>>14120588 (pb)

my tactic: I describe dispassionately and accept the flack and then I use what they use to show them, and they reveal themselves.

I don't call them by mean names and tell them that they are broken. they know that they are doing what they are doing. they know, already that they are shills. I'm not telling them that, I'm obviating their behaviors and rancid personas, and describing their psycho-drama.

I am in a meta describing shills.

it merely seems that I am in their realm, but I am not.

if you are not a shill you should see what I am doing.

and if you feel that I've poorly described your behaviors, and that you aren't 'playing' the bit . . . of a rancid persona . . . then maybe you are doing it and you don't realize it? Or I'm just wrong, and so what?

The fact that you take it so personally is a tell for other things.

All in all my tactic is successful in that the shills glow when confronted with it. however, if someone is tired and touchy and reverting to the insult comic banter, they aren't a shill, your right. but they do need to know that they are devolving in their interactions. so they can nourish and rest.

>>14120393 (pb)

this sick description devolves into blood ritual descriptions. and it tells you that I'm not the human in this encounter. if it's flesh and blood, then it sure doesn't craft narratives of a human that'd I'd want to interact with.

also it' gives out a creepy vibe image.

so you figure out who the humane one is here.

dispassionate describing is said to be done by non humans. but how so?

all in all those who think for themselves conclude what they will, and whatever you conclude is up to you.

my conclusions this morning: the board is clearly hounded, even today, by the interferance shills who target individuals and present exceptionally distasteful descriptions other others motives, and try to defame everyone, including the personas that they pretend to be, and insist that get called 'best just call them . . . .' one shill said.

to say a lie about someone as if it's true, and then start in about 'the programmers who . . .

and then describe abomination. . . that's not normal human behavior.

the person does that so that the horrid idea is the last thing you see in it's post.

it's called 'revulsion' shilling.

that a person who does that dares to pretend to be a MAGA anon . . . shows that they are here to defame these breads and all the people who look here to find news, etc.