Does anyone *really* have to be told to avoid anything connected to 'Scrap Princess'? The guy failed out of pre-K art class. Dogs randomly urinating on walls produce coherent images more often than he does.
You should separate your dislike of Zak from reality: you are accusing him of being abusive, not providing proof as to why you are claiming that - that's wrong.
You can hate him all you want - but accusing him of things without evidence is wrong.
beyond that: your list is good
MBC are evil, and undeniably a cadre of the very worst offenders.
I uploaded the video you linked: and the things they and other people say, and have done, is abhorrent.
(4)
That video contains no nonsense, beyond the quotes from the harassers - and you claiming it is nonsense either demonstrates your bias, or your deliberate misinforming of people.
The 40 or so comments focused solely on you show how damaging you are to any cause that might result in a benefit to you. I would recommend engaging in some introspection and trying to discover why you are acting destructively and encouraging others to act destructively in your name.
I recall you saying that you have never lied. Can you explain why the Vivka court case specifically lists out lies that you have told on your blog?
"For the same reasons discussed above, the Court finds that the following statements in Smith's February 13, 2019 blog were false:
- "That's basically a total admission on the accusers' part they know the accusations aren't true and there's nothing to check or investigate" [Statement 2-02] (Exh. 2-02);
- "As for Viv... I never bought her breast implants. Mandy did, and I was not happy about it because it was a lot of money to splash out on someone we'd only known for a few months" [Statement 2-09a] (Exh. 2-09);
- "The short version is: everything damning in both posts is contradicted by eyewitnesses and the accusers' own statements" [Statement 2-11] (Exh. 2-11);
- "1. I got her breast implants and carried on a campaign of verbal humiliation about how she looked. None of this is true: Mandy bought the implants out of our joint bank account and I was upset with her for doing it because we hadn't known Viv that long and it was a lot to spend on someone we'd basically just met" [Statement 2-16] (Exh. 2-16);
- "2. He knew I was in a rough financial situation, ... Again none of this is true" [Statement 2-18a] (Exh. 2-18);
- "... I know the name of the couple she was planning on moving in with--because it's the same pair of people she moved in with after we broke up" [Statement 2-18b] (Exh. 2-18);
- "The only time I said anything to Viv about who she should or shouldn't have sex with was: One time (after she'd moved in) Viv and I went to a friends' comedy show in the upstairs room of the House of Blues on Sunset. I think Mandy was too sick to go. Viv wanted to have sex with me in the bathroom and I told her I couldn't because it was early days and I didn't know if Mandy would be ok with that. That's it" [Statement 2-19a] (Exh. 2-19);
- "... if Viv wasn't happy, she never said anything, even when we eventually broke up"[Statement 2-19b] (Exh. 2-19);
- "Vivka: Completely contradicted by the bare facts, and--if they was true--paints Mandy as an abuser" [Statement 2-39] (Exh. 2-39);
- "Mandy and her friends' statements don't have any specific incidents of abuse
corroborated, conflict with each other, and their claims don't match their own statements at the time" [Statement 2-75] (Exh. 2-75);"
-Introspection reveals: a bunch of people (many of whom you named) acted like dicks. That's the answer. Why are there so many comments? People keep acting like dicks.
-"Can you explain why the Vivka court case specifically lists out lies that you have told on your blog?" It doesn't -- it lists things that were CLAIMED to be lies.
-If you can't tell the difference between a claim and proof, it explains why people are acting like dicks.
The court found that Zak had reasons to believe that every statement in his blog was true, and so Vivka completely lost the case. Which is right there in the court documents.
Once again. You can just say that you, personally, don't like Zak, and not repeat the lies of an anonymous 4chan mongrel. Not liking someone is fine. Joining in with the harassers is not fine.
"The Court's finding that Smith's February 13, 2019 blog contains several false statements, as identified above, does not end the inquiry ... Here, each of Smith's defamatory statements is a false denial of the assertions in Grey's February 12, 2019 Facebook post."
The 40 or so comments focused on Zak show two things.
1) The mongrels that you described in your post are still trying to ruin lives.
And 2) there are people who DON'T want the mongrels and other harassers to ruin lives.
And like I said 40 or so comments ago, you can't at the same time condemn the mongrels and do exactly the same thing that they do. Seriously. You KNOW that they are liars and harassers. You know that they specifically targeted Zak.
I said that the court cases were failures, not that you failed in your suits.
Any court case that results in me being able to legally and rightfully say that "you coerced your ex-girlfriend into having sex with other people" is classed as a failure in my estimation.
You're actually not legally allowed to say that: I successfully sued people for saying that. I did not do that. You are just repeating something you read courtesy of Skerples, a Mongrel Banquet Club guy, not the actual court result. If I had I'd be in jail and the police would not have dropped their case. If you believe I did that: sign a document claiming I did that.
Always verify what Zak and his wind-up toys are saying since they are always omitting, deflecting, distorting and perpetuating a fake narrative of events. There is a reason Zak himself wont link to those documents.
The court cases are important because they show that Zaks autobiographical fanfiction and the sickening reality are quite far apart. However, he did not coerce her, although that was what he alleged to have said (which was found to be false). The reality is, if possible, even more pathetic. It seems he pressured her but the pressure failed.
p.24 of Zak Smith vs Vivka Grey "Statement Six includes two subparts: (1) that Smith "pressured" Grey to have sex with other people of Smith's choosing; and that (2) that Smith did not allow Grey to persue a romantic interest with individuals in whom Grey was interested.
With regard to the former statement, the Court finds that the evidence for Grey's expression of being pressured to have sex with other people of Smith's choosing. First, the court notes that Grey's February 12 post does not use the word 'coerced' as alleged in Smith's complaint. Instead Grey used the term "pressured", which is an inherently subjective term, i.e. whether Grey felt "pressured to have sex with other people of his choosing." Further Statement Six did not encompass any statement that Grey actually had sex with people of Smith's choosing, only that Grey was pressured to have sex with others.
Within this framework, the evidence introduced at trial supports that Grey's statement that she "was pressured to have sex with other people of his choosing ('he called it sport-fucking') is substantially true. (Exh-102.)."
So now Scholarch, you will be called AN LIAR WHO LIES. Never mind that 1/10th of the creepy shit Zak is on record as doing in those cases is enough to merit permanent ocstracism. You are a liar who lies.
Six out of eight of the accusations levelled against him by Vivka Grey were found to be true. He will deflect and point at the fact that one statement was found to be false, and he was awarded one dollar in damages along with court costs to deflect from this reality, now enshrined in the legal system. Zak's main argument appears to be that since he is not literally a persecuted criminal, that he should not suffer any negative effects from being a creep, even though he himself advocates for absolute negative effects for non-jailable offenses.
Acting like anyone who sides with zak is a "wind up toy" is incredibly disingenuous. This is especially true because they are, by in large, women. You, and people like you, are eager and excited at the prospect of continuously ignoring, reducing, and lying about women - and usually this is because you are so greatly biased or misinformed it is ludicrous.
The reason anyone sane doesn't link to skerples is because skerples is a horrible 4chan troll, MBC member, and anonymous.
The court cases have all seen zak prevail.
You, like so many other goons, 4chan trolls, and overall harassers continue to spew the lies that attempt to portray the start of case as the end, and you do this in tandem to also being Completely Clueless and uniformed, because you scream sock puppets and disregard the scores of people (mostly women) who vehemently back up zak, and offer proof, like zak does.
Zak, or anyone else in their right mind, won't link to this blogpost because it's manipulative and lying.
To repeat the quote, "the term "pressured", which is an inherently subjective term, i.e. whether Grey FELT (emphasis mine) "pressured to have sex with other people of his choosing."
Anyone who claims that Zak actually did abuse Viv based on this record is, yes, a liar. Or just a stupid person who can't be bothered to know what "subjective term" means.
Also, "Six out of eight of the accusations levelled against him by Vivka Grey were found to be true" is just a flatout lie. ZERO out of Vivka's accusations were found true. The court record literally says so.
Zak can easily link to the court case separate from the blogpost, but won't since it looks horrible.
To repeat the already quoted paragraph:
"Within this framework, the evidence introduced at trial supports that Grey's statement that she "was pressured to have sex with other people of his choosing ('he called it sport-fucking') is substantially true. (Exh-102.)."
And then it cites the examples. Three verbal occasions, one email. Then Nagy testifying she overheard C.Z. being suggested. Then M.B. 's testimony. P.25.
Its just there. You have the court docs. Its not hard to find the exact statements, or what evidence was offered, nor read the final court decision.
You linked to Skerples, an anonymous 4chan Mongel Banquet Club dude as if he is a source.
Everything you said is obvious bullshit for 1 reason:
You aren't pointing to any evidence. You are pointing to a _claim_ .
And you keep dodging the main thing:
Upon what evidence was this claim made?
Either you don't know or you're afraid to say.
Which is why (to quote DR Weisman's summary of the situation) :
"
-He has successfully sued his harassers for defamation three times in three countries, and has shown no sign of slowing down.
-He has never lost a case. One case (Mearls’) was dismissed because the attack was judged too vague, not because the underlying attack on Smith was judged to be true.
-The case which ended with the harasser admitting “After 2 years I’ve found no proof he did anything wrong, online or off” was the most recent one.
-The man who had to admit that had access to as much of the evidence from all the other cases as he cared to ask for.
-There has never been a single screen shot, text, email, recording or other document meaningfully used as evidence of Smith’s guilt.
-Whatever else happens, legally, in the future, the only evidence used against Smith so far has been people claiming he did something wrong; people who do not agree with each other on key details, got caught lying under oath, and had histories of mental illness long before meeting Zak.
"
He has successfully sued his harassers for defamation three times in three countries, and has shown no sign of slowing down.
He has never lost a case. One case (Mearls’) was dismissed because the attack was judged too vague, not because the underlying attack on Smith was judged to be true.
The case which ended with the harasser admitting “After 2 years I’ve found no proof he did anything wrong, online or off” was the most recent one.
The man who had to admit that had access to as much of the evidence from all the other cases as he cared to ask for.
There has never been a single screen shot, text, email, recording or other document meaningfully used as evidence of Smith’s guilt.
Whatever else happens, legally, in the future, the only evidence used against Smith so far has been people claiming he did something wrong; people who do not agree with each other on key details, got caught lying under oath, and had histories of mental illness long before meeting Zak.
Just saying something is something doesn't make it so, and is not the slam dunk you think it is.
Once again, you just say something without any proof beyond - "a 4chan troll googled documents That Are Public, and acted like they were in any way incriminated"
Such blatant misinformation and cherry picking - if what you parrot is or was true, then zak would not have prevailed.
"You linked to Skerples, an anonymous 4chan Mongel Banquet Club dude as if he is a source."
Deflection. I linked to a site that hosts the lawsuits. It doesn't matter who links the document if the document is real.
"Everything you said is obvious bullshit for 1 reason:
You aren't pointing to any evidence. You are pointing to a _claim_ ."
By now the strategy, hitting reply and hoping people don't actually read the documentation, is obvious, but in your position it is the only thing you can do so I suppose we cannot fault you for it. The lawsuit outlines exactly why it found 6 of Vivka's accusations to be true and one of them to be false. You won the defamation case because indeed, one of the 8 accusations was false.
"Which is why (to quote DR Weisman's summary of the situation) :"
Weisman is not a credible source. You pretending to be him less so. A lawsuit is.
"-He has successfully sued his harassers for defamation three times in three countries, and has shown no sign of slowing down."
Strategic ambiguity. Two of them settled for minor amounts. You sued one and you were awarded one dollar and court fees. How much is that compared to the fine you had to pay for intimidating a witness. You keep pointing to the outcome but ignoring the damning evidence that is brought up during discovery.
"-He has never lost a case. One case (Mearls’) was dismissed because the attack was judged too vague, not because the underlying attack on Smith was judged to be true."
This is fraudulent reasoning. The determination for vagueness precedes the determination for accuracy. If an accusation is too vague its truth does not need to be ascertained. So you lost that one. You also lost the one against Gencon, and the appeal, the documents of which are once again provided by Skerples.
Redefine words all you want. All people need to do is read the actual documents.
"The case which ended with the harasser admitting “After 2 years I’ve found no proof he did anything wrong, online or off” was the most recent one."
Deflection. Irrelevant to the sick things revealed during the Grey case. All this has nothing to do with the lawsuits and the creepy shit you did. And again, the article you wrote under Weisman's name is not a legal document, but the legal documents are.
While we are on the subject, people might wonder, what was he doing around all these criminals before they betrayed him and mentally ill women that accused him of rape? Why does he keep getting kicked out of all these groups? Why did he get kicked out by Arnold K? And Patrick stuart? You are the same, if not worse, you have the same politics, you have the same behaviors, just without the impulse control.
A brainwashing victim who seems to communicate in literal propaganda flags. This is what we are meant to believe are critical thinkers and truth-detectors? Puh-leeze.
I encourage Scholarch set the record straight and post exactly what the lawsuits say you did and did not do. In this way both parties cannot help be satisfied.
Weissman is a she - if you had _actually_ read what she wrote, instead of just blatantly lying, you would know
Both sides pay the other for things, that is part of court proceedings - and you seem to think a lot of things without actually providing the evidence - it had nothing to do with "intimidation"
those are not the actual documents, quit pretending, please.
Dehumanizing people to disregard them is a classic strategy of fascists.
Quit acting like anyone who disagrees with you is fake - and instead, try providing actual evidence.
actually for real speak to people involved, instead of repeatedly linking to an anonymous 4chan MBC troll.
saying that someone who disagrees with you, and provides evidence, is brainwashed, shows a staggering amount of bias or serious intent to propagate misinformation.
Disclaimer: Professional NPC blog does not in any way ask, pay, or hint that harassers and liars promote it.
Also, Patrick Stuart admitted that he lied about Zak in the interview, and later confirmed that, yes, it's him in the recording, and that, yes, he was interviewed by Dr Clio Weisman.
Is there any proof that Dr Weisman didn't write the article?
Let's ask the harassers!
Hey, Harper, do you have proof that Dr Weisman didn't write the article?
And did you manage to solve the math problem of "how many of Vivka's statements were found true in court if she lost the case?"
Vivka's statements that were "substantiated as true" were ruled as such because the judge ruled that it's impossible to prove that she didn't FEEL whatever. Feelings are subjective.
The statement that actually accused Zak of doing something was found to be untrue. She lied about him and was found guilty.
For anyone with the stamina to sit through two rounds of this, I trust this has been illustrative for the general conduct of Zak and his band of brainwashed cultists.
Even though clear evidence is provided, the counter-strategy is always to then question the evidence, question the sources, deflect, bring something up, lie, change the definition of words, misinterpret the statement and so on. If you are reasonably competent at this strategy, and while Becami Cusack and Spider are not because they are stupid and lack mental flexibility, Zak is, you can protract an argument for a long period of time, claiming victory if the other party stops replying, and then claim victory.
You will note the original case against Gencon was dismissed, the dismissal was appealed, the appeal was dismissed.
The trick here is that none of these people actually believes anything they say or that words have any meaning, and by speaking in an ambiguous fashion, they can utter words that look like an objection.
There is a logical way to counter much of these sort of tactics by examining the entire context of the interaction. One side is providing receipts, the other is trying to discredit the receipts but can provide no logical reason for doing so, while neglecting to provide their own, giving only snippets. One side speaks in vague, ambiguous language 'I prevailed,' 'I won a lot of money' which if examined, turn out to be misleading, the other focuses on clear evidence, hard numbers. How much money did he win, how much money did he have to pay for intimidating a witness, how much money does he owe in legal fees to Gencon vs how much money was actually spent on the lawsuits.
Wicked people will always try to prevent you from getting a clear picture, because they know that their lies will come apart. Dissmissal of the Appeal to the dismissal of the Gen Con Case.
Always provide context since the clearer the picture is, the less room these people have to create a fake narrative. The lawsuit in question that Zak has actually fought and won, was Vivka Grey vs Zak Smith. The lawsuit determined the following:
* Greys statement that Zak forced her to move in with him was false (p.15). This statement was found to be false and defamatory and this was the reason Zak won the case.
* Greys statement that Zak expected her to be at his beck and call for sex, any call any service or he would become "angry, huffy, frustrated and upset" was found to be true, corraborated by testimony of Nagy, Grey and Zak himself, who admitted that if she would not perform he would kick her out of the house. p.18. Creep.
* Per Grey, Zak demanded that Grey engage in particular sex acts with him, even if she didnt enjoy it at first, quote "Now you will do it with me" Even if you didn't enjoy it the first time. The court found that Grey demonstrated this to be true. P. 20. Creep.
* Zak threatened to kick Grey out of the house if she didnt perform for him. Zak admitted himself this was true and this is corraborated by an email exchange. P. 21. Again, creepy.
* Grey testified sometimes the sex would hurt and Zak would tell her to loosen up and shoved a pillow into her face while he continued. This statement was found to be true, with Zak himself testifying that she pressed a bag of frozen peas against her crotch to deal with the soreness. P. 22 . Creep.
* The aforementioned sex pressuring was found to be true. Once again, these creeps will try to pass it up as 'just an opinion,' but there are, as you can read on page p.24, considerable receipts. Creep.
* Grey testifies that Zak spent months telling her how unfortunate and pointless her natural body happened to be. This is backed up by testimony and was found to be credible by a court. P. 27. Hardly surprising given his callousness. Creep.
* Based on his inability to prove damages, but because the single statement did expose him to ridicule and hatred, the court decision awards him nominal damages of $1, plus court fees (p. 34)
* It should be noted that throughout the document, Zak is caught mischaracterizing the accusations against him, and his statements on the issue were found to contain numerous falsehoods (p. 37-39). Even if you are extremely gulliable and believe that these were innocent mistakes, Zaks own standards (which he will pretend to believe but does not abide by in any way shape or form) equate spreading misinformation without fact-checking with lying, so he should be treated as a liar. It should also be noted that his penchant for spreading falsehoods is now enshrined in court documentation.
As I hope everyone can see, there is no point in trying to engage in good faith with people that are categorically incapable of doing so. Zak is incapable of learning from his mistakes, even if they put him in severe financial hardship as a result. He cannot co-exist, is incapable of self-reflection and will not amend his ways. The only recourse is ostracism with extreme prejudice.
-- I'm a person with strong opinions that spreading disinformation online is WRONG. Disinformation is false information designed to mislead others and is deliberately spread with the intent to confuse fact and fiction.
-- There is a reason that the courts require proof of wrong doing before a life is damaged.
-- I see NO PROOF of wrong doing on Zak's part and substantial proof of the opposite -- people making false statements and losing in court.
Hey Zak, long-time no-see. I wanted to take this opportunity to clarify that, according to the Senate judiciary hearing, you're mother sues my bunghole good and hard through my jorts. I'll sign any document to that effect you put in front of me.
The problem with otherwise a useful article is that you refuse to make the next logical step (or, in this case, to follow the step that others already made), because you don't like it.
"The Worst People That You Have Never Met" demonstrates how the mongrels attacked Zak S. and ruined his life, and clarifies that they are horrible exactly because there was no reason to attack Zak other than their own satisfaction.
And if you believe that the description of those people in the article is true (and they confirmed it themselves, in the audio recordings, and later confirmed that the recordings are genuine), then you have to make the next step and believe that the rest of the article is true, too.
It doesn't mean that you have to like Zak. It means that you can't both expose the mongrels' lies and machinations and agree with their lies about Zak being abusive.
Like, Tenkar of the Tavern keeps saying that he dislikes Zak, but also keeps reminding it doesn't mean that any claims about Zak's wrongdoing are correct until there's some proof - and there has never been any proof.
As for courts, I know of exactly one slander case against Zak that was resolved in court. Zak won that case.
Otherwise, good job. People should know who the bad actors are, and how exactly they ruin lives.
Zak S is the most harmful person in RPG community just because at least twice a month I see people discussing his personal life and alleged crimes instead of discussing games and that actively harms my mental health. Stop kicking the dead horse dammit, why should I see the dirty laundry of some random dude everywhere I go?
you have 0, and I repeat 0, knowledge of what happened, and then you claim that being witness to someone trying to defend themselves is somehow harmful - and you are willing to publicly decry this person because you can't handle anything other than talk about games?
Zak already defended himself. Court had its session, end of story.
I couldn't care less about some morons continuing to accuse him, as well as his shagbuddies jumping to his defence. Can't say who of these two sides are more obnoxious but I'm tired of you both.
You couldn't care less so much that you join in with the "morons continuing to accuse him", claiming that "he is the most harmful person in RPG community". You aren't tired of lying, you aren't tired of harassing people, and you're not tired of denying war crimes.
Do you know what a joke is, lmao? I doubt a sane person could read my very first comment about "most harmful person" and take it seriously. Schedule a meeting with your shrink pls.
You were the one who complained complained about "actively harming your mental health". Which still sounds shitty, because, again, war, genocide, another massive drone attack on civilian homes just yesterday. The things that would threaten a normal person's mental health more than seeing Zak mentioned.
The country whose language you write in is actively committing a genocide right now, and the worst thing that harms your mental health is Zak S? You might need to rethink your priorities, you know.
And if you don't want to see people discussing "alleged crimes", it would help if you would tell people who lied about Zak, James Raggi, fifth edition of Vampire etc etc to stop lying.
1) The article decisively does not demonstrate that Zak S has no reason to be attacked. If it did it would be believed widely, instead it is ridiculed, and if it is mentioned at all, this is followed by a disclaimer that the description of Zak is clearly biased. There are no people outside of a small coven of cultists who believe it entirely, and well they should. It should also be noted the author has not stepped forward to confirm she wrote all of it.
"And if you believe that the description of those people in the article is true (and they confirmed it themselves, in the audio recordings, and later confirmed that the recordings are genuine), then you have to make the next step and believe that the rest of the article is true, too."
2) This statement is false. Snippets of audio can be deceptive and can easily be misinterpreted and taken out of context. Until the entire logs are published, we have only tantalizing proof of misdeeds. If the entire interview is out there, show it. This statement is also false in another way. Great propaganda (and this was far from great, as its failure and universal skepticism illustrates) can present compelling evidence and truth to make a fundamentally deceptive point.
"It doesn't mean that you have to like Zak. It means that you can't both expose the mongrels' lies and machinations and agree with their lies about Zak being abusive."
4) Having to like Zak would be impossible at this stage, so the first sentence is correct. The second sentence is stupid. Observe the following:
"Spider Minstrel posted in this thread. Spider Minstrel is a rapist."
We know the first one is true. The second one might seem plausible based on his character, but we have no evidence to support this, and his physical strength is probably below average. The list goes on and on. Therefore, the second sentence is probably false. But since it is not causally linked to the first sentence, the first one can still be true.
"Like, Tenkar of the Tavern keeps saying that he dislikes Zak, but also keeps reminding it doesn't mean that any claims about Zak's wrongdoing are correct until there's some proof - and there has never been any proof."
5) The statement is false. There is proof of Zak doing evil weird shit right here:
The fact you refuse to accept it as such is irrelevant. A court has authority and credibility, Zak does not.
"As for courts, I know of exactly one slander case against Zak that was resolved in court. Zak won that case."
7) This is a great example of the magnitude of dishonesty of these people. So he is aware of the Court case, he is aware that 6 out of 8 statements were found to be true, he is aware Zak was fined for intimidating a witness, he is aware Zaks own slander court cases against Mike Mearls failed and his case against GenCon failed catastrophically (~30k in owed legal fees), but he will omit that. And since this is not a direct, bold-faced lie, but a lie by omission, they find this acceptable. That is why they will never be replatformed.
"Otherwise, good job. People should know who the bad actors are, and how exactly they ruin lives."
A reminder that Zak calls everyone liars and bad actors and, like his former friends, seeks to have them deplatformed.
1: once again you disregard real people because they do not jive with your view of things.
this is point is for is to cast doubt without actually providing any evidence - you are repeated antisemitic and sexist conspiracy theories like so many goons and 4chan trolls repeatedly have done.
2: but.... the people who were interviewed either exited with tail between legs, or confirmed they are real.
5: no, once again, that is skerples, an anonymous 4chan MBC troll.
Zak has credibility - because the court found vivka guilty of defamation, and zak innocent of defamation. By your own logic, zak is beyond credible.
7: you continue to say things, but don't provide evidence.
1. The people who were interviewed confirmed that, yes, they were interviewed by the author. Stop lying about "well maybe she didn't even write that".
2. Again, the people who were interviewed confirmed that the audio is geniune. There is no context in which what they said doesn't sound like the words of horrible people who confess they did horrible things. Stop lying about "well that's misenterpreted".
3. Many people like Zak - people who comment on his posts, buy his games, play his games. Stop lying about Zak (in fact, that's all you've been doing here).
4. If I posted in this thread something that would sound like I commited a rape, and you could prove that it's actually me posting it, then your claim would make sense. Otherwise, it doesn't. Stop lying about logic (this escalated fast).
5. As I wrote already, the post that you're linking is lying and manipulative. It's ridiculous how you claim that actual audio recordings of people confirming that they harassed Zak are "out of context" but a manipulative post about Zak is "proof". Stop lying about both, again.
6. As I wrote already, not one of Vivka's statements in her slander case against Zak were found to be true. Stop lying about the court.
From what I know, Mike Mearls never sued Zak, and neither did GenCon. Zak sued GenCon, appealed, won the appeal, sued again, and appealed again. That has nothing to do with the fact that there was only one case of someone accused Zak of slander (Vivka), and Zak won it (none of Vivka's statements were found true). Stop lying about the court.
8. Zak didn't write the article. Stop lying about the article, and stop lying about Zak.
1. Deflection and lie by omission. Whether the people were interviewed by Weismann does not automatically prove that she wrote the entire article.
2. Deflection and incompetent attempt at exerting pressure. Little audio snippets are easy to take out of context, and only someone trying to exert emotional pressure would try to encourage you to jump to conclusions before you had the full evidence. An interview would not be. Post the interview if you have it you abuse-enabling fraud.
3. Yes he's managed to get all of two minions, both brainwashing victims and sycophants, his very own Salacious Crumb and Grima Wormtongue.
4. You are only pretending to engage for the benefit of low information readers like yourself because you are too stupid to play this game properly. Can you imagine an apple mr. Tsevelev? Can you tell us what it would be like if you didn't have breakfast this morning?
5. Deflection. The article in question has links to the lawsuits and even graciously allows Zak and his gaggle of loons, perverts and sycophants to holler and throw mud, like you are doing. Audio snippets taken out of context are not nothing, but they do not trump, nor do they have anything to do, really, with the decisions made by a court. The burden of proof and amount of scrutiny is much higher.
6. Once again, people can read the case Vivka Grey vs Zak Smith, and also the outcome, which determines that 6 out of 8 of those accusations were found to be true, one was found to be opinion, and one was false and therefore defamatory, along with the reasons for why they had reached each conclusion, including in the case of Zak throwing Vivka out of the house if she didnt have sex with him, an admission by Zak himself that this is true. Lol.
7) You missed a number there? Whats wrong Spider old chap? Getting tired? Slave brain getting overclocked? Zak failed to sue Mearls and he failed to sue Gencon, dummy. Also, anyone can take a look at this document for his failed appeal against Gencon, and witness his disgusting deadbeat behavior.
You can keep repeating something but I've literally provided you with the relevant quote and page number and until you reply in kind, you aren't fooling anyone.
8) Prove it you wormtongue. Where's Clio Weismann saying she wrote it? You have no foot to stand on and you are an equivocal, deceiftul, lying coward.
1. "The article decisively does not demonstrate that Zak S has no reason to be attacked. If it did it would be believed widely..."
Argumentum ad populum
2. " This statement is false. Snippets of audio can be deceptive and can easily be misinterpreted and taken out of context. "
Describe the context where "I never caught him in a lie" from someone who claimed I lied or "I didn't seek sources" from someone who could have somehow is ok.
3. Namecalling people who are better than you doesn't make them wrong.
4. Why would someone pretend to engage? If everyone SECRETLY agrees with you then why are some conspiring to disagree? What are they getting out of it in your fantasy?
5. You said I did 'weird shit;--you link to a 4chan guy claiming I did. That's not proof.
6. I did not claim that, you're lying. I didn't want to live with someone who I was broken up with and who cheated on me, that's normal.
7. I didn't lose my case against GenCon, its on appeal again--I already won one appeal in that case. I don't call everyone "a liars and bad actors" for example: all the people who testified for me are neither.
So--you just got caught lying in a way anyone could check without getting out of your chair Nothing you say could be considered credible ever.
I already asked you to stop lying about logic. You claim that Dr Weismann did not write the article, you have no proof of that, the burden of proof is on the accuser, you're still lying, for the only reason that you are trying to defend the harassers and blame the victim. Stop doing this.
You keep lying about "well it's out of context" after I pointed out that there is no context in which harassers would look justified.
You admit that you were lying about "no one likes Zak", it would be nice if you admitted it clearly: "I, Harper Fonktin, was wrong when I claimed that it is impossible to like Zak". Kind of like Ettin had to admit that he lied about Zak, only he had to pay money for his lies, too.
You switched to personal attacks against me, which doesn't prove anything except that you're defending the harassers and using their tactics. Also it looks ridiculous.
You keep lying about Vivka's case that she lost. Anyone can read the court documents and see that she lost it.
Here's a simple mathematic problem for you, simple enough for a pre-schooler. Zak sued Vivka, one of Zak's statements was found true in court, Vivka was ordered to pay Zak one dollar. Question: when Vivka sued Zak, how many of Vivka's statements were found true in court if Zak was ordered to pay Vivka zero dollars?
1. You keep repeating these little statements that you do not understand as if they were protective mantras that will grant you victory. If there is a pronounced difference in writing style and a deviation from the norm, with highly aberrant content, asking for corroboration from the author is reasonable. If said corroboration is violently rejected when the effort expanded to do so would be trivial and immediately silence all dissent, that is cause for suspicion. You keep using 'proof' as if this had any meaning but you have not even defined by what standards such proof should be given. Again, you don't understand the words you are saying, you are simply aping the format of a debate.
2. You cannot prove that because that would be proving a negative. You do not have knowledge of all possible contexts. Again, you are just pretending to appeal to logic when you don't understand anything you are saying.
3. Your only recourse is to resort to little word games, ignoring ambiguity and figure of speech, or trying to understand what is being said, because you are unable to operate on any other level. The idea that language represents some sort of underlying reality is meaningless to you because you are an automaton, clumsily aping the format of debate.
4. Mockery is appropriate when such a pathetic display is coupled with such confidence. Certainly you are no stranger to such contempt. You should not be commenting at all, this is not meant for people like you.
5. Vivka losing the case is not being debated. You keep mischaracterizing it because you don't want to focus on the 6 statements that were found to be true, the admission that Zak was found to be spreading falsehoods in it and the 1 dollar settlement which makes him look stupid. Here is the court case. Anyone can read it (and hopefully they will!).
6. This is an excellent illustration of your lack of mental flexibility. You should know I of course read the court case so you should know the defamation component of Vivka's case was not sueing Zak based on her own statements being true, but on Zaks statements being defamation (p.39). The court found that several of his statements on his blog were false, but did not qualify as defamation. Stupid.
But disregard all that, give me a recipe for Apple Pie instead.
1. Nothing's changed since last time I addressed this: 1. "The article decisively does not demonstrate that Zak S has no reason to be attacked. If it did it would be believed widely..."
Argumentum ad populum
2. Nothing's changed since last time I addressed this: " This statement is false. Snippets of audio can be deceptive and can easily be misinterpreted and taken out of context. "
Describe the context where "I never caught him in a lie" from someone who claimed I lied or "I didn't seek sources" from someone who could have somehow is ok.
3. Nothing's changed since last time I addressed this: Namecalling people who are better than you doesn't make them wrong.
4. Nothing's changed since last time I addressed this: Why would someone pretend to engage? If everyone SECRETLY agrees with you then why are some conspiring to disagree? What are they getting out of it in your fantasy?
5. Nothing's changed since last time I addressed this:
You said I did 'weird shit;--you link to a 4chan guy claiming I did. That's not proof.
Again, you keep linking to -claims-.
6. Nothing's changed since last time I addressed this: I did not claim what you said above, you're lying. I didn't want to live with someone who I was broken up with and who cheated on me, that's normal.
So you admit that you lied again. And no, your lies will not be disregared. You are a liar and a harasser. You admit that Vivka's claims were NOT found true. She accused Zak of defamation, and the court found that Zak did not commit it.
Now back to your other lie. What proof do you have that Dr Weisman did not write her article? Either present it or stop repeating that lie (and you can't present it, can you? Because THERE IS NO PROOF. Because you're a liar and a harasser).
Ok. Just reading through all of this. I looked at the court case, and I actually agree with Zak's comments.
-- In the Viv case...the statement that actually accused Zak of doing something was found to be untrue. Because Vivka had NO PROOF. Zak prevailed. Vivka was found to have defamed him. I find that extremely significant.
-- As far a the Worst People Article, people who destroy other people's lives based on conjecture are straight up WRONG and from reading the article that is EXACTLY what the article shows.
What context? That makes no sense. The people interviewed in the article admitted to spreading disinformation -- information without proof. There is ZERO proof of any wrong doings.
No Deflection is necessary --
In the Vivka statements that were "substantiated as true" were ruled as such because the judge ruled that it's impossible to prove that she didn't FEEL whatever. Feelings are subjective. The statement that actually accused Zak of doing something was found to be untrue. She lied about him and was found guilty of defaming him.
I've read the article. The people interviewed admitted to spreading disinformation -- information without proof. That doesn't require context. Going through all of this, NO ONE has any proof of Zak's wrong doings. In the Vivka statements you keep bringing up that were "substantiated as true" were ruled as such because the judge ruled that it's impossible to prove that she didn't FEEL whatever. Feelings are subjective. The statement that actually accused Zak of doing something was found to be untrue. She lied about him and was found guilty of defaming him.
I think you’ve got a deep problem here: footnote #3 fundamentally doesn’t belong in the same essay as a link to a hagiography of Zak S (which is fundamentally what “The Worst People You Have Never Met” is).
Fundamentally, "The Worst People You Have Never Met" is a collection of statements by some horrible people who confirm that they did horrible things. The importance of Zak's innocence is just in that there was no objective reasons for them to ruin his life, other than "he's not nice". There is no justification, no "I could've done the same thing in their position" for a normal, sane person.
I've read the article. It is researched and the subjects were interviewed. The people interviewed admitted to spreading disinformation that resulted in destroying someone's life. That is evil.
Does anyone *really* have to be told to avoid anything connected to 'Scrap Princess'? The guy failed out of pre-K art class. Dogs randomly urinating on walls produce coherent images more often than he does.
Good to know who the talent-free hacks are. Thank you!
If it's any consolation, they will die in the muck they build.
Those certainly are damning receipts.
You ceasing to write here is a loss, though understandable.
Huh... Yeah, this makes a lick of sense. Reddit is a cesspool.
(3)
You should separate your dislike of Zak from reality: you are accusing him of being abusive, not providing proof as to why you are claiming that - that's wrong.
You can hate him all you want - but accusing him of things without evidence is wrong.
beyond that: your list is good
MBC are evil, and undeniably a cadre of the very worst offenders.
I uploaded the video you linked: and the things they and other people say, and have done, is abhorrent.
(4)
That video contains no nonsense, beyond the quotes from the harassers - and you claiming it is nonsense either demonstrates your bias, or your deliberate misinforming of people.
I didn't fail in my court cases. I successfully sued three times--its in the article you linked--right next to the accusers admitting they lied.
-Zak
The 40 or so comments focused solely on you show how damaging you are to any cause that might result in a benefit to you. I would recommend engaging in some introspection and trying to discover why you are acting destructively and encouraging others to act destructively in your name.
I recall you saying that you have never lied. Can you explain why the Vivka court case specifically lists out lies that you have told on your blog?
From page 37 of https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/mnjjavkgiyken3wfu8vui/1936638092-1-43.pdf?rlkey=em24q9sa0tnhvhuuh2o2qyfgp&e=2&dl=0:
"For the same reasons discussed above, the Court finds that the following statements in Smith's February 13, 2019 blog were false:
- "That's basically a total admission on the accusers' part they know the accusations aren't true and there's nothing to check or investigate" [Statement 2-02] (Exh. 2-02);
- "As for Viv... I never bought her breast implants. Mandy did, and I was not happy about it because it was a lot of money to splash out on someone we'd only known for a few months" [Statement 2-09a] (Exh. 2-09);
- "The short version is: everything damning in both posts is contradicted by eyewitnesses and the accusers' own statements" [Statement 2-11] (Exh. 2-11);
- "1. I got her breast implants and carried on a campaign of verbal humiliation about how she looked. None of this is true: Mandy bought the implants out of our joint bank account and I was upset with her for doing it because we hadn't known Viv that long and it was a lot to spend on someone we'd basically just met" [Statement 2-16] (Exh. 2-16);
- "2. He knew I was in a rough financial situation, ... Again none of this is true" [Statement 2-18a] (Exh. 2-18);
- "... I know the name of the couple she was planning on moving in with--because it's the same pair of people she moved in with after we broke up" [Statement 2-18b] (Exh. 2-18);
- "The only time I said anything to Viv about who she should or shouldn't have sex with was: One time (after she'd moved in) Viv and I went to a friends' comedy show in the upstairs room of the House of Blues on Sunset. I think Mandy was too sick to go. Viv wanted to have sex with me in the bathroom and I told her I couldn't because it was early days and I didn't know if Mandy would be ok with that. That's it" [Statement 2-19a] (Exh. 2-19);
- "... if Viv wasn't happy, she never said anything, even when we eventually broke up"[Statement 2-19b] (Exh. 2-19);
- "Vivka: Completely contradicted by the bare facts, and--if they was true--paints Mandy as an abuser" [Statement 2-39] (Exh. 2-39);
- "Mandy and her friends' statements don't have any specific incidents of abuse
corroborated, conflict with each other, and their claims don't match their own statements at the time" [Statement 2-75] (Exh. 2-75);"
-Introspection reveals: a bunch of people (many of whom you named) acted like dicks. That's the answer. Why are there so many comments? People keep acting like dicks.
-"Can you explain why the Vivka court case specifically lists out lies that you have told on your blog?" It doesn't -- it lists things that were CLAIMED to be lies.
-If you can't tell the difference between a claim and proof, it explains why people are acting like dicks.
> It doesn't -- it lists things that were CLAIMED to be lies.
It lists out 10 times that the Court found you lied on your blog:
"For the same reasons discussed above, the Court finds that the following statements in Smith's February 13, 2019 blog were false"
These were situations where you told lies in a blog post that you have now deleted.
Please do not compound the lies.
Ok--everybody reading?
Here comes a classic moment.
Scholarch just claimed I erased the blog entry?
Taa-daaaa:
https://officialzsannouncements.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-statement.html
He was wrong.
There's all the stuff Scholarch said was deleted.
Live and in print online to this day.
You have no idea what you're on about.
-
Scholarch, if you believe the claims you make:
#1--Sign a document under penalty of perjury saying so.
or
#2--Just take a much simpler step:
Type on your computer a response which says _what evidence made you decide all that was true_.
What email or text message or photograph or recording led to that conclusion?
Just type it.
Type it out on your keyboard in the english language.
Just do that.
Oh no, I only checked one of your blogs. The false statements were on the other blog!
Zak, if you truly believe that this helps your cause, then only god may save you.
The statements aren't false.
Scholarch, if you believe the claims you make:
#1--Sign a document under penalty of perjury saying so.
or
#2--Just take a much simpler step:
Type on your computer a response which says _what evidence made you decide all that was true_.
What email or text message or photograph or recording led to that conclusion?
Just type it.
Type it out on your keyboard in the english language.
Just do that.
You won't. You have no idea.
You wrote an article about what jerks the Mongrel Banquet Club are--and now you are doing exactly the same thing they did.
The court found that Zak had reasons to believe that every statement in his blog was true, and so Vivka completely lost the case. Which is right there in the court documents.
Once again. You can just say that you, personally, don't like Zak, and not repeat the lies of an anonymous 4chan mongrel. Not liking someone is fine. Joining in with the harassers is not fine.
"The Court's finding that Smith's February 13, 2019 blog contains several false statements, as identified above, does not end the inquiry ... Here, each of Smith's defamatory statements is a false denial of the assertions in Grey's February 12, 2019 Facebook post."
The 40 or so comments focused on Zak show two things.
1) The mongrels that you described in your post are still trying to ruin lives.
And 2) there are people who DON'T want the mongrels and other harassers to ruin lives.
And like I said 40 or so comments ago, you can't at the same time condemn the mongrels and do exactly the same thing that they do. Seriously. You KNOW that they are liars and harassers. You know that they specifically targeted Zak.
Make the next logical step already.
I said that the court cases were failures, not that you failed in your suits.
Any court case that results in me being able to legally and rightfully say that "you coerced your ex-girlfriend into having sex with other people" is classed as a failure in my estimation.
Your mileage may vary.
You're actually not legally allowed to say that: I successfully sued people for saying that. I did not do that. You are just repeating something you read courtesy of Skerples, a Mongrel Banquet Club guy, not the actual court result. If I had I'd be in jail and the police would not have dropped their case. If you believe I did that: sign a document claiming I did that.
Always verify what Zak and his wind-up toys are saying since they are always omitting, deflecting, distorting and perpetuating a fake narrative of events. There is a reason Zak himself wont link to those documents.
https://coinsandscrolls.blogspot.com/2022/03/on-zak-sabbath-smith-lawsuits.html
The court cases are important because they show that Zaks autobiographical fanfiction and the sickening reality are quite far apart. However, he did not coerce her, although that was what he alleged to have said (which was found to be false). The reality is, if possible, even more pathetic. It seems he pressured her but the pressure failed.
p.24 of Zak Smith vs Vivka Grey "Statement Six includes two subparts: (1) that Smith "pressured" Grey to have sex with other people of Smith's choosing; and that (2) that Smith did not allow Grey to persue a romantic interest with individuals in whom Grey was interested.
With regard to the former statement, the Court finds that the evidence for Grey's expression of being pressured to have sex with other people of Smith's choosing. First, the court notes that Grey's February 12 post does not use the word 'coerced' as alleged in Smith's complaint. Instead Grey used the term "pressured", which is an inherently subjective term, i.e. whether Grey felt "pressured to have sex with other people of his choosing." Further Statement Six did not encompass any statement that Grey actually had sex with people of Smith's choosing, only that Grey was pressured to have sex with others.
Within this framework, the evidence introduced at trial supports that Grey's statement that she "was pressured to have sex with other people of his choosing ('he called it sport-fucking') is substantially true. (Exh-102.)."
So now Scholarch, you will be called AN LIAR WHO LIES. Never mind that 1/10th of the creepy shit Zak is on record as doing in those cases is enough to merit permanent ocstracism. You are a liar who lies.
Six out of eight of the accusations levelled against him by Vivka Grey were found to be true. He will deflect and point at the fact that one statement was found to be false, and he was awarded one dollar in damages along with court costs to deflect from this reality, now enshrined in the legal system. Zak's main argument appears to be that since he is not literally a persecuted criminal, that he should not suffer any negative effects from being a creep, even though he himself advocates for absolute negative effects for non-jailable offenses.
Acting like anyone who sides with zak is a "wind up toy" is incredibly disingenuous. This is especially true because they are, by in large, women. You, and people like you, are eager and excited at the prospect of continuously ignoring, reducing, and lying about women - and usually this is because you are so greatly biased or misinformed it is ludicrous.
The reason anyone sane doesn't link to skerples is because skerples is a horrible 4chan troll, MBC member, and anonymous.
The court cases have all seen zak prevail.
You, like so many other goons, 4chan trolls, and overall harassers continue to spew the lies that attempt to portray the start of case as the end, and you do this in tandem to also being Completely Clueless and uniformed, because you scream sock puppets and disregard the scores of people (mostly women) who vehemently back up zak, and offer proof, like zak does.
Zak, or anyone else in their right mind, won't link to this blogpost because it's manipulative and lying.
To repeat the quote, "the term "pressured", which is an inherently subjective term, i.e. whether Grey FELT (emphasis mine) "pressured to have sex with other people of his choosing."
Anyone who claims that Zak actually did abuse Viv based on this record is, yes, a liar. Or just a stupid person who can't be bothered to know what "subjective term" means.
Also, "Six out of eight of the accusations levelled against him by Vivka Grey were found to be true" is just a flatout lie. ZERO out of Vivka's accusations were found true. The court record literally says so.
Stop lying.
Deflection. And not very good deflection either.
Zak can easily link to the court case separate from the blogpost, but won't since it looks horrible.
To repeat the already quoted paragraph:
"Within this framework, the evidence introduced at trial supports that Grey's statement that she "was pressured to have sex with other people of his choosing ('he called it sport-fucking') is substantially true. (Exh-102.)."
And then it cites the examples. Three verbal occasions, one email. Then Nagy testifying she overheard C.Z. being suggested. Then M.B. 's testimony. P.25.
Its just there. You have the court docs. Its not hard to find the exact statements, or what evidence was offered, nor read the final court decision.
Calling everyone a liar isn't going to save you.
You linked to Skerples, an anonymous 4chan Mongel Banquet Club dude as if he is a source.
Everything you said is obvious bullshit for 1 reason:
You aren't pointing to any evidence. You are pointing to a _claim_ .
And you keep dodging the main thing:
Upon what evidence was this claim made?
Either you don't know or you're afraid to say.
Which is why (to quote DR Weisman's summary of the situation) :
"
-He has successfully sued his harassers for defamation three times in three countries, and has shown no sign of slowing down.
-He has never lost a case. One case (Mearls’) was dismissed because the attack was judged too vague, not because the underlying attack on Smith was judged to be true.
-The case which ended with the harasser admitting “After 2 years I’ve found no proof he did anything wrong, online or off” was the most recent one.
-The man who had to admit that had access to as much of the evidence from all the other cases as he cared to ask for.
-There has never been a single screen shot, text, email, recording or other document meaningfully used as evidence of Smith’s guilt.
-Whatever else happens, legally, in the future, the only evidence used against Smith so far has been people claiming he did something wrong; people who do not agree with each other on key details, got caught lying under oath, and had histories of mental illness long before meeting Zak.
"
He has successfully sued his harassers for defamation three times in three countries, and has shown no sign of slowing down.
He has never lost a case. One case (Mearls’) was dismissed because the attack was judged too vague, not because the underlying attack on Smith was judged to be true.
The case which ended with the harasser admitting “After 2 years I’ve found no proof he did anything wrong, online or off” was the most recent one.
The man who had to admit that had access to as much of the evidence from all the other cases as he cared to ask for.
There has never been a single screen shot, text, email, recording or other document meaningfully used as evidence of Smith’s guilt.
Whatever else happens, legally, in the future, the only evidence used against Smith so far has been people claiming he did something wrong; people who do not agree with each other on key details, got caught lying under oath, and had histories of mental illness long before meeting Zak.
You keep lying about Vivka's "feeling that she was pressured" being not subjective. I already told you to stop lying about that.
As for the court case:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVwh7ouaHtVJedS6DdzHkv1ZMmOAw3nnAiWXjlr9gySwQIpenc9UkVlwsVbSUrlhV7E7CxsbeKlyItltzKvzUs_cABivd-5GiI5uSKkpMbTQfkLFbE9JYpc5UVrsWPjaG-IdTH2eGwLLli7K-xHCkGIBXnlKq2bD64Qx0oXxPBWV8FLGT3y-265VVKz7r_/s1484/judgment_zak_win_viv_plk.png
Vivka lost it. Zak won it.
Stop lying about it.
Just saying something is something doesn't make it so, and is not the slam dunk you think it is.
Once again, you just say something without any proof beyond - "a 4chan troll googled documents That Are Public, and acted like they were in any way incriminated"
Such blatant misinformation and cherry picking - if what you parrot is or was true, then zak would not have prevailed.
four times
"You linked to Skerples, an anonymous 4chan Mongel Banquet Club dude as if he is a source."
Deflection. I linked to a site that hosts the lawsuits. It doesn't matter who links the document if the document is real.
"Everything you said is obvious bullshit for 1 reason:
You aren't pointing to any evidence. You are pointing to a _claim_ ."
By now the strategy, hitting reply and hoping people don't actually read the documentation, is obvious, but in your position it is the only thing you can do so I suppose we cannot fault you for it. The lawsuit outlines exactly why it found 6 of Vivka's accusations to be true and one of them to be false. You won the defamation case because indeed, one of the 8 accusations was false.
"Which is why (to quote DR Weisman's summary of the situation) :"
Weisman is not a credible source. You pretending to be him less so. A lawsuit is.
"-He has successfully sued his harassers for defamation three times in three countries, and has shown no sign of slowing down."
Strategic ambiguity. Two of them settled for minor amounts. You sued one and you were awarded one dollar and court fees. How much is that compared to the fine you had to pay for intimidating a witness. You keep pointing to the outcome but ignoring the damning evidence that is brought up during discovery.
"-He has never lost a case. One case (Mearls’) was dismissed because the attack was judged too vague, not because the underlying attack on Smith was judged to be true."
This is fraudulent reasoning. The determination for vagueness precedes the determination for accuracy. If an accusation is too vague its truth does not need to be ascertained. So you lost that one. You also lost the one against Gencon, and the appeal, the documents of which are once again provided by Skerples.
https://coinsandscrolls.blogspot.com/2022/03/on-zak-sabbath-smith-lawsuits.html
Redefine words all you want. All people need to do is read the actual documents.
"The case which ended with the harasser admitting “After 2 years I’ve found no proof he did anything wrong, online or off” was the most recent one."
Deflection. Irrelevant to the sick things revealed during the Grey case. All this has nothing to do with the lawsuits and the creepy shit you did. And again, the article you wrote under Weisman's name is not a legal document, but the legal documents are.
While we are on the subject, people might wonder, what was he doing around all these criminals before they betrayed him and mentally ill women that accused him of rape? Why does he keep getting kicked out of all these groups? Why did he get kicked out by Arnold K? And Patrick stuart? You are the same, if not worse, you have the same politics, you have the same behaviors, just without the impulse control.
And of course, there are your minions.
https://profesnpc.blogspot.com/
A brainwashing victim who seems to communicate in literal propaganda flags. This is what we are meant to believe are critical thinkers and truth-detectors? Puh-leeze.
I encourage Scholarch set the record straight and post exactly what the lawsuits say you did and did not do. In this way both parties cannot help be satisfied.
Of course it matters. Schools wouldn't link to isis websites, even if they had fun math games about fractions for students.
You are saying some laughable things.
You are, to restate, linking to part of a huge case - and acting like that part was the end.
the end was: zak prevailed twice
https://youtu.be/38fCqOBYtQI?si=_4d7DtFETjPF2yzm
Weissman is a she - if you had _actually_ read what she wrote, instead of just blatantly lying, you would know
Both sides pay the other for things, that is part of court proceedings - and you seem to think a lot of things without actually providing the evidence - it had nothing to do with "intimidation"
those are not the actual documents, quit pretending, please.
Dehumanizing people to disregard them is a classic strategy of fascists.
Quit acting like anyone who disagrees with you is fake - and instead, try providing actual evidence.
actually for real speak to people involved, instead of repeatedly linking to an anonymous 4chan MBC troll.
saying that someone who disagrees with you, and provides evidence, is brainwashed, shows a staggering amount of bias or serious intent to propagate misinformation.
Disclaimer: Professional NPC blog does not in any way ask, pay, or hint that harassers and liars promote it.
Also, Patrick Stuart admitted that he lied about Zak in the interview, and later confirmed that, yes, it's him in the recording, and that, yes, he was interviewed by Dr Clio Weisman.
Is there any proof that Dr Weisman didn't write the article?
Let's ask the harassers!
Hey, Harper, do you have proof that Dr Weisman didn't write the article?
And did you manage to solve the math problem of "how many of Vivka's statements were found true in court if she lost the case?"
Oh a new lie:
"you also lost the one against Gencon,"
Nope--its on appeal
-
To repeat:
"
Everything you said is obvious bullshit for 1 reason:
You aren't pointing to any evidence. You are pointing to a _claim_ .
"
Also, Dr Weisman is a _she_ not a he and you haven't said why she's not credible.
Vivka's statements that were "substantiated as true" were ruled as such because the judge ruled that it's impossible to prove that she didn't FEEL whatever. Feelings are subjective.
The statement that actually accused Zak of doing something was found to be untrue. She lied about him and was found guilty.
For anyone with the stamina to sit through two rounds of this, I trust this has been illustrative for the general conduct of Zak and his band of brainwashed cultists.
Even though clear evidence is provided, the counter-strategy is always to then question the evidence, question the sources, deflect, bring something up, lie, change the definition of words, misinterpret the statement and so on. If you are reasonably competent at this strategy, and while Becami Cusack and Spider are not because they are stupid and lack mental flexibility, Zak is, you can protract an argument for a long period of time, claiming victory if the other party stops replying, and then claim victory.
You will note the original case against Gencon was dismissed, the dismissal was appealed, the appeal was dismissed.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-w1se2vM0NWPLduNfFZh18H57PNSZgqN/view
The trick here is that none of these people actually believes anything they say or that words have any meaning, and by speaking in an ambiguous fashion, they can utter words that look like an objection.
There is a logical way to counter much of these sort of tactics by examining the entire context of the interaction. One side is providing receipts, the other is trying to discredit the receipts but can provide no logical reason for doing so, while neglecting to provide their own, giving only snippets. One side speaks in vague, ambiguous language 'I prevailed,' 'I won a lot of money' which if examined, turn out to be misleading, the other focuses on clear evidence, hard numbers. How much money did he win, how much money did he have to pay for intimidating a witness, how much money does he owe in legal fees to Gencon vs how much money was actually spent on the lawsuits.
Wicked people will always try to prevent you from getting a clear picture, because they know that their lies will come apart. Dissmissal of the Appeal to the dismissal of the Gen Con Case.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/mnjjavkgiyken3wfu8vui/1936638092-1-43.pdf?rlkey=em24q9sa0tnhvhuuh2o2qyfgp&e=1&dl=0
Always provide context since the clearer the picture is, the less room these people have to create a fake narrative. The lawsuit in question that Zak has actually fought and won, was Vivka Grey vs Zak Smith. The lawsuit determined the following:
* Greys statement that Zak forced her to move in with him was false (p.15). This statement was found to be false and defamatory and this was the reason Zak won the case.
* Greys statement that Zak expected her to be at his beck and call for sex, any call any service or he would become "angry, huffy, frustrated and upset" was found to be true, corraborated by testimony of Nagy, Grey and Zak himself, who admitted that if she would not perform he would kick her out of the house. p.18. Creep.
* Per Grey, Zak demanded that Grey engage in particular sex acts with him, even if she didnt enjoy it at first, quote "Now you will do it with me" Even if you didn't enjoy it the first time. The court found that Grey demonstrated this to be true. P. 20. Creep.
* Zak threatened to kick Grey out of the house if she didnt perform for him. Zak admitted himself this was true and this is corraborated by an email exchange. P. 21. Again, creepy.
* Grey testified sometimes the sex would hurt and Zak would tell her to loosen up and shoved a pillow into her face while he continued. This statement was found to be true, with Zak himself testifying that she pressed a bag of frozen peas against her crotch to deal with the soreness. P. 22 . Creep.
* The aforementioned sex pressuring was found to be true. Once again, these creeps will try to pass it up as 'just an opinion,' but there are, as you can read on page p.24, considerable receipts. Creep.
* Grey testifies that Zak spent months telling her how unfortunate and pointless her natural body happened to be. This is backed up by testimony and was found to be credible by a court. P. 27. Hardly surprising given his callousness. Creep.
* Based on his inability to prove damages, but because the single statement did expose him to ridicule and hatred, the court decision awards him nominal damages of $1, plus court fees (p. 34)
* It should be noted that throughout the document, Zak is caught mischaracterizing the accusations against him, and his statements on the issue were found to contain numerous falsehoods (p. 37-39). Even if you are extremely gulliable and believe that these were innocent mistakes, Zaks own standards (which he will pretend to believe but does not abide by in any way shape or form) equate spreading misinformation without fact-checking with lying, so he should be treated as a liar. It should also be noted that his penchant for spreading falsehoods is now enshrined in court documentation.
As I hope everyone can see, there is no point in trying to engage in good faith with people that are categorically incapable of doing so. Zak is incapable of learning from his mistakes, even if they put him in severe financial hardship as a result. He cannot co-exist, is incapable of self-reflection and will not amend his ways. The only recourse is ostracism with extreme prejudice.
I'm just reading all of this.
-- I am not a wind up toy.
-- I'm a person with strong opinions that spreading disinformation online is WRONG. Disinformation is false information designed to mislead others and is deliberately spread with the intent to confuse fact and fiction.
-- There is a reason that the courts require proof of wrong doing before a life is damaged.
-- I see NO PROOF of wrong doing on Zak's part and substantial proof of the opposite -- people making false statements and losing in court.
Hey Zak, long-time no-see. I wanted to take this opportunity to clarify that, according to the Senate judiciary hearing, you're mother sues my bunghole good and hard through my jorts. I'll sign any document to that effect you put in front of me.
Read my cool blog at udan-adan.blogspot.com.
lol look at this random troll pretending to be Joseph Manola.
The problem with otherwise a useful article is that you refuse to make the next logical step (or, in this case, to follow the step that others already made), because you don't like it.
"The Worst People That You Have Never Met" demonstrates how the mongrels attacked Zak S. and ruined his life, and clarifies that they are horrible exactly because there was no reason to attack Zak other than their own satisfaction.
And if you believe that the description of those people in the article is true (and they confirmed it themselves, in the audio recordings, and later confirmed that the recordings are genuine), then you have to make the next step and believe that the rest of the article is true, too.
It doesn't mean that you have to like Zak. It means that you can't both expose the mongrels' lies and machinations and agree with their lies about Zak being abusive.
Like, Tenkar of the Tavern keeps saying that he dislikes Zak, but also keeps reminding it doesn't mean that any claims about Zak's wrongdoing are correct until there's some proof - and there has never been any proof.
As for courts, I know of exactly one slander case against Zak that was resolved in court. Zak won that case.
Otherwise, good job. People should know who the bad actors are, and how exactly they ruin lives.
Zak S is the most harmful person in RPG community just because at least twice a month I see people discussing his personal life and alleged crimes instead of discussing games and that actively harms my mental health. Stop kicking the dead horse dammit, why should I see the dirty laundry of some random dude everywhere I go?
so let me get this straight
you have 0, and I repeat 0, knowledge of what happened, and then you claim that being witness to someone trying to defend themselves is somehow harmful - and you are willing to publicly decry this person because you can't handle anything other than talk about games?
Zak already defended himself. Court had its session, end of story.
I couldn't care less about some morons continuing to accuse him, as well as his shagbuddies jumping to his defence. Can't say who of these two sides are more obnoxious but I'm tired of you both.
You couldn't care less so much that you join in with the "morons continuing to accuse him", claiming that "he is the most harmful person in RPG community". You aren't tired of lying, you aren't tired of harassing people, and you're not tired of denying war crimes.
How do you sleep at night?
Do you know what a joke is, lmao? I doubt a sane person could read my very first comment about "most harmful person" and take it seriously. Schedule a meeting with your shrink pls.
You were the one who complained complained about "actively harming your mental health". Which still sounds shitty, because, again, war, genocide, another massive drone attack on civilian homes just yesterday. The things that would threaten a normal person's mental health more than seeing Zak mentioned.
The country whose language you write in is actively committing a genocide right now, and the worst thing that harms your mental health is Zak S? You might need to rethink your priorities, you know.
And if you don't want to see people discussing "alleged crimes", it would help if you would tell people who lied about Zak, James Raggi, fifth edition of Vampire etc etc to stop lying.
This genocide is as grounded is accusations on Smith, so you are contradicting yourself.
So you are not just a harasser, you're a war crime apologist.
Who murdered the passengers of MH-17?
Seek mental help.
This post contains several false claims.
1) The article decisively does not demonstrate that Zak S has no reason to be attacked. If it did it would be believed widely, instead it is ridiculed, and if it is mentioned at all, this is followed by a disclaimer that the description of Zak is clearly biased. There are no people outside of a small coven of cultists who believe it entirely, and well they should. It should also be noted the author has not stepped forward to confirm she wrote all of it.
"And if you believe that the description of those people in the article is true (and they confirmed it themselves, in the audio recordings, and later confirmed that the recordings are genuine), then you have to make the next step and believe that the rest of the article is true, too."
2) This statement is false. Snippets of audio can be deceptive and can easily be misinterpreted and taken out of context. Until the entire logs are published, we have only tantalizing proof of misdeeds. If the entire interview is out there, show it. This statement is also false in another way. Great propaganda (and this was far from great, as its failure and universal skepticism illustrates) can present compelling evidence and truth to make a fundamentally deceptive point.
"It doesn't mean that you have to like Zak. It means that you can't both expose the mongrels' lies and machinations and agree with their lies about Zak being abusive."
4) Having to like Zak would be impossible at this stage, so the first sentence is correct. The second sentence is stupid. Observe the following:
"Spider Minstrel posted in this thread. Spider Minstrel is a rapist."
We know the first one is true. The second one might seem plausible based on his character, but we have no evidence to support this, and his physical strength is probably below average. The list goes on and on. Therefore, the second sentence is probably false. But since it is not causally linked to the first sentence, the first one can still be true.
"Like, Tenkar of the Tavern keeps saying that he dislikes Zak, but also keeps reminding it doesn't mean that any claims about Zak's wrongdoing are correct until there's some proof - and there has never been any proof."
5) The statement is false. There is proof of Zak doing evil weird shit right here:
https://coinsandscrolls.blogspot.com/2022/03/on-zak-sabbath-smith-lawsuits.html
The fact you refuse to accept it as such is irrelevant. A court has authority and credibility, Zak does not.
"As for courts, I know of exactly one slander case against Zak that was resolved in court. Zak won that case."
7) This is a great example of the magnitude of dishonesty of these people. So he is aware of the Court case, he is aware that 6 out of 8 statements were found to be true, he is aware Zak was fined for intimidating a witness, he is aware Zaks own slander court cases against Mike Mearls failed and his case against GenCon failed catastrophically (~30k in owed legal fees), but he will omit that. And since this is not a direct, bold-faced lie, but a lie by omission, they find this acceptable. That is why they will never be replatformed.
"Otherwise, good job. People should know who the bad actors are, and how exactly they ruin lives."
A reminder that Zak calls everyone liars and bad actors and, like his former friends, seeks to have them deplatformed.
1: once again you disregard real people because they do not jive with your view of things.
this is point is for is to cast doubt without actually providing any evidence - you are repeated antisemitic and sexist conspiracy theories like so many goons and 4chan trolls repeatedly have done.
2: but.... the people who were interviewed either exited with tail between legs, or confirmed they are real.
5: no, once again, that is skerples, an anonymous 4chan MBC troll.
Zak has credibility - because the court found vivka guilty of defamation, and zak innocent of defamation. By your own logic, zak is beyond credible.
7: you continue to say things, but don't provide evidence.
1. The people who were interviewed confirmed that, yes, they were interviewed by the author. Stop lying about "well maybe she didn't even write that".
2. Again, the people who were interviewed confirmed that the audio is geniune. There is no context in which what they said doesn't sound like the words of horrible people who confess they did horrible things. Stop lying about "well that's misenterpreted".
3. Many people like Zak - people who comment on his posts, buy his games, play his games. Stop lying about Zak (in fact, that's all you've been doing here).
4. If I posted in this thread something that would sound like I commited a rape, and you could prove that it's actually me posting it, then your claim would make sense. Otherwise, it doesn't. Stop lying about logic (this escalated fast).
5. As I wrote already, the post that you're linking is lying and manipulative. It's ridiculous how you claim that actual audio recordings of people confirming that they harassed Zak are "out of context" but a manipulative post about Zak is "proof". Stop lying about both, again.
6. As I wrote already, not one of Vivka's statements in her slander case against Zak were found to be true. Stop lying about the court.
From what I know, Mike Mearls never sued Zak, and neither did GenCon. Zak sued GenCon, appealed, won the appeal, sued again, and appealed again. That has nothing to do with the fact that there was only one case of someone accused Zak of slander (Vivka), and Zak won it (none of Vivka's statements were found true). Stop lying about the court.
8. Zak didn't write the article. Stop lying about the article, and stop lying about Zak.
1. Deflection and lie by omission. Whether the people were interviewed by Weismann does not automatically prove that she wrote the entire article.
2. Deflection and incompetent attempt at exerting pressure. Little audio snippets are easy to take out of context, and only someone trying to exert emotional pressure would try to encourage you to jump to conclusions before you had the full evidence. An interview would not be. Post the interview if you have it you abuse-enabling fraud.
3. Yes he's managed to get all of two minions, both brainwashing victims and sycophants, his very own Salacious Crumb and Grima Wormtongue.
4. You are only pretending to engage for the benefit of low information readers like yourself because you are too stupid to play this game properly. Can you imagine an apple mr. Tsevelev? Can you tell us what it would be like if you didn't have breakfast this morning?
5. Deflection. The article in question has links to the lawsuits and even graciously allows Zak and his gaggle of loons, perverts and sycophants to holler and throw mud, like you are doing. Audio snippets taken out of context are not nothing, but they do not trump, nor do they have anything to do, really, with the decisions made by a court. The burden of proof and amount of scrutiny is much higher.
6. Once again, people can read the case Vivka Grey vs Zak Smith, and also the outcome, which determines that 6 out of 8 of those accusations were found to be true, one was found to be opinion, and one was false and therefore defamatory, along with the reasons for why they had reached each conclusion, including in the case of Zak throwing Vivka out of the house if she didnt have sex with him, an admission by Zak himself that this is true. Lol.
7) You missed a number there? Whats wrong Spider old chap? Getting tired? Slave brain getting overclocked? Zak failed to sue Mearls and he failed to sue Gencon, dummy. Also, anyone can take a look at this document for his failed appeal against Gencon, and witness his disgusting deadbeat behavior.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-w1se2vM0NWPLduNfFZh18H57PNSZgqN/view?usp=sharing
You can keep repeating something but I've literally provided you with the relevant quote and page number and until you reply in kind, you aren't fooling anyone.
8) Prove it you wormtongue. Where's Clio Weismann saying she wrote it? You have no foot to stand on and you are an equivocal, deceiftul, lying coward.
1. "The article decisively does not demonstrate that Zak S has no reason to be attacked. If it did it would be believed widely..."
Argumentum ad populum
2. " This statement is false. Snippets of audio can be deceptive and can easily be misinterpreted and taken out of context. "
Describe the context where "I never caught him in a lie" from someone who claimed I lied or "I didn't seek sources" from someone who could have somehow is ok.
3. Namecalling people who are better than you doesn't make them wrong.
4. Why would someone pretend to engage? If everyone SECRETLY agrees with you then why are some conspiring to disagree? What are they getting out of it in your fantasy?
5. You said I did 'weird shit;--you link to a 4chan guy claiming I did. That's not proof.
6. I did not claim that, you're lying. I didn't want to live with someone who I was broken up with and who cheated on me, that's normal.
7. I didn't lose my case against GenCon, its on appeal again--I already won one appeal in that case. I don't call everyone "a liars and bad actors" for example: all the people who testified for me are neither.
So--you just got caught lying in a way anyone could check without getting out of your chair Nothing you say could be considered credible ever.
I already asked you to stop lying about logic. You claim that Dr Weismann did not write the article, you have no proof of that, the burden of proof is on the accuser, you're still lying, for the only reason that you are trying to defend the harassers and blame the victim. Stop doing this.
You keep lying about "well it's out of context" after I pointed out that there is no context in which harassers would look justified.
You admit that you were lying about "no one likes Zak", it would be nice if you admitted it clearly: "I, Harper Fonktin, was wrong when I claimed that it is impossible to like Zak". Kind of like Ettin had to admit that he lied about Zak, only he had to pay money for his lies, too.
You switched to personal attacks against me, which doesn't prove anything except that you're defending the harassers and using their tactics. Also it looks ridiculous.
You keep lying about Vivka's case that she lost. Anyone can read the court documents and see that she lost it.
Here's a simple mathematic problem for you, simple enough for a pre-schooler. Zak sued Vivka, one of Zak's statements was found true in court, Vivka was ordered to pay Zak one dollar. Question: when Vivka sued Zak, how many of Vivka's statements were found true in court if Zak was ordered to pay Vivka zero dollars?
Take your time.
1. You keep repeating these little statements that you do not understand as if they were protective mantras that will grant you victory. If there is a pronounced difference in writing style and a deviation from the norm, with highly aberrant content, asking for corroboration from the author is reasonable. If said corroboration is violently rejected when the effort expanded to do so would be trivial and immediately silence all dissent, that is cause for suspicion. You keep using 'proof' as if this had any meaning but you have not even defined by what standards such proof should be given. Again, you don't understand the words you are saying, you are simply aping the format of a debate.
2. You cannot prove that because that would be proving a negative. You do not have knowledge of all possible contexts. Again, you are just pretending to appeal to logic when you don't understand anything you are saying.
3. Your only recourse is to resort to little word games, ignoring ambiguity and figure of speech, or trying to understand what is being said, because you are unable to operate on any other level. The idea that language represents some sort of underlying reality is meaningless to you because you are an automaton, clumsily aping the format of debate.
4. Mockery is appropriate when such a pathetic display is coupled with such confidence. Certainly you are no stranger to such contempt. You should not be commenting at all, this is not meant for people like you.
5. Vivka losing the case is not being debated. You keep mischaracterizing it because you don't want to focus on the 6 statements that were found to be true, the admission that Zak was found to be spreading falsehoods in it and the 1 dollar settlement which makes him look stupid. Here is the court case. Anyone can read it (and hopefully they will!).
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/mnjjavkgiyken3wfu8vui/1936638092-1-43.pdf?rlkey=em24q9sa0tnhvhuuh2o2qyfgp&e=1&dl=0
6. This is an excellent illustration of your lack of mental flexibility. You should know I of course read the court case so you should know the defamation component of Vivka's case was not sueing Zak based on her own statements being true, but on Zaks statements being defamation (p.39). The court found that several of his statements on his blog were false, but did not qualify as defamation. Stupid.
But disregard all that, give me a recipe for Apple Pie instead.
1. Nothing's changed since last time I addressed this: 1. "The article decisively does not demonstrate that Zak S has no reason to be attacked. If it did it would be believed widely..."
Argumentum ad populum
2. Nothing's changed since last time I addressed this: " This statement is false. Snippets of audio can be deceptive and can easily be misinterpreted and taken out of context. "
Describe the context where "I never caught him in a lie" from someone who claimed I lied or "I didn't seek sources" from someone who could have somehow is ok.
3. Nothing's changed since last time I addressed this: Namecalling people who are better than you doesn't make them wrong.
4. Nothing's changed since last time I addressed this: Why would someone pretend to engage? If everyone SECRETLY agrees with you then why are some conspiring to disagree? What are they getting out of it in your fantasy?
5. Nothing's changed since last time I addressed this:
You said I did 'weird shit;--you link to a 4chan guy claiming I did. That's not proof.
Again, you keep linking to -claims-.
6. Nothing's changed since last time I addressed this: I did not claim what you said above, you're lying. I didn't want to live with someone who I was broken up with and who cheated on me, that's normal.
So you admit that you lied again. And no, your lies will not be disregared. You are a liar and a harasser. You admit that Vivka's claims were NOT found true. She accused Zak of defamation, and the court found that Zak did not commit it.
Now back to your other lie. What proof do you have that Dr Weisman did not write her article? Either present it or stop repeating that lie (and you can't present it, can you? Because THERE IS NO PROOF. Because you're a liar and a harasser).
Ok. Just reading through all of this. I looked at the court case, and I actually agree with Zak's comments.
-- In the Viv case...the statement that actually accused Zak of doing something was found to be untrue. Because Vivka had NO PROOF. Zak prevailed. Vivka was found to have defamed him. I find that extremely significant.
-- As far a the Worst People Article, people who destroy other people's lives based on conjecture are straight up WRONG and from reading the article that is EXACTLY what the article shows.
What context? That makes no sense. The people interviewed in the article admitted to spreading disinformation -- information without proof. There is ZERO proof of any wrong doings.
No Deflection is necessary --
In the Vivka statements that were "substantiated as true" were ruled as such because the judge ruled that it's impossible to prove that she didn't FEEL whatever. Feelings are subjective. The statement that actually accused Zak of doing something was found to be untrue. She lied about him and was found guilty of defaming him.
I've read the article. The people interviewed admitted to spreading disinformation -- information without proof. That doesn't require context. Going through all of this, NO ONE has any proof of Zak's wrong doings. In the Vivka statements you keep bringing up that were "substantiated as true" were ruled as such because the judge ruled that it's impossible to prove that she didn't FEEL whatever. Feelings are subjective. The statement that actually accused Zak of doing something was found to be untrue. She lied about him and was found guilty of defaming him.
Good, fuck off then. You won't be missed.
Can we please get PDF uploads of their stuff??
a) Worst people article (https://archive.is/0Nv3c)
b) the audio clips (https://youtu.be/8GJAJNbF2Tg?si=aa_LzVrNCLllArNf…)
c) the confirmations from Olivia and Patrick online that they are real (https://x.com/machineiv/status/1752010444712128749… - - https://x.com/pjamesstuart/status/1751884833867890952…)
I think you’ve got a deep problem here: footnote #3 fundamentally doesn’t belong in the same essay as a link to a hagiography of Zak S (which is fundamentally what “The Worst People You Have Never Met” is).
Fundamentally, "The Worst People You Have Never Met" is a collection of statements by some horrible people who confirm that they did horrible things. The importance of Zak's innocence is just in that there was no objective reasons for them to ruin his life, other than "he's not nice". There is no justification, no "I could've done the same thing in their position" for a normal, sane person.
Agreed.
I've read the article. It is researched and the subjects were interviewed. The people interviewed admitted to spreading disinformation that resulted in destroying someone's life. That is evil.
It’s also been deleted by the author which is usually not a good sign for an article’s credibility.
I’m not really “on a side” here, I’m just pointing out the contradiction inherent in the OP.
Oh I love Tore! I think he's run one of my games more than I have
"Game" he says...
Dude... you wrote "Snotsoil Mire" and shill it for roughly 5 Bucks on Drivethrurpg
Anything you say about TTRPGs is automatically invalid for that reason alone