The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Posh Spice goes out and gets a lip ring, hundred's of impressionable (stupid) girls run out and copy her.
Today, it is revealed the ring was a fake, a clip on and now "I hate her, she's a cow. I went out and did it and hers wasn't even real"
Altogether now people
5...4...3...2...1...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Man, this has brightened my day already.
Some 2nd rate pop singer sticks a pretend ring on her face (new single coming soon, I'm sure there's no connection) and loads of little sheep run out and copy her.
And now they are complaining?
The Sun is one of the funniest papers around, some of the quotes from "distressed fans"
"I feel stupid"
That's because you are, don't feel bad though, at least with metal through your face we can spot you.
Should've been through their noses though, that way we can tie ropes through and lead them out to graze.
Cattle
Today, it is revealed the ring was a fake, a clip on and now "I hate her, she's a cow. I went out and did it and hers wasn't even real"
Altogether now people
5...4...3...2...1...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Man, this has brightened my day already.
Some 2nd rate pop singer sticks a pretend ring on her face (new single coming soon, I'm sure there's no connection) and loads of little sheep run out and copy her.
And now they are complaining?
The Sun is one of the funniest papers around, some of the quotes from "distressed fans"
"I feel stupid"
That's because you are, don't feel bad though, at least with metal through your face we can spot you.
Should've been through their noses though, that way we can tie ropes through and lead them out to graze.
Cattle
Page:
Goatboy wrote:
> Why don't you believe they did?
I *did* believe it, until a few years ago.
I used to buy a magazine called X-Factor, and over a number of issues, they presented 'evidence' as to why the moon landing was doubtful.
This wasn't just any old hashed-together evidence, though - it was based on photographs taken 'on the moon' and an analysis of the technology of the time. I'll try and remember as much as I can...
1. The pictures you've seen have little + symbols on them, which form a broken grid marked on the lens of the camera. By definition, this grid should appear overlayed on all the photos. And it does. But there's one particular photo of the moon buggy where part of this grid actually disappears behind the antenna on the buggy. Impossible, unless the photo is faked.
2. Another picture shows shadows of differing lengths in the same photo. As the only source of light in the photo is the sun, the shadows should be of equivalent length (obviously accounting for size differences).
3. Another photo shows an astronaut standing near the lunar lander module. The sun is behind the subject, casting shadows towards the camera. However you can see that the side of the lander is lit, clearly showing the 'United States' sign on the side. Light travels in a straight line in a vacuum (unless reflected). They had no flash on the cameras and no reflective boards, so the side of the lander facing the camera *should* have been pitch black.
4. Yet another photo seems to show some kind of scaffold reflected in the astronauts visor, some distance behind the photgrapher, with a light at the top.
5. There is not even the smallest crater under the lander, despite the moons surface being dust and the booster giving out several hundred thousand pounds of thrust.
6. In one photo, you can clearly see a footprint under the lander, despite no-one having ventured there during the 'mission'.
7. One photo shows a 'moon rock' which appears to have the letter 'C' written on it, possibly indicating a stage prop.
8. In the photos across the moon's surface, light should gradually fade away. However, there is always a clean, sharp edge between the surface and 'space'.
9. Despite there being no atmosphere on the moon to block their light, not one of the pictures shows any stars in the blackness of space.
10. It is believed (more widely than you would think) that the computers of the time simply were not powerful enough to perform the calculations per second required to put the lander down safely. Even the PC's of just a few years ago may have struggled.
> Is it that hard to believe that man can get to the moon?
In my opinion, yes. Maybe not now, but certainly at the time.
Remember at the time that there was intense rivalry between the US and the USSR; the Russians beat the Americans to several space 'firsts' and it's not hard to believe that the US were so desperate to be first 'to the moon' that they may have dared to fake it.
Think about the Mars rover. They had to develop an 'airbag' system to get that down gently enough not to break it, and that's with all todays technology. Do you really think that a 60's computer could have done it gently enough to get humans onto the moon unbroken?
I obviously can't say for sure that they didn't go to the moon, but there certainly seems to be more evidence that they weren't actually there.
I know you have an open mind, Goatboy - so all I say is, question it. Just because they say they got there, doesn't mean they did.
I don't question that they, and everyone else, have been into space and in orbit etc. But if a moon landing was so 'easy' then, why have they not been back since? It would be so much easier to build a lunar base to launch from, rather than the International Space Station they're putting up at the moment.
Launching from the lower gravity of the moon would require much less fuel, meaning that craft and probes launched from there could carry the same fuel and go further than at present. Continuing with Earth-based launches is expensive, and a Lunar base would be cheaper in the long run.
If we can really land on the moon, make use of it to truly further our space exploration. The fact that it's advantages have been 'overlooked' for more than 30 years could also be an indicator that we never actually went there.
> Why don't you believe they did?
I *did* believe it, until a few years ago.
I used to buy a magazine called X-Factor, and over a number of issues, they presented 'evidence' as to why the moon landing was doubtful.
This wasn't just any old hashed-together evidence, though - it was based on photographs taken 'on the moon' and an analysis of the technology of the time. I'll try and remember as much as I can...
1. The pictures you've seen have little + symbols on them, which form a broken grid marked on the lens of the camera. By definition, this grid should appear overlayed on all the photos. And it does. But there's one particular photo of the moon buggy where part of this grid actually disappears behind the antenna on the buggy. Impossible, unless the photo is faked.
2. Another picture shows shadows of differing lengths in the same photo. As the only source of light in the photo is the sun, the shadows should be of equivalent length (obviously accounting for size differences).
3. Another photo shows an astronaut standing near the lunar lander module. The sun is behind the subject, casting shadows towards the camera. However you can see that the side of the lander is lit, clearly showing the 'United States' sign on the side. Light travels in a straight line in a vacuum (unless reflected). They had no flash on the cameras and no reflective boards, so the side of the lander facing the camera *should* have been pitch black.
4. Yet another photo seems to show some kind of scaffold reflected in the astronauts visor, some distance behind the photgrapher, with a light at the top.
5. There is not even the smallest crater under the lander, despite the moons surface being dust and the booster giving out several hundred thousand pounds of thrust.
6. In one photo, you can clearly see a footprint under the lander, despite no-one having ventured there during the 'mission'.
7. One photo shows a 'moon rock' which appears to have the letter 'C' written on it, possibly indicating a stage prop.
8. In the photos across the moon's surface, light should gradually fade away. However, there is always a clean, sharp edge between the surface and 'space'.
9. Despite there being no atmosphere on the moon to block their light, not one of the pictures shows any stars in the blackness of space.
10. It is believed (more widely than you would think) that the computers of the time simply were not powerful enough to perform the calculations per second required to put the lander down safely. Even the PC's of just a few years ago may have struggled.
> Is it that hard to believe that man can get to the moon?
In my opinion, yes. Maybe not now, but certainly at the time.
Remember at the time that there was intense rivalry between the US and the USSR; the Russians beat the Americans to several space 'firsts' and it's not hard to believe that the US were so desperate to be first 'to the moon' that they may have dared to fake it.
Think about the Mars rover. They had to develop an 'airbag' system to get that down gently enough not to break it, and that's with all todays technology. Do you really think that a 60's computer could have done it gently enough to get humans onto the moon unbroken?
I obviously can't say for sure that they didn't go to the moon, but there certainly seems to be more evidence that they weren't actually there.
I know you have an open mind, Goatboy - so all I say is, question it. Just because they say they got there, doesn't mean they did.
I don't question that they, and everyone else, have been into space and in orbit etc. But if a moon landing was so 'easy' then, why have they not been back since? It would be so much easier to build a lunar base to launch from, rather than the International Space Station they're putting up at the moment.
Launching from the lower gravity of the moon would require much less fuel, meaning that craft and probes launched from there could carry the same fuel and go further than at present. Continuing with Earth-based launches is expensive, and a Lunar base would be cheaper in the long run.
If we can really land on the moon, make use of it to truly further our space exploration. The fact that it's advantages have been 'overlooked' for more than 30 years could also be an indicator that we never actually went there.
LOL
I can't argue with that.
And we're not created equal.
We're born an info-sponge.
It's how you soak up things around you that make you who you are.
I was read to by my parents as a kid, they taught me to read and write before I hit junior school.
It seems these days, and that thing from the BBC highlights it, that people aren't interested in their kids mental or intellectualy well-being anymore.
Not all, calm down, I'm saying that some - if not a vast majority.
They drop the kids off at school "Please raise my children for me, I'll be back at 4 to pick them up"
Get them home, shove a burger in their face and let tv look after them until bedtime.
No involvement, no participation.
Which is where this argument about morons being influenced by tv comes into play.
because for a lot of kids, that's what they learn their social skills through. Nobody is teaching them what's what, so they get it from the tv.
A distorted, dangerous way to raise a kid.
And you end up with a mentally stunted sociopath that screams about Brasseye when they didn't watch it, shout at Posh Spice for tricking them ( you are not allowed to complain about being stupid, it's your own fault), shout at people like Timothy Leary for suggesting that LSD is good, shout at smokers...just angry, empty-eyed moralists that think their way is the best and everyone should listen to them.
Some of these people make it to positions of power, and wars start because there are far more intolerant, small-minded mooks than there are well-balanced, informed people.
But it's always those that shout that are listened to, whilst those that reason in quiet voice are ignored.
There is an old proverb that stands true, and one that I live by:
"Don't argue louder, argue better"
I can't argue with that.
And we're not created equal.
We're born an info-sponge.
It's how you soak up things around you that make you who you are.
I was read to by my parents as a kid, they taught me to read and write before I hit junior school.
It seems these days, and that thing from the BBC highlights it, that people aren't interested in their kids mental or intellectualy well-being anymore.
Not all, calm down, I'm saying that some - if not a vast majority.
They drop the kids off at school "Please raise my children for me, I'll be back at 4 to pick them up"
Get them home, shove a burger in their face and let tv look after them until bedtime.
No involvement, no participation.
Which is where this argument about morons being influenced by tv comes into play.
because for a lot of kids, that's what they learn their social skills through. Nobody is teaching them what's what, so they get it from the tv.
A distorted, dangerous way to raise a kid.
And you end up with a mentally stunted sociopath that screams about Brasseye when they didn't watch it, shout at Posh Spice for tricking them ( you are not allowed to complain about being stupid, it's your own fault), shout at people like Timothy Leary for suggesting that LSD is good, shout at smokers...just angry, empty-eyed moralists that think their way is the best and everyone should listen to them.
Some of these people make it to positions of power, and wars start because there are far more intolerant, small-minded mooks than there are well-balanced, informed people.
But it's always those that shout that are listened to, whilst those that reason in quiet voice are ignored.
There is an old proverb that stands true, and one that I live by:
"Don't argue louder, argue better"
Big deal you maybe me more intellectual than some people, it dosen't mean your better than them, were all human Goatboy, were all equal that something you need to learn.
If all you can do is insult my punctuation then really it shows me how sad you really are. I can understand what your saying about the Soap stars in papers etc, because I think thats stupid as well. But mate pop your over inflated head and realise that your not as good as you think you are.
Anyway enough of this boring argument im off too watch repeated episodes of Big Brother because im a complete moron.
If all you can do is insult my punctuation then really it shows me how sad you really are. I can understand what your saying about the Soap stars in papers etc, because I think thats stupid as well. But mate pop your over inflated head and realise that your not as good as you think you are.
Anyway enough of this boring argument im off too watch repeated episodes of Big Brother because im a complete moron.
And on a lighter note, from the BBC website today:
Most people in the UK would be lost without their TV sets, according to the results of a survey released on Tuesday.
The View of the Nation Television Survey, conducted by the Radio Times, found that 54% of the population would be lonely without their television.
But the survey also showed how, despite this dependence, most people - 67% - believed there is often nothing worth watching.
"It's intriguing that our study is riddled with contradictions, said Nigel Horne, Radio Times editor.
"We don't like to be without our TV, and yet we're loath to admit that. We say our sets are on for hours each day but claim to watch far less.
And, despite widespread concern about the effect of TV on children, two-thirds of parents said they used it as a "babysitter".
I rest my case.
Most people in the UK would be lost without their TV sets, according to the results of a survey released on Tuesday.
The View of the Nation Television Survey, conducted by the Radio Times, found that 54% of the population would be lonely without their television.
But the survey also showed how, despite this dependence, most people - 67% - believed there is often nothing worth watching.
"It's intriguing that our study is riddled with contradictions, said Nigel Horne, Radio Times editor.
"We don't like to be without our TV, and yet we're loath to admit that. We say our sets are on for hours each day but claim to watch far less.
And, despite widespread concern about the effect of TV on children, two-thirds of parents said they used it as a "babysitter".
I rest my case.
TILTAWHIRL wrote:
> Maybe I will loose but im not gonna go down without a fight,
im not
> gonna lie I don't like you,
I'll get through my day somehow, it's ok.
you seem to think your above other
> people
Not everyone. But I am not ashamed to say that I am extremely intelligent, well spoken and can (and often do) hold long and involved arguments about things a bit more involved than "Ooooh, that Helen should have won".
I look at my window and see people getting drunk and fighting, not being able to spell or write correctly when they should be able to, imitating pop-stars and then complaining they got conned and I laugh out loud.
Not everyone, just some people. And there's nothing wrong with being proud that I work hard at improving my knowledge and skills daily.
well to be quiet honest your as bad as a racist, saying
> people are idiots because they watch Big Brother (im not sticking up
> for big brother here) just because its not as intellectually
> challenging as you want it to be, dosen't mean that the people who
> watch it are idiots, they just like something that you don't. If you
> where any further up your own backside then you would be coming out
> brown.
It was a metaphor more than anything else.
We live in a country where a soap character is imprisoned and The Sun mounts a "Free Deidre" campaign.
They get qoutes from celebs and even the Prime Minister spoke of it in Parliment.
Hello?
What the fun is that guy doing discussing soap opera characters in Parliment when we sell arms to Malaysia, Thailand and other viscious, dictatorial murdering regimes.
It's called distraction.
Keep the populace watching crap and thinking it matters instead of asking questions about the things going on around them.
To quote Bill Hicks - "Keep drinking beer morons. Keep watching the tv and stay indoors, don't worry about outside. You are free to do as we tell you."
So, seeing as you don't like me anyway, you learn to type, use sentence structure and punctuation and then we'll talk.
Until then, knuckle down and learn the most important sentence you're going to need in later life
"Do you want to make that large for an extra 30p?"
> Maybe I will loose but im not gonna go down without a fight,
im not
> gonna lie I don't like you,
I'll get through my day somehow, it's ok.
you seem to think your above other
> people
Not everyone. But I am not ashamed to say that I am extremely intelligent, well spoken and can (and often do) hold long and involved arguments about things a bit more involved than "Ooooh, that Helen should have won".
I look at my window and see people getting drunk and fighting, not being able to spell or write correctly when they should be able to, imitating pop-stars and then complaining they got conned and I laugh out loud.
Not everyone, just some people. And there's nothing wrong with being proud that I work hard at improving my knowledge and skills daily.
well to be quiet honest your as bad as a racist, saying
> people are idiots because they watch Big Brother (im not sticking up
> for big brother here) just because its not as intellectually
> challenging as you want it to be, dosen't mean that the people who
> watch it are idiots, they just like something that you don't. If you
> where any further up your own backside then you would be coming out
> brown.
It was a metaphor more than anything else.
We live in a country where a soap character is imprisoned and The Sun mounts a "Free Deidre" campaign.
They get qoutes from celebs and even the Prime Minister spoke of it in Parliment.
Hello?
What the fun is that guy doing discussing soap opera characters in Parliment when we sell arms to Malaysia, Thailand and other viscious, dictatorial murdering regimes.
It's called distraction.
Keep the populace watching crap and thinking it matters instead of asking questions about the things going on around them.
To quote Bill Hicks - "Keep drinking beer morons. Keep watching the tv and stay indoors, don't worry about outside. You are free to do as we tell you."
So, seeing as you don't like me anyway, you learn to type, use sentence structure and punctuation and then we'll talk.
Until then, knuckle down and learn the most important sentence you're going to need in later life
"Do you want to make that large for an extra 30p?"
Maybe I will loose but im not gonna go down without a fight,
im not gonna lie I don't like you, you seem to think your above other people well to be quiet honest your as bad as a racist, saying people are idiots because they watch Big Brother (im not sticking up for big brother here) just because its not as intellectually challenging as you want it to be, dosen't mean that the people who watch it are idiots, they just like something that you don't. If you where any further up your own backside then you would be coming out brown.
*realises hes actually walked into an old people home so he runs for the door before they start wetting the bed*
:0)
im not gonna lie I don't like you, you seem to think your above other people well to be quiet honest your as bad as a racist, saying people are idiots because they watch Big Brother (im not sticking up for big brother here) just because its not as intellectually challenging as you want it to be, dosen't mean that the people who watch it are idiots, they just like something that you don't. If you where any further up your own backside then you would be coming out brown.
*realises hes actually walked into an old people home so he runs for the door before they start wetting the bed*
:0)
Wòókiee Møn§†€R wrote:
Personally, I don't believe they did. And
> that's no joke.
I respect you Wookiee, so I'll hold of the sarcasm.
Why don't you believe they did?
Is it that hard to believe that man can get to the moon?
Why are we not striving every single day to do things like that?
Why are the Olympics buried away at ungodly times of the day, when it is human beings pushing the envelope for what we can achieve?
Personally, I don't believe they did. And
> that's no joke.
I respect you Wookiee, so I'll hold of the sarcasm.
Why don't you believe they did?
Is it that hard to believe that man can get to the moon?
Why are we not striving every single day to do things like that?
Why are the Olympics buried away at ungodly times of the day, when it is human beings pushing the envelope for what we can achieve?
TILTAWHIRL wrote:
> But Goatboy do you honestly think your better than anyone, because I
"do you honestly think you're" not "your"
> can tell you your not, im not even gonna try and argue with you
"I'm" not "im"
but
> mate I think you need to deflate that big head of yours and realise
> that were all equal, were all the same.
"we're" not "were"
You want to continue with this?
Is your hole not deep enough?
I had basic communication skills down by the time I was 5.
What's wrong with you?
We can go toe to toe all day kid, but you'll lose.
> But Goatboy do you honestly think your better than anyone, because I
"do you honestly think you're" not "your"
> can tell you your not, im not even gonna try and argue with you
"I'm" not "im"
but
> mate I think you need to deflate that big head of yours and realise
> that were all equal, were all the same.
"we're" not "were"
You want to continue with this?
Is your hole not deep enough?
I had basic communication skills down by the time I was 5.
What's wrong with you?
We can go toe to toe all day kid, but you'll lose.
Goatboy wrote:
> Except some bovine menace will come out with "I
> dont think we ever landed there anyway" to prove your
> point.
Personally, I don't believe they did. And that's no joke.
> Except some bovine menace will come out with "I
> dont think we ever landed there anyway" to prove your
> point.
Personally, I don't believe they did. And that's no joke.
I think you guys need to calm down and stop taking life so seriously, okay so my comment about Posh Spice was a bit stupid I hadn't read the topic, therefore didn't realise what it was about. But Goatboy do you honestly think your better than anyone, because I can tell you your not, im not even gonna try and argue with you but mate I think you need to deflate that big head of yours and realise that were all equal, were all the same.
Page: