The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Light wrote:
> And congratulations on denying yourself the right to make a single
> complaint and have it taken seriously about the way the country is
> run!!
It's certainly going to cut down on the debates between you and Kevstar.
Kev - "Blah, blah blah, policy, Labour, Blah, Lib dems."
You - "You didn't vote. You have no right to criticize."
> And congratulations on denying yourself the right to make a single
> complaint and have it taken seriously about the way the country is
> run!!
It's certainly going to cut down on the debates between you and Kevstar.
Kev - "Blah, blah blah, policy, Labour, Blah, Lib dems."
You - "You didn't vote. You have no right to criticize."
kevstar wrote:
> Sorry but I didn't vote for Veritas nor do I actually go out and buy
> the Sun. Sure if there's something from the sun in newsnow that I
> fancy reading then I will, but to say I read the sun outright is
> wrong, just like you normally are. As for Veritas, well I done
> something I know your not fond of, I didn't actually vote.
"No one has ever gone to two barrels before"
/jaws
And congratulations on denying yourself the right to make a single complaint and have it taken seriously about the way the country is run!!
> Sorry but I didn't vote for Veritas nor do I actually go out and buy
> the Sun. Sure if there's something from the sun in newsnow that I
> fancy reading then I will, but to say I read the sun outright is
> wrong, just like you normally are. As for Veritas, well I done
> something I know your not fond of, I didn't actually vote.
"No one has ever gone to two barrels before"
/jaws
And congratulations on denying yourself the right to make a single complaint and have it taken seriously about the way the country is run!!
Light wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
> Just to point out that the Lib Dems are now thinking of changing
> thier
> polllicy on drugs as they feel they lost major votes on this issue,
> like my vote.
>
> Heh. I'm sure they're crushed at missing the vote of a Sun reading
> Veritas supporter...
Sorry but I didn't vote for Veritas nor do I actually go out and buy the Sun. Sure if there's something from the sun in newsnow that I fancy reading then I will, but to say I read the sun outright is wrong, just like you normally are. As for Veritas, well I done something I know your not fond of, I didn't actually vote.
> kevstar wrote:
> Just to point out that the Lib Dems are now thinking of changing
> thier
> polllicy on drugs as they feel they lost major votes on this issue,
> like my vote.
>
> Heh. I'm sure they're crushed at missing the vote of a Sun reading
> Veritas supporter...
Sorry but I didn't vote for Veritas nor do I actually go out and buy the Sun. Sure if there's something from the sun in newsnow that I fancy reading then I will, but to say I read the sun outright is wrong, just like you normally are. As for Veritas, well I done something I know your not fond of, I didn't actually vote.
kevstar wrote:
> Just to point out that the Lib Dems are now thinking of changing thier
> polllicy on drugs as they feel they lost major votes on this issue,
> like my vote.
Heh. I'm sure they're crushed at missing the vote of a Sun reading Veritas supporter...
> Just to point out that the Lib Dems are now thinking of changing thier
> polllicy on drugs as they feel they lost major votes on this issue,
> like my vote.
Heh. I'm sure they're crushed at missing the vote of a Sun reading Veritas supporter...
Just to point out that the Lib Dems are now thinking of changing thier polllicy on drugs as they feel they lost major votes on this issue, like my vote.
kevstar wrote:
> Maybee if you had shut your mouth in the first place and stopped
> biting at my posts you wouldn't be saying what you are now, but there
> you go, as you said you like winding me up, it's nice to know how much
> I irritate you.
Dear boy, when your chosen method of irritating me is to say brain-crunchingly stupid things that illustrate your ignorance, then I'm happy for you to keep claiming your Pyrrhic victories.
If I had "shut my mouth in the first place", you would still be saying that heroin and crack dealers will get off scott free. Admittedly I could have stopped there rather than continuing for no reason other than winding you up, but I did that for two reasons;
1. I was bored
2. It was funny
What I'm trying to say is that you rarely actually come up with valid reasons for your ignorance. So Strafio is much better placed to deal with that, as your ignorance doesn't irritate him. When, however, it comes to dealing with your initial ignorant assertions, I'm more than happy to address them.
> Maybee if you had shut your mouth in the first place and stopped
> biting at my posts you wouldn't be saying what you are now, but there
> you go, as you said you like winding me up, it's nice to know how much
> I irritate you.
Dear boy, when your chosen method of irritating me is to say brain-crunchingly stupid things that illustrate your ignorance, then I'm happy for you to keep claiming your Pyrrhic victories.
If I had "shut my mouth in the first place", you would still be saying that heroin and crack dealers will get off scott free. Admittedly I could have stopped there rather than continuing for no reason other than winding you up, but I did that for two reasons;
1. I was bored
2. It was funny
What I'm trying to say is that you rarely actually come up with valid reasons for your ignorance. So Strafio is much better placed to deal with that, as your ignorance doesn't irritate him. When, however, it comes to dealing with your initial ignorant assertions, I'm more than happy to address them.
I get what you're saying.
Cannabis is still potentially bad for you.
But the way I see it, in a society where drinking, smoking, and fastfood is not only legal but socially acceptable, cannabis more or less fits in with these. Infact, Cannabis is pretty close to be socially acceptable itself.
The biggest problem with cannabis is the quality of the product you're getting, and with legalisation there could be standards.
As it is, Cannabis dealers tend to be harmless.
Yeah, there's a few nasty ones, but they'd be nasty if they were dealing penny sweets. Basically, cannabis dealers aren't really a danger on the streets, so why waste police resources when there's real criminals?
Cannabis is still potentially bad for you.
But the way I see it, in a society where drinking, smoking, and fastfood is not only legal but socially acceptable, cannabis more or less fits in with these. Infact, Cannabis is pretty close to be socially acceptable itself.
The biggest problem with cannabis is the quality of the product you're getting, and with legalisation there could be standards.
As it is, Cannabis dealers tend to be harmless.
Yeah, there's a few nasty ones, but they'd be nasty if they were dealing penny sweets. Basically, cannabis dealers aren't really a danger on the streets, so why waste police resources when there's real criminals?
Stafio wrote
They know a lot of it's effects.
Most say it's not much worse than smoking.
Also, downclassing it doesn't make it "good", just pulls it out of the same league as heroin and crack. It kind of makes it seem petty justice on heroin ganstars when some kid who sold a bit of weed to his mates is getting the same sentace...
See what I'm saying?
Hmmmmm, yeahh I see your point, but you need more than just a bit of weed to get nicked. Sure if the police wan't to be idiots they used to lock you up for the night but nothing more. All they do now is caution you and confiscate the drug (I think thats right in anyways). But yeahh I do get what your saying (they downclassed it because they thought people shouldn't get the same sentance as smack dealers do).
They know a lot of it's effects.
Most say it's not much worse than smoking.
Also, downclassing it doesn't make it "good", just pulls it out of the same league as heroin and crack. It kind of makes it seem petty justice on heroin ganstars when some kid who sold a bit of weed to his mates is getting the same sentace...
See what I'm saying?
Hmmmmm, yeahh I see your point, but you need more than just a bit of weed to get nicked. Sure if the police wan't to be idiots they used to lock you up for the night but nothing more. All they do now is caution you and confiscate the drug (I think thats right in anyways). But yeahh I do get what your saying (they downclassed it because they thought people shouldn't get the same sentance as smack dealers do).
Light wrote:
> Strafio wrote:
> Lots of stuff, all with far more patience than I can muster when
> dealing with kevstar
>
>
> I believe I'll bow out of this one; kevstar's habit of coming to a
> conclusion and then sticking with it come what may irritates me
> beyond reason, and the whole thing degenerates into a slanging match.
Maybee if you had shut your mouth in the first place and stopped biting at my posts you wouldn't be saying what you are now, but there you go, as you said you like winding me up, it's nice to know how much I irritate you.
> Strafio wrote:
> Lots of stuff, all with far more patience than I can muster when
> dealing with kevstar
>
>
> I believe I'll bow out of this one; kevstar's habit of coming to a
> conclusion and then sticking with it come what may irritates me
> beyond reason, and the whole thing degenerates into a slanging match.
Maybee if you had shut your mouth in the first place and stopped biting at my posts you wouldn't be saying what you are now, but there you go, as you said you like winding me up, it's nice to know how much I irritate you.
kevstar wrote:
> I understand where your coming from, but even with canabis, you still
> get people coming to your door for it, mainly young 14-18 year olds,
> this I guess is where my problem is with theese people. I mean, it's
> like there promoting the stuff, the kids are smoking it, and then
> doing stupid things while taking it. And canabis is supposed to give
> you depresion, anxiety and does the same damage as smoking would do.
People come to YOUR door for cannabis?
Hey, perhaps your little bro is dealing it in his spare time! ;-)
And no one is promoting anything. Yes, the damage is similar ciggarettes (but we're talking about legality, not what's good for you - else we'd have to ban a billion things).
And Cannabis doesn't change your behaviour, just lets you relax/let go a bit more. If people do stupid things whlie on it, then the chances are that they were going to stupid things with it anyway.
> Now I smoke and drink, but for me this pollicy sounds like there
> saying canabis isn't a bad drug, but if it's not a bad drug, then
> what is it?
> How can
> they downclass a drug when no one knows the true effects it has on
> people?
They know a lot of it's effects.
Most say it's not much worse than smoking.
Also, downclassing it doesn't make it "good", just pulls it out of the same league as heroin and crack. It kind of makes it seem petty justice on heroin ganstars when some kid who sold a bit of weed to his mates is getting the same sentace...
See what I'm saying?
> I understand where your coming from, but even with canabis, you still
> get people coming to your door for it, mainly young 14-18 year olds,
> this I guess is where my problem is with theese people. I mean, it's
> like there promoting the stuff, the kids are smoking it, and then
> doing stupid things while taking it. And canabis is supposed to give
> you depresion, anxiety and does the same damage as smoking would do.
People come to YOUR door for cannabis?
Hey, perhaps your little bro is dealing it in his spare time! ;-)
And no one is promoting anything. Yes, the damage is similar ciggarettes (but we're talking about legality, not what's good for you - else we'd have to ban a billion things).
And Cannabis doesn't change your behaviour, just lets you relax/let go a bit more. If people do stupid things whlie on it, then the chances are that they were going to stupid things with it anyway.
> Now I smoke and drink, but for me this pollicy sounds like there
> saying canabis isn't a bad drug, but if it's not a bad drug, then
> what is it?
> How can
> they downclass a drug when no one knows the true effects it has on
> people?
They know a lot of it's effects.
Most say it's not much worse than smoking.
Also, downclassing it doesn't make it "good", just pulls it out of the same league as heroin and crack. It kind of makes it seem petty justice on heroin ganstars when some kid who sold a bit of weed to his mates is getting the same sentace...
See what I'm saying?
Page: