The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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'll let him tell you why. I laughed...
Page:
I'm staying out of this one, I'm still getting sued by my ex-wife.
(This in no way is meant to infer that Goatboy or the actions of Goatboy bear any resemblance to my ex-wife, or for that matter anything else).
(This in no way is meant to infer that Goatboy or the actions of Goatboy bear any resemblance to my ex-wife, or for that matter anything else).
Grix Thraves wrote:
> I'll have the mac, pass on the eye.
And anyway, I'm interested in this.
> Something to pass the time.
Just one more question...
I dunno... I dont even know whats going on?
> I'll have the mac, pass on the eye.
And anyway, I'm interested in this.
> Something to pass the time.
Just one more question...
I dunno... I dont even know whats going on?
I'll have the mac, pass on the eye.
And anyway, I'm interested in this. Something to pass the time.
And anyway, I'm interested in this. Something to pass the time.
Grix Thraves wrote:
>I just want to be Columbo.
> Seems like a laugh.
You want to wear a shabby mac, and have a glass eye?
>I just want to be Columbo.
> Seems like a laugh.
You want to wear a shabby mac, and have a glass eye?
monkey_man wrote:
> Has this got anything to do with a prossie that wouldn't give out when she saw
> your mangled willy, and then scarpered with your cash?
---
So let me get this straight, just for me.
You are suggesting, in a public forum intended for general viewing by anyone, that I utilise the services of prostitutes.
Furthermore, the suggestion is that I pay for services, and I am also disfigured in some way.
---
So now in this thread, there is the extremely distressing and libelous accusations of personal deformity and the use of prostitutes through usage of a public medium.
---
Fair enough, just wanted to make sure I understood that correctly.
> Has this got anything to do with a prossie that wouldn't give out when she saw
> your mangled willy, and then scarpered with your cash?
---
So let me get this straight, just for me.
You are suggesting, in a public forum intended for general viewing by anyone, that I utilise the services of prostitutes.
Furthermore, the suggestion is that I pay for services, and I am also disfigured in some way.
---
So now in this thread, there is the extremely distressing and libelous accusations of personal deformity and the use of prostitutes through usage of a public medium.
---
Fair enough, just wanted to make sure I understood that correctly.
Goatboy wrote:
"Whilst I'm sure you mean well, you're really not helping at all."
*cough*
*scratches head a bit*
I just want to be Columbo. Seems like a laugh.
:0)
"Whilst I'm sure you mean well, you're really not helping at all."
*cough*
*scratches head a bit*
I just want to be Columbo. Seems like a laugh.
:0)
Grix Thraves wrote:
Ok, how
> about the description of goods itself? As the original passage refers to goods
> and not services?
Not goods at all, no mention of specific items.
The question here is the intent to supply goods and services, not an actual transfer of property.
Which excludes it specifically from legislate pertaining to "items of saleable quality and merchantible profit potential"
Check out "Rode Vs Wade (1985) specifically.
I appreciate you being Mr Solve-it-for-someone-else, and no
offence but you really do need to make sure of the ground you're on if you are intending to legally represent or defend of behalf of someone, as the comments and statements made can be taken as fact of evidence unless specifically refuted by the organistation you speak on behalf of.
(Basically what that means is unless someone says "You don't speak for me or my company", you are acting on behalf of said party through non-vocal representation.
The thing that I find most disconcerting is this:
I have made absolutely no reference to specifics or details, nor have I mentioned names or companies involved.
Yet you seem to be aware of the situation, which means that there should also now be a question of the discussion of terms and conditions of an offer made with a third party without the consent of the primary individual, said individual being the resultant benefactor of any offer, whether accepted or not until such times that the primary benefactor has given expressed permition for details to be discussed.
---
Whilst I'm sure you mean well, you're really not helping at all.
Ok, how
> about the description of goods itself? As the original passage refers to goods
> and not services?
Not goods at all, no mention of specific items.
The question here is the intent to supply goods and services, not an actual transfer of property.
Which excludes it specifically from legislate pertaining to "items of saleable quality and merchantible profit potential"
Check out "Rode Vs Wade (1985) specifically.
I appreciate you being Mr Solve-it-for-someone-else, and no
offence but you really do need to make sure of the ground you're on if you are intending to legally represent or defend of behalf of someone, as the comments and statements made can be taken as fact of evidence unless specifically refuted by the organistation you speak on behalf of.
(Basically what that means is unless someone says "You don't speak for me or my company", you are acting on behalf of said party through non-vocal representation.
The thing that I find most disconcerting is this:
I have made absolutely no reference to specifics or details, nor have I mentioned names or companies involved.
Yet you seem to be aware of the situation, which means that there should also now be a question of the discussion of terms and conditions of an offer made with a third party without the consent of the primary individual, said individual being the resultant benefactor of any offer, whether accepted or not until such times that the primary benefactor has given expressed permition for details to be discussed.
---
Whilst I'm sure you mean well, you're really not helping at all.
Oh, one of those 'may the force be with you' things? Or just ac/dc/esp?
Through sheer determination.
Grix Thraves wrote:
>You can't move power.
How do they deliver batteries to shops then?
>You can't move power.
How do they deliver batteries to shops then?
Page: