Jump to content

Pie Serendipity

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Pie Serendipity

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. PeterCanessa Oh wrote: Watch out Pie - after the last flame wars the mods said we should RIC first and not ask questions. It's Catch 22. If you RICked every repetition of a nonsensically malevolent fictitious accusation you'd get banned for spamming the moderators.
  2. Phil Deakins wrote: I'm not doubting your memory, Laurin. I am doubting mine but not enough to decide that it's wrong. I'm still thinking that you didn't see everything. You may have done, but I'm thinking you may not have done. Rhonda herself posted the reason for the outburst in the page that pep linked to, so I'm on safe ground there She deleted the outbursts (several of them) but she didn't delete this. This is what she posted:- It was not his little barbs. It was what he did to someone you called a friend. She is gone now, so it is not like it can ever happen again The "she" w
  3. Laurin Sorbet wrote: the notion is absurd. QFT! IBTL as well. (It's a same Phil won't be able to get the threads where he has humiliated himself removed, then he could create even more false memories.)
  4. Phil Deakins wrote: I'll suck it up when I know for certain that I was mistaken, and the memory is too strong for that. In the meantime, you won't kill this thread like you did the other one, because you'll be talking to yourself, and I imagine even you would soon get bored with that. This is my last post to you on this subject in any thread. You can remain deluded. I won't help you. Kill this thread? It would be doing the forum a favour, since it was a pointless one in the first place, asking a question which was only necessary because your cognitive functions have become almost termin
  5. Glossom wrote: What a fantastic story. It made me laugh to tears Be warned Glossom, Phil has a very unreliable memory and has a reputation for making things up. You wouldn't want to be accused of writing about something that never actually happened, would you?
  6. Thank you Love. (I never thought I'd actually type those words!) And of course, you'd have mentioned it if I'd ever done, afterwards, those scurrilous things Phil had imagined. I recommend you suck it up now Phil; nobody is going to trust you ever again.
  7. Why do people do online dating? For the same reason students try to do their assignments without getting out of bed. Laziness.
  8. I think it was reading a thread started by a lazy journalist looking for free copy. I laughed and laughed at their mistake.
  9. Phil Deakins wrote: Awe wasn't having fun. He'd become too wound up by another thread and was using this one to try and let off some steam. It actually looks more like he was helping a decrepit old man who had lost his memory.
  10. Well Keli, you're from the 90s and I'm from the 70s . . . . . . comparatively speaking.
  11. JeanneFau wrote: You're very selectively paranoid. Thank you for the compliment.
  12. Innula Zenovka wrote: Pie Serendipity wrote: Don't believe the nonsense about the Spooks having put a backdoor in TOR; that is a bunch of disinformation intended to deter users - it is still secure and will remain so until, or rather, unless, it is closed down, at which point the non-public version will kick into operation. Isn't that exactly the sort of disinformation the Spooks themselves would put out if they wanted people to continue to use TOR for criminal purposes, despite the recent arrests apparently based on information interecepted on TOR? Nah, the NSA assessment goes
  13. Yes, I know it might seem a surprising topic to raise in an environment where everybody is apparently anonymous. Nevertheless, it seems relevant to those who do not wish to share their details with Linden Lab, which LL has of course facilitated with their validation-free sign up policy in a desperate attempt to bolster plummeting participation numbers. I am not talking about the risks taken by those who have voluntarily given their identity details to LL, either so that their credit cards can be drained of funds by inworld purchases of land rights or so that they might acquire inventory-loads
  14. Czari Zenovka wrote: Maryanne Solo wrote: Shan, (in this, one of its many variations), is of course welsh. You, (in this, one of your many variations lmaoo), of course, can't seem to be trusted. No pixel bananna 4 u. Welsh you say? Shan is how an antipodean semi-literate might spell the way the Welsh girl's name Siân is pronounced. ETA: I know at least one South African of Portuguese heritage who is called Shan. He's a bloke.
  15. Madeline Blackbart wrote: I love how pies arguements lend nothing to the actual conversation at hand. Insulting people's intelligence doesn't actually prove your point. It only proves that you have no real defience of your ideas so you switched to name calling like a child. Troll harder pie. If you inspect the thread carefully I think you will find the reality of the situation is that my normal approach, as recommended by my father of "Don't start anything, but make sure you finish it" applies. I find retaliation an appropriate defence against your accusations. Unless of course the post
  • Create New...