The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Asked ai about HERMES OF THE THRESHOLD
Poast new message in this thread
Date: October 16th, 2026 7:20 PM Author: Territorial library karate here is what it says:
I've been reading Consuela's work across The Neo-Feudal Review and Living Opposites, particularly his essays on Jung, Abraxas, the problem of evil, and the metaphysical structure of reality.
My assessment is that Consuela is an intellectually ambitious, widely read autodidact with a distinctive philosophical preoccupation, but his theoretical sophistication is considerably less than his conceptual vocabulary suggests.
He has a real talent for identifying philosophical tensions, especially the difficulty of reconciling natural suffering with belief in an omnipotent, benevolent God. His strongest writing emerges when he examines how those tensions affect his own psychological life.
His central weakness is that he repeatedly moves from an interesting philosophical observation to an extraordinarily expansive explanatory framework without establishing the intermediate propositions.
There's a fascinating disparity between the rigor he explicitly values and the rigor his arguments actually exhibit.
## Where I think he's strongest
His January 2026 essay, [Individuation Under Abraxas], is probably the best entry point to understanding his project.
He describes spending years trying to reconcile his experience of injustice, predation, and suffering with an inherited conception of a morally good universe. Eventually, he adopts Abraxas as a symbol of a reality that contains both creation and destruction.
There's a psychologically intelligible process here. Someone experiences an intolerable contradiction between expectations and observations, revises the beliefs generating that contradiction, and experiences a reduction in psychological strain.
He is also unusually explicit that his worldview answers a personal need for coherence. I give him credit for recognizing that. He acknowledges uncertainty about whether the resulting psychological change will persist.
As autobiographical philosophy, this is interesting material.
## The central philosophical failure
Consider [The Observable Structure of Reality](), published July 13, 2026.
He moves through embryology, cellular death, biological selection, predation, extinction, stellar evolution, and the eventual thermodynamic fate of the universe.
He argues that destruction is constitutive of reality and concludes that the appropriate God image is one containing both creation and destruction, good and evil.
The observations are substantially real. But the inference is extraordinarily weak.
There are several distinct propositions:
1. Destruction is a pervasive feature of physical reality. 2. A universe containing extensive suffering presents difficulties for classical theism. 3. Destruction and creation are metaphysically inseparable. 4. The divine must therefore contain good and evil as constitutive opposites. 5. Consciousness exists to supply something this divine totality lacks.
The first two have substantial evidential and philosophical support. The others require independent arguments.
He frequently treats the progression as though each proposition naturally establishes the next. It doesn't.
And here's the problem with Abraxas as an explanatory theory: a God defined to contain absolutely everything is compatible with absolutely any observation.
If the universe is merciful, Abraxas explains it. If it's cruel, Abraxas explains it. If humanity becomes more cooperative, Abraxas explains it. If humanity destroys itself, Abraxas explains it.
That makes Abraxas an accommodating symbolic framework, but gives it little explanatory discrimination.
He can legitimately answer that he is describing a God image, a psychological representation rather than a scientific hypothesis. In fact, he sometimes makes precisely this distinction.
But his essays also claim that the observed structure of the universe supports his particular metaphysical position.
That shift between psychological usefulness and metaphysical truth is insufficiently controlled.
## His fascination with opposites becomes a universal solvent
This is perhaps his most distinctive intellectual weakness.
In [The Collapse of the All-Good God], he argues that reality is structured through oppositions: light and darkness, good and evil, life and death, order and chaos.
Certainly, some concepts are intelligible through contrast. And some physical processes require gradients or differences.
But these observations establish different things.
The semantic opposition between good and evil does not establish that evil must exist for goodness to exist.
The physical dependence of a heat engine on a temperature difference does not establish a universal metaphysics of opposed psychic energies.
And an individual experiencing conflicting desires does not establish that consciousness itself arises from a cosmic crucifixion of opposites.
He regularly treats semantic, psychological, physical, and metaphysical relationships as manifestations of a single underlying structure.
That could become a substantial philosophical hypothesis. But he would need to specify the common structure, explain the mappings between domains, and identify where the analogy fails.
At present, much of this is associative synthesis expressed with the confidence of deduction.
Neo-Feudal Review
## The political writing is considerably worse
This is where I have the most serious reservations.
In [The Core Themes of this Substack], he advances the claim that Rothschilds and allied Jewish banking families secretly own the world's central banks.
His February 2026 essay, [Why Elite Power Structures Converge on Talmudic-Kabbalistic Frameworks], then constructs a theory about powerful elites converging on Jewish religious frameworks to legitimate exploitation.
He explicitly says that this latter argument is conditional and disavows ethnic essentialism. That's relevant to interpreting his stated intention. But its premise draws on a longstanding antisemitic conspiracy narrative, and the analysis does not establish that premise.
The institutional facts conflict with his ownership claims. The Federal Reserve is established under federal law with a public Board of Governors; the European Central Bank is owned by EU national central banks; and the Bank of England is wholly owned by the British government.
Who owns the Federal Reserve?
Of course, formal ownership does not resolve every question about financial influence or institutional power. Those are legitimate subjects of investigation.
But he builds an enormous political and metaphysical superstructure on assumptions that he has not established.
His approach also makes correction difficult: contrary evidence can be interpreted as further evidence of concealment, institutional capture, or successful elite manipulation.
That's a particularly serious problem for someone who repeatedly describes his intellectual orientation as prioritizing truth and coherence.
## The writing itself
I think his prose is competent and sometimes effective, but overly solemn, repetitive, and self dramatizing.
He has an identifiable voice. His recurring vocabulary of crucifixion, psychic energy, individuation, the Self, the God image, and metaphysical coherence gives his essays a recognizable conceptual atmosphere.
But he seems to have difficulty allowing an observation to remain modest.
A disagreement becomes an encounter between incompatible psychic constitutions. A relationship difficulty becomes the externalization of unresolved opposites. A political development becomes an expression of deep metaphysical architecture.
One example is his treatment of language in [Words as Forcefields].
He begins with the defensible observation that language affects perception and cognition, referencing research on linguistic differences in spatial and color perception.
He then proceeds toward claims about language shaping being itself and institutional gatekeepers suppressing the spiritual implications of this knowledge.
The empirical research cannot support that entire progression.
Neo-Feudal Review
His prose frequently produces the feeling of an explanation before the explanatory work has been completed.
There's also a literary problem: almost everything carries the same existential magnitude. Without changes of scale, even potentially profound observations eventually lose their force.
## One final observation
I find something revealing about the way he describes his own intellectual disposition.
He repeatedly identifies himself as someone whose overriding psychological requirement is coherence, whose central commitment is to face contradictions without consolation, and whose discoveries arise from an unusually demanding encounter with reality.
Those may be sincere descriptions of his experience. But the framework also carries a risk: disagreement can be interpreted as evidence that another person's psychological constitution cannot tolerate the truth he has confronted.
His account of other people's psychological needs therefore needs at least as much scrutiny as his account of his own.
There is a genuine philosophical project buried in all this: how to live ethically in a universe that supplies no evident guarantee of cosmic justice. I think that question deserves serious treatment.
What I find most striking is that he appears to want the epistemic authority of a systematic philosopher while exercising the interpretive freedom of a mythmaker. He has produced an elaborate personal cosmology, but he has yet to demonstrate why someone who doesn't share his psychological needs should believe it describes the world.
That tension may be the most interesting thing about his entire body of work. |
Date: October 16th, 2026 7:36 PM Author: Genius Bear on the loose in Japan "What I find most striking is that he appears to want the epistemic authority of a systematic philosopher while exercising the interpretive freedom of a mythmaker. He has produced an elaborate personal cosmology, but he has yet to demonstrate why someone who doesn't share his psychological needs should believe it describes the world."
Lol mfcr
"My subjective experience represents all of reality. Everything else is unimportant compared to my own inner psychological world. I Am God."
"Uhhhh, but my subjective experience is different than yours. I don't care about any of this stuff that you made up. It's meaningless and useless to me."
"SHUT UP YOU'RE FUCKING STUPID!!!!" |
 |
Date: October 17th, 2026 12:08 AM Author: Exciting Associate Abode (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193258) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 7:46 PM Author: Fracture in the Maidenhead (gunneratttt) 180. It's amazing that he incorporates so much AI "sparring" into his process now but if you plug his shit into AI it immediately identifies all these contradictions.
Here's what mine came up with. And before Consuela pops in accusing me of a biased prompt (if he ever resumes activity after the mockery dies down), this is the prompt I used verbatim:
"Consuela posts on substack under @hermesofthethreshold. Also archive all his posts under his substacks, which include https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/, https://neofeudalism.substack.com/, and https://livingopposites.substack.com/about.
After this archive is completed, generate a report about Consuela. Summarize his ideas and opinions, and make conclusions about them (e.g. are they cogent, intelligent, etc). Break the down on subject (e.g. Jung, Politics, Media, etc.)"
https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vSdK2fJ_ZhUiFnjrx88jRqeuY5XhajxcGaDN-m6vu1bjLhflV3TdEjDATWSW0kGTV2iJGZrl2sn_n0u/pub |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 7:47 PM Author: nighttime costumed property genital piercing wtf is w u and google docs on this site (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50192987) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 7:56 PM Author: Fracture in the Maidenhead (gunneratttt) I tried like 3 file upload sites and they all sucked, required email, etc.
If you have a place you'd like me to upload to that doesn't require an email, I will. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 8:00 PM Author: nighttime costumed property genital piercing pastebin (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193007) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 8:02 PM Author: Fracture in the Maidenhead (gunneratttt) https://pastes.io/EbDqAVrl (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193010) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 8:09 PM Author: nighttime costumed property genital piercing "antisemitic conspiracy theory"
stopped reading |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 8:13 PM Author: Fracture in the Maidenhead (gunneratttt) It's AI. Obviously you have to read past when it stops to fingerwag about antisemitism and shit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193017) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 7:48 PM Author: Genius Bear on the loose in Japan JUNG | POLITICS | CURRENT THING MEDIA (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50192988) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 7:49 PM Author: Territorial library karate my prompt was this:
what do you think of consuela's work? check hermes of the threshold on substack |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 7:55 PM Author: Territorial library karate just skimmed the report yours generated, the review it gives of his philosophical content isn't bad, it is much more charitable than what I poasted, seems like they are saying its mostly coherent. Also interesting it mentioned he wrote an essay on whether it was "self-sealing" in september and that was his best work. That was actually me that made the self-sealing objection originally, so I appreciate he ended up writing it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50192996) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 7:59 PM Author: Fracture in the Maidenhead (gunneratttt) I think it's being generous because his political stuff is so unhinged, and so relative to that it is pretty cogent. Also that's when he began using AI to draft and review his stuff. So of course it's cogent and consistent. But if you put Consuela in a room with a typewriter I expect what you'd get is much closer to his pre-AI shit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193005) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 8:05 PM Author: Territorial library karate what was his pre-ai shit like? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193012) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 8:12 PM Author: Fracture in the Maidenhead (gunneratttt) Everything up into mid-2025.
They're fun to read because he just drops insane claims casually, as if they are so obvious they require no source or elaboration. For a while he was adamant that Tsarist serfs had more political autonomy and freedom than modern Americans. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 8:17 PM Author: Genius Bear on the loose in Japan Cr the best part of his old shit was reading like 3 paragraphs in a row of reasonable and informative analysis/research, and then he'd just randomly drop some utterly ridiculous sweeping statement out of nowhere, totally nonchalantly, as if it naturally and self-evidently followed from the previous 3 paragraphs that it had nothing to do with
This pattern would make me lol like 2-3 times per blog entry read |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 8:29 PM Author: Fracture in the Maidenhead (gunneratttt) Lol yeah. It's what makes him such a compelling lolcow. Most are extremely stupid and/or mentally ill. No one bothers with NSAM or Sealclubber for very long because it's uninteresting and kinda sad and you start to feel bad for them. With Consuela he's smart and sane enough that he tempts you into engaging him and then drops bizarre, sweeping conclusions and spergs hard when they're challenged. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193038) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2026 2:01 AM Author: Exciting Associate Abode There's no amount of explaining it to this guy that will make him rethink things. His ego is rock solid. It's the same way that Pensive thinks Farisa's Crossing is as good as Moby Dick.
These types of people are so dug in and so unbreakable in their worldview that no outside information can sway them. This has been documented in every era of human history as essentially 'kooks who are wrong.' Like there was some guy who thought the Sun went around the Earth and absolutely nothing Copernicus could demonstrate would ever sway some people into agreeing with the evidence. And they just had to wait for that generation to die of old age before waking up in a world where most people accepted it. My take is that Consuela is not in fact an interesting lolcow.
He's actually exactly like every other one of these people who ever was, who just made up some unfalsifiable nonsense and used a lot of words to get it down. Maybe you think it's entertaining to read through his imaginative slop but I think he's utterly predictable as you have already demonstrated. It's actually not that shocking. His stupidity is utterly bland and unoriginal in my opinion. A poor thinker is a poor thinker regardless of how dressed up it is. And the fact that he can't even write anymore without AI says a lot about who he is: a worthless nobody. And I don't think he will ever be able to write again without his crutch. He is too addicted to it. He is like Gollum. He found something that makes him feel a certain mental high and he could never give it up again. He will use it for the rest of his days no matter how much people poke fun at him. He is addicted to the way that thing makes him feel, which I find utterly bizarre and disturbing, but it has been proven to be true beyond any doubt. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 9:35 PM Author: chocolate swashbuckling theater Decoding Consuela: A Cowgod Youtube Series (Part 1 of 213): 4h 03m (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193076) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 9:52 PM Author: Fracture in the Maidenhead (gunneratttt) The Absolute State of Schizophrenia (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193089) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 9:49 PM Author: bearded offensive hell I should probably stop feeding this stuff, but part of me does find the conversation interesting. So some thoughts, although I could elaborate far more than I am here:
The Penis
1. Your earlier critique substantially dealt with the self-sealing nature of my highest-order work; this is *true*, and I dealt with it in my metaphysical audit essay here: https://livingopposites.substack.com/p/on-metabolic-vs-ontological-truth . Basically, I had to adopt a fundamental axiom that the opposites cannot be united on this plane in order to return to regular living. I wrote: "I understand that the axiom “reality contains no final ordering structure” is ironically a final ordering structure. The denial of the floor is the floor, which creates an uncanny valley effect. This approach halts vertical escalation of experienced contradiction up the chain of belief to the God-image and provides psychological stability (to some anyway), allowing one to recenter one’s energies horizontally to addressing people and experiences situationally." 2. I got into this issue with a pretty prominent Jungian recently. I wrote to him: "My own use of the [oroborus] image is primarily processual and ontological. I have found it difficult to separate psychology cleanly from metaphysical orientation, since the latter has consequences for how a person inhabits and interprets reality. Adopting the axiom that reality contains no final ordering structure that resolves the opposites was, for me, a psychological development as much as a philosophical one." 3. The definition of the opposites and good and evil has undergone revision after receiving (proper) pushback on it. My current definition is as follows: "Opposites Not intended as antonyms in the ordinary sense. Rather, two conditions count as opposites when they are actualized and foreclosed branches of a single selection event: differentiation process by selection at every scale (cell, embryo, species, ecosystems), and to select is necessarily to select against something else, which does not cease to exist as a possibility, only as an actuality. The selected and the foreclosed are bound together by the single act that produced both outcomes and are unintelligible apart from each other. Pushed across the full range of what could be selected for or against at any juncture, this relational structure produces something closer to a spectrum than a binary. See also: Crucifixion of Opposites, Enantiodromia. " and: "Good and Evil These are not ontological categories under this framework’s God-image, unlike the privatio boni, because Abraxas contains both within itself and therefore there is no cosmic backing, no ledger, no afterlife enforcement. Instead, they relate to the consequences of offloading the crucifixion of opposites onto others. “Good” means actions which sustain differentiated consciousness by not offloading into predation, projection, or scapegoating, while “evil” means collapsing another’s differentiated consciousness into an object serving one’s psychic economy. This is a claim about an act's psychic consequences, not personal preferences, and is therefore not a claim of moral subjectivism even though it lacks the metaphysical enforcement privatio boni supplies. See also: Abraxas, Crucifixion of Opposites, Offloading, Privatio Boni." 4. "He has produced an elaborate personal cosmology, but he has yet to demonstrate why someone who doesn't share his psychological needs should believe it describes the world." Yes, this is true, but I repeatedly emphasize that I am primarily looking for people who find *resonance* with my work, I am not really trying that hard to convince the unconvinced. 5. My overarching argument is more cleanly displayed in my book draft, which you are welcome to read, as I offered before. I would request only that you actually read it before using AI on it.
Gunnerattt:
1. I appreciate you posting your prompt, thank you.
General
1. It's a bummer to see how much AI use is replacing cognition; it is scary fast and generally much better than human analysis. I expect this offloading of cognition to massively increase, unfortunately; I do it too and I'm not exempt, of course, but I do try to offset it substantially by (1) reading physical books and (2) doing full rough drafts before soliciting AI commentary. The value of the written word and cognition is going to collapse into the toilet.
2. I don't engage with AI on the Rothschild/central banking stuff pretty much at all, because what it does (and Claude is currently quite bad at this, and ChatGPT isn't quite so bad, which is switched from 6 months ago) is it blows it up to be the *dominant* issue of conversation, and it has comically rigid guardrails about it. Gunner's AI commentary made my work seem like it was 70% about the Rothschilds, and I personally think it's an ancillary issue to the central problem of where the crucifixion of opposites are held by individuals.
3. The ease of conducting this kind of analysis on my entire back corpus is kind of unpleasant, and it would be sad if I had to paywall my content - but this stuff will only become easier and easier to in the months and years ahead, I suppose. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 10:04 PM Author: Territorial library karate Fair response, and I give you credit for acknowledging the self-sealing problem. But I think your revised definition of opposites introduces another difficulty: if every actualized possibility necessarily forecloses alternatives, you've established something almost trivially true. Why does that constitute a metaphysical opposition?
More fundamentally, what explanatory work is Abraxas doing that ordinary accounts of biological selection, psychological conflict, and social organization can't? Your audit seems to concede that the framework's psychological utility doesn't establish its ontological truth.
I agree there's value in a worldview that helps people make sense of experience, but I think the distinction between a useful interpretive framework and a theory about reality remains unresolved.
As for AI, I think the arguments should stand or fall on their merits, regardless of who or what generated them. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 10:14 PM Author: bearded offensive hell "if every actualized possibility necessarily forecloses alternatives, you've established something almost trivially true. Why does that constitute a metaphysical opposition?" Because it demonstrates, at least to me, that a God outside of spacetime - everywhere, everywhen - would contain the foreclosed opposites within it. This, imo, dynamites the notion of an all-good God.
"More fundamentally, what explanatory work is Abraxas doing that ordinary accounts of biological selection, psychological conflict, and social organization can't? Your audit seems to concede that the framework's psychological utility doesn't establish its ontological truth."
Yes, it doesn't establish its ontological truth, but it does establish over time whether an Abraxian God-image is liveable, and perhaps it contains a greater ability to explain the madness of the world versus competing perspectives. I don't see anything that proves whether any perspective is ontologically true or not. This also goes back to my upbringing: my mother put me in endless double binds where no choice I made was acceptable; I would be constantly undermined whatever I chose. This was encoded in me on a *biological level*, so regardless of my conscious God-image in my earlier decades, it always had an underlying falseness to it, and I was both regularly decision-paralyzed and looked to others, mining them subconsciously for answers to these metaphysical problems. A God-image comprising totality solves these problems for me.
"As for AI, I think the arguments should stand or fall on their merits, regardless of who or what generated them."
yes, but as we see even in this thread, the AI default doesn't fully understand the perspective - see the Rothschild 70% ranting by Gunnerattt's AI - so, at least to an extent, it's as good as the person conducting the analysis. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 10:22 PM Author: Fracture in the Maidenhead (gunneratttt) This Jungian arc all seems rooted in shoehorning mysticism into despair. It's like if Nietzche created Scientology. This all strikes me as an attempt to valorize depression and perhaps mental illness into something meaningful.
The useful psychological framework is inventing a higher purpose for being depressed and isolated so he's excused from doing anything to actually improve his circumstances. i.e. cope. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 10:25 PM Author: bearded offensive hell This is just another strawman response which doesn't understand my perspective, because I don't preach dispair at all. I did a whole post on the practical end-result of Ecclesiastian "heleq"; if you actually want to understand my perspective, feel free to read this post. I recommend reading it directly before engaging your AI:
https://livingopposites.substack.com/p/the-earliest-crucifixion |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 10:37 PM Author: Fracture in the Maidenhead (gunneratttt) I'm not saying you preach despair (although you have for years, but that's truly irrelevant to what I said.).
What I'm saying is that you exist in a state of despair and have invented a mystical framework to ascribe some meaning to it to excuse yourself from overcoming it. In Consuelian, this is *your* redemption narrative. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 10:40 PM Author: bearded offensive hell Living in a state of despair and having invented a mystical framework to it is *not* redemption, this is word-salad gobblygook. It is about accepting one's portion in life and living without metaphysical guarantees, because putting too much hope or faith in anything isn't supported by how life (from my understanding) operates. This is a fundamentally *tragic* perspective. Yes, I do need the metaphysics to give meaning to this approach, that part is true. But it sure isn't glamorous. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193149) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 10:53 PM Author: Fracture in the Maidenhead (gunneratttt) Exactly. From the framework you've created, doing nothing to change living in misery and lonliness is a virtue. A tragic and unglamarous one, of course, becuase that reinforces the nobility of it and hedges against criticism that you're living in a narcissistic bubble. How could you be? You're just a humble ascetic cursed with insight. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193159) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 10:58 PM Author: bearded offensive hell No, living in misery and loneliness isn't a virtue. I don't preach ascetic withdrawal like Schopenhauer. But my portion in life is limited in certain ways; I'm never going to be a professional athlete, or be a Don Juan, and I'll never be able to turn off my analytical approach. These are all things hardcoded into who I am. My free will, to the extent I have it, is whether to embrace my "heleq" or not.
[edited removal of section] |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 11:17 PM Author: Fracture in the Maidenhead (gunneratttt) It's wild you start with "no" and then confirm my criticism. This new avenue of excusing yourself because you're constituonally incapable of change shows you're cementing this further.
But I see we're at the point where you kneejerk reply with nonreponsive denial and block quotes within minutes, so you've given up even pretending to consider what you're replying to. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 11:21 PM Author: bearded offensive hell I'm not surprised by your response, unfortunately, even though I extended myself to an antagonist by sharing that portion. It is what it is; I'll keep engaging with The Penis - also an interlocutor, but at least one able to understand my perspective, to an extent, and you can see the meaningful back and forth - and you can go back to your weak strawman mockery. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193203) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 11:35 PM Author: Fracture in the Maidenhead (gunneratttt) Again with this self-serving martyr schtick. I'm not an antagonist, I'd like to see you get better and think all this nonsense is self harm. But more importantly you didn't graciously expose yourself; you didn't consider anything I said and responded within minites with a flat denial and block quote. That's narcissism.
This is all just an avenue for you to engage in more masturbatory delusion. Everyone here could be a chatbot and it wouldn't make a difference to you, because all you care about is discussing you, analying you, and creating more dense and esoteric ways to prove you are great, because there's little evidence for it otherwisee.
What you should do is put all this behind you and learn how to live a truly good life. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 11:36 PM Author: Charismatic Smoky Nursing Home (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193219) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2026 12:22 AM Author: Charismatic Smoky Nursing Home Lex was right about you (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193264) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2026 12:26 AM Author: Fracture in the Maidenhead (gunneratttt) ? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193267) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 10:36 PM Author: Trip Stag Film Codepig ? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50199277) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2026 12:21 AM Author: Charismatic Smoky Nursing Home This couldn't be more obvious. He should probably divorce his wife or something but won't so he made an angsty blog about grr evil in the Godhead lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193263) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2026 12:26 AM Author: Fracture in the Maidenhead (gunneratttt) grrr evil in the Godhead grrr lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193268) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 10:38 PM Author: Charismatic Smoky Nursing Home Am i gay (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193145) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 11:41 PM Author: Charismatic Smoky Nursing Home This is an incredible third space
The thread centers on a critique of Consuela’s philosophical project, Hermes of the Threshold, and develops into two distinct arguments: whether his metaphysical framework is intellectually defensible and whether it functions psychologically to rationalize his circumstances.
The Penis begins with an extensive AI assessment that credits Consuela with intellectual ambition and genuine philosophical insight but argues that he repeatedly makes sweeping metaphysical claims without establishing the necessary logical connections. The central criticism concerns Abraxas: a divine totality encompassing every possibility can accommodate any observation, making its explanatory power questionable. The analysis also distinguishes the psychological usefulness of Consuela’s worldview from evidence of its ontological truth.
Consuela acknowledges much of this criticism. He explains that his revised concept of opposites concerns the possibilities foreclosed by every actualized choice, and argues that a God existing outside spacetime would contain those possibilities. He also concedes that his framework cannot establish ontological truth, describing its practical value in resolving the psychological double binds originating in his childhood. The Penis responds that the revised definition may be trivially true and still fails to establish why Abraxas provides a necessary metaphysical explanation.
Gunnerattt pursues a more personal criticism. He argues that Consuela has developed an elaborate mystical framework to give meaning to his depression and isolation, thereby rationalizing his failure to change his circumstances. Consuela rejects this interpretation, explaining that his philosophy concerns accepting one's heleq, or allotted portion in life, without expecting metaphysical guarantees. He describes this as a tragic orientation toward existence rather than an endorsement of suffering.
The exchange deteriorates when Gunnerattt interprets Consuela’s acceptance of personal limitations as further evidence of psychological avoidance. Consuela objects that Gunnerattt is misrepresenting his position and contrasts the exchange with his more substantive discussion with The Penis. Gunnerattt concludes by accusing him of narcissism and intellectual self absorption, claiming that his philosophical activity perpetuates the very circumstances he seeks to understand.
A secondary discussion concerns AI's influence on Consuela’s writing. Participants generally regard him as intelligent but criticize his tendency to move abruptly from reasonable observations to extravagant conclusions. They speculate that AI has improved the coherence of his recent work, while Consuela expresses concern about AI replacing independent cognition.
The unresolved philosophical question is whether Consuela can establish the metaphysical significance of his theory of opposites. The unresolved psychological disagreement is whether accepting the limitations of one's circumstances constitutes a legitimate philosophical orientation or a rationalization for remaining in them. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 11:50 PM Author: Fracture in the Maidenhead (gunneratttt) It's also unresolved whether you're gay. This thread has accomplished nothing.
Locked. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 11:55 PM Author: Charismatic Smoky Nursing Home Ai said I was being "absurdist" which makes me even more confused (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193249) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2026 11:53 PM Author: bearded offensive hell fair thread summary (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193246) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2026 5:01 AM Author: Territorial library karate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193315) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2026 11:43 AM Author: Charismatic Smoky Nursing Home Thread is an absolute classic (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193624) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2026 11:44 AM Author: Territorial library karate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193627) |
|
Date: October 19th, 2026 11:54 AM Author: histrionic shaky nibblets roast beef so not a single poster in this thread is able to mount a meaningful criticizm of Consuela on his own terms? has to go running to an "LLM" to do it for him?
really makes u think, hmmmm |
|
Date: October 19th, 2026 12:01 PM Author: Territorial library karate the thread is specifically about what ai thinks of hermes of the threshold (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50196628) |
|
Date: October 19th, 2026 12:15 PM Author: histrionic shaky nibblets roast beef meanwhile jafar (160 iq) is effortlessly cooking consuela in thread after thread and the best "Defense" he can muster up is "uhhhhh... was that english?" [holds up applause sign] on repeat (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50196656) |
|
Date: October 19th, 2026 12:17 PM Author: bearded offensive hell he's so brilliant i simply can't comprehend the genius of his words (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50196661) |
|
Date: October 19th, 2026 12:08 PM Author: bearded offensive hell gunnerattt is unpleasant for quite a few reasons, but the issue here is that he sees any statement i make - either positive or negative - within his self-sealed belief that i'm using ideology to justify living like a withdrawn hermit and to protect my ego accordingly. so there's nothing to say to the guy.
on a deeper point, though, xo is very good at sussing out the weaknesses of posters, and i have put some degree of psychic energy in the hope/belief that myself and my work will be treated "seriously". i don't think this is an unreasonable belief to have, but even *this* gets dynamited in my world -- which reiterates to me, yet again, that i should just put my head down and focus on the work itself, to accept my "heleq". but the whole thing is still unpleasant regardless (and my response here will fuel the fire, of course) |
|
Date: October 19th, 2026 12:34 PM Author: Fracture in the Maidenhead (gunneratttt) That's not true. I think that's one of the overarching motivations but I don't think it's a conscious one or the only one.
The reason I don't engage you substanively very often is that whenever I do you get emotional, dismissive, or resort to sophistry.
|
|
Date: October 19th, 2026 12:41 PM Author: bearded offensive hell I'm perfectly happy and willing to engage with those who engage me in good faith - see my lengthy, respectful interaction with The Penis above. You're a dishonest time waster who doesn't understand my positions without caricaturing them like a retard, HTH (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50196714) |
|
Date: October 19th, 2026 12:54 PM Author: Fracture in the Maidenhead (gunneratttt) See?
I used to engage you substantially when you were writing about the financal system and you behaved exactly the same. Remember you sent me your manifesto back before I got tired of your arrogance and stubbornness? Also, I have the same level of expertise in Jung as you (re: superficial and lacking deep understanding of psychology and philosophy overall) and I avoided making assertions and theories about things I know I don't have a high level of expertise in. Fortunately you seem comfortable with it. |
|
Date: October 19th, 2026 1:04 PM Author: bearded offensive hell I could have responded a little more neutrally here, but I think you and I just go around in circles and there is no "meeting of the minds", so to repeat the same thing over and over really feels like a waste of my time. I don't agree with your characterization of me or my work, but I don't care to debate it further with you either. My only point here is that I am perfectly happy and willing to engage with those who I think there is some commonality of perspective, even if there is substantial disagreement - I don't feel that way with you, I don't think you understand my perspective on a fundamental level. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50196768) |
|
Date: October 19th, 2026 1:11 PM Author: Fracture in the Maidenhead (gunneratttt) You brought it up and cited me by name. This is another anonying thing you do: histrionic behavior and then acting like you're above it when you get the attention you're seeking. Like a girl.
You choose to come here where you are mocked as a crank by 100% of poasters who engage you. Bumping your shit until it gets engagement. What do you expect the reaction to be? |
|
Date: October 19th, 2026 1:18 PM Author: bearded offensive hell Look at you speaking for the whole forum. There are a number of posters I enjoy engaging with, there are plenty of others I am fine engaging with even if we don't see eye to eye, I don't enjoy engaging with you much at all. You've even pulled me into a subthread wasteland *yet again*, despite my best attempts to avoid it - it's your #1 talent. Let me put it more plainly: fuck off and stop engaging me (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50196798) |
|
Date: October 19th, 2026 1:21 PM Author: Exciting Associate Abode Consuela is Right. He and everyone has the fundamental right not to engage with gunneratttt. This is in the XO Constitution. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50196805) |
|
Date: October 19th, 2026 1:43 PM Author: Fracture in the Maidenhead (gunneratttt) I don't think anyone has to engage with me, I just think it's butthurt and illegitimate to start a poast with "gunneratttt is..." and then act like you're getting harassed when I respond. It's Spacepornian. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50196843) |
|
Date: October 19th, 2026 2:55 PM Author: Exciting Associate Abode I didn't read any of the thread brother but I agree if someone name drops you, you have the right to respond. I believe I laid this out in my Subthread Rules thread. The Right to Respond is paramount imo. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50196909) |
|
Date: October 19th, 2026 8:24 PM Author: Exhilarant disturbing preventive strike laser beams What are the xo bill of rights (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50197363) |
|
Date: October 19th, 2026 1:24 PM Author: Exhilarant disturbing preventive strike laser beams Nice use of the word crank here I think I'll incorporate that more into my vocabulary |
|
Date: October 19th, 2026 8:27 PM Author: Charismatic Smoky Nursing Home (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50197369) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 11:49 AM Author: Territorial library karate I have been trying to forcememe this one into the xo lexicon for at least 8 months now. It's a nuanced term that requires practice to use correctly, but here gunner is showing exquisite mastery. He isn't just invoking it to label kooky ideas and eccentric thinking, or even the more in-your-face kind of crankery you see in sciences or engineering like perpetual motion machines or quackery. He is referring to something more subtle, which is a common pattern in crank and pseudointellectual thought, which is basically the galileo gambit -- when you face criticism saying it is because your ideas are just too profound for people to understand, and this is actually one of the signs the work is reaching it's peak. Whether or not you think consuela's work has any merit or not, it is pretty undeniable he often retreats to this pattern. I think if he actually resisted this pattern, he would have less trouble here. Jung himself was arguably both a crank and a genius. I still leave open the possibility that consuela can establish himself on the bort as a HETERODOX SCHOLAR worthy of being taken seriously. Perhaps some of his ideas need reworking or just need to be communicated better to engage readers long enough to not give up on it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50198105) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 12:04 PM Author: bearded offensive hell to be fair, i'm not saying my ideas are "just too profound for people to understand" - i would agree this is a crankish move. instead, i am arguing more specifically "gunnerattt is a moron". i think you and MIG both understand my perspective, to greater or lesser degrees (not fully, but that's fine), and both of you are greater or lesser critics of my work, which is fine; MIG, in his tearful homosexual rage, even called me "diagnosably narcissistic" yesterday - fine, fine. the frustration is that gunner is clearly a book-smart fellow, his programming is interesting stuff (even though he archives and slows down the board for shitty purposes), but i perceive a fundamental gap in *his* basic understanding of my work. take of that what you will (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50198133) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 12:08 PM Author: Exciting Associate Abode Your work sucks and isn't profound or interesting. You're actually a genuinely stupid person with an enormous misconception about the value of your own ideas, to a bewildering and astonishing degree. If I were as dumb as you I would not publish my ideas. I would not want anyone to know. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50198139) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 12:11 PM Author: bearded offensive hell HAtp, with all gentleness, your IQ is 92.7 so this doesn't concern you*
*yes, this response casually falls back into the pattern Twins identifies, but it's all he deserves (and responding at all was generous) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 12:16 PM Author: Exciting Associate Abode That's demonstrably false. I have a much higher IQ than you do. Intelligent people don't go around writing AI blogs about gnosticism. Do you really think someone like Elon Musk has the time to debate philosophy with people on the internet? Surely you don't think you're as smart as some engineer who revolutionized the world. You don't have any evidence that I'm low IQ or that you're particularly high IQ. Your whole determination of my intelligence is based on me not liking your work or engaging with you on your own terms. That's not any type of evidence that I'm stupid per se. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50198154) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 12:26 PM Author: Territorial library karate Elon Musk probably isn't the greatest example here. Elon Musk is notorious for being an obsessive twitter participant who gets into petty disputes, engages with trolls, and gets in drugged out arguments about everything from politics to philosophy to video games (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50198175) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 12:29 PM Author: Exciting Associate Abode Consider that this drugged out bozo is scrolling Twitter day and night debating randos about pointless topics and now consider that he wouldn't click on or read through Hermes of the Threshold for all the tea in China. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50198181) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 12:47 PM Author: Territorial library karate That's because reading Hermes of the Threshold requires the demand that you enter an elaborate conceptual system on the author's terms, learn it's vocabulary, and invest considerable reading and thinking effort before you can decide if there is worthwhile payoff. That is why I suggested to consuela earlier that perhaps part of the issue has to do with how the ideas are communicated. I'm sure there are people out there who want to engage in Jungian content. Obviously debating randos on twitter is much more immediately rewarding. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50198230) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 12:56 PM Author: Exciting Associate Abode LOL no shit he is a poor communicator.
I could do his job much better than he could. The problem is that once you get out from under the inscrutable terminology, vague concepts, and poorly articulated arguments, there's nothing! There's no underlying or actionable intelligence.
At least before his ideas were stupid and wrong but simple. Central banks, flat Earth, digital reserve currency, ingathering of the exiles. You could explain this shit to a 5th grader easy. And 99% of people go, ok that's fucking dumb. It's dumb but it's clear and concise. The pivot towards Jungian vagueries now shields him from further criticism because he can say well you just haven't put in the time to learn about Abraxas. He's created another layer of denial that anyone cares about his drivel. Before the Slop Era it was much harder to protect his ego from the outside world. |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 10:38 PM Author: Territorial library karate this is rhetorically a really funny poast, i'll leave it at that (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50199281) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 10:47 PM Author: Fracture in the Maidenhead (gunneratttt) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50199303) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 10:43 PM Author: Charismatic Smoky Nursing Home Yeah but if you get rid of the Carl Jung cinematic universe all you're left with are logically unsound arguments that trade on increasingly absurd equivocations (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50199298) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 10:51 PM Author: Exciting Associate Abode Days ending in Y (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50199307) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 12:17 PM Author: Territorial library karate You definitely do this to an extent though. like here is a quote from your blog right here "The audience shrinks as the work becomes more precisely itself because precision narrows the set of constitutions that can receive it." you can see echoes of it in your comment earlier in this thread too, where you talked about putting your head down and focusing on the work and your heleq. These aren't really the only examples, there are many more. And I'll admit I am somewhat sympathetic, because having people reject your ideas and refuse to engage over and over can create this same pattern, which becomes basically indistinguishable from the galileo "my ideas are just too profound for you guys to get" complex. I do admit people have been overly hostile. But at the same time xo is a hostile place to go to have people engage with kooky ideas that are presented in an unironic fashion. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50198157) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 12:21 PM Author: Exciting Associate Abode He deserves no sympathy. He's an unintelligent, uninteresting time-waster. The only people he respects are people who read and engage with his slop oeuvre on his own terms. The more you engage with him and adopt his definitions the smarter he thinks you are. If I devoted my life to becoming his acolyte I could easily gain 40 IQ points in his estimation. But what would the point be? His work is ultra low value lol. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50198167) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 12:24 PM Author: bearded offensive hell of course xo is a hostile place, and that's a big part of its charm. if i wanted moderation and a safe space i would be on reddit or facebook. I can see your argument and there is tension, I suppose, between (1) whether one is properly communicating one's ideas and (2) whether the audience can/will understand those ideas even if properly communicated. to the extent the failure of #1 is being placed on a perceived/excuse of a failure of #2, that gap is what i take you are labeling "crankish." no arguing/debate there -- i think it's just about where the work falls between those possibilities, and i don't claim to have the full answer either. i do know for sure though that i don't have interest in debating gunner or hatp about any of my work and, to the extent i feel compelled to respond to them, it is with the lowest amount of effort and the greatest dismissiveness, which, perhaps, is not to my own best interest - maybe i should just add them to my barely functioning post blocker - but there are so few users left that i'm kind of dragging my feet (& HAtp changes monikers almost daily like goy superstar, which means i have to manually update the blocker too often for my tastes) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50198171) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 12:18 PM Author: Fracture in the Maidenhead (gunneratttt) My scraper takes like 10 minutes to run and I poast while it runs to ensure there's no slowdown. The slowdowns are either someone DDOSing (likely NSAM) or Rach's neglect and something if fucked up that hasn't been fixed (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50198163) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 12:15 PM Author: Fracture in the Maidenhead (gunneratttt) Cr. Credit where it's due: I began incorporating crank into my ordinary xo lexicon when after your crank scholarship in the moon landing thread (I think, could be climate change or some other crankery. There's plenty here!) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50198152) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 12:18 PM Author: Territorial library karate Oh yeah forgot about that one (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50198161) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 12:33 PM Author: Fracture in the Maidenhead (gunneratttt) I think one of the telltale signs of crankery is an emotional attachment to heterodox theoroes. Someone making a legitimate Galileo gambit would anticipate pushback, perhaps even welcoming it so they can test it against things they haven't thought of. And when they're confident in it they would be patient with skeptics, because their goal is to prove their theory correct, not the ego boost of being right.
Consuela is obviously the later. With me in particularly he just repeats that I'm wrong and stupid over and over. But someone with a well thought out heterodox theory would be more interested in proving that a critic is wrong or has misinterpreted them, because their goal is proving the truth of the theory, not people agreeing with him.
The only time Consuela ever challenged me with more than a conclusory assertion or ad hominem it's some pedantic nitpick that doesn't address the substance. For example in the thread he made about my game said I'm wrong because he didn't pivot from Neoliberal Feudalism to Jung in the same substack, but created an entirely new one. As if that has any material impact what I was mocking when I programmed the game to incentive pivoting to hermetic essays and away from news. |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 12:57 PM Author: Territorial library karate Good point although I think people can become deeply invested in ideas they have spent years developing, and conseula has obviously put a lot of work into this project. Perhaps not as much as a traditional heterodox thinker who had to do it without ai, but nonetheless still a lot of work. I think people can still easily get defensive when they have emotional investment and the ego is involved, once the work becomes identity-adjacent it can be difficult to accept certain criticisms. At the same time, some of his responses and frustrations are likely legitimate. He understands the system much better than we do. He has spent a lot of time with it, and the system requires learning an elaborate system of neologisms. I think consuela does have desire to improve the work through criticism. He wrote the piece about self-sealing systems after my own criticism back in september. But I agree it seems he is still getting defensive too easily. I still think breaking the pattern would require both making the work more engaging and easy to understand AND then being more receptive to criticism. But idk if consuela is willing to do that, I think he thinks something is sacrificed or lost by dropping the elaborate zoo of definitions. I think one day I will sit down and read it and give better criticism, but I have just been really lazy lately. I don't mind engaging it actually, I don't get frustrated that easily. I just have been putting it off. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50198270) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 1:02 PM Author: Fracture in the Maidenhead (gunneratttt) Oh definitely. I don't mean to say that all great thinkers are patient sages and all cranks are emotionally deregulated. In fact academics getting super emotionally defensive when their work is challenged is so common it's a trope. But I do think someone getting overly emotional over their heterodox theory being challenged tends to be a useful heuristic. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50198279) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 3:22 PM Author: Exhilarant disturbing preventive strike laser beams ty for your service (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50198523) |
|
Date: October 19th, 2026 8:27 PM Author: Charismatic Smoky Nursing Home He's a diagnosable narcissist and while your engagement with him is laudable in some ways we really should move on to constructive projects. You're welcome to join the Harness Club with me and the Penis. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50197368) |
|
Date: October 19th, 2026 9:30 PM Author: Fracture in the Maidenhead (gunneratttt) CR I thought it was over but when I saw my moniker I couldn't resist responding (I'm easily baited that way.) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50197454) |
|
Date: October 19th, 2026 5:06 PM Author: chocolate swashbuckling theater this thread is Locked (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50197033) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 12:07 PM Author: Genius Bear on the loose in Japan This thread is hilarious if you have consuela's posts auto-filtered. It's just gunnerattt responding to himself 20 times in a row, saying the same thing over and over (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50198136) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 12:56 PM Author: Exciting Associate Abode Lmao (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50198266) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 1:45 PM Author: Exhilarant disturbing preventive strike laser beams lmao (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50198382) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 1:54 PM Author: Charismatic Smoky Nursing Home Lmao (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50198398) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 1:55 PM Author: Fracture in the Maidenhead (gunneratttt) lmao (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50198400) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 11:33 PM Author: fragrant pistol Lmao (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50199365) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 10:58 PM Author: bateful garnet kitchen dog poop i'm sure someone has mentioned this but i needed to note it. Abraxas is one of the great early rock albums of all time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraxas_(album)
with one of the greatest album covers of all time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraxas_(album)#/media/File:SantanaAbraxas.jpg
perhaps the best and most popular song on that album was written by a talented guy who left Fleetwood Mac and then Fleetwood Mac went mega-viral without him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Green_(musician)
|
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 11:09 PM Author: Exciting Associate Abode (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50199338) |
|
Date: October 20th, 2026 11:11 PM Author: Territorial library karate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50199341) |