Ahh the usual cowardly sniping from the forum troll.
Where will this migrant crisis end?
- Thread starter joe-90
- Start date
- Status
Sponsored Links
D
Deleted member 63160
Why is it cowardly?
Sponsored Links
You think trolling is brave?
Last edited:
"
"post my reasons" That's a laugh. When I pressed you on why you used an odd sounding insult, you evaded my question for 3 pages and then admitted that your posts possibly contain lies. There's no "possibly" about it. Many would say that such evasiveness and chicanery was cowardly.
Don't worry, Nosey. I know why you used the insult that you did. And I also understand why you must have regretted it and were unable to admit your motives.
I admit my comments are inflammatory to some but at least I'll stand my ground or post my reasons.Ahh, the irony.
"post my reasons" That's a laugh. When I pressed you on why you used an odd sounding insult, you evaded my question for 3 pages and then admitted that your posts possibly contain lies. There's no "possibly" about it. Many would say that such evasiveness and chicanery was cowardly.
Don't worry, Nosey. I know why you used the insult that you did. And I also understand why you must have regretted it and were unable to admit your motives.
Last edited:
Many of these women leaders lose it in the end. Thatcher was the same with the poll tax, etc. Poor old Angie probably needs a shot of HRT or something.
Liar? About what?
You never said one way or t'uther whether you were a chav luvva or not.
My guess is that your over reaction and protestations would lead many to believe what I said was true. You have not denied it yet have you CL?
No I did not. I told you I made it up on the spur. I then asked you to clarify if you were a chav luvva. Any evading was done by you CL boyo.Ahh, the irony.
When I pressed you on why you used an odd sounding insult, you evaded my question for 3 pages.
Last edited:
Why should it end?
oops
ti
You never explained what you meant by the insult. No guts, nosey? Surely not a coward?
Allow me to fill the vacuum.
You started a thread highlighting a small paedo gang who targeted very young children. You specifically started that thread to goad me because I have given a lot of publicity about many members of your favourite religion grooming and molesting white girls, some who have barely hit puberty.
Quite alarmingly, you appear to believe that these very vulnerable children were asking for it and almost deserve to be serially raped because they don't conform to the same modesty in dress and behaviour as young girls from your favourite religion. This must be true, as you regularly criticise my highlighting of the authorities sanctioned child abuse that is so rife, and keep trying to divert attention to white paedos. Basically, you see whites committing depraved acts with very young children as worthy of your condemnation - no one would argue with that. But ROP men serially abusing older children - well they probably led the men on and were asking for it. You also tried to say that I said that white paedos don't operate in gangs, but I showed this to be another of your untruths.
So, your label of "chav luvva" (sic), aimed at me, would appear to be because you think that the young white children who are victims of ROP paedophilia are chavs with loose morals and dress in a way that invites sexual abuse from races who can hardly be blamed for helping themselves to what is on offer. Basically, because I have publicised these poor, unfortunate children, who you undoubtably look down on, I am a "chav luvva" for highlighting their case. You see the victims as chavs and me as their supporter - hence the juvenile sobriquet.
Makes you look a bit sick really, and explains why you spent 3 whole pages trying not to give the reason for the abuse. I understand why you decided to take the cowardly way out.
You never explained what you meant by the insult. No guts, nosey? Surely not a coward?
Allow me to fill the vacuum.
You started a thread highlighting a small paedo gang who targeted very young children. You specifically started that thread to goad me because I have given a lot of publicity about many members of your favourite religion grooming and molesting white girls, some who have barely hit puberty.
Quite alarmingly, you appear to believe that these very vulnerable children were asking for it and almost deserve to be serially raped because they don't conform to the same modesty in dress and behaviour as young girls from your favourite religion. This must be true, as you regularly criticise my highlighting of the authorities sanctioned child abuse that is so rife, and keep trying to divert attention to white paedos. Basically, you see whites committing depraved acts with very young children as worthy of your condemnation - no one would argue with that. But ROP men serially abusing older children - well they probably led the men on and were asking for it. You also tried to say that I said that white paedos don't operate in gangs, but I showed this to be another of your untruths.
So, your label of "chav luvva" (sic), aimed at me, would appear to be because you think that the young white children who are victims of ROP paedophilia are chavs with loose morals and dress in a way that invites sexual abuse from races who can hardly be blamed for helping themselves to what is on offer. Basically, because I have publicised these poor, unfortunate children, who you undoubtably look down on, I am a "chav luvva" for highlighting their case. You see the victims as chavs and me as their supporter - hence the juvenile sobriquet.
Makes you look a bit sick really, and explains why you spent 3 whole pages trying not to give the reason for the abuse. I understand why you decided to take the cowardly way out.
Last edited:
Are you a chav luvva? Yes or No.
So you don't deny what I said? Pretty much confirms my suspicions.
- Status
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
