I have created this thread to keep our arguments out of other thread discussions.
My problem with this fellow is this: the person behind the handle had, under many instances, harrassed forummers who frequently spoke up against the PAP. That includes folks like tonychat and frenchbriefs, whom he likes to reply with interesting one-liners with words such as "UMNO dogs", "fuck back to Malaysia" etc.
Now i am all for free speech you see. It is not the content of what he says, but the pattern of posting that most intrigues me. Posting pictures from pap sources etc. Lately he has come to call me and Papsmearer "sdpp", whatever that meant, for voicing some concerns about a brand of soap, lets call it "wp".
Soaps have many uses, primarily for cleaning the body. But there is something wrong with this brand we think. We know the white brand gives us rashes, but how come with the wp brand we still itching? Sure, there are many people who use the white or wp brands with no problems at all, but don't you think it is possible that both brands have a common compound that causes skin reactions for some people? My skin itching and yours not means i cannot complain about the new brand of soap i changed to?
The common response has been, "Oh, you need to rub it over your body a bit longer", or "You use so little soap, of course not enough lah" and finally "Last time rashes, now it is just itching only, it is improvement" to preach patience for the new brand, all with varying degree of validity.
But our friend, this eErotica69 think people who don't like the two leading brands must be from a third brand called "sdp". Very dishonest, this forummer. There are so many smaller, less popular brands out that don't sell well. Why pick on this brand?
Because elsewhere on the net in other forums the same pattern exist. When someone talks bad about the white brand, he is labelled as a "sdp" brand advocate, aka IB.
I have brought to your attention, good folks of sammyboy, that this forummer is of dubious intention. The evidence points to the possibility that this person is actually a pro-pap supporter, not the wp supporter he claims to be. His or her allerged allegence to the wp is conditional upon their agreement to include a harmful compound that causes itching to some members of the community. A decent person of good upbringing like you and i would not have allowed that. It is time to call out these selfish collaborators for who they are.
My problem with this fellow is this: the person behind the handle had, under many instances, harrassed forummers who frequently spoke up against the PAP. That includes folks like tonychat and frenchbriefs, whom he likes to reply with interesting one-liners with words such as "UMNO dogs", "fuck back to Malaysia" etc.
Now i am all for free speech you see. It is not the content of what he says, but the pattern of posting that most intrigues me. Posting pictures from pap sources etc. Lately he has come to call me and Papsmearer "sdpp", whatever that meant, for voicing some concerns about a brand of soap, lets call it "wp".
Soaps have many uses, primarily for cleaning the body. But there is something wrong with this brand we think. We know the white brand gives us rashes, but how come with the wp brand we still itching? Sure, there are many people who use the white or wp brands with no problems at all, but don't you think it is possible that both brands have a common compound that causes skin reactions for some people? My skin itching and yours not means i cannot complain about the new brand of soap i changed to?
The common response has been, "Oh, you need to rub it over your body a bit longer", or "You use so little soap, of course not enough lah" and finally "Last time rashes, now it is just itching only, it is improvement" to preach patience for the new brand, all with varying degree of validity.
But our friend, this eErotica69 think people who don't like the two leading brands must be from a third brand called "sdp". Very dishonest, this forummer. There are so many smaller, less popular brands out that don't sell well. Why pick on this brand?
Because elsewhere on the net in other forums the same pattern exist. When someone talks bad about the white brand, he is labelled as a "sdp" brand advocate, aka IB.
I have brought to your attention, good folks of sammyboy, that this forummer is of dubious intention. The evidence points to the possibility that this person is actually a pro-pap supporter, not the wp supporter he claims to be. His or her allerged allegence to the wp is conditional upon their agreement to include a harmful compound that causes itching to some members of the community. A decent person of good upbringing like you and i would not have allowed that. It is time to call out these selfish collaborators for who they are.
