RGoss99 said:

Question is "also" here a substitute for a full stop ending the end of a thought.

This is the only question that you asked me to "esponde". And you keep implying that I have insecurities, and am covering them up, somehow. 

Maybe you would prefer that I was a teenage Muslim girl in a hijab, that you so admire, covering herself up to not be leered at, and unable to respond to an old white dude who feels entitled.

RGoss99 said:

You say 2Trump likes o use the term "grafics", also...

Were you possibly inebriated when you wrote that?

CzoeMC said:

Maybe you would prefer that I was a teenage Muslim girl in a hijab, that you so admire, covering herself up to not be leered at, and unable to respond to an old white dude who feels entitled.

RGoss is entitled to behave as if he feels entitled.

Furthermore, he's entitled to behave like an asset to the Forum, which he unquestionably is.

Even his lapses are amusing and perhaps easily explained.

G=G+1 thanks for admitting I asked a question, which you still have not answered in your thread hijacking. I even provided you two possible answers to that question which you are still ignoring. I am not criticizing your improper grammar in context, only confused by it, when a full stop instead of "also" would have made your post clear.

In most of the languages I know, people who are insecure in their statements, use words such as "also" but usually "and" as a replacement for a full stop because this keeps the line open so to speak, and prevents the other from disagreeing to a specific error, by cluttering up the dialogue. As a result if the other says "no", then as a passive-agressive gets to pick that part of a run-on sentence to disagree on while avoiding responsibilty for the actual error.

note that CzoeMC in is misquoting me by using other words that I did not say, mean, or imply, is telling us more about his personal issues then about me. Specific example of this is the confusion between "observed" which is neutral, and "leered" which is negative, especially when referring to an older aduldt in relation to a teen girl.

One´s eyes pick up everything in front of them and registers the observations in the brain whether consciously or subconsciously. When words such as "leered" are used it is the opinion, conscious or not, which provides the interpretation. In this case a rather sick error considering there was no original context to support it.

Cz´s message suggests in her world any male to female observation is sexual and negative, a rather sad and sick comment on her life experiences, suggesting that she relates to being a victim, whether she is or not. In psychology this shift in meaning is freudian.

G=G+1

RGoss99 said:

Cz´s message suggests in her world any male to female observation is sexual and negative

Sure sounds like it.

I'm puzzled by anyone participating here who is not curious about other people's observations.

Yes, one might jeer at them for supporting Trump but its a valid response to things they've actually said.

So much else one sees is simply not a valid response to anything. There is so much around tht is much worse than G=G+1 which is a genuine indication of something.