From Newsgroup: alt.fan.usenet

On 06 Sep 2026, Emily Postnews <Etrack@gnood.com> posted some news:XnsB4BF87D1EB83FCorrectal@65.108.165.7:

Rudy Canoza <rudy@phil.hendrie.con> wrote in

This is likely another "pothole"-style idiot, falsely claiming to be a
woman.

"She" has two dozen posts this morning, all of them employing the same
trope. It's this:

[gerund phrase] is (or 'proves') [fuckwit's nonsensical subjective
classification]

Here are some examples (there are nearly always at least two of these
tropes in every post):

Two in a reply to Swill:

Explaining that "military service doesn't equal virtue" as if it's
a revolutionary insight|ore4rCYafter dropping a list of high-profile
killers|ore4rCYis classic rhetorical sleight of hand.

Using extreme edge cases to make a basic moral distinction isn't a
masterclass in logic|ore4rCYit's just blowing up the thread so nobody
notices the original argument got abandoned.

Three in a reply to Swill:

Claiming you aren't a "partisan dupe" while insisting you're
"righter than any extremist" is just self-congratulatory
partisanship with a centrist label attached.

Calling your own grenade-lobbing an attempt to "call out
inconsistencies" is a very polished way to describe basic,
everyday contrarianism.

Announcing that "the truth is usually closer to the middle" isn't
a profound philosophical stance|ore4rCYit's just a convenient formula
to ensure you always get to play the smartest person in the room.

Three in a reply to Swill:

Lecturing someone on their "societal goals" in a Usenet flame war
is incredible delusion|ore4rCYnobody is enacting social reform via
newsgroup posts.

Dropping a grand thesis about "societal goals" and "pattern
recognition" just to rephrase "you lost the argument" is peak
academic posture for a message board scrap.

Counting up five posters to claim a consensus victory on Usenet
proves you view a standard comment section dogpile as a
high-stakes debate tournament.

Two in a reply to Swill:

Invoking "how right-wing of you!" over a Usenet sockpuppet dispute
is top- tier political brainrot.

Labeling a debate over fake newsgroup accounts as a grand
ideological battle proves you're completely lost in the partisan
weeds.

Two in a reply to me:

Declaring your own case "guts" the argument while stuck in a loop
explaining why you're not explaining yourself is top-tier Usenet
cope.

Calling a one-line denial a "fact that guts the case" doesn't turn
a defensive reflex into a masterstroke.


On and on and on they go. "She" really does comically fancy herself
the Great Tribune of Usenet.

I notice that "she" gets very little engagement.

Categorizing every three-line reply as a complex psychological profile
says way more about how long you've been staring at newsgroup text than
it does about anyone else.

Tracking sentence structures across dozens of posts just to build a
grand taxonomy of "tropes" is peak Usenet obsessive behavior.

Complaining about a lack of thread engagement while typing out a multi- paragraph forensic breakdown of another poster's syntax is incredible self-unawareness.

IAWTP
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2