not logged in
| PS. | |
Posted by:  |
rockfenris2005 12:13 am UTC 06/29/09 |
| In reply to: | re: Hold the phone - rockfenris2005 12:12 am UTC 06/29/09 |
Sarcasm is wasted > > 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 - rockfenris2005 12:22 am UTC 06/29/09 |
| Next: | re: Hold the phone - Pudding 12:07 am UTC 06/29/09 |
| Thread: | |