The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Disgusting, it really is.
Original Message posted by ßulle†† Yesterday at 12.14PM Original Message
There are 27 replies
Drunk Illegal Immigrant, driving with no license or insurance, knocks down and kills a child and only gets..
8 weeks
And he's still in the Country, despite being here illegally.
Hurrah for justice.
After reading this post it made me want to know what you all think about illegal immigrants. I think it is wrong and because Britain used to be a strong dominating country should stand strong now and make sure no forign immigrants get into the UK. Look what what happens when they get in...
Original Message posted by ßulle†† Yesterday at 12.14PM Original Message
There are 27 replies
Drunk Illegal Immigrant, driving with no license or insurance, knocks down and kills a child and only gets..
8 weeks
And he's still in the Country, despite being here illegally.
Hurrah for justice.
After reading this post it made me want to know what you all think about illegal immigrants. I think it is wrong and because Britain used to be a strong dominating country should stand strong now and make sure no forign immigrants get into the UK. Look what what happens when they get in...
Page:
"Controlled" - a measure of being able to keep a hold on the situation, not totally secure and final but at least with some restraints.
"Under control" - total and final, without exception, grip on situation with every possibility handled.
"Under control" - total and final, without exception, grip on situation with every possibility handled.
Or, it could mean that there are controls over immigration, which there are. Which I suppose was what Light meant.
Seeing as it was in response to your post saying that there basically is no system, and they'll let anyone in - I'd say that's what he meant.
As said - there being controls in place in the system, and the system being under control, are 2 different things.
Seeing as those 2 phrase sound the same, and are largely made up of the same words, anywhere they appear could generally be taken one way or the other. In context, using some logic, you should be able to work it out.
Seeing as it was in response to your post saying that there basically is no system, and they'll let anyone in - I'd say that's what he meant.
As said - there being controls in place in the system, and the system being under control, are 2 different things.
Seeing as those 2 phrase sound the same, and are largely made up of the same words, anywhere they appear could generally be taken one way or the other. In context, using some logic, you should be able to work it out.
There is a difference between "controlled" and "under control"
Christ you're stupid
Christ you're stupid
Light wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
> Look at the two quotes in there, he's eating his own words, what
> does
> it feel like light to know that you talk absolute tosh?
>
> I wouldn't know. But do tell; how does it feel not to know the
> difference between "there are controls in place" and
> "it is under control"?
Wha do you mean like this quote...
Light said
I'll ask again; what exactly do you think our current system is? Because to me, it sounds like you've simply created a scenario in your head in order to justify your opinions (much like you did with me earlier in this thread). Because I can tell you now, we already have controlled immigration.
This sounds to me like your saying our immigration system is under control to me, does it not?
> kevstar wrote:
> Look at the two quotes in there, he's eating his own words, what
> does
> it feel like light to know that you talk absolute tosh?
>
> I wouldn't know. But do tell; how does it feel not to know the
> difference between "there are controls in place" and
> "it is under control"?
Wha do you mean like this quote...
Light said
I'll ask again; what exactly do you think our current system is? Because to me, it sounds like you've simply created a scenario in your head in order to justify your opinions (much like you did with me earlier in this thread). Because I can tell you now, we already have controlled immigration.
This sounds to me like your saying our immigration system is under control to me, does it not?
kevstar wrote:
> Look at the two quotes in there, he's eating his own words, what does
> it feel like light to know that you talk absolute tosh?
I wouldn't know. But do tell; how does it feel not to know the difference between "there are controls in place" and "it is under control"?
> Look at the two quotes in there, he's eating his own words, what does
> it feel like light to know that you talk absolute tosh?
I wouldn't know. But do tell; how does it feel not to know the difference between "there are controls in place" and "it is under control"?
kevstar wrote:
>
> Light said
> And as I've said (over and over and over again...) you haven't
> actually given me any indication that you have the faintest idea what
> you're talking about. Our immigration IS controlled. You just don't
> want to accept that cos it will invalidate your whole ill-thought out
> argument.
Ahh, quoting out of context; how utterly unsurprising of you. Being as that's how you've built your whole "argument", it's entirely typical of you to continue doing so... Let's have a look at the parts of that quote you missed out;
> Light wrote:
>And as I've said (over and over and over again...) you haven't actually >given me any indication that you have the faintest idea what you're >talking about. Our immigration IS controlled. You just don't want to >accept that cos it will invalidate your whole ill-thought out argument.
> How can you say this if we don't know how many people are coming in?
>
> Because I did something that you didn't really bother to do; I
> researched it and looked for some facts. And I found things such as
> the Commonwealth Immigration Act, which lists the controls in place
> for immigrants from Commonwealth countries. Did you see that key word
> there? "Controls"?
> Then I looked for the UK Visa service procedure;
> Click Here
>
> And I had a read, and saw that it too has controls.
>
> Finally, I looked at some official government statistics for the
> number of immigrants who were refused entry into the UK;
> Click Here and I
> noted that thousands were refused entry or deported.
>
> What I did, in other words, was base my argument on the facts
> available, rather than some mythical "worst case" that only
> exists inside my own head.
So it seems that I was talking about the controls in place on the system as it stands. Was I discussing whether that system does in fact work? Well...no. Because, as I've said from the start, the whole issue needs to be debated openly and honestly with all of the facts, and none of the bigotry. Do you see?
Oh dear kevstar; I seem to have just made it clear that you're a wailing hypocrite who only accuses others of lying when his own lies run out of steam. I'd hate you to have an purple-faced aneurysm because of that.
> More lies then? The more you go on, the bigger the hole you dig. I
> feel i've exposed the type of person you are, a lying, sloth of a
> lawyer. Come back when you can atually proove that the system is
> under control, untill then, go home and sulk in that wee stained
> corner of yours as i'm finished with your crapy argument you can't
> justify.
Heh. Pardon me, but I believe you'll find that the bottom line is this;
- You've given evidence that the system is not working.
- You've tried to shout down any evidence that it is working.
- You've also tried to misconstrue things that I've said in order to justify your refusal to countenance immigration may be working.
- Ergo, you're a narrow minded racist.
Sorry my dear boy, but I'm afraid you must try harder than that.
Incidentally, you never did answer my last question; what's my job?
>
> Light said
> And as I've said (over and over and over again...) you haven't
> actually given me any indication that you have the faintest idea what
> you're talking about. Our immigration IS controlled. You just don't
> want to accept that cos it will invalidate your whole ill-thought out
> argument.
Ahh, quoting out of context; how utterly unsurprising of you. Being as that's how you've built your whole "argument", it's entirely typical of you to continue doing so... Let's have a look at the parts of that quote you missed out;
> Light wrote:
>And as I've said (over and over and over again...) you haven't actually >given me any indication that you have the faintest idea what you're >talking about. Our immigration IS controlled. You just don't want to >accept that cos it will invalidate your whole ill-thought out argument.
> How can you say this if we don't know how many people are coming in?
>
> Because I did something that you didn't really bother to do; I
> researched it and looked for some facts. And I found things such as
> the Commonwealth Immigration Act, which lists the controls in place
> for immigrants from Commonwealth countries. Did you see that key word
> there? "Controls"?
> Then I looked for the UK Visa service procedure;
> Click Here
>
> And I had a read, and saw that it too has controls.
>
> Finally, I looked at some official government statistics for the
> number of immigrants who were refused entry into the UK;
> Click Here and I
> noted that thousands were refused entry or deported.
>
> What I did, in other words, was base my argument on the facts
> available, rather than some mythical "worst case" that only
> exists inside my own head.
So it seems that I was talking about the controls in place on the system as it stands. Was I discussing whether that system does in fact work? Well...no. Because, as I've said from the start, the whole issue needs to be debated openly and honestly with all of the facts, and none of the bigotry. Do you see?
Oh dear kevstar; I seem to have just made it clear that you're a wailing hypocrite who only accuses others of lying when his own lies run out of steam. I'd hate you to have an purple-faced aneurysm because of that.
> More lies then? The more you go on, the bigger the hole you dig. I
> feel i've exposed the type of person you are, a lying, sloth of a
> lawyer. Come back when you can atually proove that the system is
> under control, untill then, go home and sulk in that wee stained
> corner of yours as i'm finished with your crapy argument you can't
> justify.
Heh. Pardon me, but I believe you'll find that the bottom line is this;
- You've given evidence that the system is not working.
- You've tried to shout down any evidence that it is working.
- You've also tried to misconstrue things that I've said in order to justify your refusal to countenance immigration may be working.
- Ergo, you're a narrow minded racist.
Sorry my dear boy, but I'm afraid you must try harder than that.
Incidentally, you never did answer my last question; what's my job?
Look at the two quotes in there, he's eating his own words, what does it feel like light to know that you talk absolute tosh?
[edit] Nah, sorry. Trolling.
Still trying I noticed, well I have another quote which shows just how much Lawyers lie
Light wrote
What quote? The one where I say that I've never said immigration is under control, I've simply said that it needs an open and honest debate? The one where it becomes clear you've assumed I think it is for no other reason than I don't agree with your view that there is definitely a problem and we shouldn't debate the issue?
Light said
And as I've said (over and over and over again...) you haven't actually given me any indication that you have the faintest idea what you're talking about. Our immigration IS controlled. You just don't want to accept that cos it will invalidate your whole ill-thought out argument.
More lies then? The more you go on, the bigger the hole you dig. I feel i've exposed the type of person you are, a lying, sloth of a lawyer. Come back when you can atually proove that the system is under control, untill then, go home and sulk in that wee stained corner of yours as i'm finished with your crapy argument you can't justify.
Light wrote
What quote? The one where I say that I've never said immigration is under control, I've simply said that it needs an open and honest debate? The one where it becomes clear you've assumed I think it is for no other reason than I don't agree with your view that there is definitely a problem and we shouldn't debate the issue?
Light said
And as I've said (over and over and over again...) you haven't actually given me any indication that you have the faintest idea what you're talking about. Our immigration IS controlled. You just don't want to accept that cos it will invalidate your whole ill-thought out argument.
More lies then? The more you go on, the bigger the hole you dig. I feel i've exposed the type of person you are, a lying, sloth of a lawyer. Come back when you can atually proove that the system is under control, untill then, go home and sulk in that wee stained corner of yours as i'm finished with your crapy argument you can't justify.
kevstar wrote:
> So whats this quote by you...Yes, and I've pointed out repeatedly
> that immigration is controlled, yet you've constantly clamped your
> hands over your ears and came out with increasingly spurious reasons
> as to why it isn't which were totally unsupported by fact.
The quote? The one I posted in this very thread? Why certainly;
> Light wrote:
> Don't get me wrong; I think the issue needs to be discussed
> because the only thing certain about it is that there is no objective
> information about it. Yet people still feel qualified to say that
> this country cannot possibly take in refugees (even though you don't
> actually know how many we do take in).
So...so now you're saying that immigration IS controlled? Nice freudian slip there my racist chum.
Spurious reasons unsupported by fact? But kevstar; all I'm doing is reciting the facts in the report that you linked to. Are you telling me that you don't believe the reports you're posting?
>
> But they are supported by fact isn't they Light? So you tell me Light
> what does that make you? A liar?
Well...no. Because you see, I'm posting facts supported by evidence. Whereas you're posting a couple of facts, trying to dismiss any that don't support you, and then saying "Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, and there is no need for a debate". Do you see?
>
> No i didn't, I praised him for understanding what I was saying.
Mm, yet he made no comment as to your white supremicist language, did he? Funny that...
>
> Look above at your quote! Who's the liar?
What quote? The one where I say that I've never said immigration is under control, I've simply said that it needs an open and honest debate? The one where it becomes clear you've assumed I think it is for no other reason than I don't agree with your view that there is definitely a problem and we shouldn't debate the issue?
Hmm...well, I've looked above at the quote, and I have to say that the liar would be you. Now pull your pants up kevin; there are people watching.
> Do I, I may have give suggestions but thats by no means saying I know
> is it. Your getting worse and worse at this isn't you?
Heh. If I'm getting worse, why is it your arguments that are losing coherence?
So now you're saying you have no idea how to improve immigration, is that right?
> No cos you see, it's not working is it?
Oh obviously. That's why you've gone on an angry drunken rant. Clearly the sign of a level headed person...
> And how is that? I suggest you read what I say properly instead of
> lying like the sloth of a lawyer you are. Is this how you get your
> practice? If it is you should ask me to do your job as i'm obviously
> better at it than the performance you put in.
Mwahahahahahahahahaaaa! I should read what you said properly? What, you mean like you've read what I've said? Clearly you must have; what's my job kevstar? Please, do tell...
I would LOVE to see you in court as a barrister. It would be like seeing a vegetarian tiger; amusing, but unnatural. And everyone would know it's going to die on it's feet.
>
> Incidentally, anyone who converts to Judaism is allowed into a
> Jewish
> college, regardless of racial background. You...you do know that
> Ethiopia for example has a large Jewish community who are...well,
> black? You know that, right kevin?
>
> And you do know I said school and not collegr don't you, idiot.
Heh. Sophistry; the last refuge of the truly stupid.
I take it then that you don't know much about judaism then?
>
> Really, then please explain how your the lawyer, but your also the
> one who has nothing to say when I ask is the examples i've shown, an
> example of the immigration system out of control, and if not why not
> when theres cameras and everything else involved? Is it ecause you
> know i'm right? Or because you know your wrong?
Well, no. It's because I know you're racist and won't actually look at any of the evidence indicating immigration is working. Simple really. Just like you.
> To be honest, i'm to drunk to understand what your on about, but hey,
> i'm sure i'll answer no problem in the morning for you. I do know one
> thing though, your a coward to admit your wrong, a liar, and well,
> your a idiot for thinking your better than me when we all know who
> the real looser is don't we.
Yup; it's the man who can't actually spell "loser".
> So whats this quote by you...Yes, and I've pointed out repeatedly
> that immigration is controlled, yet you've constantly clamped your
> hands over your ears and came out with increasingly spurious reasons
> as to why it isn't which were totally unsupported by fact.
The quote? The one I posted in this very thread? Why certainly;
> Light wrote:
> Don't get me wrong; I think the issue needs to be discussed
> because the only thing certain about it is that there is no objective
> information about it. Yet people still feel qualified to say that
> this country cannot possibly take in refugees (even though you don't
> actually know how many we do take in).
So...so now you're saying that immigration IS controlled? Nice freudian slip there my racist chum.
Spurious reasons unsupported by fact? But kevstar; all I'm doing is reciting the facts in the report that you linked to. Are you telling me that you don't believe the reports you're posting?
>
> But they are supported by fact isn't they Light? So you tell me Light
> what does that make you? A liar?
Well...no. Because you see, I'm posting facts supported by evidence. Whereas you're posting a couple of facts, trying to dismiss any that don't support you, and then saying "Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, and there is no need for a debate". Do you see?
>
> No i didn't, I praised him for understanding what I was saying.
Mm, yet he made no comment as to your white supremicist language, did he? Funny that...
>
> Look above at your quote! Who's the liar?
What quote? The one where I say that I've never said immigration is under control, I've simply said that it needs an open and honest debate? The one where it becomes clear you've assumed I think it is for no other reason than I don't agree with your view that there is definitely a problem and we shouldn't debate the issue?
Hmm...well, I've looked above at the quote, and I have to say that the liar would be you. Now pull your pants up kevin; there are people watching.
> Do I, I may have give suggestions but thats by no means saying I know
> is it. Your getting worse and worse at this isn't you?
Heh. If I'm getting worse, why is it your arguments that are losing coherence?
So now you're saying you have no idea how to improve immigration, is that right?
> No cos you see, it's not working is it?
Oh obviously. That's why you've gone on an angry drunken rant. Clearly the sign of a level headed person...
> And how is that? I suggest you read what I say properly instead of
> lying like the sloth of a lawyer you are. Is this how you get your
> practice? If it is you should ask me to do your job as i'm obviously
> better at it than the performance you put in.
Mwahahahahahahahahaaaa! I should read what you said properly? What, you mean like you've read what I've said? Clearly you must have; what's my job kevstar? Please, do tell...
I would LOVE to see you in court as a barrister. It would be like seeing a vegetarian tiger; amusing, but unnatural. And everyone would know it's going to die on it's feet.
>
> Incidentally, anyone who converts to Judaism is allowed into a
> Jewish
> college, regardless of racial background. You...you do know that
> Ethiopia for example has a large Jewish community who are...well,
> black? You know that, right kevin?
>
> And you do know I said school and not collegr don't you, idiot.
Heh. Sophistry; the last refuge of the truly stupid.
I take it then that you don't know much about judaism then?
>
> Really, then please explain how your the lawyer, but your also the
> one who has nothing to say when I ask is the examples i've shown, an
> example of the immigration system out of control, and if not why not
> when theres cameras and everything else involved? Is it ecause you
> know i'm right? Or because you know your wrong?
Well, no. It's because I know you're racist and won't actually look at any of the evidence indicating immigration is working. Simple really. Just like you.
> To be honest, i'm to drunk to understand what your on about, but hey,
> i'm sure i'll answer no problem in the morning for you. I do know one
> thing though, your a coward to admit your wrong, a liar, and well,
> your a idiot for thinking your better than me when we all know who
> the real looser is don't we.
Yup; it's the man who can't actually spell "loser".
Page: