Cartek, markay, and soonerdawg are staying away from Paw-Litics not because a couple of "foreigners" are posting here but because their neo-con policies have been shown to be not viable. The Republicans got a heck of an ass whooping last election.
|
|
|
|
|
Cartek, markay, and soonerdawg are staying away from Paw-Litics not because a couple of "foreigners" are posting here but because their neo-con policies have been shown to be not viable. The Republicans got a heck of an ass whooping last election.
ever see Broke Back Mountain ? :icon_wink:Originally Posted by saltydawg
I've heard of it but haven't see it. I remember Champ talking about it as a good date movie.
That was low....... I have never stated that.
I did, however, see the movie. It was excellent. Didn't bother me one bit. Guess some on here are more secure than others.
I'm sorry Champ......must have gotten you confused with what the movie reviewer said in the San Francisco newspaper.
Don't go slamming one of your only liberal buddies on here. It could get ugly.I'm sorry Champ......must have gotten you confused with what the movie reviewer said in the San Francisco newspaper.
I will green dot for a good post. I only give red when someone is personally attacking me or others. I couldn't care less whether you agree with me or not as long as it is not personal - if you make it that way I will red dot the crap out of you - and I always sign C&K.
That movie was crap. Not because there was a story line that included gay people, but because it was a totally recycled love story. The only reason it was even made is because Hollywood thought it was time for a love story with gay men. Now let me clarify... you are insinuating that if you didn't like that movie you are insecure, right? Because I don't like that movie because it SUCKS as a movie... and my favorite movie is Moulin Rouge, so it's not that I don't like love stories.
Nah... To each his/her own about movie tastes. I thought it was pretty good. If you didn't like it, I am not insinuating that you have sexual orientation security issues. At the time, there was a lot of people that just did not like it due to the theme.
No offense intended. I swear, I get in more trouble for my innocent remarks than my overtly opinionated ones.
Ah Hah! You're the one! You're the one that red dots people when they complain about getting an unsigned red dot! I knew I would catch you one day!It's just a funny little game. Amazes me how a silly little dot can piss a person off so bad that it affects them personally. Silly little people. If I were to get a red dot, I'd
I am almost the same.
I green dot for:
1. A well thoughtout post
2. A well researched post
3. A really funny post
4. Because someone's kid asked me to
I red dot for:
1. Personal attacks
2. Vulgar language
I always sign my dots. And I never give "revenge" dots. And I have given green dots for post I totaly disagree with but they had substance.
That being said I try not to read much in the paw-latics area because I would just get irritated. That and the fact that I spend too much time on BB&B as it is.
But, you get YOUR green dots for posting pictures of sexy women.
Actually I don't get much green from that anymore. In fact someone gave me red last time......AND THEY DIDN'T SIGN IT!:bigcry:
I stopped posting here (and rarely even read Paw-litics) because folks were abusing the dots.
Not that I give a rip about how many red or green dots I have. (After all, I used to have cancer, and now I dont.) Rather, I avoid this forum because the overwhelming negativity. There was little constructive dialogue in this forum going back to its Delphi origins. The advent of dots made meaningful conversation all but non-existent.
If things have changed, give me a holler ...
"Ho's before Bro's" will get you green dots and red dots.
Clyde ... You will always be my #1 ho.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
