by Philly » Tue Apr 12, 2016 12:53 pm
The one valid point Indy made in this thread is that ex is a contrarian. He has chosen to defend the indefensible just to be a contrarian.
What's remarkable is how handily ex is winning the debate despite choosing to defend the indefensible. I don't know how Indy managed to fail so thoroughly. I couldn't if I tried.
go ahead. keep screaming "Shut The f**k Up " at me. it only makes my opinions Worse