The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Get.
A.
Goddamn.
Room.
I don't appreciate coming on here to view your sexual innuendo filled posts and pathetic flirting attempts. We all know EB is a toyboy, Puddin' is a slapper, Flock's Professor Snape + a paedo and Ms NY is, well I dunno. Make something up yourselves.
You can rent them by the hour now, y'know.
A.
Goddamn.
Room.
I don't appreciate coming on here to view your sexual innuendo filled posts and pathetic flirting attempts. We all know EB is a toyboy, Puddin' is a slapper, Flock's Professor Snape + a paedo and Ms NY is, well I dunno. Make something up yourselves.
You can rent them by the hour now, y'know.
Page:
Paradox: wrote:
"Did you know Pat Sharp, the bloke who presented Fun House, was arrested and charged for paedophillia after he was caught in bed with a young boy?"
Oi, no bad mouthing Pat Sharp. Unless er, it's actually true.
"Did you know Pat Sharp, the bloke who presented Fun House, was arrested and charged for paedophillia after he was caught in bed with a young boy?"
Oi, no bad mouthing Pat Sharp. Unless er, it's actually true.
Memorandum! wrote:
> Yeah, but people see a topic, want to pass comment on it, then find
> the thread is full of nonsense completely irrelevant to the title.
> If they try to say something remotely relevant to what the topic is
> actually supposed to be about their post just gets lost in a
> sea of unfunny drivel.
So the problem is hijacking threads, hmmm?
Wasn't it way past midnight, my timing is a little out?
All topics get hijacked at some point, usually by you or a couple of others and if it's a good topic it will continue after it's been hijacked.
> Yeah, but people see a topic, want to pass comment on it, then find
> the thread is full of nonsense completely irrelevant to the title.
> If they try to say something remotely relevant to what the topic is
> actually supposed to be about their post just gets lost in a
> sea of unfunny drivel.
So the problem is hijacking threads, hmmm?
Wasn't it way past midnight, my timing is a little out?
All topics get hijacked at some point, usually by you or a couple of others and if it's a good topic it will continue after it's been hijacked.
Stridman wrote:
> Memorandum! wrote:
> Hedfix wrote:
> God you're an imbecile.
>
> Scroll down 5/6 posts.
>
> I asked you ignore me. I'm trying to encourage you to do it.
>
> GET A ROOM, then.
I have to admit, the cold shoulder does turn me on. ;D
> Memorandum! wrote:
> Hedfix wrote:
> God you're an imbecile.
>
> Scroll down 5/6 posts.
>
> I asked you ignore me. I'm trying to encourage you to do it.
>
> GET A ROOM, then.
I have to admit, the cold shoulder does turn me on. ;D
Memorandum! wrote:
> Hedfix wrote:
> Yep sometimes you've got to go with the flow.
>
> If you're that desperate make a new topic to get it back on track.
> Once a thread diversifies it's usually lost.
>
> But why should I/someone else/the thread starter be the person who
> has to do that? Surely it should be whoever wrecked the thread in
> the first place.
>
> OR, if this crap, predictable, dull innuendo is really necessary, why
> don't they make their own topic to do it in?
Yeah like that's going to happen.
I mean ffs be realistic.
> Hedfix wrote:
> Yep sometimes you've got to go with the flow.
>
> If you're that desperate make a new topic to get it back on track.
> Once a thread diversifies it's usually lost.
>
> But why should I/someone else/the thread starter be the person who
> has to do that? Surely it should be whoever wrecked the thread in
> the first place.
>
> OR, if this crap, predictable, dull innuendo is really necessary, why
> don't they make their own topic to do it in?
Yeah like that's going to happen.
I mean ffs be realistic.
Why don't we all just have an orgy and put an end to all this sexual tension in here?
Puddin' wrote:
> So..quote the first post and then make your comment.
you and I both know that never works.
> So..quote the first post and then make your comment.
you and I both know that never works.
Heh.
Stop arguing about the validity of threads and the people in them! :D
Stop arguing about the validity of threads and the people in them! :D
Memorandum! wrote:
> Hedfix wrote:
> God you're an imbecile.
>
> Scroll down 5/6 posts.
>
> I asked you ignore me. I'm trying to encourage you to do it.
GET A ROOM, then.
> Hedfix wrote:
> God you're an imbecile.
>
> Scroll down 5/6 posts.
>
> I asked you ignore me. I'm trying to encourage you to do it.
GET A ROOM, then.
Cong_Man wrote:
> I like Flock, I think he does his flirting with a subtle sarcasm
> which often goes unnoticed and never fails to make me laugh.
Indeed, I resist the urge to smack 'em one sometimes. He's got a cute flair. :P
> I like Flock, I think he does his flirting with a subtle sarcasm
> which often goes unnoticed and never fails to make me laugh.
Indeed, I resist the urge to smack 'em one sometimes. He's got a cute flair. :P
Hedfix wrote:
> Yep sometimes you've got to go with the flow.
>
> If you're that desperate make a new topic to get it back on track.
> Once a thread diversifies it's usually lost.
But why should I/someone else/the thread starter be the person who has to do that? Surely it should be whoever wrecked the thread in the first place.
OR, if this crap, predictable, dull innuendo is really necessary, why don't they make their own topic to do it in?
> Yep sometimes you've got to go with the flow.
>
> If you're that desperate make a new topic to get it back on track.
> Once a thread diversifies it's usually lost.
But why should I/someone else/the thread starter be the person who has to do that? Surely it should be whoever wrecked the thread in the first place.
OR, if this crap, predictable, dull innuendo is really necessary, why don't they make their own topic to do it in?
Page: