Liberal Forum

BV still hasn't defined the term woman

Huey » 12 Dec 2025, 9:00 am » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2025, 9:00 am

LMAO!  Next to you TDA your obsession with me continues.  5 Greenies for yet another tribute thread.

By the way.....For an alleged abuse of PG just how did you get SIX PAGES of posts i the main thread?

Case dismissed.

What is he whimpering about exactly this time?

Blackvegetable » 12 Dec 2025, 7:09 am » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2025, 7:09 am

 

  

  



There's much more of this, but I think everyone gets the idea...

It's another entirely unsupported narrative..

And, naturally, another shameless bit of Projection.


To see PG being abused in the manner described by @*MankyLittleSkidmark, I invite you to behold

https://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=97251


https://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=97252


Wait....isn’t @*MankyLittleSkidmark the OP of those threads?


This is as awkward as it is predictable. 

 

I see why you did not want to post quotes or links.  The quotes are not in chronological order. 

Vegas » 12 Dec 2025, 2:42 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2025, 2:42 pm

What is he whimpering about exactly this time?

 

Not really sure.  Same old song and dance.  

Huey » 12 Dec 2025, 2:55 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2025, 2:55 pm

Not really sure.  Same old song and dance.

I have never come across anyone more bitter than him. 

Vegas » 12 Dec 2025, 2:55 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2025, 2:55 pm

I have never come across anyone more bitter than him. 

 

He is pissed because I told him I would have no problem answering his questions but he had to reciprocate on one for one basis.  He refused.  He is also pissed because last week he had another tribute thread where he demanded I post the first line of my sig box.  I told him every time I replied I did repost it because my sig box reposted.  I then started a thread, "First line of my sig box....no PG" and answered there telling him he did not specify where.  And that I refused to play his game on his thread because he is not to be trusted with PG.

He is really butthurt.  His therapist probably told him to lash out. 

Huey » 12 Dec 2025, 3:03 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2025, 3:03 pm

He is pissed because I told him I would have no problem answering his questions but he had to reciprocate on one for one basis.  He refused.  He is also pissed because last week he had another tribute thread where he demanded I post the first line of my sig box.  I told him every time I replied I did repost it because my sig box reposted.  I then started a thread, "First line of my sig box....no PG" and answered there telling him he did not specify where.  And that I refused to play his game on his thread because he is not to be trusted with PG.

He is really butthurt.  His therapist probably told him to lash out.

The more he posts, the dumber he gets.

Indefensible, isn't it?

Huey » 12 Dec 2025, 3:03 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2025, 3:03 pm

He is pissed because I told him I would have no problem answering his questions but he had to reciprocate on one for one basis.  He refused.  He is also pissed because last week he had another tribute thread where he demanded I post the first line of my sig box.  I told him every time I replied I did repost it because my sig box reposted.  I then started a thread, "First line of my sig box....no PG" and answered there telling him he did not specify where.  And that I refused to play his game on his thread because he is not to be trusted with PG.

He is really butthurt.  His therapist probably told him to lash out.

There is a generalized tactic that all narcissists use called F.O.G. Fear, Obligation, and Guilt. They never go outside of these parameters. If it appears that they are having a normal conversation, it's only because they are setting the other person up to implement one of these. Because we are online, he can't successfully use fear or guilt. He has tried a few times to use fear, but he fell flat on his face every time. So that just leaves obligation. He demands we answer his questions/demands because we are obligated to.

viewtopic.php?p=2825102#p2825102



https://youtu.be/w3N6tm5ZzH0?si=aRGf0a5z3LsMC2Zx
 

FJB » 12 Dec 2025, 11:20 am » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2025, 11:20 am

BV still hasn't defined the term woman

Neither have you.
 

FJB » 12 Dec 2025, 11:20 am » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2025, 11:20 am

BV still hasn't defined the term woman

Since February 2023, you have inquired about the definition of the term 'woman' approximately 470 times; I am confident that you have not offered a definition yourself.
Prove me incorrect.

https://archive.liberalforum.net/search ... o=&page=47
 

*Roshambo » 12 Dec 2025, 7:12 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2025, 7:12 pm

Since February 2023, you have inquired about the definition of the term 'woman' approximately 470 times; I am confident that you have not offered a definition yourself.
Prove me incorrect.

https://archive.liberalforum.net/search ... o=&page=47

he has...

He googled it.

Then I found his source, and posted 3 other definitions. 


This is how **** stupid duck is.
 

*Roshambo » 12 Dec 2025, 7:12 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2025, 7:12 pm

Since February 2023, you have inquired about the definition of the term 'woman' approximately 470 times; I am confident that you have not offered a definition yourself.
Prove me incorrect.

https://archive.liberalforum.net/search ... o=&page=47

And that is 470 times the guy whose dick your sucking could not answer.  Does he reciprocate.

@Blackvegetable   LMMFAO because you forgot PG.

viewtopic.php?p=2227087#p2227087


 

Testing 1234

cdn-images-1.medium /v2/resize:fit:480/1*KjIt0GqQhUbZ2E8anIDSsg.jpeg

For the digitally acute who know how to evade @Cannonpointer  's censorship of my content..   Talk about a Skid Mark..

{MOD FILTER}slush slush cdn-images-1.medium /v2 -slush - resize:fit:480 - slush- 1*KjIt0GqQhUbZ2E8anIDSsg.jpeg

EDIT: Never mind... Even I can get to my own link... Phook Me! It's a modeled pair of whitey titeys with a shyt stain road track in Trump's image.
 
 
 

Blackvegetable » 12 Dec 2025, 7:09 am » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2025, 7:09 am

I have also told you I am not getting into any of this personal **** back and forth on a PG thread YOU created. You are not to be trusted with that feature.

There ya go BV. If that is your issue you will discuss it on a thread where you can not remove post that contain facts that refute your argument. History has shown you are dishonest when it comes to this. Very dishonest

Remember, triggered one, you never specified and you can not be trusted in a PG thread

see PG ****** Boy is at it again. Repost, Controlly:
  1. The first line in my sig box is posted. If you PG it you are a ******.

Remember, every time I posted in your ****** PG thread I answered the challenge. Are you afraid you can't control and lie about the conversation? The is PG free. You are not man enough to debate this here.

There's much more of this, but I think everyone gets the idea...

It's another entirely unsupported narrative..

And, naturally, another shameless bit of Projection.

To see PG being abused in the manner described by @*MankyLittleSkidmark, I invite you to behold

https://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=97251

https://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=97252

Wait....isn’t @*MankyLittleSkidmark the OP of those threads?

This is as awkward as it is predictable.

I guess we will chalk this up as yet another of your epic thread fails.
 

Huey » 13 Dec 2025, 9:25 am » wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2025, 9:25 am

I guess we will chalk this up as yet another of your epic thread fails.

You eat a lot of chalk.

JohnnyYou » 14 Dec 2025, 4:13 am » wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2025, 4:13 am

You eat a lot of chalk.

It's always better in the retelling....

Vegas » 12 Dec 2025, 3:59 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2025, 3:59 pm

The more he posts, the dumber he gets.

I think it's the reverse of that.