Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

Sorry... I don't come up with the definition of words and neither does he. A word cannot have a definition outside it's written one. I did not say what you mean, I said "IF you meant"... So, I'll let you answer.. What did you mean when you said "I do not entertain idiots..."?

en·ter·tain (ntr-tn)v. en·ter·tained, en·ter·tain·ing, en·ter·tains
v.tr.1. To hold the attention of with something amusing or diverting.


That definition, now don't tell me it's not a written definition. it was in fact the very first definition in the dictionary and thereby being the most common interpretation of the word. I know,... that's wouldn't have occurred to you, you were too busy trying to misconstrue my answer for that.

... and by saying that I am not going to "entertain" him, means that I am in no mood to jolly him along, or pander to his perverted wants just to let him have his say unopposed.

How did I quote you outside your meaning? It was a direct quote... No editing was done... It was directly from your post, and it was the entire statement.

You obviously used your interpretation of the word entertain rather than my interpretation. because you quite clearly stated that I did entertain him,... which I have since shown was false within the meaning implied (the very first meaning in the dictionary) That is what I meant when I said you quoted me outside my meaning, and because I am so well aware of your propensity to deliberately lie and misquote others I gave the answer that I did.

This would be my entertaining of idiots who think they know someone based on an extremely limited experience over the internet... LMAO

Que!!! please elaborate, your efforts are getting more "squirrelly" by the moment. Remember we are not vaguely interested in your "interpretation" only the facts. I don't seem to remember ever saying that I "knew" him,... on the contrary, I have no desire to ever be within a bulls roar of the social and neurological misfit.

So the gay boi sits back as laughs at you guys.... couldn't you see that he was setting you guys up! LOL!

Originally Posted by Hmmm

So the gay boi sits back as laughs at you guys.... couldn't you see that he was setting you guys up! LOL!

Naaahhh, he's not that smart, as evidenced by his choice of places to advertise his perversions,.... Ohh sorry,... he was born that way wasn't he?

I notice that he never bothered coming back today.

Prolly just thought he'd do a runner, Flash his ass, and run away.

I never could understand faggyness. That queerball crap just plain nauseates me. Hell if they wanna do it, have at it! Just don't involve me. But them queers they can't seem to get it through their, ummm, well, whatever it is they think they have.

Best way to be accepted by others for your individual qualities, don't go around demanding to be respected for something. Just be yourself, respect others as you would hope they respect you, and if the subject of being a fudge packer comes up, shoot yourself.

Problem solved.

It's just the "*****" in them I guess.

If they shut up and acted like everyone else, no one need ever know, but they insist in flaunting their "faggyness" as you call it, I guess that's reason enough to put most people off side before they even start with their abnormal and perverted social habits.

Originally Posted by senojekips

en·ter·tain (ntr-tn)v. en·ter·tained, en·ter·tain·ing, en·ter·tains
v.tr.1. To hold the attention of with something amusing or diverting.


That definition, now don't tell me it's not a written definition. it was in fact the very first definition in the dictionary and thereby being the most common interpretation of the word. I know,... that's wouldn't have occurred to you, you were too busy trying to misconstrue my answer for that.

I didn't tell you it wasn't a written definition. But when you said "I'm not in the habit of entertaining idiots who can't grasp facts" I took it to mean "I'm not going to give you consideration since you can't grasp facts"... Not "I'm not going to give you a show because you can't grasp facts." I promise you, he wasn't looking for a show, he was looking for a debate. He was looking for consideration.

Originally Posted by senojekips

... and by saying that I am not going to "entertain" him, means that I am in no mood to jolly him along, or pander to his perverted wants just to let him have his say unopposed.

Precisely! You're not going to give him or his "perverted wants" consideration! SEE?!?! You don't even know your OWN meaning of the word. You weren't going to give his perverted wants the time of day. You didn't mean "I'm not going to amuse or distract you." You meant "I'm not going to listen to you." How can I argue with someone who cannot grasp the semantics of his own tongue?

Originally Posted by senojekips

You obviously used your interpretation of the word entertain rather than my interpretation. because you quite clearly stated that I did entertain him,... which I have since shown was false within the meaning implied (the very first meaning in the dictionary) That is what I meant when I said you quoted me outside my meaning, and because I am so well aware of your propensity to deliberately lie and misquote others I gave the answer that I did.

And obviously you did entertain him, because even though you might not have meant the meaning that I posted (which I still believe you did, as indicated by YOUR reasoning) you still entertained him. The wording doesn't change.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Que!!! please elaborate, your efforts are getting more "squirrelly" by the moment. Remember we are not vaguely interested in your "interpretation" only the facts. I don't seem to remember ever saying that I "knew" him,... on the contrary, I have no desire to ever be within a bulls roar of the social and neurological misfit.

I was referring to ME. You have unsuccessfully failed multiple times to "label" me or "analyze" me. "You are absolutely transparent." Talking about my "large mouth", or how I'm constantly lying or misquoting you. Face it, you think you know me, don't you?

You've had it all explained (numerous times) in language that even a 2 year old could clearly grasp, I'm not going to keep telling you the same answer over and over merely because, you are still stalling , trying desperately to work out a way you can lie your way out of it.

And believe me, I certainly know your devious lying habits well enough to well and truly "have your number". Like,... As soon as you realise that you have lost the point, you start dismantling others posts, applying your own very selective and usually obscure interpretation of words and phrases to the posts of others.

The evidence of your deviate and childish behaviour including your admission of lying and deliberately distorting the posts of others is still on this forum for all to see. (Plus I have saved the pages lest anything "happen" to them) Your "reputation" precedes you.

Bye bye Rob.

Originally Posted by senojekips

You've had it all explained (numerous times) in language that even a 2 year old could clearly grasp, I'm not going to keep telling you the same answer over and over merely because, you are still stalling , trying desperately to work out a way you can lie your way out of it.

And believe me, I certainly know your devious lying habits well enough to well and truly "have your number". Like,... As soon as you realise that you have lost the point, you start dismantling others posts, applying your own very selective and usually obscure interpretation of words and phrases to the posts of others.

The evidence of your deviate and childish behaviour including your admission of lying and deliberately distorting the posts of others is still on this forum for all to see. (Plus I have saved the pages lest anything "happen" to them) Your "reputation" precedes you.

Bye bye Rob.

Oh, I see, you're posting a two year old's language... GOT IT! It all makes sense now. You haven't answered anything. You think my wording is selective... You ought to read your own posts sometime.

And believe ME, you don't know ANYTHING about me, and the fact that you THINK you do betrays your ignorance.

"I have saved the pages lest anything 'happen' to them."

And you're calling ME childish? LMAO


Good riddance, Spike.

Bye bye Rob,..... Off you go,...

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

Oh, I see, you're posting a two year old's language... GOT IT! It all makes sense now. You haven't answered anything. You think my wording is selective... You ought to read your own posts sometime.

And believe ME, you don't know ANYTHING about me, and the fact that you THINK you do betrays your ignorance.

"I have saved the pages lest anything 'happen' to them."

And you're calling ME childish? LMAO


Good riddance, Spike.

Oh come on Rob! You can't say that here! It's just too gay!