Lucylastic
Posts: 40310
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aylee quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote:
ORIGINAL: Aylee quote:
ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Only in your tiny brain bruv. Let me get this straight. . . As long as it is MUSLIMS selling women into slavery, stoning them, not allowing them civil rights, honor killing them, and so forth. . . it is hunky-dory in your world. Ya know this does not surprise me. You have repeatedly shown that you do NOT consider women as equal humans. After all, women should not be allowed to defend themselves. . . Thousands of girls being raped and threatened is okay. . . And let's see. .v. you are likely okay with the latest pedophilia stuff coming out of the UK. I can see why you sympathize with Boko Haram and ISIS. No, YOU have laid that at his feet. ONLY YOU are resonsible for your idiotic assumptions He defended child rapists. No, He absolutely did NOT not once. YOU made an assumption that proved to be wrong, in more ways than one, and this isnt the first time you have made that claim, he made an attempt to explain the word of grooming from the report to TheHeretic then the shit hit the fan He responded to you in post http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4726516 quote:
Dont put words in my mouth. I have never blamed anybody other than the perpertrators. You stupid remarks show you "Still" havent read the report. I did say the girls were looking for love, some even claimed they loved the victim, that doesnt mean I think that makes it okay and saying it does only makes you look like a silly. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4726767 The report section with the expression grooming in it, that several people swore blind wasnt there.... please note that the mod mentioned in post http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4727013 We have few rules in the Feisty sections, but I am currently seeing a need for one or two more. It has been a rare occurrence when I have found someone insinuating that someone was a ‘criminal’ or someone that encouraged, took part or enabled ‘criminals’ and ‘criminal activity’, but when I have, it has been removed from the forum. Now, creating a guideline for this could get tricky because many will ‘interpret’ anything we come up with from a personal standpoint that could get complicated or shall I say, nitpicky. So, for the moment and especially on this thread, if you are tempted to accuse someone that is not personally involved in the thread ‘news’ or ‘situation’, of taking part, being a party to, allowing, encouraging or involved because of where they reside or any other 'factoid', you will face moderation. It is as simple as that. Complicate it and that would be on you, not moderators or staff, to interpret as you do or to explain further by way of arguing ‘points’. If in any manner I believe you are insinuating that someone uninvolved in this ‘news’ is a party to or encouraging it, that is what staff will be working from. Just don’t do it. I may have to post this on every page until everyone gets it, but I am serious about this. Choose your words any way you must, to assure you aren’t insinuating that someone is a party to this in any manner. Thank you for your compliance as we move forward. And here you are doing it again. why?
_____________________________
(•_•) <) )╯SUCH / \ \(•_•) ( (> A NASTY / \ (•_•) <) )> WOMAN / \ Duchess Of Dissent Dont Hate Love
|