I still think the content is valid:
In direct response to : #msg-729757
"Snackman,
did Clinton balancing the budget make him doing Monica a good thing?
This advert thingy is wrong.
Period."
Obviously I drew on an implied comparison (metaphor) that might give one the the pretense for all the banning stuff and so on.
I kinda expected it, but I'm going to stick to the defining envelopes even if I am defined on the outside.
Its kinda striking that I am now 3 for 3, my guess is that likely wraps up my participation in that thread. I doubt the gate will be reopened anytime soon.
I might be arrogant, but I am not proud. That, at least, I think is self evident.
| 