The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Sometimes I think that the sole purpose of the news is to keep conspiracy theorists as paranoid as possible. Take the death of Monica Coghlan, the former prostitute involved in the case against Lord Jeffrey Archer for Perverting the course of Justice. Isn't it just soooo convenient that she is killed in a car smash (that old conspiracy favourite; didn't a few Kennedy witnesses die in a similar manner?) weeks before the trial kicks off?
And the driver of the other car seemed to have been armed to the teeth. All very strange, but I suppose strange things can happen to people. Look at the theories that sprung up after Di died. Everyone from Arab terrorists to Prince Phillip to the CIA has been blamed. No one seems to have stopped to consider that maybe it was just an accident caused by a combination of arrogance about security arrangements and a drunk driver. Mind you, one particularly vehement theorist once told me that they'd actually found carbon dioxide in the driver's bloodstream at the post mortem and not alcohol. Funnily he didn't have a scrap of evidence to prove this. Isn't it amazing what the mind will conjure up in order to propagate your own theory?
I have my own views on conspiracy theorists. Whilst I appreciate that their boundless paranoia can uncover dirty deeds (Watergate for example), I tend to think that it is their absolutely certainty that they know something that no-one else does that keeps them happy. They create their little theories and selectively pick facts that support them. Then they have the satisfaction that they know the truth and no one else does. Frankly, I suspect that many of them would be disappointed if their theories were given fair hearing because then everyone would know not just the theorist himself.
Hmm, I seemed to have strayed from the point that I was originally going to make. I find it rather interesting how the media (and myself for that matter) have continually referred to the late Miss Coghlan as a "former prostitute". This is what has been chosen to define her, and maybe you'd disagree, but I think it attaches negative connotations to her. In England, we still have something of a Victorian attitude to sex (and no, I don't mean child brothels, wife beating, rape and murder of prostitutes, you know; all of the things that people don't think of when they refer to Victorian attitudes despite the fact that they were rife) and that includes thinking of prostitutes in a condescending manner. Also, prostitution is illegal (well to be more accurate, soliciting for sex is illegal) and so if one thinks of Miss Coghlan as someone who was regularly involved in an illegal activity (does that make it a sexcrime?) then one would automatically place less value on any evidence she gives in the Archer trial.
The treatment of prostitution in this country is something that I would put on a par with our treatment of drugs in that it is mean minded and riddled with contradiction and hypocrisy. Currently, the actual act of having sex in exchange for money or gifts is not illegal. This is just as well, as it would the vast majority of relationships against the law (how many blokes have bought something nice for their other half as a means of getting a guaranteed shag? Or flowers to say sorry, or chocolates, or whatever. Ladies; beware of blokes bearing gifts when they have no obvious cause to give them!)
However, it is illegal for a woman to actively solicit for sex in exchange for money (again, just as well they added the "in exchange for money" part to that law, or The Bigg Market in Newcastle would have to be closed down) and it is also illegal for anyone to "Live off immoral earnings". Being a pimp in other words.
However, that latter definition could also encompass anyone who lives in a household, in which a prostitute lives and contributes to. If someone is the husband, partner, or even just the flatmate of a prostitute then they could be said to be breaking the law. Thus prostitution is stigmatised further still.
And yet, there is a category of Income tax specifically designed to encompass the earnings of a prostitute (you'll have to forgive me as I forget the exact category; I think it's a subcategory of C or D but I'm not positive). Therefore, if someone is a prostitute and doesn't declare her earnings, she can be imprisoned for tax evasion. But if she does, this can be used to prove she's a prostitute if she ever gets arrested for soliciting! Pardon the pun but legally they've got them coming and going.
And going back to a favourite moan of mine, the only people to benefit from the illegality of prostitution are the criminal fraternity. A pimp can make a fortune off prostitution, can hook them on illegal drugs to keep control of them (which wouldn't be a problem if they were decriminalised...), and can beat them and generally make their lives miserable. And all because the moral minority and Christian right say that prostitution is morally wrong (which incidentally is something else that annoys me; at least one story in the Old Testament refers to a battle being won by the Jews because of the help of a prostitute in surprising the enemy. If God doesn't have a problem then why the hell do these glassy eyed, brainwashed idiots blather on about it?)
As an alternative, and bearing in mind that no matter what a vocal few may say men will always want to get laid, why not simply legalise and regulate it? There will always be a market for prostitutes, and there will always be women willing (not forced into it; I am aware that there is a problem with some women effectively being sex slaves and I believe legalisation would stop this problem to a large degree) and if they were given union rights, regular health checks, safe premises in which to conduct business, hell maybe even a pension plan, then we once more remove a source of revenue from the criminal fraternity and provide a bigger source of taxable income for the government. It works in Amsterdam, so can anyone suggest any logical reasons why it shouldn't work here?
To me, the whole attitude to prostitution is indicative of society's attitude towards women and sex. If an older man sleeps with a younger woman, we cannot congratulate him fast enough (well, that depends on which woman he sleeps with actually, but that's beside the point) but if a middle aged woman sleeps with a man in his twenties, she is regarded with ill-disguised contempt. If you disagree then look at the media coverage of Anna Nicole Smith and her marriage to an octogenarian billionaire and then try and imagine how they would have reacted if Brad Pitt started dating the Queen Mother.
By the same token, a man who has slept with many women is (aside from a lucky, lucky man. Well...assuming he remains disease free he is) a stud, whereas a woman in the same situation is...well, I'm sure you're aware of the multitude of lovely names that they are tarred with. Personally, I tend to think that if you're going to have sex with someone, it might as well be with someone who knows what they are doing, but again I digress.
As with my point of view on drugs, I'm talking about a "socially unacceptable" method of dealing with a problem. Would society really have a problem with legalised prostitution? If so, why? If you can think of a reason that doesn't involve some vague moral principle to do with sex then I'd be intrigued to hear it.
And the driver of the other car seemed to have been armed to the teeth. All very strange, but I suppose strange things can happen to people. Look at the theories that sprung up after Di died. Everyone from Arab terrorists to Prince Phillip to the CIA has been blamed. No one seems to have stopped to consider that maybe it was just an accident caused by a combination of arrogance about security arrangements and a drunk driver. Mind you, one particularly vehement theorist once told me that they'd actually found carbon dioxide in the driver's bloodstream at the post mortem and not alcohol. Funnily he didn't have a scrap of evidence to prove this. Isn't it amazing what the mind will conjure up in order to propagate your own theory?
I have my own views on conspiracy theorists. Whilst I appreciate that their boundless paranoia can uncover dirty deeds (Watergate for example), I tend to think that it is their absolutely certainty that they know something that no-one else does that keeps them happy. They create their little theories and selectively pick facts that support them. Then they have the satisfaction that they know the truth and no one else does. Frankly, I suspect that many of them would be disappointed if their theories were given fair hearing because then everyone would know not just the theorist himself.
Hmm, I seemed to have strayed from the point that I was originally going to make. I find it rather interesting how the media (and myself for that matter) have continually referred to the late Miss Coghlan as a "former prostitute". This is what has been chosen to define her, and maybe you'd disagree, but I think it attaches negative connotations to her. In England, we still have something of a Victorian attitude to sex (and no, I don't mean child brothels, wife beating, rape and murder of prostitutes, you know; all of the things that people don't think of when they refer to Victorian attitudes despite the fact that they were rife) and that includes thinking of prostitutes in a condescending manner. Also, prostitution is illegal (well to be more accurate, soliciting for sex is illegal) and so if one thinks of Miss Coghlan as someone who was regularly involved in an illegal activity (does that make it a sexcrime?) then one would automatically place less value on any evidence she gives in the Archer trial.
The treatment of prostitution in this country is something that I would put on a par with our treatment of drugs in that it is mean minded and riddled with contradiction and hypocrisy. Currently, the actual act of having sex in exchange for money or gifts is not illegal. This is just as well, as it would the vast majority of relationships against the law (how many blokes have bought something nice for their other half as a means of getting a guaranteed shag? Or flowers to say sorry, or chocolates, or whatever. Ladies; beware of blokes bearing gifts when they have no obvious cause to give them!)
However, it is illegal for a woman to actively solicit for sex in exchange for money (again, just as well they added the "in exchange for money" part to that law, or The Bigg Market in Newcastle would have to be closed down) and it is also illegal for anyone to "Live off immoral earnings". Being a pimp in other words.
However, that latter definition could also encompass anyone who lives in a household, in which a prostitute lives and contributes to. If someone is the husband, partner, or even just the flatmate of a prostitute then they could be said to be breaking the law. Thus prostitution is stigmatised further still.
And yet, there is a category of Income tax specifically designed to encompass the earnings of a prostitute (you'll have to forgive me as I forget the exact category; I think it's a subcategory of C or D but I'm not positive). Therefore, if someone is a prostitute and doesn't declare her earnings, she can be imprisoned for tax evasion. But if she does, this can be used to prove she's a prostitute if she ever gets arrested for soliciting! Pardon the pun but legally they've got them coming and going.
And going back to a favourite moan of mine, the only people to benefit from the illegality of prostitution are the criminal fraternity. A pimp can make a fortune off prostitution, can hook them on illegal drugs to keep control of them (which wouldn't be a problem if they were decriminalised...), and can beat them and generally make their lives miserable. And all because the moral minority and Christian right say that prostitution is morally wrong (which incidentally is something else that annoys me; at least one story in the Old Testament refers to a battle being won by the Jews because of the help of a prostitute in surprising the enemy. If God doesn't have a problem then why the hell do these glassy eyed, brainwashed idiots blather on about it?)
As an alternative, and bearing in mind that no matter what a vocal few may say men will always want to get laid, why not simply legalise and regulate it? There will always be a market for prostitutes, and there will always be women willing (not forced into it; I am aware that there is a problem with some women effectively being sex slaves and I believe legalisation would stop this problem to a large degree) and if they were given union rights, regular health checks, safe premises in which to conduct business, hell maybe even a pension plan, then we once more remove a source of revenue from the criminal fraternity and provide a bigger source of taxable income for the government. It works in Amsterdam, so can anyone suggest any logical reasons why it shouldn't work here?
To me, the whole attitude to prostitution is indicative of society's attitude towards women and sex. If an older man sleeps with a younger woman, we cannot congratulate him fast enough (well, that depends on which woman he sleeps with actually, but that's beside the point) but if a middle aged woman sleeps with a man in his twenties, she is regarded with ill-disguised contempt. If you disagree then look at the media coverage of Anna Nicole Smith and her marriage to an octogenarian billionaire and then try and imagine how they would have reacted if Brad Pitt started dating the Queen Mother.
By the same token, a man who has slept with many women is (aside from a lucky, lucky man. Well...assuming he remains disease free he is) a stud, whereas a woman in the same situation is...well, I'm sure you're aware of the multitude of lovely names that they are tarred with. Personally, I tend to think that if you're going to have sex with someone, it might as well be with someone who knows what they are doing, but again I digress.
As with my point of view on drugs, I'm talking about a "socially unacceptable" method of dealing with a problem. Would society really have a problem with legalised prostitution? If so, why? If you can think of a reason that doesn't involve some vague moral principle to do with sex then I'd be intrigued to hear it.
Page:
Er Light, Saskia Sassen is a woman, so what did you read ?
Globalisation has created inequalities all around the world, and has especially hit certain groups of people. She's arguing that certain groups are exploited under the neo-liberalism of globalisation and that, where this exploitation is illegal, governments in many countries do not wish to end activites, like sex trafficking, totally because it still provides income which helps the state's economy.
Furthermore, some will move to partly legalise the activity rather than stop it, and that neo-liberal arguments are put forth to justify the legalisation of previously illegal activities, legitimising the income created by it. Those who wish to legalise often have little to no real connection with their cause, and instead of implementing strategies to eliviate the causes of the illegal activity, seek to legalise it thus removing the problem.
This simply lets exploitation continue, and forces more of the disadvanted groups employed within it the illegal activity to become involved as a coping strategy for them, rather than actually helping that group.
Or, put simply, taken in the context of the argument to legalise prostitution; legalise and you create more prostitutes, solve the social and economic problems which create prostitution and no one wants to be one.
Globalisation has created inequalities all around the world, and has especially hit certain groups of people. She's arguing that certain groups are exploited under the neo-liberalism of globalisation and that, where this exploitation is illegal, governments in many countries do not wish to end activites, like sex trafficking, totally because it still provides income which helps the state's economy.
Furthermore, some will move to partly legalise the activity rather than stop it, and that neo-liberal arguments are put forth to justify the legalisation of previously illegal activities, legitimising the income created by it. Those who wish to legalise often have little to no real connection with their cause, and instead of implementing strategies to eliviate the causes of the illegal activity, seek to legalise it thus removing the problem.
This simply lets exploitation continue, and forces more of the disadvanted groups employed within it the illegal activity to become involved as a coping strategy for them, rather than actually helping that group.
Or, put simply, taken in the context of the argument to legalise prostitution; legalise and you create more prostitutes, solve the social and economic problems which create prostitution and no one wants to be one.
Belldandy wrote:
> AMG.
>
> Are you unemployed or something Light ?
Nope. Answer the question sweetheart; stop stalling and procrastinating
And for your added delight
To summarise;
1. You said that any idea that meets resistance is a bad one
2. You defined "resistance" as "people opposed to the idea are willing to break the law in order to resist it"
3. Therefore, according to you, there was no resistance to the recent war (we'll ignore the arrests that were made at the various demo's...)
4. However, according to that same logic, there is no resistance to legalising prostitution as those opposed to it's legalisation are not breaking the law.
5. You tried to say it was as it is illegal for example, kerb crawl for prostitutes. However, people using prostitutes are hardly opposed to it's legalisation.
6. Therefore, using your own logic either -
a: the War in Iraq met with resistance and was a bad idea, or
b: Legalising prostitution has not resistance and is not a bad idea
So which is it?
> AMG.
>
> Are you unemployed or something Light ?
Nope. Answer the question sweetheart; stop stalling and procrastinating
And for your added delight
To summarise;
1. You said that any idea that meets resistance is a bad one
2. You defined "resistance" as "people opposed to the idea are willing to break the law in order to resist it"
3. Therefore, according to you, there was no resistance to the recent war (we'll ignore the arrests that were made at the various demo's...)
4. However, according to that same logic, there is no resistance to legalising prostitution as those opposed to it's legalisation are not breaking the law.
5. You tried to say it was as it is illegal for example, kerb crawl for prostitutes. However, people using prostitutes are hardly opposed to it's legalisation.
6. Therefore, using your own logic either -
a: the War in Iraq met with resistance and was a bad idea, or
b: Legalising prostitution has not resistance and is not a bad idea
So which is it?
No, answering the questions is the response required here Bell, not an attempt to distract into another wordwar
AMG.
Are you unemployed or something Light ?
Are you unemployed or something Light ?
Sorry Mouldy....
Now then Bell; the site that you sent me to look at. It was an interesting disertation, and it would appear that you, well...didn't read it. Basically, the guy who wrote it is saying that the traffic in sex slaves is a bad thing. That is taken as read. However, the traffic in sex slaves goes on in a world where prostitution is generally illegal, and where poverty is such in many nations that the only way for young women to escape is to trust criminal gangs to smuggle them out of the country and into the west where they find themselves trapped in prostitution. With me so far?
Now; this is happening when prostitution is illegal. I other words, the illegality of prostitution in most countries means that no-one is protecting the rights of these young women. If prostitution were made legal (not merely decriminalised as is the case in many parts of Germany), then the rights of prostitutes would be recognised. Once recognised, they can be protected. I don't pretend that this would entirely eliminate the horror of sex slavery, but I would contend it would reduce it massively.
Or, to put it another way, you've posted a link to a site that backs up what I said in the first place. Which must have been a simple error on your part; after all, I'm sure you wouldn't be basing your current opinion on a skim-reading and a lack of comprehension of the original post. That wouldn't be like you at all....
Now then, seeing as I've been polite and read your link, and addressed the points you seem to think it raised, I would be very much obliged if you could read the following article;
http://www.observer.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,877667,00.html
and offer your comments.
I'd also be happy for you to answer the question I've raised in the "...I was wrong" thread (don't worry; I'll repost it here for your convenience).
And for the record, I know I won't change your mind; to do that, one has to actually be possessed of a mind to change. And as your opinions seem to be based on no other basis than "I think this, ergo I am right" (just looking through the other threads and seeing your petulant refusal to accept that you may be wrong no matter what the evidence against your opinion by resorting to "No it isn't/you don't really think that/that evidence doesn't even exist" confirms that), it would seem that you are lacking this rather vital qualification. An intelligent mind looks at available evidence and forms or modifies an opinion accordingly. You come up with your opinion and spend as long as possible trying to prove you're not wrong.
Why? I can't say I know; maybe you've got low self esteem and this is your way of battling that. Maybe you feel you have something to prove to yourself. Or maybe you're just a complete tool. I don't know, and I don't much care, but should you be the sort of person who falls into the former of those three categories, you should know that you appear as laughable as the Black Knight in "Monty Python...Holy Grail"; refusing to accept the reality of the situation whilst being utterly destroyed by those you challenge.
Okay; you can go back to saying that I don't really care about prostitutes rights, or that I'm worse than whatever I've said about you, or whatever else will reassure you that you're not wrong.
Now then Bell; the site that you sent me to look at. It was an interesting disertation, and it would appear that you, well...didn't read it. Basically, the guy who wrote it is saying that the traffic in sex slaves is a bad thing. That is taken as read. However, the traffic in sex slaves goes on in a world where prostitution is generally illegal, and where poverty is such in many nations that the only way for young women to escape is to trust criminal gangs to smuggle them out of the country and into the west where they find themselves trapped in prostitution. With me so far?
Now; this is happening when prostitution is illegal. I other words, the illegality of prostitution in most countries means that no-one is protecting the rights of these young women. If prostitution were made legal (not merely decriminalised as is the case in many parts of Germany), then the rights of prostitutes would be recognised. Once recognised, they can be protected. I don't pretend that this would entirely eliminate the horror of sex slavery, but I would contend it would reduce it massively.
Or, to put it another way, you've posted a link to a site that backs up what I said in the first place. Which must have been a simple error on your part; after all, I'm sure you wouldn't be basing your current opinion on a skim-reading and a lack of comprehension of the original post. That wouldn't be like you at all....
Now then, seeing as I've been polite and read your link, and addressed the points you seem to think it raised, I would be very much obliged if you could read the following article;
http://www.observer.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,877667,00.html
and offer your comments.
I'd also be happy for you to answer the question I've raised in the "...I was wrong" thread (don't worry; I'll repost it here for your convenience).
And for the record, I know I won't change your mind; to do that, one has to actually be possessed of a mind to change. And as your opinions seem to be based on no other basis than "I think this, ergo I am right" (just looking through the other threads and seeing your petulant refusal to accept that you may be wrong no matter what the evidence against your opinion by resorting to "No it isn't/you don't really think that/that evidence doesn't even exist" confirms that), it would seem that you are lacking this rather vital qualification. An intelligent mind looks at available evidence and forms or modifies an opinion accordingly. You come up with your opinion and spend as long as possible trying to prove you're not wrong.
Why? I can't say I know; maybe you've got low self esteem and this is your way of battling that. Maybe you feel you have something to prove to yourself. Or maybe you're just a complete tool. I don't know, and I don't much care, but should you be the sort of person who falls into the former of those three categories, you should know that you appear as laughable as the Black Knight in "Monty Python...Holy Grail"; refusing to accept the reality of the situation whilst being utterly destroyed by those you challenge.
Okay; you can go back to saying that I don't really care about prostitutes rights, or that I'm worse than whatever I've said about you, or whatever else will reassure you that you're not wrong.
Please stop.
Light wrote:
> And again, no I'm not trying to save anyone. I'm just trying to stop
> you behaving like an smegstack. And in that respect, I've succeeded;
> you haven't been unpleasant or mindlessly dismissive recently. You're
> actually listening to the other person's view and thinking about it. A
> big change there.
"smegstack" ? Red Dwarf insults are so yesterday...
> I know no-one cares, but isn't it weird how you've gotten a
> tad...well, overly sensitive? '...filled with insults' Where? Point
> them out please, cos I didn't put any in there! I don't much care
> about continuing this either; it's gotten to the point where all
> you're doing is trying to say I'm as bad as you whilst I say
> "Yes, I am being as bad as you" and you retort with "I
> never behave like you". Logically your claims make no sense.
But you are as bad as me, but you won't admit it - even Jonman said that further down....
> Seriously, all I've been bothered about since starting this argument
> with you is making you see what an unbearable dogs dangler you are
> when you retort with such arrogance and narrow mindedness. And I did
> so by retorting in exactly as arrogant and narrow minded way as you
> have done to others. You've stopped doing that altogether with the
> exception of this thread. So although you're delighting in making as
> many derogatory comments as you can think of about my motivations, it
> doesn't change the fact that on the face of it I've achieved what I
> set out to do.
1) you have failed
2) you've only achieved something if you set out to turn this into a pointless and ultimately boring word count enhancing exchange. A person is not narrow minded because they refuse to acknowledge a point of view as valid.
3) despite this reply, you still haven't commented on the remainging two web sites, or to Blank.
~~Belldandy~~
> And again, no I'm not trying to save anyone. I'm just trying to stop
> you behaving like an smegstack. And in that respect, I've succeeded;
> you haven't been unpleasant or mindlessly dismissive recently. You're
> actually listening to the other person's view and thinking about it. A
> big change there.
"smegstack" ? Red Dwarf insults are so yesterday...
> I know no-one cares, but isn't it weird how you've gotten a
> tad...well, overly sensitive? '...filled with insults' Where? Point
> them out please, cos I didn't put any in there! I don't much care
> about continuing this either; it's gotten to the point where all
> you're doing is trying to say I'm as bad as you whilst I say
> "Yes, I am being as bad as you" and you retort with "I
> never behave like you". Logically your claims make no sense.
But you are as bad as me, but you won't admit it - even Jonman said that further down....
> Seriously, all I've been bothered about since starting this argument
> with you is making you see what an unbearable dogs dangler you are
> when you retort with such arrogance and narrow mindedness. And I did
> so by retorting in exactly as arrogant and narrow minded way as you
> have done to others. You've stopped doing that altogether with the
> exception of this thread. So although you're delighting in making as
> many derogatory comments as you can think of about my motivations, it
> doesn't change the fact that on the face of it I've achieved what I
> set out to do.
1) you have failed
2) you've only achieved something if you set out to turn this into a pointless and ultimately boring word count enhancing exchange. A person is not narrow minded because they refuse to acknowledge a point of view as valid.
3) despite this reply, you still haven't commented on the remainging two web sites, or to Blank.
~~Belldandy~~
> Excellent, by that reasoning anyone pouring scorn on any idea is a
> bully, hence the anti-war protestors are all bullies, except anyone
> supporting a war is a bully for puring scorn on them...endless cycle
> kinda thing.
~sigh~ No, I was referring to this specific point (i.e. you and your vile treatment of anyone disagreeing with you on this board in the past). Or are you saying that you've never ever behaved in a bullying manner? In either case, I'm impressed by your use of sophistry to try and dismiss everything that I, or anyone who isn't you, will ever post.
>
> Coming from the person whose only replise recently have been along the
> line of "wah look at Belldandy, I'm better than all of you !
No, I've just been saying I'm better than you. You're being egocentric again. Not an insult, just a fact as I see it.
> Belldandy's a bully and I'm a virtuous crusader here to save you all
> form his evil excesses"
And again, no I'm not trying to save anyone. I'm just trying to stop you behaving like an smegstack. And in that respect, I've succeeded; you haven't been unpleasant or mindlessly dismissive recently. You're actually listening to the other person's view and thinking about it. A big change there.
> Stop your insults ? Your post saying that was
> filled with them you *plonker*. Basically I don't care anymore, and
> this isn't admitting you're right or whatever, its just that
> playground style exchanges, whilst entertaining for a while, are
> boring, and for everyone else too. I mean rather than writing this
> crap in reply why not look at the two websites
Heh. What, you mean like extending the courtesy of looking at the website I put up...?
, or reply to Blank ?
> But oh no, your time is much better spent like this...*yawn*
>
> Chill dude, no one cares anymore ;)
I know no-one cares, but isn't it weird how you've gotten a tad...well, overly sensitive? '...filled with insults' Where? Point them out please, cos I didn't put any in there! I don't much care about continuing this either; it's gotten to the point where all you're doing is trying to say I'm as bad as you whilst I say "Yes, I am being as bad as you" and you retort with "I never behave like you". Logically your claims make no sense.
Seriously, all I've been bothered about since starting this argument with you is making you see what an unbearable dogs dangler you are when you retort with such arrogance and narrow mindedness. And I did so by retorting in exactly as arrogant and narrow minded way as you have done to others. You've stopped doing that altogether with the exception of this thread. So although you're delighting in making as many derogatory comments as you can think of about my motivations, it doesn't change the fact that on the face of it I've achieved what I set out to do.
> bully, hence the anti-war protestors are all bullies, except anyone
> supporting a war is a bully for puring scorn on them...endless cycle
> kinda thing.
~sigh~ No, I was referring to this specific point (i.e. you and your vile treatment of anyone disagreeing with you on this board in the past). Or are you saying that you've never ever behaved in a bullying manner? In either case, I'm impressed by your use of sophistry to try and dismiss everything that I, or anyone who isn't you, will ever post.
>
> Coming from the person whose only replise recently have been along the
> line of "wah look at Belldandy, I'm better than all of you !
No, I've just been saying I'm better than you. You're being egocentric again. Not an insult, just a fact as I see it.
> Belldandy's a bully and I'm a virtuous crusader here to save you all
> form his evil excesses"
And again, no I'm not trying to save anyone. I'm just trying to stop you behaving like an smegstack. And in that respect, I've succeeded; you haven't been unpleasant or mindlessly dismissive recently. You're actually listening to the other person's view and thinking about it. A big change there.
> Stop your insults ? Your post saying that was
> filled with them you *plonker*. Basically I don't care anymore, and
> this isn't admitting you're right or whatever, its just that
> playground style exchanges, whilst entertaining for a while, are
> boring, and for everyone else too. I mean rather than writing this
> crap in reply why not look at the two websites
Heh. What, you mean like extending the courtesy of looking at the website I put up...?
, or reply to Blank ?
> But oh no, your time is much better spent like this...*yawn*
>
> Chill dude, no one cares anymore ;)
I know no-one cares, but isn't it weird how you've gotten a tad...well, overly sensitive? '...filled with insults' Where? Point them out please, cos I didn't put any in there! I don't much care about continuing this either; it's gotten to the point where all you're doing is trying to say I'm as bad as you whilst I say "Yes, I am being as bad as you" and you retort with "I never behave like you". Logically your claims make no sense.
Seriously, all I've been bothered about since starting this argument with you is making you see what an unbearable dogs dangler you are when you retort with such arrogance and narrow mindedness. And I did so by retorting in exactly as arrogant and narrow minded way as you have done to others. You've stopped doing that altogether with the exception of this thread. So although you're delighting in making as many derogatory comments as you can think of about my motivations, it doesn't change the fact that on the face of it I've achieved what I set out to do.
Light wrote:
> Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahhaaa!!! Now that is what is
> known in the common parlance as "A lie". Seriously
> Belldandy; bearing in mind your posts are still on the board and can
> be read by everyone, are you sure that's the case? But never mind;
> dunt really matter, do it?
Indeed it probably doesn't, you have to be pretty @nal retentive to be making an issue of spelling unless you expect us all to be perfect typists.....yus ? :P
> As to my "crusade" against bullies; typically, bullies tend
> to be the first to pour scorn on the idea....
Excellent, by that reasoning anyone pouring scorn on any idea is a bully, hence the anti-war protestors are all bullies, except anyone supporting a war is a bully for puring scorn on them...endless cycle kinda thing.
> Can I take it by the rest of your post that you don't want to debate
> the issue any more? Not that I object that much to the idea either,
> but I find it strange how you started on this thread saying how you
> were right and I was clearly wrong, yet you've finished it by saying
> that you don't want to play any more. Not only that, but now that I've
> indicated I want to stop the insulting shenanigans and actually get
> back to the subject in hand, you've suddenly lost interest. Most
> curious.
Coming from the person whose only replise recently have been along the line of "wah look at Belldandy, I'm better than all of you ! Belldandy's a bully and I'm a virtuous crusader here to save you all form his evil excesses" then I think you have your hypocrisy blanket out again. Stop your insults ? Your post saying that was filled with them you *plonker*. Basically I don't care anymore, and this isn't admitting you're right or whatever, its just that playground style exchanges, whilst entertaining for a while, are boring, and for everyone else too. I mean rather than writing this crap in reply why not look at the two websites, or reply to Blank ? But oh no, your time is much better spent like this...*yawn*
Chill dude, no one cares anymore ;)
~~Belldandy~~
> Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahhaaa!!! Now that is what is
> known in the common parlance as "A lie". Seriously
> Belldandy; bearing in mind your posts are still on the board and can
> be read by everyone, are you sure that's the case? But never mind;
> dunt really matter, do it?
Indeed it probably doesn't, you have to be pretty @nal retentive to be making an issue of spelling unless you expect us all to be perfect typists.....yus ? :P
> As to my "crusade" against bullies; typically, bullies tend
> to be the first to pour scorn on the idea....
Excellent, by that reasoning anyone pouring scorn on any idea is a bully, hence the anti-war protestors are all bullies, except anyone supporting a war is a bully for puring scorn on them...endless cycle kinda thing.
> Can I take it by the rest of your post that you don't want to debate
> the issue any more? Not that I object that much to the idea either,
> but I find it strange how you started on this thread saying how you
> were right and I was clearly wrong, yet you've finished it by saying
> that you don't want to play any more. Not only that, but now that I've
> indicated I want to stop the insulting shenanigans and actually get
> back to the subject in hand, you've suddenly lost interest. Most
> curious.
Coming from the person whose only replise recently have been along the line of "wah look at Belldandy, I'm better than all of you ! Belldandy's a bully and I'm a virtuous crusader here to save you all form his evil excesses" then I think you have your hypocrisy blanket out again. Stop your insults ? Your post saying that was filled with them you *plonker*. Basically I don't care anymore, and this isn't admitting you're right or whatever, its just that playground style exchanges, whilst entertaining for a while, are boring, and for everyone else too. I mean rather than writing this crap in reply why not look at the two websites, or reply to Blank ? But oh no, your time is much better spent like this...*yawn*
Chill dude, no one cares anymore ;)
~~Belldandy~~
> you'll also note how I
> don't adopt the kind of tone demonstrated here with anyone else here,
> strangely.
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahhaaa!!! Now that is what is known in the common parlance as "A lie". Seriously Belldandy; bearing in mind your posts are still on the board and can be read by everyone, are you sure that's the case? But never mind; dunt really matter, do it?
As to my "crusade" against bullies; typically, bullies tend to be the first to pour scorn on the idea....
Can I take it by the rest of your post that you don't want to debate the issue any more? Not that I object that much to the idea either, but I find it strange how you started on this thread saying how you were right and I was clearly wrong, yet you've finished it by saying that you don't want to play any more. Not only that, but now that I've indicated I want to stop the insulting shenanigans and actually get back to the subject in hand, you've suddenly lost interest. Most curious.
Still, I look forward to posting in response to you (or anyone else...gaahhhhh! Blank; I'm sorry. Again.) in the future
> don't adopt the kind of tone demonstrated here with anyone else here,
> strangely.
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahhaaa!!! Now that is what is known in the common parlance as "A lie". Seriously Belldandy; bearing in mind your posts are still on the board and can be read by everyone, are you sure that's the case? But never mind; dunt really matter, do it?
As to my "crusade" against bullies; typically, bullies tend to be the first to pour scorn on the idea....
Can I take it by the rest of your post that you don't want to debate the issue any more? Not that I object that much to the idea either, but I find it strange how you started on this thread saying how you were right and I was clearly wrong, yet you've finished it by saying that you don't want to play any more. Not only that, but now that I've indicated I want to stop the insulting shenanigans and actually get back to the subject in hand, you've suddenly lost interest. Most curious.
Still, I look forward to posting in response to you (or anyone else...gaahhhhh! Blank; I'm sorry. Again.) in the future
Page: