Topic: Father Merrin
Anonymous A started this discussion 5 years ago #99,898
Do you consider it an amazing coincidence that you are Polish, but you have the same name as the priest in The Exorcist?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 5 years ago, 33 minutes later[^] [v] #1,126,838
Father Merrin is a mod, and more likely, an admin. It is so obvious.
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 45 seconds later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,126,839
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 7 minutes later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,126,841
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 5 years ago, 5 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,126,842
@previous (C)
That doesn't make him a mod. Some people just have very obvious presences and are easy to identify when they're anon. Likewise, some users, since they've been here for a bit, are good at recognising other users when they're anon.
He isn't a mod, by the way. He might have some permissions (like a hyperlink or delete perm), but he can't see profiles.
That doesn't make him a mod. Some people just have very obvious presences and are easy to identify when they're anon. Likewise, some users, since they've been here for a bit, are good at recognising other users when they're anon.
He isn't a mod, by the way. He might have some permissions (like a hyperlink or delete perm), but he can't see profiles.
(Edited 2 hours later.)
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 8 minutes later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,126,843
@1,126,838 (A)
Lol no he's not.
@1,126,841 (C)
Some people (like you, bert, or syntax) are just incredibly easy to spot when posting anonymously. Maybe you're just reading too much into a lucky guess?
Lol no he's not.
@1,126,841 (C)
Some people (like you, bert, or syntax) are just incredibly easy to spot when posting anonymously. Maybe you're just reading too much into a lucky guess?
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,126,844
http://minichan.org/topic/94169
This is my favorite Father Merrin post. I copy and pasted it to MC in that thread but it’s a topic he posted as anon back on GHOULs wayyyy back in 2012.
One of my favorite posters ever.
This is my favorite Father Merrin post. I copy and pasted it to MC in that thread but it’s a topic he posted as anon back on GHOULs wayyyy back in 2012.
One of my favorite posters ever.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,126,846
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 1 day later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,588
@1,126,841 (C)
> He knows who anons are, for one.
My dear Matthew, it is quite simple. One of your many, many shticks is making a thread in which you ask a seemingly simple question with the aim of later bringing up some arcane 'gotcha' detail which you then claim exposes someone for not knowing what they're talking about.
Often this takes the form of your using 2 UIDs, one to pose the initial question, the other to later answer it in a highly stylised manner, and then you go back to your original UID to say "Is the right answer", as if the thing you just read on some obscure website was obvious all along.
The problem for you is that you're absolutely terrible at it and you very quickly get frustrated. Take the "I need extreme unction' shtick you attempted, for instance:
http://minichan.org/topic/93400
This shtick quickly fell apart on you when it became clear you didn't actually know what extreme unction is, and so, apparently forgetting you'd already done it, you tried once more wth a new thread:
http://minichan.org/topic/99576
With similarly disastrous results for you.
Or another example, you recently tried your 'simple question' routine (your trusty 2nd UID waiting in the wings to provide the 'gotcha' moment)...
http://minichan.org/topic/99859
...which I frustrated by providing answers that didn't allow you to play your imagined 'check mate' move. This annoyed you something chronic and so just a day later you tried again with a different thread (the one that caused you to claim I'm a mod because I know which threads are yours):
http://minichan.org/topic/99891
That's the long and short of it, Matthew. Because you're an extremely dim-witted and poorly-educated person, it leads you to make endless threads about the same topic over and over again until you feel you can finally 'win' one of these 'discussions' that matter to you. My method of recognising if a thread is yours is simple. I ask myself: is it stupid and obvious? If the answer is 'yes', then it's you, Matthew.
Have yourself a blessed day, my child.
> He knows who anons are, for one.
My dear Matthew, it is quite simple. One of your many, many shticks is making a thread in which you ask a seemingly simple question with the aim of later bringing up some arcane 'gotcha' detail which you then claim exposes someone for not knowing what they're talking about.
Often this takes the form of your using 2 UIDs, one to pose the initial question, the other to later answer it in a highly stylised manner, and then you go back to your original UID to say "Is the right answer", as if the thing you just read on some obscure website was obvious all along.
The problem for you is that you're absolutely terrible at it and you very quickly get frustrated. Take the "I need extreme unction' shtick you attempted, for instance:
http://minichan.org/topic/93400
This shtick quickly fell apart on you when it became clear you didn't actually know what extreme unction is, and so, apparently forgetting you'd already done it, you tried once more wth a new thread:
http://minichan.org/topic/99576
With similarly disastrous results for you.
Or another example, you recently tried your 'simple question' routine (your trusty 2nd UID waiting in the wings to provide the 'gotcha' moment)...
http://minichan.org/topic/99859
...which I frustrated by providing answers that didn't allow you to play your imagined 'check mate' move. This annoyed you something chronic and so just a day later you tried again with a different thread (the one that caused you to claim I'm a mod because I know which threads are yours):
http://minichan.org/topic/99891
That's the long and short of it, Matthew. Because you're an extremely dim-witted and poorly-educated person, it leads you to make endless threads about the same topic over and over again until you feel you can finally 'win' one of these 'discussions' that matter to you. My method of recognising if a thread is yours is simple. I ask myself: is it stupid and obvious? If the answer is 'yes', then it's you, Matthew.
Have yourself a blessed day, my child.
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,603
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Actually, you refuse to answer simple questions, using sophistry to obfuscate the issue. It is your modus operandi.
Actually, you refuse to answer simple questions, using sophistry to obfuscate the issue. It is your modus operandi.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,607
@previous (Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE)
> Actually, you refuse to answer simple questions, using sophistry to obfuscate the issue.
I have answered every question of yours, including the recent one where you hilariously asked...
"Since God guides the selection of Popes, did he guide the selection of, say, Innocent III?"
...apparently not realizing the way you stated your question was idiotic ("If every instance of "X" is "Y", is this instance of "X" "Y"?")
> Actually, you refuse to answer simple questions, using sophistry to obfuscate the issue.
I have answered every question of yours, including the recent one where you hilariously asked...
"Since God guides the selection of Popes, did he guide the selection of, say, Innocent III?"
...apparently not realizing the way you stated your question was idiotic ("If every instance of "X" is "Y", is this instance of "X" "Y"?")
Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,608
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Watch this. You will not answer a simple question. Father Merrin, did God create evil?
Watch this. You will not answer a simple question. Father Merrin, did God create evil?
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,611
@previous (Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE)
> Watch this. You will not answer a simple question. Father Merrin, did God create evil?
No, He created the capacity for evil.
Now my 'simple question' for you: do you realize why your question about Innocent III was idiotic and based on a premise that your very own earlier thread had established as false?
> Watch this. You will not answer a simple question. Father Merrin, did God create evil?
No, He created the capacity for evil.
Now my 'simple question' for you: do you realize why your question about Innocent III was idiotic and based on a premise that your very own earlier thread had established as false?
Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 42 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,612
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
My reasoning was solid.
God chooses the Pope.
Innocent III was an evil Pope.
Ergo, God chose an evil Pope.
My reasoning was solid.
God chooses the Pope.
Innocent III was an evil Pope.
Ergo, God chose an evil Pope.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,621
@previous (Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE)
> My reasoning was solid.
You posed it as a question. With that said:
> God chooses the Pope.
For someone who claims to have been "raised a Catholic" you have an extremely poor grasp of Catholic doctrine.
> Innocent III was an evil Pope.
Leaving aside the subjective nature of this statement, if you were looking for "evil" Popes you could have found much more pertinent examples (I've always been fascinated by Alexander VI myself, one of the 3 Borgia popes). You obviously know very little about the history of the papacy.
> Ergo, God chose an evil Pope.
Behold the dangers of an idiotic premise.
> My reasoning was solid.
You posed it as a question. With that said:
> God chooses the Pope.
For someone who claims to have been "raised a Catholic" you have an extremely poor grasp of Catholic doctrine.
> Innocent III was an evil Pope.
Leaving aside the subjective nature of this statement, if you were looking for "evil" Popes you could have found much more pertinent examples (I've always been fascinated by Alexander VI myself, one of the 3 Borgia popes). You obviously know very little about the history of the papacy.
> Ergo, God chose an evil Pope.
Behold the dangers of an idiotic premise.
Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,624
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
To the contrary, my Master's thesis required a very intensive examination of the so-called bad Popes. As for my premise, you never directly answered. It is a yes-or-no question. Does God choose the Pope? you did not answer yes or no. You engaged in sophistry. Answer me now, and I will make my syllogism.
To the contrary, my Master's thesis required a very intensive examination of the so-called bad Popes. As for my premise, you never directly answered. It is a yes-or-no question. Does God choose the Pope? you did not answer yes or no. You engaged in sophistry. Answer me now, and I will make my syllogism.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,629
@previous (Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE)
> As for my premise, you never directly answered. It is a yes-or-no question. Does God choose the Pope? you did not answer yes or no.
My answer:
http://minichan.org/topic/99859#reply_1126512
"Not directly, no. Popes are chosen by the Papal conclave"
Caught in a lie yet again, Matthew. You really should stick to pestering children for sexually explicit photographs because you are absolutely terrible when you pretend to be a competent adult.
> As for my premise, you never directly answered. It is a yes-or-no question. Does God choose the Pope? you did not answer yes or no.
My answer:
http://minichan.org/topic/99859#reply_1126512
"Not directly, no. Popes are chosen by the Papal conclave"
Caught in a lie yet again, Matthew. You really should stick to pestering children for sexually explicit photographs because you are absolutely terrible when you pretend to be a competent adult.
Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,633
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
So, God does not choose Popes. By what authority, then, do Popes claim to be the Vicars of Christ?
So, God does not choose Popes. By what authority, then, do Popes claim to be the Vicars of Christ?
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,637
@previous (Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE)
> So, God does not choose Popes.
So, you've abandoned your idiotic grasp of Catholic doctrine so easily and conceded your argument was nonsense? What a poor education you've had. Your parents seem to have raised you very poorly, Matthew. Would you like to talk to me about them?
> By what authority, then, do Popes claim to be the Vicars of Christ?
By the laying on of hands of the Galilean carpenter, to quote the divine scribe!
> So, God does not choose Popes.
So, you've abandoned your idiotic grasp of Catholic doctrine so easily and conceded your argument was nonsense? What a poor education you've had. Your parents seem to have raised you very poorly, Matthew. Would you like to talk to me about them?
> By what authority, then, do Popes claim to be the Vicars of Christ?
By the laying on of hands of the Galilean carpenter, to quote the divine scribe!
Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,639
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Please give me a citation from the Bible a to the Pope's claim to be a Vicar of Christ, without God having chosen him.
Please give me a citation from the Bible a to the Pope's claim to be a Vicar of Christ, without God having chosen him.
Damn Matt is annoying joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,649
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 5 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,650
@1,127,639 (Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE)
> Please give me a citation from the Bible a to the Pope's claim to be a Vicar of Christ, without God having chosen him.
There are no "popes" in the Bible, Matthew. When Christ gave the 'keys' to St Peter (the inscription of which event currently surrounds the great Basilica of St Peter's in Rome) it was not what is now considered a papal conclave. Papal succession is not a Biblical notion, which is why you keep making the mistake of thinking God chooses popes. You are shockingly, shockingly ignorant of history. What on earth were your parents doing when they "raised" you as a Catholic?
> Please give me a citation from the Bible a to the Pope's claim to be a Vicar of Christ, without God having chosen him.
There are no "popes" in the Bible, Matthew. When Christ gave the 'keys' to St Peter (the inscription of which event currently surrounds the great Basilica of St Peter's in Rome) it was not what is now considered a papal conclave. Papal succession is not a Biblical notion, which is why you keep making the mistake of thinking God chooses popes. You are shockingly, shockingly ignorant of history. What on earth were your parents doing when they "raised" you as a Catholic?
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U double-posted this 5 years ago, 20 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,651
@1,127,649 (Damn Matt is annoying)
> > from the Bible a to the Pope's claim
>
> What?
Yep, he really is that dumb.
> > from the Bible a to the Pope's claim
>
> What?
Yep, he really is that dumb.
Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,662
@1,127,650 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> There are no "popes" in the Bible
Exactly. Your Catholicism has no biblical authority.
> There are no "popes" in the Bible
Exactly. Your Catholicism has no biblical authority.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,665
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,666
@1,127,662 (Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE)
> > There are no "popes" in the Bible
>
> Exactly. Your Catholicism has no biblical authority.
Dear lord, you really have capitulated on your earlier assertion that...
God chooses the Pope.
Innocent III was an evil Pope.
Ergo, God chose an evil Pope.
...haven't you? :)
The Biblical authority of Catholicism rests upon the laying on of hands of the Galilean carpenter to the fisherman, Matthew. Thence enters human will, as the sage sagely said :)
Again, it is absolutely shocking that you claim your parents "raised me a Catholic" and you do not know this. If you don't mind my asking, what exactly is it that your parents do?
> > There are no "popes" in the Bible
>
> Exactly. Your Catholicism has no biblical authority.
Dear lord, you really have capitulated on your earlier assertion that...
God chooses the Pope.
Innocent III was an evil Pope.
Ergo, God chose an evil Pope.
...haven't you? :)
The Biblical authority of Catholicism rests upon the laying on of hands of the Galilean carpenter to the fisherman, Matthew. Thence enters human will, as the sage sagely said :)
Again, it is absolutely shocking that you claim your parents "raised me a Catholic" and you do not know this. If you don't mind my asking, what exactly is it that your parents do?
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U double-posted this 5 years ago, 50 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,668
@1,127,665 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Weren't you a Catholic for a long time?
Apparently not, since he knows literally nothing about it.
> Weren't you a Catholic for a long time?
Apparently not, since he knows literally nothing about it.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 5 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,669
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Wasn't he a Catholic and big into demon hunting and similar things?
Wasn't he a Catholic and big into demon hunting and similar things?
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,672
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Wasn't he a Catholic and big into demon hunting and similar things?
It was shtick. His entire life is a series of internet shticks.
> Wasn't he a Catholic and big into demon hunting and similar things?
It was shtick. His entire life is a series of internet shticks.
Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,674
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,677
@previous (Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE)
> Wrong.
I do beg your pardon. When you wrote...
What would I have to do to see whole, spread vulva?
...to a child, that was the real you, wasn't it Matthew?
And when you disgustingly wrote about "eating the bowel movement of a 13-year-old girl with braces"...
http://static.minichan.org/img/1525433281679199.jpg
...that was also the real you, wasn't it Matthew?
> Wrong.
I do beg your pardon. When you wrote...
What would I have to do to see whole, spread vulva?
...to a child, that was the real you, wasn't it Matthew?
And when you disgustingly wrote about "eating the bowel movement of a 13-year-old girl with braces"...
http://static.minichan.org/img/1525433281679199.jpg
...that was also the real you, wasn't it Matthew?
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 5 years ago, 1 second later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,678
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,684
@1,127,674 (Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE)
You created this topic using the name "Anonymous A", then you changed your name to "Apocalypse Indy™".
You aren't trustworthy.
You created this topic using the name "Anonymous A", then you changed your name to "Apocalypse Indy™".
You aren't trustworthy.
(Edited 33 seconds later.)
Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,704
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 5 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,719
Anonymous E replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,727
I’m curious as to what branch of Protestantism Matt follows.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 5 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,743
@1,127,704 (Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE)
> It was not me.
The post with your name and tripcode on it was not you? "It was not me" is just an automatic response with you now, regardless of incontrovertible proof to the contrary?
Matthew, I have answered all your 'simple questions'. Why will you not answer mine? I'll repeat it:
When you disgustingly wrote about "eating the entire bowel movement of a 13-year-old girl with braces"...
http://static.minichan.org/img/1525433281679199.jpg
...was that the real you, or was it shtick?
> It was not me.
The post with your name and tripcode on it was not you? "It was not me" is just an automatic response with you now, regardless of incontrovertible proof to the contrary?
Matthew, I have answered all your 'simple questions'. Why will you not answer mine? I'll repeat it:
When you disgustingly wrote about "eating the entire bowel movement of a 13-year-old girl with braces"...
http://static.minichan.org/img/1525433281679199.jpg
...was that the real you, or was it shtick?
Blom joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 9 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,847
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,853
It appears Matthew ran away from answering a 'simple question'. Like Donald Trump, he is banking on "this is fake news" being enough to save him.
Anonymous H replied with this 5 years ago, 12 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,945
Blom replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,947
Anonymous H replied with this 5 years ago, 51 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,948
Blom replied with this 5 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,965
@previous (H)The OP was a different person who had a habit of making those kinds of topics, I remember this when it first came about.
Anonymous H replied with this 5 years ago, 44 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,127,971
@previous (Blom)
Whoa Matt. What you said here is different than what you said in the image.
Nice confession, but we already knew this.
Whoa Matt. What you said here is different than what you said in the image.
Nice confession, but we already knew this.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,128,010
@1,127,965 (Blom)
Matthew, why are you hiding away from answering my question? I'll repeat it:
When you disgustingly wrote about "eating the entire bowel movement of a 13-year-old girl with braces"...
http://static.minichan.org/img/1525433281679199.jpg
...was that the real you, or was it shtick?
It's ironic you insist others answer your 'simple questions' yet you run and hide when they're put to you.
Matthew, why are you hiding away from answering my question? I'll repeat it:
When you disgustingly wrote about "eating the entire bowel movement of a 13-year-old girl with braces"...
http://static.minichan.org/img/1525433281679199.jpg
...was that the real you, or was it shtick?
It's ironic you insist others answer your 'simple questions' yet you run and hide when they're put to you.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,128,011
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
It was not me. It was either Photoshopped, or Jimmy pretending to be me.
It was not me. It was either Photoshopped, or Jimmy pretending to be me.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,128,012
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,128,013
@1,128,011 (A)
> It was not me. It was either Photoshopped, or Jimmy pretending to be me.
So now you're even parodying your own excuse about asking for child porn. I guess this is your way of admitting that you did in fact ask Triptych for those images, and you did in fact make that disgusting post about eating the bowel movement of a child.
Matthew, what went wrong with you? Do you ever wonder that?
> It was not me. It was either Photoshopped, or Jimmy pretending to be me.
So now you're even parodying your own excuse about asking for child porn. I guess this is your way of admitting that you did in fact ask Triptych for those images, and you did in fact make that disgusting post about eating the bowel movement of a child.
Matthew, what went wrong with you? Do you ever wonder that?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 26 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,128,017
Anonymous H replied with this 5 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,128,021
Anonymous L replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,128,023
Anonymous H replied with this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,128,026
Blom replied with this 5 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,128,029
@1,128,010 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Not Matt. Was an admin on GHOUL though. Wasn't him, it was a fake screenshot.
Not Matt. Was an admin on GHOUL though. Wasn't him, it was a fake screenshot.
Anonymous H replied with this 5 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,128,035
Blom replied with this 5 years ago, 35 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,128,065
Anonymous L replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,128,066
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 18 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,128,076
I just wanted to pipe in and say, Joshy eats weewee. That is all. Have a good day, fora.
Anonymous H replied with this 5 years ago, 53 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,128,083
@1,128,065 (Blom)
Sure thing Matthew. The mods just have a habit of changing your wording around on a daily basis, huh?
Sure thing Matthew. The mods just have a habit of changing your wording around on a daily basis, huh?
Blom replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,128,084
Blom replied with this 5 years ago, 33 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,128,095
Anonymous H replied with this 5 years ago, 38 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,128,103
@1,128,084 (Blom)
If pretending to be a nigger and trying to be a successful troll is what you're trying to accomplish, you're failing Matthew. Try harder.
If pretending to be a nigger and trying to be a successful troll is what you're trying to accomplish, you're failing Matthew. Try harder.
Anonymous H double-posted this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,128,104
@1,128,095 (Blom)
Excuses Matthew. You're loaded with them. You have an excuse for everything you've been called out on.
Excuses Matthew. You're loaded with them. You have an excuse for everything you've been called out on.
Blom replied with this 5 years ago, 20 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,128,109
@1,128,103 (H)
I am being serious. I have a rich ancestry from many different peoples. You, meanwhile, are an obsessed stalker whose ancestry is as dull and as white as the seasoning you use. Thanks
I am being serious. I have a rich ancestry from many different peoples. You, meanwhile, are an obsessed stalker whose ancestry is as dull and as white as the seasoning you use. Thanks
Blom replied with this 5 years ago, 16 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,128,110
Anonymous H replied with this 5 years ago, 35 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,128,112
@1,128,109 (Blom)
> I have a rich ancestry from many different peoples.
We know Matt. You've reminded us about this thousands of times.
> You, meanwhile, are an obsessed stalker
Says the guy who constantly stalked syntax on TC when he was banned from here.
@previous (Blom)
> Whom is "Matthew" and why do you keep talking about him?
Why are you talking about yourself in a third person?
> I have a rich ancestry from many different peoples.
We know Matt. You've reminded us about this thousands of times.
> You, meanwhile, are an obsessed stalker
Says the guy who constantly stalked syntax on TC when he was banned from here.
@previous (Blom)
> Whom is "Matthew" and why do you keep talking about him?
Why are you talking about yourself in a third person?
Blom replied with this 5 years ago, 51 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,128,124
@previous (H)
Whyfore do you think I am this "Matthew" person? It doesn't give much confidence to your claim that the screenshot is real.
Whyfore do you think I am this "Matthew" person? It doesn't give much confidence to your claim that the screenshot is real.
Muddy Brown Eye joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 42 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,128,131
I once dated a woman who's face was the same color as her anus.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 1 day later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,128,534
@1,128,017 (A)
> I did not do either of those things, Scatman.
Guy with a sh*t fetish who wrote about wanting to eat the bowel movements of children is calling me "Scatman". Priceless.
> I did not do either of those things, Scatman.
Guy with a sh*t fetish who wrote about wanting to eat the bowel movements of children is calling me "Scatman". Priceless.
jodie !foster2PAQ joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,128,565
@1,128,011 (A)
> It was not me. It was either Photoshopped, or Jimmy pretending to be me.
wow what happened to jimmy
> It was not me. It was either Photoshopped, or Jimmy pretending to be me.
wow what happened to jimmy