>>61863
Learn what, exactly? Genuinely curious.
>>61679
I don't understand why you closed the thread and deleted the post where I called her a ho, because that's exactly what she is. Regardless, by your own suggestion, I went to the rules section and had a quick glance... and by that orientation I saw no posts of mine or anyone else's that broke any rules. There is certainly no "talking negatively of the girls is not allowed". The only semblance of anything that could considered a transgression would be the first rule:
>No pornographic talk or nudity of girls under 18
Which could be loosely interpreted as "no lewding". And I get it, in a way, from a admin perspective with the intention of protecting the site from arguments like "they're sexualizing young girls" and similar, but still, it feels hypocritical to me that anons get the heat when they simply react to content that was posted by Angelina herself. So, in that "no lewding" interpretation, Angelina is the one talking about jerking off her boyfriend and posting thong ass shots. SHE is lewding herself, not us.