- Joined
- Sep 3, 2014
It doesn't count because he's the one doing it obviously... oh wait, that makes no sense. It's also stupid. And hypocritical. And probably thought up by a meth addict.
Manosphere Marijan Šiklić (ThatIncelBlogger) 2: The Revenge
- Thread starter Saney
- Start date
- Status
It doesn't count because he's the one doing it obviously... oh wait, that makes no sense. It's also stupid. And hypocritical. And probably thought up by a meth addict.
O
ON 190
Guest
kiwifarms.net
You really get sexually aroused cutting my posts off and pretending to finish a sentence of mine, don't you?
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
yes, these are opinions as well. i don't mind them being mentioned if they're true.
it's an opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2014
I thought it was all of the vore pictures he has on his smart phone.
- Joined
- May 18, 2014
O
ON 190
Guest
kiwifarms.net
@Holden, if you're going to do the "cut off a post and pretend to finish it" schtick, at least use the quote tag properly, yeah?
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2014
Eh, what he quoted at me looks almost exactly the same as the rest of the filth, so no big loss.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2013
Well let's see here:
Articles 48 talks about information giving; but it's public media dealing with authors and stuff. It also states it must be the correct name (which you claim we don't have)
Article 89 Section 10 also talks about personal information, but it states that it's only illegal if you're talking about personal secrets. Kinda like trade secrets. Your name does not fall under that category. Neither does your address.
Article 90 talks about name giving. BUT you automatically fail to qualify for protection of this article because your full name was given in the police report/article thing about you threatening to murder/suicide that girl. The moment you are arrested, and your name becomes public data... you lose a lot of personal information protection.
Article 101 helps us in fact. States that we have freedom of reporting and quoting
Article 176 talks about information but it's mainly about public officials using their power to gain access to things they are suppose to.
Article 361 talks about information, but it's about giving false information about being in the military. Jace would like that one.
And that's it. Read through the whole thing by searching for the terms "information", "personal", defamation", "ban", and "data".
So, where exactly is this article that ban even mentioning any information not given by the person?
And what information do we have exactly? You'v claimed all this information is wrong. The fact that it's wrong means there's no harm done. Which, again, has been requested by your own country's criminal and civil code.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
i gave what i claim to be my real name and city on the blog. i want any other variations of my first name, surnames, addresses and phone numbers removed -your sources for that are jack shit.
besides that, all incorrect claims. not claims that show i'm bad. incorrect claims.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
Check out this disgusting act of seduction from insane moron Peter Gabriel:
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2014
Yeah, because you totally don't desperately ask for something you don't want.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
bingo.
they do. i am under no obligation to say that.
the article you talk about isn't confirmed to be about me and doesn't contain a full name at all. you lose.
yes, that can happen if one is in a bad situation.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2014
Several times actually, and then you backtracked about it. Also blackmail is rape.
Not getting laid isn't a bad situation. They are called dry spells and they happen.
O
ON 190
Guest
kiwifarms.net
You see, "personal secrets" aren't your name, and you admitted, a few posts above mine, that you gave us a fake name, anyway.
Calling it, @Holden is literally retarded.
- Joined
- May 18, 2014
Believe it or not this actually seems fair to me. His dox is already on ED among other places and his notoriety would make his info rather easy to find if anyone cared to look for it, so I don't really see why it needs to be included in our wiki article.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
it is not rape. not even the actual act of rape of an unmarried nonchaste woman is rape.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2014
I'm guessing they don't diagnose autism in the third world eastern European country you live in? You live in Serbia right? Or was it Croatia?
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
they are. i am under no obligation to share it with anybody but authorities. which you're not.
nope, try again
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2014
When you say "not even rape is rape" you should probably end your argument. Yes it is rape Shitlick. It very much is rape. Forcing a women to have sex with you against her will is rape. If you have to use blackmail it is rape.
O
ON 190
Guest
kiwifarms.net
Do you proofread what you write, or is it more of a "bash face on keyboard" style?
- Status