The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92382,00.html
Yet another journalist as the source of false claims, feeding them to the US....
Why, it's almost like there was a media conspiracy around Iraq....
Yet another journalist as the source of false claims, feeding them to the US....
Why, it's almost like there was a media conspiracy around Iraq....
Page:
Why are you ignoring my comments in the "Dossier" thread?
Heh, strange how Both Goatboy and Light generally appear at the exact same general period of time...kinda like Batman and Robin but screwed up, wonder who'd be Robin ?
Twiddly wrote:
> And while you do well defending yourselves with "how dare Bell
> not answer my questions", Goatboy's attitude of "how dare
> you interfere" only makes you look overbearing and ever so much
> more arrogant
---
*shrugs*
For one who repeatedly states how little you think of me, you sho nuff twist your panties over this.
Let it go. He's a big boy and can respond himself.
If only he weren't so goshdarned Gump.
> And while you do well defending yourselves with "how dare Bell
> not answer my questions", Goatboy's attitude of "how dare
> you interfere" only makes you look overbearing and ever so much
> more arrogant
---
*shrugs*
For one who repeatedly states how little you think of me, you sho nuff twist your panties over this.
Let it go. He's a big boy and can respond himself.
If only he weren't so goshdarned Gump.
Twiddly wrote:
> I'm walking away from this, for today. Nothing I say will stop you
> guys being bullies. I believe that you aren't bullies "only to
> fight the bully" but instead becase that's your attitude
> regardless.
Fair enough, but as you have provided no evidence for your belief that we are bullies beyond giving Bell a taste of his own medicine, why should your statement have any weight whatsoever? If you can give evidence of the supposed bullying on others apart from Bell, then you'd have a point. As is, you've just made a bland and unsupported statement of opinion and expected it to be accepted as fact.
> I'm walking away from this, for today. Nothing I say will stop you
> guys being bullies. I believe that you aren't bullies "only to
> fight the bully" but instead becase that's your attitude
> regardless.
Fair enough, but as you have provided no evidence for your belief that we are bullies beyond giving Bell a taste of his own medicine, why should your statement have any weight whatsoever? If you can give evidence of the supposed bullying on others apart from Bell, then you'd have a point. As is, you've just made a bland and unsupported statement of opinion and expected it to be accepted as fact.
Twiddly wrote:
> I'm walking away from this, for today. Nothing I say will stop you
> guys being bullies. I believe that you aren't bullies "only to
> fight the bully" but instead becase that's your attitude
> regardless.
Fair enough, but as you have provided no evidence for your belief that we are bullies beyond giving Bell a taste of his own medicine, why should your statement have any weight whatsoever? If you can give evidence of the supposed bullying on others apart from Bell, then you'd have a point. As is, you've just made a bland statement and expected it to be accepted as fact.
> I'm walking away from this, for today. Nothing I say will stop you
> guys being bullies. I believe that you aren't bullies "only to
> fight the bully" but instead becase that's your attitude
> regardless.
Fair enough, but as you have provided no evidence for your belief that we are bullies beyond giving Bell a taste of his own medicine, why should your statement have any weight whatsoever? If you can give evidence of the supposed bullying on others apart from Bell, then you'd have a point. As is, you've just made a bland statement and expected it to be accepted as fact.
I'm walking away from this, for today. Nothing I say will stop you guys being bullies. I believe that you aren't bullies "only to fight the bully" but instead becase that's your attitude regardless.
And while you do well defending yourselves with "how dare Bell not answer my questions", Goatboy's attitude of "how dare you interfere" only makes you look overbearing and ever so much more arrogant.
And while you do well defending yourselves with "how dare Bell not answer my questions", Goatboy's attitude of "how dare you interfere" only makes you look overbearing and ever so much more arrogant.
Twiddly wrote:
> Light wrote:
> If your motivation is what you say it is, you're fast losing the
> moral
> high ground.
>
> Whatever. This goatboy moron is beneath contempt. He replies to
> "Possibly because he thinks you're an irritating wind-up
> merchant" with "possibly because it has nothing to do with
> you. Now, either he phrased that innaccureately, or he's implying that
> Belldandy thinks Goatboy is irritating because it has nothing to do
> with me.
So...you've entered this debate on a moral point, yet you are happy to abandon that moral point immediately you are treated with somewhat less than the respect you feel you should be, in favour of the very name calling you purport to criticise?
>
> He refused to explain himself properly, and then resorted to arrogant
> condescention.
Yes. Much like Belldandy does. And look how angry it has gotten you. You've responded to what you saw as not answering your question, indeed deflecting it with snide comments, with anger and a desire to state your opinion of how stupid Goatboy is. Much like I do to Belldandy. Now do you see my point in taking Belldandy apart?
>
> As for "moral high ground", there is none in this particular
> round of "who is more stupid than who".
Then why are you taking part? By your own logic, doesn't that make you even stupider still as you are getting involved late on in the day?
>
> But if you want to be a pair of bullies bullying the bully, go ahead.
> It doesn't make you right - two wrongs never do - or particularly
> clever.
It doesn't make us right in your opinion. Why should your opinion matter to anyone other than yourself? More to the point, if it is so important to you to express your opinion us, why are you so determined that we shouldn't express our opinion of Bell?
As to how clever or otherwise we are, if that were my motivation then I would be happy that Bell is clearly unable to answer any queries put to him. But I am not.
>
> You won't come out the other side any brighter, or more knowledgable,
> or more correct. You'll just be a pair of bullies. If that's what
> you're content with, then fine.
Indeed. Your opinion is noted. But could you explain what that makes Bell, in your opinion. Is he a bully? I'd like a direct answer to that last point please.
And what makes a bully? Had Goat or I been intimidated by your posts, would that have made you the bully?
> Light wrote:
> If your motivation is what you say it is, you're fast losing the
> moral
> high ground.
>
> Whatever. This goatboy moron is beneath contempt. He replies to
> "Possibly because he thinks you're an irritating wind-up
> merchant" with "possibly because it has nothing to do with
> you. Now, either he phrased that innaccureately, or he's implying that
> Belldandy thinks Goatboy is irritating because it has nothing to do
> with me.
So...you've entered this debate on a moral point, yet you are happy to abandon that moral point immediately you are treated with somewhat less than the respect you feel you should be, in favour of the very name calling you purport to criticise?
>
> He refused to explain himself properly, and then resorted to arrogant
> condescention.
Yes. Much like Belldandy does. And look how angry it has gotten you. You've responded to what you saw as not answering your question, indeed deflecting it with snide comments, with anger and a desire to state your opinion of how stupid Goatboy is. Much like I do to Belldandy. Now do you see my point in taking Belldandy apart?
>
> As for "moral high ground", there is none in this particular
> round of "who is more stupid than who".
Then why are you taking part? By your own logic, doesn't that make you even stupider still as you are getting involved late on in the day?
>
> But if you want to be a pair of bullies bullying the bully, go ahead.
> It doesn't make you right - two wrongs never do - or particularly
> clever.
It doesn't make us right in your opinion. Why should your opinion matter to anyone other than yourself? More to the point, if it is so important to you to express your opinion us, why are you so determined that we shouldn't express our opinion of Bell?
As to how clever or otherwise we are, if that were my motivation then I would be happy that Bell is clearly unable to answer any queries put to him. But I am not.
>
> You won't come out the other side any brighter, or more knowledgable,
> or more correct. You'll just be a pair of bullies. If that's what
> you're content with, then fine.
Indeed. Your opinion is noted. But could you explain what that makes Bell, in your opinion. Is he a bully? I'd like a direct answer to that last point please.
And what makes a bully? Had Goat or I been intimidated by your posts, would that have made you the bully?
Twiddly wrote:
or he's implying that
> Belldandy thinks Goatboy is irritating because it has nothing to do
> with me.
--
Jesus, even the small words didnt explain it did they?
One last time, because this is really starting to hurt now:
You "Possibly because he thinks you're a wind-up merchant"
I post "possibly because it has nothing to do with you"
Because it has nothing to do with you what Belldandy thinks of me.
Does it?
or he's implying that
> Belldandy thinks Goatboy is irritating because it has nothing to do
> with me.
--
Jesus, even the small words didnt explain it did they?
One last time, because this is really starting to hurt now:
You "Possibly because he thinks you're a wind-up merchant"
I post "possibly because it has nothing to do with you"
Because it has nothing to do with you what Belldandy thinks of me.
Does it?
Light wrote:
> If your motivation is what you say it is, you're fast losing the moral
> high ground.
Whatever. This goatboy moron is beneath contempt. He replies to "Possibly because he thinks you're an irritating wind-up merchant" with "possibly because it has nothing to do with you. Now, either he phrased that innaccureately, or he's implying that Belldandy thinks Goatboy is irritating because it has nothing to do with me.
He refused to explain himself properly, and then resorted to arrogant condescention.
As for "moral high ground", there is none in this particular round of "who is more stupid than who".
But if you want to be a pair of bullies bullying the bully, go ahead. It doesn't make you right - two wrongs never do - or particularly clever.
You won't come out the other side any brighter, or more knowledgable, or more correct. You'll just be a pair of bullies. If that's what you're content with, then fine.
> If your motivation is what you say it is, you're fast losing the moral
> high ground.
Whatever. This goatboy moron is beneath contempt. He replies to "Possibly because he thinks you're an irritating wind-up merchant" with "possibly because it has nothing to do with you. Now, either he phrased that innaccureately, or he's implying that Belldandy thinks Goatboy is irritating because it has nothing to do with me.
He refused to explain himself properly, and then resorted to arrogant condescention.
As for "moral high ground", there is none in this particular round of "who is more stupid than who".
But if you want to be a pair of bullies bullying the bully, go ahead. It doesn't make you right - two wrongs never do - or particularly clever.
You won't come out the other side any brighter, or more knowledgable, or more correct. You'll just be a pair of bullies. If that's what you're content with, then fine.
What stupidity?
Once more, for the oxygen starved in the hizz-ouse:-
You post "POssibly because he thinks you're an irritating wind-up merchant?"
I post "possibly because it has nothing to do with you"
Because I was addressing Bell, yet you felt compelled to insult in a topic that has nothing to do with you. My post is a response to your initial question.
Now, this seems straight forward enough, no?
But then we have this:
"So, you're saying what? He's not replying because it doesn't concern me, or he isn't replying because he thinks you're a wind-up merchant because this subject doesn't concern me?"
So you think I'm saying he's not replying because it doesn't concern you?
Nope, I'm saying it has nothing to do with you.
You then suggest he isn't replying because he thinks I'm a wind-up merchant because this subject doesn't concern you.
?????
Now, if you can explain that last sentence to me, I can understand perhaps.
Because until I run it through my babbling-defendor decoder ring, I'm just getting the unwarranted protestations of a 3rd party observer that felt compelled to post sarcasm without any provocation.
Once more, for the oxygen starved in the hizz-ouse:-
You post "POssibly because he thinks you're an irritating wind-up merchant?"
I post "possibly because it has nothing to do with you"
Because I was addressing Bell, yet you felt compelled to insult in a topic that has nothing to do with you. My post is a response to your initial question.
Now, this seems straight forward enough, no?
But then we have this:
"So, you're saying what? He's not replying because it doesn't concern me, or he isn't replying because he thinks you're a wind-up merchant because this subject doesn't concern me?"
So you think I'm saying he's not replying because it doesn't concern you?
Nope, I'm saying it has nothing to do with you.
You then suggest he isn't replying because he thinks I'm a wind-up merchant because this subject doesn't concern you.
?????
Now, if you can explain that last sentence to me, I can understand perhaps.
Because until I run it through my babbling-defendor decoder ring, I'm just getting the unwarranted protestations of a 3rd party observer that felt compelled to post sarcasm without any provocation.
Page: