Melania Trump

by Andy Sat Jan 27, 2018 8:33 am

First topic message reminder :

What does she see in an old, fat, balding, inarticulate, racist, sexist, multi timing porn start loving, adultering, multi millionaire?

http://dailym.ai/2FmXD3x

She will off quicker than a whore's drawers as soon as he is impeached.

by Syl Sun Jan 28, 2018 7:36 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:Quill, you seem to have mellowed somewhat in regard to Melania.
Its not that long ago you were calling her a prostitute.

As have you, and for the same reason. I like Melania...and I was curious about the marriage when I saw the behavior of Trump at his Inauguration. I've since read about what was going on at the time in Fire and Fury, by Michael Wolff:

Fibber...I have never called or hinted that she had ever been a prostitute....that was you, I pulled you up on it on at least two threads.
You posted a video of the interview Trump had given Howard Stern, where Melania was cajoled into speaking to him.
You seemed to think what she said proved she had been a prostitute. Rolling Eyes

We also argued about the fact that she was suing a Daily paper for implying she had been a call girl.
You said she wouldn't because she didn't have a leg to stand on.
In fact she did sue, and she did win an undisclosed amount.

I never save anyones posts or c&p them...if you do read back.
The paper was the Daily Mail.

by Andy Sun Jan 28, 2018 7:37 pm

How long will she stay with him when the shit starts flying, impeachment happens and more stories of pussy grabbing young teen girls emerge, eapecially if he if found to be still paying $130,000 per shag of a posh prozzie?

by Original Quill Sun Jan 28, 2018 8:07 pm

Syl wrote:You said she wouldn't because she didn't have a leg to stand on.
In fact she did sue, and she did win an undisclosed amount.

Hmmm...yes, undisclosed!! She didn't "win" anything, but rather entered into a settlement accord. I would like to see the details.

It matters not...she's refiled the lawsuit:

USA Today wrote:Melania Trump's 'Daily Mail' lawsuit: A FLOTUS first

First lady Melania Trump has returned to the legal battlefield against the American outpost of Britain's rowdy tabloid, The Daily Mail: She's refiled her $150 million libel lawsuit against the powerful publication, which has been comparatively friendly to her husband's political career.

It's an unprecedented move for a first lady, but Trump, 46, is going after the Mail and its website MailOnline.com because they were among several less-than-fastidious media publications that reported in August on allegations that Trump, a former model, once worked for Milan and New York modeling agencies that also operated as escort agencies.

At the time the Daily Mail story was first published in August 2016, she strongly denied those allegations as "100% false and tremendously damaging to her personal and professional reputation,” according to her lawyers' statement at the time. A month later, The Mail issued a retraction. (She also won an apology and settlement from a Maryland blogger who published a similar story.)

On Monday, the first lady refiled her lawsuit against Mail Media Inc., in New York state court, after her initial effort to file in Maryland was rejected by a judge as the wrong venue. MailOnline.com, which is based in New York, claims to be the biggest, most-read news website in the world.

A spokesman for MailOnline did not return a message from USA TODAY seeking comment.

Her lawsuit asserts the escort story damaged her chances of profiting from her high profile, which expanded when she married Donald Trump in 2005 but has soared since he was elected president in November and the Slovenian native became the first foreign-born first lady in nearly two centuries.

Trump's filing claims she "had the unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, as an extremely famous and well-known person, as well as a former professional model, brand spokesperson and successful businesswoman, to launch a broad-based commercial brand in multiple product categories, each of which could have garnered multi-million dollar business relationships for a multi-year term during which Plaintiff is one of the most photographed women in the world.”

Those product categories could have included apparel, accessories, jewelry, cosmetics, hair care and fragrance, among others, the lawsuit says.

But hold the outrage — Trump's attorney, California media lawyer Charles Harder, insists that doesn't mean she intends to monetize her new role as critics have implied.

"The first lady has no intention of using her position for profit and will not do so," Harder said in an emailed statement to USA TODAY. "It is not a possibility. Any statements to the contrary are being misinterpreted."

But when pressed for a reason for why her lawsuit contains such language, Harder did not respond.

Profiting from their position has not been an issue for modern first ladies, although it's not clear that doing so would be illegal given that the "job" is unofficial, undefined and unpaid.

First lady historian Myra Gutin, a professor at Rider University in Lawrenceville, N.,J., says a few first ladies have participated in commercial projects in the past — books, radio broadcasts, TV programs — but they donated their pay to charity.

"It's such murky territory," Gutin said. "No, there is nothing that would prohibit her from profiting. But it would be a first."

It's also a first for a first lady to file a lawsuit, although Trump wasn't yet FLOTUS when she originally filed hers.

"It's unprecedented for a president (to file a libel suit), let alone a first lady," says Mark Feldstein, a former NBC investigative reporter and a journalism professor at the University of Maryland.

He says former President Theodore Roosevelt once sued a Michigan newspaper for calling him a drunk;the president won after the reporter admitted it was false and apologized on the stand. "Roosevelt shook his hand and dropped the suit."

Mrs. Trump must clear a high bar in order to prevail. Unlike in the Mail's home country, libel lawsuits are difficult to win in the United States, especially if the defendant is rich and powerful and the plaintiff is a public figure like Trump. In those kinds of cases, a plaintiff must prove a high standard of "actual malice" on the part of the defendant in order to win.

I just don't see her getting past New York Times v. Sullivan, which holds that if a person is a public figure, he or she is fair game for the press and must show actual malice in the alleged defamatory statement. A simple phone call will suffice, to get the other side. Then the publisher is 'absent malice' as they say.

I don't think she can get past that First Amendment bar. I didn't before, and now that she has undone the "non-disclosed" settlement, I don't think so now. I would give a 'public figure' about a 1% chance of winning any lawsuit.

I have a hunch her husband is behind the lawsuit. It has the feel of his impetuosity about it. He's known to file lawsuits with a lot of noise and fanfare around it, only to creep away, tail tucked, when all the noise is gone.

by Syl Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:49 pm

Quill, what date was the item you posted above?
As far as I can see this was the last news posted....
she won, they retracted, end of.

The publishers of the Daily Mail and MailOnline have agreed to pay damages to Melania Trump over false claims about her work as a professional model.

The newspaper and website have agreed to publish a retraction and apology to the First Lady.

An agreed statement was read out at the Royal Courts of Justice on behalf of both parties

and....

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/12/melania-trump-accepts-damages-and-apology-from-daily-mail

by Syl Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:59 pm

And I would also appreciate you acknowledging the fact that you were wrong in saying I had ever implied Melania was a prostitute.
You did...I argued with you about it.

by Original Quill Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:28 pm

Syl wrote:Quill, what date was the item you posted above?

Maria Puente, USA TODAY Published 6:11 p.m. ET Feb. 7, 2017 | Updated 6:31 p.m. ET Feb. 7, 2017

by Original Quill Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:36 pm

The cite you offer is of a liable action in British courts, not New York courts:

The Guardian wrote:The libel settlement is one of the highest ever to go through the British courts.

This is significant because the UK doesn't have a First Amendment, nor even a written Constitution.

Also, note that it wasn't an award, but a settlement.

by Syl Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:38 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:Quill, what date was the item you posted above?

Maria Puente, USA TODAY Published 6:11 p.m. ET Feb. 7, 2017 | Updated 6:31 p.m. ET Feb. 7, 2017

Well the settlement and retraction with apology was posted 2 months later.

by Original Quill Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:44 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Maria Puente, USA TODAY Published 6:11 p.m. ET Feb. 7, 2017 | Updated 6:31 p.m. ET Feb. 7, 2017

Well the settlement and retraction with apology was posted 2 months later.

...in a British court. It apparently had nothing to do with the New York court action, which would still be fraught with constitutional issues.

by Syl Mon Jan 29, 2018 12:14 am

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:

Well the settlement and retraction with apology was posted 2 months later.

...in a British court. It apparently had nothing to do with the New York court action, which would still be fraught with constitutional issues.

It was a British paper she sued.
In any case, the origional argument we had here was when you
A..called her a prostitute
B ..claimed she wouldnt sue any publication because she wouldnt have a leg to stand on.

You were wrong...also wrong in saying I called her a prostitute.
You wont retract that though because you obviously find it hard to admit you are ever wrong. Rolling Eyes

by Original Quill Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:22 am

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

...in a British court. It apparently had nothing to do with the New York court action, which would still be fraught with constitutional issues.
It was a British paper she sued.
In any case, the origional argument we had here was when you
A..called her a prostitute
B ..claimed she wouldnt sue any publication because she wouldnt have a leg to stand on.

You were wrong...also wrong in saying I called her a prostitute.
You wont retract that though because you obviously find it hard to admit you are ever wrong.

Why do you say I was wrong when I've just proved I was right. Any lawsuit brought in the US has to deal with New York Times v. Sullivan.

And I don't remember you calling her a prostitute. You were always defending her. What is there to retract?

I think your memory fails you. Go back and check.

by Syl Mon Jan 29, 2018 12:32 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:
It was a British paper she sued.
In any case, the origional argument we had here was when you
A..called her a prostitute
B ..claimed she wouldnt sue any publication because she wouldnt have a leg to stand on.

You were wrong...also wrong in saying I called her a prostitute.
You wont retract that though because you obviously find it hard to admit you are ever wrong.

Why do you say I was wrong when I've just proved I was right. Any lawsuit brought in the US has to deal with New York Times v. Sullivan.

And I don't remember you calling her a prostitute. You were always defending her. What is there to retract?

I think your memory fails you. Go back and check.

In our origional argument which we were referring to, you were adamant that she would not sue any publication for defamation of character. You said public figures like her never won because they were fair game and in any case she didn't have a leg to stand on.
She sued, she won.....you are now changing the goal posts saying you were right because she won in Britain not America. scratch

Nothing wrong with my memory or my eyesight.

Syl wrote:
"Quill, you seem to have mellowed somewhat in regard to Melania.
Its not that long ago you were calling her a prostitute."

Origional Quill wrote

"As have you, and for the same reason. I like Melania...and I was curious about the marriage when I saw the behavior of Trump at his Inauguration. I've since read about what was going on at the time in Fire and Fury, by Michael Wolff:"

by Original Quill Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:21 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Why do you say I was wrong when I've just proved I was right. Any lawsuit brought in the US has to deal with New York Times v. Sullivan.

And I don't remember you calling her a prostitute. You were always defending her. What is there to retract?

I think your memory fails you. Go back and check.

In our origional argument which we were referring to, you were adamant that she would not sue any publication for defamation of character. You said public figures like her never won because they were fair game and in any case she didn't have a leg to stand on.
She sued, she won.....you are now changing the goal posts saying you were right because she won in Britain not America.

But she didn't win. The suit was only refiled last year, in New York courts. She will lose because of New York Times v. Sullivan. Isn't that what I said before? Nothing has changed.

Syl wrote:Nothing wrong with my memory or my eyesight.

Well I don't know. Your record isn't so good...see above.

Syl wrote:Syl wrote:
"Quill, you seem to have mellowed somewhat in regard to Melania.
Its not that long ago you were calling her a prostitute."

Origional Quill wrote

"As have you, and for the same reason. I like Melania...and I was curious about the marriage when I saw the behavior of Trump at his Inauguration. I've since read about what was going on at the time in Fire and Fury, by Michael Wolff:"

Was I wrong? Do you not like Melania, just as I have come to like her? You seemed to have missed the point, or gone wrong somewhere. You like Melania; I've grown to like her. What exactly is it you are saying in disagreement with that?

by Syl Mon Jan 29, 2018 6:37 pm

I haven't mellowed towards her, I always liked her....so your comment "as have you and for the same reason" could only have been regarding the prostitute comment.
It wouldn't have made sense otherwise.

You know...you are so slippery sometimes I almost believe you actually could be a lawyer. Razz

by Original Quill Mon Jan 29, 2018 6:54 pm

Syl wrote:I haven't mellowed towards her, I always liked her....so your comment "as have you and for the same reason" could only have been regarding the prostitute comment.
It wouldn't have made sense otherwise.

You know...you are so slippery sometimes I almost believe you actually could be a lawyer.

I am slippery?? Or you are imprecise. I find myself, of necessity, trying to make sense of you before I respond.

You were saying I was accusing you of calling her a prostitute. Now where did that come from? You raise no post, nor give a link. You just make it up out of whole thin air.

I have to psychoanalyze you before I can say anything. Are you really that imperceptive? Are you that bad at reading a post? Is this a red herring? I've come to the conclusion that if you want to hate someone in the moment, you make up stories to justify yourself.

You're just trying to pick a fight, and not succeeding. Go away.

by Syl Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:05 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:I haven't mellowed towards her, I always liked her....so your comment "as have you and for the same reason" could only have been regarding the prostitute comment.
It wouldn't have made sense otherwise.

You know...you are so slippery sometimes I almost believe you actually could be a lawyer.

I am slippery?? Or you are imprecise. I find myself, of necessity, trying to make sense of you before I respond.

You were saying I was accusing you of calling her a prostitute. Now where did that come from? You raise no post, nor give a link. You just make it up out of whole thin air.

I have to psychoanalyze you before I can say anything. Are you really that imperceptive? Are you that bad at reading a post? Is this a red herring? I've come to the conclusion that if you want to hate someone in the moment, you make up stories to justify yourself.

You're just trying to pick a fight, and not succeeding. Go away.

I posted twice the conversation I was referring to....you just don't want to see it.

I don't think you read responses very well.....and if you do you will never concede that you were wrong. Rolling Eyes

I don't hate anyone...that's just daft, and I don't make up stories either, its not my fault you often speak in psychobabble instead of the Queens English, which I suppose could account for your confusion sometimes. Wink

by Original Quill Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:07 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I am slippery?? Or you are imprecise. I find myself, of necessity, trying to make sense of you before I respond.

You were saying I was accusing you of calling her a prostitute. Now where did that come from? You raise no post, nor give a link. You just make it up out of whole thin air.

I have to psychoanalyze you before I can say anything. Are you really that imperceptive? Are you that bad at reading a post? Is this a red herring? I've come to the conclusion that if you want to hate someone in the moment, you make up stories to justify yourself.

You're just trying to pick a fight, and not succeeding. Go away.

I posted twice the conversation I was referring to....you just don't want to see it.

Liar. You never posted the post, nor did you offer the cite. You just claimed I said it, which you know was untrue.

by Syl Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:14 pm

I'm not a liar Quill...don't be rude. snobby

I posted the exchange I was referring too...you have even quoted the same exchange, whilst all the time denying you said it.
Read up the page...and put your bloody glasses on. Rolling Eyes

by eddie Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:17 pm

Hahahahaha I don’t know if it’s my mood or what but this is bloody hilarious! You two should have a Saturday night show where you debate topics and get all shouty.

I’d pay to watch that.

by Original Quill Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:21 pm

Syl wrote:I'm not a liar Quill...don't be rude.

I posted the exchange I was referring too...you have even quoted the same exchange, whilst all the time denying you said it.
Read up the page...and put your bloody glasses on.

That's not what we are talking about...you're evading. We are talking about whether I ever said you called Melania a prostitute.

I never even took that position. Your natural response (if you were being genuine) would be to produce the original post. You did not, because you cannot. You were prevaricating. End of...

by Maddog Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:22 pm

Syl wrote:I'm not a liar Quill...don't be rude.

I posted the exchange I was referring too...you have even quoted the same exchange, whilst all the time denying you said it.
Read up the page...and put your bloody glasses on.

He can type something one day and deny it the next. He's pathological.

by Syl Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:27 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:I'm not a liar Quill...don't be rude.

I posted the exchange I was referring too...you have even quoted the same exchange, whilst all the time denying you said it.
Read up the page...and put your bloody glasses on.

That's not what we are talking about...you're evading. We are talking about whether I ever said you called Melania a prostitute.

I never even took that position. Your natural response (if you were being genuine) would be to produce the original post. You did not, because you cannot. You were prevaricating. End of...

Syl wrote:

Quill, you seem to have mellowed somewhat in regard to Melania.
Its not that long ago you were calling her a prostitute.

Origional Quill wrote...
As have you, and for the same reason. I like Melania...and I was curious about the marriage when I saw the behavior of Trump at his Inauguration. I've since read about what was going on at the time in Fire and Fury, by Michael Wolff:

by Syl Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:28 pm

eddie wrote:Hahahahaha I don’t know if it’s my mood or what but this is bloody hilarious! You two should have a Saturday night show where you debate topics and get all shouty.

I’d pay to watch that.

I don't get shouty Eddie....I get very quiet and precise. snobby

by Original Quill Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:34 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

That's not what we are talking about...you're evading. We are talking about whether I ever said you called Melania a prostitute.

I never even took that position. Your natural response (if you were being genuine) would be to produce the original post. You did not, because you cannot. You were prevaricating. End of...

Syl wrote:

Quill, you seem to have mellowed somewhat in regard to Melania.
Its not that long ago you were calling her a prostitute.

Those are your words, not mine. You're changing the subject again. Your allegation was, I had said you called her a prostitute. You are evading, once again.

Syl wrote:Origional Quill wrote...
As have you, and for the same reason. I like Melania...and I was curious about the marriage when I saw the behavior of Trump at his Inauguration. I've since read about what was going on at the time in Fire and Fury, by Michael Wolff:

Again, you are evading the point by quoting off-topic passages. Where's the passage where I said you called Melania a prostitute. You can't present it, because it doesn't exist.

by Syl Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:39 pm

Lets take it in baby steps.....

When I said.."Its not that long ago you were calling her a prostitute"

What did you mean by "As have you, and for the same reason" ?

by eddie Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:01 pm

Quill come on! By saying, in response to someone, “as have you” you’re saying “you have done exactly that”.

Jesus. I don’t want to seem as though I’m taking any sides but I just can’t sit back and allow that to happen.
Come on, you understand English.

by Raggamuffin Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:10 pm

Quill didn't mean that you called her a prostitute Syl, or implied that she was, he said that you had mellowed towards her. That's probably untrue as you always stuck up for her (I think).

by Maddog Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:10 pm

For the record, I have never called Melania a prostitute.

by Raggamuffin Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:12 pm

Syl:

Quill, you seem to have mellowed somewhat in regard to Melania.
Its not that long ago you were calling her a prostitute.

Quill:

As have you, and for the same reason. I like Melania...and I was curious about the marriage when I saw the behavior of Trump at his Inauguration. I've since read about what was going on at the time in Fire and Fury, by Michael Wolff:

I think the "As have you" was referring to you mellowing towards her.

by eddie Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:15 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Syl:

Quill, you seem to have mellowed somewhat in regard to Melania.
Its not that long ago you were calling her a prostitute.

Quill:
As have you, and for the same reason. I like Melania...and I was curious about the marriage when I saw the behavior of Trump at his Inauguration. I've since read about what was going on at the time in Fire and Fury, by Michael Wolff:

I think the "As have you" was referring to you mellowing towards her.

That could well be true, actually. Well observed lady.
He could’ve just have said that a while back and cleared it up though.

by Syl Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:18 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Syl:

Quill, you seem to have mellowed somewhat in regard to Melania.
Its not that long ago you were calling her a prostitute.

Quill:
As have you, and for the same reason. I like Melania...and I was curious about the marriage when I saw the behavior of Trump at his Inauguration. I've since read about what was going on at the time in Fire and Fury, by Michael Wolff:

I think the "As have you" was referring to you mellowing towards her.

I don't think so Rags and I have allready explained to Quill why.

Quill and I have had several conversations about Melania in the past, I have always supported her, so there has been no mellowing in my views, and he knows this.
So to imply there has been would make no sense at all.

by Raggamuffin Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:18 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Syl:

Quill:

I think the "As have you" was referring to you mellowing towards her.

That could well be true, actually. Well observed lady.
He could’ve just have said that a while back and cleared it up though.

Quill never clears anything up - he usually keeps muddying the waters. lol!

by Syl Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:27 pm

Maddog wrote:For the record, I have never called Melania a prostitute.

Neither have I...its just Quill said I did. tongue

by Andy Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:35 pm

The only prozzie is the Stormy lady who was impaled by the Trumpster and paid $130000 for her silence.

by nicko Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:35 pm

"Impaled" i like that description Andy !

by Original Quill Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:11 pm

Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:For the record, I have never called Melania a prostitute.
Neither have I...its just Quill said I did.

That's a lie. That' twice today, Syl.

Are you becoming like pussy-grabber, 5 per day? Laughing

by Original Quill Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:13 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:

That could well be true, actually. Well observed lady.
He could’ve just have said that a while back and cleared it up though.

Quill never clears anything up - he usually keeps muddying the waters.

Raggs wrote:I think the "As have you" was referring to you mellowing towards her.

Precisely. We were discussing the argument on Inauguration day (between Trump and his wife), and I think that prompted a lot of people to feel more protective toward Melania. Both Syl and I shared that sentiment.

by Original Quill Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:21 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:

That could well be true, actually. Well observed lady.
He could’ve just have said that a while back and cleared it up though.

Quill never clears anything up - he usually keeps muddying the waters.

That's not true. It's just that non-original thinkers bring a lot of excess baggage to the table. They get confused between new thoughts and old-fashioned presumptions.

I explain myself fully, but they are original thoughts. It takes some effort to follow...some are incapable.

by Maddog Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:08 am

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Quill never clears anything up - he usually keeps muddying the waters.

That's not true. It's just that non-original thinkers bring a lot of excess baggage to the table. They get confused between new thoughts and old-fashioned presumptions.

I explain myself fully, but they are original thoughts. It takes some effort to follow...some are incapable.

WTF is a non original thinker? Someone who doesn't make shit up?

by Syl Tue Jan 30, 2018 1:00 am

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Quill never clears anything up - he usually keeps muddying the waters.

Raggs wrote:I think the "As have you" was referring to you mellowing towards her.

Precisely. We were discussing the argument on Inauguration day (between Trump and his wife), and I think that prompted a lot of people to feel more protective toward Melania. Both Syl and I shared that sentiment.

It was well before inauguration day we first discussed Melania. You continuously implied she had been a prostitute.
Remember you posted a link of Trump and her being interviewed by Howard Stern, ....that was months before the inauguration.

Yes, you have mellowed towards her since then, however, I have not, I had no need to because I always supported her.

And its for that reason I dont believe for a minute that your comment "As have you" referred to me mellowing towards her. Rolling Eyes

by Syl Tue Jan 30, 2018 1:10 am

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Quill never clears anything up - he usually keeps muddying the waters.

That's not true. It's just that non-original thinkers bring a lot of excess baggage to the table. They get confused between new thoughts and old-fashioned presumptions.

I explain myself fully, but they are original thoughts. It takes some effort to follow...some are incapable.

Some being you?

You often dont follow what people are saying because you dont read posts properly.
We can all explain ourselves badly or misunderstand what someone is meaning, but you often resort to waffle masquarading as intellect to cover the fact that you dont know as much as you pretend you do.

by Maddog Tue Jan 30, 2018 1:22 am

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

That's not true. It's just that non-original thinkers bring a lot of excess baggage to the table. They get confused between new thoughts and old-fashioned presumptions.

I explain myself fully, but they are original thoughts. It takes some effort to follow...some are incapable.
Some being you?

You often dont follow what people are saying because you dont read posts properly.
We can all explain ourselves badly or misunderstand what someone is meaning, but you often resort to waffle masquarading as intellect to cover the fact that you dont know as much as you pretend you do.

by JulesV Tue Jan 30, 2018 2:53 am

eddie wrote:You have that annoying habit of taking a sentence totally out of context and it’s a shitty way to debate.

If I have annoying habits it's because I am human, not a robot.
You have plenty of annoying habits yourself, eddie, and that has never bothered me cos this 'little pencil head' understands human nature far better than you realise. Smile

eddie wrote: and it’s a shitty way to debate.

And you being abusive is of course a great way to debate! lol!

by JulesV Tue Jan 30, 2018 2:57 am

eddie wrote:Exactly Rags. I had an idea my point would be taken and twisted into shapes to suit the mood.

Weird that you mention mood. Melania Trump - Page 2 3489511464

I arrived at this thread with good humour.
YOU are the one who is cursing and swearing and being personally abusive, not me.

by Original Quill Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:16 am

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

That's not true. It's just that non-original thinkers bring a lot of excess baggage to the table. They get confused between new thoughts and old-fashioned presumptions.

I explain myself fully, but they are original thoughts. It takes some effort to follow...some are incapable.

WTF is a non original thinker? Someone who doesn't make shit up?

Funny, you should be the one to ask. You've never had an original thought in your life.

by Original Quill Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:21 am

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Precisely. We were discussing the argument on Inauguration day (between Trump and his wife), and I think that prompted a lot of people to feel more protective toward Melania. Both Syl and I shared that sentiment.
It was well before inauguration day we first discussed Melania. You continuously implied she had been a prostitute.
Remember you posted a link of Trump and her being interviewed by Howard Stern, ....that was months before the inauguration.

Talk about not reading posts. It was a discussion looking back on Inauguration day. We never discussed anything about it before.

Syl wrote:Yes, you have mellowed towards her since then, however, I have not, I had no need to because I always supported her.

And its for that reason I dont believe for a minute that your comment "As have you" referred to me mellowing towards her.

You're a proven liar. You are a waste of my time.

by Syl Tue Jan 30, 2018 1:10 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:
It was well before inauguration day we first discussed Melania. You continuously implied she had been a prostitute.
Remember you posted a link of Trump and her being interviewed by Howard Stern, ....that was months before the inauguration.

Talk about not reading posts. It was a discussion looking back on Inauguration day. We never discussed anything about it before.

Syl wrote:Yes, you have mellowed towards her since then, however, I have not, I had no need to because I always supported her.

And its for that reason I dont believe for a minute that your comment "As have you" referred to me mellowing towards her.

You're a proven liar. You are a waste of my time.

I'm not a liar Quill. Rolling Eyes

We discussed Melania months before Trump was elected as president.

You posted an audio of when Trump and Melania had been interviewed on the Howard Stern radio show prior to their marriage.

You did this to discredit her, you were backing yourself up because you had previously called her a prostitute and continued to do so.

I don't mind that you don't remember, but calling me a liar because you have memory loss is not the correct way to discuss anything....I'm almost surprised at your lack of manners.

by magica Tue Jan 30, 2018 1:22 pm

He said she said, its like a double act, lol.

I won't take sides

But

I'm on syls side Laughing

by eddie Tue Jan 30, 2018 1:41 pm

Jules wrote:
eddie wrote:You have that annoying habit of taking a sentence totally out of context and it’s a shitty way to debate.
If I have annoying habits it's because I am human, not a robot.
You have plenty of annoying habits yourself, eddie, and that has never bothered me cos this 'little pencil head' understands human nature far better than you realise.

eddie wrote: and it’s a shitty way to debate.

And you being abusive is of course a great way to debate!

My point still stands.
You didn’t read my post in context to the thread and it is a shitty way to debate - if you find those words abusive Prissy Polly then ooops!
But you don’t find them abusive, do you? You just said it to make a useless cheap point.

Like a really useless cheap pencil.

by Syl Tue Jan 30, 2018 2:15 pm

magica wrote:He said she said, its like a double act, lol.

I won't take sides

But

I'm on syls side

Thanks Mags...but I don't want people to take sides, just look at the facts,

By the way, Quill said we had had no discussion about him saying Melania had been a prostitute prior to inorguration day.
Here's just one of them...

Re: The next First Lady of the United States, in pictures
Melania Trump - Page 2 Empty

by Syl on Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:00 pm

Original Quill wrote:As Euro attractive as she is, I'm completely turned off by those snake eyes.

"She has led a hard life as an escort in Eastern Europe, and I have sympathy for her plight. But those eyes are hard to get around."

Syl wrote.
"Did the publications not back down sharpish and make grovelling aplologies when she threatened to take them to court over allegations that she was ever an escort Quill?"

........................................................................................................................................................................

Melania Trump - Page 2 Empty

by Sponsored content