>>23
>If you are the faggot who-
Ok. I see how it is. I am not that dude you speak of btw.

First of all, fuck you, you petulant illiterate ad hominem fallacy raising piece of shit. I know when I say that, it makes you mad, and you will disproportionately pure illiterate pick up your baby rattle and hit me with it. Good job retard. If you still want to pretend you're capable of using your words, then continue reading past this point to the actual reason I made this post. I have little faith you will, let alone form a cohesive reply.

Even if I was that guy, how does your completely out of context "if you're this guy gtfo" remark corner me in argument. Do you see my inquiry as an argument? Holy shit. The fact the first card you play to your very first inquiry for more context on the board is you dibbling an hominem fallacy from your flaccid penis means you are incapable of using your words. You refuse. I'm literally flattering you by giving you the benefit of the doubt, pretending you will read and respond to this at all, let alone concede to anything.

>Here's an analogy:
>[illiterate visual comparison that re-iterates the exact same thing you said in your previous post, while adding zero information in any way. In fact this BROADENS the scope of what you previously """"defined"""", in that it's not "lolis having sex", but 3DPD adults having sex]

>also cites a global rule, still failing to add any information in any way

>cited dictionary definition of loli (???????)

>And from here, it can be "suggestive" but if it goes over "erotic-cute", it won't stay.
Is this you granting my proposed definition of "suggestive"???? Is this you saying that "sexually explicit" content of my proposed definition is not allowed????? Why does your faggot post contain any of this other smug shit you fucking retard. Literal nothing in your post is of any value except this quote right here, and even then, I specifically sought grounding your undefined non-standard buzzwords of "cute erotic" and "lolis having sex" in conventional terminology with a definition you can cite, and in response you utterly failed.