@ Krellin: "you are a fucking liar"

Please give an example of me lying.

TWAT? Ohhhhh Jazmie....my little friend. I THOUGHT that YOU of all people were sensitive to sexism....and there you are....using female anatomy as an insult!?!?!?!

So you think it is funny and/or insulting to use street language terms for female body parts as an insult?

Yeah....there it is...Jamie the hypocrite.....as always....the constant, predictable outcome to ANY conversation with Jamie.

Jamie....I've demonstrated that you are a liar over and over and over and over again over the years. It is only necessary to prove it once. I have proven it MULTIPLE times. Therefore, past proof stands in the present. YOu are a worthless liar. Period.

It will never change.

But....more important....I have hijacked your thread.

"And NO...I don't answer questions from you, because you are a troll, an attack dog, you are a caught and prosecuted LIAR....I have demonstrated in the past that you only tell the parts of stories that favor your pervers opinion"

I have previously exposed you as all of these things. Does everyone want the link?

No problem:

threadID=1069464

"I'm here to have fun, Jamie...I skim the threads...I throw out my half-cocked bullshit, and most of the time it is lazy, half-thought-out, doesn't specifically address what I'm responding to...because I'm more concerned with stirring up shit." - Krellin, Nov 13.

@ Krellin:

"I've demonstrated that you are a liar over and over and over and over again over the years."

One link, please? Otherwise your claim is totally baseless.

Jamie....what's the matter? Aren't you going to call me a "twat" again?

I thought you were all about the Attack Dog insults today....since all you do in attack me.

I notice you failed to provide a single link.

Anyway....you KNOW how I have caught you in lies. I don't need to demonstrate it again and again and again. Unless you have some perverse desire to be humiliated in front of the viewers. But...I will leave you with whatever shit-stained dignity you have left and not drag your pathetic lying ass through the excrement again...

YOu can thank me in private if you choose.

Jamiepoo....so tell us....WHAT IS so funny about this post of yours??? Please enlighten us to the humor?

Tell it to us in broad terms we ALL can understand why YOU think it is so funny.

I'm waiting with baited breath, coward.

I provided a link to you admitting you were a spineless troll. You provide a link to me lying, or fuck off.

Jamie.....I can provide countless links to your lies. But most people already know what a shitstain you produce....I mean...are...something like that...

Anyway...I don't want to further humiliate you. While you seem to take extra joy in being mean to people....which is ironic, since you whine like a bitch about how hostile the forum is....I do not take extra joy in making you look like a fool. It is truly a burden to me to demonstrate what a gaping ass you are.

It would be much easier if you just apologized to everyone for your bad behavior.

@ Krellin: "I can provide countless links to your lies."

How interesting that I have challenged you *repeatedly* to do EXACTLY that, and somehow you have been completely unable to do so.

I don't need to. I know you are a liar. YOU know you are a liar. That's enough.

This is a polite request to discuss the article in the OP in a reasonable fashion in this thread, otherwise this thread will end up being locked. Further arguing on these lines by ANYONE, whether they've already posted here or not, will be punished accordingly. Please post responsibly.
Hellenic Riot (webDiplomacy Moderator)

I lol'ed also. More relentlessly gay pls. Hilarious. :-) I look forward to seeing whatever she does with the money.

this thread has amused me in more ways than i expected it to.

As it was intended, kasi. That is why I derailed it from the intended religious-bashing thread that was hoped for.

But we should stick to the OP....which is...what?

And isn't that the questions I originally asked? WHAT IS the purpose of this thread? I'd truly like to know what the intent was. I'm not seeking an argument. I"m not seeking personal insults. I'm seeking an answer to what the INTENDED discussion topic of the post was.

Normally, when a person links to an article, they offer some personal commentary to kick off the discussion. That did not happen in this case -- so I am very, very curious to know what the *intent* of the post was.

I don't see ANY humor in it. I an frankly fail to see why anyone would. It's rather pathetic, on BOTH sides of the argument. A douchebag neighbor doesn't like someone's decoration. And the response is that the douchbag bitch with the decoration now seeks to be that much more offensive to the person they offended. And this is humorous? Because NEITHER PERSON is capable of behaving in a civil manner?

I serously have to call into question any douchebag that thinks EITHER actor in this play was behaving properly, or that anything in this is cause for humor.

UNLESS....and this is the catch, isn't it...UNLESS you are judging one person over another based upon some presumed asserted "fact" OTHER than their actual uncivil behavior.

Kremlin: If you think that hanging some rainbow decorations is genuinely (a) offensive (b) actually relentlessly gay, then I feel sad for you (and I feel sad for the person who wrote the letter, too).

In any case, you got an answer to your question as to motive. That you don't like the answer is your problem, not anyone else's. I certainly found the article funny as well.

^ Oops, Krellin. That was a genuine autocorrect fail. *sigh*

In this entire bout of name calling, the thing that stuck out most to me, and the thing that annoyed me the most, is krellin's complete inconsistency in capitalizing letters.

Who are you ghug?

i think part of the fun relies on the wording. i mean, "relentless" gayness? that is a really weird way to put it.

i won't discuss with you whether or not this person is a homophobe or whether this post attacks christians as a whole (which you'd love to), but the wording is really funny. if you posted a link where a neighbour asked someone to remove a cross from their garden because of the depiction of "contant christianity" (sorry for not being able to think of a funnier way to say this, but you get the idea), then i would've laughed as well.

*constant

Ssorenn, please don't make ghug accusations on the forum

Thanks,
#onetrueghug

I think that the herd here is being a little disingenuous. The word 'relentlessly' might appear funny; I guess that depends on the individual's particular sense of humour. My guess is that this was also a side-swipe at theists - two birds with one stone maybe?
Not that it is intrinsically wrong with attacking theists, but maybe generalisations from perverse individual behaviour to the general case are a trite too easy?