No....they are not..Huey » 03 May 2022, 2:28 pm » wrote: ↑ It is all one and the same. But you already answered meaning you admit you lost the challenge as well as the argument that led to it.
All that is missing is the thread you have to create admitting you lost and I was right all along all without **** excuses.
Thanks!
What thread?Huey » 03 May 2022, 2:32 pm » wrote: ↑ You don’t have to remind me. Plus, you lost. Now, go start that thread ball less wonder.
Huey » 03 May 2022, 2:31 pm » wrote: ↑ And that is why challenges from you are now ignored. You are not man enough to own your loses.
Got that beach pic yet? Hell, your such a ****** you can’t admit you lost that challenged as well. You had nothing to lose on that one. Good thing dad is dead so he can’t be embarrassed,
Dwarf,And that is why challenges from you are now ignored.
Not because you refuse to admit it.Hell, your such a ****** you can’t admit you lost that challenged as well.
Refuses to answers whom in particular?Blackvegetable » 03 May 2022, 5:35 am » wrote: ↑ This is particularly true when the coward doing the calling refuses to answer questions.
IkeBana » 03 May 2022, 4:20 am » wrote: ↑ Call out threads are the home base of those who need to get an actual **** life. Get a life...sniveling, whining, victim-role playing ****.
Xavier_Onassis » 02 May 2022, 9:45 pm » wrote: ↑ Why should I ... or anyone ... give a damn about your opinion of BV?
He actually does get unstable when I ignore him. sometimes I put him in solitary confinement for violating rule 2 in my sig. I ignore him for a few days. During that time, he will tag/quote me about 50 times. He goes ape ****. So, I don't know. Maybe. He doesn't exactly have self-control.GHETTOBLASTER » 03 May 2022, 4:00 pm » wrote: ↑ Are you afraid you might accidentally create another "Las Vegas Shooter" if you do...?
Xavier_Onassis » 02 May 2022, 9:48 pm » wrote: ↑ I was just pointing out the utter stupidity of accusing anyone of being a coward on the Internet.
You're trying to get Dr. Smith from the original television series "Lost in Space" to fight like a man.Vegas » 03 May 2022, 6:08 pm » wrote: ↑ I would like to propose a logical postulate that should be rigidly sustained by the admin or mods.
If a member agrees to a challenge, but demands that the stipulations are for him to be allowed to cheat, then by the law of contradiction, that member must hold his agreement to partake in the challenge, but forfeit his privilege to demand any input on the conditions.
If you would like, I will go into a mathematical explanation and the details to his acts of cheating. There are actually two.
@Blackvegetable
Cannonpointer » 03 May 2022, 6:11 pm » wrote: ↑ You're trying to get Dr. Smith from the original television series "Lost in Space" to fight like a man.
Were would you put anyone ELSE'S odds?
Why would you believe yours are any better?
Don't beg.Vegas » 03 May 2022, 6:08 pm » wrote: ↑ Hey @Cannonpointer @Jinn Martini . I would like to propose a logical postulate that should be rigidly sustained by the admin or mods.
If a member agrees to a challenge, but demands that the stipulations are for him to be allowed to cheat, then by the law of contradiction, that member must hold his agreement to partake in the challenge, but forfeit his privilege to demand any input on the conditions.
If you would like, I will go into a mathematical explanation and the details to his acts of cheating. There are actually two.
@Blackvegetable
Cannonpointer » 03 May 2022, 6:11 pm » wrote: ↑ You're trying to get Dr. Smith from the original television series "Lost in Space" to fight like a man.
Were would you put anyone ELSE'S odds?
Why would you believe yours are any better?
I don't take demands from you. Rule, idiot.
"OH THE PAIN...!!"Cannonpointer » 03 May 2022, 6:11 pm » wrote: ↑ You're trying to get Dr. Smith from the original television series "Lost in Space" to fight like a man.
Were would you put anyone ELSE'S odds?
Why would you believe yours are any better?