y“‚àV‹M—mŽE‚·zŽG’kš83y‹UFB˜Hüz (1000)

©© ŒfŽ¦”ˆꗗ‚É–ß‚é © ƒXƒŒƒbƒhˆê——‚É–ß‚é

487 - ŠjŒ‚‚ĂΑ¸Žt (sage) 2014/01/15(…) 13:16:16 ID:Gw4K8KEw

it is clear to have mentioned and carried out defamation of the personal name -- if the excuse of there being no telling whether to be a thing of a victim's actual existence by post-installation by it, and not knowing a noise of what J is allowed, it will be a lawless area of an ant anything.
To put it bluntly, it writes in, and anything, there is also no opinion counterargument of the Lord or a defender and it does not go beyond the quibbling.
it is where the write-in Lord (>>204) does not have better to come out and apologize -- recognize a crime firmly.
What J of now which says clearly, borrows ˆÐ of anonymity and depreciates an individual irresponsibly is unusual.
It desires eagerly for this affair to be published, and to write in by reporting in real name, for a person to examine himself, and for a copycat criminal to stop being.