The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3049868.stm
--
Report due today.
Mentions the facts in nice, concise and clear points.
Of course, you could argue that the BBC is biased thanks to Alistair Campbell's comments.
Or you could argue that Campbell's tactics are to divert attention and interest away from the fundemental issues and get everyone concentrating on 45 mins and "sexed up".
I'll only say that Campbell is not an elected official, merely an independantly appointed advisor for Blair. A Spin Doctor who's job it is to minimise damage and put government in a favourable light.
He certainly deserves a raise, whatever the result.
--
Report due today.
Mentions the facts in nice, concise and clear points.
Of course, you could argue that the BBC is biased thanks to Alistair Campbell's comments.
Or you could argue that Campbell's tactics are to divert attention and interest away from the fundemental issues and get everyone concentrating on 45 mins and "sexed up".
I'll only say that Campbell is not an elected official, merely an independantly appointed advisor for Blair. A Spin Doctor who's job it is to minimise damage and put government in a favourable light.
He certainly deserves a raise, whatever the result.
Page:
*pop*
Because Bell's reading and I'd quite like a response please.
Because Bell's reading and I'd quite like a response please.
Goatboy wrote:
> *pop*
> Because I'd like, politely , for Bell to respond to my post.
Ill POP with you since you put it so politely
> *pop*
> Because I'd like, politely , for Bell to respond to my post.
Ill POP with you since you put it so politely
*pop*
Because I'd like, politely , for Bell to respond to my post.
Because I'd like, politely , for Bell to respond to my post.
Garin wrote:
I forgot to say; thanks for (in the main) using reason to persuade me. Reason is something I will respond to. Bell's mindless bullying and evasion is not.
I forgot to say; thanks for (in the main) using reason to persuade me. Reason is something I will respond to. Bell's mindless bullying and evasion is not.
Practical Magic wrote:
>
> I will personally guarantee that I will not reply to any of Light's
> further attempts to provoke me if he continues to be unable to sift
> attempts at verbal abuse with his opinions.
Cool. Now if you could answer the points raised in the prostitution thread, where I've singularly failed to insult you in the previous 8 or 9 posts, I'd be obliged.
As to provocation...I'm trying to provoke you into thinking, can't you see that? Or are you too hung up on being the victim?
>
> I will personally guarantee that I will not reply to any of Light's
> further attempts to provoke me if he continues to be unable to sift
> attempts at verbal abuse with his opinions.
Cool. Now if you could answer the points raised in the prostitution thread, where I've singularly failed to insult you in the previous 8 or 9 posts, I'd be obliged.
As to provocation...I'm trying to provoke you into thinking, can't you see that? Or are you too hung up on being the victim?
Practical Magic wrote:
> I do belive that.....verbal abuse with his opinions.
---
The thing is though Bell, you havent addressed any of the points I made in my response.
You've told me I'm not the same as Light in terms of response and stated how you will ignore him.
Which is fair enough, but that doesn't actually touch on any of the things I raised.
Which is where the frustration comes into it from my part, because for the things you think you can "win", you'll drag it on for weeks, but when it becomes apparent you're mistaken - you'll simply ignore that thread or, as above, not answer what was said.
I dont get it, I dont understand why you cannot admit when you are wrong?
It doesn't hurt, nobody laughs. But it's the frantic backpedalling that results in my anger.
I accused someone of being you, I was wrong. I apologised.
Is it that hard?
The "gardening" thread, the Kapo thing etc etc, instead of simply being a man and saying "I was wrong, sorry", you'll back yourself into a corner with increasingly outlandish posts that undermine any points you may have had or make in future.
Can you see what I'm saying here?
> I do belive that.....verbal abuse with his opinions.
---
The thing is though Bell, you havent addressed any of the points I made in my response.
You've told me I'm not the same as Light in terms of response and stated how you will ignore him.
Which is fair enough, but that doesn't actually touch on any of the things I raised.
Which is where the frustration comes into it from my part, because for the things you think you can "win", you'll drag it on for weeks, but when it becomes apparent you're mistaken - you'll simply ignore that thread or, as above, not answer what was said.
I dont get it, I dont understand why you cannot admit when you are wrong?
It doesn't hurt, nobody laughs. But it's the frantic backpedalling that results in my anger.
I accused someone of being you, I was wrong. I apologised.
Is it that hard?
The "gardening" thread, the Kapo thing etc etc, instead of simply being a man and saying "I was wrong, sorry", you'll back yourself into a corner with increasingly outlandish posts that undermine any points you may have had or make in future.
Can you see what I'm saying here?
Skorp1on wrote:
> Like the church and science...
>
> If sex is a sin then why are priests raping choir boys?
Blame the nobhead pope who decided to make the catholic priesthood celibate...early clergy were allowed to rut to their hearts content, and I'm sure they were spiritually more healthy because of it...
> Like the church and science...
>
> If sex is a sin then why are priests raping choir boys?
Blame the nobhead pope who decided to make the catholic priesthood celibate...early clergy were allowed to rut to their hearts content, and I'm sure they were spiritually more healthy because of it...
Goatboy wrote:
> And I said it below in another thread you've avoided, if you only
> admit when you are in the wrong then people would stop laughing at
> you.
> But you wont.
> So this will continue.
I do belive that, in fact, it was Light who dredged up the old topics to begin with, and Light who started the slanging match.
Actually I'm going to stop lumping Light in with you, because even when I don't agree with you, you actually reply with points about the topic. Light goes off on a pompous ego trip.
Supposedly I have moral and intellectual cowardice, despite the fact that anyone on here will tell you my beliefs stay pretty much the same, cowardice would be to change to suit others, not continue to believe what I always believed.
I will personally guarantee that I will not reply to any of Light's further attempts to provoke me if he continues to be unable to sift attempts at verbal abuse with his opinions.
> And I said it below in another thread you've avoided, if you only
> admit when you are in the wrong then people would stop laughing at
> you.
> But you wont.
> So this will continue.
I do belive that, in fact, it was Light who dredged up the old topics to begin with, and Light who started the slanging match.
Actually I'm going to stop lumping Light in with you, because even when I don't agree with you, you actually reply with points about the topic. Light goes off on a pompous ego trip.
Supposedly I have moral and intellectual cowardice, despite the fact that anyone on here will tell you my beliefs stay pretty much the same, cowardice would be to change to suit others, not continue to believe what I always believed.
I will personally guarantee that I will not reply to any of Light's further attempts to provoke me if he continues to be unable to sift attempts at verbal abuse with his opinions.
Unbeliever wrote:
>
> So what am I trying to say? Not much, really. You can argue until
> you're blue in the face, but sometimes that's not enough to change a
> person's opinion.
I genuinely don't care about changing Bell's opinions; he doesn't even understand why he holds them himself. What I care about is a vacuous coward trying to bolster his self esteem by posting ill-thought through crap on a board, then mindlessly defending it and attempting to bully others into accepting his viewpoint, and wailing if someone picks on him.
Again, I appreciate what people are driving at in terms of "this is going on for too long", but...well, let me couch it in terms that Bell will understand; I feel morally compelled to hold up and expose cowardly bullies such as him for the self important little dingleberry's that they are.
And if I make myself look like an anally retentive hypocrite in the bargain...well, call that my penance for being arrogant by nature.
>
> So what am I trying to say? Not much, really. You can argue until
> you're blue in the face, but sometimes that's not enough to change a
> person's opinion.
I genuinely don't care about changing Bell's opinions; he doesn't even understand why he holds them himself. What I care about is a vacuous coward trying to bolster his self esteem by posting ill-thought through crap on a board, then mindlessly defending it and attempting to bully others into accepting his viewpoint, and wailing if someone picks on him.
Again, I appreciate what people are driving at in terms of "this is going on for too long", but...well, let me couch it in terms that Bell will understand; I feel morally compelled to hold up and expose cowardly bullies such as him for the self important little dingleberry's that they are.
And if I make myself look like an anally retentive hypocrite in the bargain...well, call that my penance for being arrogant by nature.
Garin wrote:
> Light wrote:
>
>
> It might be nice if you remembered the gallery existed though. I
> don't know how to describe your behaviour other than ignorant and
> selfish. Like you suggested, if I don't like what I'm seeing I can
> decline to read it. However yesterday if I'd of took that attitude,
> probably half the active threads would have been out of bounds because
> you, goatboy, practical magic and a few others filled them with
> "debate". And yesterday wasn't an isolated incident where
> tempers got a little frayed or something, its been going on over a
> long period of time. When topics are being turned into little
> battlegrounds between the same 2 or 3 posters where they are more
> interested in being right and proving their superiority then there
> isn't room for others to seriously reply or offer anything
> constructive to the discussion.
>
> Personally, I made a conscious decision not to reply to your posts in
> general (ok so I'm breaking my own rule here. :P) so maybe it doesn't
> matter to me so much. But I'm sure there are people who would like to
> respond to the topics that are posted but aren't really given the
> opportunity because once they've devolved into people's personal
> little battlegrounds, it makes it incredibly difficult to post
> something without getting involved or to have your post even
> noticed.
The question would be, if you're sick of reading them, then why not start up some threads of your own? There are actually only about 5 threads on the board where I'm laying into Bell.
>
> If you're a poster on this board, then I think you have some
> responsibility to consider the effects of what you are posting. Now
> if I understand your general message here, you're saying well you do
> understand but you don't care. I think thats quite a remarkable
> attitude for somebody who is usually so self righteous concerning the
> behaviour of other people/countries etc. etc.
The effects of what I'm posting on whom exactly? On Bell? To hell with him; I've explained my reasoning behind picking on him. To everyone else on this board? Why exactly? In case I offend or bore people? I give everyone the courtesy of making their own decisions. If they choose not to read what I have to say, then that's their right. Same if they choose to read and comment on it (just like you've done). You've given me your opinion, which I appreciate, and it's given me something to think about. But I simply don't accept that anyone on this board owes any responsibility to any other poster.
Also, how on earth does my opinion on this matter relate to my opinions on the behaviour of others? I'm opinionated; I've never denied it. Are you trying to say that because I have strong opinions that I should moderate how I express them for the benefit of others? Sorry, but I don't get what you're driving at.
> Light wrote:
>
>
> It might be nice if you remembered the gallery existed though. I
> don't know how to describe your behaviour other than ignorant and
> selfish. Like you suggested, if I don't like what I'm seeing I can
> decline to read it. However yesterday if I'd of took that attitude,
> probably half the active threads would have been out of bounds because
> you, goatboy, practical magic and a few others filled them with
> "debate". And yesterday wasn't an isolated incident where
> tempers got a little frayed or something, its been going on over a
> long period of time. When topics are being turned into little
> battlegrounds between the same 2 or 3 posters where they are more
> interested in being right and proving their superiority then there
> isn't room for others to seriously reply or offer anything
> constructive to the discussion.
>
> Personally, I made a conscious decision not to reply to your posts in
> general (ok so I'm breaking my own rule here. :P) so maybe it doesn't
> matter to me so much. But I'm sure there are people who would like to
> respond to the topics that are posted but aren't really given the
> opportunity because once they've devolved into people's personal
> little battlegrounds, it makes it incredibly difficult to post
> something without getting involved or to have your post even
> noticed.
The question would be, if you're sick of reading them, then why not start up some threads of your own? There are actually only about 5 threads on the board where I'm laying into Bell.
>
> If you're a poster on this board, then I think you have some
> responsibility to consider the effects of what you are posting. Now
> if I understand your general message here, you're saying well you do
> understand but you don't care. I think thats quite a remarkable
> attitude for somebody who is usually so self righteous concerning the
> behaviour of other people/countries etc. etc.
The effects of what I'm posting on whom exactly? On Bell? To hell with him; I've explained my reasoning behind picking on him. To everyone else on this board? Why exactly? In case I offend or bore people? I give everyone the courtesy of making their own decisions. If they choose not to read what I have to say, then that's their right. Same if they choose to read and comment on it (just like you've done). You've given me your opinion, which I appreciate, and it's given me something to think about. But I simply don't accept that anyone on this board owes any responsibility to any other poster.
Also, how on earth does my opinion on this matter relate to my opinions on the behaviour of others? I'm opinionated; I've never denied it. Are you trying to say that because I have strong opinions that I should moderate how I express them for the benefit of others? Sorry, but I don't get what you're driving at.
Page: