The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Wow...so he lost his first parliamentary vote.
He fails to build a cross parliamentary concensus on an issue that the Tories would generally have supported if only on the principle that it'd see brown people imprisoned for no reason.
He tries to bully his own party into voting for it because "I want it".
He presents no evidence as to why the police need the 90 day detention, yet says "The need for this is clear".
He says that police having to renew it every 7 days is a safeguard, but forgets to mention that under the Anti-Terror laws, police can keep the "evidence" secret and not reveal it to the accused's legal rep.
He gets the chance to work out a compromise, but refuses to even countenance it as it means not getting his own way.
And he doesn't even acknowledge that locking people up for 3 months might radicalise otherwise moderate people.
Not forgetting the fact that he hasn't bothered to present an alternative plan of "hey, why don't we give the police more resources so that they can do their job, rather than constantly cutting back on them in order to line our own pockets".
And what is his response? Utter fury that he doesn't get his way. The squealing of a petulant child who has found that the rest of the kids in the playground won't do what he wants. Whatever your opinions of the 90 day thing, I can't be the only one who finds this hilarious, can I?
He fails to build a cross parliamentary concensus on an issue that the Tories would generally have supported if only on the principle that it'd see brown people imprisoned for no reason.
He tries to bully his own party into voting for it because "I want it".
He presents no evidence as to why the police need the 90 day detention, yet says "The need for this is clear".
He says that police having to renew it every 7 days is a safeguard, but forgets to mention that under the Anti-Terror laws, police can keep the "evidence" secret and not reveal it to the accused's legal rep.
He gets the chance to work out a compromise, but refuses to even countenance it as it means not getting his own way.
And he doesn't even acknowledge that locking people up for 3 months might radicalise otherwise moderate people.
Not forgetting the fact that he hasn't bothered to present an alternative plan of "hey, why don't we give the police more resources so that they can do their job, rather than constantly cutting back on them in order to line our own pockets".
And what is his response? Utter fury that he doesn't get his way. The squealing of a petulant child who has found that the rest of the kids in the playground won't do what he wants. Whatever your opinions of the 90 day thing, I can't be the only one who finds this hilarious, can I?
Page:
Smedlos wrote:
> Cycloon wrote:
> Smedlos wrote:
> WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> >As for "human rights" in general - it's a nice idea.
> Unfortunately it's been bastardised into a form which can be used to
> let people get away with murder. In some cases, literally. Once
> convicted of a crime, you should lose all but the most basic rights.
> After all, you had no consideration for the rights of the victims of
> your crime.
>
>
> Human rights is an excuse for being PC? Get over yourself. 'Human
> rights' are inalienable to people. I don't think you understand
> 'human rights' anyway - there are only a few that are actually
> agreed
> to be totally inalienable - they're not designed to annoy you.
> They're
> designed to protect ANYONE - and they're not designed to be get out
> clauses, seeing as about FOUR are actually the only ones you are not
> allowed to take away.
>
> It's hard not to understand human rights as they're shoved down
> everyones throats every day. And you say they're designed to protect
> anyone - some perople shouldn't be protected.
>
No, the human rights are inalienable. I.e, ANYone is protected. I don't get how you think human rights are shoved down peoples throats everyday - it's a shame we've got to a point where people seem to dislike the concept of being protected..... This isn't 'I'm a terrorist so I am exempt from prison', this is 'I'm a person, I have a FEW basic rights that have been GURANTEED by NATIONS for everyone'.
> Agreed again. I have an opinion that if convicted of murder beyond
> all doubt you should lose your most basic of rights - your life. OK
> you may not agree but I think it should be a life for a life / lives
> and it's a waste of money keeping people like Ian Huntley in jail
> for
> life (or 40 years minimum). Lets face it terrorism is about one
> thing
> - killing people and if they don't succeed in killing themselves we
> should do it for them.
>
> Ian Huntely, the ONLY bad person ever! KILL KILL KILL! You seem to
> be
> quite happy to make lots of distinctions around this 90 day law -
> only
> in this case, only in this, but really, think about such a policy
> please. You'd have to have a trillion 'only in this case' kinda
> things, which'd make it impossible, not to mention morally
> indefensible.
>
> Morally indefensible? So the actions of terrorists are defensible?
Oh Christ, where did I suggest that? Please, tell me where. If killing people is so wrong, why is killing a killer right? I realise they're not innocent, but the point is you are disgusted that they killed - I agree, it's horrible. So why kill them back?!
>
> I'm not condoning the police who carried out this act but put
> yourselves in their shoes. You're responsible for millions of lives
> and you're faced with a person who you believe could blow you and
> hundreds of innocent day to day tube passengers to bits. Kill one
> person or risk them killing hundreds. See it without hindsight and
> you'd probably do the same. I would.
>
> Have you read what actually happened to De Menzes? It wasn't 'oh he
> may have a bomb, ah christ he's yelling about bombings', it was 'run
> up and oh, shoot him from close range as he was motionless'.
>
> I've read about it, seen it on TV, seen debates about it as it was
> analysed to death over the following weeks.
In the same media hysteria that you agreed with Wookie was all wrong? I agree that the police would have a bloody hard time, but it was a serious mistake, and the fact is he did not present as much of a target as was perhaps justified in shooting the guy dead. If this is the case we take, anyone acting suspiciously is warranted to be shot at....riiiight.
Anyway, I do not wish to argue more now. Although I may be tempted :P
> Cycloon wrote:
> Smedlos wrote:
> WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> >As for "human rights" in general - it's a nice idea.
> Unfortunately it's been bastardised into a form which can be used to
> let people get away with murder. In some cases, literally. Once
> convicted of a crime, you should lose all but the most basic rights.
> After all, you had no consideration for the rights of the victims of
> your crime.
>
>
> Human rights is an excuse for being PC? Get over yourself. 'Human
> rights' are inalienable to people. I don't think you understand
> 'human rights' anyway - there are only a few that are actually
> agreed
> to be totally inalienable - they're not designed to annoy you.
> They're
> designed to protect ANYONE - and they're not designed to be get out
> clauses, seeing as about FOUR are actually the only ones you are not
> allowed to take away.
>
> It's hard not to understand human rights as they're shoved down
> everyones throats every day. And you say they're designed to protect
> anyone - some perople shouldn't be protected.
>
No, the human rights are inalienable. I.e, ANYone is protected. I don't get how you think human rights are shoved down peoples throats everyday - it's a shame we've got to a point where people seem to dislike the concept of being protected..... This isn't 'I'm a terrorist so I am exempt from prison', this is 'I'm a person, I have a FEW basic rights that have been GURANTEED by NATIONS for everyone'.
> Agreed again. I have an opinion that if convicted of murder beyond
> all doubt you should lose your most basic of rights - your life. OK
> you may not agree but I think it should be a life for a life / lives
> and it's a waste of money keeping people like Ian Huntley in jail
> for
> life (or 40 years minimum). Lets face it terrorism is about one
> thing
> - killing people and if they don't succeed in killing themselves we
> should do it for them.
>
> Ian Huntely, the ONLY bad person ever! KILL KILL KILL! You seem to
> be
> quite happy to make lots of distinctions around this 90 day law -
> only
> in this case, only in this, but really, think about such a policy
> please. You'd have to have a trillion 'only in this case' kinda
> things, which'd make it impossible, not to mention morally
> indefensible.
>
> Morally indefensible? So the actions of terrorists are defensible?
Oh Christ, where did I suggest that? Please, tell me where. If killing people is so wrong, why is killing a killer right? I realise they're not innocent, but the point is you are disgusted that they killed - I agree, it's horrible. So why kill them back?!
>
> I'm not condoning the police who carried out this act but put
> yourselves in their shoes. You're responsible for millions of lives
> and you're faced with a person who you believe could blow you and
> hundreds of innocent day to day tube passengers to bits. Kill one
> person or risk them killing hundreds. See it without hindsight and
> you'd probably do the same. I would.
>
> Have you read what actually happened to De Menzes? It wasn't 'oh he
> may have a bomb, ah christ he's yelling about bombings', it was 'run
> up and oh, shoot him from close range as he was motionless'.
>
> I've read about it, seen it on TV, seen debates about it as it was
> analysed to death over the following weeks.
In the same media hysteria that you agreed with Wookie was all wrong? I agree that the police would have a bloody hard time, but it was a serious mistake, and the fact is he did not present as much of a target as was perhaps justified in shooting the guy dead. If this is the case we take, anyone acting suspiciously is warranted to be shot at....riiiight.
Anyway, I do not wish to argue more now. Although I may be tempted :P
Smedlos wrote:
>
> Opinion again.
No he is actually wrong. His opinion is wrong.
>
> The only goading posts came from you, you ignored them for 30 minutes
> like you said in one of your posts and neither Light or Your Honour
> drew the discussion off topic.
Wrong.
If you make it personal you draw it off topic. Both YH and Light managed to do that before I did.
>
> Opinion again.
No he is actually wrong. His opinion is wrong.
>
> The only goading posts came from you, you ignored them for 30 minutes
> like you said in one of your posts and neither Light or Your Honour
> drew the discussion off topic.
Wrong.
If you make it personal you draw it off topic. Both YH and Light managed to do that before I did.
Hedfix wrote:
> I am not a coward, Light is wrong on that point.
Opinion again.
> I was answering some goading posts and making a few humerous comments
> but I wasn't trolling infact I was the one who chose to ignore two
> members who really were degrading the discussion by making it
> personal and drawing it off-topic.
The only goading posts came from you, you ignored them for 30 minutes like you said in one of your posts and neither Light or Your Honour drew the discussion off topic.
> I am not a coward, Light is wrong on that point.
Opinion again.
> I was answering some goading posts and making a few humerous comments
> but I wasn't trolling infact I was the one who chose to ignore two
> members who really were degrading the discussion by making it
> personal and drawing it off-topic.
The only goading posts came from you, you ignored them for 30 minutes like you said in one of your posts and neither Light or Your Honour drew the discussion off topic.
Smedlos wrote:
>
> He's not wrong, I'm not wrong, you're not wrong, Wookiemonster's not
> wrong, Cycloon's not wrong etc.........
I am not a coward, Light is wrong on that point.
>
> All we're doing is expressing an opinion about this subject which
> quite frankly is the best debate on these forums for ages. Earlier on
> me and you were expressing the same opinion until you lost it big
> style and started trolling everyone.
I was answering some goading posts and making a few humerous comments but I wasn't trolling infact I was the one who chose to ignore two members who really were degrading the discussion by making it personal and drawing it off-topic.
>
> He's not wrong, I'm not wrong, you're not wrong, Wookiemonster's not
> wrong, Cycloon's not wrong etc.........
I am not a coward, Light is wrong on that point.
>
> All we're doing is expressing an opinion about this subject which
> quite frankly is the best debate on these forums for ages. Earlier on
> me and you were expressing the same opinion until you lost it big
> style and started trolling everyone.
I was answering some goading posts and making a few humerous comments but I wasn't trolling infact I was the one who chose to ignore two members who really were degrading the discussion by making it personal and drawing it off-topic.
Hedfix wrote:
> What does interest me is how Light seems unable to accept this. I
> guess he chooses a view a sticks to it, even if it's wrong.
He's not wrong, I'm not wrong, you're not wrong, Wookiemonster's not wrong, Cycloon's not wrong etc.........
All we're doing is expressing an opinion about this subject which quite frankly is the best debate on these forums for ages. Earlier on me and you were expressing the same opinion until you lost it big style and started trolling everyone.
> What does interest me is how Light seems unable to accept this. I
> guess he chooses a view a sticks to it, even if it's wrong.
He's not wrong, I'm not wrong, you're not wrong, Wookiemonster's not wrong, Cycloon's not wrong etc.........
All we're doing is expressing an opinion about this subject which quite frankly is the best debate on these forums for ages. Earlier on me and you were expressing the same opinion until you lost it big style and started trolling everyone.
Cycloon wrote:
> Smedlos wrote:
> WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> >As for "human rights" in general - it's a nice idea.
> Unfortunately it's been bastardised into a form which can be used to
> let people get away with murder. In some cases, literally. Once
> convicted of a crime, you should lose all but the most basic rights.
> After all, you had no consideration for the rights of the victims of
> your crime.
>
>
> Human rights is an excuse for being PC? Get over yourself. 'Human
> rights' are inalienable to people. I don't think you understand
> 'human rights' anyway - there are only a few that are actually agreed
> to be totally inalienable - they're not designed to annoy you. They're
> designed to protect ANYONE - and they're not designed to be get out
> clauses, seeing as about FOUR are actually the only ones you are not
> allowed to take away.
It's hard not to understand human rights as they're shoved down everyones throats every day. And you say they're designed to protect anyone - some perople shouldn't be protected.
> Agreed again. I have an opinion that if convicted of murder beyond
> all doubt you should lose your most basic of rights - your life. OK
> you may not agree but I think it should be a life for a life / lives
> and it's a waste of money keeping people like Ian Huntley in jail
> for
> life (or 40 years minimum). Lets face it terrorism is about one
> thing
> - killing people and if they don't succeed in killing themselves we
> should do it for them.
>
> Ian Huntely, the ONLY bad person ever! KILL KILL KILL! You seem to be
> quite happy to make lots of distinctions around this 90 day law - only
> in this case, only in this, but really, think about such a policy
> please. You'd have to have a trillion 'only in this case' kinda
> things, which'd make it impossible, not to mention morally
> indefensible.
Morally indefensible? So the actions of terrorists are defensible?
> I'm not condoning the police who carried out this act but put
> yourselves in their shoes. You're responsible for millions of lives
> and you're faced with a person who you believe could blow you and
> hundreds of innocent day to day tube passengers to bits. Kill one
> person or risk them killing hundreds. See it without hindsight and
> you'd probably do the same. I would.
>
> Have you read what actually happened to De Menzes? It wasn't 'oh he
> may have a bomb, ah christ he's yelling about bombings', it was 'run
> up and oh, shoot him from close range as he was motionless'.
I've read about it, seen it on TV, seen debates about it as it was analysed to death over the following weeks.
> Smedlos wrote:
> WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> >As for "human rights" in general - it's a nice idea.
> Unfortunately it's been bastardised into a form which can be used to
> let people get away with murder. In some cases, literally. Once
> convicted of a crime, you should lose all but the most basic rights.
> After all, you had no consideration for the rights of the victims of
> your crime.
>
>
> Human rights is an excuse for being PC? Get over yourself. 'Human
> rights' are inalienable to people. I don't think you understand
> 'human rights' anyway - there are only a few that are actually agreed
> to be totally inalienable - they're not designed to annoy you. They're
> designed to protect ANYONE - and they're not designed to be get out
> clauses, seeing as about FOUR are actually the only ones you are not
> allowed to take away.
It's hard not to understand human rights as they're shoved down everyones throats every day. And you say they're designed to protect anyone - some perople shouldn't be protected.
> Agreed again. I have an opinion that if convicted of murder beyond
> all doubt you should lose your most basic of rights - your life. OK
> you may not agree but I think it should be a life for a life / lives
> and it's a waste of money keeping people like Ian Huntley in jail
> for
> life (or 40 years minimum). Lets face it terrorism is about one
> thing
> - killing people and if they don't succeed in killing themselves we
> should do it for them.
>
> Ian Huntely, the ONLY bad person ever! KILL KILL KILL! You seem to be
> quite happy to make lots of distinctions around this 90 day law - only
> in this case, only in this, but really, think about such a policy
> please. You'd have to have a trillion 'only in this case' kinda
> things, which'd make it impossible, not to mention morally
> indefensible.
Morally indefensible? So the actions of terrorists are defensible?
> I'm not condoning the police who carried out this act but put
> yourselves in their shoes. You're responsible for millions of lives
> and you're faced with a person who you believe could blow you and
> hundreds of innocent day to day tube passengers to bits. Kill one
> person or risk them killing hundreds. See it without hindsight and
> you'd probably do the same. I would.
>
> Have you read what actually happened to De Menzes? It wasn't 'oh he
> may have a bomb, ah christ he's yelling about bombings', it was 'run
> up and oh, shoot him from close range as he was motionless'.
I've read about it, seen it on TV, seen debates about it as it was analysed to death over the following weeks.
Smedlos wrote:
> stuff
I was going to leave it but I'm waiting for Light to comprehend that some people just don't 'dig' political debate quite as much as he does. I have explained a few times why I'm not going to contribute in much detail but then I get accused of being a "Coward!1111" combined with comments like this:
Light wrote:
> If you truly
> "couldn't be bothered", you wouldn't have gotten involved
> in the first place.
Which are simply laughable because I've explained a fair few times now that I'm simply not that interested, but Light seems unable to accept this so we get another barrage of "For the 100th time trawl back through and tell me what I've missed" and "Coward!1111" which is pretty pointless since I've already admitted that I've missed some of his points and he's missed some of mine: I'm not about to dig through all this to find out exactly what those were because it really doesn't interest me that much.
What does interest me is how Light seems unable to accept this. I guess he chooses a view and sticks to it, even if it's wrong.
> stuff
I was going to leave it but I'm waiting for Light to comprehend that some people just don't 'dig' political debate quite as much as he does. I have explained a few times why I'm not going to contribute in much detail but then I get accused of being a "Coward!1111" combined with comments like this:
Light wrote:
> If you truly
> "couldn't be bothered", you wouldn't have gotten involved
> in the first place.
Which are simply laughable because I've explained a fair few times now that I'm simply not that interested, but Light seems unable to accept this so we get another barrage of "For the 100th time trawl back through and tell me what I've missed" and "Coward!1111" which is pretty pointless since I've already admitted that I've missed some of his points and he's missed some of mine: I'm not about to dig through all this to find out exactly what those were because it really doesn't interest me that much.
What does interest me is how Light seems unable to accept this. I guess he chooses a view and sticks to it, even if it's wrong.
Smedlos wrote:
> WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
>> As for "human rights" in general - it's a nice idea.
> Unfortunately it's been bastardised into a form which can be used to
> let people get away with murder. In some cases, literally. Once
> convicted of a crime, you should lose all but the most basic rights.
> After all, you had no consideration for the rights of the victims of
> your crime.
>
Human rights is an excuse for being PC? Get over yourself. 'Human rights' are inalienable to people. I don't think you understand 'human rights' anyway - there are only a few that are actually agreed to be totally inalienable - they're not designed to annoy you. They're designed to protect ANYONE - and they're not designed to be get out clauses, seeing as about FOUR are actually the only ones you are not allowed to take away.
> Agreed again. I have an opinion that if convicted of murder beyond
> all doubt you should lose your most basic of rights - your life. OK
> you may not agree but I think it should be a life for a life / lives
> and it's a waste of money keeping people like Ian Huntley in jail for
> life (or 40 years minimum). Lets face it terrorism is about one thing
> - killing people and if they don't succeed in killing themselves we
> should do it for them.
Ian Huntely, the ONLY bad person ever! KILL KILL KILL! You seem to be quite happy to make lots of distinctions around this 90 day law - only in this case, only in this, but really, think about such a policy please. You'd have to have a trillion 'only in this case' kinda things, which'd make it impossible, not to mention morally indefensible.
>
> > General De Menzes stuff etc etc
> I'm not condoning the police who carried out this act but put
> yourselves in their shoes. You're responsible for millions of lives
> and you're faced with a person who you believe could blow you and
> hundreds of innocent day to day tube passengers to bits. Kill one
> person or risk them killing hundreds. See it without hindsight and
> you'd probably do the same. I would.
Have you read what actually happened to De Menzes? It wasn't 'oh he may have a bomb, ah christ he's yelling about bombings', it was 'run up and oh, shoot him from close range as he was motionless'.
>
> Unfortunately, all this furore may just cause officers involved in
> future incidents to hesitate - by which time it may be too late, and
> another 50 people may be dead as a result.
>
> Hopefully that won't happen but the mass hysteria that was generated
> by the media really didn't help matters one bit.
Mass hysteria? I find that ironic when you are basically saying exactly the same things the media blares out time after time about 'an eye for an eye', 'justice!!!1' and bla bla bla.
> WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
>> As for "human rights" in general - it's a nice idea.
> Unfortunately it's been bastardised into a form which can be used to
> let people get away with murder. In some cases, literally. Once
> convicted of a crime, you should lose all but the most basic rights.
> After all, you had no consideration for the rights of the victims of
> your crime.
>
Human rights is an excuse for being PC? Get over yourself. 'Human rights' are inalienable to people. I don't think you understand 'human rights' anyway - there are only a few that are actually agreed to be totally inalienable - they're not designed to annoy you. They're designed to protect ANYONE - and they're not designed to be get out clauses, seeing as about FOUR are actually the only ones you are not allowed to take away.
> Agreed again. I have an opinion that if convicted of murder beyond
> all doubt you should lose your most basic of rights - your life. OK
> you may not agree but I think it should be a life for a life / lives
> and it's a waste of money keeping people like Ian Huntley in jail for
> life (or 40 years minimum). Lets face it terrorism is about one thing
> - killing people and if they don't succeed in killing themselves we
> should do it for them.
Ian Huntely, the ONLY bad person ever! KILL KILL KILL! You seem to be quite happy to make lots of distinctions around this 90 day law - only in this case, only in this, but really, think about such a policy please. You'd have to have a trillion 'only in this case' kinda things, which'd make it impossible, not to mention morally indefensible.
>
> > General De Menzes stuff etc etc
> I'm not condoning the police who carried out this act but put
> yourselves in their shoes. You're responsible for millions of lives
> and you're faced with a person who you believe could blow you and
> hundreds of innocent day to day tube passengers to bits. Kill one
> person or risk them killing hundreds. See it without hindsight and
> you'd probably do the same. I would.
Have you read what actually happened to De Menzes? It wasn't 'oh he may have a bomb, ah christ he's yelling about bombings', it was 'run up and oh, shoot him from close range as he was motionless'.
>
> Unfortunately, all this furore may just cause officers involved in
> future incidents to hesitate - by which time it may be too late, and
> another 50 people may be dead as a result.
>
> Hopefully that won't happen but the mass hysteria that was generated
> by the media really didn't help matters one bit.
Mass hysteria? I find that ironic when you are basically saying exactly the same things the media blares out time after time about 'an eye for an eye', 'justice!!!1' and bla bla bla.
Hedfix wrote:
> Hedfix wrote:
>
> fraid not. As with the 'integrity thread' you see I only have a
> limited patience for political discussion before I decide to drop it
> and look for something more interesting to discuss. Clearly you find
> it more interesting than I do
Thought you decided to drop it about 6 hours ago and you're still going strong?
> I got bored with it, I was quite happy to suggest some interesting > hypotheticals but when you pushed for more substantial facts I wasn't > prepared to research further nor did I find it interesting enough to > bother.
See above.
> Read my lips: NO. NEW. TAXES..
Glad for your sake we don't have a ranting tax.
> Read my lips: NOT. GOING. TO. HAPPEN.
I hope that's not the answer to the question "Are you going to shut up"
> Comprende?
Yes and no. Yes to everyone else, no to you.
> Hedfix wrote:
>
> fraid not. As with the 'integrity thread' you see I only have a
> limited patience for political discussion before I decide to drop it
> and look for something more interesting to discuss. Clearly you find
> it more interesting than I do
Thought you decided to drop it about 6 hours ago and you're still going strong?
> I got bored with it, I was quite happy to suggest some interesting > hypotheticals but when you pushed for more substantial facts I wasn't > prepared to research further nor did I find it interesting enough to > bother.
See above.
> Read my lips: NO. NEW. TAXES..
Glad for your sake we don't have a ranting tax.
> Read my lips: NOT. GOING. TO. HAPPEN.
I hope that's not the answer to the question "Are you going to shut up"
> Comprende?
Yes and no. Yes to everyone else, no to you.
I've highlighted the important bits in bold so you might gain a better understanding:
Hedfix wrote:
>
> 'fraid not. As with the 'integrity thread' you see I only have a
> limited patience for political discussion before I decide to drop it
> and look for something more interesting to discuss. Clearly you find
> it more interesting than I do but then you resort to tired insults
> like "taking your ball away" etc.
>
> It's not needed, at-least not when you're trying to be taken
> seriously.
>
> Well we can't all be so incredibly angry so as to be lashing out at
> people on the internet now can we? I got bored with it, I was quite
> happy to suggest some interesting hypotheticals but when you pushed
> for more substantial facts I wasn't prepared to research further nor
> did I find it interesting enough to bother. Now you've got to jump in
> with the emotive call of "You're a coward" when it's simply
> that you're more interested in the subject than I am.
Does this make it any clearer to you now? Or are you going to continue to press for me to re-read a chunk of stuff I'm not very interested in to provide an ego-maniac with some more points to rant and rave about?
Read my lips: NO. NEW. TAXES..
Eh? Oh sorry... right
Read my lips: NOT. GOING. TO. HAPPEN.
Comprende?
Hedfix wrote:
>
> 'fraid not. As with the 'integrity thread' you see I only have a
> limited patience for political discussion before I decide to drop it
> and look for something more interesting to discuss. Clearly you find
> it more interesting than I do but then you resort to tired insults
> like "taking your ball away" etc.
>
> It's not needed, at-least not when you're trying to be taken
> seriously.
>
> Well we can't all be so incredibly angry so as to be lashing out at
> people on the internet now can we? I got bored with it, I was quite
> happy to suggest some interesting hypotheticals but when you pushed
> for more substantial facts I wasn't prepared to research further nor
> did I find it interesting enough to bother. Now you've got to jump in
> with the emotive call of "You're a coward" when it's simply
> that you're more interested in the subject than I am.
Does this make it any clearer to you now? Or are you going to continue to press for me to re-read a chunk of stuff I'm not very interested in to provide an ego-maniac with some more points to rant and rave about?
Read my lips: NO. NEW. TAXES..
Eh? Oh sorry... right
Read my lips: NOT. GOING. TO. HAPPEN.
Comprende?
Page: