Posts by silentfox19

Larry Wilson25 said:Not silentfox19, you got it wrong.
Based on my (extremely 😬) skimming, there’s a distinction between two types of profanity.

Suck my Dick, or maybe just lick it.

/

I licked her pussy, or maybe just tasted it.

You gotta be consistent.

And honestly, it pisses me off when people mock the need for consistency and call it being a wimp.

(Just remembered I once told a really exhausting troll to fuck off) 🙂

I dig Brandon Castillo4's style, and even Darkić's likes to Troll. 😁

But according to Byron, words should be read consistently—which is boring and exhausting (see title). Does that mean licking pussy consistently is also boring and exhausting?!

I'm lost. Can someone smarter try to explain the point in five sentences? Like, what's the actual goal here?

I think some people take this forum way too seriously. This is cheap entertainment! Moderators are volunteers. Real people. My life doesn't depend on this site! As long as nobody's picking my pocket, I have no reason to get pissed. No need to constantly and consistently point out someone's inconsistency. Mods have free will, autonomy, and discretion! I won't argue that...

Susan Price30 said:@ opening post

makes zero sense 🤷- btw what even is this? can we get a summary or something actual instead of this wall of text plz?

(but it's fine if everyone else (in this thread) gets wiped out or handed red cards for no reason while the first essay is still standing tall. 😬)

Not to exaggerate, but an essay like this wouldn't earn more than a C in school. A decent attempt at changing the forum rules, but the author got lost in translation!

Can the author condense this massive sheet into one sentence and draft it as a rule? Are we supposed to have academic-level discussions on this forum now? Start every post with "Dear Nicholas King," and ban words like Dick, pussy, fucking, trolling, or being a wimp? I don't get it!

hiddenharbor33 said:Go troll somewhere else.
The thread title was:
Another war criminal dodged justice

And it fit the topic perfectly. The guy committed a brutal rape during wartime—so he's a war criminal. He fled, so he dodged justice.
The current title doesn't match the subject at all. It's completely wrong.
As far as I know, this isn't a space for legal advocacy, and people get banned for that here. I asked the mods directly. Since you aren't a mod and have nothing to do with changing titles, stay out of business that isn't yours...☕

I read in the thread that Phil Jackson was convicted of a war crime against civilians. So he's primarily a war criminal. The title should be War criminal rapist dodged prison.

My bad to you and the mods. You were right. This is a sensitive topic and you framed it correctly. Obviously, politics played a role here. The government handed down a verdict for a war crime (which proves the rape was part of the aggressor army's policy), and then that same government let the sentence go unexecuted! That's pure politics... just backroom deals and trading favors. Again, good job on the thread.

Mods, please delete my posts here. Just realized this section isn't for general discussion. It's meant for the OP and the mods, not everyone else...

hiddenharbor33 said:So you're a lawyer now? You think sexual violence during wartime, especially when it's done brutally in occupied territory, isn't a war crime?

Besides, who even are you? You the one who changed the thread title?

Let’s stick to the facts.

1. Phil Jackson was convicted in absentia for rape.
2. My personal opinion doesn't matter here—only what the court decides matters.
3. The convict didn't run away; he just failed to show up for the sentencing.
4. Not showing up meant dodging mandatory detention, making him unavailable to the American justice system.

Look, I didn't change the title, but whoever did had every reason to, based on what I just told you...

hiddenharbor33 said:Politics forum, regarding this:

Some mod decided to rename the thread, but they completely butchered the point...

The original title was:
Another war criminal dodged justice.

The whole point was to call out how incompetent—maybe even intentionally shady—the American courts are when dealing with these kinds of war crimes.
Now the title is: Rapist from the DR fled after sentencing
which misses the mark entirely. I have no idea why anyone felt the need to change it...
By saying "rapist from the DR," it makes you think some veteran is the rapist...🤷
This topic is too heavy and depressing to be messed with for no reason.
Need an explanation.

proposed topic title:

Warsaw rapist absconds right before guilty verdict

See, if you write Warsaw rapist people's first thought will be that the rape happened during the invasion or occupation of Warsaw.

Also, he didn't "flee" that day, he just "absconded"—he walked out of the courthouse right before the verdict was read. You can't call it fleeing until he's been off the grid from American law enforcement for 24 hours.

The key word is "guilty" (verdict)... because if the Warsaw rapist knew he was getting an acquittal, he probably would've stayed in the courtroom.

The real scandal here is why the court didn't tip off the police or federal agents about the guilty verdict to prevent him from walking out. It looks like someone at the court leaked the news to the guy instead of telling the cops.

Your title—Another war criminal... doesn't work, since he wasn't sentenced for a war crime, but for rape.