Vegas » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ "unsolicited usually commercial messages." Your previous definition is missing the most important part of the definition. You forgot the plural. It's in bulk, not just one.
Vegas » 25 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Why don't you and @Deezer Shoove just let me spam this piece of ****? All he does is demand answers to his incessant questions while evading and dodging everybody else. He should be punished until he can finally get the ball sack to start defending his own OPs.
How about we compromise-you allow me to spam his threads until he answers questions after the being asked the first time, and in return I will...crap. I got nothing. Be that as it may, I will do what you ask...within reason.
@Blackvegetable
Exactly.and in return I will...crap. I got nothing.
The acronym SPAM, in the context of unwanted online communications, stands for Stupid Pointless Annoying Messages. However, the word "Spam" itself is a reference to the Monty Python sketch where the word "Spam" is chanted repeatedly, mirroring the intrusive nature of unsolicited emailsVegas » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ "unsolicited usually commercial messages." Your previous definition is missing the most important part of the definition. You forgot the plural. It's in bulk, not just one.
You stand on the side of government waste being acceptable. One of us is so **** g'ddammned stupid but it isn’t me.
How much more indulgence can he possibly demand from mods who coddle him so assiduously?
Every little bit helps. What is the democrat plan for the future?Blackvegetable » Today, 8:09 am » wrote: ↑ And all these idiots need to be told is to meet ANY criticism of this complete and utter scam with whimpers of
"Why do you oppose eliminating gubmint waist?"
Mrkelly » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ The acronym SPAM, in the context of unwanted online communications, stands for Stupid Pointless Annoying Messages. However, the word "Spam" itself is a reference to the Monty Python sketch where the word "Spam" is chanted repeatedly, mirroring the intrusive nature of unsolicited emails
Cannonpointer » 50 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ So the repukes lied. Fascinating. You could bowl me over with a feather.
Meanwhile, several repukes - not the majority, I admit, but several - know the difference between a boar and a sow. That means if they're stupid, you're a moron.
Cheddy,Cedar » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ You stand on the side of government waste being acceptable. One of us is so **** g'ddammned stupid but it isn’t me.
I can’t figure out why he is asking permission to do what he already doesBlackvegetable » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ How much more indulgence can he possibly demand from mods who coddle him so assiduously?
BuckNaked » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Every little bit helps. What is the democrat plan for the future?
Kinda throwing his benefactors under the bus, while insisting he can only win in the absence of one of the two rules in this place.Mrkelly » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ I can’t figure out why he is asking permission to do what he already does
Your conversations with your Priest should remain private.Blackvegetable » 23 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ "You say it tastes like a Blue Point oyster? Why do I have to eat it on my knees?"
Blackvegetable » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ 4 months into Grifty's term and you're already demanding solutions from the other side?
Blackvegetable » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Kinda throwing his benefactors under the bus, while insisting he can only win in the absence of one of the two rules in this place.
No, YOU do.....Cedar » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Your conversations with your Priest should remain private.
**chuckle**