The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Quazimodo wrote:
>
> Everyone must hold hands and stand in the circle dancing in the
> sunlight?
Heh. Nah...the sunlight burns my flesh; only holy water stings worse...
>
> Everyone must hold hands and stand in the circle dancing in the
> sunlight?
Heh. Nah...the sunlight burns my flesh; only holy water stings worse...
Light wrote:
> Twiddly wrote:
> What I'm "defending" is Belldandy's right to ignore you if
> he wants to, regardless of whether or not he is correct.
>
> And I am defending my right to ask him to justify his ill-thought out
> and barely understood opinions.
>
>
> Bullying the bully is never the right thing to do.
>
>
> Then what, in your opinion, is?
Everyone must hold hands and stand in the circle dancing in the sunlight?
> Twiddly wrote:
> What I'm "defending" is Belldandy's right to ignore you if
> he wants to, regardless of whether or not he is correct.
>
> And I am defending my right to ask him to justify his ill-thought out
> and barely understood opinions.
>
>
> Bullying the bully is never the right thing to do.
>
>
> Then what, in your opinion, is?
Everyone must hold hands and stand in the circle dancing in the sunlight?
Twiddly wrote:
> What I'm "defending" is Belldandy's right to ignore you if
> he wants to, regardless of whether or not he is correct.
And I am defending my right to ask him to justify his ill-thought out and barely understood opinions.
>
> Bullying the bully is never the right thing to do.
Then what, in your opinion, is?
> What I'm "defending" is Belldandy's right to ignore you if
> he wants to, regardless of whether or not he is correct.
And I am defending my right to ask him to justify his ill-thought out and barely understood opinions.
>
> Bullying the bully is never the right thing to do.
Then what, in your opinion, is?
Twiddly wrote:
> What I'm "defending" is Belldandy's right to ignore you if
> he wants to, regardless of whether or not he is correct.
>
> Bullying the bully is never the right thing to do.
I think the expression is giving the bullly a taste of his own medicine, if you are not able to bully a bully than what justice can be done.
> What I'm "defending" is Belldandy's right to ignore you if
> he wants to, regardless of whether or not he is correct.
>
> Bullying the bully is never the right thing to do.
I think the expression is giving the bullly a taste of his own medicine, if you are not able to bully a bully than what justice can be done.
That's not what my mum says.
What I'm "defending" is Belldandy's right to ignore you if he wants to, regardless of whether or not he is correct.
Bullying the bully is never the right thing to do.
Bullying the bully is never the right thing to do.
Twiddly wrote:
> Because - and this is the point you seem to be refusing to read -
> you're mentally intimidating him.
>
> You don't need harsh language and fist shaking gestures to intimidate
> someone.
>
> And if, say, you were together in a playground, slowly smacking the
> life out of him, would you insist that no-one interfere "because
> it's not their problem" simply so that you could continue to beat
> him to a bloody pulp?
>
> No, in my mind someone should step in. In the absence of anyone on
> these forums with accumulated "respect", that someone is me.
No, I don't refuse to acknowledge that at all. I know I'm intimidating him. I'm glad I'm intimidating him. That is what putting a bully on the receiving end is all about; being a hell of a lot more unpleasant and bullying to him than he is to others.
I agree, one doesn't need harsh language. This last week has only seen me do that because...well, frankly I can't concentrate enough for reasoned debate, and harsh language is easier. If you look, you'll note that the majority of the threads where he's intimidated consist of repeated requests to answer questions. Nothing more.
I would certainly not insist no-one interfere, but neither would I accept their point of view simply because they had the balls to express it. I would expect them to listen to my viewpoint, defend their own, and pick flaws in mine.
Now you're also talking about defending Bell. So, what you are defending is the right to post an opinion, refuse to provide any reasoning behind that opinion, and bully anyone who disagrees with it into backing down by simply calling them a fool?
Whilst I agree I have done all of that to Bell, I've done it to show him how it feels. And I have also answered his questions with honest answers (prostitution thread) whilst he has continued to avoid them. So are you defending that in isolation, or are you simply defending what you see as someone in need?
> Because - and this is the point you seem to be refusing to read -
> you're mentally intimidating him.
>
> You don't need harsh language and fist shaking gestures to intimidate
> someone.
>
> And if, say, you were together in a playground, slowly smacking the
> life out of him, would you insist that no-one interfere "because
> it's not their problem" simply so that you could continue to beat
> him to a bloody pulp?
>
> No, in my mind someone should step in. In the absence of anyone on
> these forums with accumulated "respect", that someone is me.
No, I don't refuse to acknowledge that at all. I know I'm intimidating him. I'm glad I'm intimidating him. That is what putting a bully on the receiving end is all about; being a hell of a lot more unpleasant and bullying to him than he is to others.
I agree, one doesn't need harsh language. This last week has only seen me do that because...well, frankly I can't concentrate enough for reasoned debate, and harsh language is easier. If you look, you'll note that the majority of the threads where he's intimidated consist of repeated requests to answer questions. Nothing more.
I would certainly not insist no-one interfere, but neither would I accept their point of view simply because they had the balls to express it. I would expect them to listen to my viewpoint, defend their own, and pick flaws in mine.
Now you're also talking about defending Bell. So, what you are defending is the right to post an opinion, refuse to provide any reasoning behind that opinion, and bully anyone who disagrees with it into backing down by simply calling them a fool?
Whilst I agree I have done all of that to Bell, I've done it to show him how it feels. And I have also answered his questions with honest answers (prostitution thread) whilst he has continued to avoid them. So are you defending that in isolation, or are you simply defending what you see as someone in need?
By behaving in the same way?
*shrugs*
Fair enough. Are *you* my apprenctice as well now? Because, like, I need more minions apparently.
*shrugs*
Fair enough. Are *you* my apprenctice as well now? Because, like, I need more minions apparently.
Because - and this is the point you seem to be refusing to read - you're mentally intimidating him.
You don't need harsh language and fist shaking gestures to intimidate someone.
And if, say, you were together in a playground, slowly smacking the life out of him, would you insist that no-one interfere "because it's not their problem" simply so that you could continue to beat him to a bloody pulp?
No, in my mind someone should step in. In the absence of anyone on these forums with accumulated "respect", that someone is me.
You don't need harsh language and fist shaking gestures to intimidate someone.
And if, say, you were together in a playground, slowly smacking the life out of him, would you insist that no-one interfere "because it's not their problem" simply so that you could continue to beat him to a bloody pulp?
No, in my mind someone should step in. In the absence of anyone on these forums with accumulated "respect", that someone is me.
Twiddly wrote:
>
> Yeah, Bell comes across as a mong, but so does everyone else who
> insists on baiting/aggravating him.
I've actually answered that point on more than one thread, but I'll repeat it; my belief is that the only way to deal with bullies such as Bell is to bully them back. And it works. As to how it makes people view me, well thems the breaks.
As to 'divine right to be answered'; I may be wrong, but isn't this a message board for discussion? Bell posts and responds as if the idea of his being wrong is unthinkable. He is then asked for the train of thought that led him to the conclusion he posted. He invariably runs away and hurls invective at anyone who questions him. So yes, I for one will continue to bait him because anyone that self important needs to have their ego burst before they can develop as a human being. And anyone that bullying needs to be shown exactly how it feels to be on the receiving end.
To put it another way, by all means carry on having a pop at GB and I and whomever else you feel. At least you've explained your reasons why, and that affords you an awful lot more respect than Bell who has never once done any such thing.
>
> Yeah, Bell comes across as a mong, but so does everyone else who
> insists on baiting/aggravating him.
I've actually answered that point on more than one thread, but I'll repeat it; my belief is that the only way to deal with bullies such as Bell is to bully them back. And it works. As to how it makes people view me, well thems the breaks.
As to 'divine right to be answered'; I may be wrong, but isn't this a message board for discussion? Bell posts and responds as if the idea of his being wrong is unthinkable. He is then asked for the train of thought that led him to the conclusion he posted. He invariably runs away and hurls invective at anyone who questions him. So yes, I for one will continue to bait him because anyone that self important needs to have their ego burst before they can develop as a human being. And anyone that bullying needs to be shown exactly how it feels to be on the receiving end.
To put it another way, by all means carry on having a pop at GB and I and whomever else you feel. At least you've explained your reasons why, and that affords you an awful lot more respect than Bell who has never once done any such thing.
Page: