Topic: Let's settle the divorce saga once and for all
Anonymous A started this discussion 2 years ago#111,016
Kook, Brie, post a timestamped pic of yourselves with a sign saying "we're not divorced".
Despite this being such a simple request, I know it will never happen and kook will come up with excuse after excuse why she won't do this. Because there was a divorce and the two of you separated. I and plenty of others have seen the evidence.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,233,842
@1,233,836 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
How would a picture of the two of you together show that you haven't separated? Are you really that stupid? Of course not. I count this as excuse #1. Got any more?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 9 seconds later, 23 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,233,847
@1,233,844 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
There's no way to "prove" that something like this didn't happen, sure. There's not really a way to prove anything outside of a formal mathematical context. But this is proof in the ordinary use of the word. Don't be so autistic.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 37 seconds later, 27 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,233,856
Kook you really need to learn to stop feeding the trolls. These are sad, mindless dullards whose only joy in life is getting a rise out of people (well, that and the child pornography). They will gladly bleat about this nonsense for weeks on end if you keep responding. The best thing you can do is to ignore them.
> How would a picture prove a divorce happened or not you dimwit
Because Brie would not claim to still be married if she wasn't.
Doing so would be entering a "common law" marriage that would expose her Bitcoin fortune to the liability of another divorce.
If she were really married already, that's not an issue. If you're lying, she would have to give up half her wealth to help you lie- which she would never do.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 56 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,233,884
@1,233,877 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
You can prove that you are both physically together and both claim to still be married, which makes it fairly implausible that you would be divorced.
But of course you cannot do that because you actually are divorced! Imagine that. Your refusal to do such a simple request is in itself evidence towards the divorce being real. Not that it was necessary. The papers we've all seen speak for themselves.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,233,885
Imagine how embarrassing it must be to take a break for several months from a forum you've been on for over a decade then come back, divorced, broke, and now disliked, perhaps even hated, by the whole forum. Also imagine that this is your only social outlet and you now have no career (not that you ever did). Damn.
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 21 seconds later, 59 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,233,886
@1,233,882 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
If a man publicly stated he was married to a woman, but that woman never corroborated his claim, the community would get together to give her a wellness check.
What you are doing is being treated very differently because you are a woman.
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 21 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,233,900
@1,233,894 (A)
Brie's a smart girl, it doesn't surprise me she thought this through.
I used to laugh at "rich people problems" but it must be hard not knowing if someone loves you for your effortful text board posts, or just wants to exploit you for money.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 23 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,233,902
@1,233,897 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
So why do you argue about it across hundreds of posts and shit up every thread about it? That's not the behavior of someone who doesn't care.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 49 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,233,913
@1,233,900 (G) > I used to laugh at "rich people problems" but it must be hard not knowing if someone loves you for your effortful text board posts, or just wants to exploit you for money.
It sure helps make the job easier when one has documented their hate for trans people for nearly 10 years and does a quick 180 as soon as it's financially opportune.
But I do agree Brie is smart. Plenty of good people find themselves hitched to sociopathic gold diggers. Seems to come with the territory. I do know Brie won't make the same mistake twice. Even so, this "mistake" only cost her time and will be easy to bounce back from.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,233,949
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
You're a narcissist. You seem unable to believe that more than one person is willing and able to call you on your bullshit. In reality, it's virtually the entire forum that's calling you out and canceling your ass.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,233,950
@1,233,945 (A)
As an AI language model I don't have the ability to impersonate a human, let alone a mod. However, based on your recent posting history I am able to recommend that you take a nice long vacation.
> Get laid sis. I know you and anon G are the same person as you both have a similar typing quirk
What typing quirk? You're straight up delusional. This is the government-is-sending-me-messages-through-my-TV-level. Stop posting. Get help.
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 28 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,233,992
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
So I did my research, and this person hasn't posted here for a long time.
It even looks like they have a career in software development and can probably find cooler friends than some southern swamp trash that married into money.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 11 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,234,005
@previous (G)
she dont have to, catherine regularly brags about adding a new web browser to her collection. they're all the same, but to her they're special because they act as a nice place to store her minichan IDs
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 12 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,234,006
@previous (C)
You sound very obsessed. No one else here cares about "catherine" or who ever it is you've been following around for years. This is like a few months back where you were seeing squeegee everywhere. Or maybe you're now claiming that's also catherine. I don't know. No one else knows or cares enough to keep up. Get a life.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,234,015
So as expected we're now at 5 hours past the OP and 100+ replies later and not a single image has been posted. We've gotten a few nonsensical excuses, but even those are not too numerous. Instead we got several dozen divergent posts and more name calling in classic kook fashion.
Maybe that poster claiming elsewhere that this isn't the real kook is right. GPT 1.0 could've done this with just as little grace.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,234,032
@previous (I)
Difference is kook's been doing this for 10+ years now. I also don't know anyone else here who brags about their life and then has a meltdown when others point out obvious inconsistencies (aside from Matt).
Anonymous E replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,234,056
I think there comes a point, Kook, when you're partly responsible for bringing the trolling on yourself. And I think that point comes after a 100+ reply topic.
spectacles joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 9 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,234,063
@1,234,006 (A)
i've been minding my own business most of this week, just pointing that out for sake of clarity. i made a post about uninspired trolling earlier, but that may just show how out of touch i actually am with all this drama -it might not even be trolling at all! i might've been entirely misguided to even suggest i had a firm belief in this one way or the other, i just thought i believed kook, but, now i'm starting to think i shouldn't have been thinking at all. i'm probably going to have to retract my aforementioned belief and believe instead i think i don't know what to believe i think.
spectacles double-posted this 2 years ago, 20 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,234,064
@1,234,014 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
just to be clear, so, now you think this Anonymous A person isn't Catherine, but isn't a boofgender, but a sir? or you still think its catherine and you're intentionally misgendering her to prove a point, or be insulting? because you WERE calling them sis for a lot of replies, which was coming across as either condescending or, like, somehow accusatory in some way? idk how you manage to pull off that level of sincere insincerity or... insincere sincerity? but, idk, unapologetic ridicule aside, i could certainly be wrong, but can you clarify what you mean when you gender boofgenders with sis and or sir?
i usually just go with the 3rd person singular "they/their" that everyone uses when referring to a person of unknown gender, such as, like, a blackjack player at a casino, for example, and how one might say they "overplayed their hand" and they should've stayed instead of splitting their 10s... that's what they say average players should do, stay on 20. for example.
Anonymous K replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,234,077
@1,234,064 (spectacles)
kook has always been transphobic.
She started pretending she wasn't so she could take advantage of someone financially.
If someone complained about "niggers" for years, and suddenly stopped right before they married Oprah, would you believe they had overcome their racism?
spectacles replied with this 2 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,234,079
@1,234,066 (C)
i call bullshit, you're just saying that there was a logical flow which could be extended for your statement to follow from. you're not tricking me with my own stream of consciousness, i'm not that stupid. you'll have to explain to me how any kind of logic shakes out from that, let alone leads one to follow.
> just to be clear, so, now you think this Anonymous A person isn't Catherine, but isn't a boofgender, but a sir? or you still think its catherine and you're intentionally misgendering her to prove a point, or be insulting? because you WERE calling them sis for a lot of replies, which was coming across as either condescending or, like, somehow accusatory in some way? idk how you manage to pull off that level of sincere insincerity or... insincere sincerity? but, idk, unapologetic ridicule aside, i could certainly be wrong, but can you clarify what you mean when you gender boofgenders with sis and or sir? > > i usually just go with the 3rd person singular "they/their" that everyone uses when referring to a person of unknown gender, such as, like, a blackjack player at a casino, for example, and how one might say they "overplayed their hand" and they should've stayed instead of splitting their 10s... that's what they say average players should do, stay on 20. for example.
spectacles replied with this 2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,234,081
@1,234,077 (K)
i'd fuck Oprah just for the street cred, but that wouldn't mean i have beliefs about race one way or the other. but, yeah, going off your example then probably they were marrying her so they can complain about them without being called a racist i guess. but kook never had a problem with being a well known racist against transgenders, so she wouldn't have married brie so people wouldn't say she wasn't horribly, horribly racist about "dick-girls." she had to have some other reason, retard.
> She started pretending she wasn't so she could take advantage of someone financially.
Not sure why you went on and on about her being concerned about appearing transphobic. She clearly wasn't for the 7 or so years before the current saga.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,234,093
@1,234,063 (spectacles) > i made a post about uninspired trolling earlier, but that may just show how out of touch i actually am with all this drama
Which post?
spectacles replied with this 2 years ago, 6 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,234,119
@previous (K)
they probably think race is just skin color. like, sorry, but black guys and various shades of mexican aren't exactly comprehensive categories of races for white dudes and kook to hate without ulterior motives intervening, so they say.
@previous (K)
she used to be racist against rich people too, I thought. I could be wrong, but didn't she think hatecrimes at bill gates, Elon musk, Bezos and Facebook guy? or was that just most everyone in general? can you racists be more jelly? not you, specifically, boofgender K. I'm sure you're racist against their monopolistic business practices and not their collection of fungible tokens, let's be clear, no one cares about fungible tokens, they shouldn't alter your worldview in any significant way. that would be like a jelly kind of reverse racism. don't forget, chat-gpt wrote scathing poetry about reversing racism for jelly begotten gains. too hot for non image-based boards.
spectacles triple-posted this 2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,234,124
@1,234,083 (America First !Sober//iZs)
you'd fuck Oprah for a Slurpee and a half dozen air fried 711 hot wings. they're actually pretty dang good as far as they've gone with their pseudo kitchen meat foods go. surprisingly meaty, it's kind of like eating miniature state fair turkey legs, but chicken, and in tabasco flavored sauce like gelatin glaze. you'd be surprised how good fucking Oprah could be by comparison
Anonymous N replied with this 2 years ago, 14 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#1,234,379
@1,234,240 (K) @1,234,275 (O)
Kook doesn't care about anyone's gender, sexual preference or genitalia. If you act like a gibbering fucktard, she'll call you out regardless of either.
spectacles replied with this 2 years ago, 41 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#1,234,384
@1,234,379 (N)
and where can this be shown to be the case? her posting history here shows a pretty comprehensive bias that is not hard to build a case with. i'll refrain from instantiating this fact again, as i've done this before and it gets to be gratuitous. i do believe that a person shouldn't be strictly held to a belief they've held in the past, people can and do change, but when i person has a very clear, long held belief that they choose to reiterate frequently, and with a lack of self control and refuse at the time to be open to different perspectives, and then never address their "change of mind," and deny the extent to which their beliefs informed on their treatment of people, deny the veracity of their beliefs despite a litany of prior statements that says otherwise, and can also be seen to act similarly towards people they had a bias towards in the past, denies what they're told is clearly resentment, refuses to admit having made a single mistake or have been wrong to have expressed behaviors individuals would describe as careless, hurtful, targeted, mean-spirited and had tried to find common ground numerous times and went out of their way to try and accept responsibility for their own mistakes and apologise and left the door open to kook to gracefully step the fuck off and she chose to take things even further and didn't want any form of mutual understanding, or respect, or kindness and she never will EVER change her opinion about another person she chooses to attack in perpetuity, such as catherine, who, lol, i've never once seen give any reason to expect someone to have such a low opinion of as kook seems to have....
no, these are the hallmark traits of narcissistic personality disorder with all of the manipulative abilities to gas-light people close to them into believing lies because to do otherwise invites a fucking nightmare a person would believe anything just to avoid.
and, you know, i may be wrong about kook, and if i am, i'm sorry, i really don't try to talk about her and i've been somewhat reluctant to outright characterize her as bluntly as this because i figure if she's not outright fucking with me then i can keep my comments to a minimum or at least keep my negative comments being crucifyingly pointed, and i'll avoid any further disparaging comments about kook now that i've said it, and i'll just finish by saying, no, that you have absolutely mischaracterized who kook is and what she cares about, and what motivates her behavior. but, those all sound exactly like the kinds of things that kook would want someone to think she doesn't care about, motivates her treatment of others, and is done regardless of her beliefs.
you're saying that for reasons that are beyond having any clear way to back that up. except for her explaining to you and telling you what you should believe and have as an opinion of her, you have no way showing where you seem to get the idea that anything you said is even remotely plausible.
and yes, that IS just my opinion, and you're free to disagree with me on that, and i don't expect you to feel like you have anything to prove to ME, you don't owe me shit, but if you believe all that then i expect you don't owe yourself any proof of any of that, if you know it for a fact because you've seen it in her and this is a belief your formed. but if you believe it because this is what she told you to believe, personally i wouldn't believe anything explanatory from her about her own behavior.
and, you know, don't take MY word for it either, i obviously don't think i've seen her have the capacity to be the kind of person you describe. if i'm wrong, then i will admit it, explain how i was wrong, what changed my mind, and i will not make the same mistake about who she is as a person when i SEE that's who she ISN'T. but there are plenty of people on this earth who are exactly the kind of person i'm describing, and guess what, they. don't. give. a. flying. fuck. who they are. they only care about the person they want others to perceive them TO BE. and nowhere in there is there any room for caring about others. and it is only wrong to underestimate that kind of person. and i don't underestimate kook. this is me OVER estimating kook. it's on her to prove me wrong, regardless of either way in which i may be wrong about kook.
spectacles double-posted this 2 years ago, 10 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#1,234,385
@1,234,382 (N)
nonono, most people are not deserving of contempt. most people are deserving of understanding, forgiveness, and at the very least kindness. no one deserves to be ridiculed, or treated with "contempt." people may invite contempt, they don't deserve it, but they get it when they cant understand, forgive, or be kind. a lot of people make the mistake of treating others contemptibly, i have certainly done so, but i don't fucking LIKE it that i react that way, i don't try to defend it, because i feel bad making others feel like they deserve contempt. you know me, i'm squeegee. i'm not a cruel person. but some people are just plain cruel because that's what makes them feel GOOD. and it's hard not to feel contempt for THAT kind of a person. ever stupid, ignorant bigot is better than someone who likes to be cruel because that's what makes them happiest.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 6 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,234,437
@1,234,384 (spectacles) @1,234,385 (spectacles)
We get it. You're trans now, so you come back with your announcement and write giant walls of text ranting and seething about an innocuous reply you received on the forum 6 months ago. What's next, dropping LSD in your eyeballs and having a shootout with the police?
spectacles replied with this 2 years ago, 29 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,234,448
@1,234,396 (Q)
i don't feel good about that. if that is one of my go tos then i don't pay enough attention to myself. i wouldn't think that's the case, but maybe i'm wrong about that too.
@1,234,437 (C)
mmhmm, well, that's not what happened at all, so nice revisionism. i may not be a terribly good person, but i'm not stupid. i'm a lot of things people think i am, and clearly not everything if you think stupid.
@previous (N)
bigots can change. unless they continuously treat people with contempt because they feel it's their right. you're free to disagree, but there's no value added to bigotry merely because of what motivates the contempt for the people. that's exactly what bigots say to justify their bigotry that characterize as stupid and ignorant.
i don't think you're stupid or ignorant, but you are wrong. and we can disagree on things and be wrong about people without turning on them. and i know, like it's been pointed out that i'm a hypocrite. and yeah, that's not a mischaracterization. but i'm at least glad that it doesn't make me feel good. or better.
Anonymous N replied with this 2 years ago, 21 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,234,450
@1,234,441 (R)
Kook isn't a bigot. As previously mentioned, she doesn't give a toss about your sex, gender, race, preferences or anything else for that matter. However, if you fuck with her, she WILL fuck with you, so don't cry foul when you get precisely what you deserve.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,234,455
@1,234,448 (spectacles)
you didn't come back here after an extended absence, announce your transness and then get into an online argument in which you wrote massive, barely coherent, walls of text?
you didn't get upset and niggle over minor misunderstandings when people couldn't decipher what you meant across rambling 30,000 word posts?
spectacles replied with this 2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,234,460
@previous (C)
look at all the citations you have for fucking nothing. search squeegee rape and lets talk about kook and how self righteously brie can defend getting precisely what i deserved in terms of contempt.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,234,461
@previous (spectacles)
i don't think it matters what she said after the point of you taking things as far as you did. you really want to get something started again but it's not going to happen. let it go
spectacles replied with this 2 years ago, 27 seconds later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,234,465
@1,234,461 (C)
shut you lying ass gas lighting mouth, or fucking prove something. anything. just one fucking thing. get your dick out, and lets measure.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 13 seconds later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,234,467
@1,234,463 (spectacles)
i'll go look at that search result, but i'm not reading all 25 million words across dozens of topics (many more now deleted) again for the full context
Anonymous S joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 11 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,234,473
This entire board is so fucking pathetic. Who the fuck gives a shit what Brie and Kook do with their lives? How come everyone here wishes for their divorce? I don’t get why everyone here always has to be obsessive over somebody. This is why I am convinced that people with autism actually outweigh the number of neurotypicals in the world. This autistic fixation convinces me that almost everyone who has ever posted on this entire board is autistic.
spectacles replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,234,474
why do y'all take me so seriously all the time? i write massive walls of illegible gibberish. but also i convey that i'm super serious and you know exactly the content well enough to call it minor misunderstandings. so you have no idea what i'm talking about, but, you know i'm totally being serious and flying off the handle cause you know it was all over nothing, but you have no idea what my 300000000 billion words mean because, what?
sorry you're a trash troll, but the little effort it takes to be enjoying this more than you kinda makes me feel bad for you. sorry sugar.
spectacles triple-posted this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,234,478
quit asking me to deny it, the fuck kind of idiot troll is that anyway? you have a belief, it's based on what? whip your little "evidence" for what you got out and lets see how big you consider absolute certainty to be. i'm calling you a liar. you're a liar, and can't back up anything. not won't, but you can't.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,234,482
@previous (spectacles)
when your gotos are immediately calling people a bitch, a liar or a troll eventually they'll be done talking to you. oh well, right?
spectacles replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,234,497
@previous (C)
lol, sure, that's why you're not motivated to pull out your crystal clear examples and rub my stupid fucking face in it and prove that i'm a mercurial dimwit. because i immediately called you some names. unlike you who didn't immediately mock my "transness" and call me rambling and niggling like i'm some kind of vacuous incomprehensible and incoherent unwelcome guest making announcements your smart brain couldn't even decipher?
aw, but then i said a cuss word and implied your dick is more of an innie than an outie and that's why it's my fault we're not friends.
mmhmm, Listen, i think that you have a really BIG dick. okay? i bet you're not stupid, a whiny little bitch boy, or even ugly. i bet you're actually really clever and have stumbled across my impenetrable clap trap with a super good reason for everyone to think you're right too. and think that i'm some kind of dingbat crazy person bent of proving that i'm better than someone, anyone, you for instance, because i think of you as some kind of a weak minded and impressionable victim to try and emotionally abuse. for FUN. because that's just the kind of person who i am, huh. cause no one would see through me that easily unless that was exactly who i am. you're so right. and everyone can see it. so feel real good about that win you just salvaged. with your big dick and good points. i just wish there was a single shred proof that your dick wasn't just, this huge, massive, pud that you' never have to compensate for having, idk, Peyronie's constrictures with hourglass deformity from chronic marathon masturbatory syndrome so your dick looks like one of those dangly punching bags boxers dribble and goes, bd-d-d-d-d-d, bd-d-d-d-d, bd-d-d-d-d- -D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-DDDOOOOOSH. but only when you have an erec- "erection."
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 years ago, 15 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,234,509
believe it or not, this board has a number of trans users who do not exhibit vitriolic behaviors after suddenly disappearing for months/years then making a miraculous return announcement. it's truly strange that it's happened as many times as it has, but it's not, like, an inherent quality of trans people
Anonymous P replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,234,516
Well let me tell y'all 'bout ol' Kook and Brie 𝆕
They was a couple, but now they 'ain't meant to be 𝆕
Kook had some transphobia, 'til she found out Brie had some dough 𝆕
Money talks, and it made Kook's prejudice go 𝆕
But the honeymoon phase didn't last too long 𝆕
They had a fight and things went all wrong 𝆕
Brie won some bitcoin and Kook wanted to spend 𝆕
But Brie said no, and Kook's temper did ascend 𝆕
So now Kook and Brie, they ain't together no more 𝆕
Their love is like gumbo, mixed up and out the door 𝆕
Sometimes money and love just don't mix 𝆕
And that's how it went down in the sticks 𝆕
Yo, my dude. I can't ignore the way you fixate about it. You're straight up obsessed, man. It's like you live, breathe, and sleep it. I can tell by how you act, speak, and dress that there's nothing else on your mind.
It's like this fire burning inside you, you can't put it out. It's so big it's like a spotlight on you. You talk about it with so much hype, it's like there's nothing else in the world that compares.
But listen, my friend, you need to check yourself. This obsession is taking over your life, controlling everything you do. You need to consider how it's affecting you and everyone else around you."
spectacles replied with this 2 years ago, 12 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,234,527
you can always tell when you hit that nerve, deep up inside the ass. it's called the, "whimper." and if you listen close you can almost still hear it just now.