Vegas » 27 Oct 2025, 10:27 am » wrote: ↑ Copies me again. As always, you continue to pile up that evidence.
And it's not asking for a definition you illiterate dumb mother ****.
*31stArrival » 27 Oct 2025, 9:51 am » wrote: ↑ You keep reposting this post about business success, try success with by understanding equal time evolving in your own ancestral time alive now?

Good point Buck.BuckNaked » 27 Oct 2025, 10:39 am » wrote: ↑ is that a question? I think you are making a statement.
Projection. Coming from the coward that incessantly evades questions.Blackvegetable » 27 Oct 2025, 10:37 am » wrote: ↑ yes...but, in fairness, examples of your cowardice are plentiful.
I post them.Vegas » 27 Oct 2025, 10:43 am » wrote: ↑ Projection. Coming from the coward that incessantly evades questions.
1. Geeee.....should I bother?
That is the purpose of a rhetorical question is it not? The inquiring brain already knows the answer and checking if the person to respond is honest about life or not.Buck Naked » 27 Oct 2025, 10:39 am » wrote: ↑ is that a question? I think you are making a statement.
You lie.
Already did.
MR-7 » 10 Oct 2025, 5:25 pm » wrote: ↑ Roshambo, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
The only proof, if that is what you call it, is that weak pic. It's not proof. Until you can prove that you answered it the fir4st time, it is invalid.Blackvegetable » 27 Oct 2025, 10:59 am » wrote: ↑ You lie.
I prove you're a liar.
You melt down.
Yes...very predictable.
There's another lie.Vegas » 27 Oct 2025, 11:02 am » wrote: ↑ The only proof, if that is what you call it, is that weak pic. It's not proof. Until you can prove that you answered it the fir4st time, it is invalid.
1. And of course, now you will demand that I prove a negative. Idiot.