Clipped the full segment where he bitches about @Null, it's about what you would expect. He goes on about how Drexel is misunderstood and how Josh is being manipulated by some group of people and again claims people in this thread break the rules without saying who even though they should be reported if they actually are breaking the rules. He also keeps bringing up how "funny" all of this is and claims Josh is afraid of his own site for some reason
I can't post the logs because we communicate exclusively by Signal with a autodestruct timer set to a week.
At 7:30, his re-contextualization of the conversation is a complete fabrication. He started the conversation complaining about what I said about Drexel. When I was able to defend my position and clarify that I don't care how recent or long ago these things happened, he switched his narrative by:
1. Claiming he doesn't care about 'the negro' (with enormous restraint I avoided using any racially charged language; Rekieta did repeatedly refer to him as 'the negro' but I avoided taking the bait), and that
2. He was merely using me being wrong about Drexel to illustrate that I am consistently wrong about other things (even though I was not wrong about Drexel), and that
3. Other things included his trip to Jamaica.
At 9:20 he claims I'm manipulable because I want to be neutral. I don't know if Rekieta has observed this but I was very willing to ignore the very minor problems and rumors and muckraking about Rekieta for a very long time, because at that point anything I'd have to say would be dismissive as I had no interest in the content and did not find it funny. Even this overlooking has caused some seriously deranged people to feel indignant and dedicate themselves to wanting to fuck with me.
I did privately raise my concerns with some of the shit he was doing, multiple times. Then, I brought my complaints publicly. This, as with Dick, started because Rekieta decided to start directly antagonizing the forum, which makes it something I cannot ignore. It is also behavior that no one on the forum can directly provoke - Rekieta himself had to start doing it.
The MATI Segment about that:
So I want to clarify that I am not easily manipulated by nutjobs who just hate Rekieta, because I shit in people's mouth when they try to force me to do something. What is
very effective in forcing me to talk about you, is to kick the anthill and directly start some rivalry with the forum and its community. This is not because I am "afraid of what I created", as he says later on, but because the bread and butter of drama on this site is people angry at it when they can choose to completely ignore it.
At 18, our discussion is about the Death Penalty. He's anti-death penalty and I am pro-death penalty. I think, especially in regards to sex offenses, we should kill more people and that
Kennedy v. Louisiana should be overturned. He believes that the non-zero risk of innocent people being killed means there should be no Death Penalty, I disagree.
His attempt to extrapolate this into some sweeping statement about the forum and myself is gay and cringe.
When men talk, they generally are direct and goal oriented. I've never before had a conversation with a man that is literally bathtub talk. So when you randomly contact me in the shower (again, close to midnight) I assume you have some purpose in it. The goal that Rekieta claims in his rant is either a lie or it was so poorly stated throughout 2 hours of exchange that I didn't pick up on it. He can blame me for being 'too autistic' to see it, but I'd hope an attorney with 7 years of university could get to the fucking point.
He approached me from a place of anger and has retroactively fit a thesis and narrative to his emotionally charged messages.
Titus 3:10
Mattew 18:15-17
