The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Declassified documents show Henry Kissinger giving Isreal the all=clear to violate a ceasefire between Isreal & Russia.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/press.htm
Wow, it's almost like the USA encouraging action to keep the region destabilised.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/press.htm
Wow, it's almost like the USA encouraging action to keep the region destabilised.
Page:
Goatboy wrote:
> How does one address such an adult and political comment such as
> "haven't you got a pack of cancersticks to put in your
> mouth?"
It is political in a way, after all Imperial Tobacco seems to still want to believe that Smoking does not cause cancer, and has launched into a court battle against one person in order to do so. That's one company, thousands of lawyers, against one person. These are the guys people like you are funding.
> Go home and learn your chops Daniel-San
This isn't Japan.
> How does one address such an adult and political comment such as
> "haven't you got a pack of cancersticks to put in your
> mouth?"
It is political in a way, after all Imperial Tobacco seems to still want to believe that Smoking does not cause cancer, and has launched into a court battle against one person in order to do so. That's one company, thousands of lawyers, against one person. These are the guys people like you are funding.
> Go home and learn your chops Daniel-San
This isn't Japan.
Belldandy wrote:
>
> And whilst were here I'd wager intellectual cowards would be people
> who, rather than stay remotely near the topic, seek to turn the
> topics into slanging matches, like Light and Goatboy. Notice how they
> seem adept at staying remotely on topic ? I mean they constantly say
> how daft/stupid etc my replies are, but feel compelled to always
> reply, and never actually adressing those views but instead churning
> out the same old "wah clancy fan" "wah you called my
> smokes cancer sticks" "wah intellectual coward" e.t.c.
My God...you really have no sense of self awareness at all, do you Bell?
Typical really;
> Point: Bell does this
> Bell's Counterpoint: You do the same
Tell you what Bell, why don't you clean the stench of cowardice from yourself, and try and address things like an adult. Or, if you're happy having what remains of your tattered ego put through the shredder, if you're happy heading toward yet another of your fevered "I'm leaving this board/you're all evil/Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!" posts, if you're happy being blind to what an absolute joke you are...well, then carry on. I can't pretend I'm not sadistic enough to enjoy this. A battle of wits with you is like the Mike Tyson-Professer Stephen Hawking Pro-Celebrity boxing match. And no, you're not the large coloured gentleman in that analogy.
>
> And whilst were here I'd wager intellectual cowards would be people
> who, rather than stay remotely near the topic, seek to turn the
> topics into slanging matches, like Light and Goatboy. Notice how they
> seem adept at staying remotely on topic ? I mean they constantly say
> how daft/stupid etc my replies are, but feel compelled to always
> reply, and never actually adressing those views but instead churning
> out the same old "wah clancy fan" "wah you called my
> smokes cancer sticks" "wah intellectual coward" e.t.c.
My God...you really have no sense of self awareness at all, do you Bell?
Typical really;
> Point: Bell does this
> Bell's Counterpoint: You do the same
Tell you what Bell, why don't you clean the stench of cowardice from yourself, and try and address things like an adult. Or, if you're happy having what remains of your tattered ego put through the shredder, if you're happy heading toward yet another of your fevered "I'm leaving this board/you're all evil/Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!" posts, if you're happy being blind to what an absolute joke you are...well, then carry on. I can't pretend I'm not sadistic enough to enjoy this. A battle of wits with you is like the Mike Tyson-Professer Stephen Hawking Pro-Celebrity boxing match. And no, you're not the large coloured gentleman in that analogy.
Belldandy wrote:
and never actually adressing those views but instead churning
> out the same old "wah clancy fan" "wah you called my
> smokes cancer sticks" "wah intellectual coward" e.t.c.
---
How does one address such an adult and political comment such as "haven't you got a pack of cancersticks to put in your mouth?"
Or perhaps I am unable to counter the Paxman-level of socio-political cross questioning of "Oh I forget, and YOU SMOKE!!!"
Go home and learn your chops Daniel-San
and never actually adressing those views but instead churning
> out the same old "wah clancy fan" "wah you called my
> smokes cancer sticks" "wah intellectual coward" e.t.c.
---
How does one address such an adult and political comment such as "haven't you got a pack of cancersticks to put in your mouth?"
Or perhaps I am unable to counter the Paxman-level of socio-political cross questioning of "Oh I forget, and YOU SMOKE!!!"
Go home and learn your chops Daniel-San
Ah, so you don't actually understand and are employing the Bell "Well if I need to explain..."
You said you understood.
I said I didn't and please explain.
You make noise and run. Like a big girl.
Clown
You said you understood.
I said I didn't and please explain.
You make noise and run. Like a big girl.
Clown
Surely a humour mesiter such as yourself needs no explanation ?
Anyway, time to go to Uni now so I'll leave you to ponder it, instead of working or whatever you do.
Anyway, time to go to Uni now so I'll leave you to ponder it, instead of working or whatever you do.
Belldandy wrote:
> What's this, no sense of humour ? I understand what he's getting
> at...maybe you're, blinkered?
c'mon then Bell, explain what he was getting at.
Please, explain humour to me. This'll be good.
> What's this, no sense of humour ? I understand what he's getting
> at...maybe you're, blinkered?
c'mon then Bell, explain what he was getting at.
Please, explain humour to me. This'll be good.
More than likely right Blank, however if you look at the posts then, certainly to me, the name calling and incidences of it are firmly weighted on the side of Light\Goatboy.
Blank wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> Yeah, it's a pain in the a r s e when someone doesn't agree with
> people isn't it ?
>
> But it isn't only you who disagrees.
I'll repeat: it isn't only you who disagrees, but it only degenerates to name calling when you're around.
> Belldandy wrote:
> Yeah, it's a pain in the a r s e when someone doesn't agree with
> people isn't it ?
>
> But it isn't only you who disagrees.
I'll repeat: it isn't only you who disagrees, but it only degenerates to name calling when you're around.
Goatboy wrote:
> Ecplain the "irony" comment please, because simply quoting
> back makes you a fool.
What's this, no sense of humour ? I understand what he's getting at...maybe you're, blinkered ?
And whilst were here I'd wager intellectual cowards would be people who, rather than stay remotely near the topic, seek to turn the topics into slanging matches, like Light and Goatboy. Notice how they seem adept at staying remotely on topic ? I mean they constantly say how daft/stupid etc my replies are, but feel compelled to always reply, and never actually adressing those views but instead churning out the same old "wah clancy fan" "wah you called my smokes cancer sticks" "wah intellectual coward" e.t.c.
> Ecplain the "irony" comment please, because simply quoting
> back makes you a fool.
What's this, no sense of humour ? I understand what he's getting at...maybe you're, blinkered ?
And whilst were here I'd wager intellectual cowards would be people who, rather than stay remotely near the topic, seek to turn the topics into slanging matches, like Light and Goatboy. Notice how they seem adept at staying remotely on topic ? I mean they constantly say how daft/stupid etc my replies are, but feel compelled to always reply, and never actually adressing those views but instead churning out the same old "wah clancy fan" "wah you called my smokes cancer sticks" "wah intellectual coward" e.t.c.
lnsane Bartender wrote:
> What's an intellectual coward?
>
> Is that someone who's really clever, but scared of everything?
Heh. Nah, it's someone who'll make a statement of his beliefs, but will not defend it. Instead they'll simply do their best to hurl invective and "Waaaaaaah!" type insults at whomever is questioning them in the hope that they'll go away.
Basically, it's anyone who parrots the beliefs of their idols, then refuses (or, more likely, is unable) to defend them.
> What's an intellectual coward?
>
> Is that someone who's really clever, but scared of everything?
Heh. Nah, it's someone who'll make a statement of his beliefs, but will not defend it. Instead they'll simply do their best to hurl invective and "Waaaaaaah!" type insults at whomever is questioning them in the hope that they'll go away.
Basically, it's anyone who parrots the beliefs of their idols, then refuses (or, more likely, is unable) to defend them.
Page: