The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Practical Magic wrote:
> My logic makes you an apprentice because all you can do is essentially
> go "yeah, what they said" and copy them, join in and yet add
> nothing, whereas Stryke and others have their own opinions, not
> copies.
Nope, it's exactly the same. You can call me an apprentice, as long as you admit that you are one to Stryke.
> My logic makes you an apprentice because all you can do is essentially
> go "yeah, what they said" and copy them, join in and yet add
> nothing, whereas Stryke and others have their own opinions, not
> copies.
Nope, it's exactly the same. You can call me an apprentice, as long as you admit that you are one to Stryke.
Practical Magic wrote:
> A few posts down you mention topics which you believe me to have been
> wrong about. The Kapo one - search the internet and you'll find many
> sites have that translation - the gardening one, the fact remains that
> component was never found by inspectors and that at some point Iraq
> pursued nuclear research - where I'm wrong I'll say so but where that
> isn't the case we'll have to agree to disagree.
---
Ok, you seem to be doing the same thing again Bell, not understanding (deliberately or by mistake) what I am saying:
You were wrong about the gardening in iraq thread. You said "this proves that Iraq is pursuing a nuclear programme", when in fact that link states that they had not the means nor the scientists to pursue a programme since the early nineties. "at some point" is a ridiculous comment, that could mean 1845.
As for the Kapo thing.
Your error, as well you know because I explained it in my response that you chose to not reply to (but have chosen to reply to each and every post in this thread), that it wasn't the translation I objected to - and I'll state it here - but your comments about what a Kapo was, their relation to Nazis and the treatment/feelings by prisoners.
You said "calling someone a Kapo does not mean they're a Nazi".
And as I explained, you were and are wrong.
Not the translation but your comments about what a Kapo was and did.
Yet you have chosen to not respond to that thread, if you look back (or I'll pop it), my comments were the last one.
Same as your "Gardening in Iraq" thread, you chose not to respond to the links, information or questions I posed to you.
And as my last post to you in this thread Bell, I explained why I get annoyed at you - because with areas that you feel you are correct then, as with here, you will reply to each and every single reply.
But in threads were you are on shaky ground, you choose to ignore that thread and let it sink - hence me popping politely.
I could take you a lot more seriously if you stuck to your dogmatic approach to arguing and responded to threads that post serious questions instead of choosing to ignore and move on.
> A few posts down you mention topics which you believe me to have been
> wrong about. The Kapo one - search the internet and you'll find many
> sites have that translation - the gardening one, the fact remains that
> component was never found by inspectors and that at some point Iraq
> pursued nuclear research - where I'm wrong I'll say so but where that
> isn't the case we'll have to agree to disagree.
---
Ok, you seem to be doing the same thing again Bell, not understanding (deliberately or by mistake) what I am saying:
You were wrong about the gardening in iraq thread. You said "this proves that Iraq is pursuing a nuclear programme", when in fact that link states that they had not the means nor the scientists to pursue a programme since the early nineties. "at some point" is a ridiculous comment, that could mean 1845.
As for the Kapo thing.
Your error, as well you know because I explained it in my response that you chose to not reply to (but have chosen to reply to each and every post in this thread), that it wasn't the translation I objected to - and I'll state it here - but your comments about what a Kapo was, their relation to Nazis and the treatment/feelings by prisoners.
You said "calling someone a Kapo does not mean they're a Nazi".
And as I explained, you were and are wrong.
Not the translation but your comments about what a Kapo was and did.
Yet you have chosen to not respond to that thread, if you look back (or I'll pop it), my comments were the last one.
Same as your "Gardening in Iraq" thread, you chose not to respond to the links, information or questions I posed to you.
And as my last post to you in this thread Bell, I explained why I get annoyed at you - because with areas that you feel you are correct then, as with here, you will reply to each and every single reply.
But in threads were you are on shaky ground, you choose to ignore that thread and let it sink - hence me popping politely.
I could take you a lot more seriously if you stuck to your dogmatic approach to arguing and responded to threads that post serious questions instead of choosing to ignore and move on.
tigamilla wrote:
> Is anyone remotely interested in talking about the dossier??
Yup, but I believe everyone was waiting for Bell to respond to points put to him. So that'll be a long wait...
> Is anyone remotely interested in talking about the dossier??
Yup, but I believe everyone was waiting for Bell to respond to points put to him. So that'll be a long wait...
Is anyone remotely interested in talking about the dossier??
Yeah, what he said.
Blank wrote:
> Still clinging onto that old chestnut Belldandy?
>
> Well, you know who else has said that before and again recently?
> Stryke. So, by your own logic, you must be his apprentice/groupie.
>
> Argue if you like, but you'll be arguing against yourself. But we all
> know you won't bother.
"We" ? That your little gang, Blank ? See my reply to the other rubbish you posted elsewhere.
My logic makes you an apprentice because all you can do is essentially go "yeah, what they said" and copy them, join in and yet add nothing, whereas Stryke and others have their own opinions, not copies.
> Still clinging onto that old chestnut Belldandy?
>
> Well, you know who else has said that before and again recently?
> Stryke. So, by your own logic, you must be his apprentice/groupie.
>
> Argue if you like, but you'll be arguing against yourself. But we all
> know you won't bother.
"We" ? That your little gang, Blank ? See my reply to the other rubbish you posted elsewhere.
My logic makes you an apprentice because all you can do is essentially go "yeah, what they said" and copy them, join in and yet add nothing, whereas Stryke and others have their own opinions, not copies.
Goatboy wrote:
> *pop*
>
> Because Bell's reading and I'd quite like a response please.
Pfft. Impatience.
There's your reponse.
> *pop*
>
> Because Bell's reading and I'd quite like a response please.
Pfft. Impatience.
There's your reponse.
Still clinging onto that old chestnut Belldandy?
Well, you know who else has said that before and again recently? Stryke. So, by your own logic, you must be his apprentice/groupie.
Argue if you like, but you'll be arguing against yourself. But we all know you won't bother.
Well, you know who else has said that before and again recently? Stryke. So, by your own logic, you must be his apprentice/groupie.
Argue if you like, but you'll be arguing against yourself. But we all know you won't bother.
Goatboy wrote:
> *pop*
>
> Because Bell's reading and I'd quite like a response please.
I've dredged back through the topic and I'm not sure what it is I'm supposed to be replying to.
A few posts down you mention topics which you believe me to have been wrong about. The Kapo one - search the internet and you'll find many sites have that translation - the gardening one, the fact remains that component was never found by inspectors and that at some point Iraq pursued nuclear research - where I'm wrong I'll say so but where that isn't the case we'll have to agree to disagree.
If you want a reply to something else then direct me to it and I'll try.
Notice your apprentice popped this for you :P *aimed at Blank*
> *pop*
>
> Because Bell's reading and I'd quite like a response please.
I've dredged back through the topic and I'm not sure what it is I'm supposed to be replying to.
A few posts down you mention topics which you believe me to have been wrong about. The Kapo one - search the internet and you'll find many sites have that translation - the gardening one, the fact remains that component was never found by inspectors and that at some point Iraq pursued nuclear research - where I'm wrong I'll say so but where that isn't the case we'll have to agree to disagree.
If you want a reply to something else then direct me to it and I'll try.
Notice your apprentice popped this for you :P *aimed at Blank*
Heck, I'll pop it too.
That way Belldandy can ignore it next time he's doing the rounds.
That way Belldandy can ignore it next time he's doing the rounds.
Page: