Why was Bad Hippo so universally hated?

[lullabyofscreams]

We all have haters on this site if you participate enough in the discussion but I really don't recall a single person cosigning for his bullshit

 

[Deleted member 42069lol]

WTF. Another thread about him?

 

[Interregnum]

We all have haters

the great interregnum has no haters

 

[Shady as Fuck]

I never hated him.

 

[Richard 1986]

I didn't hate him .Sometimes people must be taken at 2nd or third level of comprehension sometimes they joke we must have humour in GG or suicide solution after each view of atrocious things ...

 

[K.I.T.T.]

WTF. Another thread about him?

This comment is exactly why myself and many others are suspicious of you. Hippo was here long before myself, and I've been here almost three years and still didn't know much about him.

Do you see where I'm going with this? You joined just a little over a month before Hippo's ban and here you are conveying irritation and disbelief over a new thread about him when you couldn't possibly know him well enough to give a shit and that seems very odd.

 

[j.f.🔎]

I didn't hate him, he just talked too much.
And now he's gone I can say he did dm me around Xmas time asking "what I was into" with a picture of a woman in latex describing how hot she was I just ignored it but still weird behaviour imo.

 

[Deleted member 42069lol]

This comment is exactly why myself and many others are suspicious of you. Hippo was here long before myself, and I've been here almost three years and still didn't know much about him.

Do you see where I'm going with this? You joined just a little over a month before Hippo's ban and here you are conveying irritation and disbelief over a new thread about him when you couldn't possibly know him well enough to give a shit and that seems very odd.

Why does my comment require that I had known him well enough? The OP and others have made quite a few threads about him. That fact alone is enough to make the comment.

 

[K.I.T.T.]

Why does my comment require that I had known him well enough? The OP and others have made quite a few threads about him. That fact alone is enough to make the comment.

You're only seeing your comment from your point of view. That alone is why you aren't comprehending our doubts.

 

[DokraOwl]

I enjoyed his presence, especially when he had his foot chopped off and posted detailed photos about it. Not many users show such dedication as that.

 

[Dr Deacon]

Didn't hate him, but:

1. He was a faggot - normally I don't care what orientation people are but he pretty much promoted it and kept posting that he was proud of being buggered and sucking off other men.
2. He was a lazy bastard - had one spazzy foot and claimed that's why he couldn't work; he was a welfare scrounger.
3. He had a hysterical shitfit when I refused to "like" his so called witty remarks. I refuse to engage with an attention seeker.
4. He was a faggot.
5. He was a faggot.
6. He was a shitstabber.
7. See 4, 5 and 6.

 

[Deleted member 42069lol]

You're only seeing your comment from your point of view. That alone is why you aren't comprehending our doubts.

I understand the doubts perfectly, but they're flawed. I did prove that elsewhere.

 

[Heavyarmament]

We all have haters on this site if you participate enough in the discussion but I really don't recall a single person cosigning for his bullshit

Looks like Bad Hippo has another account now...

 

[Deleted member 46687]

I understand the doubts perfectly, but they're flawed. I did prove that elsewhere.

The only thing you do is make peoples sock spidey senses tingle.

So with that in mind

Shut the fuck up, you sock cunt!

 

[Dirl]

Didn't hate him, but:

1. He was a faggot - normally I don't care what orientation people are but he pretty much promoted it and kept posting that he was proud of being buggered and sucking off other men.
2. He was a lazy bastard - had one spazzy foot and claimed that's why he couldn't work; he was a welfare scrounger.
3. He had a hysterical shitfit when I refused to "like" his so called witty remarks. I refuse to engage with an attention seeker.
4. He was a faggot.
5. He was a faggot.
6. He was a shitstabber.
7. See 4, 5 and 6.

 

[K.I.T.T.]

I understand the doubts perfectly, but they're flawed. I did prove that elsewhere.

Flawed according to whom? You? I'm sorry, but our doubts will remain because you're inherently untrustworthy. Ask again a year from now because I'll continue to be suspicious until I'm not and there's nothing you can do about it.

 

[Deleted member 42069lol]

Flawed according to whom? You? I'm sorry, but our doubts will remain because you're inherently untrustworthy. Ask again a year from now because I'll continue to be suspicious until I'm not and there's nothing you can do about it.

Well, not according to me. I didn't pioneer formal logic (or a bit of psychology). I'm not stating an opinion (an unjustified belief, like a doubt) but a rationally valid counter.

And you are free to be suspicious; I'm only pointing out that it isn't quite valid.

 

[K.I.T.T.]

Well, not according to me. I didn't pioneer formal logic (or a bit of psychology). I'm not stating an opinion (an unjustified belief, like a doubt) but a rationally valid counter.

And you are free to be suspicious; I'm only pointing out that it isn't quite valid.

What you consider to be a "rationally valid counter" we consider to be a "fucking retarded performance". Validation of suspicion relies entirely upon irrefutable evidence of which you nor I have none.

 

[Deleted member 42069lol]

What you consider to be a "rationally valid counter" we consider to be a "fucking retarded performance". Validation of suspicion relies entirely upon irrefutable evidence of which you nor I have none.

Well, I actually did make a very valid counter somewhere in the previous threads. But in short, it goes like this: you're cherry-picking observations about me to support an a priori assumption that I'm a sock. (Not to mention the observations are contorted to fit into the narrative when more parsimonious explanations exist). Aka confirmation bias.

Validation of suspicious needs empirical evidence and/or a very strong rational backing. And it's not my job to do that, I'm not making the claim/doubt (Still, I provided a counter).

 

[Dirl]

Well, I actually did make a very valid counter somewhere in the previous threads. But in short, it goes like this: you're cherry-picking observations about me to support an a priori assumption that I'm a sock. (Not to mention the observations are contorted to fit into the narrative when more parsimonious explanations exist). Aka confirmation bias.

Validation of suspicious needs empirical evidence and/or a very strong rational backing. And it's not my job to do that, I'm not making the claim/doubt (Still, I provided a counter).

Why are you speaking polynesian? Fuck that.

That parasite never managed to post an interesting thread;he was too lazy to post anything other than comments about his faggotry, sarcasm and lame latex shit.

However you have traits of a sock account.