The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Twiddly wrote:
> One thing I hate is bullies, and that's how both you and Goatboy come
> across in this ridiculously aggressive form of questioning.
Not aggressive.
Check back, I have for almost 2 weeks simply asked for a response. But have been met with nothing but comments from you. Asinine at that, but still no reply for a perfectly reasonable reply.
Yet he will drag a post to bits over weeks if he feels he is correct.
This is my problem.
> Yeah, Bell comes across as a mong, but so does everyone else who
> insists on baiting/aggravating him.
And my point to you again, why do you care?
Take your own advice and dont respond. Yet it is only ever a response in criticism of myself. I havent once done that to you, yet you feel the need to be his protector against those nasty little words on a screen.
Listen to yourself and just dont post in threads that you find stupid, mong etc.
I have done nothing but request, reasonably and politely, that he responds to legitimate questions.
He doesnt.
But he will reply with childish comments and "apprentice" boredom.
So why should I cease asking for clarification of issues, when he feels it perfectly justifiable to play "I know you but what am I?"
> One thing I hate is bullies, and that's how both you and Goatboy come
> across in this ridiculously aggressive form of questioning.
Not aggressive.
Check back, I have for almost 2 weeks simply asked for a response. But have been met with nothing but comments from you. Asinine at that, but still no reply for a perfectly reasonable reply.
Yet he will drag a post to bits over weeks if he feels he is correct.
This is my problem.
> Yeah, Bell comes across as a mong, but so does everyone else who
> insists on baiting/aggravating him.
And my point to you again, why do you care?
Take your own advice and dont respond. Yet it is only ever a response in criticism of myself. I havent once done that to you, yet you feel the need to be his protector against those nasty little words on a screen.
Listen to yourself and just dont post in threads that you find stupid, mong etc.
I have done nothing but request, reasonably and politely, that he responds to legitimate questions.
He doesnt.
But he will reply with childish comments and "apprentice" boredom.
So why should I cease asking for clarification of issues, when he feels it perfectly justifiable to play "I know you but what am I?"
Goatboy wrote:
> And then you promptly show up and start attacking me, when I haven't
> addressed, questioned or commented on you.
> If you check back, you have 100% of the time started off any posts
> between myself and you.
> I called you Bell once, and promptly apologised.
I've only attacked you insofar as to question your methods of interrogation. And it is more like an interrogation than any form "discussion.
>
> Yet he disappears, and you show up. To answer for him and to pop at
> anyone that dares call him on his retarded non-think.
I've not supported his views or anyone else's. If you bother to check the history you seem to think you're so well versed on, you'll notice that I've not said anything on either side at all. My objection is to your bullish attitude, which, given that you claim to be 30 years of age, is ludicrously immature.
> You may not be Bell, but you're so far up his ass all I can see are
> your heels flapping on his stars'n'stripes tattooed butt-ox
You're entitles to your opinion, of course, but I don't agree with Bell's views, nor yours, and certainly am not his "best mate", as you seem to believe.
> And then you promptly show up and start attacking me, when I haven't
> addressed, questioned or commented on you.
> If you check back, you have 100% of the time started off any posts
> between myself and you.
> I called you Bell once, and promptly apologised.
I've only attacked you insofar as to question your methods of interrogation. And it is more like an interrogation than any form "discussion.
>
> Yet he disappears, and you show up. To answer for him and to pop at
> anyone that dares call him on his retarded non-think.
I've not supported his views or anyone else's. If you bother to check the history you seem to think you're so well versed on, you'll notice that I've not said anything on either side at all. My objection is to your bullish attitude, which, given that you claim to be 30 years of age, is ludicrously immature.
> You may not be Bell, but you're so far up his ass all I can see are
> your heels flapping on his stars'n'stripes tattooed butt-ox
You're entitles to your opinion, of course, but I don't agree with Bell's views, nor yours, and certainly am not his "best mate", as you seem to believe.
Light wrote:
> I'm sure you do, but you're very good at ignoring just how often he
> hides from answering the topic. I just want to be clear on this; are
> you criticising all sides (in which case, knock youself out) or only
> those opposing what Bell says? Genuine query.
I'm not opposed to anyone's "opinions" in this matter, but rather the idea that you're bullying someone into answering your questions as though what you have put before someone has a divine right to be answered.
Belldandy's views may be radical or ridiculous or possibily absolutely spot on, I don't care. Neither do I care if your opinions are just as absurd.
One thing I hate is bullies, and that's how both you and Goatboy come across in this ridiculously aggressive form of questioning.
Personally, I say, if he doesn't want to answer, take that as your playground bragging rights to say that you won the discussion and walk away. Or better, if you continue to find whatever holes you do find in whatever arguments Belldandy puts forward, simply ignore him altogether. It's quite plainly obvious that neither side is going to give any ground and concede that they were wrong, so what is the point of the discussion.
Yeah, Bell comes across as a mong, but so does everyone else who insists on baiting/aggravating him.
> I'm sure you do, but you're very good at ignoring just how often he
> hides from answering the topic. I just want to be clear on this; are
> you criticising all sides (in which case, knock youself out) or only
> those opposing what Bell says? Genuine query.
I'm not opposed to anyone's "opinions" in this matter, but rather the idea that you're bullying someone into answering your questions as though what you have put before someone has a divine right to be answered.
Belldandy's views may be radical or ridiculous or possibily absolutely spot on, I don't care. Neither do I care if your opinions are just as absurd.
One thing I hate is bullies, and that's how both you and Goatboy come across in this ridiculously aggressive form of questioning.
Personally, I say, if he doesn't want to answer, take that as your playground bragging rights to say that you won the discussion and walk away. Or better, if you continue to find whatever holes you do find in whatever arguments Belldandy puts forward, simply ignore him altogether. It's quite plainly obvious that neither side is going to give any ground and concede that they were wrong, so what is the point of the discussion.
Yeah, Bell comes across as a mong, but so does everyone else who insists on baiting/aggravating him.
And then you promptly show up and start attacking me, when I haven't addressed, questioned or commented on you.
If you check back, you have 100% of the time started off any posts between myself and you.
I called you Bell once, and promptly apologised.
Yet he disappears, and you show up. To answer for him and to pop at anyone that dares call him on his retarded non-think.
You may not be Bell, but you're so far up his ass all I can see are your heels flapping on his stars'n'stripes tattooed butt-ox
If you check back, you have 100% of the time started off any posts between myself and you.
I called you Bell once, and promptly apologised.
Yet he disappears, and you show up. To answer for him and to pop at anyone that dares call him on his retarded non-think.
You may not be Bell, but you're so far up his ass all I can see are your heels flapping on his stars'n'stripes tattooed butt-ox
Twiddly wrote:
>
> Actually, I was referring to his insistence that I am some alternative
> Belldandy account. And I would refrain from saying "everyone
> else", when "everyone" is only about 4 people on these
> forums, which have, I believe thousands of registered users.
Figure of speech. Everyone involved in these debates.
Now, I'm going to refer to your refusal to acknowledge Bell's abject cowardice whilst being only to happy to attempt to answer on his behalf. Any reason for your doing that? Or is it just that you've only felt compelled to respond to GB and myself thus far?
>
> Actually, I was referring to his insistence that I am some alternative
> Belldandy account. And I would refrain from saying "everyone
> else", when "everyone" is only about 4 people on these
> forums, which have, I believe thousands of registered users.
Figure of speech. Everyone involved in these debates.
Now, I'm going to refer to your refusal to acknowledge Bell's abject cowardice whilst being only to happy to attempt to answer on his behalf. Any reason for your doing that? Or is it just that you've only felt compelled to respond to GB and myself thus far?
I find it odd.
I post perfectly politely to request that Bell backs up points he has made, or to discuss why I pull him up on subjects.
Instead of which, he labels anyone that criticises him as my apprentice and proceeds to run away from any question or request for further clarification.
I post perfectly politely to request that Bell backs up points he has made, or to discuss why I pull him up on subjects.
Instead of which, he labels anyone that criticises him as my apprentice and proceeds to run away from any question or request for further clarification.
Light wrote:
> As opposed to Bell's continued insistence, which makes him look...?
>
> I would point out that Goatboys insistence is that Bell answer
> questions that have been put to him. He's had that courtesy extended
> to him, all everyone else asks is that he do the same, and not run
> screaming.
Actually, I was referring to his insistence that I am some alternative Belldandy account. And I would refrain from saying "everyone else", when "everyone" is only about 4 people on these forums, which have, I believe thousands of registered users.
> As opposed to Bell's continued insistence, which makes him look...?
>
> I would point out that Goatboys insistence is that Bell answer
> questions that have been put to him. He's had that courtesy extended
> to him, all everyone else asks is that he do the same, and not run
> screaming.
Actually, I was referring to his insistence that I am some alternative Belldandy account. And I would refrain from saying "everyone else", when "everyone" is only about 4 people on these forums, which have, I believe thousands of registered users.
Twiddly wrote:
> I'm fairly confident that you criticise Bell far more often than I
> post in protest of it.
I'm sure you do, but you're very good at ignoring just how often he hides from answering the topic. I just want to be clear on this; are you criticising all sides (in which case, knock youself out) or only those opposing what Bell says? Genuine query.
> I'm fairly confident that you criticise Bell far more often than I
> post in protest of it.
I'm sure you do, but you're very good at ignoring just how often he hides from answering the topic. I just want to be clear on this; are you criticising all sides (in which case, knock youself out) or only those opposing what Bell says? Genuine query.
Twiddly wrote:
> I'm sure you're convinced you're either making some magnificent
> intuitive leap by linking me with some other politically one sided
> yes-man, or just irritating some random newbie, but at the end of the
> day, your continued insistence only makes you look quite stupid to
> me.
>
> But carry on, you're dead clever.
As opposed to Bell's continued insistence, which makes him look...?
I would point out that Goatboys insistence is that Bell answer questions that have been put to him. He's had that courtesy extended to him, all everyone else asks is that he do the same, and not run screaming.
> I'm sure you're convinced you're either making some magnificent
> intuitive leap by linking me with some other politically one sided
> yes-man, or just irritating some random newbie, but at the end of the
> day, your continued insistence only makes you look quite stupid to
> me.
>
> But carry on, you're dead clever.
As opposed to Bell's continued insistence, which makes him look...?
I would point out that Goatboys insistence is that Bell answer questions that have been put to him. He's had that courtesy extended to him, all everyone else asks is that he do the same, and not run screaming.
I'm fairly confident that you criticise Bell far more often than I post in protest of it.
Page: