The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
heh - i couldn't resist the joke...
anyways - abortion. now that it's widely available, people think it's their safety net. well, what about when they DIDN'T have abortion around, eh? what if einstein was aborted? or more disastrously, Lee Evans!!!
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!
the world needs laughter...and crazy entertainers who make themselves have spasms on stage! hilarious.....
ah well, there's my narrow minded opinion...
anyways - abortion. now that it's widely available, people think it's their safety net. well, what about when they DIDN'T have abortion around, eh? what if einstein was aborted? or more disastrously, Lee Evans!!!
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!
the world needs laughter...and crazy entertainers who make themselves have spasms on stage! hilarious.....
ah well, there's my narrow minded opinion...
Page:
Miserableman wrote:
>
>
> I'm certainly not pro-life, my point was that we could debate what
> abortions X, Y or Z have cost humanity until the end of time, but
> when compared to the massive number of lives cut short in other
> fashions, it's as insignificant as peas.
>
> And peas are really small.
Ah, I see! My apologies for misunderstanding.
>
>
> I'm certainly not pro-life, my point was that we could debate what
> abortions X, Y or Z have cost humanity until the end of time, but
> when compared to the massive number of lives cut short in other
> fashions, it's as insignificant as peas.
>
> And peas are really small.
Ah, I see! My apologies for misunderstanding.
Well it's nice to see, true to his word, that Bell isn't indulging in petty circular arguments anymore after the apoplectic fits of indign...oh...
"Hey Dude, where's my country?"
"Hey Dude, where's my country?"
Nah, we did that waste of trees in the Movies forum.
What's primary source substitution ?
What's primary source substitution ?
Belldandy wrote:
> Nah, we did that waste of trees in the Movies forum.
What's all this 'we' business? You ran away the very instant you were confronted with an argument you couldn't rebutt.
>
> What's primary source substitution ?
Lying.
> Nah, we did that waste of trees in the Movies forum.
What's all this 'we' business? You ran away the very instant you were confronted with an argument you couldn't rebutt.
>
> What's primary source substitution ?
Lying.
Light wrote:
> What's primary source substitution ?
>
> Lying.
Ah, I read it in an Amazon review of Moore's book and wanted to check whether it meant what the reviewer said.
Still I'll have to go look at the other thread and see what supposedly great argument is. Hope it's not MHWHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA or similar.
> What's primary source substitution ?
>
> Lying.
Ah, I read it in an Amazon review of Moore's book and wanted to check whether it meant what the reviewer said.
Still I'll have to go look at the other thread and see what supposedly great argument is. Hope it's not MHWHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA or similar.
Belldandy wrote:
> Light wrote:
> What's primary source substitution ?
>
> Lying.
>
> Ah, I read it in an Amazon review of Moore's book and wanted to check
> whether it meant what the reviewer said.
Well, why not try reading it to find out? You know; form your own opinions instead of parrotting those of others?
>
> Still I'll have to go look at the other thread and see what
> supposedly great argument is. Hope it's not MHWHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA or
> similar.
No; it's "Bell, you've never once read any of his work. You've admitted that. Now you're trying to criticise him based on a total lack of knowledge"
Then there's lots of MWAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAA! type stuff, but only cos you ran away rather than acknowledge what a load of asshat you talk.
> Light wrote:
> What's primary source substitution ?
>
> Lying.
>
> Ah, I read it in an Amazon review of Moore's book and wanted to check
> whether it meant what the reviewer said.
Well, why not try reading it to find out? You know; form your own opinions instead of parrotting those of others?
>
> Still I'll have to go look at the other thread and see what
> supposedly great argument is. Hope it's not MHWHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA or
> similar.
No; it's "Bell, you've never once read any of his work. You've admitted that. Now you're trying to criticise him based on a total lack of knowledge"
Then there's lots of MWAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAA! type stuff, but only cos you ran away rather than acknowledge what a load of asshat you talk.
Show me where I say I believe Moore has done it, then come back.
Oh, look, I haven't.
I simply asked what it meant and said I had seen it mentioned in a review of his book. That is all.
Once again you go off on a HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH thing.
Oh, look, I haven't.
I simply asked what it meant and said I had seen it mentioned in a review of his book. That is all.
Once again you go off on a HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH thing.
Belldandy wrote:
> Show me where I say I believe Moore has done it, then come back.
>
> Oh, look, I haven't.
>
> I simply asked what it meant and said I had seen it mentioned in a
> review of his book. That is all.
>
> Once again you go off on a HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH thing.
Erm, you've actually managed to miss the point from an incredibly short post...~shakes head~ do you practice to get that stupid?
Okay, lets go through it;
-I said "why not read it to find out", meaning of course "why not read it to find out if he's lying, rather than relying on a reviewer". Do you see?
- You then assumed, with no real evidence, that I was implying you had called him a liar when it's clear that you haven't. And then tried to be snide in a post where you manage to revert to your prissy self, obviously forgetting about your new 'wacky' approach. Do you see?
-Even the HAHAAHAHAHAHAHA was merely an explaination of why you were having the proverbial taken out of you on another thread. But you misunderstood, and assumed it was about this thread. Man...you didn't even read about 10 words?
-I then have to post an explation in words of one syllable as you seem too dumb to get it. Do you see?
Do you see Bell? Or would you like to try and avoid addressing how you missed the point? Again?
> Show me where I say I believe Moore has done it, then come back.
>
> Oh, look, I haven't.
>
> I simply asked what it meant and said I had seen it mentioned in a
> review of his book. That is all.
>
> Once again you go off on a HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH thing.
Erm, you've actually managed to miss the point from an incredibly short post...~shakes head~ do you practice to get that stupid?
Okay, lets go through it;
-I said "why not read it to find out", meaning of course "why not read it to find out if he's lying, rather than relying on a reviewer". Do you see?
- You then assumed, with no real evidence, that I was implying you had called him a liar when it's clear that you haven't. And then tried to be snide in a post where you manage to revert to your prissy self, obviously forgetting about your new 'wacky' approach. Do you see?
-Even the HAHAAHAHAHAHAHA was merely an explaination of why you were having the proverbial taken out of you on another thread. But you misunderstood, and assumed it was about this thread. Man...you didn't even read about 10 words?
-I then have to post an explation in words of one syllable as you seem too dumb to get it. Do you see?
Do you see Bell? Or would you like to try and avoid addressing how you missed the point? Again?
I'm all for abortion being legal. I wouldn't want to carry a child for 9 months that I didn't want or couldn't afford to look after properly, I certainly couldn't afford the medical costs of a pregnancy, plus I wouldn't want to bring a child into the world we have today. The place is overcrowded as it is anyway. When the time comes I would rather adopt or foster a child that needs a home than bring another child into the world.
Light wrote:
>Do you see?
Ooh, there's that phrase again. That's *counts* five times this week. But anyway, Lindgren has actually sent the topic lurching, well, back on topic.
I can understand people not wanting children to be born into the world of today, but if everyone did that then nothing would change and there would be no hope for the future.
>Do you see?
Ooh, there's that phrase again. That's *counts* five times this week. But anyway, Lindgren has actually sent the topic lurching, well, back on topic.
I can understand people not wanting children to be born into the world of today, but if everyone did that then nothing would change and there would be no hope for the future.
Page: