Nagy Vilmos wrote:

There are too many threads started be by retards?

:laugh:

Tim Craig wrote:

The hairy, unattractive one?

there are hairy attractive ones? :omg:

you might try looking at this website for factual information. http://www.dol.gov/[^] http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/minimumwage.htm[^]

Christian Graus wrote:

Which has only ever been used in the soapbox

wrong!

Christian Graus wrote:

*sigh* just use the one account, already.

i only have one account.

Christian Graus wrote:

Not according to the websites I found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._minimum_wages[^] how difficult was that?

Christian Graus wrote:

The minimum wage is $5.15 an hour in the US

$7.25 but I might be fooling you.

i must be fooling you, because whoever you think i am, i'm not! out of curiousity, who do you think i am?

when she catches you stroking?

Christian Graus wrote:

I'm not sure how one buys an invisible friend....

For $20, I'll send you one.

Ilíon wrote:

also, just in case he sprayed me, I had taken off all my clothes (and I wore goggles to protect my eyes)

OMFG! did you have on your cotton socks?

delete your favorites? [^]

Nagy Vilmos wrote:

You know the connection between ovaries and scrotums?

is that a trick question? :~

because i'm tired of seeing scrotum as the last post. although ovaries aren't nearly as exciting as scrotum.

Mike Hankey wrote:

At any rate an excellent actor no matter the natioinality and a rose nose by any other name....

:laugh:

i could have had all of CP lobbying for me, Oakman was not going to admit he was wrong.

it started as a lite hearted attempt on my part to express i wanted to be a member of Soapbox 1.0. it quickly went south when i realized i was not even going to be given a chance. Oakman pegged me as CSS and in his mind there was no possibility i could be anybody else. i saw others being allowed membership that didn't meet the qualifications (and there are still a few). not one of my posts received any kind of reply from Oakman until it was pointed out by a trusted source i was not CSS and then his reply wasn't exactly a friendly i'm sorry but..... i actually think he is disappointed i'm not CSS and he was wrong.

Ilíon wrote:

and I've run out of fingers.

:^) please don't take your shoes off, i have no place to run. X|

Oakman wrote:

Well, at the time she made the offer I hadn't accused her of anything.

http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3083359/Re-Its-all-gone-quiet.aspx[^] gee i wonder how i could have ever thought you were implying anything. and for the record, i would have never shown you my tits...that was a joke!

thank you for the input. i really do appreciate it. i'm not going to try and prove to oakman i am worthy of his approval, its obvious i'll never get it. it all comes down to him having the sole approval over membership and i'm a vulgar troll. i'll continue to enjoy the site as in the past and maybe even make a post or two.

Shog9 wrote:

Ok... I just gotta say it. You're really bad at this. I mean, all you really had to do was prove Oakman wrong...

no i think you mean, i had to prove TO Oakman he was wrong, do you think that is possible?

i'm not whining just merely stating fact...rules are rules which only seem to apply to those you chose they apply to. i had no interest in becoming an "active" member just wished to remain a "lurker" and continue to read and enjoy. i am not interested in debating either but wish to point out what a self righteous arrogant bastard you are and i was hoping to be there to see when somebody finally knocked you off of your high horse. oh wait, if i did that i might be mistaken for a troll, how horrible that might be...i won't get to be a member of Soapbox 1.0