Ut Oh, Could Nancy Be Facing....

Roxxxxxxxxxannie is a leftwingnutcase, no doubt about it.

Yeah, we know she's a reincarnation, but that's not a violation of the TOS. When people wondered if you were Massagato when you first arrived, the case was different. Massagato has been here in many incarnations, and has gotten banned each time. When he comes back, if he comes back, the likelihood is pretty high that he will lose it again, and be banned again.

As long as Roxxxxxxxannie isn't violating the TOS, it doesn't matter if she's a reincarnation or not. If Massagato comes back, and can manage not to lose it and lash out at people, as long as he can avoid violating the TOS, it won't matter if he's a reincarnation.

When it comes to Massagato, though, the likelihood is that he'll lose it, and sooner rather than later.

Lone Star Madame of the Whorehouse certainly is not close to Madame of the Lone Star Whorehouse, which is what i have been writing. I've written that at least a dozen times, and pointed that out to you three times now. Things don't sink in very quickly with you, do they?

I got nasty with you after you got nasty with me, and as was that case with Monte Cargo, that was when i had not previously even been aware of your existence--a state to which, sadly, i am unable to return.

I don't claim to be an expert on the TOS. As i pointed out, if you think "dyke" is a violation of the TOS, report the post and see what happens.

OK, Little Stevie Bernhardt . . .

You came after me on my first poste here, which is ok too, but don't set behind your keyboard as the all knowing swammi Ali & pretend to be anything more than what you are, nimrod.

Oh, i see, well, since you seem to be expert at what TOS rules are....
I got nasty right back, right back, back being the operative word. I explained that I will meet anybody half way but if someone wants to throw mud, I can accomodate.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Oh really? Funny that Roxxxanne or whatever his/her name is isn't questioned by the higher archy here. :wink:
Wonder if it's the politics. lol

Would your postulate be based on unwarranted assumption, or might you be privvy to information not generally available?

Oh, just 'fess up, Big Bird, you damned old commie . . .

As ronald Regan said Trust but verify, please verify.

Can you do the secret handshake, what with the feathers and all?

LoneStarMadam wrote:

You came after me on my first poste here, which is ok too, but don't set behind your keyboard as the all knowing swammi Ali & pretend to be anything more than what you are, nimrod.

That's a lie. You had more than 40 posts here before i ever responded to one, and my response was to challenge your horse **** when you claimed that Congress had ceded the war-making power to the President.

Another priceless drama queen moment here.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Oh, i see, well, since you seem to be expert at what TOS rules are....
I got nasty right back, right back, back being the operative word. I explained that I will meet anybody half way but if someone wants to throw mud, I can accomodate.

I have seen you do little BUT throw mud.

This thread is possibly the most degenerate of your efforts...since, as even you appear to acknowledge, accusing someone of supporting paedophilia is an extremely serious accusation, and one which ought to be made only with real evidence.

You, however, have shown yourself happy to promulgate the worst of vapid, lying slime.

Madam, people who live in **** houses ought not to be accusing others of throwing mud until they have scrubbed their own dwelling.

The stuff you post, as with a number (fortunately few) of other posters here, degrades the entire process of political discourse.

I know you dredge slime publications for your material, and do not create it yourself, but you promulgate it more widely than it would otherwise reach, and so you are an active agent in the harm.

LSM, who antes specious arguments about the US's contributions to the global food supply advises that one should trust, but verify.
When your BS is called, you have't even the class to concede where you have erred.