|
Post by Nicko's Nose on Jan 13, 2018 8:16:14 GMT
It isn't good. At all. That said, darkpast can still use my soiled ass wipes for his next fajita wrap. 36 point type? Really? dufuq. darkpast is the only user I have on my block list. Just WAAAY too annoying.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jan 13, 2018 8:21:35 GMT
It isn't good. At all. That said, darkpast can still use my soiled ass wipes for his next fajita wrap. 36 point type? Really? dufuq. darkpast is the only user I have on my block list. Just WAAAY too annoying. He's on mine too but, I still see his dim witted prose in some replies. I'd bet a non vital organ he's Dennis Reynold's putrid smelling sock.
|
|
|
Post by Nicko's Nose on Jan 13, 2018 8:25:00 GMT
darkpast is the only user I have on my block list. Just WAAAY too annoying. He's on mine too but, I still see his dim witted prose in some replies. I'd bet a non vital organ he's Dennis Reynold's putrid smelling sock. It’s like it brings him immense joy everytime a celebrity gets accused of sexual assault. Creepy weirdo.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Jan 13, 2018 8:35:37 GMT
DC-Fan so since Been Affect was accused of sexual assault you want him gone from the DCEU, right? Surely your consistent with this.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Jan 13, 2018 13:40:58 GMT
WOW! Well, now this a 2nd case of sexual transgression by Stan Lee so this further supports the 1st case that was reported. Don't forget, your boy, Ben Affleck has been accused of sexual misconduct. If you can't recognize that, then you're just a fuckin' hypocrite and a fuckin' piece of shit
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Jan 13, 2018 16:23:35 GMT
WOW! Well, now this a 2nd case of sexual transgression by Stan Lee so this further supports the 1st case that was reported. Don't forget, your boy, Ben Affleck has been accused of sexual misconduct. If you can't recognize that, then you're just a fuckin' hypocrite and a fuckin' piece of shit eh, did you know that tu quoque deflections and rabid adhoms are generally regarded as intellectual weakness and make you - I quote - the "v ery fuckin' hypocrite and a fuckin' piece of shit" you project others to be? No? I thought so. And it makes it apparent that you think that Mr Lee is guilty as accused by several people now. That's sad, dude.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Jan 13, 2018 16:32:40 GMT
Don't forget, your boy, Ben Affleck has been accused of sexual misconduct. If you can't recognize that, then you're just a fuckin' hypocrite and a fuckin' piece of shit eh, did you know that tu quoque deflections and rabid adhoms are generally regarded as intellectual weakness and make you - I quote - the "v ery fuckin' hypocrite and a fuckin' piece of shit" you project others to be? No? I thought so. And it makes it apparent that you think that Mr Lee is guilty as accused by several people now. That's sad, dude. Dude, you're deflecting yourself as well. Here's the thing though, it's still innocent until proven guilty. So I'm not going to comment on it yet. But Ben Affleck admitted to doing it.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Jan 13, 2018 17:12:54 GMT
eh, did you know that tu quoque deflections and rabid adhoms are generally regarded as intellectual weakness and make you - I quote - the "v ery fuckin' hypocrite and a fuckin' piece of shit" you project others to be? No? I thought so. And it makes it apparent that you think that Mr Lee is guilty as accused by several people now. That's sad, dude. Dude, you're deflecting yourself as well. Here's the thing though, it's still innocent until proven guilty. So I'm not going to comment on it yet. But Ben Affleck admitted to doing it. dude, you should check what deflection means. Regardless: Nope, "proven until innocent" is a criminal court principle when imposing legal sanctions. But we discuss civil / social sanctions that are not subject to this concept, or we would still have Weinstein, Spacey & pals run around innocently with their jobs. Batflek is not the topic here, deflecting by naming someone - as you say - already admitting doing "it" indicates your mindset and is a bad debating tactic. That being said, I don't know what "it" exactly is, but if Ben Affleck did commit similar acts as Lee is now accused of, Affleck IMO must be removed as Batflek. You cannot have a sex offender play Batman, it will fall back on you. Same with Lee if the evidence is corroborated and further accusations come along, he must be removed from future films. And you can bet your balls they will.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Jan 13, 2018 17:29:27 GMT
Dude, you're deflecting yourself as well. Here's the thing though, it's still innocent until proven guilty. So I'm not going to comment on it yet. But Ben Affleck admitted to doing it. dude, you should check what deflection means. Regardless: Nope, "proven until innocent" is a criminal court principle when imposing legal sanctions. But we discuss civil / social sanctions that are not subject to this concept, or we would still have Weinstein, Spacey & pals run around innocently with their jobs. Batflek is not the topic here, deflecting by naming someone - as you say - already admitting doing "it" indicates your mindset and is a bad debating tactic. That being said, I don't know what "it" exactly is, but if Ben Affleck did commit similar acts as Lee is now accused of, Affleck IMO must be removed as Batflek. You cannot have a sex offender play Batman, it will fall back on you. Same with Lee if the evidence is corroborated and further accusations come along, he must be removed from future films. And you can bet your balls they will. Fair enough. Explain that to DC-Fan then. He's the one acting like the DCEU can do no wrong and ignores anything bad about em, and only thinks the MCU can do bad. That's the reason why I called him out, rightfully so, for being a fuckin' hypocrite if he's not going to acknowledge or recognize that Ben Affleck has been accused of sexual assault as well
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Jan 13, 2018 17:29:47 GMT
Dude, you're deflecting yourself as well. Here's the thing though, it's still innocent until proven guilty. So I'm not going to comment on it yet. But Ben Affleck admitted to doing it. dude, you should check what deflection means. Regardless: Nope, "proven until innocent" is a criminal court principle when imposing legal sanctions. But we discuss civil / social sanctions that are not subject to this concept, or we would still have Weinstein, Spacey & pals run around innocently with their jobs. Batflek is not the topic here, deflecting by naming someone - as you say - already admitting doing "it" indicates your mindset and is a bad debating tactic. That being said, I don't know what "it" exactly is, but if Ben Affleck did commit similar acts as Lee is now accused of, Affleck IMO must be removed as Batflek. You cannot have a sex offender play Batman, it will fall back on you. Same with Lee if the evidence is corroborated and further accusations come along, he must be removed from future films. And you can bet your balls they will. I know that both fandoms very rarely agree with each other on pretty much anything but I believe we can all agree on this, yes? If the allegations made against Stan Lee are true, removing him from all future movies is not only the right thing to do, but the smart decision. Especially with the upcoming Captain Marvel film. Same with Affleck. He shouldn't be playing Batman.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2018 17:56:53 GMT
dude, you should check what deflection means. Regardless: Nope, "proven until innocent" is a criminal court principle when imposing legal sanctions. But we discuss civil / social sanctions that are not subject to this concept, or we would still have Weinstein, Spacey & pals run around innocently with their jobs. Batflek is not the topic here, deflecting by naming someone - as you say - already admitting doing "it" indicates your mindset and is a bad debating tactic. That being said, I don't know what "it" exactly is, but if Ben Affleck did commit similar acts as Lee is now accused of, Affleck IMO must be removed as Batflek. You cannot have a sex offender play Batman, it will fall back on you. Same with Lee if the evidence is corroborated and further accusations come along, he must be removed from future films. And you can bet your balls they will. I know that both fandoms very rarely agree with each other on pretty much anything but I believe we can all agree on this, yes? If the allegations made against Stan Lee are true, removing him from all future movies is not only the right thing to do, but the smart decision. Especially with the upcoming Captain Marvel film. Same with Affleck. He shouldn't be playing Batman. Yep. Totally agree. I hate the harrasment of women.
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Jan 13, 2018 17:57:56 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2018 6:29:22 GMT
As a longtime fan of his I would like to say I am shocked but one thing we need to remember with these people is we don't know any of them personally so there is no telling what they are like in real life. The amount of people being exposed is appalling though and I feel sorry for all the victims.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jan 14, 2018 23:25:35 GMT
If these stories are true it's pretty sad. At the moment I'm keeping an open mind...I mean it is being reported initially/primarily by the Daily Mail...a shit rag known for starting witch hunts and guilty of such nastiness as being pro-Hitler in the run up to the war and blaming homosexuality for a pop stars death by an undetected heart condition..and much more.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jan 15, 2018 0:23:24 GMT
it is being reported initially/primarily by the Daily Mail...a shit rag known for starting witch hunts and guilty of such nastiness as being pro-Hitler in the run up to the war and blaming homosexuality for a pop stars death by an undetected heart condition..and much more. There's now a 2nd report of sexual transgression committed by Stan Lee and this 2nd report isn't from the Daily Mail.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jan 15, 2018 0:58:16 GMT
it is being reported initially/primarily by the Daily Mail...a shit rag known for starting witch hunts and guilty of such nastiness as being pro-Hitler in the run up to the war and blaming homosexuality for a pop stars death by an undetected heart condition..and much more. There's now a 2nd report of sexual transgression committed by Stan Lee and this 2nd report isn't from the Daily Mail. You mean the masseuse?...which was reported exclusively by Daily Mail
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jan 15, 2018 2:47:51 GMT
There's now a 2nd report of sexual transgression committed by Stan Lee and this 2nd report isn't from the Daily Mail. You mean the masseuse?...which was reported exclusively by Daily MailAnd the article has been confirmed to be true by facts.
The article says "Arizona Coyotes cancel comic book legend Stan Lee's puck drop after he is accused of sexually harassing his nurses and masturbating in front of a female masseuse Stan Lee was scheduled to drop the first puck on Friday's game against the Edmonton Oilers, but will no longer make an appearance"
Stan Lee didn't drop the puck at that game so the article is true by facts.
The article also says "The hockey team claimed the decision to cancel the decision was a mutual one". If Lee was innocent as he claims, then why would Lee agree to cancel his appearance to drop the puck, which would make him look guilty?
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jan 15, 2018 8:28:12 GMT
You mean the masseuse?...which was reported exclusively by Daily MailAnd the article has been confirmed to be true by facts.
The article says "Arizona Coyotes cancel comic book legend Stan Lee's puck drop after he is accused of sexually harassing his nurses and masturbating in front of a female masseuse Stan Lee was scheduled to drop the first puck on Friday's game against the Edmonton Oilers, but will no longer make an appearance"
Stan Lee didn't drop the puck at that game so the article is true by facts.
The article also says "The hockey team claimed the decision to cancel the decision was a mutual one". If Lee was innocent as he claims, then why would Lee agree to cancel his appearance to drop the puck, which would make him look guilty?
A consequence of the accusations is not evidence that the offence took place. It was also the result of a story reported EXCLUSIVELY by the Daily Mail.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jan 15, 2018 8:31:39 GMT
And the article has been confirmed to be true by facts.
The article says "Arizona Coyotes cancel comic book legend Stan Lee's puck drop after he is accused of sexually harassing his nurses and masturbating in front of a female masseuse Stan Lee was scheduled to drop the first puck on Friday's game against the Edmonton Oilers, but will no longer make an appearance"
Stan Lee didn't drop the puck at that game so the article is true by facts.
The article also says "The hockey team claimed the decision to cancel the decision was a mutual one". If Lee was innocent as he claims, then why would Lee agree to cancel his appearance to drop the puck, which would make him look guilty?
A consequence of the accusations is not evidence that the offence took place. It was also the result of a story reported EXCLUSIVELY by the Daily Mail. You claimed that the Daily Mail is unreliable. I proved tat the Daily Mail is reliable because the Daily Mail reported that Stan Lee would no longer drop the puck at that game. And guess what? Stan Lee didn't drop the puck at that game so the Daily Mail article was in fact reliable and accurate.
Moreover, the article says that Stan Lee agreed to cancel his puck drop appearance. If Lee was innocent as he claims, why would he agree to something that would make him look guilty?
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jan 15, 2018 9:04:33 GMT
Are you deliberately being stupid. A consequence of the accusations is not evidence that the offence took place. It was also the result of a story reported EXCLUSIVELY by the Daily Mail. Are YOU being deliberately stupid? You claimed that the Daily Mail is unreliable. I proved tat the Daily Mail is reliable because the Daily Mail reported that Stan Lee would no longer drop the puck at that game. And guess what? Stan Lee didn't drop the puck at that game so the Daily Mail article was in fact reliable and accurate.
Moreover, the article says that Stan Lee agreed to cancel his puck drop appearance. If Lee was innocent as he claims, why would he agree to something that would make him look guilty?
Oh Sweet Jesus you make it too easy. Article 1 - Exclusively Daily Mail reports initial transgression with nurses. Article 2 - Exclusively Daily Mail reports second with masseuse Article 3 - Daily Mail reports as a consequence it is mutually agreed he best not attend an event he was to appear in. You said there was a second transgression NOT reported by the Mail..it was, Article 2. You then say the article was true referring to Article 3. Which is about the consequence of the stories not evidence that the transgressions took place. Now one of two things happened You have completely misunderstood and thought the third article was the first time the second transgression was reported...which makes you look stupid because you say the Daily Mail didn't report it and then add a link to the Daily Mail! Or, you realised you were wrong and are ineptly trying to wriggle out of what you said. Save both of us some time and actually read some links before you start posting
|
|