Opponents of Calif gay history law seek referendum Read more: http://www.adn.com/2011/07/26/1986454/opponents-of-calif-gay-history.html#ixzz1THWjiMn4

[Zero Sum 305]

There's enough of that apparently. And I don't mean your cancerous narcissism.

[Ban Hammer 13,492]

this threads gettin locked soon.

might as well, sofiyya took all my +1's

[Zero Sum 305]

might as well, sofiyya took all my +1's

I am crushed.

+1

[SMOKE 1,426]

might as well, sofiyya took all my +1's

i got her up on my score card too. she's even scored a couple 10-8 rounds. but, ZS is a gammer he is still in there.

[Zero Sum 305]

Yeah, she can win as usual. As long as points in this game can come from making things up and not backing up one's own claims, I suppose. There is still hope for more of humanity though.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I think you are all a bunch of preverts.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

If Kip would just go out and meet his neighbors, he'll eventually meet a gay couple who will help him come to terms with his repressed homosexual urges.

Shouldn't you be greasing your windmill about now? btw I heard your neighbor left his lights on...you better go shoot em now. I wouldn't want to think anyone in your hood was wasting electricity.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

There's enough of that apparently. And I don't mean your cancerous narcissism.

Why "cancerous narcissism"? Is that an acceptable insult from the tolerance rule book?

might as well, sofiyya took all my +1's

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You are all invited. The 2011 Lazy Bear Weekend is only a few days away.

http://www.lazybearweekend.com/main_menu.htm

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Yeah, she can win as usual. As long as points in this game can come from making things up and not backing up one's own claims, I suppose. There is still hope for more of humanity though.

I'm commenting on your comments. I don't need to go to Wikipedia to back anything up. What you said is still being read here.

[Zero Sum 305]

Why "cancerous narcissism"? Is that an acceptable insult from the tolerance rule book?

Refusing to substantiate bogus claims is what it is. I know you feel validated by unsurprising 'support'... just remember the venue.

I'm commenting on your comments. I don't need to go to Wikipedia to back anything up. What you said is still being read here.

Indeed. And my comments I have not backed away from.

At the least you should be able to substantiate what my position is based on your keen observational skills and not what you may be deluding yourself into wanting to believe. In other threads you have been asked to do the same and in every single one you have claimed the right to make things up as you went along. Nothing new with this one.

You may want to call me a hypocrite based on your opinion, while refusing to back your own context up with that very same information that is readable here. That is being a liar, as you claim things that are untrue. Same old, same old.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Zero Sum

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Refusing to substantiate bogus claims is what it is. I know you feel validated by unsurprising 'support'... just remember the venue.

You want some cheese with that whine?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I sense a peculiar fascination between these two.

[Zero Sum 305]

You want some cheese with that whine?

Refuse to be truthful huh?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

At the least you should be able to substantiate what my position is based on your keen observational skills and not what you may be deluding yourself into wanting to believe. In other threads you have been asked to do the same and in every single one you have claimed the right to make things up as you went along. Nothing new with this one.

What do you require for verification that my opinion is based on my interpretation of your posts? Is it animal, vegetable or mineral, based on a mathematical equation or lifted in whole or in part from a legal treatise? I have my opinions, I gave them to you. It's as simple as that.