Dogs Sleeping Forum

cobaye22 wrote:

jp761 wrote:Prenuptial! Sorted...

Although feeling the need for that in the first place, would probably have me looking elsewhere anyway.

Keep brainstorming those hypotheticals.

jra wrote:

NastyNickers wrote:
Of course you needed to. How the hell do you expect any one to know what you mean otherwise? It wasn't at all obvious.
Some/most women doesn't excuse it. Some/most is still a shitty view. Most women are decent human beings, like most men.

I love how it's ok for you to take things literally all the time, but when you think I'm doing it, you feel like you're talking to a 5 year old.

Not obvious it seems to you. There's the difference. You seem to need to be spoon fed.

If I was in a pub with you right now, I would have walked away already, as in we'll agree to disagree. I've got better things to do than have a long protracted debate about this, like watching the cricket.

NastyNickers wrote:

Guest wrote:

NastyNickers wrote::Hiya: faceache! Welcome to dogs.

Oh god no. Just when I thought all that boring shit had finished. Expect lots of posts waffling about how bad women have it and how anyone who disagrees must be an evil MRA. All we need now is Christa and Retford to join and we'll have the full set of moaning men and moaning women.

Faceache isn't even in the same league as your Retfords, Christas and Piskies!

cobaye22 wrote:

jp761 wrote:Prenuptial! Sorted...

Although feeling the need for that in the first place, would probably have me looking elsewhere anyway.

Keep brainstorming those hypotheticals.

jra wrote:

NastyNickers wrote:
Of course you needed to. How the hell do you expect any one to know what you mean otherwise? It wasn't at all obvious.
Some/most women doesn't excuse it. Some/most is still a shitty view. Most women are decent human beings, like most men.

I love how it's ok for you to take things literally all the time, but when you think I'm doing it, you feel like you're talking to a 5 year old.

Not obvious it seems to you. There's the difference. You seem to need to be spoon fed.

If I was in a pub with you right now, I would have walked away already, as in we'll agree to disagree. I've got better things to do than have a long protracted debate about this, like watching the cricket.

It's £1300 too much to spend. As in don't ever get married if you are a man, unless you want to be bled dry come divorce (which happens for 1 in 2-3 marriages) or have children. From a legal point of view, the odds are well stacked against men.

That's means at least two thirds of women are not applicable regarding divorce. One in three. Get it. As for children, I'm saying nothing. I've already it many times before. But do carry on. I look forward to your next installment, but now I have rewind to find out the last two wicket losses in the Lancashire Thunder vs Surrey Stars KIA Womens Super League (channel 404 on Sky). That'll be £50 for the inconvenience. Cheques are acceptable.

Guest wrote:

cobaye22 wrote:

jp761 wrote:Prenuptial! Sorted...

Although feeling the need for that in the first place, would probably have me looking elsewhere anyway.

Keep brainstorming those hypotheticals.

I love your photo of the little bird (sparrow) on a branch. Beautiful.

bar guest wrote:

jra wrote:

NastyNickers wrote:
Of course you needed to. How the hell do you expect any one to know what you mean otherwise? It wasn't at all obvious.
Some/most women doesn't excuse it. Some/most is still a shitty view. Most women are decent human beings, like most men.

I love how it's ok for you to take things literally all the time, but when you think I'm doing it, you feel like you're talking to a 5 year old.

Not obvious it seems to you. There's the difference. You seem to need to be spoon fed.

If I was in a pub with you right now, I would have walked away already, as in we'll agree to disagree. I've got better things to do than have a long protracted debate about this, like watching the cricket.

Nah. He'd have touched your arm, told you how pretty you look, then offered you twenty quid for a blow job.

Vicky wrote:

Keyser wrote:Nah you just hold a grudge that is quite frankly incredible - I apologised time and time gain for swearing at you ONCE when pissed - you and your new bestest chum Hobbitbitch have somehow twisted that into a great vendetta - it was two years ago - stop insulting my friends like Charlie.

But you have power as a mod.

Hardly a level playing field is it?

Now you listen and you listen good, i carried on talking to you on here after you called me a cunt, but i finally got sick of the petulant outbursts and the way you always play the victim.

For a man of your age, it's pathetic.

Do you actually have a backbone?

The only people who still buy into the "Keyser is a nice guy" are those who are as thick as mince. You're a nasty, manipulative, creep.

Oh and anymore smart arsed remarks about Hobbit being my bestest chum and i'll stick your name on the banned members list, faster than you can blink.

Guest wrote:https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/1962070/the-palaeontology-thread#latest

How come Charlie is allowed to post on Keyser's behalf? She's done it a couple of times since 29.07.

I didn't think that was allowed.

Guest wrote:https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/1962070/the-palaeontology-thread#latest

How come Charlie is allowed to post on Keyser's behalf? She's done it a couple of times since 29.07.

I didn't think that was allowed.

Keyser wrote:

Guest wrote:https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/1962070/the-palaeontology-thread#latest

How come Charlie is allowed to post on Keyser's behalf? She's done it a couple of times since 29.07.

I didn't think that was allowed.

What does it have to do with you?