Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.
657 messages in 38 discussions
Latest 6/20/20 by CzoeMC
9342 messages in 66 discussions
Latest Nov-22 by smmheart1
5031 messages in 115 discussions
Latest Nov-21 by A Kid by any other name... (Kidmagnet)
750 messages in 15 discussions
Latest Oct-29 by ElDotardo
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.
Call me ignorant (I don't mind) but I had to look up Godwin's Law.
Berry's Law/Rule: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Zionists or the Holocaust approaches 1."
Forums have moderators not owners, this is Delphi´s space which you are abusing because you are not qualified to be a moderator, and your lashing out is just another example of your hysterical behavior as a result.
If no hijacking is a rule, why do you send me so many examples of your hijacking,
You are abusive.
You are a troll.
You send automated responses in the form of a macro.
Threads often wander off topic. There is no harm in that.
However, there is a difference between a discussion meandering off course organically, and a complete 180 because Berry decided to once again post a cut and paste article about Zionists.
This is a perfect example of your trolling.
You know we have been in this same argument before. In fact, this argument is all we do.
You know I have explained the rules before.
You know I have defined troll before, and how it applies to you.
Yet, you persist in deliberately posting offensive, provocative and abusive comments for the purpose of eliciting an emotional response. You even threw in another "hysterical" further down, simply because you know it bothers me.
I am glad I started this thread.
Now all your nonsense is confined to one place, instead of infesting the rest of the forum.
As to the Arafat-Clinton comments, I would have to see some evidence.
Sorry - evidence of what? There is no map for what Arafat was supposedly being offered in 2000 - only an outrageously unacceptable version of what the Israelis were saying they must have.
what you haven´t negated is that the Clinton administrtion said they wanted a settlement
Probably did want it.
it could have happened if Israel and Palestine did not read the Republican impeachment side show as the end of Clinton.
Clinton had already brokered a deal in 1993 that was hugely advantageous to Israel (control of everything in Palestine) and rendered Arafat even more of a puppet than he was before.
You know what happened then, don't you? Settlers - but with the full backing of the IDF - carried out a vast Hebron massacre, first in the mosque then throughout the city.
Then Israel unilaterally refused to carry out the withdrawal they'd promised.
Rabin was Assassinated
Israelis - Netanyahu in the lead - killed Rabin for trying to end the occupation and leave the Palestinians with 22% of their land.
Arafat continued with his terrorism
You're just an outrageous fraud.
Arafat traded everything away (even the UN resolutions that required Israel to withdraw to its borders) for the trappings of apparent power in the West Bank.
Whereupon you just upped your terrorism (starting in Hebron but expanding all over) and stole more $billions worth of land.
Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:
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.
Why do you allow fraudsters to strut their stuff - and even defend them?