What subs never appear in /all? Is there a list somewhere?

submitted by Chipit from self.AskSaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (32 children)

wiped the floor

lmao get over yourself. nobody but you (and your now-banned simp) thinks that

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (31 children)

funny. When you were the one who initiated the whole thing by going on and on about your karma and how special it made you.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

I made one post and it offended you. One post isn't "going on and on".

[–]bobbobbybob 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

a true measure of character is the ability to own your own actions. You singularly fail at that. When you first arrived, you spammed the place with links to your various social media profiles and blog sites. remember? do you then remember attacking me for 'stalking you' because i clicked on one of the links and talked about the content that you had directed us to look at?

You are a pathetic example of the narcissistic self-involvement and dishonesty of trannies.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

a true measure of character is the ability to own your own actions. You singularly fail at that.

I do own my actions, I just don't apologize for offending snowflakes.

links to your various social media profiles and blog sites

I think it was essays, actually. Regardless, that doesn't break the rules. Calling everyone "retards" does.

do you then remember attacking me for 'stalking you'

You literally went through my profile replying to all my old posts. That's stalking.

You are a pathetic example of the narcissistic self-involvement and dishonesty of trannies.

Actually, that describes you. Narcists always project themselves upon others. They also think the world revolves around them, which you do.

[–]bobbobbybob 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

oh, classic. the ubermod, threatening to ban me for calling people 'faggots', calls me a snowflake, in a roundabout way.

I think it was essays, actually.

3 social media profiles, at least one blog site. but we'll never know, because I can't find it on your profile anymore. What I wrote wasn't about 'breaking the rules", it was about your subsequent accusations of 'stalking' to people who followed the links you told us to read.

You literally went through my profile replying to all my old posts. That's stalking.

I literally didn't. there you go again with the gaslighting and lies. I responded to your FIRST POST at the time you wrote it and you accused me of stalking you THERE. Again. I've looked, but can't find it anymore. Did you really scrub your history to make your subsequent re-telling of history seem more legitimate? You are a fucking cancer, dude.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

threatening to ban me

It's not a threat, I won't do it. What I have already done is asked magnora to ban you.

for calling people 'faggots', calls me a snowflake

Again, I didn't write the rules.

3 social media profiles

I never posted my profile pages, but I think I posted a few of my Gab posts; I know I posted some YouTube videos, and all of my essays are posted on SaidIt. Whether or not that counts as "social media profiles" is up to you, but regardless, is ain't against the rules.

at least one blog site

What blog site? This is one-hundred percent false — I won't say a lie, because it's possible you mistook another website for a blog site. Regardless, I ain't got no blog.

but we'll never know, because I can't find it on your profile anymore

Yeah, I deleted a lot of posts a while back because I wanted you to shut up and stop going through my profile. That didn't work, but I thought it would.

I literally didn't.

You did, actually.

I responded to your FIRST POST at the time you wrote it and you accused me of stalking you THERE.

Actually, that was long after my first post. Quite suspicious that your response isn't there... even when I'm in admin mode, which lets me see deleted/removed comments...

Did you really scrub your history to make your subsequent re-telling of history seem more legitimate?

No, I literally just wanted you to shut up; I didn't think past that.

[–]bobbobbybob 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (11 children)

jesus christ. Can you not see what you write?

I never posted my profile pages

You DID post your social media. Have you forgotten telling us at great length about the capitalisation of your profile name in different sites? I think I have a copy of what you wrote in /s/retards if you need a quick refresher. That was when you were lying about who you were.

Regardless, I ain't got no blog.

https://theameliamay.neocities.org/ archived https://archive.is/wip/ca9KZ

Remember, the only reason I know it exists is because you posted a link to it

Yeah, I deleted a lot of posts a while back because I wanted you to shut up and stop going through my profile. That didn't work, but I thought it would.

Yeah, you wanted to hide the evidence so that you could create an entirely FALSE narrative. Such as your comments after where you pretend that the first post we can see is your first post. Its hilarious that you can write that you scrubbed your nonsense in order to stop me harrassing you! I just made a post about you in retards and left it at that (Edit, turns out I didn't, as it isn't there. a now deleted user must have done it and removed it on the way out), until you had a go at me about how unpopular i was and how popular you were, that you are now attempting to retcon since you failed so spectacularly to either win the argument about the pointlessness of karma (which you now pretend is your position) or even have more karma than me, the person you were so scathing about not having much karma in the first place.

you just speak lie after lie after lie.

You post some good content, but your utter lack of honesty means you should never admin. I know you are bored of this /u/magnora7, but really.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Have you forgotten telling us at great length about the capitalisation of your profile name in different sites?

That wasn't a post, it was a comment, and it didn't include a link.

But yes, I did that, and it was stupid, because I was obviously wrong. I shouldn't have assumed that the URL was case sensitive.

https://theameliamay.neocities.org/ archived https://archive.is/wip/ca9KZ

That isn't a blog, it ain't even a dynamic website. Not all websites are blogs. Also, the queue on that archive website is super long... lol

Yeah, you wanted to hide the evidence

No, I just wanted you to shut up. If you have the links, I'd take a screenshot and we'd have evidence to discuss. I just ain't got the links.

Such as your comments after where you pretend that the first post we can see is your first post.

That was literally my introduction post. If you hover over the timestamps, you can clearly see that post was made around forty minutes after I registered. This is public knowledge.

your utter lack of honesty means you should never admin.

You sound like that u/lxxxviii guy that keeps making new accounts to evade a ban... hm...

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

That wasn't a post, it was a comment, and it didn't include a link.

You can say whatever you like, as you've scrubbed the evidence.

That was literally my introduction post. If you hover over the timestamps, you can clearly see that post was made around forty minutes after I registered. This is public knowledge

And your First post was an introduction, with many links such as to your (low effort) blog and your essays.... 40 minutes is a long wait, and we can look at how many lies you've managed to write in the past 40 minutes as evidence of that.

You sound like that u/lxxxviii guy that keeps making new accounts to evade a ban... hm...

You can't help but abuse power, can you. Now you try to link me to some pedo fuckwit to push your agenda. May god grant you wisdom and understanding of your manifold character failings.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

And you know the original argument was because you got offended that I posted a comment twice and began dragging discussion down the Pyramid of Debate by making accusations and calling names.

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

are you now acknowledging that you began the whole "i have imaginary internet points and that makes me better" thing? or you going to try and gaslight me and deny it, by behaving like a child and making out that anything that was said beforehand has any bearing on the subject at all.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I never said "that makes me better". It was just a dumb post about "hey, look, I got useless internet points that literally have no value".

I bet you saw that post and thought it was about you.... lmao, the world doesn't revolve around you. I didn't even think about you until you started freaking out.

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

It was just a dumb post about "hey, look, I got useless internet points that literally have no value".

literal gaslighting.

I bet you saw that post and thought it was about you.

That's exactly what you tried to transform the narrative to when i pointed out the meaninglessness of imaginary internet points. If I recall (and will find, if you have not scrubbed your history) your initial presentation was quite opposite

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Nope. That's what it was.

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

prove it. where is the post?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I deleted it so you'd shut up.

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

I deleted it so you'd shut up.

Does that kind of pivot, to make the person you are lying to 'responsible' for whatever dishonesty you are engaged in work very often? I get that it is a direct 'appeal to ego' attack, utilising the target's ego to derail them from their focus, but it is pretty lame and makes you appear weak.