Lipstick does not remove a dick. Unless the bitch licks with a strap on?
(last I read, Barry appears to still be a man, regardless the shade he glamors his lips with.) LOL --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: > > If he had the lipstick on, wouldn't the roles be reversed, wrt the dog? I > dunno -- Once you threw cross dressing and/or gender bending into the mix, it > became weirder than a david lynch movie. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: > > > > Turq, > > In a sexy way, I thought you were pretty smart, cute, etc. > > Now, it is like I caught you putting lipstick on and fucking the dog. > > hahaha. > > Ex-Patiot > > http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/why-the-ex-patriot-act-is-a-creepy-law/257368/ > > > > Number two: I do not live in Fairfield. Never have, never will. > > > > Number three: The "Jobs" or employers you mentioned. I would never apply > > for, and if I was hired, it would be from headhunters begging me to come > > and work for their clients. :) > > > > Social security will not exist by the time I get to "have it." > > > > Dear, you could send more private emails to me and we can share pictures, > > then you won't say nothin. LOL > > > > Peace handsome > > > > -Obba > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Barry, I mean, Turq. No one cyberstalks on FFL. > > > > It is fair exchange of knowledge and ignorance. > > > > Knowledge, by which you ignore and play accusation games. > > > > Judy is not a cyberstalker. You would fall in a minor > > > > sort of that category by trying to claim any statements > > > > on this board are attempting to derail a person's "cyber > > > > history," for future employer's eyes. hahaha. Pointing > > > > fingers all day long, month after month, year after year, > > > > yawn, would bore any "employer." Any "employer," who > > > > would base hiring on any of these posts would be someone, > > > > no one should work for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL. What grant > > > > department did they earn their business dollars???? LOL. > > > > Any entrepreneur who develops their own company without > > > > outside governmental aid, would see right past all the > > > > bullshit. Any others, are not worthy the tax dollar > > > > wasted supporting their authority? lol. > > > > > > I understand now why you live in Fairfield. You would > > > never be able to survive in the real world. In recent > > > studies, 80% of all employers surveyed said that they > > > perform Internet background searches on all potential > > > employees, examining their posts on Google, Facebook, > > > Yahoo, Twitter, etc. Many government jobs *require* > > > that such a search be performed. > > > > > > > Turq, one day there may be a requirement, to collect your > > > > social security, you have to be in living within the 50 > > > > US States, if you post on the internet on forums, in > > > > case we are all funding terrorists living abroad as > > > > ex patriots!!!!!!!!!!!! :) Just saying, dear. Love you. OXO > > > > > > Unlike you, I will never need to rely on American Social > > > Security. Nor, hopefully, ever need to live in your third > > > world bankrupt nation again. :-) > > > > > > BTW, the word is expatriate, not "ex patriot." I have > > > never been a patriot, and would sooner die than be > > > considered one. > > > > > > "If I had to choose between betraying my friend or my > > > country, I hope I'd have the guts to betray my country." > > > - E.M. Forster > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > They can't hold their own, so they portray themselves as > > > > > > > victims. And they bring nothing but dishonor on themselves > > > > > > > by doing so--especially since they themselves are far more > > > > > > > guilty of the behavior they complain about than the folks > > > > > > > they claim are victimizing them. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not so sure about that. I searched for the word victim > > > > > > and victimized in Barry's posts to see how he applied the > > > > > > word to himself, and he does not seem to have used the word > > > > > > in reference to himself. There were some 400+ references to > > > > > > the word 'victim' and some 41 for the word 'victimize'. As > > > > > > I have a limited time, I chose the word 'victimized' and > > > > > > read every paragraph where he used the word in an original > > > > > > post. This provides a reasonable sample. > > > > > > > > > > > > In not one case does he refer to himself as having been > > > > > > victimized. I really do not think he thinks of himself > > > > > > that way. > > > > > > > > > > He does not. Thinking of the people one stalks AS > > > > > victims is something that stalkers do. Their fantasies > > > > > revolve around how strongly they are affecting the > > > > > people they hate. > > > > > > > > > > In my considered opinion, the best thing one can do > > > > > when faced with an Internet stalker is to allow them > > > > > to fantasize about how strongly they are affecting > > > > > you (something they would do anyway), while not allow- > > > > > ing anything they say to affect you at all. Drives > > > > > them crazy. :-) > > > > > > > > > > The other thing it is important to know about stalkers > > > > > is what the "end point" or "goal" of their game plan > > > > > is. That is, put very simply, to get you to respond > > > > > to them one-to-one so that in their diseased minds > > > > > they can have a Robin-like "confrontation" with you. > > > > > It *doesn't matter* what you say when replying to them. > > > > > They already creamed their pants the moment you replied. > > > > > So don't. It's meaner. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
