Thread: Well, Guess it's come down to this.

President Bush 'assassinated' in new TV docudrama | News | This is London

Toronto International Film Festival

Is this over the top or just porn for libs?

If you claim it is porn please state where the pornographic sex-acts occur in the work, otherwise, you're just trying to slander something, "defame" it, if you will, by false accusations.

Don't be so condescending there megadog, I'm sure he knows what slander means.

And you apparantly aren't able to see the illiteral meaning in the sentence. Read it carefully, over and over again. You may understand eventually.

Originally Posted by magadog

If you claim it is porn please state where the pornographic sex-acts occur in the work, otherwise, you're just trying to slander something, "defame" it, if you will, by false accusations.

Context mate. Seriously, pornography isn't exclusive to sexual acts or imagery.

Im not trying to slander or defame anything. Even if I were, i don't think this production will need any help from me.

but happy spanking anyway.

I laughed out loud at 'porn for liberals'. I will use that in daily conversation.

"Is this spreadsheet intentionally difficult to understand? Is this just porn for middle management?"

Love it.

Movie was kind of silly to me. Remember though, Tom Clancey wrote a book about Islamic terrorists flying a plane into thr pentagon in the 80's. he also wrote about attackes on the Prince of Wales. It's only shocking in the sense of reality of seeing it on film and the actualy likeness of Bush.

Don't be so condescending there megadog, I'm sure he knows what slander means.

And you apparently aren't able to see the illiteral meaning in the sentence. Read it carefully, over and over again. You may understand eventual

No, you know very well that I am simply answering his bad attitude in kind. Read MY statements carefully, over and over again, and you may understand eventually, but i doubt it given your other posts and their irrelevancy as well as your insistence on coming between two people in an argument. And the fact that i put "defame" in quotes was not my attempt at defining "slander" but making a humorous remark about other people using the word "defame" to mean just about anything(i.e. Pook). Well, you asked for it. Now i'm on your case. Enjoy.

p.s. the word, "condescend" means "to assume an air of superiority". Since the original posting itself, was condescending, i will obviously answer back in kind.

You assumed him to be uneducated.
I don't see how his post was condescending.
And I'm not particularly worried about you being on my case.

You assumed him to be uneducated.

where did i say that? now who's assuming?
I think I could say, though, without assumption that your rash and quick remarks against threads which have nothing to do with you, prove yourself incapable of reading comprehension AND uneducated.
and for your info. there is nothing assuming about making a joke about the word "defame". I did not use the word "defame" because i didn't think he knew the meaning of the word "slander" (i finally see where your brain went haywire). So these are all your own assumptions. You give me easy fodder to blow your arguments out of the water. Please continue.

P.S. nor is anyone worried about your constantly interjecting where you were never addressed.

Nice, Maga, proved him a fool REAL quick and without much effort on your own. He pretty much proves to be foolish by assuming so much of your statements.

Very well, my apologies. I read the post to be condescending, and that was a fault of my own.

Now, PLEASE stop making posts for personal attacks.