Goran should not be a moderator.
not

5
10

Goran should not be a moderator.

By anonymous following x   2017 Nov 12, 6:46pm 2,137 views   92 comments   watch   quote     share    


#not politics

« First    « Previous     Comments 41 - 80 of 88     Next »     Last »

41   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 7:35am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

mell says
This must be irony. Or the modern left. It's called having differing political opinions and should not cause a cry fest. There are people who are and stay married with extremely opposing political views. Sure you can do it too if you just try.


That is the thing I don't understand about the left and their emotional responses. Nobody pushed iwog away-he acted like a child, threw tantrums and did have soem important contributions. He is free to contribute, but he only wnats it in his terms, his rules must only apply to CIC or the like. The elft cna never be held accountable.

It is like this whole Russian hoax, Hillary paid 9 million to the Russians and Trump is under investigation as a traitor-wtf? I am disappointed in trump-fire sessions and get a pitbull in there. I mean how can a dem with a straight face come and say Russia anymore??
42   BlueSardine   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 13, 7:45am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

The bottom line.
"Ignore" solves everything.
You don't see their posts, they don't see yours.
But for some people, knowing that certain people are posting regardless of whether they are seen, drives them crazy.

PCGyver says
or just put him on ignore and never see him at all
43   mell   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 13, 7:50am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

PCGyver says
anon_ae030 says
That would be fine if everyone's intentions were sincere. They aren't and would leave the site open to the potential for abuse. I think moderating each thread is fine in essence, but culling of posts can't simply be arbitrary, or characters like CiC would have a field day.


Well then, at the very least, we would see who is a good moderator and who is not. In CiC's case either you'd enjoy his style or just put him on ignore and never see him at all.


No moderation highlights the benefits of small government and why it's so important. Cause you can never be sure when the big governing axe will come down against you, like taking 40% of your hard earned income or put you into jail. Comment jail ain't that bad compared to that ;)
44   anon_38c3f   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 7:54am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

BlueSardine says
"Ignore" solves everything.
You don't see their posts, they don't see yours.
But for some people, knowing that certain people are posting regardless of whether they are seen, drives them crazy.


That's what drove iwog crazy, he couldn't read the posts made by the people who put him on ignore. That's why he would log on with his "wife's" or "son's" accounts, to see what posters were saying.
45   errc   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 13, 9:45am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

lostand confused says
mell says
This must be irony. Or the modern left. It's called having differing political opinions and should not cause a cry fest. There are people who are and stay married with extremely opposing political views. Sure you can do it too if you just try.


That is the thing I don't understand about the left and their emotional responses. Nobody pushed iwog away-he acted like a child, threw tantrums and did have soem important contributions. He is free to contribute, but he only wnats it in his terms, his rules must only apply to CIC or the like. The elft cna never be held accountable.

It is like this whole Russian hoax, Hillary paid 9 million to the Russians and Trump is under investigation as a traitor-wtf? I am disappointed in trump-fire sessions and get a pitbull in there. I mean how can a dem with a straight face come and say Russia anymore??


So you think Trump made yet another bad appointment with Sessions, and you want him fired.

Not because he is literally waging war with our citizens, not because he perjured himself under oath, not because of his UnAmerican, anti-Constitutional stance on civil asset forfeiture. None of that. Nope. Never even a mention.

But simply because he doesn’t know what you and Alex Jones know wrt locking up Hillary

At least you have your priorities straight, if nothing else
46   Fucking White Male   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 13, 9:47am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_d57f7 says
There is literally zero chance that if this place survives another 5 years with the trolls whacking each other that they won't still be crying and whining and all butt hurt over iwog. Justice will be served!


This statement doesn't make any sense(and is a good reason why anon posting should end).
47   errc   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 13, 9:50am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

BlueSardine says
The bottom line.
"Ignore" solves everything.
You don't see their posts, they don't see yours.
But for some people, knowing that certain people are posting regardless of whether they are seen, drives them crazy.

PCGyver says
or just put him on ignore and never see him at all


That’s a lie.

I put Ironman on ignore, he logged off to read my posts, quoted them, harassed me about them, and then had one of his buddies quote him so it shows up in the thread
48   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 13, 9:59am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

In the last year, there has been a drop off in the number of liberals posting. This appointment of goran as moderator seems to have accelerated it, and I would agree that the moderation has been one sided. It's not a flagrant abuse, but I believe that it's enough to dissuade liberals from bothering to engage here. It's lack of interesting posts that's the real problem, and if you get rid of anon posts, you will be left with an echo chamber at this point.
49   anon_0e631   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 10:06am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

errc says
That’s a lie.

I put Ironman on ignore, he logged off to read my posts, quoted them, harassed me about them, and then had one of his buddies quote him so it shows up in the thread


Who is that? I searched the user list, which one is he?

https://patrick.net/users?user_name=ironman
50   anon_0e631   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 10:07am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

YesYNot says
In the last year, there has been a drop off in the number of liberals posting.


YesYNot says
It's lack of interesting posts that's the real problem, and if you get rid of anon posts, you will be left with an echo chamber at this point.


Can you step up and start making more Liberal threads if you want to see more?
51   anon_25c83   ignore (3)   2017 Nov 13, 10:07am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_0e631 says
Who is that? I searched the user list, which one is he?


Piggy trolling again. How droll.
52   mell   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 13, 10:09am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

YesYNot says
In the last year, there has been a drop off in the number of liberals posting. This appointment of goran as moderator seems to have accelerated it, and I would agree that the moderation has been one sided. It's not a flagrant abuse, but I believe that it's enough to dissuade liberals from bothering to engage here. It's lack of interesting posts that's the real problem, and if you get rid of anon posts, you will be left with an echo chamber at this point.


If you look at the current threads, mostly politics, they are relatively balanced on both sides. Certainly enough Trump bashing on there, and then some neutral stuff as well. Here's an alternative explanation. The site was dominated by lefties and narcissists / strong personalities all united in their hate for Trump, but now that many moved on, accepted Trump and even embraced at least a few of his stances or simply got turned off by the continued identity politics of the left, and are discussing a wide range of topics it has indeed shifted a bit, to a more balanced stance, maybe a bit overhang to the right. Everybody is still free to post whatever they want and discuss openly, so while I would not like to see some go - different viewpoints are essential for a good discussion - I think the site will do fine. Nobody is forced to post anonymous, I think maybe anonymous should be revoked. The previous system was not foolproof due to alts, but much better than anon posts.
53   mell   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 13, 10:11am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_d57f7 says
anon_0e631 says
Can you step up and start making more Liberal threads if you want to see more?


Nope. Fuck this anti free speech forum. You can shit all over it but for god sake don't insult anybody. Them's the new rules!


Then lobby for revoking moderation and going back to the old format. It was fine.
54   Ceffer   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 13, 10:12am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

If you can't pull users from behind their duck blinds of anonymity, physically stalk them, and threaten them and their relatives with weapons and bodily harm, then freedom has no meaning.

Ad Hom is so lame ass compared to flaming poo on the porch and bullet holes in the windows.
55   anon_313db   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 10:14am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

mell says
anon_d57f7 says
anon_0e631 says
Can you step up and start making more Liberal threads if you want to see more?


Nope. Fuck this anti free speech forum. You can shit all over it but for god sake don't insult anybody. Them's the new rules!


Then lobby for revoking moderation and going back to the old format. It was fine.


Ad homs are the biggest reason why this site started to and continued to struggle. We need civilization to civilize the kindergarten. No one wants this site to end up like a show on KSFO, nobody!
56   BlueSardine   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 13, 10:23am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Ok, then there is a hole in the "ignore" system.
You are still seeing ironmans posts when they are referenced in another users post.
Fix is to search post contents to detect this reference, and treat the post as if it was from the 'ignored' if any of the text contains the 'Ignored' userID.

errc says
I put Ironman on ignore, he logged off to read my posts, quoted them, harassed me about them, and then had one of his buddies quote him so it shows up in the thread
57   errc   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 13, 10:24am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

mell says
YesYNot says
In the last year, there has been a drop off in the number of liberals posting. This appointment of goran as moderator seems to have accelerated it, and I would agree that the moderation has been one sided. It's not a flagrant abuse, but I believe that it's enough to dissuade liberals from bothering to engage here. It's lack of interesting posts that's the real problem, and if you get rid of anon posts, you will be left with an echo chamber at this point.


If you look at the current threads, mostly politics, they are relatively balanced on both sides. Certainly enough Trump bashing on there, and then some neutral stuff as well. Here's an alternative explanation. The site was dominated by lefties and narcissists / strong personalities all united in their hate for Trump, but now that many moved on, accepted Trump and even embraced at least a few of his stances or simply got turned o...


@mell , name them by name.

Who are you referring to?
58   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 13, 10:24am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_0e631 says

Can you step up and start making more Liberal threads if you want to see more?

It's not a lack of threads that's a problem. Thread starting is easy. It's a lack of good and novel ideas, particularly in response to others. I don't really have an interest in trying to take up the mantle of all of those who have left. I'm perfectly happy to contribute if there are other posts that I find interesting and agreeable, but I'm finding less and less of those. That will reach critical mass if it has not already. That's just how I see things at this point.

Regarding uneven moderation, this is why I think it's a problem: I know that there will be snide and marginally insulting posts coming my way. To a point, that's fine as long as I am able to respond in kind. However, if I expect to be hit with harsher moderation than the people who are insulting me, that's going to be more frustrating than fun. If the moderator is more concerned with what constitutes an insult than what constitutes an intelligent and relevant idea, then that's another problem. I've seen both of those problems so far.
59   jazz_music   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 13, 10:24am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

errc says
BlueSardine says
The bottom line.
"Ignore" solves everything.
You don't see their posts, they don't see yours.
But for some people, knowing that certain people are posting regardless of whether they are seen, drives them crazy.

PCGyver says
or just put him on ignore and never see him at all


That’s a lie.

I put Ironman on ignore, he logged off to read my posts, quoted them, harassed me about them, and then had one of his buddies quote him so it shows up in the thread

Blue Sardine has never been a serious contributor because s/he's concerned with winning over substance. Most of the users remaining have shown miserable integrity.

Every commenter who opposes CIC/Ironman/Me123/Sniper and the host of other handles used by that miserable person experiences the same tactics you described.
60   anon_313db   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 10:26am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_d57f7 says
anon_313db says
Ad homs are the biggest reason why this site started to and continued to struggle.


No that's never true. 4chan exists and grows even when the entire purpose is to ad hominem each other to death. If you want a reason for the decline it's because Patrick simply doesn't give a shit. He stabbed the most loyal users in the back and handed control over the place to the liars and trolls.


Personally, I did not find ad homers of either side valuable, they were discussion destroyers pure and simple, whether it's left winger like el professor Roberto or right winger like CIC. Do you really believe they had anything productive to contribute when at least 70% of their posts were outright ad hom?
61   mell   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 13, 10:30am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

errc says
mell says
YesYNot says
In the last year, there has been a drop off in the number of liberals posting. This appointment of goran as moderator seems to have accelerated it, and I would agree that the moderation has been one sided. It's not a flagrant abuse, but I believe that it's enough to dissuade liberals from bothering to engage here. It's lack of interesting posts that's the real problem, and if you get rid of anon posts, you will be left with an echo chamber at this point.


If you look at the current threads, mostly politics, they are relatively balanced on both sides. Certainly enough Trump bashing on there, and then some neutral stuff as well. Here's an alternative explanation. The site was dominated by lefties and narcissists / strong personalities all united in their hate for Trump, but now that many moved on, ac...


I see topics started by Hey You certainly on the left of things, Roidy as well, tovarichpeter, sometimes yesYnot and timaurora and rew, then neutral ones like tvgnus, heraclitus, curious2, bob doesn't start many but certainly replies to many (also more on the left though somewhat centrist). The rest I'd put on the right side of the spectrum. Here's to all of those staying on.
62   mell   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 13, 10:32am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

YesYNot says
It's not a lack of threads that's a problem. Thread starting is easy.


Agreed.

YesYNot says
Regarding uneven moderation, this is why I think it's a problem: I know that there will be snide and marginally insulting posts coming my way. To a point, that's fine as long as I am able to respond in kind. However, if I expect to be hit with harsher moderation than the people who are insulting me, that's going to be more frustrating than fun. If the moderator is more concerned with what constitutes an insult than what constitutes an intelligent and relevant idea, then that's another problem. I've seen both of those problems so far.


That's why I think that the previous model where you could moderate your own threads but not beyond was fine.
63   Onvacation   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 10:34am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_d57f7 says
Nope. Fuck this anti free speech forum. You can shit all over it but for god sake don't insult anybody. Them's the new rules!

Freedom of speech.
Free to debate ideas.
Free to try to change minds about issues.
Free to bring forward evidence so that others can weigh that evidence and show you why it is lacking.
Free to show your algorithms and let others detect errors in your logic.
Free to bring your opinion and debate or ignore the opinion of others.

Patrick is an intelligent, thoughtful, person who has spent a lot of resources to provide a place for civil discussion of ideas, politics, current events and humour.

Patrick.net Patrick rules.
64   mell   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 13, 10:35am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

jazz_music says
Blue Sardine has never been a serious contributor because s/he's concerned with winning over substance. Most of the users remaining have shown miserable integrity.


I think he/she is funny though and has made comments on both sides of the political spectrum. Why be bothered by a civil tongue-in-cheek comment?
65   errc   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 13, 10:35am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

@mell

I should have quoted the part I was questioning

. The site was dominated by lefties and narcissists / strong personalities all united in their hate for Trump, but now that many moved on,
66   anon_313db   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 10:39am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_d57f7 says
If you are honest you don't care what someone calls you. If you are lying steaming piece of shit you care extremely much what someone calls you and you get to be a moderator. Welcome to hell.


I don't think that honest people like to be ad-homed either.....unless they are extremely zealous in their views. At any rate, I am sure that Patrick decided that ad-homs were deleterious influences, that's why he conceded that pure free speech has limitations and needs to be reigned in. Stanford Prison experiment with Zambardo has concluded, thanks be to god. Basically, people have options where to spend their time and if they are not happy here they will go somewhere else. Patrick is acutely aware of this and he is trying to remedy the situation. The sooner the ad-homers are neutralized, the sooner this site can recover.
67   errc   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 13, 10:39am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

YesYNot says
anon_0e631 says

Can you step up and start making more Liberal threads if you want to see more?

It's not a lack of threads that's a problem. Thread starting is easy. It's a lack of good and novel ideas, particularly in response to others. I don't really have an interest in trying to take up the mantle of all of those who have left. I'm perfectly happy to contribute if there are other posts that I find interesting and agreeable, but I'm finding less and less of those. That will reach critical mass if it has not already. That's just how I see things at this point.

Regarding uneven moderation, this is why I think it's a problem: I know that there will be snide and marginally insulting posts coming my way. To a point, that's fine as long as I am able to respond in kind. However, if I expect to be hit with harsher moderation than the people who are insulting me, that's going to be more ...


@Patrick, are you listening to your customer base?

@the rest of you bitching about how terribly biased a moderator that Goran is, Patrick already told you the solution. Sometimes you have to listen to what others are saying, and Patrick clearly said if Goran posts anything uncivil, mark it as uncivil. Problem solved
68   mell   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 13, 10:46am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_25c83 says
mell says
That's why I think that the previous model where you could moderate your own threads but not beyond was fine.


That's the way it should be but it piggy and other trolls need to have access to these threads so they ranted until they got this instead.


I'd be fine with going back to that model. If you remove anons, then this should work pretty well. I don't care if somebody removes me form their thread.



errc says
@mell

I should have quoted the part I was questioning

. The site was dominated by lefties and narcissists / strong personalities all united in their hate for Trump, but now that many moved on,


Dan and Iwog have strong personalities and certain points they kept hammering with a lot of their posts, such as equating Christianity to radical Islam ('all religions are bad') or Iwog with his disdain for Trump and climate change skeptics. Certainly left leaning and frequent posters. Hey You just bashes anything to the right of the left. Jazz Music also very strong with many posts at times. I'd say it has shifted recently, but I don't see any reason to call this a right wing echo chamber, esp. if you don't equate Libertarians with mainstream Republicans.
69   errc   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 13, 10:49am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

if you don't equate Libertarians with mainstream Republicans.

———————

Teach me how to differentiate between the two, and I’ll give it my best.

You’ve always been reasonable, I appreciate the replies
70   Onvacation   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 10:50am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Anon says
anon_08dee says
Patrick is killing his own site.

anon_08dee says
The right wing cesspool this site has become is something that Patrick can't see,

anon_d57f7 says
There is literally zero chance that if this place survives another 5 years
anon_d57f7 says

The site has been destroyed.

anon_d57f7 says
Patrick gives so little of a shit about this issue that he hasn't even bothered to defend his choice of Goron or his lying or his trollism. It's obvious that pigshit cic has more influence over what goes on here then the people who helped build the place over 10 years. Let It Burn.


You guys could find some other place ?
@patrick that winehorror user name scheme would be more fun. Anonymous is annoying.
71   anon_313db   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 10:52am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_d57f7 says
It's a logical fallacy that people insert into an argument that appears to be a logical response but instead is a dishonest non sequitur


Nope, ad hom is making an argument about a person rather addressing the points that an opponent made. Ex: you support universal healthcare, you are a communist, move to north korea, you SOB. Or, you believe that minimum wage should be abolished, you a cretin who supports that people starve to death. That's what ad hom is. Now, think how many comments that were made last few years. fit in this category.
72   anon_313db   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 10:53am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

mell says
Certainly left leaning and frequent posters


Iwog may have had some left leaning views, but not when it came to women and gender roles in society. Regarding these concepts, he was outright talibanish.
73   mell   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 13, 11:05am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

errc says
if you don't equate Libertarians with mainstream Republicans.

———————

Teach me how to differentiate between the two, and I’ll give it my best.

You’ve always been reasonable, I appreciate the replies


Thanks. I'd say Libertarians are truly small government supporters, most Republicans are not. Esp. if laws - even with good intent - can lead to more harm than good. Legalizing drugs, prostitution, ending civil asset forfeiture, habeas corpus, fewer wars and a more isolationist foreign policy, fewer and lesser taxes, small welfare system, no subsidies (neither big corn/agriculture nor walmart nor tesla) are all Libertarian principles. They are also about stronger rights/freedoms for smaller collectives, such as states rights. So while most do not care about sexual preferences or who does drugs and who doesn't they may think that states can make their own laws wrt to these issues and you're free to move if you don't like your state, similar to let's say drastic anti-gun or anti-smoking laws where some communities (not just bars or apartments) have outlawed smoking. Of course it gets difficult where state regulations clash with constitutional rights, but usually Libertarian states have less regulations.
74   BlueSardine   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 13, 11:12am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

That was funny up to the day Napa burnt to the ground...

Onvacation says
@patrick that winehorror user name scheme would be more fun. Anonymous is annoying.
75   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 11:33am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

errc says
So you think Trump made yet another bad appointment with Sessions, and you want him fired.

Not because he is literally waging war with our citizens, not because he perjured himself under oath, not because of his UnAmerican, anti-Constitutional stance on civil asset forfeiture. None of that. Nope. Never even a mention.

But simply because he doesn’t know what you and Alex Jones know wrt locking up Hillary

At least you have your priorities straight, if nothing else

I have made my priorities known regarding civil forfeitures and the stupid war on drugs. Hillary spent 9 million dollars on teh Russian dossier and then smashed phones and destroyed evidence that was under subpeona from congress. She needs a special prosecutor.

Obozo the clown who admitted to drug use did nto take one step towards drug legalization. Instead he gave us Heritage foundation care.
76   errc   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 13, 11:39am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Obozo the clown who admitted to drug use did nto take one step towards drug legalization. Instead he gave us Heritage foundation care.

——————

Actually, he did exactly what Right Wingers claim to desire: he left the States to decide for themselves and told his Federal Government to stand down and respect the choice of The People at the local level.

Your response is Trump, who lied about his stance to get elected, then did a 180 and fucked the country and constitution straight to hell by appointing Sessions
77   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 11:41am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

errc says
Your response is Trump, who lied about his stance to get elected, then did a 180 and fucked the country and constitution straight to hell by appointing Sessions


I'm not sure where the hate comes from for Sessions, he's pretty much recused himself from every major incident during Trump's administration so far.
78   mell   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 13, 11:52am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

errc says
Obozo the clown who admitted to drug use did nto take one step towards drug legalization. Instead he gave us Heritage foundation care.

——————

Actually, he did exactly what Right Wingers claim to desire: he left the States to decide for themselves and told his Federal Government to stand down and respect the choice of The People at the local level.

Your response is Trump, who lied about his stance to get elected, then did a 180 and fucked the country and constitution straight to hell by appointing Sessions


Wrt to Obama and drugs he did raid many dispensaries operating on the state level as well as raw dairy farmers. Bush was the one who left them alone. In the end though they restricted asset forfeiture for which he deserves credit.
79   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 11:58am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

errc says
Actually, he did exactly what Right Wingers claim to desire: he left the States to decide for themselves and told his Federal Government to stand down and respect the choice of The People at the local level.

Huh link.
Here is what he did on marijuana
http://time.com/4448202/obama-drug-war/

He talked the big talk on trade, war on drugs and ended up being meh.

Trump did say he was strong on war on drugs , police etc-so no suprise there.
As I have said before, if I had a dem candidate strong on anti globalism, america first trade policies and ending war on drugs and mass incarceration-he would have my vote.
.
80   HEY YOU   ignore (7)   2017 Nov 13, 12:05pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

No patnetters should moderate.
Because they are PATNETTERS!
We need someone with a clear mind to take control.

« First    « Previous     Comments 41 - 80 of 88     Next »     Last »


Comment as anon_9bcb5 or log in at top of page: