All of that sounds incredibly focused on the individual, as if they alone have all the answers and everyone else here just isn’t on their level. It’s staggeringly reminiscent of another member who also fancied themselves as ‘oh-so-special’ and “unique” among us mutants…
I me me mine
dances around to boomer wisdom
It’s a wonder that the world is such a mess what with all these ubermensches on internet forums.
I once dated a guy who had a similar perspective; the subject of every sentence was “I” or ‘me’, to the point that one time I actually tried counting the instances where he referenced himself while speaking.
I got to 58 within the course of a 10 minute conversation before I gave up…
Why did I click that link?
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
If one does not learn from the past, one risks the peril of repeating it.
OMG. I almost completely forgot about them. A lot of metaphorical heads banging on tables back then. 
But you’re so correct in reminding us of them.
I guess I’d probably be pretty self-absorbed too if I’d won an Emmy, a Grammy, an Oscar and a Tony Award.
Oh, wait. That’s EGOT-ism.
Thing is, most of the folks demonstrating such self-centeredness rarely have the receipts to justify it.
Maybe you were thinking about how people who eat rye bread made from bad grain get absorbed into their own reality?
You also have to win a Razzie for that.
Big picture: it’s interesting to me how, if you want to sockpuppet, you kinda have to avoid being… yourself?
A sophisticated community will recognize the same person based on their frequently stated viewpoints, regardless of how many usernames and emails they might try to hide behind 
Not gonna lie, failed sockpuppeting is one of the funniest things to me. The time Scott Adams did it on metafilter and got caught was such a satisfying self-own. You can hide from a lot of stuff, but you can’t hide from yourself.
This is my favorite recent sock puppet outing: https://mobile.twitter.com/MilvertonSaint/status/1353453235705671683
Not to be confused with ergotism, which can also be a real trip. 
(Dammit, @anon39846808 beat me to it. Love me some nerd humor!)
Honestly, I’m just happy people got my joke. 
Coming from you, I am tempted to read this as a challenge for sockpuppet masters.
Also, it reminds me of the so-called ‘digital humanities’, including sentiment analysis and corpus-encompassing research on the particular voice of authors. When you start putting this into the discourse instance of BB BBS, remind me to get anonymized by Ken, all right? OTH, it would be really a good case study if known sockpuppets would work to train a model, and to validate it.
Not sure if we have had enough, but I somehow think we might.
No, definitely not a challenge, just a general compliment to the regulars here who play close attention.
Straight up, moderation here would be massively more difficult without our Regulars and Leaders who often leave detailed notes in flags to draw our attention to these issues.
People like to state I do most of the moderation here, but that’s not really true. The community initiated the vast vast majority of comment reviews, and I have learned to pay attention when the community feels something is amiss as a result.
Doh! A sphincter-tightening reminder of my early days on BB: My first ever negative-ish experience on BB was with da popo, with I responding to some outlandish, self-serving post with 
. That got me a “how dare you”; that’s a quote. My 100% avoidance since that little drama has served me well.
i recently did a deep dive into the cognitive style of popobawa4u and after much consideration found what i considered the best example in this thread–
and by “best” i mean the most typical demonstration of all of the worst features of their discourse in the shortest space. in fewer than two dozen comments and replies this one has it all: walls of text, idiosyncratic definitions of words along with redefining the same words on the fly, as well as the standard–for them–shoutouts to “social constructs” etc.
it is both fascinating and appalling.
