. said:

In what year are you claiming to have first posted your work hours?

. said:

I said fuck the camera. Can't you read?

I think you need to sort out your requirements before demanding them.

. said:

I'm so caught up with this thread. Will katalyst post a new picture? How long will the dot go on? Who will get owned?

. said:

I'm so caught up with this thread. Will katalyst post a new picture? How long will the dot go on? Who will get owned?

Katalyst said:

. said:

I said fuck the camera. Can't you read?

I think you need to sort out your requirements before demanding them.

. said:

I'm so caught up with this thread. Will katalyst post a new picture? How long will the dot go on? Who will get owned?

That's easy. Katalyst always gets owned.

Remember that thread where he posted a pic of a glass in a restaurant with lipstick on it and claimed it was red sugar?

Katalyst said:

A year or two before FC closed permanently. I don't have the records to check.

. said:

So in the absence of any evidence, you're asking us to trust you when you claim you've been posting your work hours for "years."

Tell me, do you experience memory problems often?

Katalyst said:

. said:

So in the absence of any evidence, you're asking us to trust you when you claim you've been posting your work hours for "years."

Tell me, do you experience memory problems often?

Since you imply that you are well-versed in the field of what constitutes evidence and not, please inform me what I could provide to prove I'm married yet not expose PI.

. said:

How is posting a pic of your hand with your wedding ring and today's date exposing PI???

Katalyst said:

. said:

How is posting a pic of your hand with your wedding ring and today's date exposing PI???

That's not what I asked.

. said:

I am the dot hay originally posted this thread yesterday and I haven't logged-in again until right now

I'm like BASF - I don't make threads. I make threads better.

Katalyst said:

Since you imply that you are well-versed in the field of what constitutes evidence and not, please inform me what I could provide to prove I'm married yet not expose PI.

. said:

So what is your excuse for not posting the pic? Let's hear it.

. said:

I have not asked any questions regarding your marital status.

Katalyst said:

. said:

So what is your excuse for not posting the pic? Let's hear it.

I want to confirm that such a pic will be considered proof that I am married before I bother.

. said:

Katalyst said:

. said:

So what is your excuse for not posting the pic? Let's hear it.

I want to confirm that such a pic will be considered proof that I am married before I bother.

Consider it confirmed. You've bought yourself an extra 20 minutes. Hopefully that is enough time to google something.

And photoshop it

. said:

That's easy. Katalyst always gets owned.

Remember that thread where he posted a pic of a glass in a restaurant with lipstick on it and claimed it was red sugar?

You mean this one?

Katalyst said:

. said:

I am the dot hay originally posted this thread yesterday and I haven't logged-in again until right now

I'm like BASF - I don't make threads. I make threads better.

I'm starting to like you now Katalyst

. said:

Consider it confirmed. You've bought yourself an extra 20 minutes. Hopefully that is enough time to google something.

You just contradicted yourself in your own post. You said it was confirmed proof, then immediately turned around and said "enough time to google something".

I really hope you're not a lawyer.

. said:

I'm starting to like you now Katalyst

Katalyst said:

. said:

That's easy. Katalyst always gets owned.

Remember that thread where he posted a pic of a glass in a restaurant with lipstick on it and claimed it was red sugar?

You mean this one?

That's the one. Do you still claim that's red sugar on an Irish coffee?