PSA - Pointless Ad-hominem Attacks - Updated 2023-10-26

Aynirar27 said:
Which dudes from TGP are left? The only ones I knew that came over with me pretty much left immediately, save for a few that only chime in occasionally.
I’m not disagreeing with you, I just didn’t realize any of the “prime posters” here were from TGP
Click to expand...
Joe, ScooterMctooter, SlapNutz. DickCheeze, RubberLimpDick, 69er/ReportyMcBandit are the ones I’m thinking of.

~ss
 
ShredSquatch said:
Whatever you say Donny
Click to expand...
6aCQmed.gif
 
ShredSquatch said:
Good question, I was wondering about terms like "fanny fairy" "turd burglar" "butt pirate" and "mayonnaise monkey" "wiener coat" "salami sock" "thunder cunt" and "cuntzilla"

Maybe @Monkey Man can help
Click to expand...
Use your best judgement mate.

"Describing imaginary sexual acts by members with the obvious intention of denigrating them."

OTTOMH I'd say your examples are OK; treading close, but OK. If it crosses the boundary quoted above its not-OK. The fact that they don't contain verbs is probably what saves them.

Bagel and Creamcheese said:
More stupid. You need to lick Picasso's ass a little harder.
Click to expand...
If you'd said, "... kiss his ass...", that'd have been preferable and extremely-colloquial. Just getting a little too-descriptive, ya see?

TBH, it's obviously not-too-bad; it was reported so I'm obligated to address it. At any rate, it's not an image any of us really wants to see in our mind's eye, is it?

paulyc said:
So is “his” rectum. From overuse. And not by exit only. Not that there’s anything wrong with that…
Click to expand...
"Describing imaginary sexual organs of members with the obvious intention of denigrating them."

Clever qualifier with the iconic Seinfeld quote, but nevertheless it ignores the guideline quoted.
 
CrazyNutz said:
Just to be clear saying "The MAGAs are Trump dick riders" is OK, or Nah?

Not singling anyone out, so there's still plausible deniability :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Aimed at a group = OK
Aimed at a member = not-OK

Look guys, we've all got better things to do than trawl through the bottomless pit of gutter slurs and assess each's ability to fly. Use your best judgement. The rules are clear.

Pro tip:
If there's a verb involved, tread carefully; might be a sign you're about to describe an act, and if that act is by another member and of a sexual nature... ya know?
 
Monkey Man said:
Aimed at a group = OK
Aimed at a member = not-OK

Look guys, we've all got better things to do than trawl through the bottomless pit of gutter slurs and assess each's ability to fly. Use your best judgement. The rules are clear.

Pro tip:
If there's a verb involved, tread carefully; might be a sign you're about to describe an act, and if that act is by another member and of a sexual nature... ya know?
Click to expand...
I cannot believe people are actually reporting this stuff to you ha ha ha ha ha, How pathetic . Stop wasting Mr. Monkeys time folks, grow a pair for God's sakes, SUCK IT UP !!!!!!

Oh, I'm offended, SO FUCKING WHAT !!!!!! Get a grip !!!!
 
ccn said:
I cannot believe people are actually reporting this stuff to you ha ha ha ha ha, How pathetic . Stop wasting Mr. Monkeys time folks, grow a pair for God's sakes, SUCK IT UP !!!!!!

Oh, I'm offended, SO FUCKING WHAT !!!!!! Get a grip !!!!
Click to expand...
Damn, I have to agree with you.

We've got a case of "report it, maybe they'll get dinged for it". What a bunch of lavender pantied little girls.
 
Monkey Man said:
Use your best judgement mate.

"Describing imaginary sexual acts by members with the obvious intention of denigrating them."

OTTOMH I'd say your examples are OK; treading close, but OK. If it crosses the boundary quoted above its not-OK. The fact that they don't contain verbs is probably what saves them.


If you'd said, "... kiss his ass...", that'd have been preferable and extremely-colloquial. Just getting a little too-descriptive, ya see?

TBH, it's obviously not-too-bad; it was reported so I'm obligated to address it. At any rate, it's not an image any of us really wants to see in our mind's eye, is it?


"Describing imaginary sexual organs of members with the obvious intention of denigrating them."

Clever qualifier with the iconic Seinfeld quote, but nevertheless it ignores the guideline quoted.
Click to expand...
What if it involves a tub of jello or pudding some pillows, leather banana hammocks and what if @Aynirar27 is involved? Have you seen his selfies? :LOL:

~ss
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top