Huh?R.Suave » 20 Jan 2024, 5:47 pm » wrote: ↑ Don't tell me how to explain what you can't seem to grasp.
R.Suave » 20 Jan 2024, 5:47 pm » wrote: ↑ Don't tell me how to explain what you can't seem to grasp.
What "task" was that?Huey » 20 Jan 2024, 5:53 pm » wrote: ↑ You were given one task and you ran Like your father knew you would if you joined the military. I agreed so you won absolutely nothing while at the same time RUNNING from what I really posted.
I accept your surrender.
I'll be back later or tomorrow. I was trying to decide whether or not to watch the Ravens/Texans game or Arsenal/Crystal Palace. I went with the NFL. No one would be talking about the Arsenal game.
PS. In the future when you ask that dumb **** question "are these your words" you will be answered with me quoting my comments and what I was replying to. I will say each time "Is my name on the quote" or "My name is on the quote". That is rule and there will be no more of your lies about me running from that.
Nod. If you reply to this or reply and use strike thru that will be taken as acceptance of the rule..
Why don't you wait to see if he defines "the task"..
It's already hilarious!R.Suave » 20 Jan 2024, 6:05 pm » wrote: ↑ Why don't you wait to see if he defines "the task".
Then it will be funny.
Then you're not keeping up.
Yes I am... unlike you, I read here a lot more than I post here.
What "task" is Shorty T referring to?RedheadedStranger » 20 Jan 2024, 6:23 pm » wrote: ↑ Yes I am... unlike you, I read here a lot more than I post here.
Who knows...
You recognize the 99% you see as trivial, but you demand I address 100% of all of it...RedheadedStranger » 20 Jan 2024, 6:42 pm » wrote: ↑ Who knows...
You guys argue about the most trivial **** 99% of the time anyway, so why does it matter.
I'm just laughing at your striking through the posts you don't want to or can't address.
It's a chicken **** move, and deserves all% % the ridicule it receives.
You're the one arguing with him, not me. I rarely see him striking through your posts, yet it's a common thing from you.R.Suave » 20 Jan 2024, 7:03 pm » wrote: ↑ You recognize the 99% you see as trivial, but you demand I address 100% of all of it...
And you get crabby when I tell you you're as dumb as he is.
END YOUR MISERY OLD MANR.Suave » 20 Jan 2024, 7:03 pm » wrote: ↑ You recognize the 99% you see as trivial, but you demand I address 100% of all of it...
And you get crabby when I tell you you're as dumb as he is.

It's because he never addresses the point.RedheadedStranger » 20 Jan 2024, 7:11 pm » wrote: ↑ You're the one arguing with him, not me. I rarely see him striking through your posts, yet it's a common thing from you.
It's like you instigate a debate, and then want to ignore what the other person has to say.
It's just stupid on your part, and juvenile to boot.
Thanks for making my point.R.Suave » 20 Jan 2024, 7:48 pm » wrote: ↑ It's because he never addresses the point.
You can tell the tantrum's coming....and it's pretty predictable
For example, you'll note he hasn't returned to specify this "task" because he knows I already did.
Thanks for making mine..
R. » wrote:What "task" was that?Huey » 20 Jan 2024, 5:53 pm » wrote: ↑ You were given one task and you ran Like your father knew you would if you joined the military. I agreed so you won absolutely nothing while at the same time RUNNING from what I really posted.
I accept your surrender.
I'll be back later or tomorrow. I was trying to decide whether or not to watch the Ravens/Texans game or Arsenal/Crystal Palace. I went with the NFL. No one would be talking about the Arsenal game.
PS. In the future when you ask that dumb **** question "are these your words" you will be answered with me quoting my comments and what I was replying to. I will say each time "Is my name on the quote" or "My name is on the quote". That is rule and there will be no more of your lies about me running from that.
Nod. If you reply to this or reply and use strike thru that will be taken as acceptance of the rule..
Learn to read, dumb ***. More reading, less strike thru.Huey » 20 Jan 2024, 5:24 pm » wrote: ↑R.Suave » 20 Jan 2024, 5:13 pm » wrote: ↑ I already have.
You have strict rules about repetition.
Now what?
Ok. You said that a lack of income is a disqualifiier. I never did say it wasn't. That's why I said "No **** Sherlock". SO you didn't win anything. Again, you got curb stomped because you don't understand what you read.
Unless you can show where I said it wasn't a disqualified you didn't win anything. I agree with you, Dum Dum.
As usual, you make no sense.
HOW MANY HOURS STRAIGHT HAS POPPAS ****** BEEN GOING AT IT?