Signatures

For now, signatures are deactivated. We the admins are working on a rule about signatures that refer to specific users; when we have that we'll reallow signatures.

Your input is welcome inevitable.

Oh dear

Ben_Reilly wrote:For now, signatures are deactivated. We the admins are working on a rule about signatures that refer to specific users; when we have that we'll reallow signatures.

Your input is welcome inevitable.

Ben_Reilly wrote:For now, signatures are deactivated. We the admins are working on a rule about signatures that refer to specific users; when we have that we'll reallow signatures.

Your input is welcome inevitable.

Whatever you decide is fine by me .thus ends my input

go now in peace, lang may yur lumb reak, bon voyage,may your god do with you

wish me well as you wave me good bye

wibble

IMO....signatures which "quote" from anothers post, should NOT be allowed, unless by permission of the original poster AND on condition that they are not derogatory or inciting.

IMO signatures are not necessary. However, if they are reinstated it should be under strict rules. They have become ridiculous.

It'll sune be more fun visiting the proctologist.

I agree signatures were out of control but rules for them?Just shows certain supposedly adults cannot be trusted to take down their own.

Ben_Reilly wrote:For now, signatures are deactivated. We the admins are working on a rule about signatures that refer to specific users; when we have that we'll reallow signatures.

Your input is welcome inevitable.

EXCELLENT...and as I've changed mine up {several time since my join date in Feb}; it's been fascinating to listen to the shrieks and whines from 2 members of this fine community --- 2 members that have violated 'ALL of the RULES' that I read prior to signing on!  

But as with all things regarding OPINIONS and ARSE HOLES...we all have one and if the cry babies don't get their way --- then the volume and pack attack becomes hysteria driven! 

RULE ENFORCEMENT FOR EVERYONE...

And if enforcing rules {obviously seems a problem here} the solution would be to leave this forum a Sans Signature place to dwell seems the perfect answer! 
I'll retreat to my sick bed and heating pads and let the
 'feeding frenzy begin' ~~~

A signature is up to the user, as long as it's not breaking any laws.

It's not the same as starting a thread about a poster. Even that rule is bullshit as many news threads are started clearly aimed at particular users.

I'VE never had any complaints about my signatures...

Fuzzy Zack wrote:A signature is up to the user, as long as it's not breaking any laws.

It's not the same as starting a thread about a poster. Even that rule is bullshit as many news threads are started clearly aimed at particular users.

you are wrong ...at every level fuzzy...IT aint "up to the user"

we are all (metaphorically speaking) invited into bens lounge for a natter and a cuppa....if folks start swinging from the curtain, uprooting the pot plants and pissing in the waste bin, its time for ben to say "hang on theres rules about that" and enforce them...

you dont go on any forum, and "do as you like"...we have it easy here, with a light touch moderation policy......

I suggest folks stop pissing in the plant pots...

yes yes...I know...I get shirty with didge....and he with me....but at least when we go hammer and tongs at it, we try to avoid the best china......

Please be sure to run any signature by the 'Provocative and Unnecessary' Committee.  Send by PM to me or Wolfie.

All decisions are final.

Lord Foul wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:A signature is up to the user, as long as it's not breaking any laws.

It's not the same as starting a thread about a poster. Even that rule is bullshit as many news threads are started clearly aimed at particular users.

you are wrong ...at every level fuzzy...IT aint "up to the user"

we are all (metaphorically speaking) invited into bens lounge for a natter and a cuppa....if folks start swinging from the curtain, uprooting the pot plants and pissing in the waste bin, its time for ben to say "hang on theres rules about that" and enforce them...

you dont go on any forum, and "do as you like"...we have it easy here, with a light touch moderation policy......

I suggest folks stop pissing in the plant pots...

yes yes...I know...I get shirty with didge....and he with me....but at least when we go hammer and tongs at it, we try to avoid the best china......

Signatures, like avatars are an individual expression of each forum member. This is how the software is designed, regardless of who is the admin.

A signature is supposed to be something to identify you by who you are.
The fact is they have long since represented being that. Rarely are they anything that is of the posters own wisdom but are plagiarized. Are used as a platform to promote a political stance. Often used to antagonize posters and worst of all being abused to goad and incite hate, which renders the use of having or using them at all, meaningless.

If something cannot be used appropriately, then it is not worth having at all and it will be one less thing the moderation team have to worry themselves over having to deal with. We come here to share and debate views and we certainly already know very much each others views, where I fail to see how ramming this down peoples throats by huge pictures which take up the page are in anyway productive but a means again to create a disturbance for the forum. Still if admin wishes to keep them, then they should be a representative aspect to identify the actual poster or views they have created themselves. Like Victor said we are guests on this forum after all and no matter how much we go at each other including myself, the buck stops with Ben. His house and thus his rules.

Didge wrote:A signature is supposed to be something to identify you by who you are.
The fact is they have long since represented being that. Rarely are they anything that is of the posters own wisdom but are plagiarized. Are used as a platform to promote a political stance. Often used to antagonize posters and worst of all being abused to goad and incite hate, which renders the use of having or using them at all, meaningless.

If something cannot be used appropriately, then it is not worth having at all and it will be one less thing the moderation team have to worry themselves over having to deal with. We come here to share and debate views and we certainly already know very much each others views, where I fail to see how ramming this down peoples throats by huge pictures which take up the page are in anyway productive but a means again to create a disturbance for the forum. Still if admin wishes to keep them, then they should be a representative aspect to identify the actual poster or views they have created themselves. Like Victor said we are guests on this forum after all and no matter how much we go at each other including myself, the buck stops with Ben. His house and thus his rules.

Spot on Didgeybum.

Guests, more like unpaid custumuz, I'm gonna see my shop stewud about the rates of pay.

Miffs2 wrote:

Didge wrote:A signature is supposed to be something to identify you by who you are.
The fact is they have long since represented being that. Rarely are they anything that is of the posters own wisdom but are plagiarized. Are used as a platform to promote a political stance. Often used to antagonize posters and worst of all being abused to goad and incite hate, which renders the use of having or using them at all, meaningless.

If something cannot be used appropriately, then it is not worth having at all and it will be one less thing the moderation team have to worry themselves over having to deal with. We come here to share and debate views and we certainly already know very much each others views, where I fail to see how ramming this down peoples throats by huge pictures which take up the page are in anyway productive but a means again to create a disturbance for the forum. Still if admin wishes to keep them, then they should be a representative aspect to identify the actual poster or views they have created themselves. Like Victor said we are guests on this forum after all and no matter how much we go at each other including myself, the buck stops with Ben. His house and thus his rules.

Spot on Didgeybum.

Thanks Nems, have a green.

Original Quill wrote:Please be sure to run any signature by the 'Provocative and Unnecessary' Committee.  Send by PM to me or Wolfie.

All decisions are final.  

Victor might send me to the basement, but I'll just address a point you made in the locked thread. A signature is different to an ordinary post because it appears on every post. Therefore, if it's an abusive one directed at another member, they're abusing that member every time they post - long after the original argument should have been forgotten.

Miffs2 wrote:IMO signatures are not necessary. However, if they are reinstated it should be under strict rules. They have become ridiculous.

I agree. I'd be happy if they were switched off altogether, but that's just me. I'm sure that on other forums an individual member can disable them so they can't see them, but you can't on this one - or any other Forumotion forum.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Please be sure to run any signature by the 'Provocative and Unnecessary' Committee.  Send by PM to me or Wolfie.

All decisions are final.  

Victor might send me to the basement, but I'll just address a point you made in the locked thread. A signature is different to an ordinary post because it appears on every post. Therefore, if it's an abusive one directed at another member, they're abusing that member every time they post - long after the original argument should have been forgotten.

Hi Rags

I very much doubt Victor would do that being as he has run a forum before and would only ever do something as a last resort, if a person was deliberately ignoring a situation. Victor is very fair and if I was out of line, he would have no hesitation in chucking in the basement if I was not toeing the line after repeated requests to do so.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Victor might send me to the basement, but I'll just address a point you made in the locked thread. A signature is different to an ordinary post because it appears on every post. Therefore, if it's an abusive one directed at another member, they're abusing that member every time they post - long after the original argument should have been forgotten.

Hi Rags

I very much doubt Victor would do that being as he has run a forum before and would only ever do something as a last resort, if a person was deliberately ignoring a situation. Victor is very fair and if I was out of line, he would have no hesitation in chucking in the basement if I was not toeing the line after repeated requests to do so.

It was just something he said in the locked thread Didge. I don't think he would either.

aspca4ever wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:For now, signatures are deactivated. We the admins are working on a rule about signatures that refer to specific users; when we have that we'll reallow signatures.

Your input is welcome inevitable.

EXCELLENT...and as I've changed mine up {several time since my join date in Feb}; it's been fascinating to listen to the shrieks and whines from 2 members of this fine community --- 2 members that have violated 'ALL of the RULES' that I read prior to signing on!  

But as with all things regarding OPINIONS and ARSE HOLES...we all have one and if the cry babies don't get their way --- then the volume and pack attack becomes hysteria driven! 

RULE ENFORCEMENT FOR EVERYONE...

And if enforcing rules {obviously seems a problem here} the solution would be to leave this forum a Sans Signature place to dwell seems the perfect answer! 
I'll retreat to my sick bed and heating pads and let the
 'feeding frenzy begin' ~~~

You just can't seem to post without having a tantrum can you?

I suggested that it would be a good idea for you to remove your signature in the spirit of moving on - as Ben had suggested. If you choose to get hysterical about that, it says more about you than it does about me.

Think you'd better read the socialism thread lol

I was a good boy and removed my picci siege VOLUNTARY

Stormee wrote:I was a good boy and removed my picci siggi

Ooooh, I had wondered about that Stormee because I saw that it had disappeared.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Stormee wrote:I was a good boy and removed my picci siggi

Ooooh, I had wondered about that Stormee because I saw that it had disappeared.

I wanted to reassure some I am a good boy, Miss Ragga.

Stormee wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ooooh, I had wondered about that Stormee because I saw that it had disappeared.

I wanted to reassure some I am a good boy, Miss Ragga.

I think that's very honourable of you Stormee as some posters (well one poster) seemed to be offended by it. It's a pity that poster doesn't take a leaf out of your book.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Stormee wrote:

I wanted to reassure some I am a good boy, Miss Ragga.

I think that's very honourable of you Stormee as some posters (well one poster) seemed to be offended by it. It's a pity that poster doesn't take a leaf out of your book.

I am trying to book myself a place in heaven

Didge wrote:A signature is supposed to be something to identify you by who you are.
The fact is they have long since represented being that. Rarely are they anything that is of the posters own wisdom but are plagiarized. Are used as a platform to promote a political stance. Often used to antagonize posters and worst of all being abused to goad and incite hate, which renders the use of having or using them at all, meaningless.

If something cannot be used appropriately, then it is not worth having at all and it will be one less thing the moderation team have to worry themselves over having to deal with. We come here to share and debate views and we certainly already know very much each others views, where I fail to see how ramming this down peoples throats by huge pictures which take up the page are in anyway productive but a means again to create a disturbance for the forum. Still if admin wishes to keep them, then they should be a representative aspect to identify the actual poster or views they have created themselves. Like Victor said we are guests on this forum after all and no matter how much we go at each other including myself, the buck stops with Ben. His house and thus his rules.

I might have guessed that you are the whiny, complaining princess behind all this. Cannot believe you're so "precious" that a signature is winding you up.

Did someone's signature hurt your poor little feelings? HA HA!

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:A signature is supposed to be something to identify you by who you are.
The fact is they have long since represented being that. Rarely are they anything that is of the posters own wisdom but are plagiarized. Are used as a platform to promote a political stance. Often used to antagonize posters and worst of all being abused to goad and incite hate, which renders the use of having or using them at all, meaningless.

If something cannot be used appropriately, then it is not worth having at all and it will be one less thing the moderation team have to worry themselves over having to deal with. We come here to share and debate views and we certainly already know very much each others views, where I fail to see how ramming this down peoples throats by huge pictures which take up the page are in anyway productive but a means again to create a disturbance for the forum. Still if admin wishes to keep them, then they should be a representative aspect to identify the actual poster or views they have created themselves. Like Victor said we are guests on this forum after all and no matter how much we go at each other including myself, the buck stops with Ben. His house and thus his rules.

I might have guessed that you are the whiny, complaining princess behind all this. Cannot believe you're so "precious" that a signature is winding you up.

Did someone's signature hurt your poor little feelings? HA HA!

Sorry can you act like an adult and produce a proper reply please

As your sexist immature replies are really boring

As to the signature as stated it does not bother me and happy either way what Ben decides, but if used to against others, i will take issue with them and reason why

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:A signature is supposed to be something to identify you by who you are.
The fact is they have long since represented being that. Rarely are they anything that is of the posters own wisdom but are plagiarized. Are used as a platform to promote a political stance. Often used to antagonize posters and worst of all being abused to goad and incite hate, which renders the use of having or using them at all, meaningless.

If something cannot be used appropriately, then it is not worth having at all and it will be one less thing the moderation team have to worry themselves over having to deal with. We come here to share and debate views and we certainly already know very much each others views, where I fail to see how ramming this down peoples throats by huge pictures which take up the page are in anyway productive but a means again to create a disturbance for the forum. Still if admin wishes to keep them, then they should be a representative aspect to identify the actual poster or views they have created themselves. Like Victor said we are guests on this forum after all and no matter how much we go at each other including myself, the buck stops with Ben. His house and thus his rules.

I might have guessed that you are the whiny, complaining princess behind all this. Cannot believe you're so "precious" that a signature is winding you up.

Did someone's signature hurt your poor little feelings? HA HA!

Now then Zack, to be fair, the signature in question was aimed at Didge.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I might have guessed that you are the whiny, complaining princess behind all this. Cannot believe you're so "precious" that a signature is winding you up.

Did someone's signature hurt your poor little feelings? HA HA!

Now then Zack, to be fair, the signature in question was aimed at Didge.

I read it. So what?

Are we all suppose to tip toe around so what we don't hurt Didge's feelings? Why do you think I call him a precious princess? He's clearly not a man, he's just stolen someone else's balls and doesn't know what to do with them.

He's now claiming he doesn't care but that's such bullshit. He obviously does. He doesn't like his massive ego hurt.

So just for him, we have to modify how we express our signatures.

If signatures are restricted, I may just have to employ the same tactic using my avatar. See if they ban that.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I might have guessed that you are the whiny, complaining princess behind all this. Cannot believe you're so "precious" that a signature is winding you up.

Did someone's signature hurt your poor little feelings? HA HA!

Sorry can you act like an adult and produce a proper reply please

As your sexist immature replies are really boring

As to the signature as stated it does not bother me and happy either way what Ben decides, but if used to against others, i will take issue with them and reason why

Yo do care, princess. You wouldn't have thrown your little tantrum if you didn't.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


Sorry can you act like an adult and produce a proper reply please

As your sexist immature replies are really boring

As to the signature as stated it does not bother me and happy either way what Ben decides, but if used to against others, i will take issue with them and reason why

Yo do care, princess. You wouldn't have thrown your little tantrum if you didn't.

So sexually immature again I see

Why do you call a hetrosexual man a princess

It can only be for two reasons

Either you think I am gay

Or you think women are weak

So either you are bigoted towards women or homosexuals

I am very sure you are very much homophobic

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:A signature is supposed to be something to identify you by who you are.
The fact is they have long since represented being that. Rarely are they anything that is of the posters own wisdom but are plagiarized. Are used as a platform to promote a political stance. Often used to antagonize posters and worst of all being abused to goad and incite hate, which renders the use of having or using them at all, meaningless.

If something cannot be used appropriately, then it is not worth having at all and it will be one less thing the moderation team have to worry themselves over having to deal with. We come here to share and debate views and we certainly already know very much each others views, where I fail to see how ramming this down peoples throats by huge pictures which take up the page are in anyway productive but a means again to create a disturbance for the forum. Still if admin wishes to keep them, then they should be a representative aspect to identify the actual poster or views they have created themselves. Like Victor said we are guests on this forum after all and no matter how much we go at each other including myself, the buck stops with Ben. His house and thus his rules.

I might have guessed that you are the whiny, complaining princess behind all this. Cannot believe you're so "precious" that a signature is winding you up.

Did someone's signature hurt your poor little feelings? HA HA!

IRONIC, isn't it Fuzzy; how the #1 member that the quotated wording was about...was in fact flaming the very member that he now quantifies "the buck stops with Ben - his house his rules"  and the member has done nothing but disrespect/flame and ignore any and all dictates from that very same AUTHORITY!!! 

Respect - Authority - Trust - and adult behavior; seems what is spewed is the same request that we've ALL BEEN ASKING FOR!  And that's all been over flowing out of their cesspool since my first day here - such a short time ago - not quite a month anniversary yet! 
Oh, yes...the irony is heavy within the pack --- even this morning

aspca4ever wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I might have guessed that you are the whiny, complaining princess behind all this. Cannot believe you're so "precious" that a signature is winding you up.

Did someone's signature hurt your poor little feelings? HA HA!

IRONIC, isn't it Fuzzy; how the #1 member that the quotated wording was about...was in fact flaming the very member that he now quantifies "the buck stops with Ben - his house his rules"  and the member has done nothing but disrespect/flame and ignore any and all dictates from that very same AUTHORITY!!! 

Respect - Authority - Trust - and adult behavior; seems what is spewed is the same request that we've ALL BEEN ASKING FOR!  And that's all been over flowing out of their cesspool since my first day here - such a short time ago - not quite a month anniversary yet! 
Oh, yes...the irony is heavy within the pack --- even this morning

Actually I have show I have moved on and it is you everyday still unable to do so

Not sure why you have it in for so many posters

Seriously its not hard to do to move on

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Yo do care, princess. You wouldn't have thrown your little tantrum if you didn't.

So sexually immature again I see

Why do you call a hetrosexual man a princess

It can only be for two reasons

Either you think I am gay

Or you think women are weak

So either you are bigoted towards women or homosexuals

I am very sure you are very much homophobic

I call you a princess because you throw a precious little tantrum when you're upset. You don't deserve to be called a man. I think you're weak, much more than any homosexual or woman.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Now then Zack, to be fair, the signature in question was aimed at Didge.

I read it. So what?

Are we all suppose to tip toe around so what we don't hurt Didge's feelings? Why do you think I call him a precious princess? He's clearly not a man, he's just stolen someone else's balls and doesn't know what to do with them.

He's now claiming he doesn't care but that's such bullshit. He obviously does. He doesn't like his massive ego hurt.

So just for him, we have to modify how we express our signatures.

If signatures are restricted, I may just have to employ the same tactic using my avatar. See if they ban that.

Having such a signature is clearly provocative because every time the person posts the signature is there mocking Didge. I had a signature which quoted something Wolfman had said, but I thought it was amusing because it was implying that I wasn't a real person. That is different to the one aimed at Didge. I don't mind it not being here now either - I wouldn't mind if sigs were permanently switched off tbh.

Didge wrote:

aspca4ever wrote:

IRONIC, isn't it Fuzzy; how the #1 member that the quotated wording was about...was in fact flaming the very member that he now quantifies "the buck stops with Ben - his house his rules"  and the member has done nothing but disrespect/flame and ignore any and all dictates from that very same AUTHORITY!!! 

Respect - Authority - Trust - and adult behavior; seems what is spewed is the same request that we've ALL BEEN ASKING FOR!  And that's all been over flowing out of their cesspool since my first day here - such a short time ago - not quite a month anniversary yet! 
Oh, yes...the irony is heavy within the pack --- even this morning

Actually I have show I have moved on and it is you everyday still unable to do so

Not sure why you have it in for so many posters

Seriously its not hard to do to move on

You cannot spill the milk and then say I've moved on. lol! You're such a coward that you have no sense of ownership and responsibility, princess.

Signatures would not have been even considered until you started crying.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I might have guessed that you are the whiny, complaining princess behind all this. Cannot believe you're so "precious" that a signature is winding you up.

Did someone's signature hurt your poor little feelings? HA HA!

Sorry can you act like an adult and produce a proper reply please

As your sexist immature replies are really boring

As to the signature as stated it does not bother me and happy either way what Ben decides, but if used to against others, i will take issue with them and reason why

Coff!! (bullshit)

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


So sexually immature again I see

Why do you call a hetrosexual man a princess

It can only be for two reasons

Either you think I am gay

Or you think women are weak

So either you are bigoted towards women or homosexuals

I am very sure you are very much homophobic

I call you a princess because you throw a precious little tantrum when you're upset. You don't deserve to be called a man. I think you're weak, much more than any homosexual or woman.

So you are saying that females are associated with tantrums then as again I am not female and a Princess is female

Like I said sexually immature

So now I do not deserve to be called a man stating clearly that you think I am weak and that only men are thus strong

Now either you were brought up to believe women are weak, or your culture or your religion

I mean seriously, that shows you have the mentality of a teenager Zack

My life is not going to change because you offer up teenage insults

So you do not think I am a man and thus think women are weak by the view only men must be strong

No wonder you are single and not married

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:



Actually I have show I have moved on and it is you everyday still unable to do so

Not sure why you have it in for so many posters

Seriously its not hard to do to move on

You cannot spill the milk and then say I've moved on. lol! You're such a coward that you have no sense of ownership and responsibility, princess.

Signatures would not have been even considered until you started crying.

So now coward again.

Seriously is there anything intelligent or mature that is able to pass your lips, or just more teenage mentality?

I really am laughing in your face now lol

korban dallas wrote:

Didge wrote:


Sorry can you act like an adult and produce a proper reply please

As your sexist immature replies are really boring

As to the signature as stated it does not bother me and happy either way what Ben decides, but if used to against others, i will take issue with them and reason why

Coff!! (bullshit)

Please use a tissue, we do not need any germs spread over the forum thank you

Ta

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:



Actually I have show I have moved on and it is you everyday still unable to do so

Not sure why you have it in for so many posters

Seriously its not hard to do to move on

You cannot spill the milk and then say I've moved on. lol! You're such a coward that you have no sense of ownership and responsibility, princess.

Signatures would not have been even considered until you started crying.

I noticed it, and I disapproved of it, and I don't even get on with Didge half the time.

It was provocative Zack - no doubt about it.

ahhhh...give over ya daft buggers...if me and didge held grudges, there would be permanent war....

have a scrap by all means.........and then move on...

Lord Foul wrote:ahhhh...give over ya daft buggers...if me  and didge held grudges, there would be permanent war....

have a scrap by all means.........and then move on...

Exactly   

Oh and just for Zack so he can learn something:

Mahatma Gandhi > 

[size=14]“To call woman the weaker sex is a libel; it is man's injustice to woman. If by strength is meant brute strength, then, indeed, is woman less brute than man. If by strength is meant moral power, then woman is immeasurably man's superior. Has she not greater intuition, is she not more self-sacrificing, has she not greater powers of endurance, has she not greater courage? Without her, man could not be. If nonviolence is the law of our being, the future is with woman. Who can make a more effective appeal to the heart than woman?"[/size]

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


So sexually immature again I see

Why do you call a hetrosexual man a princess

It can only be for two reasons

Either you think I am gay

Or you think women are weak

So either you are bigoted towards women or homosexuals

I am very sure you are very much homophobic

I call you a princess because you throw a precious little tantrum when you're upset. You don't deserve to be called a man. I think you're weak, much more than any homosexual or woman.

That's a bit sexist and a bit ... I don't what ... against gay people. You're implying that women and gay people are weak. Of course most women are physically weaker than most men, but even so ...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I call you a princess because you throw a precious little tantrum when you're upset. You don't deserve to be called a man. I think you're weak, much more than any homosexual or woman.

That's a bit sexist and a bit ... I don't what ... against gay people. You're implying that women and gay people are weak. Of course most women are physically weaker than most men, but even so ...

Indeed, its again another poor stereotype that is bigoted towards women and homosexuals

Strength is also very much a mental aspect, where many women are very strong in.

Even to look down on people and view them as weak is such an immature view to have, as again this is where racism/sexism forms, a view of inferiority

What gets me is someone was silly enough to give a green for that sexism and homophobic post

I wonder if they have the balls to admit they did???  



Catch you later Rags

Who gave Zack a greenie for his post?