EK_A340 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (15 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1808 times:
I think that there should be against the rule to do homosexuality posts, because it is against the rule to do sexualy explicit posts. I was told that if that was done, we heterosexuality posts would be banned. But I thought that those kinds of posts were already against the rule.
TWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (15 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1778 times:
(I think I understand what he meant, but jeez, what a rudimentary command of the language.)
Little boy, if you don't want to read posts pertaining to gay issues, then I have a simple suggestion for you:
Don't read them.
But please don't confuse "sexually explicit" with homosexual-oriented. Sexually explicit means using graphic language and referencing various aspects of hoohoodillies going into various types of cha chas. But a gay man talking about how he won his boyfriend's heart or discussing how discrimination is wrong has nothing to do with this.
Southflite From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (15 years 7 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1739 times:
EK_A340 appears to like stirring up controversy. This post of his is just the latest in a series of stirrers such as "Should I become a Muslim?" and suchlike, all clearly intended to start a bunfight amongst the obvious divisions that such topics bring out.
His post regarding the purported change of the country in his user profile is a fabrication.
EK_A340 has already received one emailed warning from the Airliners.net team re. the rubbish that he posts here. This situation will not be permitted to persist.