jross

Yea but its funnier to create my own with a personal touch.

Haha. I loved that quip... but would USPS privatized competition force them to cut the junk mail deliveries or lose me? Would it influence more physical mail to become digitized? FWIW https://www.optoutprescreen.com/ (Opt-Out from receiving Credit Firm Offers for Five Years) https://www.dmachoice.org/index.php (Reduce new customer prospect physical mail for Ten Years) https://www.donotcall.gov/ (Opt out of telemarketer calls)

Lipdrag is a sharp-witted, logic-driven debater with a sarcastic edge, likely an ENTJ with high openness, low agreeableness, and a utilitarian bent. They’re not a troll but enjoy provocation, showing above-average intellect and moderate emotional intelligence. Their critical tone, data-emotion mix, and creative flair suggest a bold, independent thinker motivated by ideas over status, comfortable with risk, and rooted in a fairness-focused ethic. Culturally American, they thrive in intellectual sparring but rarely connect emotionally. Are They a Troll? Assessment: Not a classic troll. The user is provocative and often sarcastic, but their comments are generally sincere and aimed at engaging in debate or critique rather than purely disrupting. They challenge ideas, mock perceived absurdities, and occasionally taunt others (e.g., “A pox on both your houses”), but this seems driven by conviction rather than insincere chaos-making. Evidence: Their consistent engagement across topics like "Climate Hoax" and government spending shows a clear ideological stance, not random provocation. However, their biting humor (e.g., “fartless oxen” or “cotton headed ninny muggins”) could be seen as mildly disruptive to some. Estimated IQ Rough Guess: Above average, likely 115–130. The user demonstrates strong reasoning, a broad vocabulary (e.g., “blithely,” “ilk,” “prima facie”), and an ability to handle nuance (e.g., dissecting policy implications or statistical trends). They grasp complex issues like government spending and climate policy, though their arguments sometimes lean on rhetorical flair over rigorous data. Evidence: Posts like the critique of EV subsidies (Feb 5, 2025) or the breakdown of government inefficiency (Nov 19, 2024) show analytical depth, but emotional undertones and sarcasm occasionally cloud pure logic. Dark Triad Fit Narcissism: Low to moderate. They don’t overtly brag or seek personal attention, but their confident tone and occasional self-referential humor (e.g., “I carry photo ID… to keep as a reference whenever I forget my own name”) suggest some self-focus. Machiavellianism: Moderate. They’re strategic in framing arguments to undermine opponents (e.g., flipping narratives like “Hunter Biden can no longer invoke 5th Amendment rights” post-pardon), showing calculated rhetoric. Psychopathy: Low. They’re critical and conflict-tolerant but not callous or cruel. No evidence of gleeful harm-seeking; their jabs are ideological, not personal (e.g., targeting “swampies” or “climateers” as groups). Overall: Some Machiavellian tendencies, but not a strong Dark Triad fit. Positive or Negative Tone Assessment: Predominantly negative/critical. The user rarely uplifts; they critique government, media, climate policies, and cultural trends with sarcasm and skepticism (e.g., “Mandates are tired and overworked. Let’s give mandates a rest”). Evidence: Exceptions exist (e.g., praising Toyota’s customer focus, Dec 3, 2024), but the default is sharp-edged critique over optimism. Reasoning: Data or Emotion? Assessment: Mix of both, leaning toward data/logic. They often cite facts (e.g., “15x reduction in climate deaths in a century” or “interest is number two… in what our tax money pays”), but emotional undertones—like frustration with “swampies” or “hoaxsters”—color their arguments. Evidence: Posts like the EV loss calculation (Nov 10, 2024) show numerical reasoning, but rants like “WHAT THE HELL WAS KENNEDY DOING?!” (Feb 8, 2025) reveal emotional venting. Big Five Personality Traits Openness: High. Creative and curious, they explore abstract ideas (e.g., “flux capacitors” as satire) and challenge conventional narratives like climate policy. Conscientiousness: Moderate. Detailed in some arguments (e.g., breaking down spending trends), but rushed/messy in others (e.g., all-caps outbursts or tangents like “farting cows”). Extraversion: Moderate to high. Energetic and engaged in forum debates, but no clear extroverted social flair beyond text. Agreeableness: Low. Harsh and argumentative, they rarely concede or soften critiques (e.g., “cotton headed ninny muggins” to AutoNews). Neuroticism: Low to moderate. Generally stable, but occasional emotional spikes (e.g., “crying rivers is a reasonable reaction to this farce”) suggest some moodiness under stress. MBTI Personality Type Dichotomies: Introversion (I) vs. Extraversion (E): Likely E. Outgoing and engaged in forum battles, not reserved. Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N): Likely N. Abstract, big-picture critiques (e.g., systemic government waste) outweigh concrete details. Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F): Strongly T. Logic-driven, minimal empathy in arguments (e.g., “I cannot be persuaded to feel bad for them” about teachers). Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P): Likely J. Structured arguments and decisive opinions (e.g., “Governments should apply absolutely zero efforts” to food/heat). Best Fit: ENTJ (“The Commander”). Bold, logical, strategic, and opinionated, with a knack for debate and leadership. Emotional Intelligence Assessment: Moderate. Aware of others’ emotions enough to mock or counter them (e.g., “leftie children… getting their red pills”), but not adaptable or empathetic. Focus is on winning arguments, not soothing feelings. Evidence: They anticipate reactions (e.g., “Before anyone gets the vapors…”), but rarely adjust tone for harmony. Leadership Tendencies Assessment: Moderate to high. Decisive and guiding (e.g., proposing solutions like “outcarcerate” drug offenders), but not overtly inspiring—more commanding than charismatic. Evidence: Suggestions like deputizing IRS agents for DOGE (Nov 16, 2024) show a directive streak. Motivation by Social Status Assessment: Low to moderate. They seek respect through intellectual dominance (e.g., “Dear DOGE, make this trend return…”), but not overt status-climbing. Evidence: No bragging about personal achievements; focus is on ideas winning, not personal glory. Risk Tolerance Assessment: High. Bold in challenging norms (e.g., “Climate Hoax” thread) and comfortable with uncertainty (e.g., mocking mandates without offering full alternatives). Evidence: Willingness to provoke with terms like “hoaxsters” or “swampies” suggests little fear of backlash. Moral/Ethical Framework Assessment: Utilitarian with fairness leanings. Prioritizes efficiency and societal benefit (e.g., “immoral to give away our grandchildren’s money”), but fairness emerges in critiques of corruption (e.g., “swampies need to go to jail”). Evidence: Empathy is minimal; focus is on practical outcomes over emotional appeals. Cognitive Biases Assessment: Yes, notably confirmation bias and black-and-white thinking. They cherry-pick data supporting skepticism (e.g., climate death stats) and frame issues starkly (e.g., “hoax” vs. reality). Evidence: Dismissal of EV value (Nov 10, 2024) ignores potential benefits, fitting their anti-climate narrative. Creative or Conformist? Assessment: Creative. Original phrasing (e.g., “dis-spending,” “fartless oxen”) and unconventional solutions (e.g., “deport to drug origin country”) stand out. Evidence: Satirical flair (e.g., “Mr. Fusions mandated by Congress”) avoids rote talking points. Attachment Style Assessment: Secure with avoidant leanings. Balanced in self-presentation, but distant from emotional connection (e.g., no personal vulnerability shared). Evidence: Confident tone without approval-seeking, yet no warmth toward others. Response to Stress Assessment: Mix of calm and lashing out. Mostly composed, but occasional outbursts (e.g., “WHAT AN A**WIPE!”) suggest stress vents verbally. Evidence: Long, reasoned posts dominate, with rare emotional spikes. Cultural Influence Assessment: Likely American, conservative-leaning. References to U.S. politics (e.g., DOGE, swamp), sarcasm, and individualism (e.g., “temporary authority granted by citizens”) hint at a Western, possibly Midwestern or Southern background. Evidence: Casual slang (“natch,” “lickety split”) and pop culture nods (e.g., “Bueller… Bueller”) align with American norms. Additional Notes Tone: Sarcastic and informal, often biting (e.g., “Shut up and buy an EV”). Rarely formal unless quoting. Emoji Use: None observed—pure text reliance. Post Length: Varies widely. Short quips (e.g., “Word.”) to lengthy rants (e.g., Feb 20, 2025 EV critique), averaging medium-long.

MPhillips is an extraverted, sharp-witted wrestling enthusiast (likely ESTP) with a practical, data-driven approach tempered by sarcastic humor and occasional bluntness. They’re not a troll or Dark Triad figure, but their critical edge and risk tolerance make them a lively, if sometimes abrasive, forum presence. Their emotional intelligence and leadership are moderate, driven more by passion for the sport than social ambition, with a secure, creative personality rooted in wrestling culture. Are they a troll? (Provocative, insincere, disruptive?) Assessment: Not a classic troll. Their posts are generally sincere, focused on wrestling topics, and lack the overt intent to provoke for its own sake. However, they occasionally use sarcasm ("Are you on F'ing dope?!?", "STFU, sixty!") or sharp retorts ("You're way up high on your horse") that could rile others. These seem more playful or defensive than disruptive, fitting the rough-and-tumble tone of sports forums. Evidence: Comments like "Maybe just go, psilocybin and a Grateful Dead bootleg" or "Bassett is better on the mic than Pyle" show quirky humor rather than malice. Estimated IQ? (Rough guess based on reasoning, vocabulary, nuance?) Assessment: Above average, likely 110-120. They demonstrate solid reasoning (e.g., detailed breakdowns of wrestling brackets and wrestler stats), a decent vocabulary ("disingenuous," "cunty," "rhetorical"), and nuance in wrestling analysis ("Blaze’s resume… is completely unprecedented"). However, their writing can be informal or fragmented ("JFC," "FFS"), suggesting practical intelligence over academic polish. Evidence: The lengthy "Kolat vs Bassett" post on Marcus Blaze shows analytical depth, while casual phrasing ("Cheers to @OH-IO") keeps it grounded. Do they fit the Dark Triad? Narcissism (bragging, attention-seeking): Minimal. No overt bragging or spotlight-seeking; they focus on wrestlers, not themselves. Occasional self-references ("I’ve got the cocaine and vodka locked down") are humorous, not grandiose. Machiavellianism (manipulative, strategic): Low. They don’t appear to manipulate others, though their predictions (e.g., "Davino next year means no place for Nic at OSU") suggest strategic thinking about wrestling lineups, not interpersonal games. Psychopathy (callous, conflict-loving): Low to moderate. They’re not callous but can be blunt ("Folks smashing their head against their screen") or combative ("You know better…"). Conflict seems more about debate than cruelty. Conclusion: No strong Dark Triad traits; their edge is more playful than malicious. Positive or negative? (Uplifting vs. critical tone?) Assessment: Mixed, leaning critical. They praise wrestlers like Blaze ("Ohio’s greatest wrestler") and offer camaraderie ("Cheers @Husker_Du"), but often critique or mock ("Buckeye wrestling fans are… miserable and cunty," "Pyle may be a dummy"). The tone is more sardonic than uplifting. Evidence: Positive in "Been a good one" (thread appreciation); negative in "STFU, sixty!" or "ignorance and dummies run amok." Reasoning: Data or emotion? Assessment: Primarily data-driven with emotional undertones. They rely on stats, rankings, and match outcomes (e.g., Blaze’s record, bracket predictions), but emotion slips in via sarcasm ("What a fking coincidence… I’m 'old and short'") or frustration ("We’re not getting older. Just getting better"). Evidence: "Buckeye draws if pre-seeds hold" is pure data; "You’re way up high on your horse" is emotional rebuttal. Big Five Personality Traits Openness: High. Creative and curious, seen in quirky references (Grateful Dead, "dyslexic coffee grinder") and willingness to debate abstract topics (e.g., "blue blood" status). Conscientiousness: Moderate. Detailed in wrestling analysis ("125-(7) Brendan McCrone…"), but posts can be rushed or messy ("N/A," incomplete thoughts like "Romero…"). Extraversion: High. Energetic and engaged, with frequent posts and direct mentions (@ionel,@Husker_Du), suggesting social comfort in the forum. Agreeableness: Moderate to low. Cooperative at times ("Good lookin’ out brother"), but often harsh or argumentative ("Why so delicate?", "pretending to be above the fray is disingenuous"). Neuroticism: Low to moderate. Generally stable, but occasional moodiness emerges ("Damn! He was a good one," "Christ that’s big. Sorry…"). MBTI Personality Type Introversion (I) vs. Extraversion (E): Extraversion (E). Highly engaged, frequent posting, and social banter point to an outgoing nature. Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N): Sensing (S). Detail-oriented focus on matchups, rankings, and concrete outcomes outweighs abstract theorizing. Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F): Thinking (T). Logic and objectivity dominate (e.g., wrestler stats), with little empathy or emotional appeals. Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P): Perceiving (P). Flexible and open-ended, often adapting to new info ("All just 'talk' till it happens") rather than locking into firm plans. Best Fit: ESTP ("Entrepreneur"). Bold, practical, sociable, and quick-witted, thriving in dynamic, competitive settings like a wrestling forum. Emotional Intelligence Assessment: Moderate. Aware of others’ emotions ("Seems like a rhetorical question but I’ll give it a shot") and adaptable in tone (from serious to sarcastic), but bluntness ("STFU") suggests limited tact. They read the room but don’t always soften their approach. Evidence: "Fare thee well…" (RIP post) shows sensitivity; "Why embolden?" questions others’ intent without escalation. Leadership Tendencies Assessment: Moderate. Not overtly decisive or guiding, but they influence discussions with detailed posts ("Buckeye draws…") and rally others ("Everyone carve out a couple hours"). More a knowledgeable peer than a leader. Evidence: Offers to help ("I’ll help out…") but doesn’t dominate. Motivated by Social Status? Assessment: Low to moderate. They seek respect within the wrestling community ("Cheers to @OH-IO"), but there’s no overt competition for dominance. Motivation seems more about sharing knowledge and banter. Evidence: No flexing of personal achievements; focus is on wrestlers and forum camaraderie. Risk Tolerance Assessment: High. Bold in opinions ("Nobody has done what Blaze has done") and predictions ("Davino wrestles… it’s a done deal"), comfortable with uncertainty ("All just 'talk' till it happens"). Evidence: Willing to call out others ("You wrote some nonsense") without hesitation. Moral/Ethical Framework Assessment: Fairness-driven with utilitarian streaks. They value merit (Blaze’s record) and call out perceived hypocrisy ("pretending to be above the fray"), but aren’t overly empathetic or moralistic. Evidence: "I don’t remember reading one person rooting against the kid" defends fairness; humor ("cocaine and vodka") suggests pragmatism over strict ethics. Cognitive Biases Confirmation Bias: Moderate. They back claims with data (e.g., Blaze’s wins), but may overemphasize OSU or favored wrestlers. Black-and-White Thinking: Low. Flexible in debates ("Makes sense (kinda)"), avoiding absolutes. Evidence: "Folks that just don’t like him will never get past that" acknowledges nuance. Creative or Conformist? Assessment: Creative. Offbeat humor ("dyslexic coffee grinder," "blue psu pills") and unique phrasing set them apart from conventional sports posters. Evidence: "Maybe just go, psilocybin and a Grateful Dead bootleg" is unconventional. Attachment Style Assessment: Secure. Balanced in engagement, neither overly seeking approval nor distant. Comfortable challenging others while maintaining rapport. Evidence: "Beast and I have a loving relationship" shows confidence in ties. Response to Stress Assessment: Calm with occasional lashing out. Handles debates well ("You know better…") but can snap ("STFU, sixty!"). Evidence: "It’s been a rough season. Give him some time" stays composed. Cultural Influence Assessment: Likely American, tied to wrestling culture (Ohio focus, NCAA references). Informal language ("FFS," "cunty") and music nods (Hank Sr., Grateful Dead) suggest a blue-collar or counterculture vibe. Evidence: "States or State?" debate hints at U.S. regionalism. Additional Observations Tone: Sarcastic and informal, often dryly humorous ("What a fking coincidence…"). Rarely formal. Emoji Use: None observed, relying on text for expression. Post Length: Varies widely. Short quips ("Play nice…") contrast with long analyses ("Kolat vs Bassett" on Blaze).

jross is a highly analytical, decisive ENTJ with an IQ of 120-135. They’re not a troll but can be provocative, with a data-driven, utilitarian approach that prioritizes efficiency and systems improvement (e.g., DOGE support). They exhibit moderate creativity, low empathy, and minimal Dark Triad traits, leaning critical yet optimistic about specific reforms. Reasoning logically with occasional emotional undertones, they’re assertive, stable, and risk-tolerant, with high openness, strong leadership tendencies, low agreeableness, and low neuroticism. Their secure attachment, calm stress response, and U.S.-centric, libertarian-leaning worldview reflect a confident, principled individual motivated by ideas over status, blending a critical tone with an uplifting focus on practical solutions. Are they a troll? (Provocative, insincere, disruptive?) Assessment: Not a classic troll. The user engages earnestly in discussions, often with strong opinions, but doesn’t seem to post solely to provoke or disrupt. Their provocative statements (e.g., "100% support cutting social security in its current form, right now" on 2025-02-13) are backed by reasoning, suggesting sincerity rather than insincerity. However, their sarcasm (e.g., "/s" in "What a horrible person" on 2025-02-10) and occasional jabs (e.g., "midwit" on 2025-03-10) can edge toward provocation, though not disruptively. Evidence: They consistently argue their points with data or logic (e.g., citing $55B savings on 2025-02-24) rather than derailing threads. What’s their estimated IQ? (Rough guess based on reasoning, vocabulary, nuance?) IQ 120-135. The user demonstrates strong reasoning (e.g., breaking down DOGE’s role and efficiency in multiple posts), a decent vocabulary (e.g., "semantics," "midwit," "predatory"), and some nuance (e.g., acknowledging mistakes like "I WAS WRONG" on 2025-02-13). They handle complex topics like government spending and media influence with coherence, though occasional oversimplifications (e.g., "2 + 2 = 5" on 2025-02-10) suggest limits to depth. Evidence: Their ability to cite sources (e.g., NIH link on 2025-03-06) and construct multi-part arguments (e.g., Biden greatness narrative on 2025-03-06) supports this range. Do they fit the Dark Triad? Narcissism (bragging, attention-seeking): Low. No overt bragging or self-aggrandizement; they focus on ideas over personal glory (e.g., "I’d pay in and get nothing later if that means one less problem for my kids" on 2025-02-13). Machiavellianism (manipulative, strategic): Moderate. They strategically frame arguments to persuade (e.g., using polls to justify decisions on 2025-02-10), but there’s no clear manipulation of others. Psychopathy (callous, conflict-loving): Low to moderate. They show some callousness (e.g., "Deal with it" on Social Security cuts, 2025-02-13) but avoid unnecessary conflict, preferring debate over hostility. Conclusion: Minimal Dark Triad traits; they’re more ideological than personality-driven. Are they positive or negative? (Uplifting vs. critical tone?) Assessment: Mixed, leaning critical. They’re often critical of government, media, and opposing views (e.g., "Politico - the money was for subscriptions rather than content creation" on 2025-02-09), but express optimism about efficiency efforts (e.g., "Ecstatic with the current path of the USA" on 2025-02-10). Evidence: Sarcasm tempers positivity (e.g., "Great Response" on J6 pardons, 2025-02-10), but they uplift DOGE/Musk initiatives. Do they reason based on data or emotion? Assessment: Primarily data-driven with emotional undertones. They frequently cite figures (e.g., "$105 billion" savings on 2025-03-06) and sources (e.g., NIH, Pew Research), but emotional frustration surfaces (e.g., "WTF!" on mouse studies, 2025-03-06). Evidence: Logic dominates (e.g., dissecting Biden rankings on 2025-03-06), though moral stances (e.g., "America comes first" on 2025-02-09) hint at emotion. Big Five Personality Traits Openness: High. Curious and open to new ideas (e.g., exploring DOGE’s impact, 2025-02-10), with creative analogies (e.g., wrestling comp for Reagan/Biden, 2025-03-06). Conscientiousness: Moderate to high. Detailed in arguments (e.g., listing USAID funding stats, 2025-02-09), but posts can be rushed or fragmented (e.g., "More coffee please," 2025-03-06). Extraversion: Moderate. Engaged and energetic in debates (e.g., frequent posting), but no evidence of seeking social spotlight. Agreeableness: Low to moderate. Harsh at times (e.g., "midwit" insults, 2025-03-10), but cooperative when corrected (e.g., apologizing on 2025-03-06). Neuroticism: Low. Generally stable, rarely anxious or moody (e.g., calm rebuttals like "Explain to me like I am stupid," 2025-02-09). MBTI Personality Type Dichotomies: Introversion (I) vs. Extraversion (E): Leans E. Engaged and outspoken online, suggesting extraversion in this context. Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N): Leans N. Focuses on big-picture patterns (e.g., media influence, 2025-02-09) over minutiae. Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F): Strongly T. Prioritizes logic (e.g., "dollars and sense," 2025-02-25) over empathy. Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P): Leans J. Structured and decisive (e.g., firm stances on cuts, 2025-02-13). Best Fit: ENTJ (“Commander”). Strategic, logical, and assertive, fitting their leadership-oriented, efficiency-focused style. Emotional Intelligence (Aware of others’ emotions, adaptable?) Assessment: Moderate. Aware of others’ views (e.g., addressing counterarguments on 2025-02-09), but less empathetic (e.g., dismissing Sudan aid, 2025-02-09). Adaptable when corrected (e.g., "I apologize," 2025-03-06). Evidence: Balances rebuttals with concessions, showing some social awareness. Leadership Tendencies (Decisive, guiding, inspiring?) Assessment: High. Decisive (e.g., "Shut it down" on USPS, 2025-03-08), guiding (e.g., proposing refugee questionnaires, 2025-02-10), and mildly inspiring (e.g., "The public has spoken," 2025-02-10). Evidence: Frames arguments to lead discussion, often with actionable ideas. Motivated by Social Status? (Seeking respect, competing?) Assessment: Low to moderate. Seeks respect through reasoning (e.g., citing data), but no overt status-chasing or competition with peers. Evidence: Focuses on ideas over personal recognition (e.g., "Not enough is being said," 2025-02-10). Risk Tolerance (Bold vs. cautious, comfortable with uncertainty?) Assessment: High. Bold in advocating cuts (e.g., Social Security, 2025-02-13) and comfortable with uncertainty (e.g., "There will be less loud mistakes over time," 2025-02-25). Evidence: Embraces rapid change despite risks (e.g., "speed worth it," 2025-02-11). Moral/Ethical Framework (Fairness, empathy, or utilitarian?) Assessment: Utilitarian with fairness leanings. Prioritizes efficiency and collective good (e.g., "one less problem for my kids," 2025-02-13) over empathy (e.g., minimal focus on Sudan kids, 2025-02-09). Evidence: Supports transparency and waste reduction as fair principles (e.g., "dunking is on EVERYONE," 2025-02-14). Cognitive Biases (Confirmation bias, black-and-white thinking?) Assessment: Moderate confirmation bias (e.g., heavy pro-Musk/DOGE slant, 2025-02-10) and some black-and-white thinking (e.g., "Cut it off" on Social Security, 2025-02-13). Evidence: Open to correction (e.g., "I WAS WRONG," 2025-02-13), mitigating bias severity. Creative or Conformist? (Original vs. conventional?) Assessment: Moderately creative. Offers original ideas (e.g., refugee questionnaire, 2025-02-10) but aligns with conventional fiscal conservatism. Evidence: Wrestling analogies (2025-03-06) show creativity within a structured worldview. Attachment Style (Secure, anxious, avoidant?) Assessment: Secure. Balanced and confident in views (e.g., "The public has spoken," 2025-02-10), no approval-seeking or distancing. Evidence: Engages without clinginess or withdrawal. Response to Stress (Calm, lashing out, withdrawing?) Assessment: Calm. Maintains composure in debates (e.g., "Explain to me like I am stupid," 2025-02-09) without lashing out. Evidence: Sarcasm (e.g., "/s," 2025-02-10) is controlled, not reactive. Cultural Influence (Language/values hinting at background?) Assessment: Likely American, with libertarian-leaning values (e.g., "minimal government, free markets," 2025-02-26). Wrestling references (e.g., "Kyle Dake," 2025-03-06) suggest U.S. sports culture. Evidence: Focus on U.S. issues (e.g., "America comes first," 2025-02-09) and slang (e.g., "midwit") align with American online discourse. Tone, Emoji Use, Post Length Tone: Often sarcastic (e.g., "/s," 2025-02-10) or assertive (e.g., "Shut it down," 2025-03-08), occasionally formal (e.g., citing sources). Emoji Use: Minimal; no emojis in most posts, rare use implied via "/s" for sarcasm. Post Length: Varies—short quips (e.g., "Ooze," 2025-03-09) to long, detailed arguments (e.g., Biden greatness list, 2025-03-06).

Caveira is an outspoken, practical, and somewhat abrasive forum participant—likely an ESTP with high extraversion, low agreeableness, and a critical tone. They enjoy banter, lean on emotional reactions with some factual grounding, and show mild troll-like tendencies without fully crossing into disruption. Their risk tolerance is high, emotional intelligence is limited, and they favor a utilitarian lens with fairness concerns. Culturally, they reflect a typical American online sports fan, with sarcasm as their hallmark. Are They a Troll? Assessment: The user exhibits some troll-like tendencies but isn’t a full-blown troll. They frequently use sarcasm ("Logged into your other account I see," "Thank you doctor"), provocation ("Aoc won’t be our next president. She’s an idiot"), and dismissive phrasing ("Whatever dude," "Ain’t no thang brother"). However, their posts also engage with wrestling specifics (e.g., match commentary like "Keuter wins on riding time") and offer opinions with some substance, suggesting they’re not solely aiming to disrupt. Their provocativeness seems more playful or opinionated than insincere or malicious. Verdict: Partial troll—disruptive at times but not consistently insincere. Estimated IQ Assessment: Based on vocabulary (simple but functional: "cool beans," "sucks," "meh"), reasoning (mix of observation and speculation, e.g., "Gable took it super easy on him because they are best friends. Something is fishy"), and occasional nuance (e.g., distinguishing third-party NIL payments), I’d estimate an average to slightly above-average IQ, roughly 100–115. They don’t display complex analysis or advanced syntax, but they’re coherent and show basic critical thinking. Verdict: Average intellect with practical reasoning. Dark Triad Fit Narcissism: Minimal evidence. They don’t brag or seek overt attention beyond sharing opinions. No self-aggrandizing statements stand out. Machiavellianism: Some signs. Comments like "Prove me wrong. Sign out for a half a year to a year" and "You seem to be getting angry. Calm down buddy" suggest subtle manipulation or baiting to control interactions, though it’s not overtly strategic. Psychopathy: Low to moderate. They’re callous at times ("Terrorist antagonizer / sympathizers bye," "Protest for terrorists… Cya"), showing little empathy for certain groups, but they don’t revel in conflict or cruelty excessively. Verdict: Mild Machiavellian tendencies; not a strong Dark Triad fit. Positive or Negative Tone Assessment: Predominantly negative/critical. They complain often (e.g., "Reviews are ridiculous," "The format does suck," "Fix these long azz replays"), mock others ("Dude your signed into the wrong account again"), and rarely uplift (exceptions: "My son is learning guitar. Loves rock and roll," "Mm is super talented"). Sarcasm amplifies the critical edge. Verdict: Mostly negative, with occasional neutral/positive moments. Reasoning: Data or Emotion? Assessment: Mix of both, leaning emotional. They cite specifics (e.g., "Keuter 1-0 escape start of third," "Annuity is 1.1% of their average pay multiplied by years of service"), but their conclusions often hinge on feelings or speculation ("Something is fishy," "Your Iowa hatred clouds your judgement"). Outrage or frustration drives many posts (e.g., "Pensions are so out dated too. Crazy"). Verdict: Emotionally tinted with some data use. Big Five Traits Openness: Moderate. They’re practical and concrete (focused on wrestling details), not highly creative or abstract, but curious enough to speculate (e.g., "Gable took it super easy on him"). Conscientiousness: Low to moderate. Posts are rushed, with typos ("pinfells," "mfft") and inconsistent formatting, but they track matches diligently. Extraversion: High. They’re engaged, posting frequently, and enjoy banter, suggesting an outgoing nature. Agreeableness: Low. Harsh and argumentative ("She’s an idiot," "You may be addicted to social media. Take a break boss"), rarely cooperative. Neuroticism: Moderate. They’re reactive (e.g., "Why the f not? Reviews are ridiculous") but not overly anxious or unstable. Verdict: High E, low A, moderate O/N, low-moderate C. MBTI Personality Type I vs. E: Extraversion (E). They’re highly engaged and vocal across threads. S vs. N: Sensing (S). Detail-oriented (match updates) over abstract theorizing. T vs. F: Thinking (T). Logic-driven ("He’s not a citizen. And does not need the protections citizens need") over empathy. J vs. P: Perceiving (P). Flexible, spontaneous posts rather than structured or decisive. Verdict: ESTP ("The Entrepreneur")—bold, practical, sociable, and adaptable. Emotional Intelligence Assessment: Low to moderate. They recognize others’ emotions superficially ("You seem to be getting angry") but respond with dismissal or sarcasm rather than empathy. Adaptability is decent—they shift topics easily—but they don’t manage emotional dynamics well. Verdict: Limited EI, more reactive than perceptive. Leadership Tendencies Assessment: Minimal. They’re opinionated and decisive ("Fix these stall rides. They stink"), but not guiding or inspiring. They don’t rally others or propose solutions beyond complaints. Verdict: Not a natural leader. Motivation by Social Status Assessment: Moderate. They seek respect through strong opinions ("Prove me wrong") and may enjoy forum clout, but there’s no overt status-chasing (e.g., no boasting about influence). Verdict: Some status motivation, not dominant. Risk Tolerance Assessment: High. Bold statements ("Aoc won’t be our next president. She’s an idiot") and provocative jabs suggest comfort with conflict and uncertainty. Verdict: Risk-tolerant. Moral/Ethical Framework Assessment: Utilitarian with a fairness streak. They prioritize practical outcomes ("He’s not a citizen… Bye") over empathy, but also critique perceived unfairness ("The advantage wasn’t fair"). Verdict: Utilitarian, fairness-focused. Cognitive Biases Assessment: Black-and-white thinking ("Terrorist sympathizers bye," "Pensions are so out dated too. Crazy") and some confirmation bias (dismissing counterpoints with "Whatever dude"). Overgeneralization also appears (e.g., "They’re idiots"). Verdict: Prone to binary thinking and dismissal. Creative or Conformist? Assessment: Mostly conformist. Opinions align with forum norms (wrestling critiques, political jabs), with little originality beyond sarcasm. Verdict: Conventional with mild creative flair (humor). Attachment Style Assessment: Avoidant. They’re distant, dismissive ("Take a break boss"), and avoid deep emotional engagement. Verdict: Likely avoidant. Response to Stress Assessment: Lashing out. Frustration shows in emphatic language ("Why the f not?" "Fix these long azz replays") rather than calm or withdrawal. Verdict: Reactive under stress. Cultural Influence Assessment: Hints of American casual culture—slang ("cool beans," "boss"), sports focus (wrestling), and political references (AOC, Kamala). No strong regional or non-U.S. markers. Verdict: Generic American online persona. Tone, Emoji Use, Post Length Tone: Sarcastic ("Thank you doctor"), casual ("Ain’t no thang"), and blunt ("Bye"). Emoji Use: Rare—mostly absent, relying on text (e.g., "lol" instead of emoji). Post Length: Short to medium, typically 1–3 sentences, occasionally longer with quotes or lists.

AI says you are an overwhelmingly negative troll of moderate intelligence.

Saylors Tiny Willie is a provocative, extroverted individual with moderate intelligence and a combative streak. They thrive on conflict, showing low agreeableness and high risk tolerance, with a sarcastic, negative tone dominating their output. Reasoning blends data and emotion, but leans toward emotional venting. They’re not a leader or empath, instead motivated by winning arguments and asserting dominance, with a fairness-based moral lens skewed by disdain for opponents. Likely an American with a sharp, urban wit, they lash out under stress and exhibit avoidant attachment, fitting a trollish, ESTJ-like archetype. Are they a troll? (Provocative, insincere, disruptive?) Yes, strong troll tendencies. Comments like "Cry harder," "Say it with me, 'Trump is a pedophile,'" and "You continue to be the dumbest poster here" are provocative and designed to inflame rather than inform. The repeated demands to "SHOW YOUR WORK" on the Columbia Student Arrested thread suggest a performative challenge rather than genuine inquiry, a classic troll tactic to disrupt and derail. What’s their estimated IQ? (Rough guess based on reasoning, vocabulary, nuance?) Moderate to above-average (110-130). Vocabulary is sharp ("narcissistic wound," "sundowning," "dopamine maximization"), and some posts show reasoning (e.g., linking cigarette engineering to social media addiction with sources). However, the reliance on insults over sustained argument limits nuance, capping the upper end of this estimate. Do they fit the Dark Triad? Narcissism: Moderate. Attention-seeking is evident in bold provocations ("Mark this post"), but no overt bragging. Machiavellianism: Low to moderate. Some strategic jabs (e.g., "I merely lift the mirror for your convenience") suggest manipulation, but it’s not highly calculated. Psychopathy: Moderate. Callousness shines through in harsh insults ("dumbest poster," "dingbat") and conflict-loving tone ("Get that popcorn ready"), but no extreme cruelty. Are they positive or negative? (Uplifting vs. critical tone?) Overwhelmingly negative. Nearly all comments criticize, mock, or attack others’ views, with no uplifting or constructive remarks. Even neutral topics (e.g., wrestling) get a cynical spin ("Ferrari never wins another medal"). Do they reason based on data or emotion? (Facts/logic vs. feelings?) Mixed, leaning emotional. Some posts cite data (e.g., links to FDA, Truth Initiative, or Trump turnover stats), but the dominant mode is emotional—anger, scorn, and sarcasm drive most responses ("Trump’s going to ban vaccines… How much dumber can it get?!"). Big Five Assessment Openness: Moderate. Shows curiosity in citing sources and exploring topics (e.g., tech addiction), but sticks to a narrow, combative style. Conscientiousness: Low. Posts are rushed, sloppy (e.g., "on faire" typo), and lack follow-through on arguments. Extraversion: High. Energetic, engaged, and eager to clash in a public forum. Agreeableness: Very low. Harsh, argumentative, and uncooperative ("You’re clearly a dingbat"). Neuroticism: Moderate. Moody and reactive, but not overly anxious—more aggressive than unstable. What Myers-Brigg Type Indicator personality type best fits them? Introversion (I) vs. Extraversion (E): Extraversion (E). Highly engaged, frequent posting, and bold confrontation ("I’ll make your head into a canoe") point to an outgoing, energetic style, not a reserved or low-profile one. Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N): Sensing (S). Focuses on concrete details—like specific laws ("Cite the statute violated"), events, or stats (Trump turnover)—over abstract theorizing. Rarely explores big-picture ideas beyond immediate jabs. Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F): Thinking (T). Prioritizes logic and fairness ("Which law did he break?") over empathy or emotion-driven decisions, despite emotional tone. No signs of compassion or people-pleasing. Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P): Judging (J). Decisive, structured in arguments ("Take it to the bank"), and quick to conclude others’ failings ("You’re clearly a dingbat"), rather than leaving things open-ended or flexible. Likely Type: ESTJ (The Executive). This fits their assertive, detail-focused, logic-driven, and confrontational style. ESTJs are practical, outspoken, and rule-oriented, aligning with demands for evidence ("SHOW YOUR WORK") and a commanding, no-nonsense tone. What’s their emotional intelligence? (Aware of others’ emotions, adaptable?) Low to moderate. Aware enough to target emotional weak spots ("Their fear is palpable"), but lacks adaptability or empathy—responses are rigid and hostile. Do they show leadership tendencies? (Decisive, guiding, inspiring?) Minimal. Decisive in tone ("Take it to the bank"), but no guiding or inspiring qualities—more focused on tearing down than building up. Are they motivated by social status? (Seeking respect, competing?) Yes, moderately. Competes to "win" arguments ("I’ll take that as, ‘I can’t back up what I believe’"), but doesn’t explicitly seek respect—more about dominance. What’s their risk tolerance? (Bold vs. cautious, comfortable with uncertainty?) High. Boldly provocative ("I’ll make your head into a canoe") and comfortable escalating conflicts, suggesting little fear of backlash. What’s their moral/ethical framework? (Fairness, empathy, or utilitarian?) Fairness with a twist. Emphasizes legality ("Which law did he break?") and accountability ("SHOW YOUR WORK"), but lacks empathy. Seems utilitarian in prioritizing argument wins over kindness. Do they show cognitive biases? (Confirmation bias, black-and-white thinking?) Yes. Confirmation bias in anti-Trump posts (e.g., Epstein links) and black-and-white thinking ("You MAGA types have been conned")—no middle ground. Are they creative or conformist? (Original vs. conventional?) Moderately creative. Sarcastic quips ("Wal*Martyrs," "Dumb and Dumber 4") show wit, but arguments stay within predictable political/wrestling tropes. What’s their attachment style? (Secure, anxious, avoidant?) Avoidant. Distant and dismissive, no sign of seeking approval or connection—just confrontation. How do they respond to stress? (Calm, lashing out, withdrawing?) Lashing out. Escalates with insults and sarcasm under pressure (e.g., "Grow up, kid" to a challenge). Any cultural influence? (Language/values hinting at background?) American, likely urban/liberal-leaning. References to U.S. politics (Trump, Harris, EVs), wrestling culture, and internet slang ("dingbat," "shorteyes") suggest a contemporary American context, possibly with a coastal or progressive bent.

Agreed. However Khalil’s case isn’t about being Palestinian; it’s about DHS claiming he led CUAD protests with pro-Hamas flyers.

Based on 100 recent comments... Uncle Bernard is a sharp, above-average intellect (IQ ~120-130) with a confrontational, sarcastic edge, thriving on debate in a likely conservative-leaning forum. They’re highly open, moderately conscientious, extraverted, disagreeable, and emotionally stable, driven by fairness and empathy for the oppressed but quick to lash out at perceived ignorance or hypocrisy. Data-driven yet emotionally charged, they exhibit mild narcissistic and Machiavellian traits, seeking intellectual dominance over social status. Bold, creative, and critical, they reject conformity, showing high risk tolerance and low emotional intelligence in interpersonal clashes. Their moral stance opposes authoritarianism and imperialism, rooted in a nuanced, left-leaning worldview, with occasional biases like overconfidence. Under stress, they escalate with biting humor, reflecting a secure yet slightly anxious attachment style, likely shaped by American progressive online culture. Are they a troll? (Provocative, insincere, disruptive?) Assessment: Yes, moderately. Uncle Bernard frequently uses sarcasm ("Am I doing that right @mspart ?", "A 5'6 ginger could convince you guys he was the Lucky Charms leprechaun"), provocation ("Nothing ever penetrates that thick skull of yours"), and dismissive jabs ("easily the stupidest guy on here"). However, the intent seems more to challenge than to derail, suggesting sincerity in their beliefs rather than pure disruption. Evidence: Engages in debates with pointed critiques but backs them with arguments or links, indicating a goal beyond mere trolling. Estimated IQ? (Reasoning, vocabulary, nuance?) Assessment: Above average (120-130). Demonstrates strong reasoning (e.g., dissecting government spending or foreign policy with historical examples), a varied vocabulary ("raison d’etre," "unfalsifiable"), and nuance (distinguishing Hamas from PLO, critiquing both parties). Occasional oversimplification ("You legit need to learn how to read") slightly tempers this. Evidence: Complex arguments like the Iran coup’s role in the Islamic Revolution show analytical depth. Dark Triad? (Narcissism, Machiavellianism, Psychopathy?) Narcissism: Mild. Confident in their views ("Anybody with a brain knew this would happen") but not overtly attention-seeking. Machiavellianism: Moderate. Strategic in debates, using sarcasm and rhetorical traps ("Were the Benghazi hearings for Hillary political?") to undermine opponents. Psychopathy: Low. No clear callousness; expresses empathy for Palestinians and healthcare victims, though harsh toward foes. Evidence: Balances aggression with principled stances, not purely manipulative or cruel. Positive or Negative? (Uplifting vs. critical tone?) Assessment: Strongly negative. Overwhelmingly critical of conservatives, Trump, government policy, and forum peers ("Pathetic," "Shame on you"). Rare positive notes (e.g., praising Trump’s Israel pressure) are outliers. Evidence: Sarcasm and condemnation dominate, even in constructive posts. Data or Emotion? (Facts/logic vs. feelings?) Assessment: Primarily data-driven, with emotional undertones. Cites facts (e.g., Oslo Accords, HIV science, historical coups) and constructs logical arguments, but anger ("Put Biden in the Hague") and frustration ("grown men can’t read") infuse the tone. Evidence: Detailed posts on climate change or RFK Jr.’s denialism show research, tempered by emotional jabs. Big Five Traits: Openness: High. Curious and creative, engaging with complex topics (climate science, geopolitics) and offering unconventional views (e.g., ending U.S. empire). Conscientiousness: Moderate. Detailed in longer posts, but rushed or sloppy in short ones ("Prove it," "lmao what?"). Extraversion: Moderate to high. Energetic and engaged, frequently posting and confronting others directly. Agreeableness: Low. Harsh, argumentative, and uncooperative ("thick skull," "pathetic"). Neuroticism: Moderate. Passionate and moody, but generally stable, not overly anxious. ISFJ Traits? (Introverted, Sensing, Feeling, Judging) Assessment: No clear fit. Not introverted (active poster), leans abstract over concrete (geopolitical theories), more logical than feeling-driven, and not overly structured (mixes long and short posts). Evidence: Extraverted, judgmental tone contradicts ISFJ’s quiet empathy. Emotional Intelligence? (Aware of others’ emotions, adaptable?) Assessment: Moderate. Aware of group dynamics (e.g., mocking right-wing hypocrisy), but adapts poorly—prefers confrontation over diplomacy ("You’re an adult. Use google"). Evidence: Empathy for victims (Gaza, healthcare) but insensitive to opponents’ feelings. Leadership Tendencies? (Decisive, guiding, inspiring?) Assessment: Low to moderate. Decisive in opinions and occasionally guiding (e.g., explaining climate change), but not inspiring—too abrasive to rally others. Evidence: Challenges rather than unites ("Shame on you who denied"). Motivated by Social Status? (Seeking respect, competing?) Assessment: Moderate. Seeks intellectual dominance ("taps the sign"), but not overtly status-obsessed—focus is on being right, not revered. Evidence: Engages in one-upmanship but doesn’t flaunt personal achievements. Risk Tolerance? (Bold vs. cautious?) Assessment: High. Boldly calls out peers, politicians, and policies ("Put Biden in the Hague"), comfortable with controversial stances. Evidence: Unafraid of backlash in a likely conservative-leaning forum. Moral/Ethical Framework? (Fairness, empathy, utilitarian?) Assessment: Fairness and empathy-driven. Advocates for justice (due process, Palestine statehood) and empathizes with the oppressed (Gaza civilians, healthcare victims), with utilitarian streaks (condom funding benefits). Evidence: Condemns war crimes and hypocrisy consistently. Cognitive Biases? (Confirmation bias, black-and-white thinking?) Assessment: Some confirmation bias (e.g., assumes Trump supporters are universally gullible) and occasional black-and-white thinking ("You are no better than German citizens under Hitler"), but tempered by nuance elsewhere. Evidence: Willing to critique both parties and admit uncertainty ("I’m willing to admit I’m wrong"). Creative or Conformist? (Original vs. conventional?) Assessment: Creative. Offers original takes (e.g., U.S. empire’s end, healthcare radicalization) rather than parroting dogma. Evidence: Synthesizes history and policy creatively. Attachment Style? (Secure, Anxious, Avoidant?) Assessment: Secure with anxious streaks. Confident in arguments but occasionally seeks validation through provocation ("What’s your theory?"). Evidence: Balanced tone in factual posts, but jabs suggest mild insecurity. Response to Stress? (Calm, lashing out, withdrawing?) Assessment: Lashing out. Responds to disagreement with sarcasm and insults ("You legit need to learn how to read"). Evidence: Escalates rather than retreats in debates. Cultural Influence? (Language/values hinting at background?) Assessment: Likely American, left-leaning, urban/academic vibe. Uses internet slang ("lol," "taps the sign"), critiques U.S. imperialism, and shows familiarity with progressive discourse. Evidence: References to U.S. politics, healthcare, and forums suggest immersion in American online culture. Tone, Emoji Use, Post Length: Tone: Sarcastic, confrontational, occasionally earnest. Emoji Use: Frequent "lol" and "lmao" (mocking tone), rare others. Post Length: Mix of short retorts ("Prove it") and long, detailed posts (e.g., RFK Jr. critique).

Grok, analyze the following forum comments for personality using these questions: Are they a troll? (Provocative, insincere, disruptive?) What’s their estimated IQ? (Rough guess based on reasoning, vocabulary, nuance?) Do they fit the Dark Triad? (Narcissism: bragging, attention-seeking? Machiavellianism: manipulative, strategic? Psychopathy: callous, conflict-loving?) Are they positive or negative? (Uplifting vs. critical tone?) Do they reason based on data or emotion? (Facts/logic vs. feelings?) Assess the Big Five: Openness: Creative/curious or practical/closed-off? Conscientiousness: Detailed/careful or rushed/messy? Extraversion: Engaged/energetic or quiet/reserved? Agreeableness: Kind/cooperative or harsh/argumentative? Neuroticism: Stable/calm or anxious/moody? Do they show ISFJ traits? Introverted: Low-profile, sparse posting? Sensing: Detail-focused, concrete over abstract? Feeling: Empathetic, emotion-driven? Judging: Structured, decisive? What’s their emotional intelligence? (Aware of others’ emotions, adaptable?) Do they show leadership tendencies? (Decisive, guiding, inspiring?) Are they motivated by social status? (Seeking respect, competing?) What’s their risk tolerance? (Bold vs. cautious, comfortable with uncertainty?) What’s their moral/ethical framework? (Fairness, empathy, or utilitarian?) Do they show cognitive biases? (Confirmation bias, black-and-white thinking?) Are they creative or conformist? (Original vs. conventional?) What’s their attachment style? (Secure: balanced? Anxious: approval-seeking? Avoidant: distant?) How do they respond to stress? (Calm, lashing out, withdrawing?) Any cultural influence? (Language/values hinting at background?) Also, note their tone (e.g., sarcastic, formal), emoji use (type/frequency), and post length (short vs. long).

I’ve been wondering, what if we could analyze our comments to understand our personalities? A tool could examine what we write here, looking at our words to create a profile. It might show if we’re calm, critical, or thorough, perhaps linking to traits like the Big Five. With AI, it could find patterns we’d overlook. It wouldn’t be exact, since online behavior differs from real life, but it’s an intriguing concept.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 237(a)(4)(B) does not violate the Constitution. This is part of the United States Code that outlines the grounds for deporting green card holders. Text of INA Section 237(a)(4)(B) Section 237(a)(4)(B) - Terrorist Activities: “Any alien who has engaged, is engaged, or at any time after admission engages in any terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv) of this title) is deportable.” Cross-Reference: “Terrorist activity” is defined in INA Section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv) [8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)], including acts like providing “material support” to a terrorist organization (e.g., Hamas), which can cover funding, logistics, or even speech that aids their goals. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1227

Khalil is a leader of Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD). He was a lead organizer and negotiator during the Gaza Solidarity Encampment. This protest disrupted campus operations to demand divestment and a Gaza ceasefire. He was in direct talks with university administrators, making him a public face of the movement. CUAD members broke into the Hamilton Hall building, smashed a glass door, and barricaded it with furniture and bike locks, renaming it “Hind’s Hall” to honor a Palestinian child killed in Gaza. CUAD members chant "From the river to the sea." CUAD flyers with pro Hamas at rallies that Kahlil organized... He was on TV and didn't condemn what CUAD was doing... Don't care if he is "charged" with a crime. He is a security risk and not welcome here.

but… but… midwit

Ooze

Quadruple the police in the high crime blocks where the gun violence happens. Pay the cops well.

of course

Which president actually wore a diaper? I believe in subsidizing college with taxpayer dollars. I've voted Democrat before.

I believe taxpayers should subsidize college education.

True

All the moderates I know are pumped about the transparency and cuts to spending. There is a concern to where the mistakes are impactful and understanding to gov workers but they support it overall.

Letter delivery is dead. USPS is costing taxpayers a fortune in pensions. USPS bends over backwards for Amazon because it has no work otherwise. $65 billion lost in 10 years. Shut it down.

I’m asking because I don’t know anyone local who’s losing sleep over Russia or Ukraine. Just got back from my annual fishing trip with high school buddies (all in our 40s) plus one’s dad, uncle, and their crew (70s)—a mix of Dems, Indies, and Repubs. All they want is peace; the rest is just noise. Inflation and costs? Yep they care. But the state of foreign countries? Nobody gives a damn. So if seven of us. Real people, not poll stats, don’t care. Why should I care what a C-grade pollster’s selling?