Thank you to all of my motivation

[mybackpages 0]

I'm gonna throw this out there because it's come up several times in PMs, but it seems that the b!tchiest ones on here are those who have completed the visa process and are already with their SOs. This doesn't mean that ALL who are with their SO are harrassers, but few who are without them are prone to harrassing others. That's been noticed by more than one MENA and non-MENA person as a commonality among those who seem to love to fight with no other serious point in mind. Anything to it?

nope, the dividing line is something completely different

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I'm gonna throw this out there because it's come up several times in PMs, but it seems that the b!tchiest ones on here are those who have completed the visa process and are already with their SOs. This doesn't mean that ALL who are with their SO are harrassers, but few who are without them are prone to harrassing others. That's been noticed by more than one MENA and non-MENA person as a commonality among those who seem to love to fight with no other serious point in mind. Anything to it?

JP's man wasn't here and she was called out daily for bickering. Sarah's man wasn't here in the beginning either, but she has always been called out. Moody's man wasn't here and she gets b!tched at for honesty all the time.

Your man isn't here and you have been a source of tension (to say the least) for a long time (when you fight, you have a serious point in mind? Ridding the world of fornicators, perhaps?). VPs man wasn't here and you two bickered constantly.

So your little theory is pretty lame, not to mention totally transparent.

Some folks just get worse when their man is here.

No lameness or transparancy here. The difference between me and those who harrass simply to harrass is that I cause controversy with a substative point that some may not agree with. I speak about religion and social norms; I don't just post to be b!tchy because I'm naturally btchy, like some are. That is what is transparent about having no point other than to be nasty and pathetic. When it all boils down, they're just b!tchy.

[doodlebug 3]

I'm gonna throw this out there because it's come up several times in PMs, but it seems that the b!tchiest ones on here are those who have completed the visa process and are already with their SOs. This doesn't mean that ALL who are with their SO are harrassers, but few who are without them are prone to harrassing others. That's been noticed by more than one MENA and non-MENA person as a commonality among those who seem to love to fight with no other serious point in mind. Anything to it?

JP's man wasn't here and she was called out daily for bickering. Sarah's man wasn't here in the beginning either, but she has always been called out. Moody's man wasn't here and she gets b!tched at for honesty all the time.

Your man isn't here and you have been a source of tension (to say the least) for a long time (when you fight, you have a serious point in mind? Ridding the world of fornicators, perhaps?). VPs man wasn't here and you two bickered constantly.

So your little theory is pretty lame, not to mention totally transparent.

Some folks just get worse when their man is here.

No lameness or transparancy here. The difference between me and those who harrass simply to harrass is that I cause controversy with a substative point that some may not agree with. I speak about religion and social norms; I don't just post to be b!tchy because I'm naturally btchy, like some are. That is what is transparent about having no point other than to be nasty and pathetic. When it all boils down, they're just b!tchy.

So perhaps that is the dividing line! :energetic:

[Sofiyya 1,687]

[sereia 0]

[peezey 0]

.

No lameness or transparancy here. The difference between me and those who harrass simply to harrass is that I cause controversy with a substative point that some may not agree with. I speak about religion and social norms; I don't just post to be b!tchy because I'm naturally btchy, like some are. That is what is transparent about having no point other than to be nasty and pathetic. When it all boils down, they're just b!tchy.

As usual, your self-possession is laughable. You speak on culture and religion and people don't necessarily like it or agree with you or appreciate your tone and delivery, no? I speak about culture, marriage dynamics, gender dynamics and people don't necessarily like it or agree with me or appreciate my tone or delivery. We're either both bi tchy and both harrassers and both nasty and pathetic, or neither of us are, can't have it both ways.

Oh, and really anyone can determine who is what to them, but to play this dividing game is hysterical. I agree with you a lot of the time, and don't sometimes. I agree with Sarah sometimes and not others. What is that thing you say? We're not responsible for how we are perceived, right? We're not responsible for others' emotions, right?

I'm gonna throw this out there because it's come up several times in PMs, but it seems that the b!tchiest ones on here are those who have completed the visa process and are already with their SOs. This doesn't mean that ALL who are with their SO are harrassers, but few who are without them are prone to harrassing others. That's been noticed by more than one MENA and non-MENA person as a commonality among those who seem to love to fight with no other serious point in mind. Anything to it?

JP's man wasn't here and she was called out daily for bickering. Sarah's man wasn't here in the beginning either, but she has always been called out. Moody's man wasn't here and she gets b!tched at for honesty all the time.

Your man isn't here and you have been a source of tension (to say the least) for a long time (when you fight, you have a serious point in mind? Ridding the world of fornicators, perhaps?). VPs man wasn't here and you two bickered constantly.

So your little theory is pretty lame, not to mention totally transparent.

Some folks just get worse when their man is here.

No lameness or transparancy here. The difference between me and those who harrass simply to harrass is that I cause controversy with a substative point that some may not agree with. I speak about religion and social norms; I don't just post to be b!tchy because I'm naturally btchy, like some are. That is what is transparent about having no point other than to be nasty and pathetic. When it all boils down, they're just b!tchy.

So perhaps that is the dividing line! :energetic:

It's a line you straddle whenever it serves your purpose, so really there is no line at all then, right?

[mybackpages 0]

Some folks just get worse when their man is here.

nope, I can see how it might appear this way, but it's made without benefit of some key evidence that has nto been taken into consideration.

Some folks have gotten "worse" (your word not mine), but it is more related to time and experience than whether or not the man is here.

I'm gonna throw this out there because it's come up several times in PMs, but it seems that the b!tchiest ones on here are those who have completed the visa process and are already with their SOs. This doesn't mean that ALL who are with their SO are harrassers, but few who are without them are prone to harrassing others. That's been noticed by more than one MENA and non-MENA person as a commonality among those who seem to love to fight with no other serious point in mind. Anything to it?

JP's man wasn't here and she was called out daily for bickering. Sarah's man wasn't here in the beginning either, but she has always been called out. Moody's man wasn't here and she gets b!tched at for honesty all the time.

Your man isn't here and you have been a source of tension (to say the least) for a long time (when you fight, you have a serious point in mind? Ridding the world of fornicators, perhaps?). VPs man wasn't here and you two bickered constantly.

So your little theory is pretty lame, not to mention totally transparent.

Some folks just get worse when their man is here.

No lameness or transparancy here. The difference between me and those who harrass simply to harrass is that I cause controversy with a substative point that some may not agree with. I speak about religion and social norms; I don't just post to be b!tchy because I'm naturally btchy, like some are. That is what is transparent about having no point other than to be nasty and pathetic. When it all boils down, they're just b!tchy.

So perhaps that is the dividing line! :energetic:

not even close

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I have something else to say about collier/effortless/aqoul's attack against brnidokiegurl's petition being sent back to DHS. For someone to come here, say that someone whose peition was sent back must be in a sham relationship is so effin LOW as to be reprehensible. I've laid low, held back, for a while while thread after thread was being locked, and people's marriages questioned for no good reason, but that was the last straw.

While I'm one who believes that we should not blindly encourage fraudulent visa applications, and that there are sometimes reasons for a visa to be denied, but I also believe in setting boundaries for good behavior and taste. There is NO EXCUSE for that and no excuse for supporting that kind of sleaze on this site. There are many among us who simply deserve better from our members than we have been getting, but if we don't stand up for it, we get less than we deserve.

No one going thru thos process should be subjected to meaningless and unanalyzed supposition from another member. NO ONE! If you don't know that person and their situation, why gossip about them, or speculate abotu them? If you don't like who they are with, fine, but don't seek to deliberately embarrass people on the board. There is nothing to benefit anyone here from the kind of mindless vitriol that has been exhibited here lately, and it needs to stop.

[peezey 0]

I have something else to say about collier/effortless/aqoul's attack against brnidokiegurl's petition being sent back to DHS. For someone to come here, say that someone whose peition was sent back must be in a sham relationship is so effin LOW as to be reprehensible. I've laid low, held back, for a while while thread after thread was being locked, and people's marriages questioned for no good reason, but that was the last straw.

While I'm one who believes that we should not blindly encourage fraudulent visa applications, and that there are sometimes reasons for a visa to be denied, but I also believe in setting boundaries for good behavior and taste. There is NO EXCUSE for that and no excuse for supporting that kind of sleaze on this site. There are many among us who simply deserve better from our members than we have been getting, but if we don't stand up for it, we get less than we deserve.

No one going thru thos process should be subjected to meaningless and unanalyzed supposition from another member. NO ONE! If you don't know that person and their situation, why gossip about them, or speculate abotu them? If you don't like who they are with, fine, but don't seek to deliberately embarrass people on the board. There is nothing to benefit anyone here from the kind of mindless vitriol that has been exhibited here lately, and it needs to stop.

Phew, I feel better. Now if only you really believed this across the board and acted accordingly.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I do. Like I said, it's the difference between having something substantive to say, even if unpopular, and just being a b!tch. Since the fighting goes on without me, and nothing substantive has been said, I am definitely the former, not the latter.

[mybackpages 0]

I do. Like I said, it's the difference between having something substantive to say, even if unpopular, and just being a b!tch. Since the fighting goes on without me, and nothing substantive has been said, I am definitely the former, not the latter.

Your logic is a bit faulty today.

This example does not prove what you claim.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I do. Like I said, it's the difference between having something substantive to say, even if unpopular, and just being a b!tch. Since the fighting goes on without me, and nothing substantive has been said, I am definitely the former, not the latter.

Your logic is a bit faulty today.

This example does not prove what you claim.

Sure it does. And it's not lost on others either.

[mybackpages 0]

I do. Like I said, it's the difference between having something substantive to say, even if unpopular, and just being a b!tch. Since the fighting goes on without me, and nothing substantive has been said, I am definitely the former, not the latter.

Your logic is a bit faulty today.

This example does not prove what you claim.

Sure it does. And it's not lost on others either.

No it only proves that b!itchiness can exist without you. It does not prove you are definatley the former example.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I do. Like I said, it's the difference between having something substantive to say, even if unpopular, and just being a b!tch. Since the fighting goes on without me, and nothing substantive has been said, I am definitely the former, not the latter.

Your logic is a bit faulty today.

This example does not prove what you claim.

Sure it does. And it's not lost on others either.

No it only proves that b!itchiness can exist without you. It does not prove you are definatley the former example.

It proves that there are b1tches here who have nothing to say, but enjoy harrassing others for fun. I am not among them. That speaks volumes, about who has been a scapegoat for the b1tchiness and who is the real deal. It ain't me who's the real deal.

[peezey 0]

I do. Like I said, it's the difference between having something substantive to say, even if unpopular, and just being a b!tch. Since the fighting goes on without me, and nothing substantive has been said, I am definitely the former, not the latter.

Just because you have been quiet for a while doesn't prove anything. Fighting goes on without JP, and she was always called out for instigating and bickering, and she hasn't been here in months. You might win a battle of wits with the witless, but your ridiculous "logic" is really wasted on me.

And you certainly aren't the arbiter of substantive content. Many ladies here skip right over what you have to say because it gets old. You are a legend in your own mind.