The Pedantical
Don Juan
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2005
- Messages
- 98
- Reaction score
- 1
SUPREME LADYSHIP COURT
--------------------------------
The Pedantical
Petitioner
-vs.-
Seduction Community
Defendant
--------------------------------
--------------------------------
The Pedantical
Petitioner
-vs.-
Seduction Community
Defendant
--------------------------------
MOTION FOR ELIMINATION OF BULL**** (Pua Code, sec. 69)
----------------------------------------------
TO ONE OF THE HONORABLE LADIES OF THE COURT, YOUR HUMBLE PETITIONER STATES AS FOLLOWS:
1. PETITIONER has been a total gentleman toward HOT BROAD;
2. PETITIONER has expressed his interest to HOT BROAD, who then responded with a smile without expressing disinterest in return;
3. HOT BROAD has sent several long-winded ridiculous emails and made interminable phone calls to PETITIONER talking about meaningless subjects as if she was talking to an old boyfriend, making PETITIONER feel as if she liked him;
4. HOT BROAD allowed PETITIONER to talk dirty to her and acted interested and responsive to his advances;
5. HOT BROAD wrote to PETITIONER expressing her desire to go on a date for Italian food then hit the movies;
6. Being a lonely nice guy with limited social skills, PETITIONER's spirits were lifted by proposition and he confirmed he was free on the day of the date and proposed an hour;
7. HOT BROAD didn't respond and didn't answer PETITIONER's phone calls on the day of the date she herself proposed;
8. One week later, HOT BROAD sent a text to PETITIONER's cell phone with a stupid excuse and requested another date;
9. PETITIONER reminded HOT BROAD that he believed no relationship can work without honesty and respect and that he was disappointed by her behavior and felt that she wasn't taking him seriously;
10. HOT BROAD apologized profusely, citing work schedule difficulties, and proceeded to request another date;
11. PETITIONER then proposed a meeting at his favorite restaurant;
12. HOT BROAD disappeared once again and no longer returned phone calls or messages;
13. PETITIONER realized HOT BROAD is a ****ing ***** like so many women who don't know what the **** they want and then complain that they get stuck with bad boyfriends;
14. The present motion is well founded in fact and in law.
FOR THESE REASONS, MAY IT PLEASE THE HONORABLE LADYSHIPS OF THE COURT:
GRANT the present motion;
DECLARE that women lie all the time and don't know what the **** they want;
DECLARE that women tease men and say one thing then do another;
DECLARE that plaintiff has been a ****ing ***** and shouldn't have given hot broad benefit of the doubt;
MAKE plaintiff stop giving a **** what they're saying;
MAKE plaintiff stop whining;
THE WHOLE with interests and additional indemnity starting from February 15, 2011.