Member Profiles

I'm new here. If I were the owner I would insist that EVERYONE must post their sex preference and age in order to join. This forum is subject to the owners rules - it is not a free country. This would help insure I was not posting with a two year old. Additionally, no one would have the option of hiding their profile. All would be open to view. We all would have the option of leaving them blank except for sex and age. What do you think?

I'm a Caucasian male over 75.

 

Got news for you. We have had some 2 year olds here . . .

 

"Sex preference"?

 

Think about it Joe. The key word is "preference."

 

I'm a Caucasian male beyond 75.

 

And your sexual preference?

@GeneWright This is too funny to avoid.

 

I thought you were enlightened, Joe. Allow me to spell it out for you. W o k e i s m. Stay current, Joe.

 

JoeNation, posted: "And your sexual preference? This is too funny to avoid."

I'll make it really simple for you pal, MY sex preference is FEMALE because I am a MALE!!

JoeNation, posted: "Sex preference"?

Yes Joe. Your ilk cannot figure it out. Enemies of America have corrupted science to brainwash our children into thinking the aberrant behavior of a small percent of the world is normal and should be crammed down their/our throats. The morals of a country must be diluted to help quicken its downfall.

PS Joe, I don't hate the LGTNMEBDSI humans, so don't pull out that crap to deflect THEIR genetic or
mental PROBLEM on to me.

 

Maybe you don't hate them but maybe you do. Who knows? But at least you feel that it is OK to marginalize people different than you and then pay lip service to tolerance. "aberrant behavior"???? Come on! Tell us what you really think.

 

This is what I think...

 

JoeNation, posted: "Maybe you don't hate them but maybe you do. Who knows? But at least you feel that it is OK to marginalize people different than you and then pay lip service to tolerance. "aberrant behavior"???? Come on! Tell us what you really think.

Joe,

Your reply is right out of "Arguing with Idiots" by Ann Coulter. I wrote don't pull the stupid act of accusing me of hating fellow humans NO MATTER what they believe is right for them. If you can come up with some address, I'll send you the book with the page marked. It's as if she interviewed you in the chapter.

Joe, you you must be intelligent because you are able to spit out all the crap you've been fed but you ahave a horrible record regarding English. I answered both your questions DIRECTLY and in a simple way that a very young girl (they are often smarter than boys) would understand. Just in case the problem is related to your eyesight I'll repeat what I wrote:


PS Joe, I don't hate the LGTNMEBDSI humans, so don't pull out that crap to deflect THEIR genetic or mental PROBLEM on to me.

Aberrant behavior is a better way to put it.

Now, without the proper upbringing, an ignorant person may believe that a sex act on a cat is NOT aberrant. Neither is hair sniffing and TAKING A SHOWER WITH HIS YOUNG DAUGHTER!

 

"Arguing with Idiots" By Glenn Beck

 

Thanks, I got my books and authors mixed up. That's the democrat part of my brain. The book he will find himself in is "How to Talk to a Liberal" by Coulter.

 

Having evaluated the OP, and doing so impartially, I have the following commentary:

Well, you are not.

I insist that I can not find this requirement in The Constitution of The Federal Republic of The United States of America, and until there is an Amendment to the Constitution, I will continue to insist you may insist all you want, and I will insist I do not need to comply.

To my knowledge, what you would insist is not in the Rules established by the owner.

I agree. This Forum is not a free country. Not even a flag, or stuff.

This was a hard passage to decipher. The best I can logically conclude, is that you are of the opinion that a 2 year old is mentally and physically capable to post on a computer, knows what he/she/it is posting on the computer and the generally accepted meaning of the post, knows he/she/it is 2 years old and what being 2 years old means genealogically. Given these logical conclusions of the meaning of your posts, I do not understand how you can be insured he/she/it is 2 years old, since all the requisite abilities of a deceitful response by a human being are present, given the logical conclusion of your post.

This is age discrimination, given the previously stated logical conclusions of your post of the human abilities of he/she/it posting, and that is a violation of the The Constitution of the Federal Republic of The United States of America.

Privacy is not an option. It is a Right, with certain legal restrictions.

I had a particularly difficult time in deciphering the difference between (paraphrasing): '...no one would have an option of hiding their profile...', and '....would have the option to leave the profile blank...', and decided you do not know what you want either, but I will give you this; it sounds official as hell.

I have logically concluded that this is the thrust of the entire post. Sadly, the 2 requirements of exclusion you seek are protected from exclusion by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of The United States of America. Accordingly, I logically conclude you are aligned with a favoritism of a Marxist method of governance.

What do you think?

I think I did a fairly adequate deciphering of your post.

I am, also. That is very interesting.

 

charley, posted: "Having evaluated the OP, and doing so impartially, I have the following commentary:
Well, you are not....What do you think?

While I enjoyed reading your thought out and well written comments, I think you wasted a lot of your valuable time after I stated the OBVIOUS: "If I were the owner." Of course I'm not the owner. That's why I used the word "IF!!!!!"

Now, when two intelligent, older grown men, have a problem such as this - THERE IS NO HOPE FOR HUMANS!!!! Bring on the AI.

PS As long as no laws are being broken, I don't think what goes on in a privately owned chat room is determined by the Constitution. Please educate me if (THERE"S THAT COMPLICATED little word AGAIN) I'm ignorant.

 

Thank you for your thought provoking response, Insider.

My time is not valuable. I do not get paid.
Hope springs eternal.
If is the dumbest counter-argument word in any language.
I did not in any manner, infer that you were intelligent. To be impartial, I did not in any manner infer that you were not intelligent (until I read your reply). I, on the other hand, appreciate your assessment that I am intelligent, because, welllll, I am.

What goes on in a chatroom....private or public/any chatroom...is in fact determined by the Constitution. Case Law on the subject has surpassed the level of the number of volumes contained in the original library of Alexandria.

Ignorance is bliss, BTW. Stay bliss.

 

charley, posted: "What goes on in a chatroom....private or public/any chatroom...is in fact determined by the Constitution. Case Law on the subject has surpassed the level of the number of volumes contained in the original library of Alexandria."

You have made a statement posting as a very informed (possibly retired) legal scholar; however, you have not educated me or anyone else here. I should appreciate knowing a few of the settled cases of law regarding the Constitution and privately owned chat rooms. This should be extremely very easy for you due to the huge volume of settled cases.
\
Thanks in advance.

 

Thanks, Insider.

Returning to your original thought...re. your ignorance...I reiterate: stay bliss.

As you have ad nauseum mentioned in past post meanderings, one should educate themselves via research of the subject, prior to asking the question. That should be extremely easy for you (a silly phrase, but we will go with it for now), considering your various scholarly interpretations of the Constitution, as evidenced by your many posts on this Forum.

No thanks needed. Nothing was rendered by me; physical or emotional or mannerly or mental. Thus, no equilateral gratuity required.

 

LIKELY MISINFORMATION ALERT

NOTE: This poster WILL NOT/CANNOT back up his post AT ALL. Very, very sad and typical behavior of a fly-by, non-engaging, subversive when unable to back up a statement. What is the point of posting nonsense or a lie that you don't defend. Any subversive fool can post anything - including lies. I'm calling you out. Please educate all of us. What is the case law regarding the Constitution and chat forums that you claim?

PS "Bliss this": I have only read the constitution twice and part of the Federalist Papers. I don't claim to know the law - I was not accepted to Georgetown or GWU Law schools when I tried. The only people I have ever encountered ANYWHERE who have not been able to engage in an intelligent discussion about ANYTHING
were SOME druggies, mentally challenged, progressives, liberals, democrats, Independents, and people on this forum like you. I have NEVER had any Democrat, Republican, Conservative or Independent interested in politics DUCK HONEST QUESTIONS. Their elevator goes to the top.

So, What is the case law regarding the Constitution and chat forums that you claim?

 

Thanks, Insider.

Another typical blahblah post by you. I am crushed. Gee whiz, Insider has embarrassed me. I am going to go blow my face off. There is nothing you can post that bothers me in the least.

It is so easy to wind your clock.

It is funny reading your posts when you are pizzed. Calling me out? What are you, a 2nd Grader on the playground? This was the easiest setup I have done in a very long time. I do note, though, it is the 3rd forum where I have been able to set you up.

What is next? Telling me to show up at Phil's Parking Lot?

Just another Clown added to the list.