...wherein I didn't say that someone blamed a thing on a movie rather then on the thing that caused it.
I didn't mention that the person maintained that the thing was not caused by the thing that caused it for two weeks after it happened, even though it was acknowledged as having been caused by its cause initially.
I didn't mention that it was known beforehand that the thing that caused it would be happening.
Now it seems the person who denied that the thing was caused by its cause, is claiming to have told everyone it WAS in fact caused by its cause a mere three days after it occurred.
> ...wherein I didn't say that someone blamed a thing on a movie rather then on the > thing that caused it. > > I didn't mention that the person maintained that the thing was not caused by the > thing that caused it for two weeks after it happened, even though it was acknowledged > as having been caused by its cause initially. > > I didn't mention that it was known beforehand that the thing that caused it would be > happening. > > Now it seems the person who denied that the thing was caused by its cause, is > claiming to have told everyone it WAS in fact caused by its cause a mere three days > after it occurred.
This sounds like a bullshit way of making a political post without saying any "badwords" that will get you banned. How about you either say whatever the fuck it is you mean, or shut the fuck up? That post just reeks of masturbation.
> This sounds like a bullshit way of making a political post without saying any > "badwords" that will get you banned. How about you either say whatever the fuck it is > you mean, or shut the fuck up? That post just reeks of masturbation.
I'm with Matty on this one - in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary, that post proves you are an insufferable wanker.
You can't get banned for posting politics. The threads just (mostly) get moved to the war room which is where sane people would put them to begin with coupled with a verbal lashing, which you guys did so I don't have to.
> That is exactly what the original post was, and that's why I echoed that in this > follow-up. > > If you don't know what current news involves an important person saying he told > everyone the truth within three days,
> If you don't know what current news involves an important person saying he told > everyone the truth within three days, you can... take your own advice.
Whatever you're referring to isn't important enough to make headlines here, and even if it were you'd look like less of a twat if you actually said what you meant instead of writing circuitous bullshit. I'm starting to think you might be a cocksmoker in addition to being a wanker.
>in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary, that post proves you are an insufferable wanker.
Soooo, to allow the opportunity to improve... were he to provide contrary evidence (as Mary did, who was apparently quite contrary), would that result in promotion to sufferable wanker?
> > If you don't know what current news involves an important person saying he told > > everyone the truth within three days, you can... take your own advice. > > Whatever you're referring to isn't important enough to make headlines here, and even > if it were you'd look like less of a twat if you actually said what you meant instead > of writing circuitous bullshit. I'm starting to think you might be a cocksmoker in > addition to being a wanker.
> ...wherein I didn't say that someone blamed a thing on a movie rather then on the > thing that caused it. > > I didn't mention that the person maintained that the thing was not caused by the > thing that caused it for two weeks after it happened, even though it was acknowledged > as having been caused by its cause initially. > > I didn't mention that it was known beforehand that the thing that caused it would be > happening. > > Now it seems the person who denied that the thing was caused by its cause, is > claiming to have told everyone it WAS in fact caused by its cause a mere three days > after it occurred.
This contradicts your earlier statements on said subject.
It was, in fact, titled "A Post," and was mostly meant as a humorous reaction to our mother-raping censor. You responded perfectly to it.
Of course, it never did get sent to the WR, so I never filled in any details. Other than the deaths involved, it's a minor thing that is only grown to what it is by the later actions of those involved, and this exists only because the other does.
> > If you don't know what current news involves an important person saying he told > > everyone the truth within three days, you can... take your own advice. > > Whatever you're referring to isn't important enough to make headlines here, and even > if it were you'd look like less of a twat if you actually said what you meant instead > of writing circuitous bullshit. I'm starting to think you might be a cocksmoker in > addition to being a wanker.
Oh, I guess you CAN'T actually take your own advice.
> > You said a Post, not a topic. > > It was, in fact, titled "A Post," and was mostly meant as a humorous reaction to our > mother-raping censor. You responded perfectly to it. > > Of course, it never did get sent to the WR, so I never filled in any details. Other > than the deaths involved, it's a minor thing that is only grown to what it is by the > later actions of those involved, and this exists only because the other does.
> > > You said a Post, not a topic. > > > > It was, in fact, titled "A Post," and was mostly meant as a humorous reaction to > our > > mother-raping censor. You responded perfectly to it. > > > > Of course, it never did get sent to the WR, so I never filled in any details. Other > > than the deaths involved, it's a minor thing that is only grown to what it is by > the > > later actions of those involved, and this exists only because the other does. > > This'n. > > > A puzzle. Me likey. > > eta: I'm not sure if this is what you're referring to, but since it seems cryptic > enough... > > www.mameworld.info/ubbthreads/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=loonybin&Number=295895&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&vc=1
Not at all. I'll say no more than "Who's this Ben Ghazi guy?"
> eta2: So maybe.... After giving it some thought, you have a grievance with the > Adminiosphere...?
Not really, but was getting sick of all the mother raping, what with her dieing in the hospital at the time. (To anyone interested, she's a pile of ash as of about 5 weeks ago.)
> eta3: From this point on; No more 'thing this, thing that' talk. > > > plz? or do whatever you want. I ain't the boss of you.
> Not really, but was getting sick of all the mother raping, what with her dieing in > the hospital at the time. (To anyone interested, she's a pile of ash as of about 5 > weeks ago.)
Index 
Threaded 
There was a post I created...
Reply
[Re: 
*isn't, like, trying to trick you er, nuttin'* 
plz? or do whatever you want. I ain't the boss of you. 
