>>69
Crikey.

What puzzles me is that no one, either here or on Crackyhouse, ever seems moved to carry out an exposé of the inconsistencies and absurdities of THIS sort of post in the way they carry out exposés of mine.

I mean, there ARE some noteworthy oddities to it, aren't there, such as

(i) making such heavy play of these "original conversations" which, frankly, I can't see any evidence of at all. Surely you're not referring, when you say "conversation", to someone saying "I saw Crackys poon teehee" followed by someone else saying "no you dident"? Or to monosyllabic "is / isn't" / "is / isn't" contests about whether a detail in a photo of some random cam-whore's ass is a scrotum or a doorknob? Or - and I suppose this, sadly, is the most likely possibilty - to some "revered oldfag's" responding to the childish baiting of a 14-year-old from 4chan by wheeling out the ancient, exhausted joke of a bad imitation of the King James Bible for the umpteenth time: "Yea verily thou hast no understanding ye heathen lo and lest of the blessedness of those whom She has verily etc. etc. etc."?

I won't indulge in the groundless ignorant speculations about the further details of your life that you indulge about mine, but there really must be SOMETHING seriously wrong with you if you're hallucinating that anyone is actually having a CONVERSATION with anyone else on this board.

The only APPROACHES to anything like a "conversation" here are ALL made my ME and I think you'll find that the only threads I've "taken over" - for many weeks at least - are threads that no one was pursuing anyway, such as the one at the bottom of this page which began with the silly question about "who took the photo in the woods".