|
|
| judy |
Dennis - you talkedabout "forgive and
forget" - I think that CAN be done, but not now. Right NOW is when
YKW2 continues to make threats, and post lies about people. His
tactics are pretty over-the-top, and his statements are 100 times
worse than the actions of the majority of the people he has accused.
I'm not saying that nobody attacked him. I'm saying that MOST of the
people he has portrayed as terrorists, threatened wth lawsuits and
criminal prosecution, have done nothing more than DISAGREE with him.
quote:
WDWDen wrote:
YKW2 is human being with feelings. I dont care
what he said to anyone, he still doesnt deserve all of this
bashing. I do beleive that a lot of stuff that he said was just
out of hurt and him defending himself and his friends. I have met
him in person and I saw what a good natured man he is. He may have
done some things wrong, we all have, I dont think he is coming
here to apologize, so maybe we should all just forgive and forget
and move on.
If you really want to get over all of this, I
think its good to talk privatley with your friends, that is what I
have done. It helps. I also talk to my wife about it. It helps.
All I see here(for the most part) is the same people arguing back
and fourth and getting nowhere.
I say, forgive and forget!
It really is easy.
TRUST ME, until this place came along,
I dont think I ever saw a bad word written about me. When I saw
that I had things C&P here, it hurt my feelings. The first
thing I wanted to do was go and rip Scarlet a new a**. Then people
started saying about "now we can see his true character". THAT
really made me mad. At that point, is when I REALLY felt bad for
YKW2 and KUH. I think they lashed out and said some mean things.
I dont blame them. It hurts and they are human too.
Ok,
take what you like and twist it now:-). Ignore all of my good
points:-). And defend YOUR side. Back and fourth we go:-)
Dennis [dennis didnt proof read this one]
|
|
|
| Scarlet |
What I want to know is why can he say
he really wanted to rip me a new a** and Dsorcerer is getting all
this slack for "kick some YKW2 A**"
All this A** talk is
getting a little silly.
ANd Dennis if you can forgive and
forget so can I. |
|
|
| Lunarlady |
quote:
Scarlet wrote:
What I want to know is why can he say he really
wanted to rip me a new a** and Dsorcerer is getting all this slack
for "kick some YKW2 A**"
Would you prefer is someone threatened you with
disembowelment and hanging from a lampost until your bleeding,
twitching body was finally dead like I did to Crank?
(just
kidding folks. I'm actually enjoying the ass talk. It's one of my
favorite erogenous zones!) >;-) |
|
|
| Scarlet |
Actually that wounds like fun
:)
I must try that somwtime~ |
|
|
| OhMickeyYoureSoFine |
quote:
Lunarlady wrote:
We had a poster who's every post seemed to be
malicious, including re-iterating her opinion that we were haters.
Then code started appearing whilst this poster continued her
beliefs that we were guilty of 'hating' and 'causing trouble to
other sites'.
While the rest of the post isn't worth
responding to, I think there is an important point to be made here.
You put quote marks around "hating" and "causing trouble to other
sites", saying I said these things about the _community as a whole_
("we were guilty of"). One little problem with this, I did not
actually say these things about the community here. When you put
quote marks, you are falsely alleging that I did say them. Putting
words in my mouth that I did not actually say is really very wrong.
If you want to mischaracterize me as someone "who's every post
seemed to be malicious", you can do that, because it is your
opinion. Putting quotes around something I did not say is wrong, it
really needs to be word for word accurate.
On my first
posting to this forum, moderator Crank threatened to delete my post
if the references I attributed to another regular here proved wrong.
I gave references, Crank saw my post was accurate, and Crank
apologized. I am wondering if this policy will be consistently
applied to the false quotes you attribute to me, and whether your
post will be edited or pulled. Guess I won't hold my breath.
Anyway, it's kind of amazing you would call my posts
"malicious" after you had just said this:
quote:
Lunarlady wrote:
Just so I have it straight, Did Ohmickey
write malicious code to screw up Common Ground? If so, and if it
was traced back to Ohmickey's IP address, doesn't that constitute
"cyberterrorism" where a person does something deliberately and
knowingly to create hard-code problems?
And, if this is
true, doesn't that mean that all the "morally outraged" posts of
OhMickey's are defunct? How can you attempt to sympathize with
someone who on one hand seeks emotional support because they were
"just defending their friends", but then writes code to destroy a
web-site?
|
|
|
| Lunarlady |
quote:
OhMickeyYoureSoFine wrote:
Anyway, it's kind of amazing you
would call my posts "malicious" after you had just said this:
I love how you pick and choose.
What you're
missing are the operative words "if". As in theory: if John jumped
off the Brooklyn Bridge, can it be surmised that he would die as
soon as he hit the water?
Some could argue that, no, John
wouldn't necessarily die. John could survive the fall, only to break
both arms and drown because he couldn't swim.
Therefore, I
don't consider a post malicious when phrased as such: If the posts I
have seen appear to be antagonistic and IF what appeared to be
"hacking" cropped up at the same time antagonistic posts were being
put up, could it be logically surmised that antagonistic poster may
be the one responsible for "hacking" appearances?
I also
love how you decided to not respond to my logical assumption that if
I were to go into a Christian site and espouse antagonistic remarks
to Christians, I would EXPECT them to either ban me or reply rudely.
I put words in quotes to make them stand out since I don't
know how to bold them in here. You're assuming (once again) that I'm
attributing these words to your own. I am not. Once I learn how to
bold things, then I'll use that function.
To assume is to
error. You accuse me of falsly assuming, yet you continually assume
(falsly) that most everyone here is against you when I've seen
multiple apologies and invitations for you to join the
group. |
|
|
| discernment |
Quote:
Kat wrote:
"1.
Ed knows that he's hurting YKW. I don't feel the need to explain it
further.
2. What I am supporting is YKW2's right to run his
own site the way he sees fit. Do I think that he goes overboard?
Yes. Do I think people making death threats are haters? Absolutely.
Do I think that continuous talks about YKW's alleged sex life, an
organized effort to go on different web sites and give bad reviews
of her books, and refusing to leave a private website, when you have
been asked to (regardless of whether you hacked/cracked or not) is
cyberterrorism? Well, it sounds like it to me, and I saw these
things with my own eyes- no need to take their word for it. Also, I
know a few things that happened that others don't, that I'm not in
the position to talk about. Would I belittle people as he does? No,
that's not me. However, since I don't have to put up with the amount
of pure crap that he does every day, and I can't see the IP
addresses to see who people REALLY are, I don't feel that I'm in the
position to judge him. Do I believe that lawyers are preventing them
from telling all that is going on? Definitely! I would like it if
they would disclose all the information they have, but you know what
else? THEY DON'T OWE US ANYTHING! They provided us a community and
source of entertainment, at great personal expense (90K/year). Why
do people feel entitled, now, to demand explanations as to why it
stopped? I, instead, feel grateful for the joy they brought me.
You said: "Kat, i just a little confused where you stand.
Are we known by the company we keep? You seemed, i may be wrong
forgive me, to revel in the fact that you stirred the pot just a
little when teh Switchboard was still on Bravenet and accepting
posts. You went back to YMJ and the BC and seemed proud about the
fact. You were very vocal on the switchboard that day when you knew
you were in a place that had more support for your position. You
knew that posts that stimulated thought that disagreed with the
"staff" would be pulled. They only left the more eccentric/weird
posts on there to make fun of them and show everyone an example of
what they call "hate"."
I NEVER went anywhere and posted in
any way to say that I was PROUD of what went on that day. I was
vocal there, as I am here because I'd finally HAD ENOUGH! Should I,
instead, have let the other side of the argument go on unchecked,
and allow people to BELIEVE some of the pure bull that was being
stated as truth? The day before, I'd questioned YKW2, publicly, on
his motives. Why wouldn't I do the same for people who WERE there
simply to cause trouble and upset people. Those posts were made at
the middle of the day, when a lot of the clubhouse members check in.
Just because the posts were later pulled, does NOT mean that no one
saw them. And, MY POSTS WERE PULLED TOO! By about 6:30 EDT, all of
them had been pulled. Any post I responded to was done so politely
and respectfully, and, I like to think, intelligently. I understand
that people felt threated by that, it is, after all, a lot harder to
refute a calm, intelligent argument and point to me as pure evil
than it is YKW2's anger-driven posts. Do I feel sorry for people
who made fools of themselves, and DID prove themselves as
anger-filled (and possibly hate-filled, but I don't know them , so I
try not to judge them, either)? Not for one minute. I will repeat
what I said that day: Everyone has been told, ad nauseum, about the
lawsuits. Anyone foolish enough to then go on their forum and hand
them more evidence, deserves whatever they get. Even if I didn't
believe there was going to be a lawsuit, I wouldn't do that, just to
be on the safe-side. I was calm and polite. Why is it my fault that
others weren't?
You also stated: "Kat, help me understand. I
have seen a lot of your posts here mostly of the variety where you
are basically saying the same thing. The crux of your posts seem to
be that the Common Ground mods are guilty of the same actions as
people have accused YKW2 of. Are you here for understanding or do you
have another motivation?"
As an aside to the others, I'd
like to point out that this is the 4th time, in 48 hours, where
someone who isn't anti-RCH has been accused of being here to cause
trouble. I'm not pointing this out to cause trouble, I'm honestly
hoping that if we ACKNOWLEDGE what's going on, instead of denying
it, we can eventually put it behind us.
Now, I'm going to
state, once and for all, that I came here because I am sick and
tired of this argument, and I had hopes that this forum would work.
I've said several times that there has been an equal amount of
rudeness on BOTH sides. However, I am not going to sit back and let
the lurkers here, who may not have as much information as I do, or
simply not thought of things, to begin to believe untrue things that
have been stated here simply because no one here cared to refute
them. And YKW or YKW2 have NOT sent me here, and I'm not even
doing this for either of them. I am doing it because it is the RIGHT
thing to do, and because I don't want my friends from RCH to be more
hurt and confused than they already are, if I can possibly help it.
"
___________________________________________________________
First off, thank you for taking the time to respond to my
comments in such a weel thought out, civil post. Secondly, i never
accused you off starting trouble. I merely asked your motivation for
posting here. You answered that question and have laid that matter
to rest.
Speaking of cyberterrorism, check out another
thread i started with links to what cyberterrorism is defined as. it
would be hard pressed convincing me or a jury of 12 reasonable
people that any anti-RCH dissenter is guilty of Cyber terrorism.
This private website you mentioned openly welcomed all visitors as
RCH members. Oh boy, here i go with a controversial point of view,
but all the people who make death threats are not necessrily filled
with "hate" there could be many motivations including "hate"
especially in an online forum that people would make direct,
implied, figurative, or indirect death threats.
I do not
know why people need to put a "spin" on everything that comes from
an opposing viewpoint. It is insulting for some one to say I know
what you thought you read and believed but here is what you
"actually" should believe. Does the "staff" not believe that the RCH
members are capable of making up their own mind and drawing their
own conclusions. If i read an opposing viewpoint i like to research
what is being said instead of taking in at face value.
Believe it or not, Kat, i am glad you are here and now that
we have gotten this behind us i hope we will both have a little
perspective on eachs others mindset.
I know i do and i thank
you
|
|
|
| Lunarlady |
quote:
discernment wrote:
Believe it or not, Kat, i am glad you are
here and now that we have gotten this behind us i hope we will
both have a little perspective on eachs others mindset.
I
know i do and i thank you
I'm of the mindset that people can vehemently disagree
and still have respect and love for each other. Case in point: my
sister and I vehemently disagree on the death penalty. (I'm somewhat
for, she's steadfastly against no matter what)
Does this
mean that I don't love and respect my sister because we don't see
eye-to-eye? Absolutely not. There are many more things we actually
agree on than those that we don't. Just because one issue is close
to my heart doesn't mean I'm going to throw away the relationship
because she'll fight me on it.
It is my hopes that people
here can have their say, beat their horse and, after some time has
passed, find this a place where they are free to express their
opinions without fear. Yes, you may encounter people who vehemently
disagree with you. But that doesn't necessarily mean they hate you,
only that the don't agree or that they say you're crazy. (I often
hear this, along with "irresponsible", " superiority complex" and,
my favorite, "know-it-all") |
|
|
| Carla0030 |
LL (lunarlady), I paused in your
argument of why it was conceivable to jump to the conclusion that
the most vocal person was the responsible person. The reason I
paused is that in your example you stated that if you went to
another forum wherein the members held one belief different than
yours.....Whoa, hold the phone...IS THIS ANOTHER FORUM WHEREIN THE
MEMBERS HOLD ONE BELIEF? Hmmm, I seem to recall that it was set up
to be a place to meet in the middle where there is no 'us' vs
'them'. You cannot argue that this site is good and needed if you go
in with the thinking that you are among the members and those who
are 'pro-RCH' are outsiders.
I hope I misunderstand your
example. If not, then the next time there is a glitch in the
program, I should assume someone might come looking for me??
|
|
|
| discernment |
I think Lunarlady was using that
example of how people continously went to the BC when they knew
everyone had a common viewpoint. I took what Lunarlady said more as
a conviction to those ( am i looking guilty as well...lol
)who
went to a message board knowing full well how they would be
received.
JMO....i am sure Lunarlady will shed some more
light on this. |
|
|
| Lunarlady |
quote:
Carla0030 wrote:
LL (lunarlady), I paused in your argument of
why it was conceivable to jump to the conclusion that the most
vocal person was the responsible person. The reason I paused is
that in your example you stated that if you went to another forum
wherein the members held one belief different than yours.....Whoa,
hold the phone...IS THIS ANOTHER FORUM WHEREIN THE MEMBERS HOLD
ONE BELIEF? Hmmm, I seem to recall that it was set up to be a
place to meet in the middle where there is no 'us' vs 'them'. You
cannot argue that this site is good and needed if you go in with
the thinking that you are among the members and those who are
'pro-RCH' are outsiders.
I hope I misunderstand your
example. If not, then the next time there is a glitch in the
program, I should assume someone might come looking for me??
I may not have expressed myself clearly.
"Whoa,
hold the phone...IS THIS ANOTHER FORUM WHEREIN THE MEMBERS HOLD ONE
BELIEF?"
Based upon what I was reading from OMYSF, it was my
interpretation (and it may have been a false one) that she was
clumping everyone in together and bashing the site based upon what
her feelings of it are.
Hence, if I went to a Christian site
with the mind-set that EVERYONE on that site (whether it was true or
not) was against me and my group, and clumped everyone on that site
together (again, regardless of whether it was true or not) I would
expect them to be rude and even ban me due to my vehement remarks.
We hold and believe the idea that we are here for "common
ground", for venting our frustrations and overcoming them.
(Actually, I'm not really frustrated about anything. I just disagree
with some practices) Standing on the outside, I can totally see
where several angry posts occurring at the same time that it
appeared "hacking" was going on could be connected. It turned out to
not be true but I understand the thinking behind it.
If I
was in an passionate argument that came to the point of blows with
someone in front of my house and I didn't see the partner they're
always associated with, and my house all of a sudden burst into
flames, I would first suspect the person I was fighting with.
I never saw anyone "going after" someone else. I saw the
site administrator putting the most obvious someone on hold until he
could sort out what was happening. When the (for want of a better
word) "wet hen" was exonerated, the "wet hen" became even madder to
the point of righteous indignation and still doesn't appear to be
soothed by multiple apologies. It makes me wonder if she's going to
start demanding damages now.
Carla, I don't see the same
vehemence in your posts that I see in OMYSF. I don't see the same
accusatory remarks that I'm seeing now in Little Nicky. I doubt
seriously that intelligent people will couple you with attempts to
hack this site simply because you're seeing both sides and
conversing intelligently and appear to be willing to give people the
benefit of the doubt.
When I see remarks, accusations and
quotes taken out of context to suit OMYSF moral indignation, I
question her intentions.
|
|
|
| Carla0030 |
Perhaps Discernment, but in my
understanding she was saying that OhMickey was a realistic
assumption based on the facts at hand at that moment. That happened
on these boards not elsewhere. |
|
|
| Carla0030 |
LL, it appears we are posting
simultaneously. I think we now understand what the other is saying.
I'm not saying your reasoning is necessarily wrong, only that I
think we all see what assumptions bring.
BTW, OhMickey is a
MAN. I crack up everytime you say 'she'.
|
|
|
| fabdisbabe |
quote:
WDWDen wrote:
YKW2 is human being with feelings. I dont care
what he said to anyone, he still doesnt deserve all of this
bashing. I do beleive that a lot of stuff that he said was just
out of hurt and him defending himself and his friends.
(snipadeedoodah)
Calling me a "leaky
whore", accusing a mother on the boards of molesting her toddler
son? Sorry, that's not "excusable" to me.
YKW2 V. has some
problems.
Fab
|
|
|
| Lunarlady |
quote:
Carla0030 wrote:
LL, it appears we are posting simultaneously.
I think we now understand what the other is saying. I'm not saying
your reasoning is necessarily wrong, only that I think we all see
what assumptions bring.
BTW, OhMickey is a MAN. I crack up
everytime you say 'she'.
oops.
Anyone got an embarassed red smiley face
for me? How about a sheepish grin face?
Right now I'd settle
for an "I'm sorry you feel badly and I'm REALLY sorry I called you a
wet hen" smiley face?
I also agree...assumptions can lead to
downfall. I'll keep that in mind and try to find as many different
thought processes behind OMYSF's posts from now on. |
|
|
| KatEnigma |
quote:
discernment wrote:
Quote:
Believe it or not, Kat,
i am glad you are here and now that we have gotten this behind us
i hope we will both have a little perspective on eachs others
mindset.
I know i do and i thank you
I think, for now at least ;-), we should just
leave it where it is, and agree to disagree like rational people.
I just wish that more of us could decide to follow our
example.
|
|
|
| discernment |
Awww...Kat.... i am feeling all warm
and fuzzy inside now.
We will be holding hands singing Kum
By Yah in no time. Or was that we will be singing, "i'd like to buy
the world a Coke"
|
|
|
| KatEnigma |
quote:
discernment wrote:
Awww...Kat.... i am feeling all warm and
fuzzy inside now.
We will be holding hands singing Kum By
Yah in no time. Or was that we will be singing, "i'd like to buy
the world a Coke"
Didn't you see my post on that day we were
talking about earlier, where I said I was growing rather fond of
you! ;-) You're not the only one who can respect someone else's
convictions.
But c'mon, let's at least make it something
Disney...
Whole New World, maybe? lol
|
|
|
| Dan K |
quote:
discernment wrote:
Oh boy, here i go with a controversial
point of view, but all the people who make death threats are not
necessrily filled with "hate" there could be many motivations
including "hate" especially in an online forum that people would
make direct, implied, figurative, or indirect death threats.
I would very much like to hear what others
think of the sentiments quoted above. I am very discouraged that
there does not seem to be a consensus on this site that death
threats are NOT OK, not cool, not acceptable under any
circumstances. I'm amazed and frustrated, discernment, that you are
so doggedly persistent in trying to draw fine distinctions between
"bad" death threats and "not so bad" death threats, and to justify
or excuse the latter. It seems to me to be an empty and destructive
exercise, and it really works against any positive content in your
posts.
Let's understand that we're not talking here about
saying facetiously, to a friend or relative face to face, "oh, I
could just kill you." In context, if your body language, tone of
voice, etc. aren't threatening, that's obvious hyperbole. Nor are we
talking about, for example, the hypothetical and carefully defined
"death threat" that Lunarlady wrote about Crank; she made it very
clear that she was making a point and had no threatening intent
(although I didn't think much of her point, which seemed to be
another variation on death threats being no big deal.) We're talking
about anonymous death threats posted on the internet or made via
e-mail. We're talking about "utterances" where there are no facial
expressions or tone of voice to aid in interpretation. We're talking
about situations where the recipient of the threat doesn't know
whether the threatener is across the country, across town, or across
the street. You don't have to be paranoid or oversensitive to find
the inherent uncertainty and ambiguity in such a situation
disturbing, unnerving, or even terrifying. And yet some of you seem
to be suggesting that in such situations, we should reserve
judgment, give the threatener the benefit of the doubt, try to be
compassionate and understanding toward the threatener, walk a mile
in their shoes. What a load!
My bottom line: anonymous death
threats are a textbook case of terrorism, pure and simple. Such
threats are reprehensible at best, criminal in general, and
presumptively dangerous. They have no place on this site or anywhere
on the internet.
I strongly urge all members and all
moderators of this site to stand up and be counted on this issue.
EDIT BY DAN K: After reading discernment's response below, I
went back and reviewed his earlier posts on this topic and became
convinced that my above statements unfairly misrepresented his
position. It is now clear to me that he does not justify or excuse
such threats, or urge compassion for those who make them, and that
he has consistently stated that he deplores such behavior. I have
left the original text of my post up here so that others can follow
the discussion, but see his response and my apology below.
[Edited by Dan K] |
|
|
| Dsorcerer |
Listen Folks,
I have used this
forum as a place to say what I was never allowed to elsewhere. I
have stood behind what I have said, and have responded to every post
I have seen as well as I can. I do not "hate" anyone with the only
exception of my wife's EX...and really I just pity him. I have heard
it said here that YKW2 and I were friends...that is simply NOT
true, I attempted that, but my attempts were dismissed on several
occations. I will say this here...I respect YKW2's talent and hard
work he has shown with the development of the Clubhouse. Anybody who
has seen that site has to say it was awesome. But in regards to his
"webside" manner....geese. Whatever you may believe I did not start
this fight...I have only continued it in order to show you that we
could all forget the BC issue and go on to other things...seldom in
the past few days has anyone even mentioned anything except what a
butthead I have been. Even those who have met me have said, where is
the Dsorcerer(and thats the way you spell it) we all knew and loved.
Well I am still here, and still waiting for YKW2 to get a pair. I
found it comforting to see the support, and the slams...and
especially the dialog that has been established. If YKW has been
hurt, I am truly sorry as I really do love her. But she has hurt US
too and I suspect we will never see the same from her. If you look
at my Fantayzya's posts here, you have seen this wonderful lady I
live with, who has been used, and abused by the staff...but still
expresseses her thoughts with kindness and respect... Me? I'm just a
redhead scorpio... |
|
|
| Scarlet |
"Me? I'm just a redhead scorpio..."
Hey now thats not fair I am a redhead scorpio!!
And
futhermore you want to kick some YKW2 a**
and Someone really
wanted to rip me a new a**
we have to much in common!
I
still have not found the advil!
(as Kelly cchecks behind to make
sure her A** is all in one piece and that there are not any new
ones! )
The above was said in pure fun and not to bring up
any futher debate on the A** thing again > |
|
|
| Mousefan |
DanK,
Here is my take on the
issue. First of all, I want to start by saying that I think any sort
of death threat, in any form, in any venue, is completely wrong.
However, I think many people post on the internet things
that they would never think of saying or doing in real life, in
front of the person who is the target of their anger. They get
carried away by the heat of the moment.
They have no intention
to follow through with what they've threatened, but that still
doesn't make it okay for them to post it, and there should be
consequences for those actions.
BUT these days we have to
realize that it's pretty easy to gather information about a person
on the internet. So if somebody posted an online death threat to me,
I would be inclined to take it seriously. I would involve the
authorities and let them decide whether or not it were a credible
death threat, or whether the person should be prosecuted regardless
of intent.
I am sure the authorities have the expertise to
analyze the wording of the death threat to know whether the person
had the intent to act, and whether I should take further actions to
protect the safety of me and my family. I wouldn't necessarily be
able to determine that. After I heard the authorities' opinion on
the credibility, then I'd decide whether I would continue to post in
an online forum or to lay low for awhile and not draw further
attention to myself.
And at the very least, I would expect
to see that once the poster were identified, that their service
provider would immediately terminate their internet account. (Of
course, that wouldn't prevent them from going and getting another
one somewhere else.)
Okay, getting off my personal soapbox
now. And I think just about everyone here IS in agreement that
posting a death threat is wrong.
Maybe any conflict is due
to the definition of "death threat." People may define death threat
differently, based on the wording of the threat. What one person
thinks of as serious, another may think of as someone blowing off
steam. That's okay, as long as the person who received the threat
takes whatever action they deem appropriate.
EDIT: I just
had a thought. It's hard to believe that somebody could get worked
up enough about this issue that they WOULD post an anonymous death
threat (at least for me). Hopefully, none of us would do something
like that, so it's too difficult for us to believe that another
person would. It's easier to believe, not having seen the post, that
maybe it WAS all just hyperbole on the part of the poster and that
people overreacted. Of course, just because it's difficult to
believe it happened, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
Amy
[Edited by Mousefan] |
|
|
| Dsorcerer |
Frankly Scarlet...I don't give a
damn!...LOL
Just kiddin' I trust your a** is intact
or at
the worst in two pieces |
|
|
| Scarlet |
Hold on let me go check the
mirror |
|
|
| Scarlet |
It all doesn't fit in the mirror must
be all tha chocolate
Damn maybe WDWDEN should rip me a new one
but only if he promises to make it smaller then the one I have now
;) |
|
|
| Dsorcerer |
BTW I simply love your avatar...
lets do lunch!
Oh thats right...Fantayzya doesn't let me
venture out in public... |
|
|
| Scarlet |
LOL my children dont let me out in
public :) oh and thanks just showing my love of the U.S.A and what
better wat then with the flag and Mickey! |
|
|
| Dsorcerer |
Are you baiting me to talk about your
a**?
I'm sure you a** is...
No ...ahhhhh
Nice...
nope
okay got it...I'm an A** |
|
|
| Scarlet |
Nope not baiting we are bth married to
our best friends:)
And my A** is so scary only my Best Friend
would appriciate it!
lol it must be the redhead scorpio...in
us that share the same sense of humor
|
|
|
| Scarlet |
Oh one more thing I am not the one that
brought my ample A** into the outback anyway lol
:) | |