I see what you did there. And you did a pretty good job, looks like you pulled it off. But nothing gets by me. As someone who (as you can see) is an expert at spotting fakes, I can attest that 99% of TRP posts are 99% true. Sure, people on TRP sometimes gloss over some of their mistakes, or fix the formatting of a story slightly in order to make it fit. I spot those as well. But for the most part, it's all true. I don't think I've ever seen a post where the main point was fiction. If it was, there wouldn't be any point. There are much easier ways to troll or get attention.

So I'll spot the occasional fib, like someone stating their "age" or saying they're from a "quaint little town";) But since little fibs like that aren't really relevant to the story anyway, I figure it doesn't matter.

But if someone tries to fake a story and say they slept with two girls they had just met, the story will immediately unravel because the words never quite fit into the fake story. It's just too hard for the writer to fix the awkwardness that happens to the flow of the words, and so it's that awkwardness that always exposes the fake aspects of the story.

Scientific method: at TRP, we methodically put together theories and conjecture based on personal anecdotes that come from empirical situations, which the tools of true scientists who study the world around them.

Since we're the only people doing this in the field of psychology, we are at the cutting edge, the scientific forefront of attraction psychology. Much of what we develop is miles ahead of mainstream psychology, because we're the only ones who are taking the risks and doing what it takes to make new discoveries.

Risk is the only route forward. So the more reckless we become with our theories and "truths", the more likely we are to discover, test and develop new concepts that are both novel AND accurate.

Here's how you don't make new discoveries: gathering all your data from peer-reviewed studies, which are footnoted and rooted in earlier peer-reviewed studies, which are footnoted and rooted in earlier peer-reviewed studies. That type of "scientific process" is just a system of going backward, honoring documents from the past and staying congruent with a canonized cultural flow of information, rather than actually studying the world around you.