The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 believe North Korea have a God given right to bear arms just like everyone else!
*Runs*
*Runs*
Page:
Kawada wrote:
> biglime wrote:
> Delicate pressure from the US government? It may seem liberal
> and impartial to the public but it would be surprising if all
> articles didn't go through an 'independent' monitoring body
> that
> guages the public mood and such.
>
>
> Any proof of that or is that just a personal theory? Seeing as
> the article was in the magazine just like it was in all the
> others the only issue is the front cover. Maybe you should
> e-mail them and get an answer from them why they chose to change
> the US cover.
A cover is more effective than an article anyday. A well made one says more to a person than the few in comparison who take the time to read and analyse the article. Think of all the passers by who skim the covers for the crux of current affairs. They see a 'Losing Afghanistan' and it will skew a previously solid mindset that assumed that control was gradually being won over. Now give them the alternate, and they would be none the wiser.
Even those who read the magazine back to front will be affected by the initial lack of shock in your face value that such a cover represents.
As for the reason why they chose to publish the different one, they've already released a statement along the lies of '(name of woman) and her family life is more appealing to the Americans.' Maybe, but on a global state of affairs hardly more important.
> biglime wrote:
> Delicate pressure from the US government? It may seem liberal
> and impartial to the public but it would be surprising if all
> articles didn't go through an 'independent' monitoring body
> that
> guages the public mood and such.
>
>
> Any proof of that or is that just a personal theory? Seeing as
> the article was in the magazine just like it was in all the
> others the only issue is the front cover. Maybe you should
> e-mail them and get an answer from them why they chose to change
> the US cover.
A cover is more effective than an article anyday. A well made one says more to a person than the few in comparison who take the time to read and analyse the article. Think of all the passers by who skim the covers for the crux of current affairs. They see a 'Losing Afghanistan' and it will skew a previously solid mindset that assumed that control was gradually being won over. Now give them the alternate, and they would be none the wiser.
Even those who read the magazine back to front will be affected by the initial lack of shock in your face value that such a cover represents.
As for the reason why they chose to publish the different one, they've already released a statement along the lies of '(name of woman) and her family life is more appealing to the Americans.' Maybe, but on a global state of affairs hardly more important.
Kawada wrote:
> biglime wrote:
> Somehow you've taken my replies to your comments as a personal
> jab at yourself, for which you are mistaken.
>
>
> Well that "brainwashed" comment was an obvious
> personal jab. Plus i find it strange how you haven't changed the
> topic title of this thread seeing how it's even more vague than
> Ladybird's.
Considering the intrinsic views put foward, followed by the standard follow up 'you're against the war hence you hate the troops' tagline, can it really be called anything other than brainwashed? Hardly a personal insult when initially 50% of the US thought the same.
It's not a personal fault of their own, but of the influence that media and the conditioning it has on their behaviour, views and subsequent way of thinking. A sad thing to see, but something increasingly used nowadays. I just wish people would keep an open mind.
The title... well we're arguing after all :)
> biglime wrote:
> Somehow you've taken my replies to your comments as a personal
> jab at yourself, for which you are mistaken.
>
>
> Well that "brainwashed" comment was an obvious
> personal jab. Plus i find it strange how you haven't changed the
> topic title of this thread seeing how it's even more vague than
> Ladybird's.
Considering the intrinsic views put foward, followed by the standard follow up 'you're against the war hence you hate the troops' tagline, can it really be called anything other than brainwashed? Hardly a personal insult when initially 50% of the US thought the same.
It's not a personal fault of their own, but of the influence that media and the conditioning it has on their behaviour, views and subsequent way of thinking. A sad thing to see, but something increasingly used nowadays. I just wish people would keep an open mind.
The title... well we're arguing after all :)
biglime wrote:
> Somehow you've taken my replies to your comments as a personal
> jab at yourself, for which you are mistaken.
Well that "brainwashed" comment was an obvious personal jab. Plus i find it strange how you haven't changed the topic title of this thread seeing how it's even more vague than Ladybird's.
> Somehow you've taken my replies to your comments as a personal
> jab at yourself, for which you are mistaken.
Well that "brainwashed" comment was an obvious personal jab. Plus i find it strange how you haven't changed the topic title of this thread seeing how it's even more vague than Ladybird's.
biglime wrote:
> Delicate pressure from the US government? It may seem liberal
> and impartial to the public but it would be surprising if all
> articles didn't go through an 'independent' monitoring body that
> guages the public mood and such.
Any proof of that or is that just a personal theory? Seeing as the article was in the magazine just like it was in all the others the only issue is the front cover. Maybe you should e-mail them and get an answer from them why they chose to change the US cover.
> Delicate pressure from the US government? It may seem liberal
> and impartial to the public but it would be surprising if all
> articles didn't go through an 'independent' monitoring body that
> guages the public mood and such.
Any proof of that or is that just a personal theory? Seeing as the article was in the magazine just like it was in all the others the only issue is the front cover. Maybe you should e-mail them and get an answer from them why they chose to change the US cover.
Kawada wrote:
> Doesn't that strike you as odd seeing as they're in the business
> of selling their magazine. Why would it, a liberal magazine, do
> that? Especially when the liberals usually never miss an
> opportunity to pour scorn on the government and its war
> ventures. (Quite rightly regarding Iraq)
Delicate pressure from the US government? It may seem liberal and impartial to the public but it would be surprising if all articles didn't go through an 'independent' monitoring body that guages the public mood and such.
As a respectable and well known media outlet, the aim may not have been to hide the article but merely as I said, dampen its impact which I believe it has done so, by not issuing the bold cover.
> Doesn't that strike you as odd seeing as they're in the business
> of selling their magazine. Why would it, a liberal magazine, do
> that? Especially when the liberals usually never miss an
> opportunity to pour scorn on the government and its war
> ventures. (Quite rightly regarding Iraq)
Delicate pressure from the US government? It may seem liberal and impartial to the public but it would be surprising if all articles didn't go through an 'independent' monitoring body that guages the public mood and such.
As a respectable and well known media outlet, the aim may not have been to hide the article but merely as I said, dampen its impact which I believe it has done so, by not issuing the bold cover.
Well this is a first time for me, and certainly quite bizarre. Somehow you've taken my replies to your comments as a personal jab at yourself, for which you are mistaken. You may notice that I rarely post on this forum, only when a post which I strongly have an opinion on do I do so. For the record, I have not banned anyone on here so far. There is no need after all. I did edit the name of your topic, but it was awfully skewed away from the subject matter.
As a result of this, I noticed several more extremely helpful replies to the topic from users who probably would have missed out on it due to the misguided title and related content.
I don't know if it's just a bad day for you, Friday 13th can do that to us. But in the future it would be appreciated if you look at replies to your comments as a debate on the subject matter, rather than a personal crusade on your very person as you seem to have done here.
Now, how about some well thought replies to the points I raised below? Unless it was your aim to divert attention away from them in the first place. It would be such a waste to let them slide :)
As a result of this, I noticed several more extremely helpful replies to the topic from users who probably would have missed out on it due to the misguided title and related content.
I don't know if it's just a bad day for you, Friday 13th can do that to us. But in the future it would be appreciated if you look at replies to your comments as a debate on the subject matter, rather than a personal crusade on your very person as you seem to have done here.
Now, how about some well thought replies to the points I raised below? Unless it was your aim to divert attention away from them in the first place. It would be such a waste to let them slide :)
biglime wrote:
> Ladybird wrote:
>
>
> Disengaging the enemy always involves some unpleasantries, you
> have to admit. Those men and women in uniform are not out
> there
> in those courtries in vain and for you to trivialize and
> demoralise their mission sitting on your butt under your rock
> is
> pathetic.
>
> That's another thing that gets me with the brainwashed. Have you
> noticed that whenever someone points out the flaws of the
> invasions, the pro war lobbyists always resort back to the
> "you're not supporting our troops, shame on you"
> excuse? That's pitiful. They're just doing their job, but you're
> moving attention away here. They shouldn't be there in the first
> place.
>
>
>As fo pulling out now. Well, you finish what you started.
I think you've had a problem with me since I had that debate with you pertaining to the child support issue back a couple of months ago, honestly. You banned me from General Chat, you've changed the name of my thread to make it indicate what YOU decifered it to be, and now you're taking your potshots out on my opinions here.
I think you're just a poor excuse for a moderator with all of your undesirable traits and should be removed from such designation if you can not be a neutral, unbiased party in these forums. Upheaval is what you're supposed to be moderating not creating.
I'm not the one who started slamming all of America based on how the Bush administration has handled diplomatic afairs. I'm simply pointing out how ridiculous it is. Perhaps, Biglime, you should read all the other responses I've written and stop your single-minded attempt to joust with me.
> Ladybird wrote:
>
>
> Disengaging the enemy always involves some unpleasantries, you
> have to admit. Those men and women in uniform are not out
> there
> in those courtries in vain and for you to trivialize and
> demoralise their mission sitting on your butt under your rock
> is
> pathetic.
>
> That's another thing that gets me with the brainwashed. Have you
> noticed that whenever someone points out the flaws of the
> invasions, the pro war lobbyists always resort back to the
> "you're not supporting our troops, shame on you"
> excuse? That's pitiful. They're just doing their job, but you're
> moving attention away here. They shouldn't be there in the first
> place.
>
>
>As fo pulling out now. Well, you finish what you started.
I think you've had a problem with me since I had that debate with you pertaining to the child support issue back a couple of months ago, honestly. You banned me from General Chat, you've changed the name of my thread to make it indicate what YOU decifered it to be, and now you're taking your potshots out on my opinions here.
I think you're just a poor excuse for a moderator with all of your undesirable traits and should be removed from such designation if you can not be a neutral, unbiased party in these forums. Upheaval is what you're supposed to be moderating not creating.
I'm not the one who started slamming all of America based on how the Bush administration has handled diplomatic afairs. I'm simply pointing out how ridiculous it is. Perhaps, Biglime, you should read all the other responses I've written and stop your single-minded attempt to joust with me.
biglime wrote:
> The aim was to dampen the impact, or altogether avoid the passing
> on of the fact that Afghanistan has been an utter failure. By not
> showing such a bold cover, passers by and readers alike will not
> give it the attention that covers usually do.
Doesn't that strike you as odd seeing as they're in the business of selling their magazine. Why would it, a liberal magazine, do that? Especially when the liberals usually never miss an opportunity to pour scorn on the government and its war ventures. (Quite rightly regarding Iraq)
> The aim was to dampen the impact, or altogether avoid the passing
> on of the fact that Afghanistan has been an utter failure. By not
> showing such a bold cover, passers by and readers alike will not
> give it the attention that covers usually do.
Doesn't that strike you as odd seeing as they're in the business of selling their magazine. Why would it, a liberal magazine, do that? Especially when the liberals usually never miss an opportunity to pour scorn on the government and its war ventures. (Quite rightly regarding Iraq)
Ladybird wrote:
>
> Disengaging the enemy always involves some unpleasantries, you
> have to admit. Those men and women in uniform are not out there
> in those courtries in vain and for you to trivialize and
> demoralise their mission sitting on your butt under your rock is
> pathetic.
That's another thing that gets me with the brainwashed. Have you noticed that whenever someone points out the flaws of the invasions, the pro war lobbyists always resort back to the "you're not supporting our troops, shame on you" excuse? That's pitiful. They're just doing their job, but you're moving attention away here. They shouldn't be there in the first place.
As fo pulling out now. Well, you finish what you started.
>
> Disengaging the enemy always involves some unpleasantries, you
> have to admit. Those men and women in uniform are not out there
> in those courtries in vain and for you to trivialize and
> demoralise their mission sitting on your butt under your rock is
> pathetic.
That's another thing that gets me with the brainwashed. Have you noticed that whenever someone points out the flaws of the invasions, the pro war lobbyists always resort back to the "you're not supporting our troops, shame on you" excuse? That's pitiful. They're just doing their job, but you're moving attention away here. They shouldn't be there in the first place.
As fo pulling out now. Well, you finish what you started.
Heh, the peasants are revolting.
I know they smell terrible.
I know they smell terrible.
Page: