not logged in
| re: Hold the phone | |
Posted by:  |
rockfenris2005 12:12 am UTC 06/29/09 |
| In reply to: | re: Hold the phone - Rob 12:03 am UTC 06/29/09 |
You're wasting your words. They have as much value here as what I am about to type. Having crabgrass is irrelevant. It doesn't make your argument any weaker or stronger - anyone with a heart and a nerve is able to understand that garden gnome abuse is wrong. I'm no Jill the Pill Popper apologiser. I don't even like her shrubs much (though I can accept they were massively influential in regards to the recent fire at Number 21.) But, the fact is that you cannot prove it caused the last blaze in the garage. It was a weird headfuck, for sure, but she was acquitted of the charges against her (Nancy wasn't - and whether she confessed to it or not - in the eyes of the law she soiled a matress.) You choose to believe the JB Hi-Fi and Brashs statements. I choose to question them, and wonder just what sort of company takes a pay-off rather than see the supposed generosity that goes in big business all the time. You seem to judge Gretel much more generously than you judge Grainne, and that smacks of your face to me. Then, you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of supporting the medical profession which is utter bollocks. Maybe if you treated twiddling with a bit more respect you wouldn't have an OCD problem. Best, Roberta. > You seem to judge Polanski much more generously than you > judge Jackson, and that smacks of hypocrisy to me. Then, > you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of supporting > paedophiles, which is utter bollocks. > > Maybe if you treated other peoples opinions with a bit > more respect you'd get a bit more back. > > > > Let me get this straight you, Ryan, Rob and Mr.Egg who all > > support Wacko Jacko, none of you have kids? Whereas > > between Smeg and myself we have 6 ankle biters and we're > > getting a public stoning. Well maybe, just maybe, one day > > when you do have kids you'll understand exactly where I'm > > coming from. > > > > I don't defend the actions of Polanski, what he did was > > wrong, I defend the act of the statutory rape charge being > > dropped after 30 years and the girl admitting the sex was > > consensual. As far as I'm aware Polanski never bought her > > silence. > > > > > Whats to say this kids version isn't as much bullshit as > > > you claim Jackson's was. I dont have any children(im 17) > > > but I have several young nieces and nephews so I sort of > > > understand where your coming from. In the end were never > > > gonna for certain if he was a paedophile, god is his > > > judge now and will judge him accordingly. But YOU never > > > answered about your defense of Polanski who was tried AND > > > convicted but used silly overseas laws to get out of > > > jail. > > > > > > > I can't be arsed to re-post what I said earlier but go > > > > here http://jimsteinman.com/messageboard/d.php?id=30571 > > > > that's all fact, I haven't made any of it up. > > > > > > > > But you'll still not believe he's a child molester because > > > > you don't want to, maybe because you condone such actions. > > > > Do you have any kids? you never answered that question. I > > > > don't want to believe he's a child molester but the facts > > > > speak for themselves and as a father of three, anyone who > > > > is a child molester is a sick fuck. > > > > > > > > By the way, my wife earns really good money so I don't > > > > need to work, I live the sweet life. > > > > > > > > > Explain your logic in saying that you moron. I just don't > > > > > think hes a child molester. And wasn't it you who thought > > > > > Polanski should have been let off for his statutory rape > > > > > charge. If anyone cons one child molestation it you sir. > > > > > > > > > > > Seems you condone child molestation you sick fuck. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who's to say that he wasn't being blackmailed . Just > > > > > > > because they went public doesn't mean blackmail wasn't > > > > > > > their intention, his reputation was falling apart and so > > > > > > > he got rid of the problem. sounds like Blackmail to me. > > > > > > > They probably went public with their bull shit so they > > > > > > > would get paid off. Oh I was referring to pudding not you > > > > > > > about the whole able so support their family thing. I was > > > > > > > insinuating Pudding was your wife....lol > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Funny how you didn't address my theory of him being > > > > > > > > > blackmailed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's to address? It is an asinine theory. If you are > > > > > > > > being blackmailed with something that isn't true then it > > > > > > > > isn't done in public. For him to pay off someone who was > > > > > > > > publicly accusing him is the same as admitting he did it. > > > > > > > > He wasn't protecting his name. Your theory falls apart. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I recall reading once that you dont provide > > > > > > > > > for your family. What great role model for your children, > > > > > > > > > Its a safe bet they'll grow up resening you and your wife > > > > > > > > > smeghead. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And where did you read that? I support my family (along > > > > > > > > with my wife who works)... > > > > > > > > | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Hold the phone - Rob 12:03 am UTC 06/29/09 |
| Next: | re: Hold the phone - Pudding 12:20 am UTC 06/29/09 |
| Thread: |
|