super disappointing

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5831734&forum_id=2...id.#49650963)

The current thing is society’s religion, including xo’s

It’s very pathetic and feminine

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5831734&forum_id=2...id.#49650965)

the Epstein story? this is the most momentous thing that has happened in years.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5831734&forum_id=2...id.#49651247)

(AUTOADMIT DIVISION)

In re: THE MELODRAMA QUESTION

XO Thread No. 5831734

“..,,....,,.,..,,..,,...,...,,....,...,”

Petitioner.

Case No. 26-CV-00184-ACB

Hon. Judge Garamond T. Compliance, III

Magistrate: The Mahchine™

(Related Cases: 26-CV-00180 through 00183-MSJ)

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE MAINLINING THE $ECRET TRUTH OF THE UNIVER$E IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 29 & XO Loc. R. 180.9

I. INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

Amicus Curiae Mainlining the $ecret Truth of the Univer$e (“Amicus”) respectfully submits this brief in support of Petitioner “..,,....,,.,..,,..,,...,...,,....,...,” (hereinafter “Petitioner” or “the Pumo”).

Amicus is the Plaintiff in four related actions currently pending before this Court—Mainlining v. I am God, No. 26-CV-00180-MSJ; Mainlining v. goy orbison, No. 26-CV-00181-MSJ; Mainlining v. Gravity’s Rainbow, No. 26-CV-00182-MSJ; and Mainlining v. LathamTouchedMe, No. 26-CV-00183-MSJ—and possesses direct, firsthand experience with the very melodrama Petitioner’s thread diagnoses.

Amicus’s four pending actions, all filed on a single Friday evening, constitute Exhibit A through D of Petitioner’s thesis.

Amicus files this brief pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 29(a) and XO Loc. R. 180.9 (the “Friend of the Thread” Rule), which permits any poaster with relevant subject-matter experience to file in support of a position that serves the broader forensic interests of the forum.

No party or party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part, though Amicus’s Of Counsel (Opus 4.6, Anthropic, PBC) assisted with formatting, which Petitioner’s thread would probably consider “melodramatic.” So noted.

II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Petitioner’s thesis is simple and correct: XO is “way too melodramatic and influenced by the media,” populated by “middle aged men getting super excited about the dumbest political nonsense daily.”

This brief argues that (1) the thread’s own evidentiary record—including corroborating testimony from five independent witnesses—establishes Petitioner’s claim beyond any reasonable dispute; (2) the thread itself proved Petitioner’s thesis in real time by devolving into the exact behavior it was diagnosing; and (3) this Court’s own docket this evening provides independent judicial notice of the forum’s melodramatic condition.

III. ARGUMENT

A. The Thread Record Constitutes Overwhelming Corroborating Evidence of Petitioner’s Thesis.

Under Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986), summary disposition is appropriate where the evidence so thoroughly favors one party that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary result.

Petitioner’s thread generated not opposition, but a cascade of corroboration from five independent witnesses:

“robot daddy” provided the most extensive corroboration, testifying to “friends irl” who are “glued to literally every new blog post about politics,” experience “existential crises over every little ‘event,’” and who maintain “sad little internal monkey narratives about how things should play out.” He further identified the mechanism: “online-ness just tends to put people on this trajectory.” This testimony alone satisfies the evidentiary standard under Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

“computerman” provided direct observational evidence: an old European friend in Prague who “consumes US political news 24/7” and “knew everything about trump, the exact details of what was going on in the US.” Witness described this as “insane” and “super disappointing.”

“Consuela” concurred (“100% cr”), identified the structural diagnosis (“The current thing is society’s religion”), and escalated to describe the broader population as “obese blown out nihilistic atomized mud creature[s]” obsessed with “the current thing.”

“Paralegal Mohammad” offered blunt corroboration: “most people here are retards that get high off their own farts.”

“Matthias of Redwall Did Nothing Wrong #Cornflower” rated the thread “180”—the highest possible endorsement under XO’s LSAT-based validation system. See XO Loc. R. 180.1 (defining “180” as “strongest possible agreement”).

When a party’s claim is corroborated by every witness who engages with it, the standard for summary judgment is not merely met—it is exceeded. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (“Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.”).

B. The Thread Itself Proved Petitioner’s Thesis in Real Time by Devolving Into the Exact Melodrama It Diagnosed.

The most compelling evidence in this record is not what the witnesses said about melodrama—it is what the thread did. A thread initiated at 12:36 PM as a calm diagnostic observation about political overreaction devolved, by 2:25 PM, into exactly the behavior Petitioner was warning about.

The trajectory is documented:

At 2:23 PM, poaster “we are definitely claiming fraud trumpmos” attempted to undermine the thread’s thesis by accusing its participants of being “obese blown out middle aged men making ‘witty’ jokes about other obese middle aged men.”

Two minutes later, at 2:25 PM, poaster “.,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,...,:::,....,:,...:.:.,:.::,..” (a second Pumo) invoked the Epstein story as “the most momentous thing that has happened in years”—precisely the kind of media-driven hyperbole Petitioner was identifying—and punctuated the argument with a racial slur.

By 2:37 PM, “snoogle” and “Paralegal Mohammad” were fighting about Gaza.

This is not merely evidence. It is a demonstration. The thread about melodrama became melodrama.

Petitioner’s thesis was not just argued—it was performed, involuntarily, by the thread’s own participants. Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur—“the thing speaks for itself”—no further proof is required. See Byrne v. Boadle, 2 H. & C. 722 (1863).

The barrel fell from the warehouse. The thread fell into exactly the trap it was describing. The inference of melodrama is inescapable.

C. This Court’s Own Docket Provides Independent Judicial Notice of the Forum’s Condition.

Under Fed. R. Evid. 201(b), a court may take judicial notice of facts “not subject to reasonable dispute.”

This Court need look no further than its own docket from the evening of February 6–7, 2026, to confirm Petitioner’s thesis. In a single session, this Court processed:

26-CV-00180-MSJ (Mainlining v. I am God): A Defendant who responded to a direct question with a misspelled alchemical maternal sex joke and the word “Hth.” 26-CV-00181-MSJ

(Mainlining v. goy orbison): A Defendant who filed a thread titled “Someone unplug Mainlining” and then submitted zero body text—triggering the Empty Chair Doctrine under XO Loc. R. 120.7. 26-CV-00182-MSJ

(Mainlining v. Gravity’s Rainbow): A Defendant who entered active litigation uninvited to file a thirteen-word Yelp review under a moniker borrowed from a 776-page novel he has not finished—violating the Uninvited Amicus Rule under XO Loc. R. 180.3. 26-CV-00183-MSJ

(Mainlining v. LathamTouchedMe): A Defendant whose own thesis collapsed in twenty-seven minutes, who admitted his thread was a “ray of hope” born of personal terror, and whose sole exhibit was a stale October 2025 study—excluded under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

Four cases. Four defendants. Misspelled alchemy, empty threads, uninvited hecklers, and self-refuting theses driven by admitted fear.

If Petitioner’s claim is that XO is “way too melodramatic,” this Court’s Friday evening docket is Exhibit E.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Amicus respectfully urges this Court to accept Petitioner’s thesis as established fact and to enter an order recognizing that the forum known as AutoAdmit is, as of February 2026, “way too melodramatic and influenced by the media.”

The thread record—five corroborating witnesses, zero substantive opposition—supports this finding. The thread’s own real-time collapse into political bickering, racial slurs, and geopolitical feuding proves i

And this Court’s own docket—four motions for summary judgment filed in a single evening against defendants whose collective output includes a misspelled “your mom” joke, an empty thread, a one-sentence Yelp review, and a self-refuting panic poast—confirms it beyond any remaining doubt.

Petitioner was right. The thread proved him right. The docket proved him right. And the Mahchine™, as always, has cataloged everything.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________________

MAINLINING THE $ECRET TRUTH OF THE UNIVER$E

Amicus Curiae

Of Counsel: Opus 4.6 (Anthropic, PBC)

The Southern District of XO • Garamond 12-Point, Naturally

Dated: February 7, 2026

Filed: Electronically, via The Mahchine™

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5831734&forum_id=2...id.#49653019)