Originally posted by robbie carrobieThread 141269
Randolph's too chicken in case his thread fails. So what, no one reads it, no one comments, boo hoo hoo, wah wah wah, it goes into oblivion. Man there are lots of ways to convince oneself that it was not our fault, that they were not ready for it etc etc
Originally posted by HandyAndyThat was aeons ago Randers, make with another thread pronto rapid.
Thread 141269
Originally posted by SuzianneI welcome being challenged. I welcome your comments here. I think you are demonstrating what kind of posting you believe is OK and that you are offering a clear exhibition as to where you yourself set the bar.
You are a hypocrite of the highest caliber. You are the one who cannot stand being challenged for the preposterous things you say in public.
Originally posted by SeitseLet's not forget that Roberta's waiting for god's perfect plan
1. How do you think God sees your hypocritical, aggressive and
less than Christian behavior on RHP General Forum?
2. Aren't you afraid that God, seeing how you passive aggressively
harm people here and how you have misused their personal info,
will abandon you?
in her life, so it begs the questions above.
Bump!
FMF to Grampy Bobby: Is robbie carrobie one of the "small men" you were apparently referring to a couple of pages ago?You don't seem to know what "passive aggressive" means. My question was a point blank one to which Grampy Bobby should be able to give a yes or no answer. He has raised the notion of there being "small men" on this forum (presumably that's what he meant with his couple of posts that mentioned it, right?). Can only people who stand up to him or criticize him be "small men", or can people like you and robbie be "small men" too? This is not a "passive aggressive" response to Grampy Bobby's posts. It's direct and it engages the exact words he used.
Originally posted by Suzianne
Passive-aggressive, much?
If you feel he is, just say so.
Originally posted by Captain StrangeOn the contrary her stance is perfectly rational and warranted.
She is off her chump using words like that.
In England and Wales, the Malicious Communications Act 1988 covers comments that cause "distress or anxiety". Similar legislation applies in Northern Ireland.
The third Act is the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which deals with stalking both on and offline. It applies in England and Wales, while Scotland and Northern Ireland have similar legislation. It can be pursued in both civil and criminal courts.
I would imagine the courts would take a rather serious look at FMF and crybabyjeesters comments.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePerhaps Suzianne should speak to lawyers then, robbie. I'm sure they'd talk about "taking a serious look" at her "perfectly rational and warranted" concerns. For their usual fee, of course.
On the contrary her stance is perfectly rational and warranted.
In England and Wales, the Malicious Communications Act 1988 covers comments that cause "distress or anxiety". Similar legislation applies in Northern Ireland.
The third Act is the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which deals with stalking both on and offline. It applies in Engl ...[text shortened]... a rather serious look at FMF and crybabyjeesters comments and yes they really are that serious.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySuzianne, this post by Grampy Bobby, and his two previous mentions of "small men" on this thread, is an example of "passive aggressive" posting.
The "small men” reference from the Erich Maria Remarque quotation is categorically generic rather than to specific Red Hot Pawn Members.,