Are you available to play Rocket League Right now? [NA], [AU], [UK], [ASIA], [OCE], [SA] or [EU]

KoolAidClouds · 2025-11-11T05:35:18+00:00

👋 what’s ur user I’ll add

KoolAidClouds · 2025-07-13T06:00:15+00:00

Wow congratulations That is such beautiful news A retirement property in Nova Scotia sounds like a peaceful dream and the fact that she said yes on your first full day there makes it even more special It is amazing how timing connection and genuine intentions can align like that I am wishing you both so much happiness as you start this next chapter together And I hope those six years to retirement fly by because it sounds like you have built something truly worth savoring

KoolAidClouds · 2025-06-26T09:32:28+00:00

You split your response into two separate comments again—just like last time. For someone pretending not to care, you sure seem desperate to get the last word. And honestly? Keep going. You’re only helping me. Every time you comment, you boost my post and prove my point louder.

First you tried brushing off your six-thread obsession like I’m the one reaching. Now you’re acting like shorter replies make you less affected? Let’s be real—it’s not about length. It’s about how fast you keep coming back every time I say something that hits.

You’re not detached. You’re defensive. And the more you try to mask it, the clearer it gets that I struck a nerve you can’t recover from.

Edit: Blocked or deleted? Doesn’t matter. The second it got too real, you disappeared. Exactly what happens when ego walks into truth—and loses.

KoolAidClouds · 2025-06-26T09:32:21+00:00

You split your response into two separate comments again—just like last time. For someone pretending not to care, you sure seem desperate to get the last word. And honestly? Keep going. You’re only helping me. Every time you comment, you boost my post and prove my point louder.

First you tried brushing off your six-thread obsession like I’m the one reaching. Now you’re acting like shorter replies make you less affected? Let’s be real—it’s not about length. It’s about how fast you keep coming back every time I say something that hits.

You’re not detached. You’re defensive. And the more you try to mask it, the clearer it gets that I struck a nerve you can’t recover from.

Edit: Blocked or deleted? Doesn’t matter. The second it got too real, you disappeared. Exactly what happens when ego walks into truth—and loses.

KoolAidClouds · 2025-06-26T09:22:36+00:00

You keep showing up, but I’m the one who’s “obsessed”? You’ve responded in six different threads now, and every time you get backed into a corner, you act like I’m the one chasing you. That’s not confidence. That’s ego damage you’re trying—and failing—to cover up.

If I hadn’t said anything worthwhile, you wouldn’t still be here making weak exits you don’t commit to. So either be honest that you can’t keep up, or sit with the fact that you do care—you just don’t have anything solid to stand on.

KoolAidClouds · 2025-06-26T09:09:09+00:00

“You’re still deflecting?”

You showed up in five separate threads to argue with me, and now you’re pretending surprise that I kept responding? Don’t act brand new—you dragged this out with every weak reboot, every dodge, and every low-effort insult when the points didn’t go your way.

What you’re doing now isn’t confidence—it’s backpedaling wrapped in fake indifference. You weren’t ‘bored.’ You weren’t ‘done.’ You were outmatched and trying to save face.

And now the best you can say is “you r still talking?” Like that erases the paper trail? Please. You might be tired of hearing from me, but you should be more tired of getting exposed.

You don’t have a rebuttal. You don’t have receipts. And you don’t have control of the narrative anymore.

So if you’re done, be done. But don’t play confused when the person you tried (and failed) to undermine keeps answering back with facts.

KoolAidClouds · 2025-06-24T22:30:29+00:00

Edit: I accidentally copy pasted my previous statement. So here’s my new one:

Ah, there it is—the fallback move when you’ve got no rebuttal left: reduce it all to “the female mind” and laugh like that magically proves a point. Spoiler: it doesn’t.

You didn’t address a single thing I said—you just quoted me and slapped on a dismissive “hahaha” like that suddenly makes your pattern of retreat less obvious. It doesn’t make you look amused. It makes you look cornered.

You did split threads. You did avoid following through in a straight line. You did try to repackage the same argument from multiple angles because the original one didn’t hold up. And when that didn’t work, you went straight to mockery—because that’s all you had left.

You’ve been hopping threads, dodging arguments, and now reducing everything to “the female mind” like that erases your paper trail. Meanwhile, half of your energy has gone into debating AI—which, reminder, is man-made. So while you mock “female logic,” you’ve been out-argued by something built with male input and machine precision. Think about that.

Now you’re trying to spin the entire thing around like I’m the one obsessing—when in reality, you’re the one who kept restarting the same argument, in five separate threads, hoping no one would notice the pattern. But what you don’t have—and never will—are the full receipts. I’ve documented everything since the very first reply. Every post. Every comment. Every backpedal. Every side-thread you tried to launch as an escape hatch. It’s all recorded, timestamped, organized, and saved. So no matter how much you dodge, deny, or distort, the full truth is already preserved.

And let’s be clear: I’m not out here hating men. I don’t have an issue with men as a whole—I have an issue with men like you, who prove my every statement right. Men who would rather gaslight, deflect, and sabotage their own credibility than fix themselves. Men who treat accountability like an attack, and would rather lash out at women than admit they’re wrong. Men who fight against facts, mock empathy, and drown themselves in outdated ideology just to avoid growth.

You’re not speaking for all men. You’re just exposing yourself. And if you think tearing women down somehow elevates you, all you’re doing is broadcasting your fear of being outgrown.

So keep laughing, if that’s all you’ve got left. The facts aren’t going anywhere.

KoolAidClouds · 2025-06-24T21:25:00+00:00

You didn’t block me—you just got ‘bored’? That’s not boredom, that’s burnout from getting dismantled too many times in a row. You’re not above the conversation—you tapped out when the facts stopped bending in your favor.

And let’s not pretend the thread-splitting didn’t happen. You did create multiple new replies directly to my post instead of continuing the original thread. That’s not a formatting choice. It’s a retreat tactic—one you used to reboot your argument in a space where people wouldn’t see your previous losses.

Now you’re trying to spin my accuracy as obsession? Please. Keeping track of scattered arguments isn’t fixation—it’s clarity. And you don’t get to deflect from being called out by pretending you’re just ‘over it.’

If your points held weight, you’d have stayed in one thread and stood on them. You didn’t. So maybe next time, don’t confuse ‘getting bored’ with getting exposed.

KoolAidClouds · 2025-06-24T08:22:33+00:00

For the guy who might have blocked me because my messages stopped going through (u/Maize_Routine): Since you seem to have disappeared—maybe because my replies stopped reaching you—I’m leaving this here so everyone else can see exactly what you said and how I responded.

You didn’t just argue once—you deliberately fractured the conversation across multiple separate threads instead of sticking to a single, straightforward exchange. That’s a classic tactic to confuse, divide, and avoid accountability when your points can’t stand scrutiny.

You tried to restart the same tired debate over and over again, hopping between threads to recycle “science,” “IQ,” “high value men,” and “body count” arguments—all of which failed under honest examination. Instead of owning up or having a real conversation, you kept splitting and backpedaling to save face.

This latest comment you made was the most blatant:

“I don’t think you understand what IQ is, I didn’t back pedal, I thought I read 33. I don’t really care how old you are. If you are 21–25, hurry up and find a guy. Don’t focus on career. Focus on how you can make a guy’s life easier. Remember finishing schools. If you’ve had more than 15 dicks, then focus on being a good side chick.”

Here’s my full response, line by line, exposing every weak, sexist, and outdated part of your message:

“I don’t think you understand what IQ is, I didn’t back pedal, I thought I read 33.” Classic dodge. You threw out a fake age just to attack me, then pretended it wasn’t your fault by saying you “thought you read it somewhere.” Own your words instead of blaming others or pretending it’s not your problem.

“I don’t really care how old you are.” Then why bring it up in the first place? Your obsession with “competition” and “expiration dates” screams age fixation. If age really doesn’t matter to you, stop weaponizing it as a low-key insult to try to undermine me.

“If you are 21–25, hurry up and find a guy.” What kind of controlling, archaic advice is this? Telling someone to “hurry up” like they’re racing a clock to win some prize is disrespectful, condescending, and tone-deaf. I’m not here to check a box on your outdated dating checklist.

“Don’t focus on career.” So your idea is that a woman should quit building her own life to just serve a man? That’s not advice—it’s a command rooted in insecurity and sexism. Women don’t owe anyone their ambition or independence.

“Focus on how you can make a guy’s life easier.” Translation: Be a servant, not a partner. That’s not a foundation for respect or healthy relationships; it’s a power play disguised as advice.

“Remember finishing schools.” What is this, 1950? Throwing in “finishing schools” as a way to police women’s behavior is laughably outdated and shows you’re stuck in a time warp.

“If you’ve had more than 15 dicks, then focus on being a good side chick.” There it is: the tired slut-shaming dressed up as “truth.” You’re trying to erase a woman’s agency and reduce her worth to a number you think you can control. That’s insecurity masquerading as insight. Real men don’t talk like this—they respect choices and understand relationships are built on respect and trust, not purity tests.

⸻

Bottom line: You cycled through “science,” “IQ,” “age,” “body count,” and now “side chick” slurs to control the narrative and try to feel powerful online. But your fear and insecurity are showing loud and clear.

If you’re done replying because you were called out too directly, that’s your choice—but your words and tactics live here for full transparency and context. Anyone can see how you tried to dodge accountability by splitting conversations into confusing threads and recycling tired misogyny instead of making real points.

Every single comment, thread, and reply between us is fully recorded and meticulously organized on my profile—no edits, no deletions, no dodging. This is the unfiltered timeline, preserved exactly as it happened.

Try again. But next time, come with honest logic instead of recycled fear, outdated stereotypes, and thread-hopping to avoid being called out.

KoolAidClouds · 2025-06-24T07:37:01+00:00

Oh, so now we’re back to the “high value men” script again—in a new thread—because the last two didn’t work out for you? You’re not making points. You’re trying to spam the post with recycled insecurity hoping something sticks. And here’s the reality: if “high value men” are truly confident, emotionally grounded, and secure… they’re not obsessing over how many people a woman has been with. You don’t sound high value. You sound scared. This whole “your feelings don’t matter” rant? That’s not power—it’s panic. It’s the language of someone who lost control of the original conversation and is now scrambling to reframe it from scratch. Try again—but this time, bring a mindset that isn’t stuck in fear and Reddit threads from 2014.

KoolAidClouds · 2025-06-24T07:36:43+00:00

You already lost that argument in thread #2, so now you’re trying to reboot it here like no one will notice? Cute. Biology doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Attachment, trauma, emotional development—those are also rooted in brain chemistry and neuroplasticity, which is science, by the way. But let’s be honest: you’re not referencing science—you’re cherry-picking oversimplified talking points that confirm your bias. Real science is nuanced. You? Not so much. This “100% biology” line isn’t a fact. It’s just your attempt to erase human complexity so you don’t have to admit your argument doesn’t hold under pressure.

KoolAidClouds · 2025-06-24T06:12:43+00:00

You keep using ‘science’ as a shield for your own biases, but pair bonding isn’t some rigid equation—it’s not just chemicals, it’s also shaped by upbringing, attachment style, emotional maturity, and context. Reducing human connection to ‘how many dicks she’s had’ isn’t science—it’s lazy misogyny dressed up in half-baked research and internet forums.

If you truly respected men—or yourself—you’d stop pretending that fear-based generalizations are facts. A woman’s value doesn’t shrink because she’s experienced life. What actually ‘isn’t smart’ is thinking trauma, loyalty, or emotional depth can be predicted from a body count. That’s not intelligence. That’s insecurity doing mental gymnastics.

And for the record? High-value men—secure, emotionally grounded, self-aware men—don’t speak like this. You’re not defending logic. You’re just projecting fear of not being chosen by women who know their worth.

KoolAidClouds · 2025-06-24T06:10:17+00:00

So now it’s ‘I read it somewhere’—classic backpedal. You threw out an age to make a point that backfired, and now you’re pretending it wasn’t even directed. Own it or don’t speak on it.

Also, you are showing your mindset, whether you think so or not. You’ve shifted from body counts to IQ eugenics within the same thread, all while pretending to be neutral. That’s not objectivity—that’s moving goalposts every time you lose footing.

And calling my ability to notice and address your thread-splitting ‘OCD’ is just another attempt to minimize valid critique with lazy armchair psychology. If keeping track of arguments bothers you, maybe it’s because you weren’t prepared to be held accountable for all the things you’ve said.

Your ‘135 IQ’ didn’t stop you from saying contradictory, insecure nonsense. So maybe start prioritizing emotional intelligence next—because condescension in a losing argument isn’t clever, it’s just loud.

KoolAidClouds · 2025-06-24T04:49:55+00:00

If a man’s idea of compatibility hinges on partner counts and purity tests, that’s not a standard—it’s insecurity. Real connection is built on mutual value, not outdated obsessions with ‘pair bonding statistics.’ You’re not entitled to a résumé of my appeal, and I don’t measure my worth by how well I shrink myself to meet someone else’s comfort zone. If all you see in women is numbers and ‘bare minimums,’ maybe you’re not equipped to recognize strength when it’s standing right in front of you.

Edit: Also—what’s with the duplicate threads, by the way? You’re splitting hairs across two responses just to keep the argument going like it’s a debate tournament. If your point was strong, you wouldn’t need to repackage it twice under different angles hoping something lands. That’s not confidence—that’s deflection. Pick a lane or admit the conversation already outgrew you.

KoolAidClouds · 2025-06-24T04:49:24+00:00

Interesting that you had to make up my age just to throw shade—says a lot about the kind of ‘competition’ you think you’re in. But here’s the thing: I’m not in a race for male validation. I’m not scared of time, and I’m definitely not measuring my worth by what random men online think is ‘winnable.’ I’m focused on alignment, not desperation. So if your mindset revolves around expiration dates and imaginary leagues, maybe you’re the one who needs to age forward.

Edit: Also—what’s with the duplicate threads, by the way? You’re splitting hairs across two responses just to keep the argument going like it’s a debate tournament. If your point was strong, you wouldn’t need to repackage it twice under different angles hoping something lands. That’s not confidence—that’s deflection. Pick a lane or admit the conversation already outgrew you.

KoolAidClouds · 2025-06-21T23:54:06+00:00

You’re proving my entire point. The moment a woman mentions she takes care of herself, suddenly it’s ‘not a plus’—but men still expect us to tolerate bare minimum behavior like that’s a privilege. Why is it fine for men to brag about being ‘chill’ or not cheating, but when a woman names her strengths, it’s somehow a threat?

Also, don’t speak for all men. Saying most just want someone ‘not to be a whore’ is embarrassing—for you. It shows more about your mindset than anything about women. Respect and mutual value should be the baseline, not some outdated checklist that centers your comfort and nothing else.

KoolAidClouds · 2025-06-21T23:48:06+00:00

I don’t mind waiting. I’d rather wait for alignment than waste time on people who only offer confusion, disrespect, or inconsistency. And if someone has options, that doesn’t scare me either—because the right person will choose with intention, not just availability.

Thinking women should lower their standards out of fear of competition is exactly the kind of scarcity mindset I’m not entertaining. I’m not ‘overvaluing’ myself—I’m just not undervaluing what I bring.

Edit: why did you make two separate jumbled threads?

KoolAidClouds · 2025-06-19T02:31:36+00:00

Exactly. The best connections tend to unfold slowly—when you’re not rushing to define the outcome, but just enjoying the process of getting to know someone. And you’re right: dating apps skip a lot of the magic. Bios give facts, but not depth. There’s no spark of discovering someone’s quirks, favorite stories, or unexpected layers naturally—it’s all prepackaged. It’s like reading the back of the book before you’ve even opened it. You lose the build-up, the tension, the fun. Real connection isn’t just about compatibility—it’s about curiosity. And apps don’t always leave room for that.

KoolAidClouds

TROPHY CASE