ITT: Best Posts of the Day

[Placid Dingo]

I thought that porn was funny.

I don't think that's what's being questioned.

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

Without posting PMs(Thats against the rules right?) I asked RWHN if he would be upset about with the porn being posted and he basically told me to get lost without a yes or a no. I interpreted this as a signifying apathy.

I then asked him to clarify and he told me to get lost again, which I interpreted again as apathy.  Looking at the messages now I can see how I might have misunderstood them, and I am kind of sorry about that. I say kind of because I really dont see RWHN as the kind of thin skinned person who will be eternally traumatized by erotic literature staring him and Richard Nixon.

I would however, like to clarify that it was not a personal attack on him. It was an attempt to derail a horrible thread that centered primarily around him. I certainly dont "have it out for you", and if it makes you feel better I am willing to write fetish pornography involving your enemy and former president of choice.

[AFK]

Without posting PMs(Thats against the rules right?) I asked RWHN if he would be upset about with the porn being posted and he basically told me to get lost without a yes or a no. I interpreted this as a signifying apathy.

I then asked him to clarify and he told me to get lost again, which I interpreted again as apathy.  Looking at the messages now I can see how I might have misunderstood them, and I am kind of sorry about that. I say kind of because I really dont see RWHN as the kind of thin skinned person who will be eternally traumatized by erotic literature staring him and Richard Nixon.

I would however, like to clarify that it was not a personal attack on him. It was an attempt to derail a horrible thread that centered primarily around him. I certainly dont "have it out for you", and if it makes you feel better I am willing to write fetish pornography involving your enemy and former president of choice.

My second message to you very clearly had the word "no" in it.  Read it again and tell me it isn't there.

[AFK]

And it is just a coincidence that you chose me to get it on with the President who started the "war on drugs" right?   

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

I thought that porn was funny.

I don't think that's what's being questioned.

It looks like what's being questioned now is whether RWHN's PM "had the word "no" in it".

Hey, my post has the word "no" in it! Twice! 

[AFK]

I thought that porn was funny.

I don't think that's what's being questioned.

It's okay PD, it's the new culture of this place, or maybe not that new, there are different rules of ettiquette for people who aren't in lock-step with popular viewpoints. 


And apparently, for some people, we now know that "No" means "Yes"

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Without posting PMs(Thats against the rules right?) I asked RWHN if he would be upset about with the porn being posted and he basically told me to get lost without a yes or a no. I interpreted this as a signifying apathy.

I then asked him to clarify and he told me to get lost again, which I interpreted again as apathy.  Looking at the messages now I can see how I might have misunderstood them, and I am kind of sorry about that. I say kind of because I really dont see RWHN as the kind of thin skinned person who will be eternally traumatized by erotic literature staring him and Richard Nixon.

I would however, like to clarify that it was not a personal attack on him. It was an attempt to derail a horrible thread that centered primarily around him. I certainly dont "have it out for you", and if it makes you feel better I am willing to write fetish pornography involving your enemy and former president of choice.

I DEMAND sexy tiem with Richard Nixon.  And FAST, before Nigel finds out...Or I'll NEVER get any of that sweet jowly-loving.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

 

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

Without posting PMs(Thats against the rules right?) I asked RWHN if he would be upset about with the porn being posted and he basically told me to get lost without a yes or a no. I interpreted this as a signifying apathy.

I then asked him to clarify and he told me to get lost again, which I interpreted again as apathy.  Looking at the messages now I can see how I might have misunderstood them, and I am kind of sorry about that. I say kind of because I really dont see RWHN as the kind of thin skinned person who will be eternally traumatized by erotic literature staring him and Richard Nixon.

I would however, like to clarify that it was not a personal attack on him. It was an attempt to derail a horrible thread that centered primarily around him. I certainly dont "have it out for you", and if it makes you feel better I am willing to write fetish pornography involving your enemy and former president of choice.

My second message to you very clearly had the word "no" in it.  Read it again and tell me it isn't there.

I asked you if it would bother you.
You said, "get lost"
I asked if you meant yes by that, as in "yes that would bother me"
You said "No, get lost."
It was a mix up, I should have asked you to clarify more.

And it is just a coincidence that you chose me to get it on with the President who started the "war on drugs" right?   

I have no clue man. My brain just does this shit, Im only along for the ride. Why did I write you having sex with Richard Nixon, why did I write Ron Paul being skullfucked by Obama? Because for some twisted reason I find that funny.

It's okay PD, it's the new culture of this place, or maybe not that new, there are different rules of ettiquette for people who aren't in lock-step with popular viewpoints. 

It seems your main beef isnt with me for writing it, but with the fact that I havent received due punishment for it. If you want to instigate a witch hunt against me, Im completely game.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Without posting PMs(Thats against the rules right?) I asked RWHN if he would be upset about with the porn being posted and he basically told me to get lost without a yes or a no. I interpreted this as a signifying apathy.

I then asked him to clarify and he told me to get lost again, which I interpreted again as apathy.  Looking at the messages now I can see how I might have misunderstood them, and I am kind of sorry about that. I say kind of because I really dont see RWHN as the kind of thin skinned person who will be eternally traumatized by erotic literature staring him and Richard Nixon.

I would however, like to clarify that it was not a personal attack on him. It was an attempt to derail a horrible thread that centered primarily around him. I certainly dont "have it out for you", and if it makes you feel better I am willing to write fetish pornography involving your enemy and former president of choice.

My second message to you very clearly had the word "no" in it.  Read it again and tell me it isn't there.

I asked you if it would bother you.
You said, "get lost"
I asked if you meant yes by that, as in "yes that would bother me"
You said "No, get lost."
It was a mix up, I should have asked you to clarify more.

And it is just a coincidence that you chose me to get it on with the President who started the "war on drugs" right?   

I have no clue man. My brain just does this shit, Im only along for the ride. Why did I write you having sex with Richard Nixon, why did I write Ron Paul being skullfucked by Obama? Because for some twisted reason I find that funny.

It's okay PD, it's the new culture of this place, or maybe not that new, there are different rules of ettiquette for people who aren't in lock-step with popular viewpoints. 

It seems your main beef isnt with me for writing it, but with the fact that I havent received due punishment for it. If you want to instigate a witch hunt against me, Im completely game.

YOU ARE A TERRIBLE PERSON!

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

I asked you if it would bother you.
You said, "get lost"
I asked if you meant yes by that, as in "yes that would bother me"
You said "No, get lost."
It was a mix up, I should have asked you to clarify more.

IOW, "Does "get lost" mean "Yes it would bother me"?
"NO"

No misinterpretation on your part, Glittersnatch. That's what he wrote.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Without posting PMs(Thats against the rules right?) I asked RWHN if he would be upset about with the porn being posted and he basically told me to get lost without a yes or a no. I interpreted this as a signifying apathy.

I then asked him to clarify and he told me to get lost again, which I interpreted again as apathy.  Looking at the messages now I can see how I might have misunderstood them, and I am kind of sorry about that. I say kind of because I really dont see RWHN as the kind of thin skinned person who will be eternally traumatized by erotic literature staring him and Richard Nixon.

I would however, like to clarify that it was not a personal attack on him. It was an attempt to derail a horrible thread that centered primarily around him. I certainly dont "have it out for you", and if it makes you feel better I am willing to write fetish pornography involving your enemy and former president of choice.

I DEMAND sexy tiem with Richard Nixon.  And FAST, before Nigel finds out...Or I'll NEVER get any of that sweet jowly-loving.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

 

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

Without posting PMs(Thats against the rules right?) I asked RWHN if he would be upset about with the porn being posted and he basically told me to get lost without a yes or a no. I interpreted this as a signifying apathy.

I then asked him to clarify and he told me to get lost again, which I interpreted again as apathy.  Looking at the messages now I can see how I might have misunderstood them, and I am kind of sorry about that. I say kind of because I really dont see RWHN as the kind of thin skinned person who will be eternally traumatized by erotic literature staring him and Richard Nixon.

I would however, like to clarify that it was not a personal attack on him. It was an attempt to derail a horrible thread that centered primarily around him. I certainly dont "have it out for you", and if it makes you feel better I am willing to write fetish pornography involving your enemy and former president of choice.

I DEMAND sexy tiem with Richard Nixon.  And FAST, before Nigel finds out...Or I'll NEVER get any of that sweet jowly-loving.

Nixon is booked ATM, will Reagan do?

[EK WAFFLR]

will Reagan do?

We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security and butter as lubrication go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign Roger can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. The Good Reverend Roger, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for PD.com and Discordicorp, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Rev. Roger, open this gate. Reverend Roger, Reverend Roger, rip apart my ass!