💥 Trainwreck Pamela Swain / DocHoliday1977 / MsPhoenix1969 / Observer1977 / danishlace2003 / Writer_thriller - Victim of grand #MeToo conspiracy, litigious wannabe starfucker, off her meds and online

[Illuminati Order Official]

In regards to the "Everything which is not forbidden is allowed" bit, I'm not sure I understand your point. That's how laws work, by telling you what you cannot do.

I meant she's allowed to file those lawsuits, at least as far as I understand. So while we can dispute ethics behind them, she's not doing anything illegal. If we assume she really believes those people are conspiring against her - she would be in the clear ethically, at least by my standards.

Swain V Weinstein, Et Al (state court) and Swain V Rayburn, Et Al

You're making me spend too much time here, you know that, right?

IIRC her relationship with her mother was pretty toxic if not abusive, but regardless, I feel like the symptoms described in that study fit her.

I remember one instance of her complaining about her mother, probably after an argument of sorts (while talking about it on the net isn't the smartest thing, we all get pissed at family members at times) and it was interpreted as them having some ongoing conflict. Other than this she appears to be rather protective of her mother, so we don't really have enough data to confirm.
And I meant it more in terms of jumping from one "Chad" to another, like our fren Mel.

I knew it! They laughted at me when I said the machines are out to get us! Related:

 

[DocHoliday1977]

"He countered my argument, he must be super mad!"
-Pam.

Pam saying something doesn't make sense - fine.
Me saying it - not fine

Okay, lol, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Any proof?

Can someone explain to me why the fuck people hire life coaches? Why would you pay several hundred per session just to hear some basic advice you already heard and encouraging words?

She's wasting Taxpayer dollars by constantly filling IFP, and in few cases dollars of other parties who have to respond to her bullshit.


Finally,you admit it.

Got Katy P.

Hello, Pam's new acc.
Wyświetl załącznik 2138520

She probably made a sock acc.


Edit: @DocHoliday1977 , I did some research and I think your rape desires and your mental illnesses are not that suprising given the recent studies I've seen:

"Overall, 62 percent of the women reported having had at least one fantasy around a forced sex act."

"From a study that is peer reviewed"

"He found that women were more than twice as likely as men to search for videos where women are abused, coerced into sex, or are depicted as being raped. Women preferred videos with tags like "painful anal crying", "public disgrace", "extreme brutal gangbang", "forced", or "rape"."

"25% of all straight porn searches by women were for videos featuring violence against women, and 5% of women's searches were for videos where women are raped. "

Source:
Doc
Article

"These results are generally consistent with other researchers’ findings that women are nearly twice as likely as men to be diagnosed with a mental illness"

Source (doc)

"Women are nearly twice as likely as men to suffer from mental illness."

Source

"Borderline personality disorder is characterised by a pervasive pattern of instability in affect regulation, impulse control, interpersonal relationships, and self-image. Clinical signs of the disorder include emotional dysregulation, impulsive aggression"

"Additionally, findings from these studies showed that the disorder was more common in women than in men (about 70% and 30%, respectively)"

"This disorder was also more common in girls than boys"

Source

"They found that men typically had an IQ of four points higher than women, and their brain volumes were larger than those of the fairer sex."

"He also found men had an average brain volume of 1.2 litres compared with 1 litre for women."

"The surface area of the male cerebral cortex was 1850 sq cm compared with 1630 sq cm for women."

"And for both sexes, those with bigger brains had slightly higher IQ scores."

Source

Tldr: Pam fits perfectly for Borderline Personality disorder, is 70% more likely to have it than us chads, is twice as likely to have another mental disorder, and has lower IQ. Get mad, Pam! Trust the science! The science also explains why she is so focused on rape.

Tldr: Pam fits perfectly for Borderline Personality disorder, is 70% more likely to have it than us chads, is twice as likely to have another mental disorder, and has lower IQ. Get mad, Pam! Trust the science! The science also explains why she is so focused on rape.

You are an epic loser Tony Robbins.

She's wasting Taxpayer dollars by constantly filling IFP, and in few cases dollars of other parties who have to respond to her bullshit.

There wouldn't be lawsuits if this thread was deleted and you all fucked off.

Supported animal abuse in Serious Gaming thread so I doubt it's Pamela.

I was asleep.

Tony is really flipping out with his useful mistake account. Does he realize that account helped uncover New York city corruption with civil suits with Harvey?

This makes him apart of corruption. For one thing, he goes after women for Harvey.

 

[Trombonista]

I have a black gray and white sports bras and white and nude dress bras. Would you like me to post them, fat pervert?

Please don't.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

I meant she's allowed to file those lawsuits, at least as far as I understand.

You are not allowed to file meritless, frivolous suits (see Rule 11 FRCP, for IFP (see 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915) (or for 11th circuit see Ronnie Lee Camp v. Dr. Oliver, Medical Director, Dr. Theodore G. Smith, Ga. Diag. Dr., Dr. J.E. Umberhandt, Inst. Dr. Rivers North Unit at Hardwick, Ga., 798 F.2d 434 (11th Cir. 1986), Benjamin Franklin Phillips v. Telfair J. Mashburn, Judge, Mobile, Al. Joseph D. Quinlivan, Jr., Atty. Reynolds T. Alonzo, Jr., Atty. A. Neil Hudgens & Associates, John W. Coleman & Associates, 746 F.2d 782 (11th Cir. 1984). )

So while we can dispute ethics behind them, she's not doing anything illegal.

It's not allowed, though, and if you abuse it, the courts will literally take away your right to file lawsuits (as federal courts have already threatened to do to her in Swain v. Weinstien (6:20-cv-00082) docket 8 )

If we assume she really believes those people are conspiring against her - she would be in the clear ethically, at least by my standards

But it's not about ethics, though. We were talking about her being "danger to herself or others". And in my opinion she is a danger to others, both financially by abuse of court system, and possibly physically, given how much she wants to find us and beat us up.

You're making me spend too much time here, you know that, right?

Glad to help you!

Other than this she appears to be rather protective of her mother, so we don't really have enough data to confirm.

Fair enough.

And I meant it more in terms of jumping from one "Chad" to another, like our fren Mel.

Well, I think we can both agree that Pam doesn't do that.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=d0Jq6hKiLUQ

Funny clip.

Please don't.

How good are the chances that this just encouraged her?

Wyświetl załącznik 2138824

You seem to love posting about Tony raping you. Your fetish, I presume.

You are an epic loser Tony Robbins.

She didn't deny a single claim I made. She knows it's true.

There wouldn't be lawsuits if this thread was deleted and you all fucked off.

There have been lawsuits (by you) predating this thread according to OP.

Tony is really flipping out with his useful mistake account.

Not Tony. After all, according to you, I'm Alan.

Does he realize that account helped uncover New York city corruption with civil suits with Harvey?

Pam, I remember what posts I make, of course I remember posting that NY Supreme Court case.

This makes him apart of corruption. For one thing, he goes after women for Harvey.

False.

 

[DocHoliday1977]

Please don't.

Then don't bring it up.

You are not allowed to file meritless, frivolous suits (see Rule 11 FRCP, for IFP (see 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915) (or for 11th circuit see Ronnie Lee Camp v. Dr. Oliver, Medical Director, Dr. Theodore G. Smith, Ga. Diag. Dr., Dr. J.E. Umberhandt, Inst. Dr. Rivers North Unit at Hardwick, Ga., 798 F.2d 434 (11th Cir. 1986), Benjamin Franklin Phillips v. Telfair J. Mashburn, Judge, Mobile, Al. Joseph D. Quinlivan, Jr., Atty. Reynolds T. Alonzo, Jr., Atty. A. Neil Hudgens & Associates, John W. Coleman & Associates, 746 F.2d 782 (11th Cir. 1984). )

It's not allowed, though, and if you abuse it, the courts will literally take away your right to file lawsuits (as federal courts have already threatened to do to her in Swain v. Weinstien (6:20-cv-00082) docket 8 )

But it's not about ethics, though. We were talking about her being "danger to herself or others". And in my opinion she is a danger to others, both financially by abuse of court system, and possibly physically, given how much she wants to find us and beat us up.

Glad to help you!

Fair enough.

Well, I think we can both agree that Pam doesn't do that.

Funny clip.

How good are the chances that this just encouraged her?

You seem to love posting about Tony raping you. Your fetish, I presume.


She didn't deny a single claim I made. She knows it's true.

There have been lawsuits (by you) predating this thread according to OP.

Not Tony. After all, according to you, I'm Alan.

Pam, I remember what posts I make, of course I remember posting that NY Supreme Court case.

False.

Tony, you posted here all night while I slept logs...I live in your head rent-free.

You seem to love posting about Tony raping you. Your fetish, I presume.

You are full time trying to flip Tony's bad behavior back on me when he posted it. You also sound quite desperate.

It's not allowed, though, and if you abuse it, the courts will literally take away your right to file lawsuits (as federal courts have already threatened to do to her in Swain v. Weinstien (6:20-cv-00082) docket 8 )

I have a verifiable case against him and you.

The reason why I am allowed to file IS that - there is evidence of harmful intent, evidence of rape and sexual battery threats, evidence of various morons engaging in harassment, and evidence of corrupt judicial actions brought on by hideous legal morons who commit a crime and weasel their way out of it.

 

[Kurple Pecleon]

there is evidence of harmful intent, evidence of rape and sexual battery threats, evidence of various morons engaging in harassment, and evidence of corrupt judicial actions brought on by hideous legal morons who commit a crime and weasel their way out of it.

There is not a single one of these things.

You're only allowed to file because you haven't monged hard enough yet.

 

[DocHoliday1977]

There is not a single one of these things.

You're only allowed to file because you haven't monged hard enough yet.

Donny Trump think you did.

"He countered my argument, he must be super mad!"
-Pam.

Pam saying something doesn't make sense - fine.
Me saying it - not fine

Okay, lol, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Any proof?

Can someone explain to me why the fuck people hire life coaches? Why would you pay several hundred per session just to hear some basic advice you already heard and encouraging words?

She's wasting Taxpayer dollars by constantly filling IFP, and in few cases dollars of other parties who have to respond to her bullshit.


Finally,you admit it.

Got Katy P.

Hello, Pam's new acc.
Wyświetl załącznik 2138520
Edit, some other cow apperantly.
Wyświetl załącznik 2138853

She probably made a sock acc.


Edit: @DocHoliday1977 , I did some research and I think your rape desires and your mental illnesses are not that suprising given the recent studies I've seen:

"Overall, 62 percent of the women reported having had at least one fantasy around a forced sex act."

"From a study that is peer reviewed"

"He found that women were more than twice as likely as men to search for videos where women are abused, coerced into sex, or are depicted as being raped. Women preferred videos with tags like "painful anal crying", "public disgrace", "extreme brutal gangbang", "forced", or "rape"."

"25% of all straight porn searches by women were for videos featuring violence against women, and 5% of women's searches were for videos where women are raped. "

Source:
Doc
Article

"These results are generally consistent with other researchers’ findings that women are nearly twice as likely as men to be diagnosed with a mental illness"

Source (doc)

"Women are nearly twice as likely as men to suffer from mental illness."

Source

"Borderline personality disorder is characterised by a pervasive pattern of instability in affect regulation, impulse control, interpersonal relationships, and self-image. Clinical signs of the disorder include emotional dysregulation, impulsive aggression"

"Additionally, findings from these studies showed that the disorder was more common in women than in men (about 70% and 30%, respectively)"

"This disorder was also more common in girls than boys"

Source

"They found that men typically had an IQ of four points higher than women, and their brain volumes were larger than those of the fairer sex."

"He also found men had an average brain volume of 1.2 litres compared with 1 litre for women."

"The surface area of the male cerebral cortex was 1850 sq cm compared with 1630 sq cm for women."

"And for both sexes, those with bigger brains had slightly higher IQ scores."

Source

Tldr: Pam fits perfectly for Borderline Personality disorder, is 70% more likely to have it than us chads, is twice as likely to have another mental disorder, and has lower IQ. Get mad, Pam! Trust the science! The science also explains why she is so focused on rape.

Can someone tell Alan Dershowitz that he is not a psychologist and neither is his wife.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Then don't bring it up.

You were the one that did it, though:

I have a black gray and white sports bras and white and nude dress bras. Would you like me to post them, fat pervert?

Tony, you posted here all night while I slept logs...I live in your head rent-free.

Are you aware of these things called timezones?

You are full time trying to flip Tony's bad behavior back on me when he posted it. You also sound quite desperate.

Some rando posted it once. You then proceeded to post it 20 times yourself. You're the one who seems desperate, and, quite honestly, obsessed. Then again, you do seem to be proving that study about rape to be correct.

I have a verifiable case against him and you.

You literally do not, though. I have debunked every argument you have brought. There is no case, no jurisdiction, and no authority by the courts to even hear the case.

The reason why I am allowed to file IS that - there is evidence of harmful intent, evidence of rape and sexual battery threats, evidence of various morons engaging in harassment, and evidence of corrupt judicial actions brought on by hideous legal morons who commit a crime and weasel their way out of it.

You do realise you are about to lose your right to file if you continue your frivolous lawsuits, right?



And, no, there is no evidence that has been showed here or to the courts, as the judge himself noted.

Wyświetl załącznik 2138926
Wyświetl załącznik 2138927

Donny Trump think you did.

That's not evidence of anything though. And even if it was, anons are not good faith evidence, and so is hearsay. I explained it to you numerious times.

Can someone tell Alan Dershowitz that he is not a psychologist and neither is his wife.

You said I was Tony, though.
Regardless, I don't need to be a psychologist to recognise that you match the symptoms, nor must I be one to share my opinion about that.

 

[DocHoliday1977]

You literally do not, though. I have debunked every argument you have brought. There is no case, no jurisdiction, and no authority by the courts to even hear the case.

NO you haven't.

You said I was Tony, though.
Regardless, I don't need to be a psychologist to recognise that you match the symptoms, nor must I be one to share my opinion about that.

You are Michael Fassbender helping Tony and Alan and they post in this thread under this account too.

And, no, there is no evidence that has been showed here or to the courts, as the judge himself noted.

That recommendation was received but not considered.

You literally do not, though. I have debunked every argument you have brought.

YOU proved Harvey and Alann used corrupt measures in the New York civil courts, Michael. You keep proving my case, dumbass.

God is changing your intent. He's doing His God thing and having fun with you Michael.

 

[Kurple Pecleon]

Donny Trump think you did.

This has nothing to do with what I said, it doesn't even make sense as an answer. The worms are nibbling on the good old prefrontal cortex again, huh?

 

[DocHoliday1977]

This has nothing to do with what I said, it doesn't even make sense as an answer. The worms are nibbling on the good old prefrontal cortex again, huh?

You think so. Hold on a tick.


Michael Fassbender, how many accounts do you, Tony, and Alan have on here?

 

[Kurple Pecleon]

Even if those messages weren't someone messing with you by playing into your delusions, they still wouldn't prove any of the things you seem to believe they do. Point exactly where the threats are in any of these screenshots. Underline the threats on these images, show us exactly where in any of these they are.

 

[DocHoliday1977]

You do realise you are about to lose your right to file if you continue your frivolous lawsuits, right?

No. Cause this was never taken into consideration.

You cannot limit someone's right to file under the Constitution. Everyone has a right to file to approach the civil courts as Pro see when evidence is readily available as such has been posted on this thread.

 

[Kurple Pecleon]

No. Cause this was never taken into consideration.

Parnalia "I'm a writer" Swam can't understand the difference between present and future tense

 

[DocHoliday1977]

Parnalia "I'm a writer" Swam can't understand the difference between present and future tense

Whether that is true or not, this thread and your actions reinforce your bad behavior. This thread condemns you. That's is why the court system leans toward my favor.

Even if those messages weren't someone messing with you by playing into your delusions, they still wouldn't prove any of the things you seem to believe they do. Point exactly where the threats are in any of these screenshots. Underline the threats on these images, show us exactly where in any of these they are.

Not really, moron.

 

[Kurple Pecleon]

That's is why the court system leans toward my favor.

You lost every fucking lawsuit because all you write are delusional ramblings with no basis in reality. What are you smoking?

Not really, moron.

Not really what? Not really going to point out where the threats are? That's because there are none in these messages. And they're just people messing with your head, nothing they told you is true.

Whether that is true or not, this thread and your actions reinforce your bad behavior.

I mean, I'm not going to say that coming here to poke fun at a poor delusional schizo is good behavior on my part, because it is not. But that's irrelevant because it's still not illegal and because I'm no one you will ever know about.

 

[DocHoliday1977]

You lost every fucking lawsuit because all you write are delusional ramblings with no basis in reality. What are you smoking?

Michael, how many accounts do you have on this site?
You can't show me the dismissal on the last one cause there isn't one.

Not really what? Not really going to point out where the threats are? That's because there are none in these messages. And they're just people messing with your head, nothing they told you is true

It's illegal to mess with someone's head and use your political position to force an unwanted sexual encounter.

 

[Kurple Pecleon]

Michael, how many accounts do you have on this site?

I'm not Michael but I will oblige: I have only one account.

You can't show me the dismissal on the last one cause there isn't one.

I'm not going to show you anything. I'm asking you to show me where the threats are on these screenshots.

It's illegal to mess with someone's head and use your political position to force an unwanted sexual encounter.

Maybe, I'm not a lawyer and I don't care about what's illegal in whatever shithole you live in. In any case stop moving the goalposts, you said threats, where are the threats.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

NO you haven't.

Here are just a few from the last month. There's more, since I have debunked every claim about law you have ever made in this thread (post my join)

And existance of Brandenburg v. Ohio test is a undoubtable fact. It has existed, and has been reaffirmed, for 52 years now

Restraining order is many things. Like a Gag order, or any similar orders, it is almost always unconstitutional (Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965)) and because it is an injunction, it has extremely high requirments to be granted (Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (1982)). I assure you, you do not meet those requirments.

Not one that is for the purpose of "harassing, molesting, threatening, or intimidating" (16-11-39.1 (a) (1)). This also does not apply to "constitutionally protected speech" (16-11-39.1 (e)). Harassment also requires intent to instill fear (United States v. Robert Eckhardt, 05-12211 (11th Cir. 2006)), which there is none, and you have multiple times pointed out that you are not afraid of us, even going as far as claiming you fear nothing.
Based on my analysis I can conclude that this is not harassment

18 U.S.C. § 1001, for example.

1. Which NY case?
2. Changing of judges is legal if the judge recuses himself, or under 28 U.S. Code § 144, or (in NY) under Ortiz v. City of New York, 136 Misc. 2d 500, 518 N.Y.S.2d 913 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1987), none of which require your input.
3. That's not how the 60 day window works, and Alan cannot dismiss any lawsuit. That's up to the judge.
4. In NY motion to dismiss does not need to first wait 60 days, and if it does, that might render such motion invalid.

You need to sue other state residents via the federal courts (and I don't see any new lawsuit from you at the federal level) through 28 U.S. Code § 1332

Also, Pam, I'd suggest filing less IFP lawsuits. They are "privilege, not a right" (Ronnie Lee Camp v. Dr. Oliver, Medical Director, Dr. Theodore G. Smith, Ga. Diag. Dr., Dr. J.E. Umberhandt, Inst. Dr. Rivers North Unit at Hardwick, Ga., 798 F.2d 434 (11th Cir. 1986) ) and "[t]he court, however, has a special measure of control to ensure this privilege is not abused" and they can take it away from you, for a few factors such as "if the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious" (Benjamin Franklin Phillips v. Telfair J. Mashburn, Judge, Mobile, Al. Joseph D. Quinlivan, Jr., Atty. Reynolds T. Alonzo, Jr., Atty. A. Neil Hudgens & Associates, John W. Coleman & Associates, 746 F.2d 782 (11th Cir. 1984) ). And given that the previous court has found your lawsuit to be frivolous, and that you have a history of lying to the courts about your finances...well, that doesn't look good for you, does it?

1. We do not fit the harassment definition as in 16-11-39.1 and in caselaw.
2. 16-11-39.1 (e) protects us
3. You cannot bring this case against us, as Harassment is a criminal matter that civil courts have no jurisdiction over.(Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973) ).

Protective orders are (almost always) unconstitutional, and infamously hard to aquire (Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965) ) due to extremely high requirments (Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (1982) )

You can't charge us with the first, we are protected under 395 U.S. 444 for the second, and the same as the first for the third. You cannot bring criminal actions against us, only the government can (Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973) )

False. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), Milkovich v. Lorain Journal, 497 U.S. 1 (1990), Greenbelt Co-Op. Publ. Assn., Inc. v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 (1970), Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264 (1974), Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988 )

Tldr: Pam says lawsuits are about revenge, and established herself as a bad faith litigant if this was to be shown to any american court.

We (or at least I am) are protected under all the caselaw I showed. I make sure to not do anything illegal. That being said, under The Atlanta Journal-Constitution v. Jewell, 251 Ga. App. 808, 555 S.E.2d 175 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001) you might be considered a limited purpose public figure, and then we get even more protections (such as actual malice and all relavant SCOTUS caselaw concerning actual malice (such as, for example New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (1968 ) ) )

Or maybe charges aren't pressed because nothing we do is illegal? Ever thought of that? And because there is nothing you showed that ties us to any real life persona

You are Michael Fassbender helping Tony and Alan and they post in this thread under this account too

I am none of these people.

That recommendation was received but not considered

It is binding, Pam, and even adopted by the judge in docket 14.

Also, I thought you said you didn't receive it? Yet another lie by Pam.

YOU proved Harvey and Alann used corrupt measures in the New York civil courts, Michael. You keep proving my case, dumbass.

Or the NY court system is just bad at showing data(that is to say, the data is accurate, just shown in a way that might confuse due to bad programming) just as any govermental system is known for doing.

God is changing your intent. He's doing His God thing and having fun with you Michael.

Whose to say your God is the real one? Whose to say mine is not more real, and more powerful? Bringing God into argument is fruitless, because it becomes an argument about who God would jerk off rather than actual merits of the argument.

You think so. Hold on a tick.
Wyświetl załącznik 2138983

Again, some randos messaging you is not evidence of anything. Read Federal Rules of evidence.

No. Cause this was never taken into consideration.

It was. It says, and I quote, "the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the R&R is ADOPTED."

You cannot limit someone's right to file under the Constitution

You can. In Georgia it's been done in many cases. Some of them can be found here:

This can be done in all states. Your lack of constitutional understanding is your own issue.

That's is why the court system leans toward my favor.

"Leans my favor" she says as all of her lawsuits have been dismissed.

It's illegal to mess with someone's head

No.

 

[DocHoliday1977]

Here are just a few from the last month. There's more, since I have debunked every claim about law you have ever made in this thread (post my join)


















I am none of these people.

It is binding, Pam, and even adopted by the judge in docket 14.
Wyświetl załącznik 2138996
Also, I thought you said you didn't receive it? Yet another lie by Pam.
Wyświetl załącznik 2139002
Wyświetl załącznik 2139005



Or the NY court system is just bad at showing data(that is to say, the data is accurate, just shown in a way that might confuse due to bad programming) just as any govermental system is known for doing.

Whose to say your God is the real one? Whose to say mine is not more real, and more powerful? Bringing God into argument is fruitless, because it becomes an argument about who God would jerk off rather than actual merits of the argument.

Again, some randos messaging you is not evidence of anything. Read Federal Rules of evidence.

It was. It says, and I quote, "the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the R&R is ADOPTED."
Wyświetl załącznik 2138996
Wyświetl załącznik 2139022


You can. In Georgia it's been done in many cases. Some of them can be found here:
Wyświetl załącznik 2139025
This can be done in all states. Your lack of constitutional understanding is your own issue.

"Leans my favor" she says as all of her lawsuits have been dismissed.

No.

Mumble all day long. A recommendation is NOT a dismissal.

HERE you go. YOU just POSTED......what the fuck is wrong with you?

Whose to say your God is the real one? Whose to say mine is not more real, and more powerful? Bringing God into argument is fruitless, because it becomes an argument about who God would jerk off rather than actual merits of the argument.

I have no time for your existential issues. And you are a new person on this account. Imram Ansari.

@Useful_Mistake.

I don't give a damn fuck what your religious beliefs are, you do not have the right to use your political positions, money, resources, or any type of clout to force anyone into a sexual encounter. YOU BETTER HEAR ME ON THIS.

THIS never came back to me.