buildings
Active Member
seems to me that theatre network could get some sort of telescoping man lift and get the work finished without dealing with the other owner and could have done so a year ago. must be something else??
Your statement implies the adjacent building owner is blackmailing someone in the Theatre network for having sex with a hooker, sheep and a teenager? And has something to do with fentanyl?Probably sometime after the owner of the adjacent building has croaked, or has struck a deal with Theatre Network due to blackmail involving a hooker, a flock of sheep, a suicidal pre-teen and a shipment of fentanyl.
I did.^ You created a new account just to post that message?
I did.
The commenters attempt at “comedy” did the exact opposite they intended.
They’ve implied that blackmail has held up the work.
So has the adjacent building owner been involved sexually with a hooker, preteen, flock or sheep and something to do with fentanyl…
So if the Roxy was blackmailing him I’m sure that the work would be done by now.
But as it stands with the work not being done if can be inferred that the southern building owner has the upper hand and is blackmailing someone at the Roxy.
So who at the Roxy is a pedophile, prositute, beastiality committing… drug dealer/user?
I’m just trying to disgust and wrap my mind around the statement that’s been presented.
And if this is simple a matter of the poster being a moron that’s fine.
But as it stands they directly attacked someone’s character and I’m trying to understand who’s.
You do see where the original poster fell short right?Get a life...
Bud, get a life.You do see where the original poster fell short right?
Or is this a circle jerk of nepotism and half baked attempts to disparage people you don’t know?
Should I have not stumbled upon this and expressed my thoughts?