The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
This is it. This is the day we've all feared:
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4629399.stm[/URL]
So that's all folks, SR's servers could be shut down and confiscated if the authorities see fit, and a gagging order can be imposed (See the 2004 case) so we'd never find out why. Unbelievable.
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4629399.stm[/URL]
So that's all folks, SR's servers could be shut down and confiscated if the authorities see fit, and a gagging order can be imposed (See the 2004 case) so we'd never find out why. Unbelievable.
Page:
Clazon wrote:
> "Ha. What a joke."
>
>
> -Applies to the entirety of this thread-
This is loaded with double-meaning. Comes across as a backhanded compliment to the thread.
Clear as mud.
> "Ha. What a joke."
>
>
> -Applies to the entirety of this thread-
This is loaded with double-meaning. Comes across as a backhanded compliment to the thread.
Clear as mud.
Fine perhaps I shopuld have been more clearer with my words, but the point I was making by saying "the entire thread" meant that it included both topics, not just the police story, to show it wasn't just a case of me reading only the initial post. I find it laughable that the government think they can slip something as big as this through without issues being resolved and markers being set. I also find the police thing laughable, that they think they do something as criminal as that and think it's right.
Smartass comment? I hardly think so. It's comment on how I feel, lacking in depth to provide impact.
Editing's there for a reason. And I have every right to be on a high horse when I've done nothing wrong, except perhaps not hitting it home exactly what my orginal post referred to. Yet I did make atleast a half asseds effort to do so.
Night, Sweety.
Smartass comment? I hardly think so. It's comment on how I feel, lacking in depth to provide impact.
Editing's there for a reason. And I have every right to be on a high horse when I've done nothing wrong, except perhaps not hitting it home exactly what my orginal post referred to. Yet I did make atleast a half asseds effort to do so.
Night, Sweety.
Goatboy wrote:
> Because I took your "ha" comment to be a sneer at the
> thread, hence "idiot comment".
> If that wasn't the case, then my apologies.
I can just about see why you made that comment, due to the long-since slipping standards of the forums, but I make a valid point.
Maybe it's you who gets it wrong if you can't infer from my point that I disagreed with the ID cards and invasion of privacy...
> Because I took your "ha" comment to be a sneer at the
> thread, hence "idiot comment".
> If that wasn't the case, then my apologies.
I can just about see why you made that comment, due to the long-since slipping standards of the forums, but I make a valid point.
Maybe it's you who gets it wrong if you can't infer from my point that I disagreed with the ID cards and invasion of privacy...
Nice judicious use of editing after posting to clamber onto that tall horsie. Strength of conviction, always a winner.
Gnite precious.
Gnite precious.
Clazon wrote:
> I would think it's patently obvious that my comment meant I disagreed
> with the two ideas put forward in the two stimuli, but if you couldn't
> take that from my post, then maybe you are the one that lost this
> round.
-------
Patently obvious from "ha what a joke: applies to entire thread"?
When you state that your comment applies to the entire thread and not just "the two stimuli" then I'm afraid your attempts at being a smartass don't really work.
Either you meant the "entirety of the thread" or just "the two stimuli"
Which is it?
> I would think it's patently obvious that my comment meant I disagreed
> with the two ideas put forward in the two stimuli, but if you couldn't
> take that from my post, then maybe you are the one that lost this
> round.
-------
Patently obvious from "ha what a joke: applies to entire thread"?
When you state that your comment applies to the entire thread and not just "the two stimuli" then I'm afraid your attempts at being a smartass don't really work.
Either you meant the "entirety of the thread" or just "the two stimuli"
Which is it?
Clazon wrote:
> I'm sorry if I didn't perform a song and dance ranting over the
> issue, just to show why I object, but as you said, it's obvious to
> every Joe Public just why I do. I assumed my opinion was atleast
> worth voicing, so why use many words when a couple will do just fine?
-------
Because I took your "ha" comment to be a sneer at the thread, hence "idiot comment".
If that wasn't the case, then my apologies.
If it is the case, stick to general chat
> I'm sorry if I didn't perform a song and dance ranting over the
> issue, just to show why I object, but as you said, it's obvious to
> every Joe Public just why I do. I assumed my opinion was atleast
> worth voicing, so why use many words when a couple will do just fine?
-------
Because I took your "ha" comment to be a sneer at the thread, hence "idiot comment".
If that wasn't the case, then my apologies.
If it is the case, stick to general chat
Goatboy wrote:
> Seemed to agree with you?
> Your first appearance in this thread was "Ha what a joke"
> so how on earth does one agree with you when you've made no
> contribution?
I would think it's patently obvious that my comment meant I disagreed with the two ideas put forward in the two stimuli, but if you couldn't take that from my post, then maybe you are the one that lost this round.
EDIT:
Plus. See my edit below if you really want to draw this out.
> Seemed to agree with you?
> Your first appearance in this thread was "Ha what a joke"
> so how on earth does one agree with you when you've made no
> contribution?
I would think it's patently obvious that my comment meant I disagreed with the two ideas put forward in the two stimuli, but if you couldn't take that from my post, then maybe you are the one that lost this round.
EDIT:
Plus. See my edit below if you really want to draw this out.
Seemed to agree with you?
Your first appearance in this thread was "Ha what a joke" so how on earth does one agree with you when you've made no contribution?
Thank you for playing, look at what you could've won [URL]http://www.teammadcow.com/events/pop8/retard_kart.jpg[/URL]
Your first appearance in this thread was "Ha what a joke" so how on earth does one agree with you when you've made no contribution?
Thank you for playing, look at what you could've won [URL]http://www.teammadcow.com/events/pop8/retard_kart.jpg[/URL]
An idiot comment?
I guaged from your replies that you seemed to agree with me, but hey, maybe I just found someone who actually supports police invading the right of free speech and the first person I've crossed who seems to think ID cards are a good idea.
EDIT:
I'm sorry if I didn't perform a song and dance ranting over the issue, just to show why I object, but as you said, it's obvious to every Joe Public just why I do. I assumed my opinion was atleast worth voicing, so why use many words when a couple will do just fine?
I guaged from your replies that you seemed to agree with me, but hey, maybe I just found someone who actually supports police invading the right of free speech and the first person I've crossed who seems to think ID cards are a good idea.
EDIT:
I'm sorry if I didn't perform a song and dance ranting over the issue, just to show why I object, but as you said, it's obvious to every Joe Public just why I do. I assumed my opinion was atleast worth voicing, so why use many words when a couple will do just fine?
And the first idiot comment appears, not bad going for SR Forums
Page: