The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
answers to germaine greer or me
Page:
Suet?
It's a vital cooking ingrediant, you should show it more respect
It's a vital cooking ingrediant, you should show it more respect
your all really vile subhuman bags of s!!t
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> vanessa wrote:
>
>
> Why?
> Why start a topic just to reply with such a retarded jumble on
> non-English to the only sensible reply you get?
>
> Are so you blind of yourself that you can see how completely
> hypocritical and generally disposable you are>
> vanessa wrote:
>
>
> Why?
> Why start a topic just to reply with such a retarded jumble on
> non-English to the only sensible reply you get?
>
> Are so you blind of yourself that you can see how completely
> hypocritical and generally disposable you are>
My secret shame.
I fancy retarded fake internet girls who are completely unaware of themselves or anything that's going on around them.
It's such a turn-on.
I fancy retarded fake internet girls who are completely unaware of themselves or anything that's going on around them.
It's such a turn-on.
vanessa wrote:
>
i love you hate you but i aint never gonna stop bugging you i think you have a giant crush on moi wee?
>
i love you hate you but i aint never gonna stop bugging you i think you have a giant crush on moi wee?
vanessa wrote:
> then go sank your wrinkled old monkey.
Why?
Why start a topic just to reply with such a retarded jumble on non-English to the only sensible reply you get?
Are so you blind of yourself that you can see how completely hypocritical and generally disposable you are>
> then go sank your wrinkled old monkey.
Why?
Why start a topic just to reply with such a retarded jumble on non-English to the only sensible reply you get?
Are so you blind of yourself that you can see how completely hypocritical and generally disposable you are>
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> as below
oh dear im orgasmic with joy its 17 and inadequate its never had a real woman haha
> as below
oh dear im orgasmic with joy its 17 and inadequate its never had a real woman haha
Why do that?
Quote the same thing twice, each with a equally stupid reply?
Did you forget quite how pointless you were yesterday?
And, for the record, Nash is a greater woman than you'll ever be.
Quote the same thing twice, each with a equally stupid reply?
Did you forget quite how pointless you were yesterday?
And, for the record, Nash is a greater woman than you'll ever be.
Mumbai Duck wrote:
> Everyone thinks they're superior to everyone else.
> As generalisations go I think that's fairly accurate, if not without
> exceptions.
>
> People judge everybody by their own standards. But all those people
> aren't aiming for those same standards, and so can virtually never
> live up to them in the same way as the person 'setting the
> goalposts'.
>
> People tend to set those standards as a combination of what they are
> ('cos we're all intrinsically egotistical) and what they want to be
> (and hence work towards). Thus the individual will fair well in
> meeting their own standards, while everyone else is less likely to
> stumble into favour.
>
>
> I figure groups of people with stuff in common will have many common
> standards that they judge people by, and so also see their 'group' as
> superior
then go sank your wrinkled old monkey.
> Vague example: men may value practical skills as important, which men
> generally may out-do women in, and so consider themselves
> 'superior'.
> Women on the other hand may value emotional stability as more
> important, and women may tend to out-do men in, and so they too
> consider themselves superior.
>
> Maybe my examples were a bit lame, but you probably get the point,
> and the simple truth is that most men and most women are different,
> and have different attitudes, placing importance on different
> things.
> (Yes, I know the 'equal but different' argument has been used to
> f***ed up ends in the past, but it doesn't mean that in some respects
> and some circumstances, groups of people are different.)
>
>
> I think I've spent far too long on this lame spammy question.
> Everyone thinks they're superior to everyone else.
> As generalisations go I think that's fairly accurate, if not without
> exceptions.
>
> People judge everybody by their own standards. But all those people
> aren't aiming for those same standards, and so can virtually never
> live up to them in the same way as the person 'setting the
> goalposts'.
>
> People tend to set those standards as a combination of what they are
> ('cos we're all intrinsically egotistical) and what they want to be
> (and hence work towards). Thus the individual will fair well in
> meeting their own standards, while everyone else is less likely to
> stumble into favour.
>
>
> I figure groups of people with stuff in common will have many common
> standards that they judge people by, and so also see their 'group' as
> superior
then go sank your wrinkled old monkey.
> Vague example: men may value practical skills as important, which men
> generally may out-do women in, and so consider themselves
> 'superior'.
> Women on the other hand may value emotional stability as more
> important, and women may tend to out-do men in, and so they too
> consider themselves superior.
>
> Maybe my examples were a bit lame, but you probably get the point,
> and the simple truth is that most men and most women are different,
> and have different attitudes, placing importance on different
> things.
> (Yes, I know the 'equal but different' argument has been used to
> f***ed up ends in the past, but it doesn't mean that in some respects
> and some circumstances, groups of people are different.)
>
>
> I think I've spent far too long on this lame spammy question.
John Nash wrote:
> Haha.
your avery predictable boring fool do you realise?
> Haha.
your avery predictable boring fool do you realise?
Page: