Hosted by Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.
657 messages in 38 discussions
Latest 6/20/20 by CzoeMC
776 messages in 15 discussions
Latest May-27 by Lathyrus (PeePhobia)
5049 messages in 116 discussions
Latest May-26 by ElDotardo
Latest May-21 by NISSY (NISSY2)
Latest May-8 by NISSY (NISSY2)
1692 messages in 108 discussions
Latest May-2 by Lana (Redneckbab1)
Rabin was Assassinated , Clinton would become embroiled in eventual sexual frivolity , Arafat continued with his terrorism and when finally at camp David the vague chance of peace was feasible Ehud Barak was at the end of his very weak tenure and was voted out of office .
Every President wants a peace agreement , the single most intractable conflict this century would be something any man or woman in office would dream of .
History however is fickle so are the Jews and the Arabs and neither side has yet picked their man or woman to lead them to peace
Clinton´s sexual immaturity was irrelevant, just an excuse for the sexually frustrated Republicans to destabalize the government.
I know I am guilty of losing my temper and lashing out.
But this is my little corner of cyberspace and when people come in and shit all over it for nothing more than their own amusement, I get defensive.
Your use of "ttwunts","trolls" (in ways not found in any dictionary), and treatment of Berry´s posts are exaples of abuses, and abusive of power.
A terribly crafted sentence, but I get the gist.
No Hijacking is a rule.
Berry constantly flouts it.
I have given him his own thread, where he is free to continue on his tangents with anyone who is interested. I have even provided a link. That is more than he deserves, considering the time it takes me to do this.
If you would prefer, I will simply go back to deleting any hijacking posts.
You've attacked RGoss (and me).
Yes I have.
I lose my temper and lash out.
Doesn't mean anything the way you've applied it. Talking about the Middle East or terrorism - but demand everyone ignore the elephant in the room.
You are free to discuss the Middle East until the scared cows come home.
Just not in a thread devoted to UK culture.
Would you like to know how many threads you have derailed?
Stating it just makes you look like a control-freak.
I am a control freak. I freely admit it.
I am allowed to set rules at the door of my forum.
All I ask is that you respect them.
I am not sure that was correct , it was not thesex act or his defiance in describing the event it was more that he lied blatantly that was the creation of his problems
That would be a valid point if Jenifer preposted explecit rules and followed them herself and was consistant in her judgement.
I have shown you the rules a dozen times.
Here is one more, just for you.
Thoughtful. Considerate. Colourful. Sassy. Witty. Irreverent.
Please Don't be:
Abusive. A hijacker. A troll. A sock.
Attack the argument, not the person.
All links and Signatures welcome. Feel free to promote your forum.
The Hostess With The Mostess May move your thread to a different folder;
but she will never censor you.
All opinions are welcome here.
However - Hijacking is not tolerated. I don't care how passionate you feel about a topic; a thread devoted to pictures of adorable kittens is not the place to start an argument about the Holocaust.
You get three warnings, then you're gagged for a week.
SPAM will be deleted on sight. This includes "automated responses". Your macro system may be ingenious to you, but it's SPAM to everyone else.
Also, Godwin's Law applies here, and the penalty is ridicule.
The question that he was asked should not have been asked in the first place. It was a spin off from a Republican initiated imaginary sexual encounter when he was governor, nothing to do with the investigation authorized by the special counsil in the first place. Basicly everything that the Democrats are being accused of in Trump´s case, except that the Democrats are pushing a real presidential related violation.
Sorry Jennifer but this post documents your lack of fitness to be a moderator because even though you can´t define how these terms applyto me, you are guilty of all of them. In fact this off topic post of yours is itself a hijacking of a conversation between BM and I.
Until your rules have aggeed upon definition they are not only invalid but unenforceable. For example: I asked for your definition of "troll" and supplied mine. You never responded with a definition at all, much less one that fit your discription of me being a troll, which by my definition makes you, no me, the troll.