The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 have made up my mind, after years of being Liberal I am going to vote Labour at the elections next Thursday. Reason are way to many to list but in short, since Labour took over I have bought my own home, we have a good life style we want for little and in general for me at least every thing is tickety Boo just now.
Page:
Strafio wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
> And as for the dealers being harmless, well what a load of rubbish
> that is. It's dealers who get theese people addicted so to say they
> are harmless is not only ignorant, but stupid as well.
>
> Hmmm... I think you're getting a little caught up on stereotypes
> here.
> A dealer is someone who sells drugs.
> And yes, 90% of dealers are harmless.
Is relying on a stereotype any worse than relying on a made up statistic to make your point?
> kevstar wrote:
> And as for the dealers being harmless, well what a load of rubbish
> that is. It's dealers who get theese people addicted so to say they
> are harmless is not only ignorant, but stupid as well.
>
> Hmmm... I think you're getting a little caught up on stereotypes
> here.
> A dealer is someone who sells drugs.
> And yes, 90% of dealers are harmless.
Is relying on a stereotype any worse than relying on a made up statistic to make your point?
I won't repeat the points the Light covered, to I'll stick straight tothe point.
kevstar wrote:
> And as for the dealers being harmless, well what a load of rubbish
> that is. It's dealers who get theese people addicted so to say they
> are harmless is not only ignorant, but stupid as well.
Hmmm... I think you're getting a little caught up on stereotypes here.
A dealer is someone who sells drugs.
And yes, 90% of dealers are harmless. They're at worst equivilant to people who buy ciggs for school kids. Not 'specially moral, but fairly harmless. You give them the money and they'll give you what you ask for. You simply buy what you're looking for from them.
And yes, there ARE some nasty dealers who'll use all the entrapment techniques they know to make customers, and they WILL be taken down. The poilcy was more about leaving the small fish, who are merely "selling sweets", while they get the people who are causing harm.
SUMMARY: So instead of getting people who are merely handling drugs, the concentrate on people who are causing harm.
> And finally,
> i'm still trying to work out how i'm being laughed at in this thread
> for getting one word mixed up (even though I admited I got it wrong),
> or is it another frail attempt by light to get me to start arguing
> with him again. What was the point in him mentioning the NOTW and the
> SUN when what I said had nothing to do with the papers?
When you say something silly, like you just did, people will take the mick out of you. And they will probably use things that aren't so relevant to the conversation. It's a bit harsh, because you don't mean anything by it, but you don't really think things through enough...
kevstar wrote:
> And as for the dealers being harmless, well what a load of rubbish
> that is. It's dealers who get theese people addicted so to say they
> are harmless is not only ignorant, but stupid as well.
Hmmm... I think you're getting a little caught up on stereotypes here.
A dealer is someone who sells drugs.
And yes, 90% of dealers are harmless. They're at worst equivilant to people who buy ciggs for school kids. Not 'specially moral, but fairly harmless. You give them the money and they'll give you what you ask for. You simply buy what you're looking for from them.
And yes, there ARE some nasty dealers who'll use all the entrapment techniques they know to make customers, and they WILL be taken down. The poilcy was more about leaving the small fish, who are merely "selling sweets", while they get the people who are causing harm.
SUMMARY: So instead of getting people who are merely handling drugs, the concentrate on people who are causing harm.
> And finally,
> i'm still trying to work out how i'm being laughed at in this thread
> for getting one word mixed up (even though I admited I got it wrong),
> or is it another frail attempt by light to get me to start arguing
> with him again. What was the point in him mentioning the NOTW and the
> SUN when what I said had nothing to do with the papers?
When you say something silly, like you just did, people will take the mick out of you. And they will probably use things that aren't so relevant to the conversation. It's a bit harsh, because you don't mean anything by it, but you don't really think things through enough...
kevstar wrote:
> Ok, so they won't arrest people who take drugs to feed there habbit.
> What about the crimes they commit to feed this habbit of theres. So
> if a man breaks into my house and steals my things in order to feed
> his habbit, i'll be in the knowledge that this person won't go to
> jail because, well he's addicted and he wasn't dealing. Not that it
> matters anyway because they didn't win did they.
No because you see, they'll still get punished for breaking and entering. Just not for possession of drugs. And under a LibDem policy, whilst they're serving time for breaking and entering, they'd also be getting the help they need to beat their addiction. Do you see?
>
> And as for the dealers being harmless, well what a load of rubbish
> that is. It's dealers who get theese people addicted so to say they
> are harmless is not only ignorant, but stupid as well. And finally,
> i'm still trying to work out how i'm being laughed at in this thread
> for getting one word mixed up (even though I admited I got it wrong),
> or is it another frail attempt by light to get me to start arguing
> with him again. What was the point in him mentioning the NOTW and the
> SUN when what I said had nothing to do with the papers? And as for
> your statement that I repeated that, even after it had been
> demonstrated I was wrong is rubbish. I acknowledged that as soon as I
> seen the word ownwhich was pointed out by yourself so I don't
> know what your on about there.
Frail attempt? Well it's worked hasn't it; here you are trying to prove that even though you're wrong, you're right.
You're getting laughed at because you said one thing, were proven wrong, and were then entirely graceless in accepting that, trying to change the subject and move the goalposts. As near as I can tell, you're assuming that dope dealers also deal heroin, crack etc. And some do; they are not harmless. No-one apart from you has said they are.
And the point in mentioning NOTW and the Sun is because that's where you get your opinions from, and I like winding you up.
> Maybee it's you who needs to pick your toys and put them back in your
> pram as it seems your the one who keeps biting at every chance you
> get. Now as I said, get over it will you!
Yup, I do keep biting. Know why? You keep saying frighteningly ignorant things which turn out to be 100% wrong, then spend the rest of your time posting increasingly furious responses to the people who are pointing at you and laughing. And by the way, people do that because you're generally an extremely dislikable person. Or at least, that's how you come across on these boards. ~shrugs~ No skin off my nose; I don't argue with you for the sake of serious debate. It's either a case of pointing out you're incorrect in a statement, or just plain winding you up.
> Ok, so they won't arrest people who take drugs to feed there habbit.
> What about the crimes they commit to feed this habbit of theres. So
> if a man breaks into my house and steals my things in order to feed
> his habbit, i'll be in the knowledge that this person won't go to
> jail because, well he's addicted and he wasn't dealing. Not that it
> matters anyway because they didn't win did they.
No because you see, they'll still get punished for breaking and entering. Just not for possession of drugs. And under a LibDem policy, whilst they're serving time for breaking and entering, they'd also be getting the help they need to beat their addiction. Do you see?
>
> And as for the dealers being harmless, well what a load of rubbish
> that is. It's dealers who get theese people addicted so to say they
> are harmless is not only ignorant, but stupid as well. And finally,
> i'm still trying to work out how i'm being laughed at in this thread
> for getting one word mixed up (even though I admited I got it wrong),
> or is it another frail attempt by light to get me to start arguing
> with him again. What was the point in him mentioning the NOTW and the
> SUN when what I said had nothing to do with the papers? And as for
> your statement that I repeated that, even after it had been
> demonstrated I was wrong is rubbish. I acknowledged that as soon as I
> seen the word ownwhich was pointed out by yourself so I don't
> know what your on about there.
Frail attempt? Well it's worked hasn't it; here you are trying to prove that even though you're wrong, you're right.
You're getting laughed at because you said one thing, were proven wrong, and were then entirely graceless in accepting that, trying to change the subject and move the goalposts. As near as I can tell, you're assuming that dope dealers also deal heroin, crack etc. And some do; they are not harmless. No-one apart from you has said they are.
And the point in mentioning NOTW and the Sun is because that's where you get your opinions from, and I like winding you up.
> Maybee it's you who needs to pick your toys and put them back in your
> pram as it seems your the one who keeps biting at every chance you
> get. Now as I said, get over it will you!
Yup, I do keep biting. Know why? You keep saying frighteningly ignorant things which turn out to be 100% wrong, then spend the rest of your time posting increasingly furious responses to the people who are pointing at you and laughing. And by the way, people do that because you're generally an extremely dislikable person. Or at least, that's how you come across on these boards. ~shrugs~ No skin off my nose; I don't argue with you for the sake of serious debate. It's either a case of pointing out you're incorrect in a statement, or just plain winding you up.
Mackieee wrote:
> Watched till' 2am also, Boring as it was... Shame wasn't any films on
> to company me instead! :(
4am in the end.. And I had to be at college at half eight :(
*head hits keys*
> Watched till' 2am also, Boring as it was... Shame wasn't any films on
> to company me instead! :(
4am in the end.. And I had to be at college at half eight :(
*head hits keys*
Ok, so they won't arrest people who take drugs to feed there habbit. What about the crimes they commit to feed this habbit of theres. So if a man breaks into my house and steals my things in order to feed his habbit, i'll be in the knowledge that this person won't go to jail because, well he's addicted and he wasn't dealing. Not that it matters anyway because they didn't win did they.
And as for the dealers being harmless, well what a load of rubbish that is. It's dealers who get theese people addicted so to say they are harmless is not only ignorant, but stupid as well. And finally, i'm still trying to work out how i'm being laughed at in this thread for getting one word mixed up (even though I admited I got it wrong), or is it another frail attempt by light to get me to start arguing with him again. What was the point in him mentioning the NOTW and the SUN when what I said had nothing to do with the papers? And as for your statement that I repeated that, even after it had been demonstrated I was wrong is rubbish. I acknowledged that as soon as I seen the word ownwhich was pointed out by yourself so I don't know what your on about there.
Maybee it's you who needs to pick your toys and put them back in your pram as it seems your the one who keeps biting at every chance you get. Now as I said, get over it will you!
And as for the dealers being harmless, well what a load of rubbish that is. It's dealers who get theese people addicted so to say they are harmless is not only ignorant, but stupid as well. And finally, i'm still trying to work out how i'm being laughed at in this thread for getting one word mixed up (even though I admited I got it wrong), or is it another frail attempt by light to get me to start arguing with him again. What was the point in him mentioning the NOTW and the SUN when what I said had nothing to do with the papers? And as for your statement that I repeated that, even after it had been demonstrated I was wrong is rubbish. I acknowledged that as soon as I seen the word ownwhich was pointed out by yourself so I don't know what your on about there.
Maybee it's you who needs to pick your toys and put them back in your pram as it seems your the one who keeps biting at every chance you get. Now as I said, get over it will you!
VenomByte wrote:
> if you were to give the maximum sentence for every small
> time dealer AND user caught, it wouldn't take long before a great
> deal of people stopped simply because it was far too risky. Therefore
> you'd cut down the demand - which, in my opinion, is a much more
> effective way of cutting the usage out of the system.
And you would also put a massive strain on an already overworked judicial and prison system. Education is the only way to combat drug abuse, as the current prohibitive simply doesn't work.
> if you were to give the maximum sentence for every small
> time dealer AND user caught, it wouldn't take long before a great
> deal of people stopped simply because it was far too risky. Therefore
> you'd cut down the demand - which, in my opinion, is a much more
> effective way of cutting the usage out of the system.
And you would also put a massive strain on an already overworked judicial and prison system. Education is the only way to combat drug abuse, as the current prohibitive simply doesn't work.
Strafio wrote:
> Mouldy Cheese wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
> All a
> dealer has to do though is keep his stuff in a lump or in one bag
> uncut,
>
> Bollards. No-one can get away with having a few ounces of weed for
> 'personal consumption' can they?
>
> Kevstar, you seem to think that the problem is the dealers in the
> streets. Most of them are harmless (heck, some of my friends could be
> classed as "dealers"), and the more dangerous ones are just
> pawns in the bigger game.
> Libs policy seems to be to put less weight on the smaller fish in
> order to concentrate on the bigger problems, cut off the major
> businesses.
>
> Small pawns are just replaced, and barely worth worrying about in
> comparison, not that they'll be immune or anything, they'll still be
> in trouble if they get caught, it's just that the main focus will be
> elsewhere.
Supply and demand.
If you cut off the big dealers, you cut down the supply. All well and good.
However, if you were to give the maximum sentence for every small time dealer AND user caught, it wouldn't take long before a great deal of people stopped simply because it was far too risky. Therefore you'd cut down the demand - which, in my opinion, is a much more effective way of cutting the usage out of the system.
> Mouldy Cheese wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
> All a
> dealer has to do though is keep his stuff in a lump or in one bag
> uncut,
>
> Bollards. No-one can get away with having a few ounces of weed for
> 'personal consumption' can they?
>
> Kevstar, you seem to think that the problem is the dealers in the
> streets. Most of them are harmless (heck, some of my friends could be
> classed as "dealers"), and the more dangerous ones are just
> pawns in the bigger game.
> Libs policy seems to be to put less weight on the smaller fish in
> order to concentrate on the bigger problems, cut off the major
> businesses.
>
> Small pawns are just replaced, and barely worth worrying about in
> comparison, not that they'll be immune or anything, they'll still be
> in trouble if they get caught, it's just that the main focus will be
> elsewhere.
Supply and demand.
If you cut off the big dealers, you cut down the supply. All well and good.
However, if you were to give the maximum sentence for every small time dealer AND user caught, it wouldn't take long before a great deal of people stopped simply because it was far too risky. Therefore you'd cut down the demand - which, in my opinion, is a much more effective way of cutting the usage out of the system.
Watched till' 2am also, Boring as it was... Shame wasn't any films on to company me instead! :(
Let's get the Tories in, come on... OUT WITH LABOUR!!!!!
Peter Snow rules all of you.
Looking like it's pretty sure Labour will get in again but with a reduced majority (suprise suprise). Should really go to bed as I have college tomorrow..
Looking like it's pretty sure Labour will get in again but with a reduced majority (suprise suprise). Should really go to bed as I have college tomorrow..
Page: