is such that I don't even remember if I had actually created the test second account.



Thank you. So, in effect, I had never actually participated in sockpuppetting, which is the way I remember it. Like I alluded to earlier, give me the high heated orange ball and a public park lectern and I will blast the ears off Prince Charles or any other Rothschild lackey in audience. I have nothing to hide.



You will notice, Chico, that I make disclaimers to the effect wherever my memory is not reliable. If you were properly parsing, you would have noticed that I made the appropriate disclaimer wrt my recollection about the test second account of two years ago. That said, my memory has little to do with my proofs and analysis. For those, I go with the provable facts and preponderance. Nice try.



Well, you certainly left the impression that I was a sockpuppetteer, e.g. by not explaining earlier that I never actually posted using the test second account. The way you left it (in the other post) opened up all kinds of room for false conjecture. What Screech Owl did was deceptive. There was not even a scintilla of deception in my registering a test second account on the same IP address. Indeed, the criteria for being a sockpuppet account was not even met by me because I never posted with that second account. Yet you called it a test sockpuppet.

Yes, Chico, spin it all you want, but I never actually had a sockpuppet account ... only a test second account on the same IP which I informed you about and which you subsequently deleted upon my request.

There is a world of difference between how things actually were, Chico, and how you spun my briefly-held second account on the same IP as a test sockpuppet? I don't do sockpuppets. You did a sockpuppet on another forum, e.g. Heebert, because you were denied membership on your own merits. I rest my case.

Still, you win again because you have managed to waste more of my time. As for yours, there are better ways to spend time than to obstruct truthseekers with trivial arguments and stale 2-year-old sockpuppet drama. Here's hoping you find higher purpose one of these days.



It remains deluded ... but hey, that's okay. Remember, I made a concession to your delusions before I started posting here again. If I don't accommodate your need for unwarranted uncertainty - which is your delusion to bear - I don't think I can last long here. So cheer up. Nothing personal.

Pax

Your logic just doesn't apply. Like I said, at that time registration was completely open and the whole registration process was handled automatically by the forum software. I didn't pay any attention to any registrations since it was all automatic.


Not so. We have seen you recount past events in highly modified form whenever it benefited you, which is the source of your reputation for "spinning" forum history.


I didn't accuse you of any deception. My definition of sockpuppet is having more than one user account active on the forum.


I knew better than to apply for membership at Universal Spectrum. I watched Andy apply twice and get rejected both times. That was enough for me to see that not all people were welcome there, contrary to the posted US policy.


No worries, Zook. I don't take it personally, and you shouldn't either. I suggest your "reactive temper to proactive tamper" policy is rooted in taking things personally. Your need to build up your credibility among readers is a big part of that, and that springs from your over-sized ego.

I accept your explanation. Just saying that at the time that I created the test second account, I had some uncertainty about the registration process and a curiosity to find out more.



Your perspective. My own perspective differs vastly from your account of things. In normal reality - as distinguished from Chico's delusional reality - I do not in fact have a reputation for spinning things. I do have a reputation for presenting strong arguments to audiences that are perhaps mismatched for handling those arguments: the meek. Those hapless heirs to the planet.



You implied as much when you said I created a sockpuppet account.

Fact check: I created a second account on the same IP address for testing purposes with your full knowledge. Your characterization of my second testing account as a test sockpuppet account implies some connection to nefarious purpose. Indeed, an objective definition of the term sockpuppet implies a mask and a different identity from the owner of the hand that wears it. But even by your definition, Chico, I did not have a sockpuppet account because I never used it, e.g. it was always inactive.

I accept that you were careless with the coinage, Chico; but you can understand how a man of integrity would feel when accused of creating a sockpuppet account (for any reason). Wait, perhaps you can't relate to a man of integrity ... I'd briefly forgotten that you were the hand up Heebert's huff and puff. Mea culpa.




Why can't you do what normal empathic people do, e.g. stay away from where they are not wanted. I mean, I left without ado when the administration staff removed me from the MOD chamber. It didn't matter to me why they kicked me out; or who arranged for my unceremonious departure. I had the personal dignity to leave the larger forum. So, when it was clear that you weren't wanted at Universal, why did you still attempt to enter Troy in the belly of a smelly woolen Heebert horse?

Integrity is not gauged just by words, Chico ... but also by actions.



Yes, I take things personally when warranted. That is my birthright as a human being. I don't claim to be or want to be an organic robot. Organic robots are the type that populates mobs and can be hitched to wagons driven by sociopaths, on the latter's voyages into chaos and all the way through to post-chaotic totalitarian rule.

As for over-sized ego ... to the meek - who are genetically threatened by strong minds - any exhibition of a strong mind is a fault in itself.

That said, the meek carry amulets ... and potions in their gunnysacks, to quickly uncork and splash upon the heads of those that frighten them, on a moment's notice. One of these mystical splashes is called Oversized Ego. By spraying the objects of their fear with Oversized Ego, the meek receive the same level of protection that crosses give against vampires ... apples against doctors ... and welded eyelids against, well, most anything unsightly really.


Pax

I've learned to dislike your phoney fact checks, Zook. You did create a second account for testing purposes, but without my advance knowledge. I only knew about it after the fact, when you posted about it on the forum. Please don't claim that I had full knowledge when I know that I did not. Your claim is dishonest, deceitful, and manipulative. I need not remind you what human psychological type displays those characteristics.


Interesting. You don't seem to have a very good grasp of empathy. This is quite revealing, Zook.


And again here. Dignity, credibility, integrity, stature, and respect are all so important to you. Sociopaths demonstrate the same pursuit as a fundamental part of their chameleon-like nature. Note that Bill Ryan does this too. Very interesting...


And again here! Your ego can take no criticism and is obliged to crush any who would dare do so. Sociopaths operate like this, too! I could even point to Bill Ryan again.

Zook, I like you (Who can resist a sociopath's charm? Ew, Bill Ryan again!). I'm glad you're back. Your usefulness and educational value are indeed special.

The above is the kind of slimy surreptitious character attack I've come to expect from you, Chico. For I never claimed you had advance knowledge, just that you had full knowledge of the reason why I created that second account, and precisely because I myself informed you as opposed to you discovering the fact for yourself.

For the record, I can't recall when exactly you knew about my second account, e.g. either before or after I created it. I know we had a few skype chats during that period, and I may have informed you ahead of time during those chats, or I may have just created it and informed you immediately afterwards ... my memory of the exact time sequence is sketchy at best. Two years removed from an infinitesimally small event in my life will generally do that to me. But it really doesn't matter, does it ... for you had full knowledge of the reason why I created it, the fact that I never used it, the fact that I asked you to delete it, the fact that you deleted it.

If you're trying to rescue some measure of credibility for yourself ... on the slightest of opportunities that had presented itself, e.g. where you are able to momentarily transform Zook's lack of time sequence recollection into an apparition of Zook's mendacity ... then be my guest. Innuendo has a peculiar odor. But the odor dissipates fast when surrounded by the aroma of truths and integrity.

To wit, full knowledge does not automatically imply advanced knowledge.

Pax

I understood full knowledge to include advance knowledge, since full knowledge was what you had. Like I said, I didn't know about your second account until you posted a description of your completed test on UP, so I certainly didn't have full knowledge, or any knowledge, until after the fact. Rather than this being a "slimy surreptitious character attack", it sounds more like a communications problem to me.


Heck no, I'm not interested in credibility. What do I need credibility for? I'm just a messenger delivering a message. The message can stand or fall on its own. It doesn't need me to vouch for it. It's that way with truth, too. Whether I have credibility or not does not change the truth of a message. The same goes for integrity. Con-men, like Bill Ryan, need to project credibility and integrity to better fool their victims. Not me. I'm not out to fool anyone.