Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Joe Pilchesky is a f*king retard


Fvck you, clown. Sue me.

Status: Offline
Posts: 1694
Date:
Joe Pilchesky is a f*king retard
Permalink  
 


 
Hitlers downfall

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTFDiFWsIMSW9xytRm5PfPHD_EeQjXNUuQRFUygYYOsqrN-P3HPuw

Posts: 113
Date: Apr 25 11:07 AM, 2011
 
 Printer Friendly

To unconfuse:  When these ridiculous articles on Duffy showed up on the front page, it was viewed by the Admin of this site as a cheap shot at the unions and by association a cheap shot at Jack Loscombe. It's meant to influence the election.

The Admin of this site posted the exposure of Family Court's negligence and crony antics in retaliation for the Duffy articles.  Wherever this issue goes with Family Court  and Danielle Ross can therefore be the blame of the Times-Tribune. 

 

 

He is so retarded, HD, that he honestly believes that it's not wrong that one person or family controls the media in this area, it's just wrong that it isn't HIM.

This is what he's doing here.  Playing a completely stupid game of tit for unrelated tat, and he's proving himself to be an even bigger farce than anyone previously imagined.

Get over yourself, loser!  You are a punchline.  Nothing more, nothing less.  The butt of many jokes, some about your website, most about your intellect.

Sue me, bitch.



-- Edited by Paul on Monday 25th of April 2011 03:59:10 PM

__________________



Topless Robot

Status: Offline
Posts: 1134
Date:
RE: Joe Pilchesky is a f*king retard
Permalink  
 


Crazy thing is, it's hard to even make the connection to what Pilchesky is doing and what the Times is reporting. More than a few DD posters are confused as to the relationship between his tit-for-tat threads.

Joe Pilchesky: All tit, no tat.



__________________

Make Jack pack!



DD: Where logic & proportion have fallen sloppy dead.

Status: Offline
Posts: 3768
Date:
RE: Joe Pilchesky is a f*king retard
Permalink  
 


What, Joe Pilchesky engaged in non-sensical rants?  Why say it isn't so!  Next thing you know someone here will be acusing him of inserting not-so-subtle homo-erotic references into this postings.  Wait, I think I just did.



__________________
Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard