- Time
- Post link
Yeah, clapping. So?
You give yourself far too much credit for being sly but it’s all good. If it helps you sleep what more can one ask for.
😃
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 245
This topic has been locked by a moderator.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Seems like some senators are more interested in grilling Sally Yates over her opposition to Trumpy’s travel ban order than the stuff they’re supposed to be talking about today. A–holes.
The one where her views on the Muslim Ban were quickly and repeatedly vindicated by federal court opinions? That one?
Weird because it was never a “muslim” ban and most of the list was sorted by the Obama administration.
From the Washington Post…
On July 24 last year, Trump sat for an interview with Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press”. Todd prodded Trump on whether his new proposal targeting specific countries represents a “rollback” of his original Muslim ban. Trump denied that it was a rollback at all:
TRUMP: I don’t think so. I actually don’t think it’s a rollback. In fact, you could say it’s an expansion. I’m looking now at territories. People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh, you can’t use the word Muslim. Remember this. And I’m okay with that, because I’m talking territory instead of Muslim.
Not just Trump but Rudy Giuliani also said the whole point was to design a Muslim Ban that could pass legal muster. Of course, they’ve discovered that’s kindof a sticky wicket, designing something whose core purpose is unconstitutional, in a way that’s not unconstitutional.
EDIT: The Trump team just scrubbed the Muslim Ban language from their campaign website. Coincidence I’m sure.
Sure they did, because nobody there had done it yet, and I bet that person got the riot act read to them too.
Federal Legal Counsel again went through the entire executive order regarding what’s on the table. They did not find anything unconstitutional or illegal nor did they find anything that was out of bounds in the regular process.
And yet the courts managed to find something that this stringent exercise missed. And Yates found the same thing.
If you watched her testimony today, this is not the case, she openly said she did not follow the procedural process laid out by Federal Law for this if she felt things were wrong. Circumvention of Federal Procedures does not mean that she found anything wrong because no-one else was given the opportunity to decide that.
Riiight. She refused to defend the order because she thought it was completely above-board. Pull the other one.
I’m guessing you didn’t watch her testimony today. Maybe you should.
You mean this part where she talks about the Muslim Ban with Sen. Cornyn? I watched it. Maybe you should take your turn now, and you could hear this part:
YATES: I made a determination that I believed that it was unlawful.
I gotta love how you post only the piece that is relevant to your point. After that she agreed that she did not put it to the courts before a final determination was made, she made it herself without the court. She has the right to feel that way but not the final say.
Go back and check. I never argued that point. I just said she found problems in the order and refused to defend it. Period. You then said:
If you watched her testimony today, this is not the case.
…and went off on the tangent about the courts all by yourself. Of course refusing to defend the law would get her fired. I kinda wondered what your point was but I didn’t want to belabor it. And yet here we are several posts later with you still disputing an argument nobody ever made.
- Time
- Post link
Seems like some senators are more interested in grilling Sally Yates over her opposition to Trumpy’s travel ban order than the stuff they’re supposed to be talking about today. A–holes.
The one where her views on the Muslim Ban were quickly and repeatedly vindicated by federal court opinions? That one?
Weird because it was never a “muslim” ban and most of the list was sorted by the Obama administration.
From the Washington Post…
On July 24 last year, Trump sat for an interview with Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press”. Todd prodded Trump on whether his new proposal targeting specific countries represents a “rollback” of his original Muslim ban. Trump denied that it was a rollback at all:
TRUMP: I don’t think so. I actually don’t think it’s a rollback. In fact, you could say it’s an expansion. I’m looking now at territories. People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh, you can’t use the word Muslim. Remember this. And I’m okay with that, because I’m talking territory instead of Muslim.
Not just Trump but Rudy Giuliani also said the whole point was to design a Muslim Ban that could pass legal muster. Of course, they’ve discovered that’s kindof a sticky wicket, designing something whose core purpose is unconstitutional, in a way that’s not unconstitutional.
EDIT: The Trump team just scrubbed the Muslim Ban language from their campaign website. Coincidence I’m sure.
Sure they did, because nobody there had done it yet, and I bet that person got the riot act read to them too.
Federal Legal Counsel again went through the entire executive order regarding what’s on the table. They did not find anything unconstitutional or illegal nor did they find anything that was out of bounds in the regular process.
And yet the courts managed to find something that this stringent exercise missed. And Yates found the same thing.
If you watched her testimony today, this is not the case, she openly said she did not follow the procedural process laid out by Federal Law for this if she felt things were wrong. Circumvention of Federal Procedures does not mean that she found anything wrong because no-one else was given the opportunity to decide that.
Riiight. She refused to defend the order because she thought it was completely above-board. Pull the other one.
I’m guessing you didn’t watch her testimony today. Maybe you should.
You mean this part where she talks about the Muslim Ban with Sen. Cornyn? I watched it. Maybe you should take your turn now, and you could hear this part:
YATES: I made a determination that I believed that it was unlawful.
I gotta love how you post only the piece that is relevant to your point. After that she agreed that she did not put it to the courts before a final determination was made, she made it herself without the court. She has the right to feel that way but not the final say.
Go back and check. I never argued that point. I just said she found problems in the order and refused to defend it. Period. You then said:
If you watched her testimony today, this is not the case.
…and went off on the tangent about the courts all by yourself. Of course refusing to defend the law would get her fired. I kinda wondered what your point was but I didn’t want to belabor it.
We misunderstood each other then. I know what she said and how she felt and I wasn’t trying to argue that part. She got fired for it because she bypassed the legal process designed to do what she did.
- Time
- Post link
Yeah, clapping. So?
You give yourself far too much credit for being sly but it’s all good. If it helps you sleep what more can one ask for.
😃
So let me get this straight, you think when I posted the clapping gif today I was somehow trying to make reference to the clapping gif posted back when you were temp banned? Well, I wasn’t. I’d try to convince you of that, but I know that would be a waste of my time. Believe what you wish.
- Time
- Post link
Seems like some senators are more interested in grilling Sally Yates over her opposition to Trumpy’s travel ban order than the stuff they’re supposed to be talking about today. A–holes.
The one where her views on the Muslim Ban were quickly and repeatedly vindicated by federal court opinions? That one?
Weird because it was never a “muslim” ban and most of the list was sorted by the Obama administration.
From the Washington Post…
On July 24 last year, Trump sat for an interview with Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press”. Todd prodded Trump on whether his new proposal targeting specific countries represents a “rollback” of his original Muslim ban. Trump denied that it was a rollback at all:
TRUMP: I don’t think so. I actually don’t think it’s a rollback. In fact, you could say it’s an expansion. I’m looking now at territories. People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh, you can’t use the word Muslim. Remember this. And I’m okay with that, because I’m talking territory instead of Muslim.
Not just Trump but Rudy Giuliani also said the whole point was to design a Muslim Ban that could pass legal muster. Of course, they’ve discovered that’s kindof a sticky wicket, designing something whose core purpose is unconstitutional, in a way that’s not unconstitutional.
EDIT: The Trump team just scrubbed the Muslim Ban language from their campaign website. Coincidence I’m sure.
Sure they did, because nobody there had done it yet, and I bet that person got the riot act read to them too.
Federal Legal Counsel again went through the entire executive order regarding what’s on the table. They did not find anything unconstitutional or illegal nor did they find anything that was out of bounds in the regular process.
And yet the courts managed to find something that this stringent exercise missed. And Yates found the same thing.
If you watched her testimony today, this is not the case, she openly said she did not follow the procedural process laid out by Federal Law for this if she felt things were wrong. Circumvention of Federal Procedures does not mean that she found anything wrong because no-one else was given the opportunity to decide that.
Riiight. She refused to defend the order because she thought it was completely above-board. Pull the other one.
I’m guessing you didn’t watch her testimony today. Maybe you should.
You mean this part where she talks about the Muslim Ban with Sen. Cornyn? I watched it. Maybe you should take your turn now, and you could hear this part:
YATES: I made a determination that I believed that it was unlawful.
I gotta love how you post only the piece that is relevant to your point. After that she agreed that she did not put it to the courts before a final determination was made, she made it herself without the court. She has the right to feel that way but not the final say.
Go back and check. I never argued that point. I just said she found problems in the order and refused to defend it. Period. You then said:
If you watched her testimony today, this is not the case.
…and went off on the tangent about the courts all by yourself. Of course refusing to defend the law would get her fired. I kinda wondered what your point was but I didn’t want to belabor it.
We misunderstood each other then. I know what she said and how she felt and I wasn’t trying to argue that part. She got fired for it because she bypassed the legal process designed to do what she did.
FWIW, it’s statements like this that really muddied the waters:
Circumvention of Federal Procedures does not mean that she found anything wrong
Which I took to mean you didn’t believe she found anything wrong.
- Time
- Post link
Seems like some senators are more interested in grilling Sally Yates over her opposition to Trumpy’s travel ban order than the stuff they’re supposed to be talking about today. A–holes.
The one where her views on the Muslim Ban were quickly and repeatedly vindicated by federal court opinions? That one?
Weird because it was never a “muslim” ban and most of the list was sorted by the Obama administration.
From the Washington Post…
On July 24 last year, Trump sat for an interview with Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press”. Todd prodded Trump on whether his new proposal targeting specific countries represents a “rollback” of his original Muslim ban. Trump denied that it was a rollback at all:
TRUMP: I don’t think so. I actually don’t think it’s a rollback. In fact, you could say it’s an expansion. I’m looking now at territories. People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh, you can’t use the word Muslim. Remember this. And I’m okay with that, because I’m talking territory instead of Muslim.
Not just Trump but Rudy Giuliani also said the whole point was to design a Muslim Ban that could pass legal muster. Of course, they’ve discovered that’s kindof a sticky wicket, designing something whose core purpose is unconstitutional, in a way that’s not unconstitutional.
EDIT: The Trump team just scrubbed the Muslim Ban language from their campaign website. Coincidence I’m sure.
Sure they did, because nobody there had done it yet, and I bet that person got the riot act read to them too.
Federal Legal Counsel again went through the entire executive order regarding what’s on the table. They did not find anything unconstitutional or illegal nor did they find anything that was out of bounds in the regular process.
And yet the courts managed to find something that this stringent exercise missed. And Yates found the same thing.
If you watched her testimony today, this is not the case, she openly said she did not follow the procedural process laid out by Federal Law for this if she felt things were wrong. Circumvention of Federal Procedures does not mean that she found anything wrong because no-one else was given the opportunity to decide that.
Riiight. She refused to defend the order because she thought it was completely above-board. Pull the other one.
I’m guessing you didn’t watch her testimony today. Maybe you should.
You mean this part where she talks about the Muslim Ban with Sen. Cornyn? I watched it. Maybe you should take your turn now, and you could hear this part:
YATES: I made a determination that I believed that it was unlawful.
I gotta love how you post only the piece that is relevant to your point. After that she agreed that she did not put it to the courts before a final determination was made, she made it herself without the court. She has the right to feel that way but not the final say.
Go back and check. I never argued that point. I just said she found problems in the order and refused to defend it. Period. You then said:
If you watched her testimony today, this is not the case.
…and went off on the tangent about the courts all by yourself. Of course refusing to defend the law would get her fired. I kinda wondered what your point was but I didn’t want to belabor it.
We misunderstood each other then. I know what she said and how she felt and I wasn’t trying to argue that part. She got fired for it because she bypassed the legal process designed to do what she did.
FWIW, it’s statements like this that really muddied the waters:
Circumvention of Federal Procedures does not mean that she found anything wrong
Which I took to mean you didn’t believe she found anything wrong.
What I meant by that was that she bypassed the process designed to confirm what she thought was wrong. I apologize if that wasn’t clear.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Yeah, clapping. So?
You give yourself far too much credit for being sly but it’s all good. If it helps you sleep what more can one ask for.
😃
So let me get this straight, you think when I posted the clapping gif today I was somehow trying to make reference to the clapping gif posted back when you were temp banned? Well, I wasn’t. I’d try to convince you of that, but I know that would be a waste of my time. Believe what you wish.
Let me set you straight … I fully believe you posted the clapping gif today because ender was posting the “victim card” at me and that you agreed with his post, the same thing you did when I was temp banned. You may twist words and say only half of what you mean but my experience with you is all the convincing I need.
- Time
- Post link
My love for this thread is nearing orgasmic levels.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Yeah, clapping. So?
You give yourself far too much credit for being sly but it’s all good. If it helps you sleep what more can one ask for.
😃
So let me get this straight, you think when I posted the clapping gif today I was somehow trying to make reference to the clapping gif posted back when you were temp banned? Well, I wasn’t. I’d try to convince you of that, but I know that would be a waste of my time. Believe what you wish.
Let me set you straight … I fully believe you posted the clapping gif today because ender was posting the “victim card” at me and that you agreed with his post, the same thing you did when I was temp banned. You may twist words and say only half of what you mean but my experience with you is all the convincing I need.
I was agreeing with a post made by Darth Ender when I posted gif when you were temp-banned? Just what post made by Darth Ender do you think I was agreeing with?
- Time
- Post link
Yeah, clapping. So?
You give yourself far too much credit for being sly but it’s all good. If it helps you sleep what more can one ask for.
😃
So let me get this straight, you think when I posted the clapping gif today I was somehow trying to make reference to the clapping gif posted back when you were temp banned? Well, I wasn’t. I’d try to convince you of that, but I know that would be a waste of my time. Believe what you wish.
Let me set you straight … I fully believe you posted the clapping gif today because ender was posting the “victim card” at me and that you agreed with his post, the same thing you did when I was temp banned. You may twist words and say only half of what you mean but my experience with you is all the convincing I need.
I was agreeing with a post made by Darth Ender, when I posted gif when you were temp-banned? Just what post made by Darth Ender do you think I was agreeing with?
I am tired of the infantile rewording of questions to further confusion. It’s very boring.
- Time
- Post link
My love for this thread is nearing orgasmic levels.I came.
- Time
- Post link
Well, you said I did the SAME THING when you were temp-banned that I did today. We both agree that today I posted a clapping gif to show agreement with a post of Darth Ender’s. Therefore you must think that when I posted the clapping gif when you were temp banned, I must have been doing so to show agreement with a post of Darth Ender’s. So again I ask, which post of Darth Ender’s do you think I was agreeing with?
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Well, you said I did the SAME THING when you were temp-banned that I did today. We both agree that today I posted a clapping gif to show agreement with a post of Darth Ender’s. Therefore you must think that when I posted the clapping gif when you were temp banned, I must have been doing so to show agreement with a post of Darth Ender’s. So again I ask, which post of Darth Ender’s do you think I was agreeing with?
I think it was Ender’s “victim card” post. That’s what I gathered from his last couple posts anyway. He can’t just make himself clear though, he has to confuse the situation by not replying when you misunderstand his statements.
Army of Darkness: The Medieval Deadit | The Terminator - Color Regrade | The Wrong Trousers - Audio Preservation
SONIC RACES THROUGH THE GREEN FIELDS.
THE SUN RACES THROUGH A BLUE SKY FILLED WITH WHITE CLOUDS.
THE WAYS OF HIS HEART ARE MUCH LIKE THE SUN. SONIC RUNS AND RESTS; THE SUN RISES AND SETS.
DON’T GIVE UP ON THE SUN. DON’T MAKE THE SUN LAUGH AT YOU.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Well, you said I did the SAME THING when you were temp-banned that I did today. We both agree that today I posted a clapping gif to show agreement with a post of Darth Ender’s. Therefore you must think that when I posted the clapping gif when you were temp banned, I must have been doing so to show agreement with a post of Darth Ender’s. So again I ask, which post of Darth Ender’s do you think I was agreeing with?
it was Ender’s “victim card” post.
Piss off Dek … I was perfectly clear.
- Time
- Post link
This is a sad state of affairs because Ret. Director James Clapper originally said publicly …
Clapper was also asked on “Meet the Press” if he had any evidence that the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russian government while the Kremlin was working to influence the election. “Not to my knowledge,” Clapper said, based on the information he had before his time in the position ended. “We did not include anything in our report … that had any reflect of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report,” he said. “We had no evidence of such collusion.”
Now he is testifying to the contrary? So which is it? LOL
He also explained that he wasn’t given any information at the time, so because he wasn’t in the loop, he would naturally have no evidence from them of the Russia-Trump connection.
You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)
- Time
- Post link
No dek it’s okay, rule #6 only applies to Fo remember?
- Time
- Post link
Well, you said I did the SAME THING when you were temp-banned that I did today. We both agree that today I posted a clapping gif to show agreement with a post of Darth Ender’s. Therefore you must think that when I posted the clapping gif when you were temp banned, I must have been doing so to show agreement with a post of Darth Ender’s. So again I ask, which post of Darth Ender’s do you think I was agreeing with?
it was Ender’s “victim card” post.
Piss off Dek … I was perfectly clear.
You brought up the fact that he posted a gif when you were temp banned, and that seemed to be the biggest issue of confusion in the conversation. When Warb asked for further clarification because he wasn’t fully understanding your statements, you blew him of and didn’t answer the question. And no, I won’t piss off, because I was trying to clarify it simply for Warb when you apparently refused to do so.
No dek it’s okay, rule #6 only applies to Fo remember?
I suppose I should just turn myself in to save a law suit. 😉
Army of Darkness: The Medieval Deadit | The Terminator - Color Regrade | The Wrong Trousers - Audio Preservation
SONIC RACES THROUGH THE GREEN FIELDS.
THE SUN RACES THROUGH A BLUE SKY FILLED WITH WHITE CLOUDS.
THE WAYS OF HIS HEART ARE MUCH LIKE THE SUN. SONIC RUNS AND RESTS; THE SUN RISES AND SETS.
DON’T GIVE UP ON THE SUN. DON’T MAKE THE SUN LAUGH AT YOU.
- Time
- Post link
Well, you said I did the SAME THING when you were temp-banned that I did today. We both agree that today I posted a clapping gif to show agreement with a post of Darth Ender’s. Therefore you must think that when I posted the clapping gif when you were temp banned, I must have been doing so to show agreement with a post of Darth Ender’s. So again I ask, which post of Darth Ender’s do you think I was agreeing with?
I think it was Ender’s “victim card” post. That’s what I gathered from his last couple posts anyway. He can’t just make himself clear though, he has to confuse the situation by not replying when you misunderstand his statements.
Ender’s “victim card” post is what I was agreeing with when I posted the clapping gif earlier today. What I was asking Jetrell Fo was, was what post of Darth Ender’s did he think I was agreeing with I posted the clapping gif when he was temp-banned.
- Time
- Post link
Well, you said I did the SAME THING when you were temp-banned that I did today. We both agree that today I posted a clapping gif to show agreement with a post of Darth Ender’s. Therefore you must think that when I posted the clapping gif when you were temp banned, I must have been doing so to show agreement with a post of Darth Ender’s. So again I ask, which post of Darth Ender’s do you think I was agreeing with?
it was Ender’s “victim card” post.
Piss off Dek … I was perfectly clear.
You brought up the fact that he posted a gif when you were temp banned, and that seemed to be the biggest issue of confusion in the conversation. When Warb asked for further clarification because he wasn’t fully understanding your statements, you blew him of and didn’t answer the question. And no, I won’t piss off, because I was trying to clarify it simply for Warb when you apparently refused to do so.
He got you to think he was confused. He did post the Orson Welles applauding gif when I got temp-banned because he had already stated he was looking forward to it happening so him doing it in an innocent way was a no brainer and related to his Orson Welles applauding for rule#6 in the updated rules thread. Making innocent is just a loophole.
This gif was Shia LeBouf applauding because he agreed with enders post talking shit about me being a “victim”. Something else warbler has shown approval for. He knew I would get it but he again did it in a way that wouldn’t make it look as if he was “openly” breaking rule #6.
warbler got sloppy with his little modus operandi so I said something. Making himself again looking innocent by saying he doesn’t understand … he’s not as innocent and his posting around the forum shows he’s more knowledgeable than he’s saying he is now.
It’s the last I’m saying on the matter. I hate that I let myself get bent about this stuff but finding ways to circumvent the rules innocently is still breaking the rules. I’m not trying to be a jerk to you Dek, I’m just ticked off that this shit never stops and most everyone is okay with it.
- Time
- Post link
I suppose I should just turn myself in to save a law suit. 😉
Does your law suit still fit?
- Time
- Post link
Jetrell Fo said:
I’m just ticked off that this shit never stops and most everyone is okay with it.
Yeah that’s how most people here feel about your posts, just replace “everyone is okay with it” with “everyone is annoyed to shit by it but it doesn’t technically break any rules so we have to suffer through it while you try your best to suck the fun out of the forum”.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Well, you said I did the SAME THING when you were temp-banned that I did today. We both agree that today I posted a clapping gif to show agreement with a post of Darth Ender’s. Therefore you must think that when I posted the clapping gif when you were temp banned, I must have been doing so to show agreement with a post of Darth Ender’s. So again I ask, which post of Darth Ender’s do you think I was agreeing with?
it was Ender’s “victim card” post.
Piss off Dek … I was perfectly clear.
You brought up the fact that he posted a gif when you were temp banned, and that seemed to be the biggest issue of confusion in the conversation. When Warb asked for further clarification because he wasn’t fully understanding your statements, you blew him of and didn’t answer the question. And no, I won’t piss off, because I was trying to clarify it simply for Warb when you apparently refused to do so.
He got you to think he was confused. He did post the Orson Welles applauding gif when I got temp-banned because he had already stated he was looking forward to it happening so him doing it in an innocent way was a no brainer and related to his Orson Welles applauding for rule#6 in the updated rules thread. Making innocent is just a loophole.
This gif was Shia LeBouf applauding because he agreed with enders post talking shit about me being a “victim”. Something else warbler has shown approval for. He knew I would get it but he again did it in a way that wouldn’t make it look as if he was “openly” breaking rule #6.
warbler got sloppy with his little modus operandi so I said something. Making himself again looking innocent by saying he doesn’t understand … he’s not as innocent and his posting around the forum shows he’s more knowledgeable than he’s saying he is now.
It’s the last I’m saying on the matter. I hate that I let myself get bent about this stuff but finding ways to circumvent the rules innocently is still breaking the rules. I’m not trying to be a jerk to you Dek, I’m just ticked off that this shit never stops and most everyone is okay with it.
-
I posted the gif when rule 6 was announced because I was agreeing with it and nothing more, it had nothing do with looking forward to seeing you get banned.
-
I posted the gif when you got temp-banned, “for something or another”. If you can prove I was doing because you got temp-banned, prove it.
-
I posted the gif today because I agreed with Ender’s post.
-
None of the three above had anything to do with each other, except they happen to include a clapping gif. They were not part of deep plot or conspiracy to “get you”. n
-
You are completely crazy and deluded.
-
Take your persecution and victim hood complexes and your conspiracy theories and your tin foil hat and shove them up your ass.
- Time
- Post link
Well, you said I did the SAME THING when you were temp-banned that I did today. We both agree that today I posted a clapping gif to show agreement with a post of Darth Ender’s. Therefore you must think that when I posted the clapping gif when you were temp banned, I must have been doing so to show agreement with a post of Darth Ender’s. So again I ask, which post of Darth Ender’s do you think I was agreeing with?
it was Ender’s “victim card” post.
Piss off Dek … I was perfectly clear.
You brought up the fact that he posted a gif when you were temp banned, and that seemed to be the biggest issue of confusion in the conversation. When Warb asked for further clarification because he wasn’t fully understanding your statements, you blew him of and didn’t answer the question. And no, I won’t piss off, because I was trying to clarify it simply for Warb when you apparently refused to do so.
He got you to think he was confused. He did post the Orson Welles applauding gif when I got temp-banned because he had already stated he was looking forward to it happening so him doing it in an innocent way was a no brainer and related to his Orson Welles applauding for rule#6 in the updated rules thread. Making innocent is just a loophole.
This gif was Shia LeBouf applauding because he agreed with enders post talking shit about me being a “victim”. Something else warbler has shown approval for. He knew I would get it but he again did it in a way that wouldn’t make it look as if he was “openly” breaking rule #6.
warbler got sloppy with his little modus operandi so I said something. Making himself again looking innocent by saying he doesn’t understand … he’s not as innocent and his posting around the forum shows he’s more knowledgeable than he’s saying he is now.
It’s the last I’m saying on the matter. I hate that I let myself get bent about this stuff but finding ways to circumvent the rules innocently is still breaking the rules. I’m not trying to be a jerk to you Dek, I’m just ticked off that this shit never stops and most everyone is okay with it.
I posted the gif when rule 6 was announced because I was agreeing with it and nothing more, it had nothing do with looking forward to seeing you get banned.
I posted the gif when you got temp-banned, “for something or another”. If you can prove I was doing because you got temp-banned, prove it.
I posted the gif today because I agreed with Ender’s post.
None of the three above had anything to do with each other, except they happen to include a clapping gif. They were not part of deep plot or conspiracy to “get you”. n
You are completely crazy and deluded.
Take your persecution and victim complexes and your conspiracy theories and your tin foil hat and shove them up your ass.
I’ll admit that I sure was glad when you were banned, no bones about it. I hope it happens again too. The sad thing is I’m sure you’re a nice guy but your presence on this forum is a constant irritation. Every time I start to think you’re getting easier to tolerate you stay up with the bullshit again.
- Time
- Post link
“Wow. Such thread. So politic.”