The “imgur” moniker’s responses never address that central point. Instead, they pivot:

• “You must be new here” sidesteps the substance and reframes the other as inexperienced.

• “Wow, if I don’t answer questions I must not be a lawyer” constructs a straw man, reframing the critique into a claim about professional status that wasn’t made.

• “That’s right. Walk it back” positions the other poster as retreating, rather than grappling with the issue at hand.

Throughout, the critic persists in pointing out the avoidance:

• “You also won’t respond to straightforward questions, same as him.”

• “…bet anything you won’t answer that simple q directly, just like nyuug.”

This persistence highlights the dynamic: one poster continually re-centers the question, while the other repeatedly diverts the focus.

Rhetorically, the exchange illustrates several patterns:

• Deflection – redirecting from the original query.

• Straw manning – reframing the critique into a different, easier-to-argue point.

• Burden shifting – casting the other as backtracking instead of addressing the charge.

• Meta-argumentation – discussing the nature of the exchange rather than the substance of the question.

The result is a lopsided dialogue where one participant insists on direct engagement, while the other resists it and acts as though there is a broader debate taking place. This mismatch creates the impression of evasiveness and self-absorption, reinforcing the critic’s comparison to NYUUG.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5768010&forum_id=2#49226433)

The “imgur” moniker’s responses never address that central point. Instead, they pivot:

• “You must be new here” sidesteps the substance and reframes the other as inexperienced.

• “Wow, if I don’t answer questions I must not be a lawyer” constructs a straw man, reframing the critique into a claim about professional status that wasn’t made.

• “That’s right. Walk it back” positions the other poster as retreating, rather than grappling with the issue at hand.

Throughout, the critic persists in pointing out the avoidance:

• “You also won’t respond to straightforward questions, same as him.”

• “…bet anything you won’t answer that simple q directly, just like nyuug.”

This persistence highlights the dynamic: one poster continually re-centers the question, while the other repeatedly diverts the focus.

Rhetorically, the exchange illustrates several patterns:

• Deflection – redirecting from the original query.

• Straw manning – reframing the critique into a different, easier-to-argue point.

• Burden shifting – casting the other as backtracking instead of addressing the charge.

• Meta-argumentation – discussing the nature of the exchange rather than the substance of the question.

The result is a lopsided dialogue where one participant insists on direct engagement, while the other resists it and acts as though there is a broader debate taking place. This mismatch creates the impression of evasiveness and self-absorption, reinforcing the critic’s comparison to NYUUG.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5768010&forum_id=2#49226434)

You just passed the bar congrats

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5768010&forum_id=2#49226432)

1. Defensiveness as Core Motivation

• The repeated evasions and reframings suggest a person highly sensitive to perceived slights.

• Instead of answering questions on their own terms, they reframe them into attacks and respond defensively.

• This points to ego vulnerability — the sense that one’s status or credibility is always at risk.

⸻

2. Narcissistic / Self-Referential Elements

• Persistent posting on a narrow theme (lawyer status, predictive ability, etc.) indicates a craving for validation.

• Ignoring lack of engagement, while assuming others are invested, shows a kind of self-referential loop.

• When challenged, the person doubles down rather than recalibrates — a hallmark of narcissistic tendencies.

⸻

3. Obsessive or Ruminative Style

• The behavior repeats across multiple threads: fixation on the same themes, little sensitivity to feedback.

• This suggests a cognitive style that perseverates — a difficulty letting go of a particular narrative once it has been formed.

⸻

The Paranoid Aspect

Where this gets sharper is in the paranoid flavor that colors the behavior:

• Suspicion of Intent: Neutral or mocking questions are reinterpreted as hostile, undermining challenges.

• Projection: The critic is cast as secretly invested, obsessed, or “walking it back,” even when plainly dismissive.

• Hyper-vigilance: Every interaction is treated as evidence that others are trying to diminish status or credibility.

• Defensive Rationalization: Replies that appear irrelevant to outsiders feel internally responsive, because they counter an imagined threat rather than the literal words.

This paranoid lens makes the avoidance feel consistent from the poster’s point of view: he is always “answering” — but answering what he perceives the attack to be, not what was actually asked.

⸻

Why It Feels Consistent

• Pattern repetition: The same deflective structure recurs across threads, suggesting it isn’t situational but rooted in stable traits.

• Cognitive bias: If someone habitually interprets critique as threat, then evasive replies become their standard response style.

• Personality fit: Narcissistic vulnerability + paranoid suspiciousness + obsessive style combine to create a predictable loop: post → perceive attack → deflect/reframe → feel vindicated → post again.

⸻

✅ Summary:

The behavior fits with a blend of narcissistic sensitivity, paranoid suspiciousness, and obsessive ruminative tendencies. The paranoid aspect in particular explains why the evasive replies feel like legitimate responses to him — because he is answering a perceived threat beneath the question, not the surface words.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5768010&forum_id=2#49226444)