The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I think it's done, although I've probably missed something...
Anyway, after lots of work the site is (probably) finally done. It's all new with a lovely new design and lovely new features.
You can upload your own pictures now, they're a few more questions and you can now look at stats of everyone in general...
Most bits won't work very well until a few profiles are submitted and Azul, MSN me if you want the password...
Oh, and the best bit:
www.specialobserve.co.uk
:p
Anyway, after lots of work the site is (probably) finally done. It's all new with a lovely new design and lovely new features.
You can upload your own pictures now, they're a few more questions and you can now look at stats of everyone in general...
Most bits won't work very well until a few profiles are submitted and Azul, MSN me if you want the password...
Oh, and the best bit:
www.specialobserve.co.uk
:p
Page:
Lol I do take it in, doesn't mean I agree with it all. I agree more or less entirely with his stance on gun ownership for example however I don't agree with a lot of his other many, many, many, many rants.
I used to read some novels but I always find them to over the top and a bit away with the fairies for my liking. I prefer them to be well grounded in reality if they are fiction which I rarely find.
I used to read some novels but I always find them to over the top and a bit away with the fairies for my liking. I prefer them to be well grounded in reality if they are fiction which I rarely find.
Cub!st wrote:
> He has well argued points and I respect his view points and opinions
> but frankly I only read them because he is a talented writer not
> because I agree with what he writes about lol.
That doesn't make sense - you don't read something like that because it's well written if you hate the opinions expressed.
> He has well argued points and I respect his view points and opinions
> but frankly I only read them because he is a talented writer not
> because I agree with what he writes about lol.
That doesn't make sense - you don't read something like that because it's well written if you hate the opinions expressed.
Cub!st wrote:
> I used to read some novels but I always find them to over the top and
> a bit away with the fairies for my liking. I prefer them to be well
> grounded in reality if they are fiction which I rarely find.
You really haven't looked have you.
Statement, not a question.
> I used to read some novels but I always find them to over the top and
> a bit away with the fairies for my liking. I prefer them to be well
> grounded in reality if they are fiction which I rarely find.
You really haven't looked have you.
Statement, not a question.
Cub!st wrote:
> Lol I do take it in, doesn't mean I agree with it all. I agree more or
> less entirely with his stance on gun ownership
Isn't his stance on gun ownership that you don't need one to protect yourself? That more deaths occur in robberies of homes where a gun is present?
> Lol I do take it in, doesn't mean I agree with it all. I agree more or
> less entirely with his stance on gun ownership
Isn't his stance on gun ownership that you don't need one to protect yourself? That more deaths occur in robberies of homes where a gun is present?
Sorry, I think this is getting off topic.
Yay, Special Observe! etc
Yay, Special Observe! etc
Blank wrote:
> That doesn't make sense - you don't read something like that because
> it's well written if you hate the opinions expressed.
Never said I hated it only that I disagree.
> That doesn't make sense - you don't read something like that because
> it's well written if you hate the opinions expressed.
Never said I hated it only that I disagree.
I posted my profile twice, i forget to fill the username box the 1st time... my bad
Cub!st wrote:
> Never said I hated it only that I disagree.
Dodging the issue with semantics.
> Never said I hated it only that I disagree.
Dodging the issue with semantics.
Blank wrote:
> Isn't his stance on gun ownership that you don't need one to protect
> yourself? That more deaths occur in robberies of homes where a gun is
> present?
I thought his stance was although it is every gun owners responsibility to use guns safely, they shouldn't have that responsibility if clearly many people around the globe don't acknowledge that responsibility. I thought his stance was to get rid of the duty of responsible gun use by getting rid of guns themselves. Well that was my interpretation anyway however I could be so very wrong heh.
> Isn't his stance on gun ownership that you don't need one to protect
> yourself? That more deaths occur in robberies of homes where a gun is
> present?
I thought his stance was although it is every gun owners responsibility to use guns safely, they shouldn't have that responsibility if clearly many people around the globe don't acknowledge that responsibility. I thought his stance was to get rid of the duty of responsible gun use by getting rid of guns themselves. Well that was my interpretation anyway however I could be so very wrong heh.
Blank wrote:
> Dodging the issue with semantics.
Maybe so heh
> Dodging the issue with semantics.
Maybe so heh
Page: