Forum Guidelines Illegal "accusations"? Justice for all but ONE?

^^^ Disgustipated attack alt.

^^^Fermina Daza alt and part-time troll.

Interesting… . Timing of reappearance and all.


Or maybe just anything involving that one is, well, forgettable. :rose:

Good to see you again my favorite alternate identity. :heart:


attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 2017105.jpg
    2017105.jpg
    54.3 KB · Views: 0
It's crystal clear the rules here prohibit such "accusations", so, what do habitual violators keep doing - virtually endlessly - in their attempts to chickenshitingly skirt that ironclad rule?

They intentionally, purposely, and gleefully violate it anyway, imagining blatant insinuation isn't related to "accusation" at all...

Except that it most certainly is, and everyone, including this website's owner - who makes the rules - knows it without anyone else having to inform them of that truth.

Having established those FACTS, allow me to move on to THE OBJECTIVE POINT:

This particular strain of Forum Guidelines INTENTIONAL violation is ONLY wielded against ONE poster, and I cannot even imagine the website owner allowing (for long, anyway) the same blatant insinuation(s) to be used against other posters, or generally among all posters in total...

IT SIMPLY WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.

So, if the GB is truly ruled fairly, honestly, and equally over all, why is this illegal insinuation only allowed to be used as a classical 3rd-grader weapon on an ADULT Board against just ONE poster?

No?

How quick would that ONE poster be banned if he responded to his attackers with nothing but the exact same flavor of insinuation(s).

Yeah, that's what I fucking thought.




More whining and pining for Laurel, from Lit's biggest whinerbee bitch. :)

eyer the whinerbee said:



roflmao.gif
 
Back
Top