-Removed-why not? nothing compelled him to share it, did it. A hand did not arise from his monitor
and command him to share it. What a silly argument you are making.
He has shown himself to be a two faced, untrustworthy, insensitive, unethical, morally
repugnant old cad of the lowest order and the best part is, he did it all by himself. Don't
you just love it when a witch hunt backfires. I know I do.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNothing "compelled" Suzianne to abuse the web site's message facility. Nothing "compelled" me to not block her and to leave the door open to her to use the same facility with more decency in future. Nothing "compelled" sonhouse and chaney3 to make fools of themselves with their bizarre name calling. Nothing compelled you to try your "compelled" catchphrase/buzzword umpteen times in the last 48 hours when it's just meaningless repetition of a dud idea. 😉
why not? nothing compelled him to share it, did it. A hand did not arise from his monitor and command him to share it, What a silly argument you are making.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou sound like you see yourself as being on a bit of a witch hunt of your own, robbie, and yet pretending to not like them. What witch hunt am i conducting? What action do you think I am advocating against Suzianne? Answer: None.
He has shown himself to be a two faced, untrustworthy, insensitive, unethical, morally
repugnant old cad of the lowest order and the best part is, he did it all by himself. Don't
you just love it when a witch hunt backfires. I know I do.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI understand how, with your viewpoint, you arrive at everything on the list above, except "two faced" which sounds like you just added it to the list without a reason.
He has shown himself to be a two faced, untrustworthy, insensitive, unethical, morally
repugnant old cad of the lowest order ...
Originally posted by sonhouseSo are you retracting your 'pre-qualifier' argument?
I mis-read it. Long day at work. .
'If you ever come near me,....I will hurt you,' Would indeed validate the idea of a justified pre-qualifier to the threat.
However, 'and if I am ever unfortunate enough to meet you,...I will hurt you,' can't really be viewed in the same manner.