Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.
4897 messages in 209 discussions
Latest 6/19/20 by Jenifer (Zarknorph)
821 messages in 15 discussions
Latest Sep-29 by ElDotardo
5076 messages in 124 discussions
Latest Sep-29 by NISSY (NISSY2)
Latest Sep-27 by NISSY (NISSY2)
Latest Sep-25 by NISSY (NISSY2)
I think this was misaddressed to me as it seems to be for BM.
I dont need protection unlike numbnuts I have spent my entire life fighting tyrants and thugs in this region
I find it interesting that you have moved into another site, because in doing so you have given a perfect example, of why I assign "g" to your´s and others posts.
The disadvantage here is that as this is not your little kingdom you have no power to play censor. For example, here is your pattern as I see it. First you tell a lie, for example you Will not be able to find a post where I said my secretary vets all my mail. Then you use the lie, as if true to built a negative crit on it. Those reading your posts have no way of evaluating such because you have either censored by deletion the source of the lie, or can not provide evidence to support it when asked.
Basicly I see this as a symptom of a very sick person, who has so little going for him in his own life that he has to post off topic, unsupported, and dishonest props for his ego at the expense of others.
OT: note that this thread is called French culture, your post has nothing to do with French culture,, or Grainne who you seem to have resurrected as another victim of your sick posts.
Another example, is that my use of an employee to vet my mail, as long as she is merely following my directions and not expressing her own opinions is not a violation of your imaginary interpretation of TOS. Here is an example, if I have a secretary Reading my mail to me, and posting my answer in my name on my account this is not a violation. If, on the other hand, using my account and name independent of me she does this giving her own opinión, this would be a violation. Since she has a list of post types to which I object, and applies a "G" to a specific one of yours based on my list, she is not violating any net standard.
Another example f your sick dishonesty, where you start with a lie, then use it to accuse me of something.
Squaddy says "Rgoss used the following nicks: Gaelicnight1 and 2. Thurso21 and Upandaway2"
As an example of squaddy´s sickness I have never used or even posted any of the "following nicks" they were all made up by Squaddy, and used by him. As a challenge to prove the lie, he Will not be able to document a single post where I used these.
Secondly he is demeaning to those who agree with me in some areas, because in his grandiosity,he assumes he is right, and has no respect for those who don´t support him, thus uses their disagreement as evidence of some sort of dependence on me, which is not the case.
where have I offered anyone protection. My point was that as you seemed to be the focus of a message, why was it addressed to me?
I'm not banning Goss!
I'm just making his Macro a swear word, so all anyone sees from now on is: ****
Depends on the poll results.
Cast your vote.
And right here.
You claim you are complaining politely, while calling me arrogant, wrong, ignorant, arrogant and ignorant again, self important...
I'd hate to see a post by you that was NOT polite!
there is no room for reply or debate in any of your other arguments. Knowing in advance that when you disagree with a response you first "correct" the poster, then shut down the conversation if you don't like the answer to your "correction",
But he will demand a specific example, then do exactly what you predicted.
And I hate OT (French Cultue) threads that post to me, while ignoring my polite request that you stop doing so,The solution is simple, just stop posting to me, thus justifying this ...
"Long winded" is necessary because unlike those who simply express unsupported opinión, my long winded is my logical support for my position. If you object, especially if not addressed to you, you are quite free not to read such.
Precisely. I occasionally lash out at other correspondents - but only because they've proven themselves deluded or stupid.