Here is the evidence

pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by pmward » Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:36 am

Maddy wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:23 am
Let's make it simple. Here's what the court stated at the outset of its opinion:

"This case is not about whether those claims are true. Rather, the Campaign appeals on a very narrow ground: whether the District Court abused its discretion in not letting the Campaign amend its complaint a second time. It did not."

This prefatory remark tells you, point blank, that the court's ruling is limited to that narrow, isolated issue. You seem to want to create something more of the court's opinion than the court itself intended.

You keep challenging me to come up with "evidence." How the hell would I know what evidence of fraud exists? Last time I checked, they weren't allowing me access to the ballots, or the software, or the videos, or the witnesses. I'm withholding judgment until the evidence is presented, following full and fair discovery, in a court of law. You, to the contrary, have already made up your mind--and not only that, you've decided what the evidence does and does not prove before the evidence has even been presented.
If you read the full document he went into great detail on more than just that one point. He did discuss that point, and the case as a whole, including all presented allegations and evidence. I still don't think you've read beyond the first few paragraphs. You would see my point if you read the whole thing.

And if you really want to know what my intent here is, it's to combat the fantasy land tinfoil hat internet BS that Tech and SomeDude keep trying to pass off as real "evidence". I have yet to see them submit anything from a credible source. So you may interpret my push back against them as if my mind is 100% made up. On the contrary, I've said multiple times here that my opinion will change if real evidence emerges. My opinion is based on the state of the evidence right now. My mind is far from made up. But if you want to be so stringent why are you not hammering Tech and SomeDude about their non-credible sources? To me, that speaks to the fact that you have your own mind made up already, even after admitting there is no evidence. So to me it seems like you're a hypocrite.
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by Maddy » Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:21 am

I don't know how to get through to you. Courts sometimes speculate as to what the evidence may, or may not, show before they even hear it. From both a legal and practical standpoint, such commentary is meaningless except insofar as it relates to the narrow procedural issue then before the court. And it's obviously inappropriate, since such commentary is necessarily based upon assumption, because the actual evidence has yet to be ascertained and developed through discovery, and because no attorney worth his salt gives his adversary an evidentiary roadmap at such an early stage.
Last edited by Maddy on Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:29 am, edited 4 times in total.
SomeDude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:45 am

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by SomeDude » Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:26 am

Maddy wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:21 am
I don't know how to get through to you.
You won't be able to Maddy but i will say a lot of us are learning about legal concepts in the meantime. Normally i don't advocate feeding the trolls but this is great stuff. I'm personally learning from you thanks!
Simonjester wrote:
DITTO..
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by pmward » Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:38 am

Maddy wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:21 am
I don't know how to get through to you. Courts sometimes speculate as to what the evidence may, or may not, show before they even hear it. From both a legal and practical standpoint, such commentary is meaningless except insofar as it relates to the narrow procedural issue then before the court. And it's obviously inappropriate, since such commentary is necessarily based upon assumption, because the actual evidence has yet to be ascertained and developed through discovery, and because no attorney worth his salt gives his adversary an evidentiary roadmap at such an early stage.
While I disagree that this commentary should be thrown out and ignored I can accept the difference of opinion, meet you in the middle, and say I am willing to be patient and wait for further evidence. Can we at least agree that the non-credible conspiracy theory websites and opinions Tech and SomeDude post should be thrown out and ignored? That they should also wait until there is evidence to pass judgment? I think me and everyone on my "side" would be willing to be patient and let the process work, if the other side would also be willing to do the same. But we cannot just sit back and let them keep posting non-credible info as if it is truth.
Last edited by pmward on Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by Libertarian666 » Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:41 am

Maddy wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:21 am
I don't know how to get through to you. Courts sometimes speculate as to what the evidence may, or may not, show before they even hear it. From both a legal and practical standpoint, such commentary is meaningless except insofar as it relates to the narrow procedural issue then before the court. And it's obviously inappropriate, since such commentary is necessarily based upon assumption, because the actual evidence has yet to be ascertained and developed through discovery, and because no attorney worth his salt gives his adversary an evidentiary roadmap at such an early stage.
Thank you for wading through the muck on this one.

Of course you won't convince the troll, but (equally of course) that's not the purpose of arguing with trolls. It's so that normal people will be able to see that they have no valid arguments.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by pmward » Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:42 am

Libertarian666 wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:41 am
Maddy wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:21 am
I don't know how to get through to you. Courts sometimes speculate as to what the evidence may, or may not, show before they even hear it. From both a legal and practical standpoint, such commentary is meaningless except insofar as it relates to the narrow procedural issue then before the court. And it's obviously inappropriate, since such commentary is necessarily based upon assumption, because the actual evidence has yet to be ascertained and developed through discovery, and because no attorney worth his salt gives his adversary an evidentiary roadmap at such an early stage.
Thank you for wading through the muck on this one.

Of course you won't convince the troll, but (equally of course) that's not the purpose of arguing with trolls. It's so that normal people will be able to see that they have no valid arguments.
Where exactly are your "valid arguments"? I have not seen you post a single credible source or argument yet.
ahhrunforthehills
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:35 pm

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by ahhrunforthehills » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:00 am

Have any of you read the book "Quiet" by Susan Cain? I think it was in that book that she provided an example about the difference between western cultures (primarily extrovert) and eastern cultures (primarily introvert). How when a foreign exchange student from China came to America was shocked at how many people quickly raised their hand when the teacher asked a question... despite the majority of them not ACTUALLY knowing the answer. He couldn't understand why you would willfully "talk nonsense".

I am all for trying to talk out a solutions to a problem with a productive debate. But jeez, for so many people to be so aggressive in their positions on legal issues when they CLEARLY have no idea how the courts ACTUALLY work from a procedural standpoint in this country is concerning. TBH, from a credibility standpoint, it would be very hard for me to take many of your investing opinions seriously as I would suspect your motivations primarily lie in defending your current views instead of discovering truth.

(this was not directed at Maddy... just so we are clear)
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by vnatale » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:05 am

ahhrunforthehills wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:00 am
Have any of you read the book "Quiet" by Susan Cain? I think it was in that book that she provided an example about the difference between western cultures (primarily extrovert) and eastern cultures (primarily introvert). How when a foreign exchange student from China came to America was shocked at how many people quickly raised their hand when the teacher asked a question... despite the majority of them not ACTUALLY knowing the answer. He couldn't understand why you would willfully "talk nonsense".

I am all for trying to talk out a solutions to a problem with a productive debate. But jeez, to be so aggressive in your positions on legal issues when you CLEARLY have no idea how the courts ACTUALLY work from a procedural standpoint in this country is concerning. TBH, from a credibility standpoint, it would be very hard for me to take many of your investing opinions seriously as I would suspect your motivations primarily lie in defending your current views instead of discovering truth.

(this was not directed at Maddy... just so we are clear)
As a super extreme introvert, I did read the Susan Cain Quiet book. Took it as a triumph with her pointing out that we introverts ARE the superior ones!

But 2nd paragraph response. I think I know to who it was directed. I differ in your interpretation of this person. I find this person to be a truth seeker, attempting as much as possible to earnestly look at facts and evidence and then use logic to come up with a conclusion.

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
ahhrunforthehills
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:35 pm

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by ahhrunforthehills » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:09 am

vnatale wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:05 am
ahhrunforthehills wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:00 am
Have any of you read the book "Quiet" by Susan Cain? I think it was in that book that she provided an example about the difference between western cultures (primarily extrovert) and eastern cultures (primarily introvert). How when a foreign exchange student from China came to America was shocked at how many people quickly raised their hand when the teacher asked a question... despite the majority of them not ACTUALLY knowing the answer. He couldn't understand why you would willfully "talk nonsense".

I am all for trying to talk out a solutions to a problem with a productive debate. But jeez, to be so aggressive in your positions on legal issues when you CLEARLY have no idea how the courts ACTUALLY work from a procedural standpoint in this country is concerning. TBH, from a credibility standpoint, it would be very hard for me to take many of your investing opinions seriously as I would suspect your motivations primarily lie in defending your current views instead of discovering truth.

(this was not directed at Maddy... just so we are clear)
As a super extreme introvert, I did read the Susan Cain Quiet book. Took it as a triumph with her pointing out that we introverts ARE the superior ones!

But 2nd paragraph response. I think I know to who it was directed. I differ in your interpretation of this person. I find this person to be a truth seeker, attempting as much as possible to earnestly look at facts and evidence and then use logic to come up with a conclusion.

Vinny
It was actually aimed at the majority of posters (on both sides of the argument). It was not intended to single anyone out (in fact, I edited it a couple seconds later to make that more clear).

It really was a great book though :)
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by vnatale » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:15 am

ahhrunforthehills wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:09 am
vnatale wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:05 am
ahhrunforthehills wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:00 am
Have any of you read the book "Quiet" by Susan Cain? I think it was in that book that she provided an example about the difference between western cultures (primarily extrovert) and eastern cultures (primarily introvert). How when a foreign exchange student from China came to America was shocked at how many people quickly raised their hand when the teacher asked a question... despite the majority of them not ACTUALLY knowing the answer. He couldn't understand why you would willfully "talk nonsense".

I am all for trying to talk out a solutions to a problem with a productive debate. But jeez, to be so aggressive in your positions on legal issues when you CLEARLY have no idea how the courts ACTUALLY work from a procedural standpoint in this country is concerning. TBH, from a credibility standpoint, it would be very hard for me to take many of your investing opinions seriously as I would suspect your motivations primarily lie in defending your current views instead of discovering truth.

(this was not directed at Maddy... just so we are clear)
As a super extreme introvert, I did read the Susan Cain Quiet book. Took it as a triumph with her pointing out that we introverts ARE the superior ones!

But 2nd paragraph response. I think I know to who it was directed. I differ in your interpretation of this person. I find this person to be a truth seeker, attempting as much as possible to earnestly look at facts and evidence and then use logic to come up with a conclusion.

Vinny
It was actually aimed at the majority of posters (on both sides of the argument). It was not intended to single anyone out (in fact, I edited it a couple seconds later to make that more clear).

It really was a great book though :)
I agree. Excellent, somewhat groundbreaking book.

And, thanks for clarifying. I had thought for certain it was aimed at one particular individual. Glad I refrained from naming the person. I trust what your true intents were.

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by sophie » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:57 am

Simonjester wrote:
SomeDude wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:26 am
Maddy wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:21 am
I don't know how to get through to you.
i will say a lot of us are learning about legal concepts in the meantime. Normally i don't advocate feeding the trolls but this is great stuff. I'm personally learning from you thanks!
DITTO..
Here here! Maddy, I really appreciate all this info - it makes it so much easier for us to understand exactly what's happening, and to counter the propagandizing being made of this by the mainstream media - as they cater to an audience that wants to hear the made up story rather than the facts. pmward being a perfect example.
Simonjester wrote: Reporting the news ^-^
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=11496&start=12#p213901
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by pmward » Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:47 am

sophie wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:57 am
Simonjester wrote:
SomeDude wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:26 am
Maddy wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:21 am
I don't know how to get through to you.
i will say a lot of us are learning about legal concepts in the meantime. Normally i don't advocate feeding the trolls but this is great stuff. I'm personally learning from you thanks!
DITTO..
Here here! Maddy, I really appreciate all this info - it makes it so much easier for us to understand exactly what's happening, and to counter the propagandizing being made of this by the mainstream media - as they cater to an audience that wants to hear the made up story rather than the facts. pmward being a perfect example.
*Sigh* if you honestly place the opinions in the websites Tech and SomeDude have posted as greater than the officially documented opinion of the judge that I produced... well that is sad. This officially documented ruling, coming from someone that has more insight to the evidence at hand than any of us, is not "propaganda". This was not a news story, it is an official legal document. Maddy did not refute anything really. He just said we should wait for more evidence before reaching a conclusion... which is something I agree with (especially since I'm honestly just getting tired of arguing). Can the other side agree to this as well? Or are they going to continue to spread their bad source propaganda here as if it's truth?
ahhrunforthehills
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:35 pm

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by ahhrunforthehills » Sat Nov 28, 2020 12:19 pm

pmward wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:47 am
sophie wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:57 am
Simonjester wrote:
SomeDude wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:26 am
Maddy wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:21 am
I don't know how to get through to you.
i will say a lot of us are learning about legal concepts in the meantime. Normally i don't advocate feeding the trolls but this is great stuff. I'm personally learning from you thanks!
DITTO..
Here here! Maddy, I really appreciate all this info - it makes it so much easier for us to understand exactly what's happening, and to counter the propagandizing being made of this by the mainstream media - as they cater to an audience that wants to hear the made up story rather than the facts. pmward being a perfect example.
*Sigh* if you honestly place the opinions in the websites Tech and SomeDude have posted as greater than the officially documented opinion of the judge that I produced... well that is sad. This officially documented ruling, coming from someone that has more insight to the evidence at hand than any of us, is not "propaganda". This was not a news story, it is an official legal document. Maddy did not refute anything really. He just said we should wait for more evidence before reaching a conclusion... which is something I agree with (especially since I'm honestly just getting tired of arguing). Can the other side agree to this as well? Or are they going to continue to spread their bad source propaganda here as if it's truth?
When talking about "facts" on the internet, here is what I have been seeing (this is not an attack on anyone, just being honest):

1. Some people like to cite websites that are providing summaries for the lawsuits.
2. Some people like to cite the lawsuits directly without a solid understanding of legal proceedings.

I am not a legal expert by any means. However, I have been around court rooms enough to know that it is a PROCESS. The PROCESS takes time. There is a low threshold of proof in the beginning for a case to survive. Over time, that threshold becomes higher and higher. This is normal as the Discovery process plays out and either strengthens or weakens the original allegations. But again, Discovery will involve the claims of that specific lawsuit and that lawsuit alone.

Furthermore, each case is likely unique. Even within each case, how it is handled will vary (for example, an expedited emergency evidentiary hearing for a preliminary injunction will allow certain "objections" to be "sustained" that would not normally occur). Evidence will be permitted that may other wise not be allowed. This is for the sake of expediting the case to prevent further harm to the alleged victim. However, the judgement would be TEMPORARY for a reason. This is because the normal legal PROCESS still needs to be used... which takes TIME. Truth takes time.

I believe that is what Maddy was trying to get across previously.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by vnatale » Sat Nov 28, 2020 12:27 pm

ahhrunforthehills wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 12:19 pm

pmward wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:47 am

sophie wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:57 am

Simonjester wrote:
SomeDude wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:26 am

Maddy wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:21 am

I don't know how to get through to you.


i will say a lot of us are learning about legal concepts in the meantime. Normally i don't advocate feeding the trolls but this is great stuff. I'm personally learning from you thanks!

DITTO..


Here here! Maddy, I really appreciate all this info - it makes it so much easier for us to understand exactly what's happening, and to counter the propagandizing being made of this by the mainstream media - as they cater to an audience that wants to hear the made up story rather than the facts. pmward being a perfect example.


*Sigh* if you honestly place the opinions in the websites Tech and SomeDude have posted as greater than the officially documented opinion of the judge that I produced... well that is sad. This officially documented ruling, coming from someone that has more insight to the evidence at hand than any of us, is not "propaganda". This was not a news story, it is an official legal document. Maddy did not refute anything really. He just said we should wait for more evidence before reaching a conclusion... which is something I agree with (especially since I'm honestly just getting tired of arguing). Can the other side agree to this as well? Or are they going to continue to spread their bad source propaganda here as if it's truth?


When talking about "facts" on the internet, here is what I have been seeing (this is not an attack on anyone, just being honest):

1. Some people like to cite websites that are providing summaries for the lawsuits.
2. Some people like to cite the lawsuits directly without a solid understanding of legal proceedings.

I am not a legal expert by any means. However, I have been around court rooms enough to know that it is a PROCESS. The PROCESS takes time. There is a low threshold of proof in the beginning for a case to survive. Over time, that threshold becomes higher and higher. This is normal as the Discovery process plays out and either strengthens or weakens the original allegations. But again, Discovery will involve the claims of that specific lawsuit and that lawsuit alone.

Furthermore, each case is likely unique. Even within each case, how it is handled will vary (for example, an expedited emergency evidentiary hearing for a preliminary injunction will allow certain "objections" to be "sustained" that would not normally occur). Evidence will be permitted that may other wise not be allowed. This is for the sake of expediting the case to prevent further harm to the alleged victim. However, the judgement would be TEMPORARY for a reason. This is because the normal legal PROCESS still needs to be used... which takes TIME. Truth takes time.

I believe that is what Maddy was trying to get across previously.


Thanks for laying it all out in a teaching manner!

Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
SomeDude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:45 am

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by SomeDude » Sat Nov 28, 2020 12:28 pm

Stop trying to confuse everyone by being reasonable ahhrunforthehills
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by vnatale » Sat Nov 28, 2020 12:29 pm

SomeDude wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 12:28 pm
Stop trying to confuse everyone by being reasonable ahhrunforthehills
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by vnatale » Sat Nov 28, 2020 6:30 pm

MangoMan wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 6:21 pm
pmward wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:47 am
Maddy did not refute anything really. He just said we should wait for more evidence before reaching a conclusion... which is something I agree with (especially since I'm honestly just getting tired of arguing). Can the other side agree to this as well? Or are they going to continue to spread their bad source propaganda here as if it's truth?
Maddy is a woman. Based on her posts, I'm pretty sure her preferred pronouns are SHE and HER. O0
However, given the lack of real names or real pictures and an ambiguous name, one would be nearly 100% correct if someone assumed she was a male. I think that it is only her and Sophie who are the females here? I know from my many months in the archives that there have been a handful of other females who have been in this forum but for one reason or another are now long gone.

For the longest time, for the above reasons, I'd also assumed that Maddy was a male. It therefore came as a shock to me many months into this forum and after having read a lot of what she had written to find out that she was a female.

I think that if you go through all her postings here that it would be only a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of them that you'd be able to tell that she is a female because she self-disclosed.

Now this opens the door to any other female who is currently active besides Sophie and Maddy to reveal herself as a female (presuming that is something she'd like to do). Alternatively we could do an anonymous poll to see if there are any other females here.

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by Tortoise » Sat Nov 28, 2020 6:41 pm

Maddy or Maddie is a shortened form of the feminine given names Madeleine, Madison, Madelyn, etc. It may refer to: goddess or woman of god
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maddy
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by vnatale » Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:03 pm

Tortoise wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 6:41 pm
Maddy or Maddie is a shortened form of the feminine given names Madeleine, Madison, Madelyn, etc. It may refer to: goddess or woman of god
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maddy
Yes. However, names here oftentimes give zero clues to the person's gender. Plus, in the secrecy that pervades here regarding who you actually are, the name the person choses to use could actually be a cover to throw you off from even knowing what the person's gender is.

What guess of gender does one make upon reading "Tortoise" or "Pugchief"?

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by pmward » Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:36 pm

MangoMan wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 6:21 pm
pmward wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:47 am
Maddy did not refute anything really. He just said we should wait for more evidence before reaching a conclusion... which is something I agree with (especially since I'm honestly just getting tired of arguing). Can the other side agree to this as well? Or are they going to continue to spread their bad source propaganda here as if it's truth?
Maddy is a woman. Based on her posts, I'm pretty sure her preferred pronouns are SHE and HER. O0
Apologies Maddy. My bad, it was an honest mistake.
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Here is the evidence

Post by Maddy » Sun Nov 29, 2020 5:36 am

No harm done. Guess you missed the posts about sleep and menopause.
Post Reply