The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
George Worst more like.
What an utterly useless, ungrateful, selfish piece of human trash he is.
What a shame that they can't remove his new liver and give it to someone who deserves it, before he ruins it.
There was probably a young kid somewhere with a future who could have made far better use of that liver, and would actually have been grateful for the chance of a new life.
How must the relatives of the donor feel? I know I'd be livid. They would have been comforted to think that the death of a loved one had at least meant that someone else was given a chance. Maybe comforted even more by the knowledge that part of their loved one was living on in that person.
Instead they see this scum p!ssing it all away and poisoning the gift he has been given.
It just backs up my opinion that those with self-induced problems should be excluded from consideration for organ transplants.
Give them to those who can't help it, like accident victims etc. - those who might actually appreciate the a second chance.
Let trash like Best put up with the consequences of his lifestyle.
What an utterly useless, ungrateful, selfish piece of human trash he is.
What a shame that they can't remove his new liver and give it to someone who deserves it, before he ruins it.
There was probably a young kid somewhere with a future who could have made far better use of that liver, and would actually have been grateful for the chance of a new life.
How must the relatives of the donor feel? I know I'd be livid. They would have been comforted to think that the death of a loved one had at least meant that someone else was given a chance. Maybe comforted even more by the knowledge that part of their loved one was living on in that person.
Instead they see this scum p!ssing it all away and poisoning the gift he has been given.
It just backs up my opinion that those with self-induced problems should be excluded from consideration for organ transplants.
Give them to those who can't help it, like accident victims etc. - those who might actually appreciate the a second chance.
Let trash like Best put up with the consequences of his lifestyle.
Page:
Ex-footballer battles alcohol addiction.
Next.
Next.
Twiddly wrote:
> "My mum gave up smoking cold turkey" - what are you, 12
> years old?
Not at all. The point was that my mum was severely addicted to smoking, on around 60 a day at her worst times. She tried several times to give up, assisted by patches and nicotine gum, and couldn't.
She was then told about the COPD, and that if she continued to smoke she'd probably be dead within a year.
What I'm saying is that if the very real threat of losing your life isn't enough to stop you, then it's unlikely that anything will.
She stopped smoking almost four years ago now, but her breathing is still slowly but surely getting worse. And she STILL craves a cigarrette. But she doesn't have one, because she knows what the consequences will be.
I suppose what angers me so much is that people like Best have been in this situation, and I would expect them to be grateful at a second chance. But he doesn't appear to be, so I just see it as a waste of a good liver that could have been put to better use elsewhere.
> So what? Some people can give up "just like that". Most
> people can't.
See my ealier comment about my dad, who is just one of those people.
> Otherwise there wouldn't be a huge market for supplements and
> implements to help people quit smoking.
Many of which, in my opinion, are completely useless. Any value is purely psychological. My mum used them, and couldn't quit. My dad has used them several times and has never once managed to quit.
So in my opinion and indirect experience, they are worthless. Like placebo tablets, they will only help if you really believe they are going to help. Otherwise, you may as well stick a stamp on your arm.
> Alcoholics Anonymous wouldn't exist. Drug counseling, detox clinics etc etc
> wouldn't exist.
That's all fine. I've already said help people with counselling etc. I'm not angry at the people with the problems. I'm angry with those who are given a second chance because of someone else's loss, and throw it all away with the same mistakes that put them in that situation to begin with. I just don't see why organs should be wasted on those who are clearly at a high risk of wasting the opportunity presented to them.
> In the words of Kevin Keegan "I would love it" if you
> yourself developed a drinking problem on the same scale.
Fortunately it will never happen. I'm not really a drinker, but I do drink, and I have also been known to drink excessive amounts on nights out. But I don't NEED to drink, and I will never be addicted because (a) I know what it can do, and (b) I know that it won't solve any problems.
Slightly changing the subject...
The biggest mystery for me is how people get addicted in the first place. Alcohol doesn't taste particularly nice (until you've had a few and are too far gone to care), and cigarettes are just vile (yes, I have tried smoking).
Drinking excessive amounts may make you feel good at the time, but you feel crap the day after, and the hangover usually lasts much longer than the fun of the night before. And why pay a fortune to feel crap the next day? Would you pay someone to give you the flu? So to me, it isn't worth getting hammered.
I think most people who smoke will have choked and coughed when they had their first puff. If you eat something and can't stand the taste, you don't eat it again, do you? So why do people continue smoking, even if their first toke makes them feel sick?
I think a lot of people become addicted simply because of the peer pressure to fit in and comform socially.
How many smokers started at school simply because all their mates were doing it?
How many guys have had their mates laugh at them when they go to a pub and only order Coke?
How many fewer smokers and alcoholics would there be now if not for this sort of peer pressure? I'd imagine it would be a significantly lower number.
> "My mum gave up smoking cold turkey" - what are you, 12
> years old?
Not at all. The point was that my mum was severely addicted to smoking, on around 60 a day at her worst times. She tried several times to give up, assisted by patches and nicotine gum, and couldn't.
She was then told about the COPD, and that if she continued to smoke she'd probably be dead within a year.
What I'm saying is that if the very real threat of losing your life isn't enough to stop you, then it's unlikely that anything will.
She stopped smoking almost four years ago now, but her breathing is still slowly but surely getting worse. And she STILL craves a cigarrette. But she doesn't have one, because she knows what the consequences will be.
I suppose what angers me so much is that people like Best have been in this situation, and I would expect them to be grateful at a second chance. But he doesn't appear to be, so I just see it as a waste of a good liver that could have been put to better use elsewhere.
> So what? Some people can give up "just like that". Most
> people can't.
See my ealier comment about my dad, who is just one of those people.
> Otherwise there wouldn't be a huge market for supplements and
> implements to help people quit smoking.
Many of which, in my opinion, are completely useless. Any value is purely psychological. My mum used them, and couldn't quit. My dad has used them several times and has never once managed to quit.
So in my opinion and indirect experience, they are worthless. Like placebo tablets, they will only help if you really believe they are going to help. Otherwise, you may as well stick a stamp on your arm.
> Alcoholics Anonymous wouldn't exist. Drug counseling, detox clinics etc etc
> wouldn't exist.
That's all fine. I've already said help people with counselling etc. I'm not angry at the people with the problems. I'm angry with those who are given a second chance because of someone else's loss, and throw it all away with the same mistakes that put them in that situation to begin with. I just don't see why organs should be wasted on those who are clearly at a high risk of wasting the opportunity presented to them.
> In the words of Kevin Keegan "I would love it" if you
> yourself developed a drinking problem on the same scale.
Fortunately it will never happen. I'm not really a drinker, but I do drink, and I have also been known to drink excessive amounts on nights out. But I don't NEED to drink, and I will never be addicted because (a) I know what it can do, and (b) I know that it won't solve any problems.
Slightly changing the subject...
The biggest mystery for me is how people get addicted in the first place. Alcohol doesn't taste particularly nice (until you've had a few and are too far gone to care), and cigarettes are just vile (yes, I have tried smoking).
Drinking excessive amounts may make you feel good at the time, but you feel crap the day after, and the hangover usually lasts much longer than the fun of the night before. And why pay a fortune to feel crap the next day? Would you pay someone to give you the flu? So to me, it isn't worth getting hammered.
I think most people who smoke will have choked and coughed when they had their first puff. If you eat something and can't stand the taste, you don't eat it again, do you? So why do people continue smoking, even if their first toke makes them feel sick?
I think a lot of people become addicted simply because of the peer pressure to fit in and comform socially.
How many smokers started at school simply because all their mates were doing it?
How many guys have had their mates laugh at them when they go to a pub and only order Coke?
How many fewer smokers and alcoholics would there be now if not for this sort of peer pressure? I'd imagine it would be a significantly lower number.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> Well, that must be the single most pathetic comment I've read on these
> forums.
Pathetic it may be, but it's not as pathetic as labelling someone "scum". I find that 10 times more pathetic.
One little relapse, one moment of weakness, one moment of wrecklessness and *boom* he's scum.
So if you were his doctor you'd have said: "let him die, the p!sspot doesn't deserve the time of day".
Excellent.
Everyone deserves equal treatment.
What next, operations and transplants denied to the driver of a speeding car that crashed? Is he deserving? He was breaking the law and putting other people's life in danger. Maybe he's scum too. Yeah, let me rot.
> Well, that must be the single most pathetic comment I've read on these
> forums.
Pathetic it may be, but it's not as pathetic as labelling someone "scum". I find that 10 times more pathetic.
One little relapse, one moment of weakness, one moment of wrecklessness and *boom* he's scum.
So if you were his doctor you'd have said: "let him die, the p!sspot doesn't deserve the time of day".
Excellent.
Everyone deserves equal treatment.
What next, operations and transplants denied to the driver of a speeding car that crashed? Is he deserving? He was breaking the law and putting other people's life in danger. Maybe he's scum too. Yeah, let me rot.
The problem is that Best has had some chemical introduced into his body that prevents him deriving any pleasure from alcohol, and it is also dangerous to drink when this chemical is in your system. This shows that his compulsion is overwhelming and it will be the end of him.
I can sympathise as I have the "Celtic gene" which makes me an all or nothing person when it comes to drinking: I simply cannot moderate how much I drink. One pint will never be enough. However I am able to carry out the drink nothing concept, as I never crave alcohol to the extent that I am willing to risk serious harm to my own body (and someone elses Liver!).
Bestie will always be a legend in my eyes.
I can sympathise as I have the "Celtic gene" which makes me an all or nothing person when it comes to drinking: I simply cannot moderate how much I drink. One pint will never be enough. However I am able to carry out the drink nothing concept, as I never crave alcohol to the extent that I am willing to risk serious harm to my own body (and someone elses Liver!).
Bestie will always be a legend in my eyes.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
>
> Tony Adams on the other hand has done fantastically well, and I do
> still admire him. He's one of those who has shown that if you really
> want to kick a habit, you can.
Amazing what one can do it one can afford a stay at the priory, but what about the rest of the addicts?
Don't give them organs? Well...give priority to non addicts certainly, but denying someone because of what is in effect a mental illness? That doesn't really sit well with me.
>
> Tony Adams on the other hand has done fantastically well, and I do
> still admire him. He's one of those who has shown that if you really
> want to kick a habit, you can.
Amazing what one can do it one can afford a stay at the priory, but what about the rest of the addicts?
Don't give them organs? Well...give priority to non addicts certainly, but denying someone because of what is in effect a mental illness? That doesn't really sit well with me.
Black Glove wrote:
> I seem to recall you mentionaing a relative of yours was a drug addict
> - what if she was addicted to drink and needed a liver transplant?
> Would you say "let her die?" Would you label her as
> "scum" if she had a relapse after the operation? Or would
> you try to help her?
You mean if she wasn't already dead?
Let me tell you something about my cousin. As far as I know, she'd been out the night with her junkie buddies, knocking off phone boxes to pay for her addiction to crack. The driver - stoned - fell asleep at the wheel at 70mph and hit the wall of a pub I've been to many times. Because her seat was reclined, it was her seatbelt that killed her, causing damage to some of her internal organs.
I initially heard that she died at the scene, but later found out that she died in hospital later.
Could they have saved her with transplants? Possibly, but I don't know. SHOULD they have, if possible? In truth, no - probably not. Why, so she could go out and steal from more people to feed her habit, and kill herself with drugs anyway? No, certainly not. And as hard as it is to say it, cousin or not, there are more deserving people.
I could say to you "oh, she fell in with the wrong crowd and got led astray". And to an extent, that's true. She started out years ago on weed, and progressed to harder drugs as a result of circumstances at home. She went particularly off the rails when she found out that her dad wasn't really her dad.
Eventually, she was even stealing off her own mother to get money for drugs.
But no-one ever forced her onto the drugs. It was completely her own choice. A "solution" to her problems which ended up making them all worse, and eventually killing her, even if indirectly.
> And would you be saying this if George Best was an Arsenal legend?
Well, that must be the single most pathetic comment I've read on these forums.
What the hell has that got to do with anything? You think I'm saying any this because he was a Manchester United player? That really is sad.
But since you mention it: Paul Merson and Tony Adams - both Arsenal players that I admired. Both had similar problems, and both overcame them.
Merson also has a history of falling off the wagon, and no, I don't have any more sympathy for him than I do for Best. Should he end up in a similar situation, the same opinion will apply as far as I'm concerned.
Help them by all means with counselling and such, but don't give them precious organs that would be more beneficial elsewhere.
Tony Adams on the other hand has done fantastically well, and I do still admire him. He's one of those who has shown that if you really want to kick a habit, you can.
> I seem to recall you mentionaing a relative of yours was a drug addict
> - what if she was addicted to drink and needed a liver transplant?
> Would you say "let her die?" Would you label her as
> "scum" if she had a relapse after the operation? Or would
> you try to help her?
You mean if she wasn't already dead?
Let me tell you something about my cousin. As far as I know, she'd been out the night with her junkie buddies, knocking off phone boxes to pay for her addiction to crack. The driver - stoned - fell asleep at the wheel at 70mph and hit the wall of a pub I've been to many times. Because her seat was reclined, it was her seatbelt that killed her, causing damage to some of her internal organs.
I initially heard that she died at the scene, but later found out that she died in hospital later.
Could they have saved her with transplants? Possibly, but I don't know. SHOULD they have, if possible? In truth, no - probably not. Why, so she could go out and steal from more people to feed her habit, and kill herself with drugs anyway? No, certainly not. And as hard as it is to say it, cousin or not, there are more deserving people.
I could say to you "oh, she fell in with the wrong crowd and got led astray". And to an extent, that's true. She started out years ago on weed, and progressed to harder drugs as a result of circumstances at home. She went particularly off the rails when she found out that her dad wasn't really her dad.
Eventually, she was even stealing off her own mother to get money for drugs.
But no-one ever forced her onto the drugs. It was completely her own choice. A "solution" to her problems which ended up making them all worse, and eventually killing her, even if indirectly.
> And would you be saying this if George Best was an Arsenal legend?
Well, that must be the single most pathetic comment I've read on these forums.
What the hell has that got to do with anything? You think I'm saying any this because he was a Manchester United player? That really is sad.
But since you mention it: Paul Merson and Tony Adams - both Arsenal players that I admired. Both had similar problems, and both overcame them.
Merson also has a history of falling off the wagon, and no, I don't have any more sympathy for him than I do for Best. Should he end up in a similar situation, the same opinion will apply as far as I'm concerned.
Help them by all means with counselling and such, but don't give them precious organs that would be more beneficial elsewhere.
Tony Adams on the other hand has done fantastically well, and I do still admire him. He's one of those who has shown that if you really want to kick a habit, you can.
What a load of pathetic self-indulgent ranting.
"My mum gave up smoking cold turkey" - what are you, 12 years old? certainly, that's about how old I was last time I heard a ridiculous and childish argument like that used.
So what? Some people can give up "just like that". Most people can't. Otherwise there wouldn't be a huge market for supplements and implements to help people quit smoking. Alcoholics Anonymous wouldn't exist. Drug counseling, detox clinics etc etc wouldn't exist.
In the words of Kevin Keegan "I would love it" if you yourself developed a drinking problem on the same scale.
Addictions aren't something you can just throw aside, otherwise they wouldn't be called addictions, would they?
Whatever next?
"Obese people shouldn't have eaten so much"
"AIDs victims should have been more careful"
"Malaria kids should have wrapped up"
"Lepers should have behaved in their previous lives"
"My mum gave up smoking cold turkey" - what are you, 12 years old? certainly, that's about how old I was last time I heard a ridiculous and childish argument like that used.
So what? Some people can give up "just like that". Most people can't. Otherwise there wouldn't be a huge market for supplements and implements to help people quit smoking. Alcoholics Anonymous wouldn't exist. Drug counseling, detox clinics etc etc wouldn't exist.
In the words of Kevin Keegan "I would love it" if you yourself developed a drinking problem on the same scale.
Addictions aren't something you can just throw aside, otherwise they wouldn't be called addictions, would they?
Whatever next?
"Obese people shouldn't have eaten so much"
"AIDs victims should have been more careful"
"Malaria kids should have wrapped up"
"Lepers should have behaved in their previous lives"
That is really, REALLY harsh and shows something of a lack of compassion or empathy...still, your opinion and you've backed it up with the reasoning behind it, so I think I'll agree to disagree.
Twiddly wrote:
> Do you also look down on smokers, people with eating disorders or drug
> addictions?
Actually, yes - all except eating disorders. Many eating disorders are caused by chemical imbalances, and others by mental ill-health - things which occur naturally and can't be helped.
An addiction certainly can be helped. There's no chemical imbalance or mental health problem I know of that can be rectified by - or cause the consumption of - cigarettes or alcohol. Picking up a cigarette or downing a pint is a conscious choice, not an unavoidable natural occurrence.
Then again, eating disorders generally don't require organ transplants, and so are largely irrelevant in the context of this discussion.
It's been known for a long time now that smoking is actually bad for you (though how anyone ever felt that breathing smoke *wouldn't* harm you is beyond me), and it's been known for even longer how bad excessive drinking can be.
And before you lecture me further, I should also state that my dad is a heavy smoker who insists "I can't give it up", and my mum has COPD after many years of heavy smoking.
But - unlike Best and his drinking - a potentially life-threatening condition was enough to convince my mum to give up smoking "cold turkey".
The difference is that my mum realises that her condition is self-inflicted, and doesn't expect anyone to bail her out. If she was suddenly presented with the opportunity of a lung transplant, she would refuse it, and has said so on a number of occasions.
What does Best think is going to happen? When he ruins this liver too, he'll get another? Sadly, being who he is, he probably would.
> without actually knowing how they came to have their problem you have
> no right to judge people out of hand.
I disagree. Everyone knows that smoking and alcoholism are bad for you, and that they don't solve any problem, whatever it may be. In most cases, they will only make it worse. It may be cold and hard, but in my view, anyone who turns to such devices as a "solution" to a problem is an idiot.
I'm not saying these people don't deserve any help whatsoever. I simply don't believe that they should be candidates for transplants - particularly in the case of people like Best who have a long history of relapses.
Donated organs are few and far between, and giving a liver to someone like Best is a waste of time. I thought it at the time, and now he's proved it. They may as well have sold it as animal food.
> Do you also look down on smokers, people with eating disorders or drug
> addictions?
Actually, yes - all except eating disorders. Many eating disorders are caused by chemical imbalances, and others by mental ill-health - things which occur naturally and can't be helped.
An addiction certainly can be helped. There's no chemical imbalance or mental health problem I know of that can be rectified by - or cause the consumption of - cigarettes or alcohol. Picking up a cigarette or downing a pint is a conscious choice, not an unavoidable natural occurrence.
Then again, eating disorders generally don't require organ transplants, and so are largely irrelevant in the context of this discussion.
It's been known for a long time now that smoking is actually bad for you (though how anyone ever felt that breathing smoke *wouldn't* harm you is beyond me), and it's been known for even longer how bad excessive drinking can be.
And before you lecture me further, I should also state that my dad is a heavy smoker who insists "I can't give it up", and my mum has COPD after many years of heavy smoking.
But - unlike Best and his drinking - a potentially life-threatening condition was enough to convince my mum to give up smoking "cold turkey".
The difference is that my mum realises that her condition is self-inflicted, and doesn't expect anyone to bail her out. If she was suddenly presented with the opportunity of a lung transplant, she would refuse it, and has said so on a number of occasions.
What does Best think is going to happen? When he ruins this liver too, he'll get another? Sadly, being who he is, he probably would.
> without actually knowing how they came to have their problem you have
> no right to judge people out of hand.
I disagree. Everyone knows that smoking and alcoholism are bad for you, and that they don't solve any problem, whatever it may be. In most cases, they will only make it worse. It may be cold and hard, but in my view, anyone who turns to such devices as a "solution" to a problem is an idiot.
I'm not saying these people don't deserve any help whatsoever. I simply don't believe that they should be candidates for transplants - particularly in the case of people like Best who have a long history of relapses.
Donated organs are few and far between, and giving a liver to someone like Best is a waste of time. I thought it at the time, and now he's proved it. They may as well have sold it as animal food.
I think it's a bit different when it's someone else's liver you've got.
Page: