Stephanie, it's funny to see you take up arms with the auld curmudgeon, RGoss.

YOU do realize, that in his prior incarnations, Rgoss used the following nicks: Gaelicnight1 and 2, Thruso21 and Upandaway2, plus a plethora of other short lived nicks. His first cousin is the notorious troll who used infest many a fora under the guise of KaitlynMCH. You must remember those nicks, right?

No surprises then that you would seek solace in his arms!

You, the Gosserman and Ha'ld, three peas in a putrid pod!

Then it is a well earned and deserved filthy "smear," isn't it, dingbat!

Nope, you haven't.  However, while I find some of your posts, especially those of historical content, interesting, for me there is no room for reply or debate in any of your other arguments.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",  I simply don't reply.

Edited to add:  What this all boils down to is, I find your long-winded explanations of why you are right and everyone else is wrong "aggravating, self-important, arrogant and "smirky".  That is simply my opinion, you are not required to agree.

RGoss99 said:

There is nothing necessarily democratic about a poll.

Democracy is so important and wonderful. Pirate ships operated almost the purest form of it - all hang together or all hang apart.

Why, individuals such as BM can only be protected by democracy.

Otherwise might have to meet me in real debate and be properly exposed as woolly-headed.

(Sorry BM, I think I let myself run away describing you thus).

SQUADDYB said:

Rgoss used the following nicks: Gaelicnight1 and 2, Thruso21 and Upandaway2, plus a plethora of other short lived nicks. His first cousin is the notorious troll who used infest many a fora under the guise of KaitlynMCH. You must remember those nicks, right?

You're hallucinating.

You told us those names were all one person, a native from Canada.

A brown person you wanted exterminated.

I have no problema with disagreements, and as such these never get a "G" response except when they are accompanied with personal attacks, or are simply repeats of a disagreement with no logic or facts to support them. Which is probably why your responses to me have not recieved them. In every case, the "G" response is not my first reaction, it only comes after I have explained previously that I do not want my in box cluttered with unsupported negatives that have already been responded to. In your case, note you are responding to an issue not addressed to you, simply read by you in areas where you are unaware of the previous context. If you wish to pursue this issue, it is best to give a specific example where you find a "G" given to another, and I Will explain to you why the response of a "G" is appropiate in that specific case. You also falsely indicate that I say "everyone" else is wrong. This is not the case, and I doubt if you can document this opinión, because "everyone" is an absolute, easily proven false with one exception.  "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.

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

bm

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.

Examples:

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.