Aestu wrote:
Dotzilla wrote:
I'm not sure why you keep saying I didn't read it. That's three times, now. I obviously read it. What is it you're trying to get across? Are you implying I didn't read it in the same manner you did?
The latter. Why the assumption that it's pure fiction and all grievances are imagined?
I made some edits you might be interested in.
I, in no way implied it was pure fiction. I 100% believe that owing to the specificity behind the chronology, that the events did occur. But no one, outside of him, can account for how he saw those events. I see a blue dog. I told you about the blue dog. You tell me it's not a blue dog, but a red dog. You ask your friend to confirm that yes, it is in fact a red dog. At that point, I can choose to either deny, confront, or accept that my reality is skewed for whatever reason.
Think about the thousands of bureaucratic chess moves involved in formally complaining about incidents like the ones he talked about. In all the required interactions that follow, how much margin for error is suddenly introduced if he were a paranoid schizophrenic? Or if he suffered from borerline personality disorder? Or if he were blind? Or deaf? Or narcississtic? The possibilities are endless. All I was saying is that we can postulate as much as we want about the events, but his manifesto is biased and not a credible source.
