Posts by Jerry Robinson56

rustywalker42 said:It’s called legal precedent, dear Jerry Robinson56. Precedent. You know, actual binding court rulings and stuff like that.

You're lagging behind even in your predictions...
I haven't missed yet... The law is on my side.
Keep talking big—maybe someone can read you Article 52 of the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights.

Oh, so what, Jerry Robinson56, are you a cop now? Wow! Fantastic. In that case, I officially invite you to strictly follow that article in today's situation. 😍

Please, it would mean a lot to me.

My posts are a mirror of 😁, you're just lucky today, status: complete.

A mirror of your own stupidity, more like. Spot on. And man, you are really hitting that Dunning-Kruger effect hard.

Must be tough being you.

There are also legal remedies ...rustywalker42 ... those rulings are merely the first tier. It hardly surprises me that you remain ignorant of that as well.

rustywalker42 said:It’s called legal precedent, dear Jerry Robinson56. Precedent. You know, actual binding court rulings and stuff like that.

You're lagging behind even in your predictions...
I haven't missed yet... The law is on my side.
Keep talking big—maybe someone can read you Article 52 of the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights.

Oh, so what, Jerry Robinson56, are you a cop now? Wow! Fantastic. In that case, I officially invite you to strictly follow that article in today's situation. 😍

Please, it would mean a lot to me.

My posts are a mirror of 😁, you're just lucky today, status: complete.

A mirror of your own stupidity, more like. Spot on. And man, you are really hitting that Dunning-Kruger effect hard.

Must be tough being you.

It seems the law is whatever you say it is, which was entirely predictable given your inability to grasp the actual definition of words. Unfortunately, you set a poor example, though the wise tend to learn from the errors of others.

rustywalker42 said:It’s called legal precedent, dear Jerry Robinson56. Precedent. You know, actual binding court rulings and stuff like that.

You're lagging behind even in your predictions...
I haven't missed yet... The law is on my side.
Keep talking big—maybe someone can read you Article 52 of the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights.

Oh, so what, Jerry Robinson56, are you a cop now? Wow! Fantastic. In that case, I officially invite you to strictly follow that article in today's situation. 😍

Please, it would mean a lot to me.

My posts are a mirror of 😁, you're just lucky today, status: complete.

A mirror of your own stupidity, more like. Spot on. And man, you are really hitting that Dunning-Kruger effect hard.

Must be tough being you.

Once again, you project your own limitations onto others... and I shall not bother contradicting you; there is no one here to read to you what is plainly stated in the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights.

rustywalker42 said:You seriously have some issues. I worked in another city for 12 years; I paid my local taxes in the city where I actually reside.

Read the Internal Revenue Code and stop embarrassing yourself.

Nicholas King was referring to a user who said he wouldn't pay a fine if he got one. Nobody was debating what the penalty would be or why—it started from his comment saying he simply wouldn't pay.
So quit lying and making up stuff about me saying someone would get fined for something. The whole debate was just about how someone would react to getting a fine. They can just pay it. Maybe a little earlier, maybe a little later, maybe more, maybe less.

Like I already said, there is no fine for his situation.

Oh, I just love it when people appeal to "logic"... we all know how incredibly smart and wise that guy is.
You absolutely killed me with that comment. 😁

No, the logic is laughing at you, because it sees the nonsense you write from one post to the next.

The Secretary's decisions regarding movement restrictions?
Here’s the first one: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/...03_35_737.html
And here’s the update:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/...04_39_833.html

Obviously, you could have found all this yourself, but you just decided to be a troll acting clueless about anything that doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to sell about unconstitutionality.

Give me a break! Now tell us, where is the quarantine order, and where is the Secretary of Health?

It's right there, clearly stated, if you're coming from an area where local transmission occurred. And that applies to the entire country.

That's not true. I know several people working in the field across the US. Stop talking trash.

How often do you actually drive to the store? Honestly, reading these threads makes it feel like everyone lives in some tiny rural hamlet where they burn through a full tank just to hit the local corner shop and the pharmacy.

God, you’re arrogant. It's unreal. Do you even read what people are saying to you? Go ahead, read what Alexander Thompson wrote.

I already told you—the best punishment for you would be finding yourself stuck in the exact same situation as the people you’re currently mocking.

And that has to be a very, very, VERY justified situation clearly defined by law. But I bet you'd try to stretch that logic to say they should bust in just because your music is too loud.

Do you even grasp how viruses work and how they spread? Infection can happen through food or even traces left behind.
The risk is just too high because the danger isn't visible. Get it?
Until then, quarantine is the best possible option. The only one.
It's understandable that you're personally suffering because this feels illogical, but try giving me one actual scenario that's causing you trouble right now...

Jerry Robinson56, you're absolutely right! Let's just ban eating altogether, since viruses spread through food anyway!

Jerry Robinson56, a quarantine hasn't been declared. We all know how a quarantine is officially called out—it's all strictly regulated by law, Jerry Robinson56.

rustywalker42, those loud musical passages are nothing more than a convenient backdrop for the domestic battery of a wife... It is truly telling how many different types of music enthusiasts one encounters in this life.
You have posted in the wrong thread.

rustywalker42 said:You seriously have some issues. I worked in another city for 12 years; I paid my local taxes in the city where I actually reside.

Read the Internal Revenue Code and stop embarrassing yourself.

Nicholas King was referring to a user who said he wouldn't pay a fine if he got one. Nobody was debating what the penalty would be or why—it started from his comment saying he simply wouldn't pay.
So quit lying and making up stuff about me saying someone would get fined for something. The whole debate was just about how someone would react to getting a fine. They can just pay it. Maybe a little earlier, maybe a little later, maybe more, maybe less.

Like I already said, there is no fine for his situation.

Oh, I just love it when people appeal to "logic"... we all know how incredibly smart and wise that guy is.
You absolutely killed me with that comment. 😁

No, the logic is laughing at you, because it sees the nonsense you write from one post to the next.

The Secretary's decisions regarding movement restrictions?
Here’s the first one: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/...03_35_737.html
And here’s the update:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/...04_39_833.html

Obviously, you could have found all this yourself, but you just decided to be a troll acting clueless about anything that doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to sell about unconstitutionality.

Give me a break! Now tell us, where is the quarantine order, and where is the Secretary of Health?

It's right there, clearly stated, if you're coming from an area where local transmission occurred. And that applies to the entire country.

That's not true. I know several people working in the field across the US. Stop talking trash.

How often do you actually drive to the store? Honestly, reading these threads makes it feel like everyone lives in some tiny rural hamlet where they burn through a full tank just to hit the local corner shop and the pharmacy.

God, you’re arrogant. It's unreal. Do you even read what people are saying to you? Go ahead, read what Alexander Thompson wrote.

I already told you—the best punishment for you would be finding yourself stuck in the exact same situation as the people you’re currently mocking.

And that has to be a very, very, VERY justified situation clearly defined by law. But I bet you'd try to stretch that logic to say they should bust in just because your music is too loud.

Do you even grasp how viruses work and how they spread? Infection can happen through food or even traces left behind.
The risk is just too high because the danger isn't visible. Get it?
Until then, quarantine is the best possible option. The only one.
It's understandable that you're personally suffering because this feels illogical, but try giving me one actual scenario that's causing you trouble right now...

Jerry Robinson56, you're absolutely right! Let's just ban eating altogether, since viruses spread through food anyway!

Jerry Robinson56, a quarantine hasn't been declared. We all know how a quarantine is officially called out—it's all strictly regulated by law, Jerry Robinson56.

There is absolutely no need for such unbridled agitation. One should strive for composure.

rustywalker42 said:You seriously have some issues. I worked in another city for 12 years; I paid my local taxes in the city where I actually reside.

Read the Internal Revenue Code and stop embarrassing yourself.

Nicholas King was referring to a user who said he wouldn't pay a fine if he got one. Nobody was debating what the penalty would be or why—it started from his comment saying he simply wouldn't pay.
So quit lying and making up stuff about me saying someone would get fined for something. The whole debate was just about how someone would react to getting a fine. They can just pay it. Maybe a little earlier, maybe a little later, maybe more, maybe less.

Like I already said, there is no fine for his situation.

Oh, I just love it when people appeal to "logic"... we all know how incredibly smart and wise that guy is.
You absolutely killed me with that comment. 😁

No, the logic is laughing at you, because it sees the nonsense you write from one post to the next.

The Secretary's decisions regarding movement restrictions?
Here’s the first one: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/...03_35_737.html
And here’s the update:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/...04_39_833.html

Obviously, you could have found all this yourself, but you just decided to be a troll acting clueless about anything that doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to sell about unconstitutionality.

Give me a break! Now tell us, where is the quarantine order, and where is the Secretary of Health?

It's right there, clearly stated, if you're coming from an area where local transmission occurred. And that applies to the entire country.

That's not true. I know several people working in the field across the US. Stop talking trash.

How often do you actually drive to the store? Honestly, reading these threads makes it feel like everyone lives in some tiny rural hamlet where they burn through a full tank just to hit the local corner shop and the pharmacy.

God, you’re arrogant. It's unreal. Do you even read what people are saying to you? Go ahead, read what Alexander Thompson wrote.

I already told you—the best punishment for you would be finding yourself stuck in the exact same situation as the people you’re currently mocking.

And that has to be a very, very, VERY justified situation clearly defined by law. But I bet you'd try to stretch that logic to say they should bust in just because your music is too loud.

Do you even grasp how viruses work and how they spread? Infection can happen through food or even traces left behind.
The risk is just too high because the danger isn't visible. Get it?
Until then, quarantine is the best possible option. The only one.
It's understandable that you're personally suffering because this feels illogical, but try giving me one actual scenario that's causing you trouble right now...

Jerry Robinson56, you're absolutely right! Let's just ban eating altogether, since viruses spread through food anyway!

Jerry Robinson56, a quarantine hasn't been declared. We all know how a quarantine is officially called out—it's all strictly regulated by law, Jerry Robinson56.

One would be well-served to truly contemplate the nature of quarantine. It is not merely a period of isolation or a temporary pause in one's social itinerary; rather, it is a profound psychological crucible that strips away the superficialities of modern existence. When you are confined, the distractions of the bustling American cityscape—the constant hum of traffic, the incessant notifications from your smartphone, the endless pursuit of commerce—all vanish. You are left with nothing but the stark reality of your own thoughts. It is a forced introspection that most people are ill-equipped to handle, preferring instead the shallow comforts of their daily routines. To understand quarantine is to understand the fragility of our perceived freedom.
Admittedly, one can always find the option of a tactical strike on the outskirts of town... if only for the sake of a little laughter.
You are a genuine threat to everyone around you. rustywalker42, you need to wrap your head around this...

driftingfox6 said:I assume if I decide to bike over to the next neighborhood, worst case scenario, I can just turn around and head back?

They won't send you back, but I’d suggest maintaining at least six feet of distance... unless, of course, you're approaching a lady.

Review:

Matthew Jackson2 said:The Supreme Court didn't actually say that Abramović was wrong; they just clarified that his take is strictly his personal interpretation rather than the official position of the court. As it stands, the court hasn't even established a formal stance because they haven't officially ruled on the matter yet. Now, look, the fact that Abramović's view isn't the "official" view doesn't necessarily mean the court disagrees with him—their actual ruling could end up being the exact opposite, identical, or somewhere in the middle—but we won't know until they actually sit down and process the case. Until they do, there is simply no official stance to speak of.

Honestly, the idea that the Supreme Court is just sitting on its hands, waiting until everything is over before they weigh in, is a special kind of absurdity if you ask me. I mean, think about it: the primary function of that institution is to ensure the Constitution is actually respected, yet here they are, essentially waiting for a potential violation of the Constitution to become a moot point before they finally decide to chime in on whether it was legal or not. It's maddening.

They might as well call for a national referendum while they're at it. It is truly pathetic to see a Supreme Court justice embarrass themselves so thoroughly; what a complete fool... bat pipl mast trast us ...

There is a law... look it up... who exactly has the legal authority to restrict movement?

Do you people even grasp the concept of an epidemic... or do you need to be placed on a ventilator first?

nimbleharbor10 said:Precisely. The Civil Protection Headquarters is supposed to handle operational matters within the bounds of the Constitution and the Laws of the United States, not act in opposition to them. If the panic surrounding Corona ends up killing our democracy, then I'd honestly rather we all just catch the virus.

🤣 Quite the spectacle... supposedly to facilitate the multiplication of potential carriers... These are operational decisions made under the best possible circumstances given the situation.
If you ever find yourself hooked up to a ventilator, I am certain you would complain about a government that failed to protect you.

Review:

vividranger8 said:Alright, so we've got you saying one thing, and then there's a Supreme Court judge saying something completely different. I guess everyone will just have to decide for themselves who's actually right about this.

"A judge from a barn, what an idiot?".. and yet that very judge was just reprimanded by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

http://hr.n1info.com/Vijesti/a496099...bramovica.html


Šeparović: The Supreme Court does not back Justice Abramović's positions

I wrote that the law exist ... the connection leads back to Božinović ...

rustywalker42 said:You think the legal basis is unquestionable? Fine. Tell me—where in that specific decision does it explicitly state that citizens' freedom of movement is prohibited?

The Infectious Disease Protection Act doesn't ban the freedom of movement for citizens at a national level.

That isn't the Law to respect Anton, rustywalker42 😁... it lays out everything explicitly within its pages and reaches back into the last century ... let the forum users play a little game... I’m essentially calling them fools and simpletons here (that’s a value judgment, not a fact), as they criticize a Headquarters that is performing excellently and exclusively in the interest of American residents.
As if he didn't commit enough blunders during his time as Prime Minister, the "top law student"... if you can even believe it.

I believe it will happen, provided people actually follow instructions and we manage to purge certain types—you know, the Bandić-style figures—from our politics. A content man finds everything much easier to bear.
As it stands, it has been 24 days since the last proven case of someone carrying the virus... in other words, there have been no new ones. This whole "virus" business opens up quite a few questions.

Review:

Gerald Kern77 said:Here you go, the legal amendments.

The legal foundation itself is airtight—the real question is whether the decision and its execution should have been more logical, perhaps accounting for a broader range of real-world scenarios.

There is also the older 😁one, though I must give credit to 🙂 for providing such a detailed description of the enforcement... which, frankly, isn't being enforced very well.
One sees all sorts of outbursts; the only real question left is when we will start seeing mobile religious processions out in the streets, crying, "God, why have you forsaken us."

vividranger8 said:Look, I’m not exactly a huge fan of the crew sitting on the Supreme Court right now—not by a long shot—but clearly, you've got a better handle on this than they do! I mean, seriously, which law is actually in effect here that lets them just shut down the entire country? Especially when we're talking about a situation where the infectious disease is already everywhere... it's not like some tiny little corner of the country is under quarantine to stop it from spreading out, right? It's everywhere!

Even if a critical "mass" were to assemble... regarding the law, though I have already made my points quite clearly...

The legal framework has existed for a long time, specifically designed for unforeseen circumstances or those relatively unlikely events.

The fundamental logic is to prevent the expansion of infection—because without a host, viruses simply die out.
It is entirely logical to restrict movement, given that tracking a massive number of individuals becomes impossible, and once those numbers reach a certain threshold, things spiral. In my view, while tracking might be technically possible, there is no reason to overcomplicate a simple solution.

nimbleharbor10 said:The sheer stupidity lies in creating this artificial necessity to hunt down permits. If we were being logical here in the States, perhaps limiting movement within county lines would make sense. But with this whole permit circus, hundreds of thousands of people already hold them because they’re part of the Headquarters, issued them to themselves, or actually have a valid excuse. This means restricting movement is both mindless and useless; ultimately, the people with genuine needs get penalized while scammers just forge an ID, all while police checkpoints create unnecessary friction with citizens.

Furthermore, the gentlemen at the Headquarters really ought to realize they lack any actual legal standing for these prohibitions. If Congress were to declare a State of Emergency, that would provide the Civil Defense Headquarters with the necessary legal foundation; as it stands, they are simply violating the Constitution. The fact that the police are assisting them in these violations, and the media is just blaring about how citizens aren't allowed to leave their residences, only highlights how prone we are as a society to authoritarianism—how we'd rather spit on the law than actually fix it.

Chaos, public resentment, flawed solutions, and far too many pointless local agencies:

They certainly do have a basis; the Law exists. 😁 I could even cite the specific article number for you.
It is a positive development that Bozinovic signed off on this... so perhaps put in a little effort instead of letting some fool who happened to be a top law student (which is a value judgment, not a fact 😁) and his buddy from the stables lecture us about the Constitution...
Quarantine isn't ineffective; on the contrary, it is always a reliable, conservative method. As for the claim that "the economy is suffering," that is nothing more than empty rhetoric. Money doesn't grow on trees; it is always "there"... the only question is the timing and the arrangement. Even anarcho-communists understand that.

Perhaps if someone actually bothered to read ... and the link where I lay out my arguments ... you might realize 😁
The nature of one's own reality is quite eloquently described ...

Adam Collins4 said:I concur...

And all this while you continue to align yourself with someone who actually requested an obituary for Joe Biden's brother during a discussion about him, simply because they claimed he faked his own death... tell me, what does your subconscious tell you when you choose to run in lockstep with people of that caliber?

🤦 Can you provide a link? Where exactly am I claiming... I am merely expressing a well-founded suspicion. Deviant behavior and alcoholism are undeniable facts in this context.

You persist in peddling your own nonsense, proving that your struggle isn't just with data and logic, but with basic common sense. I pointed out a possibility that possesses some degree of merit, though it is beside the point here.
Given outbursts such as yours, we really ought to open a separate document—a one-on-one file—because your issue isn't just a misunderstanding; it's a fundamental lack of reasoning.

Review:

I have absolutely no desire to expand upon this; I am merely providing this as further evidence that you are still fundamentally mistaken.

Casey Bennett said:The most toxic elements have been entrenched in the lower tiers for quite some time now.
The reality of the situation is quite simple: you have a certain knack for being provocative and stirring up trouble, intentionally triggering waves of much more aggressive responses. Consequently, those who don't respond to your antics with the utmost gentleness end up taking the brunt of the fallout, while you—more often than not—manage to slip under the radar unnoticed. It is high time we put an end to this pattern and finally hold you accountable for the chaos you incite.
I trust I have been sufficiently clear.

I maintain that you are mistaken, and I possess a mountain of evidence to prove it. Rather than draining the swamp, you have effectively revitalized a lifeless wasteland, filling it with a "sacred" stream of absolute ignoramuses. These individuals lack even a basic grasp of elementary principles, opting instead to confuse and dull the minds of those who arrive seeking genuine knowledge by peddling proven nonsense or merely stating the obvious. I am prepared to demonstrate this fallacy to you at any time—not just through my analysis of past discussions, but in everything written here moving forward.
It is fundamentally impossible to sustain a coherent argument in the environment you occupy. Given the intellectual vacuum present, it becomes entirely predictable that lateral tactics—such as those employed by the aforementioned individual—are utilized as a substitute for actual reasoning.
When you actually have the facts, responding to Bradley Doyle36 isn't particularly difficult. He lacks any real expertise in electrical engineering, so he tends to default to a philosophical approach instead. I suppose I can't fault him for that, though.
Only dead fish drift with the current. Your private affairs ought to have absolutely nothing to do with this forum.
That is your prerogative... the right to believe you are correct even when you are demonstrably wrong. It is a curious matter, this subjective interpretation of what constitutes being "right."

Sarah Patel66 said:It’s purely the power supply itself; it works fine in every outlet, provided I plug it in one specific way. The moment I flip the orientation, the circuit breaker trips. I already tried swapping out the cord, but the result was identical—so it isn't the cable.

Since finding a replacement power supply with the same isolation specs is such a hassle right now, I find myself wondering just how dangerous it is to keep using this unit. What kind of risks am I actually looking at here?

I suspect repairing the power supply would be far too complex for my skill set.

It isn't. You simply need to clip out the blown capacitor. Post a photo and I will point out which one it is.

analogseal18 said:Converting Word to PDF is trivial; converting PDF back to Word is where the struggle lies. I am currently staring at a Spanish textbook in PDF format that I desperately need to turn into a Word document—or at least some semblance of text that can be copy-pasted into Google Translate. I don't care much about formatting errors; I just need it to be legible. I have no intention of paying for some overpriced conversion software.

Just send it to my inbox. I will convert it to Word for you, given that I use a licensed version that doesn't butcher the layout... though, even then, I’ll mark any section where I am less than 103.5% certain of the accuracy, which is standard practice. Good grief..

The 5xx series represents errors stemming from data redundancy issues. If my memory serves me correctly, physical layer failures manifest as 502 and 510 errors. It all depends on whether the direction of travel is toward or away from the host.

A review:

Kenneth Cruz67 said:

rapidhound2 As stated by:

I have no part in any of the aforementioned nonsense. In fact, allow me to offer you a simple demonstration of your own dishonesty. Not one of those supposed clones of the same individual—assuming that premise holds any water—has ever dared to assert that heliocentrism is an inaccurate description of our reality. I, however, make that claim quite clearly, and I am fully prepared to substantiate it, just as I could prove that humanity never actually set foot on the moon. But since your singular obsession seems to be my feet, you will never lay eyes on such evidence. To be perfectly blunt, the reason you won't see it isn't because the proof lacks merit, but because I refuse to cast pearls before swine. It is not a matter of being miserly or unwilling to share my insights; rather, it is simply a matter of logic. There is zero utility in attempting to explain complex truths to creatures that possess no interest in them. Swine care only for the mud and the opportunity to trample one another.

It appears you possess a rather comprehensive understanding of the body of work produced by the aforementioned clones. 😬

If I was even slightly indecisive before, consider that phase officially over. I am no longer wavering. I have completely reversed my position. 😁

If one is discussing the month of Fact, there is a certain shift in tone that occurs. The underlying style—that particular blend of subtle sabotage wrapped in a pathetic epic—is unmistakable. It is quite unique. 🤣

🙂 Kenneth Cruz67 I tip my hat to you; your perception is truly exceptional.

I maintain that I am entitled to dictate which editorial direction we take, given my position within the secondary lead role.

I am fairly convinced we are dealing with a man here. Women simply lack the capacity to be quite that dim-witted, though I suppose I could be mistaken if there happens to be some particularly thick-headed woman involved in the mix.
My failure to acknowledge character is merely another facet of my explanation regarding my lack of interest—not in any individual sense, but rather in observing how quickly they will flee from the actual subject at hand.
Unless she possesses genuine intellect, I find it impossible to take notice—regardless of any physical attributes or the sheer scale of her proportions. To me, true allure lies in that Renaissance-style zest for life, a quality far more vital than mere aesthetics.

Regarding the whole situation surrounding Temu.
As far as my acquaintance with Parsifal goes, philosophy knows no boundaries, and he stands indisputably among the greatest. That is a cold, hard fact.
Science doesn't exactly roll out the red carpet for those who peddle proven impossibilities as viable solutions—especially when those solutions are rooted in pure nonsense. That said, I maintain my stance that the platform would ultimately lose its integrity if it continued to distance itself from such discourse.
Given that same logic, does the possibility of my return exist? Time has been an impartial judge, and it has proven that a few years ago, I was undeniably correct, hasn't it?

The reason for the penalty was essentially a symbiotic relationship between the moderators and the forum users, regardless of my actual writing style, which remained strictly focused on explaining complex scientific concepts to beginners.
An individual’s level of education says very little about their chosen field of study or their inherent intelligence, and it certainly offers no insight into their moral compass. I speak with conviction on this matter, and I trust you have grasped my point—however unconventional my reasoning may seem.
I am merely posing a question, and I assure you that I am adhering to the rules just as strictly as I have in all my previous dealings.
I am under no obligation to promise changes, nor am I here to make any requests; ultimately, nothing is within my control, and you maintain the absolute right to act according to your own whims.
That said, I do appreciate Vour time together...

Review:

rapidhound2 said:Your portrayal of Mr. Herman Vukušić is quite poor, and I hold him in very high regard. However, when you attempt to present your vast spectrum of neuroses and blatant primitivism as if they were the byproduct of some supposed psychiatric expertise—thereby insulting both the profession and experts like the esteemed Mr. Vukušić in a truly revolting manner—you might want to consider reaching out to Mr. Vukušić directly to request assistance. I have no doubt he would provide it, provided you approach him with genuine sincerity. This isn't irony; it is an expression of absolute honesty. People of your disposition are in dire need of help. Perhaps not just for your own sake, but because of the way such aggressive patterns, primitivism, and savagery can contaminate those around you.

I’ve known Herman since we were kids playing with Matchbox cars, so don't try to troll me. I also know another guy from our old neighborhood in Chicago who caused a massive stir in the field of psychiatry.
We grew up in the same area.

And if anyone here actually has a problem, unfortunately, it's you...

Can I make amends? I'll send the best Uber in NYC to pick you up.

rapidhound2 said:When a user runs out of actual arguments, they inevitably resort to nauseating sexism:

In the unlikely event that the user attempts to edit their post before this is archived, let us quote the offending passage:

A lot of us have been on this board for years while you're just arriving... which means we've read so much nonsense that you're practically uninteresting.
I am referring to intellect; legs are a different matter entirely..

I would argue that this kind of vile primitivism and blatant insult warrants far more than a simple red card. We saw some lovely examples of men offering digital roses to women here just yesterday.

But instead, we are presented with such staggering displays of savagery.

Of course they are different things; everyone knows which one comes first, but you're getting ahead of yourself—I can see you're in a hurry to leave. You likely know my preferences regarding men, so you only pass muster if you possess a certain masculine edge. 😁

P.S. I don't edit my own posts; that's a privilege reserved for the moderators.