Posts by Tyler Cruz32

Carl Brooks18 said:You have already been involved on numerous occasions, which is evident from the evidence provided, even when you were being "diplomatic" and contributing to those topics; therefore, I expect a statement from another moderator regarding your activity.

Fine, here it is.
The situation here is as follows:

- It is not okay to enter a thread and start posting randomly, essentially spamming:
Homosexuals are sick, disturbed, crazy, it's all unnatural, diseased—and so on. This constitutes provocation; it is unconstructive and harmful both to the state of the forum and to discussions in general. Consequently, it will not be tolerated.

- It is okay to enter a thread and write a post that is constructive, argued, and meaningful, in which it is acceptable to say something along the lines of:
Homosexuality as a phenomenon is a departure from the conventional/natural/normal, in my opinion because.............. (provide a meaningful argument for why someone might think this, such as gay gene studies, Dr. Rice's findings, and stances on epi-markers, for example).

This is truly what Strile confirmed for us, as we have had similar debates in the past.
As long as something is written constructively, with arguments, and for the purpose of discussion rather than pure provocation, mockery, or taunting, it is permitted.

rowdyotter25 said:Furthermore, on the Complaints thread, you attached a quote from a post that the warning does not actually apply to, thereby gaining support from another moderator (the other moderator used your quote, not the quote from the actual warned post, as their argument for acceptance). You misrepresented the reason for the warning.

Anyway, regarding the matter of you.
Some of your posts are on our staff topic, and if you ask me, you would have received two troll warnings long ago.
Moreover, we don't have an issue with a false dilemma at all, since your posts are linked—both the warned ones and others in the same transcript—so everything is visible, including how and why.

And if our head moderator feels it necessary to comment further, add anything, or remove your warning, then they will. That is all.

Carl Brooks18 said:What kind of "forum user" are you writing as on that thread? What are you talking about now? Are you the moderator for Religion? Have you participated in the thread regarding homosexuality from social and religious aspects as a moderator by issuing warnings and such?

When a mod writes on a thread, they write as a forum user.
If they issue a warning during a discussion when necessary, it doesn't mean they weren't writing as a forum user—until that moment. They simply reacted when it was required.

Did the other moderators (Tyler Cruz32, Nicole James) explicitly state on that thread that homosexuality should not be labeled as a disorder?

Here is the post from moderator Tyler Cruz32:

Perhaps my instructions weren't understood quite correctly.

That specific point was meant to address the fact that there is no need for us here to dive excessively deep into the intricacies of the APA, psychological disorders, the history of voting, removal from diagnostic lists, treatment efficacy, and so on. We aren't a specialized medical journal for that kind of thing. However, since it is obvious that people feel the need to write and debate this sphere of homosexuality, I have asked my colleagues over at the other forum to set up an existing thread for those willing to discuss it.

And that is all; my warning pertained strictly to that matter, nothing more and nothing less.
Of course, given threads like this regarding homosexuality, it would be impossible to completely eliminate every single reference to the background of its occurrence, and nobody ever asked us to do that.

As for everything else, the distinction I mentioned earlier regarding what is permitted still stands.

One more thing concerning moderator participation and reports:
if anyone finds something objectionable, they can file a report using the triangle icon, but we also conduct regular cleanups, and no one’s moderation acts as immunity from bans. Nicole James and I have had this agreement since day one, and it remains in effect.

In that regard, Brenda Cook4's posts could have been properly reported if someone found them controversial, allowing us to have a civil discussion in the Log if anything was questionable, rather than engaging in this style of polemic.
I see no necessity for it.

Nick and even more instances,

Everything is already documented right here in the Book, so I have no further need for clarification nor anything else to contribute.
As far as I am concerned, I cannot support the recycling of jokes, and that is final.
A consensus with Dad was impossible to reach, so it is probably for the best that this remains an open topic.

Dad:

Where we go to fix our own messes...

No comment, truly.

rapidmaker77 said:Technically, this might be considered off-topic, though I suspect anyone who thinks deeply about these matters already understands the underlying reason😉 and I will leave it to each reader
to draw their own conclusions; therefore, I have "recreated" from memory the conversation that previously took place between blue-bird and myself.

That’s off-topic, which is why it was deleted.

However, the post was constructive, certainly.
I even considered spinning it off into its own dedicated thread.

The content can still be salvaged, so if you were planning on starting a new thread regarding this, feel free to send me a DM and we can figure out a way forward. Alternatively, if one of the existing threads in the index fits this subject matter, we could simply move the post there to continue the discussion. 😉

Reach out if you want to make any adjustments.

Yes, it has been moved.

The thread you're looking for is right here, rapidmaker77.

Linda King said:I reported him using that little icon, though I am honestly unsure if that is intended for reporting an avatar or just individual posts. Lockheed Martin mentioned reaching out to the admins responsible for ensuring signatures and avatars comply with the rules, but I have no idea who specifically those people are.

I believe I have taken all necessary steps: I notified the staff in charge of avatars and signatures, and I have also sought input from colleagues over at CNN. Furthermore, I expect our moderator, Stryker, to address this matter as soon as he notices the issue, so I see no reason for panic or finger-pointing.

I already posted this earlier this morning on our inquiry thread in the Religion section, so I find this specific topic to be premature and unnecessary at this stage.
That is all.

Daniel Ward87 said:You can report both private messages and posts by clicking the icon so the admins can review the situation and take appropriate action. Regarding that missing post, which PDF and topic are you referring to?

This concerns the US and the author's own topic, which previously sparked such intense conflict that the author ended up getting banned.

Both posts have been deleted, leaving only my warning to the user and the author. It is true that the user's post was made last night; however, it was extremely brief, which is why I decided to remove it immediately.

Here is the situation:
The author started a thread here a while back, and his rhetoric was, to put it mildly, pathetic. After he got banned, one user realized he was actually just a clone account running under a moderator's permission, which is something that happened on Lumberjack before too.

After looking into those claims, it turns out Tyndall did grant permission to the previous author's identity. The author also confirmed via PM that the statement is accurate and that it is indeed a clone.

After consulting with Tyndall—who has given me full discretion over how to handle this situation—I have decided to extend an offer to the author. They may continue writing under a new pseudonym, provided they refrain from any further provocations, petty arguments, or similar antics. If not, I will be revoking their access immediately.

The author agreed to that proposal, and we reached an agreement—or at least, that’s how I recall it at the time.

And now we have this situation.
The author, despite feeling provoked by those subtle jabs at his Prime Minister, really should have known better than to react that way. Instead of descending into insults and pointless arguments within the thread, he ought to have simply reported the user. He failed to do so.

I have absolutely no intention of acting like some self-appointed hall monitor, constantly patrolling everyone else's posts just to make sure I don't miss a single instance of someone tearing a thread apart.

I was giving this some thought last night, though I didn't want to take any action until I had the chance to consult with others and get a second opinion. In the meantime, the author went ahead and opened this thread before I could even finish my consultations.

Sves and I have reached a decision on how to proceed:
Both the forum participant and the author will be awarded 500 points each.

Look, calling the author a maniac and throwing subtle jabs at his potential career under the Prime Minister is completely uncalled for. If there’s an issue, you report it properly, and I haven't seen any actual reports filed by Grace Kim80 lately. This entire post is nothing more than a blatant provocation intended to discredit the OP.
The author decided to pick a fight with Grace Kim80, even though he knows perfectly well that's against our rules. As for the actual content of his post, I honestly don't have anything to add. This serves as his final warning before we reinstate his permanent ban. I actually sent him a private message about this last night.

I request that the administration does not interfere with this situation: Sves and I have reached an agreement.

4. is undoubtedly the finest, even by my previous standards. 😍
3. might suffice, I suppose, in a limited capacity.
6. and 9. are equally impressive, though they seem better suited for light activity around the house rather than focused study.
1. is quite irritating to me.

Hi there.

The influx of reports over the last few days has caused some minor disruptions, though we haven't let things slip. Personally, I have refrained from issuing bans on matters where I don't yet have the full context, mainly because I haven't had sufficient time to thoroughly review the thread, and I have no desire to take action without being fully informed.
I have requested that one of my colleagues look into this specific topic whenever they find a moment.

That kind of rhetoric is certainly unwelcome, and you can rest assured that your report has not been ignored.

Nicole Ruiz said:My question is—and please bear with me while I try to articulate this properly—in what specific way does our advertisement deviate from those you’ve all just categorized as legitimate?

The specific advertisements you cited were posted by other members, and personally, I see nothing controversial about them.

- Looking for someone to meet, and seeing where things go with all possibilities open—content-wise, this doesn't imply seeking sexual experimentation.
- I wouldn't mind if a busy girl reaches out with a friend for me—this implies mediation during the introduction process, essentially friendly communication between the author and the forum member who responds.
- Meeting up initially, and then who knows what happens later—this leaves room for various types of relationships and certainly doesn't cast the idea toward sexual experimentation.

There is an enormous difference between a serious relationship and searching for sex or sexual experimentation. Just because someone says they aren't looking for a serious relationship doesn't necessarily mean they are hunting for sex.

Also, keep in mind that those ads were posted by SINGLE people standing alone behind their own posts, whereas this advertisement was created by a COUPLE, where the better half is BI, seeking a girl 'who is good-looking and open-minded for hanging out, fun, and playing games'.

Ads where it is explicitly stated, or implicitly sent through reading, that one is seeking sex or someone for sexual experimentation, are deleted. However, one must distinguish that part from the part where someone states they aren't looking for a serious relationship; there is a wide spectrum in between.

What your advertisement leaves as a possibility is: a polygamous relationship, a third party for experimentation, or an open relationship. I must admit, I don't recall any ad from a couple seeking to meet someone specifically for the purpose of a polygamous relationship.
I just consulted with my colleague who handles most of the Advertisements, and his stance is that if this were truly a serious ad from a couple living in a polygamous relationship or marriage, we would have to decide what to do based on the actual text and the implicit message it sends.

Regarding seeking new people to practice open relationships, my colleague's view is negative, and I agree with him. Not because we personally have anything against such a lifestyle choice, but because such ads usually operate under the premise of seeking others for sexual experimentation. If a person were seeking exclusively friendship, they would state that. Seeking sexual experimentation is contrary to Rule 3.

Any kind of swinging, cuckolding, sexual experimentation outside of a marriage/relationship, FMM, or MFF—no.

Furthermore, you shouldn't worry too much about the other ads. It is impossible for the rules to cover absolutely every single possibility. That is actually mentioned in the introductory post under 'Special Note.' In this instance, we decided to delete your ad.

so we are looking for another girl to keep us warm on winter nights. Would that be OK then?!

I can't give you an answer off the top of my head.
We would need to see the ad itself, in black and white, along with its entire context.
But in principle, if a couple posts an ad looking for a girl to keep them warm on freezing winter nights: my colleague is against it, and I am as well.

You are inconsistent and subjective (though I hesitate to call you hypocritical).

That isn't accurate.
We are only human, and I am the first to admit that we all make mistakes. However, I would never claim to be subjective. What I can say quite plainly is that I don't believe in burying my head in the sand; when an issue arises, I make it my business to address it directly.

We aren't going to discuss hypocrisy—we simply refuse to engage in that kind of debate. 😉

I am once again formally requesting that the moderators restore our advertisement.

I have already informed you of the return procedure.

slučaj da I suppose one might find some sense of peace in such things, though I find the concept rather elusive. I suppose it is entirely possible that one of the admins holds an opinion that runs contrary to ours.

Joshua Jones13 said:Sure. But it’s up to the moderators to decide if your ad actually follows the rules. Meadow already pointed out the specific rule:

I guess your ad looks like you're seeking a third for sex to me, too. 🤷

That was the reality for the person who reported the post, for me personally, for my colleagues, for you, and for Sophia Thomas7.

At this rate, we could sit here debating until tomorrow, but I don't see any point in continuing.
We've all laid our cards on the table, you've shared your piece, and Bliss has already submitted her opinion; I also made sure to let Nicole Ruiz know she should take a look once she's available.

Nicole Ruiz said:First off, I really appreciate the quick and thorough response...

Honestly, I have to wonder who exactly this post could possibly bother: 😕😕😕🤷

The guidelines in the rules state:
Regarding the ads themselves, they should include basic information such as gender, age, and location. We recommend writing a bit more about yourself or the person you wish to meet, as this will likely attract more people, so please don't be too brief.

So... I wasn't allowed to, excuse me, *emphasize* how my girlfriend and I look? And that's despite the fact that I went overboard with the physical descriptions, listing our height, weight, age, gender, and location (exactly as requested in the moderator guidelines)

As for what you put in quotes—this "preferences" thing—it isn't even worth commenting on.
I mean, gay men can post ads... sure, they can openly look for other men, explicitly stating they are gay and thereby expressing (and I won't use quotation marks here) their preferences. Women can also look for women quite openly...
But a guy and a girl aren't allowed to look for anyone? Because apparently, that counts as breaking the rules by essentially offering sex.
Of course, when someone posts an ad saying: "Gay guy from Smalltown, USA looking for a gay guy nearby, young and handsome," etc.—he isn't posting that just to hook up; he's doing it so they can be friends and watch the birds in the sky...

So, you've decided the ad was posted exclusively to find someone for sexual experimentation? Fine then, by that logic, every single ad containing phrases like: "a girl with X look, X age, for coffee, going out, and something more..."—well, we could shove all of those into that same category.
In fact, following the exact logic you described in the quote I am responding to, I could go back and review the last 50 ads and find at least 20 that wouldn't meet your criteria either.

I hope these arguments clarify my point.
My ad didn't violate any specific rule, and more importantly, it doesn't deviate in any way from the other ads you consider legitimate that are currently active in this thread!
We expect, and kindly request, that it be reinstated.

It’s perfectly logical to assume your colleagues might side with you, but I truly ask that you consider my perspective as well.
I genuinely believe my post follows all the rules to a T. If you feel otherwise, then by that same logic, quite a few other posts should probably be taken down too.

Furthermore, the guidelines explicitly state:

In case anyone needs a reminder, this is a serious matter. This thread remains open solely because there are people who genuinely want to meet someone, and this platform provides that opportunity. We are fully aware that some people use fake identities to mess with those who reach out, but unfortunately, we simply don't have the resources to catch every single one of them. Ultimately, it is up to you to decide who you respond to and where those conversations lead.
We aren't pretending to be anyone we're not; we've been as honest as humanly possible. In fact, that's exactly why we do it—so we don't waste anyone's time.
The whole point of keeping this topic active is to facilitate real connections for those looking for genuine introductions.

And look! Just today, we actually connected with a girl, swapped emails, chatted for a bit... and we even set up a meeting for coffee tomorrow. And I mean COFFEE—not a hookup—just a casual meet-up to see if there's a vibe. So, mission accomplished! The purpose of this entire thing actually works.

See? 🙂

Of course. 😉

I have to wonder who could possibly be offended by that ad:

The person who reported it.

We expect and request its reinstatement.

Didn't I say the exact same thing here:

If Bliss or Nice feel we made an error, I will offer an apology and restore the deleted ad immediately.

It stands to reason they might take your side since they are your colleagues, but please consider my points.

No, that is incorrect.

Anyway, I have provided the reasoning behind the removal, and there is nothing more I can do.
It is Friday night; let us wait until someone arrives to make a decision, and then we shall act accordingly.

Nicole Ruiz said:I am kindly requesting that the moderators of the Single Hearts subforum please provide me with an explanation regarding why my post from earlier today was removed.
Furthermore, I would appreciate it if you could paste the disputed post here, as I can no longer access it to understand specifically which rules—both the written ones and those unwritten social norms—I supposedly violated...
Additionally, I am seeking clarification as to why, if my advertisement was indeed deleted, I received absolutely zero feedback explaining the reasoning behind such an action. 😕

If the guidelines for this thread are structured such that moderators can unilaterally strike down advertisements they simply don't care for, then I believe it would be only fair to provide the user with a reason for doing so!!!

Thank you 🙂

And just so we are all on the same page, let me paste the rules here... purely for your reading pleasure! 😉

1. You are permitted only one advertisement at a time. You may repost after thirty days have passed since your current ad, at which point the previous one will be cleared.

2. Posting advertisements using multiple usernames is prohibited. Please commit to a single identity.

3. Offering or soliciting sexual encounters, trolling (there must be a level of decorum here), or commenting directly on other people's ads is strictly forbidden. If an ad catches your eye, please reach out to that individual via private message.

4. Do not post phone numbers, email addresses, or any other sensitive personal information.

"Bumping" a post by replying to it a day or two after the initial posting to keep it visible is also considered a violation. Please refrain from this practice.
A month means a full 30 days; for instance, if you posted on March 21st, you cannot post again until April 21st. Not even a single day sooner.
To ensure there is no confusion: this is a serious forum. It remains active solely because there are individuals here who genuinely wish to meet someone, and we want to facilitate that. We realize there are those who present false identities and toy with people's intentions, but unfortunately, we lack the tools to catch every single bad actor. Ultimately, the responsibility lies with you regarding whom you contact and where those interactions lead.

Special Note: It is impossible to list every conceivable inappropriate request or offer in a rulebook. Therefore, moderators reserve the right to exercise their judgment on whether content is permissible. For example, even if not explicitly stated, you cannot solicit sponsors, offer "free" vacations, or post under a username designated as a sponsor, among other things.

Regarding the advertisements themselves, they should include basic details such as gender, age, and your location. We suggest writing a bit more about yourself or the type of person you are looking for; being descriptive will likely help you attract more interest, so please don't be overly brief.

Fine.

Please also paste the disputed post here.

Fine, here is the post:

This is us:
A guy and a girl, both in our early 20s and in a loooong-term relationship. We are both highly educated, top students, and professionals. Full of life and energy! We don't live together yet, but we are working hard on making that happen.
The guy: 6'7" and just under 220 lbs, with short brown hair and hazel eyes.
The girl: Long brunette hair, 5'9" and about 120 lbs, extremely beautiful with strong tendencies toward the same sex.

We are easygoing, know how to have fun, love to laugh, and have a sense of humor... totally open-minded.

Through this post, we are looking for a woman/girl to hang out with us. Age doesn't matter! The important thing is that she also takes care of her appearance, is laid-back, and is eager for socializing, partying, and playing games together...
It's never boring with us!

For everything else, hit my inbox... don't hesitate to reach out.
Edit: location is New York City.

I also request an explanation as to why, if the ad was indeed deleted, I received absolutely no clarification regarding the reasoning behind it.

Because moderators aren't obligated to send explanations when deleting ads; rather, the author is responsible for asking for that explanation first. Surely you realize we don't have that much free time.

If the rules of the thread are set up so that moderators can arbitrarily remove ads they don't like, I believe it would be appropriate to explain to the user why they did so!!!

Of course.

The situation is this:
we received a user report regarding your ad.
By emphasizing both your and your girlfriend's physical looks, especially her 'tendencies': with strong tendencies toward the same sex, and by stating that you are looking for a girl who is 'laid-back and eager for socializing, partying, and playing games together... ', we concluded the ad should be removed because it is clearly seeking a potential partner for sexual experimentation.

A colleague was in a rush and skimmed through the ads; I reacted after the report, consulted two other colleagues who agreed with the removal, and deleted your ad.

Thanks, 🙂.

You're welcome. 🙂

And I’ll just paste the rules right here... strictly so you can actually read them!

I appreciate you posting those.

3. Soliciting or requesting sexual encounters is prohibited, as is trolling (we require a level of seriousness here) or commenting on specific ads. If an ad catches your eye, please send that individual a private message.

Note: It is impossible to list every single thing someone might think to ask for or offer in the rulebook. The moderators reserve the right to judge whether something is permitted or not.

If Google or Miami believe we have made an error, I will offer an apology and restore the deleted ad immediately.

Alice should just drop that yellow warning,

Do you write poetry in your spare time? 🤣

I tried reaching out to Alice, but she isn't online right now 😢

Nothing to be done, I suppose I'll just wait a bit longer...

The mischievous loneraven25 😬

I honestly never would have guessed that!


I suppose I should ask, though—would that actually violate the rules? Part of me wants to just forward his email directly to her right this second, but still...
🤷

Yeah, I just noticed that something isn't quite right here.

The moderators were actually able to send private messages even when the option to receive them was disabled. 🤷

Are we talking about our PDF?

I suppose I am asking because you mentioned the ads.

If that is the case, please let me know her handle so I can send her a message. 😈

crimsonpuma40 As specified:
I suspect that marriage is an outdated institution, whether it's between same-sex or opposite-sex couples.

👍

Susan Price30 said:On another note, there was a time when people literally had to hide in the woods, or even worse—spend their lives locked away in institutions (and I say that without a hint of irony, since homosexuality was "treated" in mental hospitals until the start of the last century). But how can anyone claim they are becoming "more visible" if most of society (like in France, for instance) feels that certain rights are subjective because they somehow threaten or diminish the rights of someone else —for example, the basic rights of children abandoned by parents who, upon being adopted by same-sex partners, face additional social stigma or even contempt from their peers, especially considering these are extremely vulnerable members of society. Why should the gay lobby be considered "more important" or louder than advocating for the rights of those children, for example?

And is it actually desirable and the only right way to consider the voice of the majority of voters on certain vital (political, specifically!) issues, because ultimately, that is the whole idea of democracy.

OK, personally, I think people should be allowed to adopt even if they can have biological children themselves (and please, don't twist my words here, you know what I mean).

As for the protests, regardless of who organizes them: IGNORE. You get these guys showing up saying we should hold our parade to show, I don't know, what? You tell them: go ahead and have your parade, just don't block everyone else. Don't allow them to shut down the streets and then grant them total media coverage. What's the point? I couldn't care less who is for or against what. Don't we have smarter things to be outraged about?

It's clear to me that some people don't have many deep moral dilemmas—as long as it doesn't affect them directly, in the sense that they don't give a damn about anyone else's business... but isn't all of this indirectly about you too? Because tomorrow, once the US becomes a full member of the EU, it follows logically that these kinds of things will start affecting every single citizen and voter in the US. And who knows, maybe you'll even have the chance to vote in a referendum on these types of questions, and we'll just be watching you on the BBC or wherever. 🙂

Since when did taking the path of least resistance become an acceptable way to fight social stigma?

If we applied that logic across the board, then uneducated, impoverished, or ill people should never be allowed to have children either. There will always be someone out there ready to mock, ridicule, or stigmatize them. The real solution lies in educating individuals, not in stripping away rights from others just to prevent an excuse for stigma.

Drew Booth60 said:France is following right in Spain's footsteps ever since this liberal-socialist crowd took over the reins☕
While the country is basically sinking, they’re busy playing distraction tactics—focusing entirely on gay rights, immigrant rights, and waging war against those damn wealthy elites—which is exactly how things played out in Spain back when that idiot Zapatero was running the show🙄
We're seeing the fallout from all that "brilliant" and "progressive" policy making right before our eyes today😍

The only interesting thing between Spaniards and us is:
I have some friends from Spain, and they are all highly educated young professionals who are primarily focused on the nation's economic outlook, the recession, and the high youth unemployment rate. They couldn't care less about the gay marriage referendum; to them, it’s just a completely normal part of life, and they don't even bother debating whether it should be allowed or not. In fact, they were genuinely baffled when they witnessed what happened at the pride parade in ST a couple of years ago.

The situation here is quite different:
While our youth struggle with unemployment, we pour money into bloated bureaucracies, and a corrupt system leaves everyone wondering who is actually pulling the strings, we're expected to obsess over whether the gay population will be allowed to marry. Apparently, that's the biggest controversy facing Americans today.

Whether you prefer poetry or prose is immaterial.

Simply review the opening post of this thread, then briefly outline your specific requirements.

You have full creative liberty, provided that when you post in the 'Classifieds' thread, you are actually posting—an advertisement.

A single declarative sentence that is purely metaphorical and bears no resemblance to an actual ad cannot be accepted as a valid listing.

The thread clearly states that trolling is prohibited and that a certain level of seriousness is required, given that this is a strictly moderated section; furthermore, it is explicitly stated that the moderators hold the final discretion on what is permitted.

Your sentence about princesses is not an advertisement, and consequently, it has been removed.
This is consistent with how we handled the listing regarding window renovations and pricing.
As with many others that failed to meet our criteria.

To reiterate:
you are free to write an ad that possesses the semantic structure of an advertisement and makes sense. You may include your princesses wherever you like—but there must be a functional ad present in the 'Classifieds' thread. Random metaphorical sentences are considered trolling or mere commenting and will be deleted.

There is no need for cynicism in your response; I have said all that needs to be said, and it is up to you whether you accept it or not. We will not be changing the rules moving forward.

Jacob Cooper5 said:The moderator keeps deleting my phrase "No princesses, please" from my personal classifieds.

Your little comment about princesses doesn't qualify as a classified ad.

The rules for this Classifieds thread are explicitly laid out in the opening post.
It is unfortunate that you refuse to read the introductory post, which creates unnecessary work for both you and me.

The moderator is silent. Are they drunk? High? Or just asleep?

I am sorry, but I will not engage with you on those terms.

You currently have no active listing posted.

You are welcome to create one, provided you follow the guidelines clearly stated in the opening post. Once the ad is complete, you may include your sentence about princesses at the very end.

That is all.

Austin Robinson5 said:If you think the trial was rigged, you can always take it up with the European Court of Human Rights since America is a signatory to their convention. Honestly, who knows how much weight that actually carries.

It isn't just about whether there's any result; one must also consider the sheer amount of money required to cover the legal fees.