|
|
Post by Porrohman on Jan 7, 2020 23:42:59 GMT 1
Is Lord Dickhead suggesting Nick will turn into a racist, right wing bigot in the same way the one time genius he quoted has 🤔 Yeah, tragic how Morrissey has turned out. Pisses me off big time. No offence to Nick of course. And hilarious to see you use "Dickhead" and bigot in the same sentence. Check the dictionary mate you might learn something!
So having a pet name for a looney makes me a bigot 🤔. I'm not intolerant of your views, I just think you're a prick and wish you'd fuck off to a forum belonging to your favourite team as you're only on here as a WUM. |
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Jan 8, 2020 0:11:17 GMT 1
Nexit
|
|
|
|
Post by themanfromatlantis on Jan 8, 2020 0:15:14 GMT 1
I think we sometimes need to put ourselves in the shoes of the admin folks. It's a job that doesn't pay, gets no thanks & they have to marshal the ramblings of blokes from all age groups, many of whom are fully grown, have shitloads of real life responsibilities & who should therefore know better and understand these places are great for the escapism, but there's a limit to posting tedious, illegible and repetitive stuff. The only thing worse would be to be genetically modified at birth to force your brain into being a lifelong Leeds/Liverpool/Chelsea/Man C/Sheff Wed supporter (delete as appropriate).
It's easy enough to post on here & ignore stuff for 99% of us. I'd hazard 99% of those (me included) wouldn't raise their arm if asked to volunteer to be an admin and have to deal with some of the incessant shite that gets posted, not to mention having to be aware of the potentially litigious nature of some posts on here occasionally.
If this ban is to serve the purpose of giving the admins a well earned break from having to be a charitable mentor to folk who only have the objective to wind folk up for 99% of their DATM existence, then it's no bad thing.
Of course you can ignore him, but the fact that this thread exists suggests many are unable to.
If there's a genuine need for help for Nick, he's had plenty of avenues on here to find it...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2020 0:17:15 GMT 1
I think we sometimes need to put ourselves in the shoes of the admin folks. It's a job that doesn't pay, gets no thanks & they have to marshal the ramblings of blokes from all age groups, many of whom are fully grown, have shitloads of real life responsibilities & who should therefore know better and understand these places are great for the escapism, but there's a limit to posting tedious, illegible and repetitive stuff. The only thing worse would be to be genetically modified at birth to force your brain into being a lifelong Leeds/Liverpool/Chelsea/Man C/Sheff Wed supporter (delete as appropriate). It's easy enough to post on here & ignore stuff for 99% of us. I'd hazard 99% of those (me included) wouldn't raise their arm if asked to volunteer to be an admin and have to deal with some of the incessant shite that gets posted, not to mention having to be aware of the potentially litigious nature of some posts on here occasionally. If this ban is to serve the purpose of giving the admins a well earned break from having to be a charitable mentor to folk who only have the objective to wind folk up for 99% of their DATM existence, then it's no bad thing. Of course you can ignore him, but the fact that this thread exists suggests many are unable to. If there's a genuine need for help for Nick, he's had plenty of avenues on here to find it...  |
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) on Jan 8, 2020 10:06:50 GMT 1
I think we sometimes need to put ourselves in the shoes of the admin folks. It's a job that doesn't pay, gets no thanks & they have to marshal the ramblings of blokes from all age groups, many of whom are fully grown, have shitloads of real life responsibilities & who should therefore know better and understand these places are great for the escapism, but there's a limit to posting tedious, illegible and repetitive stuff. The only thing worse would be to be genetically modified at birth to force your brain into being a lifelong Leeds/Liverpool/Chelsea/Man C/Sheff Wed supporter (delete as appropriate). It's easy enough to post on here & ignore stuff for 99% of us. I'd hazard 99% of those (me included) wouldn't raise their arm if asked to volunteer to be an admin and have to deal with some of the incessant shite that gets posted, not to mention having to be aware of the potentially litigious nature of some posts on here occasionally. If this ban is to serve the purpose of giving the admins a well earned break from having to be a charitable mentor to folk who only have the objective to wind folk up for 99% of their DATM existence, then it's no bad thing. Of course you can ignore him, but the fact that this thread exists suggests many are unable to. If there's a genuine need for help for Nick, he's had plenty of avenues on here to find it... Yellow card! This is DATM, no place for well thought out, empathetic, reasoned responses.... You're on thin ice.... |
|
|
|
Post by Essex Terrier on Jan 8, 2020 11:26:31 GMT 1
I think we sometimes need to put ourselves in the shoes of the admin folks. It's a job that doesn't pay, gets no thanks & they have to marshal the ramblings of blokes from all age groups, many of whom are fully grown, have shitloads of real life responsibilities & who should therefore know better and understand these places are great for the escapism, but there's a limit to posting tedious, illegible and repetitive stuff. The only thing worse would be to be genetically modified at birth to force your brain into being a lifelong Leeds/Liverpool/Chelsea/Man C/Sheff Wed supporter (delete as appropriate). It's easy enough to post on here & ignore stuff for 99% of us. I'd hazard 99% of those (me included) wouldn't raise their arm if asked to volunteer to be an admin and have to deal with some of the incessant shite that gets posted, not to mention having to be aware of the potentially litigious nature of some posts on here occasionally. If this ban is to serve the purpose of giving the admins a well earned break from having to be a charitable mentor to folk who only have the objective to wind folk up for 99% of their DATM existence, then it's no bad thing. Of course you can ignore him, but the fact that this thread exists suggests many are unable to. If there's a genuine need for help for Nick, he's had plenty of avenues on here to find it... I'd never be an admin, and big respect to those that do. Mind you, I'd never be bullied into banning the innocent fool that is/was Nick |
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) on Jan 8, 2020 14:15:33 GMT 1
I think we sometimes need to put ourselves in the shoes of the admin folks. It's a job that doesn't pay, gets no thanks & they have to marshal the ramblings of blokes from all age groups, many of whom are fully grown, have shitloads of real life responsibilities & who should therefore know better and understand these places are great for the escapism, but there's a limit to posting tedious, illegible and repetitive stuff. The only thing worse would be to be genetically modified at birth to force your brain into being a lifelong Leeds/Liverpool/Chelsea/Man C/Sheff Wed supporter (delete as appropriate). It's easy enough to post on here & ignore stuff for 99% of us. I'd hazard 99% of those (me included) wouldn't raise their arm if asked to volunteer to be an admin and have to deal with some of the incessant shite that gets posted, not to mention having to be aware of the potentially litigious nature of some posts on here occasionally. If this ban is to serve the purpose of giving the admins a well earned break from having to be a charitable mentor to folk who only have the objective to wind folk up for 99% of their DATM existence, then it's no bad thing. Of course you can ignore him, but the fact that this thread exists suggests many are unable to. If there's a genuine need for help for Nick, he's had plenty of avenues on here to find it... I'd never be an admin, and big respect to those that do. Mind you, I'd never be bullied into banning the innocent fool that is/was Nick Neither were we... |
|
est1908
David Wagner Terrier
Kindo is 66.....
Posts: 2,880
|
Post by est1908 on Jan 9, 2020 1:19:10 GMT 1
I'd never be an admin, and big respect to those that do. Mind you, I'd never be bullied into banning the innocent fool that is/was Nick Neither were we... How many people blocked him? The block doesn't stop you seeing posts that quote him. By nature, the quoted posts are the ones which cause a reaction, the ones you don't want to see.... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2020 5:06:48 GMT 1
I have defended Nick in the past from some of what I thought was unwarranted abuse directed at him. And those certain posters then started attacking me because they are immature morons.
I don’t miss him but my gripe is other people do a lot of the same things that they complain that Nick does.
Deliberate spelling errors and derailing threads. Posting things that are way off topic on the main board and even acknowledging it in their posts. However nothing seems to happen to them.
If you are going to have rules they should be applied evenly to everyone and they are not.
|
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Jan 9, 2020 8:19:37 GMT 1
1st world problems.
Wonder what the next minor irritation will be that cause folk to press the 'report post' button?
|
|
|
|
Post by overtonterrierspirit on Jan 9, 2020 9:02:29 GMT 1
Firstly, I acknowledge the hard work put in by Admins in overseeing this site.
I think that the site has lost vibrancy and humour this week, since Nick’s ban.
Having rejoined a year ago, I can’t remember a single time that Nick has been abusive to anyone, despite receiving many frankly abusive replies to his posts.
I was often amused, sometimes bemused by his posts but certainly never offended by any of them.
I see other posts from people using bad language and responses to posts that frankly are very offensive.
We live to our own rules and personally I would never use offensive language on a public forum.
It would appear to me that the best solution would of been ( if admins are able to do this) to block visibility of Nick’s posts to the people who have complained about him and allow him to continue to amuse and bemuse everyone else who see him ( including me ) as a source of entertainment and one who has splendid recollections of Town over the years.
|
|
cheesyhtfc
Steve Kindon Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 1,647
|
Post by cheesyhtfc on Jan 9, 2020 10:29:11 GMT 1
I have defended Nick in the past from some of what I thought was unwarranted abuse directed at him. And those certain posters then started attacking me because they are immature morons. I don’t miss him but my gripe is other people do a lot of the same things that they complain that Nick does. Deliberate spelling errors and derailing threads. Posting things that are way off topic on the main board and even acknowledging it in their posts. However nothing seems to happen to them. If you are going to have rules they should be applied evenly to everyone and they are not. I can't speak for the situation now, but certainly when I was one of the admin, if any action was taken against a different member of the forum then the response would almost always be "well what about Nick?" If the admin stopped taking action against people who post like Nick, in order to avoid the inevitable fallout from banning Nick, the number of complaints from posters increased massively. After years of this cycle, it is much more straightforward, and fairer, to ban Nick permanently and administer the forum impartially amongst the remaining members. As to the fairness point, Nick has had so many final warnings over the last few years that it was inevitable one would actually be the final one - this ban is likely to be the result of years and years of cumulative warnings and not from one particular act. I would assume that others posting in the same way are treated in the same way - i.e. warned a number of times (with a few bans sprinkled in) and then given a number of final warnings in the hope that they stop acting like a prat, rather than permanently banned for a few prattish threads/posts. As to the inevitable question about why Nick wasn't banned earlier, I suspect the answers are that (1) no admin wants to permanently ban people (particularly longstanding members of the forum), and (2) they wanted to avoid this reaction unless it was necessary. However, when you have a situation where the vast majority of complaints are about one poster, and you are receiving 5-10 complaints about that particular poster per day (as happened regularly when I was an admin), eventually the admin's hand will be forced; irrespective of the two points above. |
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Jan 9, 2020 11:05:00 GMT 1
He was banned because people kept pressing the report post button.
Wouldn't be surprised if somebody complained about him using the term Mo Salad instead of Mo Salah.
|
|
|
|
Post by Frankiesleftpeg on Jan 9, 2020 12:21:20 GMT 1
I have defended Nick in the past from some of what I thought was unwarranted abuse directed at him. And those certain posters then started attacking me because they are immature morons. I don’t miss him but my gripe is other people do a lot of the same things that they complain that Nick does. Deliberate spelling errors and derailing threads. Posting things that are way off topic on the main board and even acknowledging it in their posts. However nothing seems to happen to them. If you are going to have rules they should be applied evenly to everyone and they are not. I can't speak for the situation now, but certainly when I was one of the admin, if any action was taken against a different member of the forum then the response would almost always be "well what about Nick?" If the admin stopped taking action against people who post like Nick, in order to avoid the inevitable fallout from banning Nick, the number of complaints from posters increased massively. After years of this cycle, it is much more straightforward, and fairer, to ban Nick permanently and administer the forum impartially amongst the remaining members. As to the fairness point, Nick has had so many final warnings over the last few years that it was inevitable one would actually be the final one - this ban is likely to be the result of years and years of cumulative warnings and not from one particular act. I would assume that others posting in the same way are treated in the same way - i.e. warned a number of times (with a few bans sprinkled in) and then given a number of final warnings in the hope that they stop acting like a prat, rather than permanently banned for a few prattish threads/posts. As to the inevitable question about why Nick wasn't banned earlier, I suspect the answers are that (1) no admin wants to permanently ban people (particularly longstanding members of the forum), and (2) they wanted to avoid this reaction unless it was necessary. However, when you have a situation where the vast majority of complaints are about one poster, and you are receiving 5-10 complaints about that particular poster per day (as happened regularly when I was an admin), eventually the admin's hand will be forced; irrespective of the two points above. Its a pity the poor souls have nowt better to do with their lives. |
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) on Jan 9, 2020 12:41:21 GMT 1
I can't speak for the situation now, but certainly when I was one of the admin, if any action was taken against a different member of the forum then the response would almost always be "well what about Nick?" If the admin stopped taking action against people who post like Nick, in order to avoid the inevitable fallout from banning Nick, the number of complaints from posters increased massively. After years of this cycle, it is much more straightforward, and fairer, to ban Nick permanently and administer the forum impartially amongst the remaining members. As to the fairness point, Nick has had so many final warnings over the last few years that it was inevitable one would actually be the final one - this ban is likely to be the result of years and years of cumulative warnings and not from one particular act. I would assume that others posting in the same way are treated in the same way - i.e. warned a number of times (with a few bans sprinkled in) and then given a number of final warnings in the hope that they stop acting like a prat, rather than permanently banned for a few prattish threads/posts. As to the inevitable question about why Nick wasn't banned earlier, I suspect the answers are that (1) no admin wants to permanently ban people (particularly longstanding members of the forum), and (2) they wanted to avoid this reaction unless it was necessary. However, when you have a situation where the vast majority of complaints are about one poster, and you are receiving 5-10 complaints about that particular poster per day (as happened regularly when I was an admin), eventually the admin's hand will be forced; irrespective of the two points above.
Some would say exactly the same about the way nick posted, which was clearly a concerted effort and one which a) maust have taken thought, calculation and energy and b) he had been asked, warned and implored to stop |
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) on Jan 9, 2020 12:46:04 GMT 1
Firstly, I acknowledge the hard work put in by Admins in overseeing this site. I think that the site has lost vibrancy and humour this week, since Nick’s ban. Having rejoined a year ago, I can’t remember a single time that Nick has been abusive to anyone, despite receiving many frankly abusive replies to his posts. I was often amused, sometimes bemused by his posts but certainly never offended by any of them. I see other posts from people using bad language and responses to posts that frankly are very offensive. We live to our own rules and personally I would never use offensive language on a public forum. It would appear to me that the best solution would of been ( if admins are able to do this) to block visibility of Nick’s posts to the people who have complained about him and allow him to continue to amuse and bemuse everyone else who see him ( including me ) as a source of entertainment and one who has splendid recollections of Town over the years. This forum has rules. "offensive language" is a subjective term. As for words commonly considered to be profane, we don't have a rule on swearing in and of itself - we had a vote on this years ago and it was decided not to have one. However, often some foul language may be used in a way that breaks the rules. For example, I have used the C word, and will probably continue to do. In many contexts this does not break the rules - for example if I called a public figure a C word, it'd be unlikely to break the rules. But If I called you one in a heated exchange, this would be different. It's why I gave myself a yellow card in 2019. Also, the "politics and current affairs" sub-board is one we tend to administer differently, due to the content that is on there generally being very emotive, polarising and polemic, and also because our view is that this sub-board in particular is one people seek out for robust debate etc. |
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Jan 9, 2020 12:55:27 GMT 1
Its a pity the poor souls have nowt better to do with their lives.
Some would say exactly the same about the way nick posted, which was clearly a concerted effort and one which a) maust have taken thought, calculation and energy and b) he had been asked, warned and implored to stop He'd been asked to stop because people couldn't tolerate him, and kept reporting him. I'd hazard a guess that it was less than 10 posters that regularly reported him We know you can't act unless a post is reported, so the admins hands are tied (albeit by the rules which were clearly written to target Nick, amongst other things). Despite some posters not wanting Nick on the forum, some folk did. |
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Jan 9, 2020 12:59:16 GMT 1
Firstly, I acknowledge the hard work put in by Admins in overseeing this site. I think that the site has lost vibrancy and humour this week, since Nick’s ban. Having rejoined a year ago, I can’t remember a single time that Nick has been abusive to anyone, despite receiving many frankly abusive replies to his posts. I was often amused, sometimes bemused by his posts but certainly never offended by any of them. I see other posts from people using bad language and responses to posts that frankly are very offensive. We live to our own rules and personally I would never use offensive language on a public forum. It would appear to me that the best solution would of been ( if admins are able to do this) to block visibility of Nick’s posts to the people who have complained about him and allow him to continue to amuse and bemuse everyone else who see him ( including me ) as a source of entertainment and one who has splendid recollections of Town over the years. This forum has rules. "offensive language" is a subjective term. As for words commonly considered to be profane, we don't have a rule on swearing in and of itself - we had a vote on this years ago and it was decided not to have one. However, often some foul language may be used in a way that breaks the rules. For example, I have used the C word, and will probably continue to do. In many contexts this does not break the rules - for example if I called a public figure a C word, it'd be unlikely to break the rules. But If I called you one in a heated exchange, this would be different. It's why I gave myself a yellow card in 2019. Also, the "politics and current affairs" sub-board is one we tend to administer differently, due to the content that is on there generally being very emotive, polarising and polemic, and also because our view is that this sub-board in particular is one people seek out for robust debate etc. The C word should have no place whatsoever in anybodies vocabulary. People using it in my opinion, are just as bad as those using offensive racist terms The word stinks of "I'll call you C##t because it's the most offensive word I know" Yellow card for using it. Red card for using it offensively. Can we implement that? |
|
|
|
Post by Essex Terrier on Jan 9, 2020 13:07:07 GMT 1
Some would say exactly the same about the way nick posted, which was clearly a concerted effort and one which a) maust have taken thought, calculation and energy and b) he had been asked, warned and implored to stop He'd been asked to stop because people couldn't tolerate him, and kept reporting him. I'd hazard a guess that it was less than 10 posters that regularly reported him We know you can't act unless a post is reported, so the admins hands are tied (albeit by the rules which were clearly written to target Nick, amongst other things). Despite some posters not wanting Nick on the forum, some most folk did. Small, petty minded, soulless, joyless busy bodies, mostly who complained. As Frankiesleftpeg states above, they need more in their lives. Pity is, like much today, those who shout longest and loudest tend to bully decisions in their favour - see "veganism" and "climate change" as but two examples. |
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) on Jan 9, 2020 13:13:09 GMT 1
This forum has rules. "offensive language" is a subjective term. As for words commonly considered to be profane, we don't have a rule on swearing in and of itself - we had a vote on this years ago and it was decided not to have one. However, often some foul language may be used in a way that breaks the rules. For example, I have used the C word, and will probably continue to do. In many contexts this does not break the rules - for example if I called a public figure a C word, it'd be unlikely to break the rules. But If I called you one in a heated exchange, this would be different. It's why I gave myself a yellow card in 2019. Also, the "politics and current affairs" sub-board is one we tend to administer differently, due to the content that is on there generally being very emotive, polarising and polemic, and also because our view is that this sub-board in particular is one people seek out for robust debate etc. The C word should have no place whatsoever in anybodies vocabulary. People using it in my opinion, are just as bad as those using offensive racist terms The word stinks of "I'll call you C##t because it's the most offensive word I know" Yellow card for using it. Red card for using it offensively. Can we implement that? no, we c*** can't |
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) on Jan 9, 2020 13:16:28 GMT 1
Some would say exactly the same about the way nick posted, which was clearly a concerted effort and one which a) maust have taken thought, calculation and energy and b) he had been asked, warned and implored to stop He'd been asked to stop because people couldn't tolerate him, and kept reporting him. I'd hazard a guess that it was less than 10 posters that regularly reported him We know you can't act unless a post is reported, so the admins hands are tied (albeit by the rules which were clearly written to target Nick, amongst other things). Despite some posters not wanting Nick on the forum, some folk did. That is bollocks. The rules were written to capture and specify the behaviours that would result in admins taking action in an attempt to create an environment for more harmonious, fun, vibrant discussion and debate. Saying we wrote a rule specifically to target Nick is ridiculous - if it were true he'd have been banned years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Jan 9, 2020 13:18:39 GMT 1
The C word should have no place whatsoever in anybodies vocabulary. People using it in my opinion, are just as bad as those using offensive racist terms The word stinks of "I'll call you C##t because it's the most offensive word I know" Yellow card for using it. Red card for using it offensively. Can we implement that? no, we c*** can't Why? Also, I thought you were meant to be a comedian. |
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Jan 9, 2020 13:23:00 GMT 1
He'd been asked to stop because people couldn't tolerate him, and kept reporting him. I'd hazard a guess that it was less than 10 posters that regularly reported him We know you can't act unless a post is reported, so the admins hands are tied (albeit by the rules which were clearly written to target Nick, amongst other things). Despite some posters not wanting Nick on the forum, some folk did. That is bollocks. The rules were written to capture and specify the behaviours that would result in admins taking action in an attempt to create an environment for more harmonious, fun, vibrant discussion and debate. Saying we wrote a rule specifically to target Nick is ridiculous - if it were true he'd have been banned years ago. Mate, I remember when the rules were introduced, stu did it at a time when Nick was an issue for the admins. Don't insult me by pretending controlling nick wasn't part of that, you only have to read the first paragraph or so of the rules to see that's the case. "Consistent bad spelling" "Consistent creation of poor quality threads" You must think we're all fucking stupid if you're saying those two rules alone weren't aimed to target Nick. |
|
|
|
Post by Essex Terrier on Jan 9, 2020 13:24:41 GMT 1
Why? Also, I thought you were meant to be a comedian. I've seen Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) using a Zebra crossing, I can assure you he does not change to black & white stripes! |
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) on Jan 9, 2020 13:27:18 GMT 1
Why? Also, I thought you were meant to be a comedian. Saying that to someone on a web forum, rather than after a comedy performance, is moronic. The conversation was becoming tedious and riddle with sanctimony, so I decided to entertain myself. Frankly, couldn't give a shiny shite if it amused you. |
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) on Jan 9, 2020 13:30:37 GMT 1
That is bollocks. The rules were written to capture and specify the behaviours that would result in admins taking action in an attempt to create an environment for more harmonious, fun, vibrant discussion and debate. Saying we wrote a rule specifically to target Nick is ridiculous - if it were true he'd have been banned years ago. Mate, I remember when the rules were introduced, stu did it at a time when Nick was an issue for the admins. Don't insult me by pretending controlling nick wasn't part of that, you only have to read the first paragraph or so of the rules to see that's the case. "Consistent bad spelling" "Consistent creation of poor quality threads" You must think we're all fucking stupid if you're saying those two rules alone weren't aimed to target Nick. I think you're fucking stupid if you can't see that, had our intention been to target Nick specifically, he'd have been gone years ago - the rules were published two and a half years ago. I'm not now going to list how many actionable reports we've had since June 2017, but rest assured it's enough to have banned him for several lifetimes. |
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) on Jan 9, 2020 13:31:55 GMT 1
Regarding foul language. The greatest living comedian said this in the introduction to his latest book.  |
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Jan 9, 2020 13:38:33 GMT 1
Why? Also, I thought you were meant to be a comedian. Saying that to someone on a web forum, rather than after a comedy performance, is moronic. The conversation was becoming tedious and riddle with sanctimony, so I decided to entertain myself. Frankly, couldn't give a shiny shite if it amused you. Using the c word is moronic pal. Justifying the use of the word is the mark of an idiot. You carry on though. |
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) on Jan 9, 2020 13:42:39 GMT 1
Saying that to someone on a web forum, rather than after a comedy performance, is moronic. The conversation was becoming tedious and riddle with sanctimony, so I decided to entertain myself. Frankly, couldn't give a shiny shite if it amused you. Using the c word is moronic pal. Justifying the use of the word is the mark of an idiot. You carry on though. Some of the most intelligent, erudite, well-read, articulate and sophisticated people I know would call you a c*** for saying that. |
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Jan 9, 2020 13:44:57 GMT 1
Using the c word is moronic pal. Justifying the use of the word is the mark of an idiot. You carry on though. Some of the most intelligent, erudite, well-read, articulate and sophisticated people I know would call you a c*** for saying that. I pity you. I really do. |
|
