Off-topic discussion thread / moved as clogging other threads

Awwww, bless your big soiled knickers

You’re that thick, you’re oblivious of the fact, they’re both what the seller wants, and the seller wants to trade.
Let’s get the M word out for Vegan again:

o_O

"knickers":confused: Oi.
they dont make those in the civilized West since 100 yrs ago:mad:
do you listen to your imaginary box sets on the 'vitrola'?
do you travel to the imaginary tours via stagecoach?:blushing:

🛖


🇭🇷>:hammer:
 
OI.... PRESIDENT J OV 🇭🇷

Why does your ex-twat
Choose to ignore me.....🛎🛎

HAS HE NO MORE PATTER🅾️

Have I smashed up his
Wee Hammer 🗑

The Gobshite is
Engrossed in his German porn👨🏻‍✈️
 
:)

Comrades, bless🙏

very hard work, getting to the Moz items.
so time to stop and enjoy this cherished board
before work again. so now, first read
cherished board and when reading:


spinning the very ancient forefather whiskey:
images



with spin of:hammer: the Moz Quarry uk, everyone have:mad:
images


xxx Comrade T
(comrades enjoy the spinning of whiskey and quarry
tomorrow more work for box set:))

:hammer:
 
:)

Comrades, bless🙏

very hard work, getting to the Moz items.
so time to stop and enjoy this cherished board
before work again. so now, first read
cherished board and when reading:


spinning the very ancient forefather whiskey:
images



with spin of:hammer: the Moz Quarry uk, everyone have:mad:
images


xxx Comrade T
(comrades enjoy the spinning of whiskey and quarry
tomorrow more work for box set:))

:hammer:
Much love Cro, my friend xx 👆🤙
 
In this sense, it means people who had never seen him. In your case, virgin means terminally unf***able from the start. But hey, there's probably a mossy knothole in a fence somewhere waiting for you with complete indifference.

:lbf:

right :lbf:
just a Freudian slip🧚‍♀️
virgins in one sense but no the all the other senses.:lbf:
anologically virginso_O
what did you virgins eat before the show, peanut butter and jelly sandwich>>🥪

:hammer:
 
You're like Reel when she was in a genteel phase.

This is not the first time I've been a somewhat new member of a forum and been addressed in such a way as to suggest I should have a working knowledge of its cast of characters, past and present, and the feuds they were engaged in. It's odd when that's just assumed.

In this instance, however, I do recall reading maybe two or three protracted exchanges between yourself and that poster (leastways, I think it was that poster, though I was unaware of their gender), and I do recall thinking you were rather unfair to them. More specifically, you came across as something of an intolerant, assumptive bully. I'm not saying it defines you wholly, but that person certainly deserved a more gracious, civil treatment from you on the basis of what I saw. Were I a regular enough contributor, I guess I'd be your new nemesis or resident target of your unfounded, trigger-happy bile, but I have interests and responsibilities besides digging on Morrissey.

I don't recall that poster beyond those exchanges, but I was long a casual, sporadic reader before joining (well, I'm still a casual, sporadic reader).
 
This is not the first time I've been a somewhat new member of a forum and been addressed in such a way as to suggest I should have a working knowledge of its cast of characters, past and present, and the feuds they were engaged in. It's odd when that's just assumed.

In this instance, however, I do recall reading maybe two or three protracted exchanges between yourself and that poster (leastways, I think it was that poster, though I was unaware of their gender), and I do recall thinking you were rather unfair to them. More specifically, you came across as something of an intolerant, assumptive bully. I'm not saying it defines you wholly, but that person certainly deserved a more gracious, civil treatment from you on the basis of what I saw. Were I a regular enough contributor, I guess I'd be your new nemesis or resident target of your unfounded, trigger-happy bile, but I have interests and responsibilities besides digging on Morrissey.

I don't recall that poster beyond those exchanges, but I was long a casual, sporadic reader before joining (well, I'm still a casual, sporadic reader).

Oh, Lord, are you Reel?

You're not subtle - you're obviously a white nationalist.

I'm not really that fussed now Moz has moved on from that political party. I just wish Central vetted its content.
 
Oh, Lord, are you Reel?

Would you even accept a reply at face value?


You're not subtle -

Nor have I made any attempt at subtlety.

I'm not particularly genteel, either. I do generally aspire to civility, wherever possible.


you're obviously a white nationalist.

The very same rush to judgement to which you subjected your fellow woman, if I'm not mistaken. And we've barely exchanged words. :lbf:

I could furnish you with dozens of personal details which would blow your characterization of a stranger on the internet completely out of the water. Would they be taken at face value? Likely not, because you have been affronted by a (rather mild) criticism of your character and have chosen to defend yourself by way of a narrow-minded, self-serving, reflexive judgement that establishes you in the moral box seat of your mind, and no amount of inconvenient personal testimony (or even supporting evidence) would dissuade you from pushing a convenient label upon me. You don't want to be the baddie or to have to reflect upon your own poor behavior, so you've rationalized a way to imagine yourself as the noblewoman. Nothing new under the sun.

No, you're not dealing with "Reel", whoever he/she really was or thought.


I'm not really that fussed now Moz has moved on from that political party

So you were were "fussed" when Morrissey repped a civic nationalist political party which also numbers Indians and homosexuals among its supporters? Really? I've never personally cared for Anne Marie Waters myself, but the moral panic with which her party has been received is entirely contrived.


I just wish Central vetted its content.

What an odd way to feel. Who knew that the morally superior could be so allergic to freedom?



Anyway, hint taken. You dislike or resent my presence.

You shouldn't let it get to you too much, though. I'm not frequent enough to inhibit you or to threaten whatever position you imagine yourself to have established here. Y'know, just how intolerant do you really need to be? How much online space do you really need to hog? Do you just keep fighting the baddies 'til the utopia of uniformity is achieved?

When did the wallflowers — a group among whom I dwelled before moving on and evolving into something more complete — become such intellectually tiny, book burning, pitchfork-wielding, noose-brandishing brutes, hellbent on achieving monolithic thought? :lbf:

Enjoy your lonely, miserable orthodoxy, Karen.


(P.S. I think I did pretty well to type this post in between 32.5 kg dumbell shoulder press sets. Look, there goes a meathead streaking through morrissey-solo.com — string him up!)
 
Last edited:
Would you even accept a reply at face value?




Nor have I made any attempt at subtlety.

I'm not particularly genteel, either. I do generally aspire to civility, wherever possible.




The very same rush to judgement to which you subjected your fellow woman, if I'm not mistaken. And we've barely exchanged words. :lbf:

I could furnish you with dozens of personal details which would blow your characterization of a stranger on the internet completely out of the water. Would they be taken at face value? Likely not, because you have been affronted by a (rather mild) criticism of your character and have chosen to defend yourself by way of a narrow-minded, self-serving, reflexive judgement that establishes you in the moral box seat of your mind, and no amount of inconvenient personal testimony (or even supporting evidence) would dissuade you from pushing a convenient label upon me. You don't want to be the baddie or to have to reflect upon your own poor behavior, so you've rationalized a way to imagine yourself as the noblewoman. Nothing new under the sun.

No, you're not dealing with "Reel", whoever he/she really was or thought.




So you were were "fussed" when Morrissey repped a civic nationalist political party which also numbers Indians and homosexuals among its supporters? Really? I've never personally cared for Anne Marie Waters myself, but the moral panic with which her party has been received is entirely contrived.




What an odd way to feel. Who knew that the morally superior could be so allergic to freedom?



Anyway, hint taken. You dislike or resent my presence.

You shouldn't let it get to you too much, though. I'm not frequent enough to inhibit you or to threaten whatever position you imagine yourself to have established here. Y'know, just how intolerant do you really need to be? How much online space do you really need to hog? Do you just keep fighting the baddies 'til the utopia of uniformity is achieved?

When did the wallflowers — a group among whom I dwelled before moving on and evolving into something more complete — become such intellectually tiny, book burning, pitchfork-wielding, noose-brandishing brutes, hellbent on achieving monolithic thought? :lbf:

Enjoy your lonely, miserable orthodoxy, Karen.


(P.S. I think I did pretty well to type this post in between 32.5 kg dumbell shoulder press sets. Look, there goes a meathead streaking through morrissey-solo.com — string him up!)

I suppose you could be Gash, he likes to be fancy.
 
Back
Top Bottom