that's the perpetual problem with scroo
a serious taunt he claims it's untrue
a counsel is sought he thinks it's a joke
nothing cracks open until he's broke
Sorry to intrude, but I was reading the "How did you discover this forum?" thread from the link
posted by rusty earlier in this thread, and I noticed this paragraph in
scroobal's post in that thread:
Then out of the blue Tony started berating me about being a useless Singaorean and without balls. So I told him that females are generally don't have balls and from my accent he should be able to tell that I am a pinoy. He expressed surprise and said that all males and females have identical parts and they just dress differently. He asked me where I worked and I told him during the day at Guardian Pharmacy as a cashier and at night as a cashier in a pub.
which has caused me to realize that there's a possibility, and even a high probability, that scroobal is a woman, even though until now, I had also not even suspected that scroobal could be a woman!
Of course, I don't think this is solid proof, but my suspicion is now very strong...
Anyway, I just find it interesting, that's all, haha!
I still enjoy reading scroobal's posts!
there are allegations nonetheless
groundless accusations need redress
can't let baseless claims go unchallenged
attack on elites must be avenged
May I just point out, or at least remind everyone here, that in court, what is required is EVIDENCE, especially testimonies by WITNESSES?
What I'm trying to say is that in court, TRUTH is not required to determine whether a person is innocent or guilty.
To use a simple analogy, two men may have seen each other at a certain place, say, a park.
And at that time, there might really have been nobody else in the park, or anyone else who happened to be in the park might not have noticed the presence of either man.
But if for some reason, the first man confronts the second man the next day and tells him that he saw him at the park, or if the first man advertises in the newspapers that he saw the second man (whose name the first man somehow managed to discover) in the park, AND the second man DENIES it, saying that the first man is making a "groundless accusation" or "baseless claim", the second man would be right because the first man really has no proof except his own memory of the event; but neither would the first man be lying, because he really did see the second man at the park.
So the TRUTH is that both men really did see each other at the park.
There's just NO EVIDENCE for the event, so both men would be in the "right", so to speak.
Or even if there are witnesses, none of them might want to testify for or against either man because of whatever reason.
And in some other cases, certain witnesses could be bribed/bullied into becoming FALSE witnesses, even though they're under oath (which they obviously and literally don't give a "damn" about, since they don't believe in any eternal damnation of their souls in any "Hell").
