Prev: Google admits wi-fi data collection blunder
Next: SpywareBlaster Def Update
From: Peter Foldes on 16 May 2010 10:55
Chris (PC Butts)

You are one sick puppy. This is your new toy (dizum.com). You are still a thief and
a very sick one at that)

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"Nomen Nescio" <nobody(a)dizum.com> wrote in message
news:52580de96e613a17c92fd729800e3e71(a)dizum.com...
>
> "Peter Foldes" <maci252211(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hso0v9$14g$1(a)speranza.aioe.org...
>> Bullshit. He was given the warning and he knew.When that picture and his post was
>> removed ,he knew it immediately. He had this happen before on another server. He
>> is
>> just crying foul so as he can get sympathy. He is a Trollop.
>
> Right!
>
> Ans so is his GF Jenn!
>
> And his BF/GF PCButts1!
>
> Trollops one and all!
>
>
>

From: Jenn on 16 May 2010 13:06
Peter Foldes wrote:
> "Jenn" <nope(a)noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message

>>>> shows nearly the same amount of breast. I just think ya'll call
>>>> something vulgar or secually oriented indescriminately and don't
>>>> include images like the sigtag image which could also fall into the
>>>> sexuall oriented category, too.
>>>
>>> Well, again,
>>>
>>> Come to think of it, this entire discussion is pointless. BD is
>>> banned, nothing you or I do is going to change that. Continuing to
>>> ask for outside opinions on the matter and then arguing with
>>> everyone who doesn't see it your way is, utterly stupid.
>>>
>>> I hope you realize, your getting noplace.
>>
>> I have no destination. LOL haaaaaaahhahah funny.. :)


> Bullshit. He was given the warning and he knew.When that picture and
> his post was removed ,he knew it immediately. He had this happen
> before on another server. He is just crying foul so as he can get
> sympathy. He is a Troll

No warning was given, as Dustin recently admitted. You can't attest to what
someone else knew or did not know since you aren't that person. Dave cried
foul because he had a reason.

He was not given a warning, and the truth is finally public.

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)


From: Jenn on 16 May 2010 13:39
Peter Foldes wrote:
> Jenn
>
> All I can do is laugh at your stupid ignorant reply. You must walk
> around with closed eyes. My G*d ,I have not seen anybody as ignoorant
> than you. Unfriickin unbelievable
>
>

Peter ... you only respond like this when you can't refute what I've said.
:)


--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)


From: Max Wachtel on 16 May 2010 16:16
On Sun, 16 May 2010 13:15:26 -0400, Jenn <nope(a)noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote:

> A missing image is NOT a warning. Most everyone considers a warning on
> a ng
> to come in TEXT format that says something like "Don't do that .. we
> don't like it".

many of the forums I frequent do not issue warnings,they just delete the
offending link,text and/or image and if the poster keeps doing it,their
account is deleted.

> I'll be waiting for a definitive response as to when an image becomes
> sexually-oriented.

when the mod deems them so.
--
This post was created using Opera: http://www.opera.com
Virus Removal Instructions
http://sites.google.com/site/keepingwindowsclean/home
Max's Favorite Freeware
http://sites.google.com/site/keepingwindowsclean/freeware
I am Max Wachtel and I approve this message.
From: Jenn on 16 May 2010 16:31
Peter Foldes wrote:
> "Jenn" <nope(a)noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
> news:hsp8i6$ph3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...

>> uh huh .. I still want someone to explain how the image BD posted
>> was any of that, and if they can explain at what point an image
>> becomes the above, the least of which is "sexually-oriented" ...
>> tell me how the cartoon image I saw in that sigtag does not also
>> qualify at least as being "sexually-oriented" too. If an image is
>> removed because it's sexually oriented... then the cartoon image
>> should also be removed because it also qualifies as being sexaully
>> oriented.
>>> There is NO QUESTION as to the picture he
>>> posted as being "sexually-oriented". Your "good guy" thinks he can
>>> do whatever he wants when he wants without scrutiny or conseqences.
>>
>> Then, answer my query above. You won't, though, I'm sure of it
>> because then the conclusion will mean something you won't want to
>> admit to.


> Jenn
> You keep on showing exactly what you are and you do desrve everything
> that comes your way.

Prey tell what that might be? Let's see.. I'm a human being .. a woman .. a
mother.. wife... friend .. aquaintance... gardener... teacher ... webmaster
.... graphic artist ... web designer ... grandmother ...

What could my posting possibly show what I am if you don't know me by
anything else but someone who posts on a newsgroup comments that you don't
agree with?

And what do you think I deserve exactly?? Have you become omnicient ...
all-knowing.. and now you are God who is able to pass judgement on someone
you know little about? You should be careful how you judge people you don't
know.

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Google admits wi-fi data collection blunder
Next: SpywareBlaster Def Update