Message Turncoat in a DM to get moderator attention

Users Online(? lurkers):
Posts: 631
SC Hate Sex!

Not that it matters any more.

I hear luna's given TC the authority to write the new rules here on SC.

This should be good for a laugh.

Posts: 10218
SC Hate Sex!

Cake stated: source post

I hear luna's given TC the authority to write the new rules here on SC.

This should be good for a laugh.

So bitter~

I technically had that authority just as much in the past as I do now. The trick to keeping this position is doing what's needed for the forum itself. 

Posts: 631
SC Hate Sex!

Indulging everybody who bitches and whines about one teensy vid on a thread about sex, or 5 vids on a thread about some douche wanting to grope his clients and pass it off as a study, while you ignore vids and images on other threads that actually do leave the threads unreadable?

That's what's best for the forum?

k

Posts: 631
SC Hate Sex!

double post

Posts: 192
SC Hate Sex!

Cake stated: source post

 5 vids on a thread about some douche wanting to grope his clients and pass it off as a study

Which thread was that?    Was there such a thread?  Anybody here seen such a thread?

Nope, don't think so.

 

 

And you still call yourself 'normal'?

LOL 

Posts: 2658
SC Hate Sex!

sorry but you forgot rule 3 (it's written in small letters do old ppl miss it and we can ban the faggots)

3 - no old kook hags r allowed to post under the rule of tc and his phat boipucci ruled by almighty jim

Posts: 631
SC Hate Sex!

"What i was saying is that it takes  an extraordinary level of stupidity to interpret that thread the way you did. "

haha u stupid too timmy

 

You interpret 80% of the stuff I write in that way.

But unlike you, I correctly read Cad's thread as suggesting unwanted touching of clients. 

You saw a request for a light for my cigarette as sexual. Like wtf?

Posts: 192
SC Hate Sex!

I know precisely what thread  you were  talking about, dumbo.   And that thread had nothing to do with how you referred to it.

 

What i was saying is that it takes  an extraordinary level of stupidity to interpret that thread the way you did.  

You're just the gift which keeps giving, lol.

 

Posts: 192
SC Hate Sex!

Cake stated: source post

I correctly read Cad's thread as suggesting unwanted touching of clients. 

 

"correctly".

 

ROFL 

Posts: 631
SC Hate Sex!

lolwut? Isn't banning faggots a little hypocritical of you?

This site contains NSFW material. To view and use this site, you must be 18+ years of age.