SNL writer says she'll give a blowjob to anyone who punches the Covington smiling kid.

[Pogo]

Newspapers edit and decide what is published so yes they are responsible. Social media does not edit and review everything that is published. They have algorithms that flag, copywrited, vulgar, or dangerous material so there are some filters in place but it is a very different medium than a newspaper or magazine

Just because Surveillance Media fails in its review responsibility, doesn't justify that failure. There is plenty of empirical evidence of deletions, suspensions and banishments to show that when they do care, they take action. And the fact that they only do this when they care demonstrates that they are acting in an editorial capacity. Hence, they are content providers and publishers.

They have a terms of services that every user agrees to when they sign up. They can enforce whatever they want

And the way they enforce makes them content providers/media companies.

Thanks for playing!

Wrong YET AGAIN. If Marvin Finstervlep posts something to Tweeter, that's Marvin providing the content --- not Tweeter.

Just as your post that I just quoted exists because YOU provided the content. Or are you going to tell us that USMB created that post and put your name on it?

if twitter stops you from posting because they dont like your views...

thry still an open platform?

We haven't been discussing "open platforms". We've been clarifying who the provider is.

 

[Slade3200]

Suddenly racism isnt bad when its an indian or black guy saying racist shit.

Of course; Democrats love hate crimes based on race, as long as it's committed by brown and black vermin they actually endorse it, as did Obama and Eric Holder, and nearly all other Democrats do. They're racist sociopaths and deviants.

Wow, that’s so enlightening. You don’t honestly think anybody buys that crap, except for a few wingnuts in your echo chamber, do you? What a joke

lol you racist Democrats are the joke, you're just too stupid to know it; you clowns suck at hiding it, too. We all know it, dumbass, and they isn't a thing you can do to convince anyone otherwise. If your Party wasn't racist, your base would disappear by morning.

Wow look who’s playing the race card now. How snowflake of you. Grow up, you’re not fooling anybody

Lol I never try to fool anybody don't have to, I'm not a Democrat peddling lies and spin as you are, loser. Your pathetic attempts here pretty much out you as a low life racist hack, defending some other lying racist harassing white kids while you an your ilk snivel like loons trying to make something out of nothing.

I’m not defending anybody, I’m placing blame. You are the one who scraping up insults and excuses as you lose control of your emotions. Grow up

 

[boedicca]

Is a newspaper responsible for the "letters to the editor" and classified ads it publishes? Yes and Yes.

If Picaro sprays on a wall, he has vandalized the wall - not the same as if the building owner provided the spray paint and stood back and watched.

You lose.

Newspapers edit and decide what is published so yes they are responsible. Social media does not edit and review everything that is published. They have algorithms that flag, copywrited, vulgar, or dangerous material so there are some filters in place but it is a very different medium than a newspaper or magazine

Just because Surveillance Media fails in its review responsibility, doesn't justify that failure. There is plenty of empirical evidence of deletions, suspensions and banishments to show that when they do care, they take action. And the fact that they only do this when they care demonstrates that they are acting in an editorial capacity. Hence, they are content providers and publishers.

They have a terms of services that every user agrees to when they sign up. They can enforce whatever they want

And the way they enforce makes them content providers/media companies.

Thanks for playing!

Wrong YET AGAIN. If Marvin Finstervlep posts something to Tweeter, that's Marvin providing the content --- not Tweeter.

Just as your post that I just quoted exists because YOU provided the content. Or are you going to tell us that USMB created that post and put your name on it?

Nope. You are completely wrong.

Twitter hoovers up data, analyzes it, and monetizes it all to influence the behavior of its users (just as GOOG and FB do). They censor, ban, and delete. They perform editorial functions. As they do all that, they also have the ability to enforce editorial standards - which they actually do that, but only in an incredibly biased way, which makes them media-publishers, not agnostic technology platforms. The Data Hoovering/Data Science/Algorithm/AIs are not necessary for the technology to provide a social media platform. They are necessary for Surveillance Media-Behavior Manipulation-Editorial Narriative spinning.

 

[boedicca]

Newspapers edit and decide what is published so yes they are responsible. Social media does not edit and review everything that is published. They have algorithms that flag, copywrited, vulgar, or dangerous material so there are some filters in place but it is a very different medium than a newspaper or magazine

Just because Surveillance Media fails in its review responsibility, doesn't justify that failure. There is plenty of empirical evidence of deletions, suspensions and banishments to show that when they do care, they take action. And the fact that they only do this when they care demonstrates that they are acting in an editorial capacity. Hence, they are content providers and publishers.

They have a terms of services that every user agrees to when they sign up. They can enforce whatever they want

And the way they enforce makes them content providers/media companies.

Thanks for playing!

Wrong YET AGAIN. If Marvin Finstervlep posts something to Tweeter, that's Marvin providing the content --- not Tweeter.

Just as your post that I just quoted exists because YOU provided the content. Or are you going to tell us that USMB created that post and put your name on it?

if twitter stops you from posting because they dont like your views...

thry still an open platform?

No. They are a content publisher media operation.

 

[iceberg]

then i missed it also.

1. the kid should have backed down. why? he didn't start anything. the other guy got in his face and started beating a drum. the kid at this point had zero idea what was going on so he just smiled and ran with it.

is this a problem?

2. he owns fault in this. why? what would you do in this situation? as far as i know there isn't a guidebook of what to properly do when someone confronts you in public. we all are going to handle it in our own way and the rest of the world gets the luxury of sitting back and judging something they were never involved in and only have seen minutes of videos to tell them who's right and who's wrong. is that enough?

it would seem that what we have seen so far (at least what i have seen) is nothing more than him holding his own and trying to NOT start anything. if he had "backed down" would the rest have left him alone? doubtful as he wasn't doing anything to them when they approached him, other than wearing a hat they disagreed with.

3. you didn't hear what the other kid said - then how can you sit there and say he was right OR wrong in this instance?

i don't see kids jacked up on mt dew and causing a ruckus (as much as i love the analogy i don't see it fitting here).

what did the kids do that you would be ashamed of if they were your kids?

You see the majority of kids either dancing or clapping with the drum in good fun. Some maybe mocking but I’ll gibe them the benefit of the doubt. Then you see this kid puff up and stare the old guy down. The old guy should have ignored the kid and gone around, that’s his bad. The kid should have done what the other kids were doing and backed down. A 5 minute stare down is not respectable actions in my opinion and would instigate a fist fight in most situations . I’m a high school coach so I’m used to groups of excited teenagers but I also teach how to deescalate not antagonize. The Black Hebrews were the instigators saying horrible things, they should have been ignored. The kids responded by chanting and dancing and and laughing in their faces. Screw the black Hebrew guys, I understand the urge to throw it back in their face, but that’s not how we should encourage our children to act in situations like that.

puff up?

what is an appropriate action when someone comes at you? he was smirking yes but i didn't see "puff up". you stare me down i'm going to stare back.

the kids - they heard a lot of negative stuff being shouted at them so, by reading stories that didn't have a dog in this race, we found out these kids were simply doing school cheers to try and say something positive that they have done in school.

you're seeing something w/o context and putting it in the worst possible light.

why?

The appropriate action is what most the other kids did, you don’t teach kids to get in peoples face like that. The old dude didn’t come at the kid he was walking through the crowd playing a drum and singing.

That sounds like he walked up to the kid.

Yes he did, so what? He was walking through a crowd singing and beating a drum in a non aggressive way. People walk through crowds all the time. We don’t stand face to face and stare eachother down without being an antagonist, I’m sorry but your crazy if you think it was just a kid standing there smiling. The kid and the old man were both acting like douchebags and were a flinch away from a brawl

you know how i can agree with you when you say someone is overreacting?

you're overreacting.

you dont know either state of mind personally.
the kid so far from every video ive seen DID NOT initiate this viscious stare down. the native american is on record as saying he put himself into the mix to try and defuse it.
now according to you a teen yoyve never met is acting like a douchebag because first one group comes at him for his hat, then a 2nd.

we've got countless videos and issues from the left acting like a bill that just saw red. yet in this instance the kid started it.

ive asked 3x now, can you point me to the video that is giving you this douchbag impression.?

non events are life and death these days. id rather save the excitement for "real" extremes, not our faux rage we invent to be happy we're angry.

 

[iceberg]

Just because Surveillance Media fails in its review responsibility, doesn't justify that failure. There is plenty of empirical evidence of deletions, suspensions and banishments to show that when they do care, they take action. And the fact that they only do this when they care demonstrates that they are acting in an editorial capacity. Hence, they are content providers and publishers.

They have a terms of services that every user agrees to when they sign up. They can enforce whatever they want

And the way they enforce makes them content providers/media companies.

Thanks for playing!

Wrong YET AGAIN. If Marvin Finstervlep posts something to Tweeter, that's Marvin providing the content --- not Tweeter.

Just as your post that I just quoted exists because YOU provided the content. Or are you going to tell us that USMB created that post and put your name on it?

if twitter stops you from posting because they dont like your views...

thry still an open platform?

We haven't been discussing "open platforms". We've been clarifying who the provider is.

well if its not an open platform how the **** is marvin posting on it?

you're funny when you trip over yourself.

 

[Slade3200]

You see the majority of kids either dancing or clapping with the drum in good fun. Some maybe mocking but I’ll gibe them the benefit of the doubt. Then you see this kid puff up and stare the old guy down. The old guy should have ignored the kid and gone around, that’s his bad. The kid should have done what the other kids were doing and backed down. A 5 minute stare down is not respectable actions in my opinion and would instigate a fist fight in most situations . I’m a high school coach so I’m used to groups of excited teenagers but I also teach how to deescalate not antagonize. The Black Hebrews were the instigators saying horrible things, they should have been ignored. The kids responded by chanting and dancing and and laughing in their faces. Screw the black Hebrew guys, I understand the urge to throw it back in their face, but that’s not how we should encourage our children to act in situations like that.

puff up?

what is an appropriate action when someone comes at you? he was smirking yes but i didn't see "puff up". you stare me down i'm going to stare back.

the kids - they heard a lot of negative stuff being shouted at them so, by reading stories that didn't have a dog in this race, we found out these kids were simply doing school cheers to try and say something positive that they have done in school.

you're seeing something w/o context and putting it in the worst possible light.

why?

The appropriate action is what most the other kids did, you don’t teach kids to get in peoples face like that. The old dude didn’t come at the kid he was walking through the crowd playing a drum and singing.

That sounds like he walked up to the kid.

Yes he did, so what? He was walking through a crowd singing and beating a drum in a non aggressive way. People walk through crowds all the time. We don’t stand face to face and stare eachother down without being an antagonist, I’m sorry but your crazy if you think it was just a kid standing there smiling. The kid and the old man were both acting like douchebags and were a flinch away from a brawl

you know how i can agree with you when you say someone is overreacting?

you're overreacting.

you dont know either state of mind personally.
the kid so far from every video ive seen DID NOT initiate this viscious stare down. the native american is on record as saying he put himself into the mix to try and defuse it.
now according to you a teen yoyve never met is acting like a douchebag because first one group comes at him for his hat, then a 2nd.

we've got countless videos and issues from the left acting like a bill that just saw red. yet in this instance the kid started it.

ive asked 3x now, can you point me to the video that is giving you this douchbag impression.?

non events are life and death these days. id rather save the excitement for "real" extremes, not our faux rage we invent to be happy we're angry.

I don’t think the kids started it. I think the Black Hebrews started it and along with the media are the biggest offenders with this situation. The Indians did walk into the crowd of kids but they were singing and playing drums. Most kids danced and sang, then there was mister tough guy who wasn’t going to move or blink and the stare down began. The whole thing was childish and blown way out of proportion

I will say though that the more I learn about the Indian guy the more I see him as an instigator. I think they all need to grow up

 

[iceberg]

the kid will grow up. seems to be off to a good start by simply smiling while peacefully holding his ground.

and that got him, his family and his school death threats.

let me know again whos out of line here.

 

[Pogo]

They have a terms of services that every user agrees to when they sign up. They can enforce whatever they want

And the way they enforce makes them content providers/media companies.

Thanks for playing!

Wrong YET AGAIN. If Marvin Finstervlep posts something to Tweeter, that's Marvin providing the content --- not Tweeter.

Just as your post that I just quoted exists because YOU provided the content. Or are you going to tell us that USMB created that post and put your name on it?

if twitter stops you from posting because they dont like your views...

thry still an open platform?

We haven't been discussing "open platforms". We've been clarifying who the provider is.

well if its not an open platform how the **** is marvin posting on it?

you're funny when you trip over yourself.

The question is inoperative.

Marvin posting is the premise. The point is that he --- not the stone tablet upon which he carved --- is the content provider.

This wasn't even your discussion. Perhaps you should review the material before you jump in.

 

[Pogo]

the kid will grow up. seems to be off to a good start by simply smiling while peacefully holding his ground.

and that got him, his family and his school death threats.

let me know again whos out of line here.

Let us all know how many people you've ever seen, of any age, who stand three inches away from somebody smirking at them.

Go try it yourself. In a bar. In a church. In a Mal-Wart. Anywhere you like.
How 'bout this, next time you get pulled over by a cop, just put your face two inches away from his and smirk. Tell him how it's about "respect".

 

[Pogo]

You see the majority of kids either dancing or clapping with the drum in good fun. Some maybe mocking but I’ll gibe them the benefit of the doubt. Then you see this kid puff up and stare the old guy down. The old guy should have ignored the kid and gone around, that’s his bad. The kid should have done what the other kids were doing and backed down. A 5 minute stare down is not respectable actions in my opinion and would instigate a fist fight in most situations . I’m a high school coach so I’m used to groups of excited teenagers but I also teach how to deescalate not antagonize. The Black Hebrews were the instigators saying horrible things, they should have been ignored. The kids responded by chanting and dancing and and laughing in their faces. Screw the black Hebrew guys, I understand the urge to throw it back in their face, but that’s not how we should encourage our children to act in situations like that.

puff up?

what is an appropriate action when someone comes at you? he was smirking yes but i didn't see "puff up". you stare me down i'm going to stare back.

the kids - they heard a lot of negative stuff being shouted at them so, by reading stories that didn't have a dog in this race, we found out these kids were simply doing school cheers to try and say something positive that they have done in school.

you're seeing something w/o context and putting it in the worst possible light.

why?

The appropriate action is what most the other kids did, you don’t teach kids to get in peoples face like that. The old dude didn’t come at the kid he was walking through the crowd playing a drum and singing.

That sounds like he walked up to the kid.

Yes he did, so what? He was walking through a crowd singing and beating a drum in a non aggressive way. People walk through crowds all the time. We don’t stand face to face and stare eachother down without being an antagonist, I’m sorry but your crazy if you think it was just a kid standing there smiling. The kid and the old man were both acting like douchebags and were a flinch away from a brawl

you know how i can agree with you when you say someone is overreacting?

you're overreacting.

you dont know either state of mind personally.
the kid so far from every video ive seen DID NOT initiate this viscious stare down. the native american is on record as saying he put himself into the mix to try and defuse it.
now according to you a teen yoyve never met is acting like a douchebag because first one group comes at him for his hat, then a 2nd.

we've got countless videos and issues from the left acting like a bill that just saw red. yet in this instance the kid started it.

ive asked 3x now, can you point me to the video that is giving you this douchbag impression.?

non events are life and death these days. id rather save the excitement for "real" extremes, not our faux rage we invent to be happy we're angry.

Mythologies must be fun for the feebleminded.

Let's knock these down in the order they appear:

"from every video ive seen DID NOT initiate this viscious [sic] stare down"​

.... we have no indication of who walked into whose "space", if anyone did. We have ONE, count 'em ONE (1) person staring and smirking. Not two, ONE. Inasmuch as there is ONE (1) person engaging in smirk-staring while his target was occupied with chanting and drumming, the "instigator" --- again not the proper term as it implies one person incited others ---- is Smirk-Boi all by hisself. "Would-be instigator" would be more fitting since the target did not take his bait. But since Smirk-Boi is the ONE (1) and the ONLY (solo) participant in the smirk-staring contest, feel free to essplain to the class how somebody else "instigates" him into posing like this, without doing so themselves. Oughta be most entertaining.

And no one has described the smirk-stare as "vicious". I don't think that's even possible. That's you trying to poison your own strawman.

Next.

"now according to you a teen yoyve never met is acting like a douchebag because first one group comes at him for his hat, then a 2nd"​

Here again, nobody "came at" anybody for their hat. Nobody claimed that at all. Again you're plugging in your own twists and turns. Why exactly do you find it necessary to fabricate this shit? Further, you also have never met Smirk-Boi, yet you're plugging in his motives. How come you get to do that and nobody else does?

Next.

we've got countless videos and issues from the left acting like a bill that just saw red​

That doesn't even make a damn lick of sense. And again this is not a "left-right" issue because this is not a political issue.

Meanwhile we've still got the bystander in the moment describing a "mob mentality". We've still got the tomahawk chops. And we've still got absolute zero on the challenge to provide anything at all that would be grounds for "libel".

But hey, show us some more mythology because all that can wait.

 

[Slade3200]

the kid will grow up. seems to be off to a good start by simply smiling while peacefully holding his ground.

and that got him, his family and his school death threats.

let me know again whos out of line here.

Obviously anybody making death threats is completely off their rockers. The kids owns his part in the conflict too though. He was showing off playing tough for his friends. It’s what kids do. But he absolutely doesn’t deserve death threats

 

[iceberg]

the kid will grow up. seems to be off to a good start by simply smiling while peacefully holding his ground.

and that got him, his family and his school death threats.

let me know again whos out of line here.

Obviously anybody making death threats is completely off their rockers. The kids owns his part in the conflict too though. He was showing off playing tough for his friends. It’s what kids do. But he absolutely doesn’t deserve death threats

so what should he have done?

you were not there but yet you refuse any possibility he did nothing wrong.

you're digging for something and this isnt like you.

if there was a real story there NBC wouldnt be makibg shit up.

 

[iceberg]

puff up?

what is an appropriate action when someone comes at you? he was smirking yes but i didn't see "puff up". you stare me down i'm going to stare back.

the kids - they heard a lot of negative stuff being shouted at them so, by reading stories that didn't have a dog in this race, we found out these kids were simply doing school cheers to try and say something positive that they have done in school.

you're seeing something w/o context and putting it in the worst possible light.

why?

The appropriate action is what most the other kids did, you don’t teach kids to get in peoples face like that. The old dude didn’t come at the kid he was walking through the crowd playing a drum and singing.

That sounds like he walked up to the kid.

Yes he did, so what? He was walking through a crowd singing and beating a drum in a non aggressive way. People walk through crowds all the time. We don’t stand face to face and stare eachother down without being an antagonist, I’m sorry but your crazy if you think it was just a kid standing there smiling. The kid and the old man were both acting like douchebags and were a flinch away from a brawl

you know how i can agree with you when you say someone is overreacting?

you're overreacting.

you dont know either state of mind personally.
the kid so far from every video ive seen DID NOT initiate this viscious stare down. the native american is on record as saying he put himself into the mix to try and defuse it.
now according to you a teen yoyve never met is acting like a douchebag because first one group comes at him for his hat, then a 2nd.

we've got countless videos and issues from the left acting like a bill that just saw red. yet in this instance the kid started it.

ive asked 3x now, can you point me to the video that is giving you this douchbag impression.?

non events are life and death these days. id rather save the excitement for "real" extremes, not our faux rage we invent to be happy we're angry.

Mythologies must be fun for the feebleminded.

Let's knock these down in the order they appear:

"from every video ive seen DID NOT initiate this viscious [sic] stare down"​

.... we have no indication of who walked into whose "space", if anyone did. We have ONE, count 'em ONE (1) person staring and smirking. Not two, ONE. Inasmuch as there is ONE (1) person engaging in smirk-staring while his target was occupied with chanting and drumming, the "instigator" --- again not the proper term as it implies one person incited others ---- is Smirk-Boi all by hisself. "Would-be instigator" would be more fitting since the target did not take his bait. But since Smirk-Boi is the ONE (1) and the ONLY (solo) participant in the smirk-staring contest, feel free to essplain to the class how somebody else "instigates" him into posing like this, without doing so themselves. Oughta be most entertaining.

And no one has described the smirk-stare as "vicious". I don't think that's even possible. That's you trying to poison your own strawman.

Next.

"now according to you a teen yoyve never met is acting like a douchebag because first one group comes at him for his hat, then a 2nd"​

Here again, nobody "came at" anybody for their hat. Nobody claimed that at all. Again you're plugging in your own twists and turns. Why exactly do you find it necessary to fabricate this shit? Further, you also have never met Smirk-Boi, yet you're plugging in his motives. How come you get to do that and nobody else does?

Next.

we've got countless videos and issues from the left acting like a bill that just saw red​

That doesn't even make a damn lick of sense. And again this is not a "left-right" issue because this is not a political issue.

Meanwhile we've still got the bystander in the moment describing a "mob mentality". We've still got the tomahawk chops. And we've still got absolute zero on the challenge to provide anything at all that would be grounds for "libel".

But hey, show us some more mythology because all that can wait.

thats a whole lot of shit there pogo.

i may read it one day.

 

[LilOlLady]

The parents should press charges for inciting hatred and child endangerment.

Maybe a child should stay in a child's place. And not get in the face of an Elder beating a drum. Why were they there except to cause trouble. The entire group of little shits was heckling the Elder and others as well.

 

[Pogo]

the kid will grow up. seems to be off to a good start by simply smiling while peacefully holding his ground.

and that got him, his family and his school death threats.

let me know again whos out of line here.

Obviously anybody making death threats is completely off their rockers. The kids owns his part in the conflict too though. He was showing off playing tough for his friends. It’s what kids do. But he absolutely doesn’t deserve death threats

so what should he have done?

you were not there but yet you refuse any possibility he did nothing wrong.

you're digging for something and this isnt like you.

if there was a real story there NBC wouldnt be makibg shit up.

You have no clue in the world about logic, do ya.

What you have here is some loser making videos at home in his little Mark Dice box, purportedly reading a news article for those of us too stupid to read it for ourselves. Except he completely misrepresents it.

I took the liberty of looking up that article he's displaying, and NOWHERE does it claim the student was denied a speech because he was gay. That's what your little Mark Dice fanboy ASS-SUMED, without evidence, and then went on to knock down his own strawman. Actually the article quotes the student specifically saying he does NOT know that to be the basis. Nor is it the story anyway.

That's what that's called -- a "strawman". You inject a premise that the other party never claimed and then proceed to knock it down, bow to the audience and say "what a good boy am I". Except it's a complete fabrication.

You like fabrications, don't you.

 

[Slade3200]

the kid will grow up. seems to be off to a good start by simply smiling while peacefully holding his ground.

and that got him, his family and his school death threats.

let me know again whos out of line here.

Obviously anybody making death threats is completely off their rockers. The kids owns his part in the conflict too though. He was showing off playing tough for his friends. It’s what kids do. But he absolutely doesn’t deserve death threats

so what should he have done?

you were not there but yet you refuse any possibility he did nothing wrong.

you're digging for something and this isnt like you.

if there was a real story there NBC wouldnt be makibg shit up.

Well I do agree that this is a nothing story. The first post I made about this was that it is an overblown story about nothing of importance. As far as the kid. If that were my kid I’d be very disappointed in how he acted. I would have hoped he would be the bigger person, take the ego out of it and let the drummer pass or just walk away. Deescalate not provoke. With that said if he got suspended or even punished by the school I’d also be pissed. I don’t think it was a serious offense but I also don’t think he was an innocent victim or a stand up guy for staring down an old Indian

 

[Picaro]

You seem determined to make the discussion about everything EXCEPT the smirk.

Why is that? Inconvenient?

At 6:58 people are talking, which devolves to nothing. That's a normal everyday occurrence. For three minutes before that Smirk-Boi is standing in the drummer's face, smirking. Oh and before that point there are also "tomahawk chops" going on, speaking of slurs. That could be one part of why the bystander describes what they're doing as "mob mentality".

Suddenly racism isnt bad when its an indian or black guy saying racist shit.

Of course; Democrats love hate crimes based on race, as long as it's committed by brown and black vermin they actually endorse it, as did Obama and Eric Holder, and nearly all other Democrats do. They're racist sociopaths and deviants.

Wow, that’s so enlightening. You don’t honestly think anybody buys that crap, except for a few wingnuts in your echo chamber, do you? What a joke

lol you racist Democrats are the joke, you're just too stupid to know it; you clowns suck at hiding it, too. We all know it, dumbass, and they isn't a thing you can do to convince anyone otherwise. If your Party wasn't racist, your base would disappear by morning.

Racism is a social dynamic, not a political party issue, idiot. Nobody in the world ever needed a political party to be a racist. It's simply not related.

Yeah right, moron. You and your racist Party have so much cred. lol

 

[Picaro]

I’m not defending anybody, I’m placing blame. You are the one who scraping up insults and excuses as you lose control of your emotions. Grow up

Sure you are, you're wetting yourself over some white kids not being intimated by some retarded gimp playing 'indian', probably panhandling ad hoping they give him money to go away, and sniveling about how they laughed at the fraud. you're the punk who needs to grow up, kid.

 

[jon_berzerk]

the header should read

she is giving blowjobs and herpes

--LOL