What does it mean when:
>the pitch and volume in her voice raises when she sees you
>she's only like this with a small group of people
>if you step outside briefly, and not even far away, you can sometimes hear her ask "where'd user go?" in the other room
>is not difficult to make laugh, even if your jokes are flat, cheesy, and maybe a little tasteless
>even if you aren't joking, you can still hear her giggle slightly whenever you talk
>isn't very touchy-feely person, but is happily huggy around you
>makes the occasional moaning noises when you hug
>whenever you're out with people, she keeps near you 90% (even if they're friends she's known longer than you)
>whenever you're out with people, and you yourself taking longer to do whatever (ex.: tying your shoes), she'll still wait patiently for even when everyone else left
>goes out of her way to say goodbye/good night even when it isn't always convenient
>when text messaging, her messages tend to be entire walls of text no matter what you're talking about
>in some messaging apps, you can see the "... is typing" part where she's going back-and-forth editing her message, for sometimes up to 10 minutes straight, before sending it
>when she logs onto social media, you'll often get a message from her within seconds
>even during times when she isn't particularly talkative, she makes an effort to get back to you whenever she can
This makes my heart all thumpy.
What does it mean when:
+RAPE DICK+ +9:00 WRIGGLER+
idk, she probably hates you
It means you've made up a list of reactions someone has never had towards you.
Or if they have they're fucking fugly as shit hence you being here asking.
>It means you've made up a list of reactions someone has never had towards you.
where's your proof?
You made the initial claim that these events happened so burden of proof still lies on your side of the court, OP.
It means youre a faggot with an impulsive underdeveloped frontal lobe. Maintaining that level of affection doesnt last youre most likely 14 and id kill your dad for being such a gigantic fucking faggot failure
op didn't claim anything, and expressed a series of experiences and simply asking about it. and even if it did, whether or not it's initial doesn't mean anything, you're still the one making claims yourself, so burden of proof still falls on you even if it falls on them too.
That's not how BoP works at all.
Actually it does. You can't say "These events happened" and then expect people to explain them without proof of said events happening.
Actually he did. If he was asking a hypothetical that would be a different story and in line with your response the situation but that's not what OP did.
>You can't say "These events happened"
Which no one did until . And still no, that's not how BoP works. As long as any claim is being made, no matter who started it, it they all require evidence. Which means everybody making claims in a scenario, even if it's to counter somebody else's, all require proof, not just whoever made the first claim.
>Actually he did.
where's your proof? because
are just experience-based expressions. not claims of anything. and even if they were claims, they're normally claims that never require tangible evidence. unlike .
You're right. OP finished with the phrase "This makes my heart all thumpy." for no reason whatsoever and reading comprehension and context are not a thing.
If that's literally your position on his "claims," then going back to middle school English might help.
Being this pathetic to defend a delusional incel...or are you OP hoping to maintain the delusion?
No one made any initial claims until .
ITT incels that have delusional fantasies about being admired by females.
>Being this pathetic to defend a delusional incel
The pot calling the kettle black, because apparently social interactions with the opposite sex is too incomprehensible for you that you wind up admitting to not being able to understand them (see: ).
If I'm going back to middle school it's only to teach your held back retarded ass.
Being this new to Yea Forums
>If I'm going back to middle school it's...
... because you desperately need it.
>Being this new to Yea Forums
See >The pot calling the kettle black
It means you are gay, and she perceives you as her best girlfriend
Why can't men tell when a girl's so obviously interested in him? I swear, even telling them yourself will sail over their head.
Need to teach retards like yourself some very basic concepts...
>Need to teach retards...
... generally doesn't work if the teacher is also retarded.
>... some very basic concepts...
It would help to understand those yourself, first.
srs, this is so sweet. I remember being this excited about someone in my youth.
Ok, user, how old are you? Tell us a little about yourself - some general interests, are you smart, athletic, free, self-sufficient, have aims, have had relationships, are you fast by nature, or the calm bear?
tells us. be honest. Its Yea Forums.
I was super shy half my life and then grew into a literal chad.
I can give you some pointers what you can do to kind of solve this situation and not get left with empty expectations or worse broken heart. And I want you to take that advice very seriously, if you chose to.
You can project all you want but it doesn't change reality.
and what is she like. And more importantly, what she is REALLY like. Like outside of your obvious perfect girl fantasy, what makes her tick, what are her goals, interests, perhaps odd hobbies?
Are you stupid? The OP itself is literally claiming multiple things happened.
>You can project all you want
Irony.
Where?
ITT: Bunch of incels get salty over OPs attempts at external validation through fantasy being shot down.
Everything in green text, plus the text above and below the green.
I'm pretty sure it's just OP getting super defensive about not being believed.
Cite those, because literally has no claims in them.
>well, except "this makes my heart all thumpy"
OP, srs, if you want a small text wall from me, be quick. I got to board a plane in like 10 minutes.
YOU HAVE NO PROOOOOOOOOOF
That's the part where reading comprehension comes in.
Or do go into oddly specific lists about things that never happened to you only to then claim how they make you feel?
It literally does. Gaslighting is supposed to be somewhat believable in order to work.
Do you know what a claim is? Are you aware that saying "what does it mean when x" is a claim that such things have happened when it is concluded that such happenings directly impacted OP?
>That's the part where reading comprehension comes in.
You're moving the goalpost. Where are the claims in ? The closest anything comes to a claim is the heart comment, and everything else are observation-based questioning. Anyone with basic reading comprehension would pick up on that right away.
>Or do go into oddly specific lists
1). This phrase alone is grammatically incorrect.
2). There was nothing specific in those lists, only general.
>that never happened
As the other Anons have said, where's your evidence?
HOLY this thread is pure content wtf
4spergs at their finest
Also to OP, stop with the autism man she clearly likes you for some reason. Shoot your shot, fuck her brains out and then leave because relationships are hell.
>It literally does.
Where?
>Gaslighting is supposed to be somewhat believable in order to work.
Again, moving the goalpost. No one said anything about gaslighting, or anything approximating it.
>"what does it mean when x"
That's not a claim in any substantial manner.
>is a claim that such things have happened when it is concluded that such happenings directly impacted OP?
You're not even referring to the same thread anymore.
You can't observe things that didn't happen. A claim that something was observed is a claim it happened.
How can you put pants on in the morning without help, you actual retard?
>You can't observe things that didn't happen.
And where's your proof they didn't happen?
>A claim that something was observed is a claim it happened.
Bad faith argument.
>How can you put pants on in the morning without help
I feel like that question is better suited for someone like you.
>A claim that something was observed is a claim it happened.
it's not, it's simply making an observation. making an observation and whether or not it actually happened are two different things. it's pretty common in court, actually.
It literallt does in all the green text. And the rest of the post. Try reading slower, you are missing it.
I mentioned gaslighting, because it is what you are attempting to do. If "no one mentioned it," then there would be no reason for you to call attention to the term. Fucking retard.
Yes, "what does it mean when" is a substantial claim. Simply refutingthe objective truth doesn't change it.
It's like I'm arguing with a parakeet.
Nothing you said in this comment is meaningful, relevant, or accurate. It's technically english, I guess.
Being deliberately obtuse and playing semantics doesn't change the reality of the situation which is that OP went quiet when being called out for one of two reasons;
1. Larping with no proof, knew it was a lost cause and left.
2. Got busy being a retard arguing semantics and pretending to be other anons?
>It literallt does
Where?
>in all the green text.
Again, where? Nothing in those qualify as substantial claims.
>And the rest of the post.
Where?
>Try reading slower,
It's through multiple, thorough rereads that one determines there's no claims being made.
>you are missing it.
Missing what? Where's your proof?
>I mentioned gaslighting, because it is what you are attempting to do.
Where's your proof?
>If "no one mentioned it," then there would be no reason for you to call attention to the term.
That's neither English nor has any contextual flow with what's being discussed.
>Yes, "what does it mean when" is a substantial claim.
That's neither a substantial claim, nor a claim in any meaningful sense.
>Simply refutingthe objective truth doesn't change it.
Where's the proof of this "objective truth?"
That's still a subjective opinion, user.
>Being deliberately obtuse and playing semantics doesn't change the reality of the situation
Where's your proof?
>doesn't change the reality of the situation which is that OP went quiet when being called out for one of two reasons
There's no proof supporting whether or not he's still here.
>Larping with no proof, knew it was a lost cause and left.
Where's your proof of this?
>Got busy being a retard arguing semantics and pretending to be other anons?
See above.
Enjoy the silence.
Enjoy conceding, I guess.
Shut up and post more ferrets
THERES NO PROOOOOF
hahaha fukken incels
"Contextual flow" is not required to be valid, meaningful, or correct. You are attempting to divert attention from the reality that you are objectively wrong and I won't allow it.
If "no one mentioned it," then explain why you made reference to the term "gaslighting." You can't, because you are objectively, observably wrong.
Proof is not required, my claims stand on their own based on the standard definitons of the terms I use as well as the observable posts. Valid claims are in the OP.
Google what gaslighting is, and it matches your behavior. That's my proof.
Your attempts to derail are embarrassingly transparent. And before you ask, my proof is in the reality that your definitions of terms are observably incorrect.
means ur in love nigger, cherish it
Signs of deeply rooted hatred.
yes yes but don't be too set in your ways and assume she's evil or something
she's been inspecting your body. when she hugs you, she's performing an examination of your liver and abdomen. she wants to sell your organs.
>"Contextual flow" is not required to be valid, meaningful, or correct.
Contextual flow is literally how any discussion happens in the first place. There's no such thing as a discussion, or even any human communication, without it.
>You are attempting to divert attention from the reality that you are objectively wrong and I won't allow it.
The pot said to the kettle.
>Proof is not required
For op's "claims," yes. Your claims don't fall under the same standard.
>my claims stand on their own based on the standard definitons of the terms I use as well as the observable posts.
And where's your proof?
>Valid claims are in the OP.
That's not even English.
>Google what gaslighting is, and it matches your behavior.
None of the results match your claims.
>That's my proof.
That's neither proof nor evidence (or even data).
>Your attempts to derail are embarrassingly transparent.
The pot said to the kettle.
>And before you ask, my proof is in the reality that your definitions of terms are observably incorrect.
Still not English.