Thread:Xenpai/@comment-8846246-20160701091140/@comment-24947676-20160701110647

I'll be honest with ya, Xenpai's right.

1. There is no proof he (the "victim" of the "privacy violation") said he wanted this private, other than your word. In the past, you've been shown to twist the meanings of the rules to suit what you say, for example, the whole thread-lasts-a-week-after-highlight thing. So, it shows that you might actually be untrustworthy to some extent. You dodging the question also supports the "you're untrustworthy" claim.

2. When you google his main pseudonym but don't hit enter, one of the search recommendations is his other, "private" pseudonym, indicating that it's very easily accessible, and not exactly "private".

3. There are several sites that call out his behavior, listing this readily accessible "private" information.

4. Xenpai didn't even state any names.