Gamingforce Interactive Forums
85239 35211

Go Back   Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace

Notices

Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis.
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).


Bush is a crook.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Lord Styphon
Malevolently Mercurial


Member 3

Level 50.41

Feb 2006


Old May 8, 2006, 07:06 PM Local time: May 8, 2006, 07:06 PM #76 of 111
If I may make a suggestion, Patty, perhaps it would be better if you dropped this argument and just moved on.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Sarag
Fuck yea dinosaurs


Member 748

Level 53.85

Mar 2006


Old May 8, 2006, 09:10 PM #77 of 111
Originally Posted by PattyNIG
No, I feel thinking you're doing one thing while actually doing another, and getting arrested for it, is thought crime.
You are wrong, and mistaken, and do not understand the concept of thought crime.

Quote:
What you claim I've been doing and what I've been doing are two very different things.
You are absolutely right here. I was claiming until now, because I'm such a nice guy, that you were being a little misguided in your arguments. What you are actually doing is flailing about nothing.

What? Not a single person in this thread said it should be illegal for people of consent age to have sex with other people of consent age.

Only you, the dumbest nigger in Darfur, said that actual real-life children should be employed by the police in order to make something that is absolutely illegal... extra illegal, so you feel more comforted that what they are not doing is a thought crime. I honestly don't know, you know. Since it's just words on the screen, and ideally the predator will never come in contact with the child, I just can't see how it makes any difference.

No, most of America does not agree with you, Patty. They do not want their children, virgin or not, placed in harm's way or used by the police as live bait. Most of America furthermore does not like the ethical quandary of training up a fleet of children in a high-turnover (you're not sixteen forever) field for propositioning men for sex. Most of America's young are not mentally mature enough for such work, do you really need me to tell you this?

The reason why real live prostitutes aren't used for stings is because they do not have the training necessary to keep themselves protected if something really bad happened. If a real live prostitute died in her line of duty, she's a dumb bitch (orders of magnitudes less dumb than you but I digress); if she dies in the line of police duty, it's because the force and therefore the government failed her.

And you tell me, because a couple of guys got dealt rotten hands in life, you want this to happen to children.

I was speaking idiomatically.
PattyNBK
255% Bitch, 78% Slut


Member 1397

Level 10.92

Mar 2006


Old May 9, 2006, 12:16 AM #78 of 111
I had a big post typed up to retaliate against a lurker, but I've decided to be the mature one here and not let it get out of control. Still, after that most recent post, I can't just walk away either.

It appears that a lurker has done a good job of skewing my words to make me look bad. That ends right now. I'm not against preventing rape. I know how horrible rape is. This debate isn't about forcible rape, though.

I'm against statutory rape laws. Stopping the guys that would go after actual kids (like young, up to like 13), I've got no problem with that. I just think there's a big gray area in the 15-18 range in some states that allows the law to put away normal people who may just happen to be breaking the law. I do think the legal age should be 15 or 16 nationwide (it already is 16 in many states), and that's a big part of my problem with these stings.

That and I'm heavily against luring based on false pretenses. It just seems dishonest to me, and I'm really big on honesty.

So to quote O'Reilly, "the spin stops here". People need to stop acting like I'm in favor of letting little kids loose with old men and start reading what I post in full. I'm against statutory rape and I'm against being dishonest to bust people. That is the bottom line of what I believe.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Guns don't kill people. Chuck Norris kills People.

Why are you arguing with WoW players? It's pronounced "Shut the fuck up and get a job. Raiding isn't a job." - Lukage
Sarag
Fuck yea dinosaurs


Member 748

Level 53.85

Mar 2006


Old May 9, 2006, 12:27 AM #79 of 111
Quote:
This debate isn't about forcible rape, though.
No, it's about online predators visiting children's homes with the intent to have sex with them. Whether the child, at the time of the visit, wants sex or not is irrelevant, because Sgt. Patty of the Keystone Kops thinks this should be perfectly legal, and that it should only be an illegal act if the child.. is actually home?

I think there's a major disconnect here, darkie. You want children who have zero formal training to act as police decoys, don't you think this would lead to trouble down the road?

Quote:
I'm against being dishonest to bust people.
Wow, um.

...uh.

You do know that your child lures will not want sex with these men, right? They're just going to say that they do in order for the bust to work?

.....

You mean to tell me that these kids are going to play honestly with the guys, and that you expect the kids will lead the guys to their real-life house where the bust will be made instead of a decoy home?

............

You are the dumbest nigger in the Congo.

How ya doing, buddy?
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Old May 9, 2006, 12:49 AM Local time: May 9, 2006, 12:49 AM #80 of 111
Quote:
For someone who's supposedly involved in the law I'd think you'd know the difference between pedophilia (which is typically forced rape) and statutory rape.
All rape is considered forced (otherwise it wouldn't be rape yuk durr).

Statuotory rape is a default status that occurs when one of the parties is considered to be mentally incapable of providing consent.

Pedophilia is the state of being attracted to sexually undeveloped people. Prosecuting people for being pedophiles would constitute as a thought crime, because in being a pedophile, one only thinks about or wants to have sex with children.

When one actively plans out and executes the attempted statuory rape of a child is when one crosses the line of being a pedophile to being a prospective kid-diddler.

That is the difference, because whether or not the person being propositioned is actually a child, the suspect in question has still intended to rape one. Attempted Rape.

Idiot thieves aren't let off the hook because their attempted robbery didn't fall through and nothing was actually stolen.

End of the fucking discussion.

Any further discussion about whether or not soliciting a perceived child is actually kid-diddling will not be tolerated. Talk about Bush suks, but this shit is absolutely objective, and no amount of niggerdom will change that.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
PattyNBK
255% Bitch, 78% Slut


Member 1397

Level 10.92

Mar 2006


Old May 9, 2006, 01:12 AM #81 of 111
Originally Posted by Bradylama
Any further discussion about whether or not soliciting a perceived child is actually kid-diddling will not be tolerated. Talk about Bush suks, but this shit is absolutely objective, and no amount of niggerdom will change that.
Okay, fine by me. I won't say anything else about that in that case.

You did say something, though, that I feel the need to address, if anything to be informative . . .

Originally Posted by Bradylama
All rape is considered forced (otherwise it wouldn't be rape yuk durr).
This is not true, not by legal definition. This is something I do know, as I have dealt with people on both sides of the issue.

Originally Posted by Bradylama
Statuotory rape is a default status that occurs when one of the parties is considered to be mentally incapable of providing consent.
Not quite. Statutory rape is when a person that is above the age of consent has sex with a person who is not above the age of consent. You can put in a search at Dogpile for "statutory rape", or just look at one of these links:

http://www.sexlaws.org/statrape.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape
http://marriage.about.com/cs/teenmar...tutoryrape.htm

Jam it back in, in the dark.
Guns don't kill people. Chuck Norris kills People.

Why are you arguing with WoW players? It's pronounced "Shut the fuck up and get a job. Raiding isn't a job." - Lukage
Crash "Long-Winded Wrong Answer" Landon
Zeio Nut


Member 14

Level 54.72

Feb 2006


Old May 9, 2006, 01:32 AM #82 of 111
Originally Posted by Bradylama
End of the fucking discussion.
Originally Posted by Patty
Okay, fine by me. I won't say anything else about that in that case.

You did say something, though, that I feel the need to address, if anything to be informative . . .
How many moderators have to tell you to drop the statutory rape subject?

Bush is a crook. DISCUSS.

There's nowhere I can't reach.
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Old May 9, 2006, 01:41 AM Local time: May 9, 2006, 01:41 AM #83 of 111
And the age of consent is an establishment of the ability to provide consent. Since the offering of consent requires certain mental faculties, one who is under the age of consent is considered incapable of providing it. Thus, it is assumed that they lack the capacities (mental ones) to provide consent.

Quote:
This is not true, not by legal definition. This is something I do know, as I have dealt with people on both sides of the issue.
Whether or not one has been violently raped or given into pressures does not mean that one case excludes the presence of force. If I threatened you into sucking my dick, and you relented, does that not constitute an act of force via threat? I've essentially forced you to do something against your will with threat.

If an act of rape was consentual, then it wouldn't be rape.

Go back to Africa you fucking Jiggaboo.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
Sarag
Fuck yea dinosaurs


Member 748

Level 53.85

Mar 2006


Old May 9, 2006, 01:51 AM #84 of 111
Originally Posted by PattyNIG
This is not true, not by legal definition.
Patty, why do you keep misunderstanding the term 'legal'? If anything the legal definition is very strict and unambiguous, more than any other definition you care to employ.

Perhaps what you wanted to say was "by the emotional definition". It's awkward, but 'overly emotional' is the only way I can characterize your arguments, girl.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Old May 9, 2006, 02:11 AM Local time: May 9, 2006, 02:11 AM #85 of 111
Catching him is physically infeasable, I'm sorry to say. You can see those high-strength muscle fibers at work in his pedalling motion.

I was speaking idiomatically.
Ridan Krad
And All Eyes Fix on the Death of Tomorrow


Member 690

Level 8.40

Mar 2006


Old May 9, 2006, 02:23 AM Local time: May 9, 2006, 12:23 AM #86 of 111
I bet dinosaurs could catch him. RAWR



What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
PattyNBK
255% Bitch, 78% Slut


Member 1397

Level 10.92

Mar 2006


Old May 9, 2006, 03:32 AM #87 of 111
Originally Posted by Crash Landon
How many moderators have to tell you to drop the statutory rape subject?
He didn't say anything about the statutory rape subject. He said, and I quote: "Any further discussion about whether or not soliciting a perceived child is actually kid-diddling will not be tolerated." That's a different subject. The definition of statutory rape is something he just now brought up.

A better question is, why is it you're giving warning to me when I haven't even broken the rules, yet not given any warnings to a lurker despite his breaking several big rules continually in this thread? Rules are to be applied fairly across the board. Maybe I'd actually listen if you actually enforced the actual rules. I have yet to break any of the rules.

Originally Posted by Bradylama
If an act of rape was consentual, then it wouldn't be rape.
As I said, that's not true. If a 19-year-old has consensual sex with his 17-year-old underage girlfriend (in states where the age of consent is 18), then it's still statutory rape. There was absolutely no force, but it's still statutory rape. Basically, there are two general categories of rape: forcible and statutory. Forcible rape is when you force or coerce or use threats to get sex from anyone, regardless of age; statutory rape is any consentual sex between an adult and a minor.

Originally Posted by Bradylama
Go back to Africa you fucking Jiggaboo.
Okay, I've fucking had it. Now a "Moderator" is throwing racial slurs around? First off, you're as moronic as a lurker is because I'M NOT BLACK, which makes these racial slurs all the more retarded (but no less offensive). How did a racist bigot like you ever become a moderator anyway?

I would have shut up about this a long time ago if one of you guys had stepped in and stopped the attacks a lurker was throwing at me. If he doesn't have to follow the rules, then why should I? Sorry, I don't roll like that. Now Bradylama, I'm willing to drop this if you take back your attack and then actually enforce the rules as stated in the thread posted by Lord Styphon (which would mean warning a lurker and leaving me alone seeing as I haven't broken the rules). I simply refuse to get treated like shit just because I think differently and have a different lifestyle.

I will not tolerate the anti-homosexual comments or the racial slurs, not even from a moderator. I don't get intimidated so easily. I thought this was a place where friendly debate could occur, and I have been polite and nice throughout up until this point. Was I wrong? I will not play nice with racist bigots, regardless of how much power they have. Instead of hiding behind your power and joining the attacks, why don't you try participating in the discussion instead?

FELIPE NO
Guns don't kill people. Chuck Norris kills People.

Why are you arguing with WoW players? It's pronounced "Shut the fuck up and get a job. Raiding isn't a job." - Lukage
Dr. Uzuki
Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman shall be allowed to participate in the film


Member 1753

Level 37.97

Mar 2006


Old May 9, 2006, 03:57 AM Local time: May 9, 2006, 12:57 AM #88 of 111
Quote:
He didn't say anything about the statutory rape subject. He said, and I quote: "Any further discussion about whether or not soliciting a perceived child is actually kid-diddling will not be tolerated." That's a different subject
Originally Posted by Bradylama
Talk about Bush suks, but this shit is absolutely objective
He prompted people to return to the original subject of the thread, not to go into another tangent over another subject that is absolutely just as objective. An aspect of what is definitive of rape is not up for discussion. It is not worth discussing because it is definitive. CONCRETE. You're insistence doesn't change fact.

Quote:
A better question is, why is it you're giving warning to me when I haven't even broken the rules.
You have broken three, five, seven and eight. If you're finger pointing at lurker for have breaking rule 4, please make note of the phrase, "without provocation."

Quote:
statutory rape is any consentual sex between an adult and a minor.
Do you realize that the whole idea behind statutory rape is that people under a certain age are incapable of consent. Consensual statutory rape is an oxymoron. You are dumber than Jimmy Walker.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

so they may learn the glorious craft of acting from the dear leader
Sarag
Fuck yea dinosaurs


Member 748

Level 53.85

Mar 2006


Old May 9, 2006, 04:10 AM #89 of 111
Originally Posted by PattyNBK
statutory rape is any consentual sex between an adult and a minor.
Statutory rape is any sex occuring to a party incapable of consent. This includes your emotionally-laden forceable rape. Just what are you trying to argue here?

Double Post:
Originally Posted by PattyNBK
Now Bradylama, I'm willing to drop this if you take back your attack and then actually enforce the rules as stated in the thread posted by Lord Styphon (which would mean warning a lurker and leaving me alone seeing as I haven't broken the rules).
Why are you telling Brady how to moderate? I think he's done this before, you know.

Quote:
I simply refuse to get treated like shit just because I think differently and have a different lifestyle.
That Is Not The Reason Why, For What It's Worth.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Last edited by Sarag; May 9, 2006 at 04:13 AM. Reason: Automerged additional post.
PattyNBK
255% Bitch, 78% Slut


Member 1397

Level 10.92

Mar 2006


Old May 9, 2006, 04:17 AM #90 of 111
Originally Posted by Dr. Uzuki
You have broken three, five, seven and eight.
EXCUSE ME?! Bush sucks, I know this, and I stated the reasoning why I think he sucked, and it's not my fault it went off on a tangent, so I didn't break 3. As for 5, I don't consider wanting equal protection under the rules to be ranting. For 7, I have never started any threads on gay marriage, and only mentioned it in a post because it had to do with what I thought about Bush (which made it on-topic); I was not trying to start some debate about it, and it hasn't been mentioned since! 8, I haven't broken, flat-out.

Originally Posted by Dr. Uzuki
Do you realize that the whole idea behind statutory rape is that people under a certain age are incapable of consent. Consensual statutory rape is an oxymoron. You are dumber than Jimmy Walker.
Read a law book. I know all about the damn rape laws, I've dealt with this shit plenty in my lifetime. Statutory rape is illegal consentual sex. I even provided links which showed this. Do I need to provide more links?

Here you go:

www.nphf.org/file_push.php?file_choice=45

Note the line that reads: "Juries sometimes do not accept statutory rape as a crime because it is consensual sex." On the right side of page 2 of that document. Am I the only one who can admit to being wrong around here (as I did about the "asking cops if they're cops" issue)?

Originally Posted by Dr. Uzuki
If you're finger pointing at lurker for have breaking rule 4, please make note of the phrase, "without provocation."
I never provoked him! I was polite throughout the entire thread and discussed things calmly and rationally. I never said anything remotely inflamatory toward him until he'd already provoked me multiple times over! So basically, either you didn't read the whole thread, or you're lying to cover each other! Please, show me where I started things and provoked him. I'd love to see this.

The first shot was fired in his post where he said "What this thread needed more of was lesbians!", followed by his post that read "What this thread needs more of are lesbians with attention-seeking issues. You are the dumbest nigger in Compton." Please, show me where I provoked him into saying these things. He's been attacking my sexual orientation and throwing racial slurs since back on page 2!

There's nowhere I can't reach.
Guns don't kill people. Chuck Norris kills People.

Why are you arguing with WoW players? It's pronounced "Shut the fuck up and get a job. Raiding isn't a job." - Lukage

Last edited by PattyNBK; May 9, 2006 at 04:21 AM.
Sarag
Fuck yea dinosaurs


Member 748

Level 53.85

Mar 2006


Old May 9, 2006, 04:19 AM #91 of 111
Originally Posted by PattyNBK
I never provoked him! I was polite throughout the entire thread and discussed things calmly and rationally.
You called me an asshole, and ignored pretty much everything I said that wasn't calling attention to your kinky hair.

My feelings were pretty hurt.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
PattyNBK
255% Bitch, 78% Slut


Member 1397

Level 10.92

Mar 2006


Old May 9, 2006, 04:23 AM #92 of 111
Originally Posted by a lurker
You called me an asshole, and ignored pretty much everything I said that wasn't calling attention to your kinky hair.

My feelings were pretty hurt.
I called you an asshole after you had provoked me repeatedly over the course of like four posts.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Guns don't kill people. Chuck Norris kills People.

Why are you arguing with WoW players? It's pronounced "Shut the fuck up and get a job. Raiding isn't a job." - Lukage
Sarag
Fuck yea dinosaurs


Member 748

Level 53.85

Mar 2006


Old May 9, 2006, 04:27 AM #93 of 111
But it was still impolite. Becides, you didn't discuss anything with me, you just kept saying stupid things repeatedly. It's not my fault that I had to get your attention somehow.

I was speaking idiomatically.
Dr. Uzuki
Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman shall be allowed to participate in the film


Member 1753

Level 37.97

Mar 2006


Old May 9, 2006, 04:32 AM Local time: May 9, 2006, 01:32 AM #94 of 111
Quote:
I'm more concerned about Bush's being a bigot than his being a crook. As a bi-sexual woman in a serious relationship with another woman, I am offended and disgusted by Bush's ignorance (as well as the ignorance of all the bigots who agree with him).
This was your introduction to the thread. Within you shifted the topic of the thread (3). In this and in the following comments you ranted on a personal subject that had been singled out as a dead horse not to be beaten (5,7). In being completely inept with your reasoning, you have failed to use common sense (8).

You have provoked any intelligent person into verbally assaulting you by making outrageous suggestions, among them being that sexual predators can be the victims of their own attacks upon minors and that children should be put in harms way purposely by the authorities in order to catch pedophiles. Lurker particularly has reason to be upset because you have hijacked the thread she started.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

so they may learn the glorious craft of acting from the dear leader
PattyNBK
255% Bitch, 78% Slut


Member 1397

Level 10.92

Mar 2006


Old May 9, 2006, 04:53 AM #95 of 111
Originally Posted by Dr. Uzuki
You have provoked any intelligent person into verbally assaulting you by making outrageous suggestions, among them being that sexual predators can be the victims of their own attacks upon minors and that children should be put in harms way purposely by the authorities in order to catch pedophiles. Lurker particularly has reason to be upset because you have hijacked the thread she started.
I gave my opinion on the matter, and did so in a perfectly polite and reasonable manner. You have no place to say I provoked anyone just because of my beliefs. Hell, that defeats the entire purpose of debate!

Oh, and excuse me for not liking the idea of tricking people into thinking you're something you clearly aren't in order to catch criminals. I tend to take the direct approach myself when I deal with situations. Again, these are my opinions, my beliefs, and that's what discussion is all about.

Provoking entails attacking someone without just cause. If a lurker didn't want the subject to veer from "Bush is a crook" to "Bush sucks" (which is what your fellow mods have declared this topic to be), then instead of insulting me, she should have just ignored the comment and let it be, or politely ask to get back to her particular topic. She didn't do that. Instead, she responded by making personal attacks. How is that reasonable or justified in any way? Let's not forget that not a single moderator, or even admin Lord Styphon, made any attempt to go back to the "original" topic, and fully participated in the discussion.

Hell, I was going to take Lord Styphon's advice to just move on until a lurker posted yet more attacks directed toward me. Despite my having marked all of the offensive posts, no one said a word to her. The first actual warning, of any sort, came when Bradylama said not to talk about whether or not soliciting sex from a minor constitutes pedophilia, which I complied with. Still, he finished by posting partially incorrect information, and when I corrected it (and intended that to be the end of it), he comes back with, surprise surprise, verbal attacks of his own, despite my providing multiple links supporting what I said.

So am I just supposed to put up with such unprovoked attacks? Hell no, I refuse. When people attack me, I intend to respond. If people want me to shut up, they need to stop posting yet more attacks directed at me, plain and simple. All these racial slurs (ignorant in the incorrectness of them) and stabs at my lifestyle, I won't tolerate that kind of crap anymore.

How ya doing, buddy?
Guns don't kill people. Chuck Norris kills People.

Why are you arguing with WoW players? It's pronounced "Shut the fuck up and get a job. Raiding isn't a job." - Lukage
Dr. Uzuki
Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman shall be allowed to participate in the film


Member 1753

Level 37.97

Mar 2006


Old May 9, 2006, 05:17 AM Local time: May 9, 2006, 02:17 AM #96 of 111
Good lord.

Quote:
Provoking entails attacking someone without just cause.
No, no it doesn't. The act does not have to be deliberate and intentional.

Quote:
If a lurker didn't want the subject to veer from "Bush is a crook" to "Bush sucks" (which is what your fellow mods have declared this topic to be),
What does that have to do with you repeatedly spouting nonsense about rapists and the cops who pull a fast one on them?

Quote:
then instead of insulting me, she should have just ignored the comment and let it be, or politely ask to get back to her particular topic. She didn't do that. Instead, she responded by making personal attacks. How is that reasonable or justified in any way?
Because she is exceptionally gifted at it.

Quote:
If people want me to shut up, they need to stop posting yet more attacks directed at me, plain and simple.
Are you suggesting that you win because you can yell over and longer than everyone else?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

so they may learn the glorious craft of acting from the dear leader
Sarag
Fuck yea dinosaurs


Member 748

Level 53.85

Mar 2006


Old May 9, 2006, 05:29 AM #97 of 111
Originally Posted by PattyNIG
Oh, and excuse me for not liking the idea of tricking people into thinking you're something you clearly aren't in order to catch criminals.
Absolutely not, when it's obvious you haven't at all thought about your position becides "honesty is the best policy".

Quote:
Still, he finished by posting partially incorrect information, and when I corrected it
You think underaged people can legally consent to anything. You are the dumbest nigger in Somalia, a land where I imagine obtaining parental permission to so much as pee is a foreign concept.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Last edited by Sarag; May 9, 2006 at 05:32 AM.
Crash "Long-Winded Wrong Answer" Landon
Zeio Nut


Member 14

Level 54.72

Feb 2006


Old May 11, 2006, 03:06 AM #98 of 111
Originally Posted by Peppermint Patty
He didn't say anything about the statutory rape subject. He said, and I quote: "Any further discussion about whether or not soliciting a perceived child is actually kid-diddling will not be tolerated." That's a different subject. The definition of statutory rape is something he just now brought up.
I find this response to be argumentative for its own sake. You know damn well what I meant when I told you to get back onto topic and you chose to split hairs.

In between the time I last viewed this thread and now, this discussion has gone nowhere except in the tiny, little circle-jerk you wish it to. Despite the urgings of several moderators who've pointed out, verbatim, where you've broken rules and crossed lines, you continue to nitpick and whine about a subject that is far to the left of this thread's original intent. You've been asked to return to the original discussion but have only lead it further astray.

I don't normally put my foot down in the Political Palace, but your arrogance and impudence in the face of the resident authority prompt me to take uncharacteristic action.

I declare this thread CLOSED.

Patty, if you continue to behave in this manner, in other threads, I will strongly push for disciplinary action. Debate is fair, but when a moderator tells you to do something, arguing semantics of that demand for the next page and a half is completely unacceptable.

It's not hard to keep people out of entire forums, you know.

There's nowhere I can't reach.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace > Bush is a crook.

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.