Flerf Wiki - User contributions [en]

User talk:Washcarso

2026-09-28T16:30:01Z

Theirony:

You can’t see the forest for the trees because you are too busy in your dogmatic loop .

What are you calling good faith is hypocrisy. You strawman someone’s whole argument, write fan fiction about someone you don’t even know their first name & then preach good faith . This is comical. Then you get upset when it’s being done to you . Amazing right ? It’s almost like you’re a hypocrite

User talk:Washcarso

2026-09-28T16:29:01Z

Theirony: Replaced content with "You can’t see the forest for the trees because you are too busy in your dogmatic loop . What are you calling good faith is hypocrisy. You strawman their whole argument & then preach good faith . This is comical. Then you get upset when it’s being done to you . Amazing right ? It’s almost like you’re a hypocrite"

You can’t see the forest for the trees because you are too busy in your dogmatic loop .

What are you calling good faith is hypocrisy. You strawman their whole argument & then preach good faith . This is comical. Then you get upset when it’s being done to you . Amazing right ? It’s almost like you’re a hypocrite

Restricted

2026-09-28T16:26:11Z

Theirony: There is no good faith . this is irony to the extreme lol lets smear your name & ask for good faith for not edititng it out

THERE IS NO GOOD FAITH .. LOOK WHAT YOUVE DONE .. the opposite of GOOD FAITH .. TOO MUCH OF A HYPOCRITE TO SEE THAT ..

The GRAVITY CALCS HAVE BEEN CHANGED . The name is NO LONGER RESTRICTED. This is fan fiction obsessive behavior for difference of opinion

There is no good faith in dedicating an entire page to smearing someone you do not know based on information you actively strawman. Preaching tolerance and objectivity while maintaining an anonymous hit piece is a profound display of irony, turning what should be open inquiry into a closed loop dogmatic defense mechanism. True science thrives on falsification, welcoming rigorous stress tests, vacuum boundaries, and explicit losing conditions that put a model genuinely at risk. Yet, rather than engaging with the actual architecture, transparent calculators, or precommitted adjudication rules of the framework, the critics choose to double down on outdated caricatures and personal attacks because protecting their narrative matters more to them than discovering objective truth.