The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
You're in London for Bush's arrival. You have the resources and legal immunity do make whatever protest you want.
So what do you do?
So what do you do?
Page:
Belldandy wrote:
> I fail to see why I should bother. I know it is true. If you don't
> believe then that's your choice and not mine. You criticise me when I
> use google to find links, now you're whining when I don't ? It is one
> or the other, not both. You have google access, put it in.
*L* I love it when you criticise others for whining...it's like hearing Hitler complaining about being called anti-semetic.
Why should you bother? Well...because you're a proven liar whom no-one takes seriously any more. I criticise you for googling links because you use them in lieu of any explaination. But now you won't even provide them. So I continue to believe you're a liar.
Look at it objectively: I accuse you of lying, but offer you the chance to prove me wrong.
You, a proven liar, refuse this offer but insist you are correct.
In my shoes, would you give you the benefit of the doubt?
>
> At one point I have referred to the way Clancy featured an airliner
> being used as a weapon in Debt of Honour, and that at the time
> critics said that the idea of airliners being used as gigantic
> missiles was stupid, maybe this is what has confused you ?
Nope, because I actually thoroughly enjoyed Debt of Honour, and thought criticising fiction for being unrealistic was like criticising chocolate for being brown.
>
> But to quote means to repeat the actual words of somebody, discuss
> means to talk about and around the subject. The two are not the same,
> and I have not QUOTED Clancy as you claim. You do know the meaning of
> the words I assume ?
Heh. Fair enough. In that case I will retract that, and point out that you discuss Clancy at length. However, you've sorted of p!ssed on your own bonfire because you've just admitted to referring to Clancy and the whole airliner thing from Debt of Honour. So then; will you now find the thread where I allegedly said the things you say I did? Or are you going to avoid it?
Now, if you really want to play the semantics game, shall we go over the post where I mentioned your 'quoting' Clancy? Where I point out to you that it was a post making fun of you and therefore a rhetorical statement? Tell me, do YOU know the meaning of the word 'rhetorical'?
> But I did, I responded to a point made about Clancy. You just waded
> in here not in any remote way responding to anyone elses comments one
> bit. You just thought 'it's Belldandy, here I go off one one again'.
No Bell; YOU made the point about Clancy, stating that Goatboy, Blank and I criticise him without having read his books. That point was then thoroughly discredited.
In other words Bell, you're lying again. Now are you really surprised that I doubt almost everything you say?
What, do you think people can't go and check the thread to see if what you say is true?
>
> Well I didn't even read this lot to be honest, so, 'uh huh commie'
> will suffice.
Mwah ha ha haaa! Avoiding the subject again. The subject being just why you get such a hard time. Well, you carry on kidding yourself Bell. But I know you did read that, and I hope you can see through the insults and maybe take some of the advice on board. I also notice that you've decided to avoid commenting on why I think you do care what people here think of you. I'll let you in on a secret Bell; unless you start to listen to some of the MANY criticisms of you, you're going to be increasingly unhappy here. Ask yourself; do you really want to be a lonely, bitter young man who's fervent belief that he is always right is both his only consolation and his biggest enemy? Or do you want to be able to relate to anyone else in the human race? Your call, but the way you're going at the minute, you're going to be a friendless crying mess of whom the neighbours will say "Yes, he was such a quiet young man. Who would have thought he murdered all of those prostitutes?" before you reach 30. And believe it or not, I'd prefer to see something other than that.
Still, no doubt you'll keep telling yourself that it's not you, it's everybody else.
> I fail to see why I should bother. I know it is true. If you don't
> believe then that's your choice and not mine. You criticise me when I
> use google to find links, now you're whining when I don't ? It is one
> or the other, not both. You have google access, put it in.
*L* I love it when you criticise others for whining...it's like hearing Hitler complaining about being called anti-semetic.
Why should you bother? Well...because you're a proven liar whom no-one takes seriously any more. I criticise you for googling links because you use them in lieu of any explaination. But now you won't even provide them. So I continue to believe you're a liar.
Look at it objectively: I accuse you of lying, but offer you the chance to prove me wrong.
You, a proven liar, refuse this offer but insist you are correct.
In my shoes, would you give you the benefit of the doubt?
>
> At one point I have referred to the way Clancy featured an airliner
> being used as a weapon in Debt of Honour, and that at the time
> critics said that the idea of airliners being used as gigantic
> missiles was stupid, maybe this is what has confused you ?
Nope, because I actually thoroughly enjoyed Debt of Honour, and thought criticising fiction for being unrealistic was like criticising chocolate for being brown.
>
> But to quote means to repeat the actual words of somebody, discuss
> means to talk about and around the subject. The two are not the same,
> and I have not QUOTED Clancy as you claim. You do know the meaning of
> the words I assume ?
Heh. Fair enough. In that case I will retract that, and point out that you discuss Clancy at length. However, you've sorted of p!ssed on your own bonfire because you've just admitted to referring to Clancy and the whole airliner thing from Debt of Honour. So then; will you now find the thread where I allegedly said the things you say I did? Or are you going to avoid it?
Now, if you really want to play the semantics game, shall we go over the post where I mentioned your 'quoting' Clancy? Where I point out to you that it was a post making fun of you and therefore a rhetorical statement? Tell me, do YOU know the meaning of the word 'rhetorical'?
> But I did, I responded to a point made about Clancy. You just waded
> in here not in any remote way responding to anyone elses comments one
> bit. You just thought 'it's Belldandy, here I go off one one again'.
No Bell; YOU made the point about Clancy, stating that Goatboy, Blank and I criticise him without having read his books. That point was then thoroughly discredited.
In other words Bell, you're lying again. Now are you really surprised that I doubt almost everything you say?
What, do you think people can't go and check the thread to see if what you say is true?
>
> Well I didn't even read this lot to be honest, so, 'uh huh commie'
> will suffice.
Mwah ha ha haaa! Avoiding the subject again. The subject being just why you get such a hard time. Well, you carry on kidding yourself Bell. But I know you did read that, and I hope you can see through the insults and maybe take some of the advice on board. I also notice that you've decided to avoid commenting on why I think you do care what people here think of you. I'll let you in on a secret Bell; unless you start to listen to some of the MANY criticisms of you, you're going to be increasingly unhappy here. Ask yourself; do you really want to be a lonely, bitter young man who's fervent belief that he is always right is both his only consolation and his biggest enemy? Or do you want to be able to relate to anyone else in the human race? Your call, but the way you're going at the minute, you're going to be a friendless crying mess of whom the neighbours will say "Yes, he was such a quiet young man. Who would have thought he murdered all of those prostitutes?" before you reach 30. And believe it or not, I'd prefer to see something other than that.
Still, no doubt you'll keep telling yourself that it's not you, it's everybody else.
Light wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> Light wrote:
>
>
> I believe you have access to Google and the like, no? Use it.
>
> So you don't have the links then? And you're once again refusing to
> provide proof when asked? Okay, that's all I needed to know.
I fail to see why I should bother. I know it is true. If you don't believe then that's your choice and not mine. You criticise me when I use google to find links, now you're whining when I don't ? It is one or the other, not both. You have google access, put it in.
> No, if you could remember the topic you would know that was not
> true.
> Your information about the book is semi-correct, but I never
> referred
> to that part of the book - why any terrorist group would want to try
> dig up 30 year old Israeli nukes which need to be placed in vehicles
> I don't know, suitcase nukes would be far more likely for a
> scenario.
> But anyway, I referred to Israel's earliset nuclear weapon because
> The Sum Of All Fears shows Israel sending up a fighter with it as
> the
> Israeli forces in the 1973 (I think) conflict are being beaten.
> Israel would deploy it to halt an invasion of Israel. In the book,
> the plane is shot down, and Israel does not need to use it anyway.
> In
> real life Israel had no need to use it, in fact no one knew about it
> until much later. Clancy is one of few people to make reference to
> it
> in the media.
>
> Okay, so he did his research well for an enjoyable book. I accept
> that totally. And? I mean, credit to him for exhaustive research, but
> can you explain to me how that means he should be listened to when it
> comes to terrorist plans for the future?
Depends, after 9/11 the Pentagon did form a group to ask certain media producers what their ideas for terrorist attacks would be? Clancy was not part of that group however. I have never claimed he does try to predict terrorist plans, in fact his last book concerning terrorism was, well, Rainbow Six, and that is at least 3 years old, if not more. Since 9/11 he has only done one terrorist themed book - Teeth of the tiger - and that doesn't really suggest much at all as it is set in the future and is a very poor book anyway.
At one point I have referred to the way Clancy featured an airliner being used as a weapon in Debt of Honour, and that at the time critics said that the idea of airliners being used as gigantic missiles was stupid, maybe this is what has confused you ?
> And that's unfortunate, because
> everyone regards you as an extra large mong with a side order of
> homo.
> Piece of proverbial; in the Dude, Where's my Country thread, you
> quote Clancy at length. Go and have a look. There it is; You.
> Discussing Clancy. At length.
But to quote means to repeat the actual words of somebody, discuss means to talk about and around the subject. The two are not the same, and I have not QUOTED Clancy as you claim. You do know the meaning of the words I assume ?
> For the most part, I'd say you're correct. The main exception would
> be things like, for example, the story of Jessica Lynch; the US
> government say one thing, she says another. However, I do agree with
> you; History and it's events SHOULD bear some relation to actuality.
Then there is of course the matter of the story that the evidence suggests, especially in the case of Lynch. But at least we can agree on one point.
> To be quite honest I'm wondering why you felt the need to hijack the
> topic,
> because you have not actually even addressed the topic one
> bit.
>
> What, you mean like you addressed the topic in Dude, Where's My
> Country by constantly referring to Tom Clancy?
But I did, I responded to a point made about Clancy. You just waded in here not in any remote way responding to anyone elses comments one bit. You just thought 'it's Belldandy, here I go off one one again'.
> Right...so in other words, you ARE moving away from the 2 posts you
> spent whinging about something I'd apologised for? Just checking.
> Because that paragraph of yours is nothing more than whining about
> getting picked on, and no mention whatsoever of your absolute idiocy
> in complaining about something I'd already addressed.
>
> And indeed, many others have made suggestions of violent protest. And
> I don't agree with any of those suggestions. You know why I'm not
> picking on them? Because I don't take what they see seriously to be
> honest. Hurling bricks at Dubya? Heh. A nice idea, but it isn't going
> to happen. But you with your junior Totalitarianism...well, I find
> you particularly offensive.
>
> Not just in this thread, but almost every one you post in. Because
> you claim to Mr Pro-USA, yet you sneer at anyone who actually
> BELIEVES in freedom and democracy for all men. You claim to love the
> USA, but want to see freedoms curtailed. And because you have the
> ignorance to complain about a few people suggesting violence as a way
> of protest in this thread, yet you talk of war and conflict in loving
> terms, and denigrate the carnage of the Bali bomb because if was a
> 'soft' target. Man...I'd love to have seen you try and explain to the
> families of those killed in that bombing that their deaths weren't
> that important cos they were soft targets.
>
> If you look to arguments I have with Skarra, or with Notorious
> Biggles, they've stayed fairly civil. You know why? They don't run
> away squealing whenever they're asked to explain their logic behind
> what they believe. So whilst I disagree with them, I respect them.
> You do run away squealing, and so I have no respect for you at all.
>
> You could also look to the fact that I DON'T pick you up on every
> point you make. Because sometimes, I simply don't have the knowledge
> or interest in a particular subject to debate it. If only you'd learn
> similar restraint, you might not be such a figure of fun.
>
> In other words Bell, I take issue with the person, you, not because
> you'd do it differently, but because you made a suggestion redolant
> of totalitarian beliefs.
>
>
> Lets be honest here Bell; you're only complaining because you're not
> being allowed to get away with making proclaimations on subjects and
> ridiculing anyone who disagrees with you. Nor are you getting away
> with lying, distracting, and avoiding the subject. It's being made
> clear to one and all that you are simply a coward. If you want to
> blame everyone else for the fact that you are a lying, cowardly,
> bullying, whinging hypocrite with delusions of adequacy...well, that
> is your problem. But don't expect people to view you as anything
> other than the lying, cowardly...etc that you are. Don't expect to be
> taken seriously. Don't expect to get away with making ludicrous
> statements and running away from explaining them. And don't expect me
> to let you off the hook when you parrot another piece of propaganda
> that you haven't even thought about. Do I treat you differently? Yes.
> Why? Because of the way you've acted on this board. So don't look to
> blame anyone other than yourself. Your own cowardice and ignorance
> are to blame, nothing else.
Well I didn't even read this lot to be honest, so, 'uh huh commie' will suffice.
> Belldandy wrote:
> Light wrote:
>
>
> I believe you have access to Google and the like, no? Use it.
>
> So you don't have the links then? And you're once again refusing to
> provide proof when asked? Okay, that's all I needed to know.
I fail to see why I should bother. I know it is true. If you don't believe then that's your choice and not mine. You criticise me when I use google to find links, now you're whining when I don't ? It is one or the other, not both. You have google access, put it in.
> No, if you could remember the topic you would know that was not
> true.
> Your information about the book is semi-correct, but I never
> referred
> to that part of the book - why any terrorist group would want to try
> dig up 30 year old Israeli nukes which need to be placed in vehicles
> I don't know, suitcase nukes would be far more likely for a
> scenario.
> But anyway, I referred to Israel's earliset nuclear weapon because
> The Sum Of All Fears shows Israel sending up a fighter with it as
> the
> Israeli forces in the 1973 (I think) conflict are being beaten.
> Israel would deploy it to halt an invasion of Israel. In the book,
> the plane is shot down, and Israel does not need to use it anyway.
> In
> real life Israel had no need to use it, in fact no one knew about it
> until much later. Clancy is one of few people to make reference to
> it
> in the media.
>
> Okay, so he did his research well for an enjoyable book. I accept
> that totally. And? I mean, credit to him for exhaustive research, but
> can you explain to me how that means he should be listened to when it
> comes to terrorist plans for the future?
Depends, after 9/11 the Pentagon did form a group to ask certain media producers what their ideas for terrorist attacks would be? Clancy was not part of that group however. I have never claimed he does try to predict terrorist plans, in fact his last book concerning terrorism was, well, Rainbow Six, and that is at least 3 years old, if not more. Since 9/11 he has only done one terrorist themed book - Teeth of the tiger - and that doesn't really suggest much at all as it is set in the future and is a very poor book anyway.
At one point I have referred to the way Clancy featured an airliner being used as a weapon in Debt of Honour, and that at the time critics said that the idea of airliners being used as gigantic missiles was stupid, maybe this is what has confused you ?
> And that's unfortunate, because
> everyone regards you as an extra large mong with a side order of
> homo.
> Piece of proverbial; in the Dude, Where's my Country thread, you
> quote Clancy at length. Go and have a look. There it is; You.
> Discussing Clancy. At length.
But to quote means to repeat the actual words of somebody, discuss means to talk about and around the subject. The two are not the same, and I have not QUOTED Clancy as you claim. You do know the meaning of the words I assume ?
> For the most part, I'd say you're correct. The main exception would
> be things like, for example, the story of Jessica Lynch; the US
> government say one thing, she says another. However, I do agree with
> you; History and it's events SHOULD bear some relation to actuality.
Then there is of course the matter of the story that the evidence suggests, especially in the case of Lynch. But at least we can agree on one point.
> To be quite honest I'm wondering why you felt the need to hijack the
> topic,
> because you have not actually even addressed the topic one
> bit.
>
> What, you mean like you addressed the topic in Dude, Where's My
> Country by constantly referring to Tom Clancy?
But I did, I responded to a point made about Clancy. You just waded in here not in any remote way responding to anyone elses comments one bit. You just thought 'it's Belldandy, here I go off one one again'.
> Right...so in other words, you ARE moving away from the 2 posts you
> spent whinging about something I'd apologised for? Just checking.
> Because that paragraph of yours is nothing more than whining about
> getting picked on, and no mention whatsoever of your absolute idiocy
> in complaining about something I'd already addressed.
>
> And indeed, many others have made suggestions of violent protest. And
> I don't agree with any of those suggestions. You know why I'm not
> picking on them? Because I don't take what they see seriously to be
> honest. Hurling bricks at Dubya? Heh. A nice idea, but it isn't going
> to happen. But you with your junior Totalitarianism...well, I find
> you particularly offensive.
>
> Not just in this thread, but almost every one you post in. Because
> you claim to Mr Pro-USA, yet you sneer at anyone who actually
> BELIEVES in freedom and democracy for all men. You claim to love the
> USA, but want to see freedoms curtailed. And because you have the
> ignorance to complain about a few people suggesting violence as a way
> of protest in this thread, yet you talk of war and conflict in loving
> terms, and denigrate the carnage of the Bali bomb because if was a
> 'soft' target. Man...I'd love to have seen you try and explain to the
> families of those killed in that bombing that their deaths weren't
> that important cos they were soft targets.
>
> If you look to arguments I have with Skarra, or with Notorious
> Biggles, they've stayed fairly civil. You know why? They don't run
> away squealing whenever they're asked to explain their logic behind
> what they believe. So whilst I disagree with them, I respect them.
> You do run away squealing, and so I have no respect for you at all.
>
> You could also look to the fact that I DON'T pick you up on every
> point you make. Because sometimes, I simply don't have the knowledge
> or interest in a particular subject to debate it. If only you'd learn
> similar restraint, you might not be such a figure of fun.
>
> In other words Bell, I take issue with the person, you, not because
> you'd do it differently, but because you made a suggestion redolant
> of totalitarian beliefs.
>
>
> Lets be honest here Bell; you're only complaining because you're not
> being allowed to get away with making proclaimations on subjects and
> ridiculing anyone who disagrees with you. Nor are you getting away
> with lying, distracting, and avoiding the subject. It's being made
> clear to one and all that you are simply a coward. If you want to
> blame everyone else for the fact that you are a lying, cowardly,
> bullying, whinging hypocrite with delusions of adequacy...well, that
> is your problem. But don't expect people to view you as anything
> other than the lying, cowardly...etc that you are. Don't expect to be
> taken seriously. Don't expect to get away with making ludicrous
> statements and running away from explaining them. And don't expect me
> to let you off the hook when you parrot another piece of propaganda
> that you haven't even thought about. Do I treat you differently? Yes.
> Why? Because of the way you've acted on this board. So don't look to
> blame anyone other than yourself. Your own cowardice and ignorance
> are to blame, nothing else.
Well I didn't even read this lot to be honest, so, 'uh huh commie' will suffice.
Belldandy wrote:
> Light wrote:
>
> I believe you have access to Google and the like, no? Use it.
So you don't have the links then? And you're once again refusing to provide proof when asked? Okay, that's all I needed to know.
>
>
> No, if you could remember the topic you would know that was not true.
> Your information about the book is semi-correct, but I never referred
> to that part of the book - why any terrorist group would want to try
> dig up 30 year old Israeli nukes which need to be placed in vehicles
> I don't know, suitcase nukes would be far more likely for a scenario.
> But anyway, I referred to Israel's earliset nuclear weapon because
> The Sum Of All Fears shows Israel sending up a fighter with it as the
> Israeli forces in the 1973 (I think) conflict are being beaten.
> Israel would deploy it to halt an invasion of Israel. In the book,
> the plane is shot down, and Israel does not need to use it anyway. In
> real life Israel had no need to use it, in fact no one knew about it
> until much later. Clancy is one of few people to make reference to it
> in the media.
Okay, so he did his research well for an enjoyable book. I accept that totally. And? I mean, credit to him for exhaustive research, but can you explain to me how that means he should be listened to when it comes to terrorist plans for the future?
> There you go again, you think I care? Do you honestly think I give a
> toss about what you or many others on here think? If you say yes then
> you really are kidding yourself.
Yes, I do think you care. D'you know why? Because of your reaction to IB's joke. Didn't you post on all of the boards here at length whinging about being ridiculed? Didn't you spam every thread saying "IB i s guilty"? Didn't you demand he be banned for making fun of you? Yes, you did. So yes, I do think you give a toss about what people here think of you. And that's unfortunate, because everyone regards you as an extra large mong with a side order of homo.
>
> Tell you what, in the movies topic you say I quoted Clancy, find that
> post and I'll find yours.
Piece of proverbial; in the Dude, Where's my Country thread, you quote Clancy at length. Go and have a look. There it is; You. Discussing Clancy. At length.
Right; that's my end of the deal. Now find that thread where I say
>
> Except a point is not the same as history. Events happen, there
> interpretation can be a point, but not the event.
For the most part, I'd say you're correct. The main exception would be things like, for example, the story of Jessica Lynch; the US government say one thing, she says another. However, I do agree with you; History and it's events SHOULD bear some relation to actuality.
> To be quite honest I'm wondering why you felt the need to hijack the
> topic,
> because you have not actually even addressed the topic one
> bit.
What, you mean like you addressed the topic in Dude, Where's My Country by constantly referring to Tom Clancy?
Bell, you are the last person to whine about this as you change the subject as often as your mother has to change your nappies. Get out of your glass house before spastically hurling your little pebbles, 'kay?
> Notably you take issue with the person, me, who would do
> something different, whilst not commenting on anyone elses. I said
> stop the protestors, many others have various other violent acts as
> suggestions. I can see the hypocrisy there.
Right...so in other words, you ARE moving away from the 2 posts you spent whinging about something I'd apologised for? Just checking. Because that paragraph of yours is nothing more than whining about getting picked on, and no mention whatsoever of your absolute idiocy in complaining about something I'd already addressed.
And indeed, many others have made suggestions of violent protest. And I don't agree with any of those suggestions. You know why I'm not picking on them? Because I don't take what they see seriously to be honest. Hurling bricks at Dubya? Heh. A nice idea, but it isn't going to happen. But you with your junior Totalitarianism...well, I find you particularly offensive.
Not just in this thread, but almost every one you post in. Because you claim to Mr Pro-USA, yet you sneer at anyone who actually BELIEVES in freedom and democracy for all men. You claim to love the USA, but want to see freedoms curtailed. And because you have the ignorance to complain about a few people suggesting violence as a way of protest in this thread, yet you talk of war and conflict in loving terms, and denigrate the carnage of the Bali bomb because if was a 'soft' target. Man...I'd love to have seen you try and explain to the families of those killed in that bombing that their deaths weren't that important cos they were soft targets.
If you look to arguments I have with Skarra, or with Notorious Biggles, they've stayed fairly civil. You know why? They don't run away squealing whenever they're asked to explain their logic behind what they believe. So whilst I disagree with them, I respect them. You do run away squealing, and so I have no respect for you at all.
You could also look to the fact that I DON'T pick you up on every point you make. Because sometimes, I simply don't have the knowledge or interest in a particular subject to debate it. If only you'd learn similar restraint, you might not be such a figure of fun.
In other words Bell, I take issue with the person, you, not because you'd do it differently, but because you made a suggestion redolant of totalitarian beliefs.
Lets be honest here Bell; you're only complaining because you're not being allowed to get away with making proclaimations on subjects and ridiculing anyone who disagrees with you. Nor are you getting away with lying, distracting, and avoiding the subject. It's being made clear to one and all that you are simply a coward. If you want to blame everyone else for the fact that you are a lying, cowardly, bullying, whinging hypocrite with delusions of adequacy...well, that is your problem. But don't expect people to view you as anything other than the lying, cowardly...etc that you are. Don't expect to be taken seriously. Don't expect to get away with making ludicrous statements and running away from explaining them. And don't expect me to let you off the hook when you parrot another piece of propaganda that you haven't even thought about. Do I treat you differently? Yes. Why? Because of the way you've acted on this board. So don't look to blame anyone other than yourself. Your own cowardice and ignorance are to blame, nothing else.
> Light wrote:
>
> I believe you have access to Google and the like, no? Use it.
So you don't have the links then? And you're once again refusing to provide proof when asked? Okay, that's all I needed to know.
>
>
> No, if you could remember the topic you would know that was not true.
> Your information about the book is semi-correct, but I never referred
> to that part of the book - why any terrorist group would want to try
> dig up 30 year old Israeli nukes which need to be placed in vehicles
> I don't know, suitcase nukes would be far more likely for a scenario.
> But anyway, I referred to Israel's earliset nuclear weapon because
> The Sum Of All Fears shows Israel sending up a fighter with it as the
> Israeli forces in the 1973 (I think) conflict are being beaten.
> Israel would deploy it to halt an invasion of Israel. In the book,
> the plane is shot down, and Israel does not need to use it anyway. In
> real life Israel had no need to use it, in fact no one knew about it
> until much later. Clancy is one of few people to make reference to it
> in the media.
Okay, so he did his research well for an enjoyable book. I accept that totally. And? I mean, credit to him for exhaustive research, but can you explain to me how that means he should be listened to when it comes to terrorist plans for the future?
> There you go again, you think I care? Do you honestly think I give a
> toss about what you or many others on here think? If you say yes then
> you really are kidding yourself.
Yes, I do think you care. D'you know why? Because of your reaction to IB's joke. Didn't you post on all of the boards here at length whinging about being ridiculed? Didn't you spam every thread saying "IB i s guilty"? Didn't you demand he be banned for making fun of you? Yes, you did. So yes, I do think you give a toss about what people here think of you. And that's unfortunate, because everyone regards you as an extra large mong with a side order of homo.
>
> Tell you what, in the movies topic you say I quoted Clancy, find that
> post and I'll find yours.
Piece of proverbial; in the Dude, Where's my Country thread, you quote Clancy at length. Go and have a look. There it is; You. Discussing Clancy. At length.
Right; that's my end of the deal. Now find that thread where I say
>
> Except a point is not the same as history. Events happen, there
> interpretation can be a point, but not the event.
For the most part, I'd say you're correct. The main exception would be things like, for example, the story of Jessica Lynch; the US government say one thing, she says another. However, I do agree with you; History and it's events SHOULD bear some relation to actuality.
> To be quite honest I'm wondering why you felt the need to hijack the
> topic,
> because you have not actually even addressed the topic one
> bit.
What, you mean like you addressed the topic in Dude, Where's My Country by constantly referring to Tom Clancy?
Bell, you are the last person to whine about this as you change the subject as often as your mother has to change your nappies. Get out of your glass house before spastically hurling your little pebbles, 'kay?
> Notably you take issue with the person, me, who would do
> something different, whilst not commenting on anyone elses. I said
> stop the protestors, many others have various other violent acts as
> suggestions. I can see the hypocrisy there.
Right...so in other words, you ARE moving away from the 2 posts you spent whinging about something I'd apologised for? Just checking. Because that paragraph of yours is nothing more than whining about getting picked on, and no mention whatsoever of your absolute idiocy in complaining about something I'd already addressed.
And indeed, many others have made suggestions of violent protest. And I don't agree with any of those suggestions. You know why I'm not picking on them? Because I don't take what they see seriously to be honest. Hurling bricks at Dubya? Heh. A nice idea, but it isn't going to happen. But you with your junior Totalitarianism...well, I find you particularly offensive.
Not just in this thread, but almost every one you post in. Because you claim to Mr Pro-USA, yet you sneer at anyone who actually BELIEVES in freedom and democracy for all men. You claim to love the USA, but want to see freedoms curtailed. And because you have the ignorance to complain about a few people suggesting violence as a way of protest in this thread, yet you talk of war and conflict in loving terms, and denigrate the carnage of the Bali bomb because if was a 'soft' target. Man...I'd love to have seen you try and explain to the families of those killed in that bombing that their deaths weren't that important cos they were soft targets.
If you look to arguments I have with Skarra, or with Notorious Biggles, they've stayed fairly civil. You know why? They don't run away squealing whenever they're asked to explain their logic behind what they believe. So whilst I disagree with them, I respect them. You do run away squealing, and so I have no respect for you at all.
You could also look to the fact that I DON'T pick you up on every point you make. Because sometimes, I simply don't have the knowledge or interest in a particular subject to debate it. If only you'd learn similar restraint, you might not be such a figure of fun.
In other words Bell, I take issue with the person, you, not because you'd do it differently, but because you made a suggestion redolant of totalitarian beliefs.
Lets be honest here Bell; you're only complaining because you're not being allowed to get away with making proclaimations on subjects and ridiculing anyone who disagrees with you. Nor are you getting away with lying, distracting, and avoiding the subject. It's being made clear to one and all that you are simply a coward. If you want to blame everyone else for the fact that you are a lying, cowardly, bullying, whinging hypocrite with delusions of adequacy...well, that is your problem. But don't expect people to view you as anything other than the lying, cowardly...etc that you are. Don't expect to be taken seriously. Don't expect to get away with making ludicrous statements and running away from explaining them. And don't expect me to let you off the hook when you parrot another piece of propaganda that you haven't even thought about. Do I treat you differently? Yes. Why? Because of the way you've acted on this board. So don't look to blame anyone other than yourself. Your own cowardice and ignorance are to blame, nothing else.
Light wrote:
> Could you provide the links for that again please?
I believe you have access to Google and the like, no? Use it.
> And as I recall, in The Sum of all Fears, Clancy refers to a rogue
> Palestinian group using a nuclear weapon in Denver. So what you're
> essentially saying is that, because Israel did or does have nuclear
> weapons, then it is entirely possible a terror group will get hold of
> them? And you had to use Tom Clancy as your justification for that?
No, if you could remember the topic you would know that was not true. Your information about the book is semi-correct, but I never referred to that part of the book - why any terrorist group would want to try dig up 30 year old Israeli nukes which need to be placed in vehicles I don't know, suitcase nukes would be far more likely for a scenario. But anyway, I referred to Israel's earliset nuclear weapon because The Sum Of All Fears shows Israel sending up a fighter with it as the Israeli forces in the 1973 (I think) conflict are being beaten. Israel would deploy it to halt an invasion of Israel. In the book, the plane is shot down, and Israel does not need to use it anyway. In real life Israel had no need to use it, in fact no one knew about it until much later. Clancy is one of few people to make reference to it in the media.
> Jesus...you wonder why you're ridiculed? If I wasn't SO sure you're a
> virgin, I'd be convinced that you like to pay women to beat and
> humiliate you. After all, you seem to enjoy having that done on this
> board.
There you go again, you think I care? Do you honestly think I give a toss about what you or many others on here think? If you say yes then you really are kidding yourself.
> Did I? Please point out where I did so. Because you see, I don't
> believe I actually did say that. And I don't believe that things
> transpired as you say. Because you're a proven liar who lies and lies
> in order to avoid addressing the facts. Of course, if you can show
> that it was the case then I'll gladly apologise for getting it wrong.
> But I suspect you'll just try and avoid the topic.
Tell you what, in the movies topic you say I quoted Clancy, find that post and I'll find yours.
> Bwah ha ha haaaaaa! Says the man who dismisses out of hand anyone who
> makes a point he disagree's with...what a truly cowardly hypocrite
> you are.
Except a point is not the same as history. Events happen, there interpretation can be a point, but not the event.
> And speaking of cowardly hypocrisy, I note you've decided to move
> away from the fact that you spent 2 posts whinging about my never
> apologising for getting things wrong...after I'd apologised for
> getting something wrong. Are you hoping that will just go away?
To be quite honest I'm wondering why you felt the need to hijack the topic, because you have not actually even addressed the topic one bit. Notably you take issue with the person, me, who would do something different, whilst not commenting on anyone elses. I said stop the protestors, many others have various other violent acts as suggestions. I can see the hypocrisy there.
> Could you provide the links for that again please?
I believe you have access to Google and the like, no? Use it.
> And as I recall, in The Sum of all Fears, Clancy refers to a rogue
> Palestinian group using a nuclear weapon in Denver. So what you're
> essentially saying is that, because Israel did or does have nuclear
> weapons, then it is entirely possible a terror group will get hold of
> them? And you had to use Tom Clancy as your justification for that?
No, if you could remember the topic you would know that was not true. Your information about the book is semi-correct, but I never referred to that part of the book - why any terrorist group would want to try dig up 30 year old Israeli nukes which need to be placed in vehicles I don't know, suitcase nukes would be far more likely for a scenario. But anyway, I referred to Israel's earliset nuclear weapon because The Sum Of All Fears shows Israel sending up a fighter with it as the Israeli forces in the 1973 (I think) conflict are being beaten. Israel would deploy it to halt an invasion of Israel. In the book, the plane is shot down, and Israel does not need to use it anyway. In real life Israel had no need to use it, in fact no one knew about it until much later. Clancy is one of few people to make reference to it in the media.
> Jesus...you wonder why you're ridiculed? If I wasn't SO sure you're a
> virgin, I'd be convinced that you like to pay women to beat and
> humiliate you. After all, you seem to enjoy having that done on this
> board.
There you go again, you think I care? Do you honestly think I give a toss about what you or many others on here think? If you say yes then you really are kidding yourself.
> Did I? Please point out where I did so. Because you see, I don't
> believe I actually did say that. And I don't believe that things
> transpired as you say. Because you're a proven liar who lies and lies
> in order to avoid addressing the facts. Of course, if you can show
> that it was the case then I'll gladly apologise for getting it wrong.
> But I suspect you'll just try and avoid the topic.
Tell you what, in the movies topic you say I quoted Clancy, find that post and I'll find yours.
> Bwah ha ha haaaaaa! Says the man who dismisses out of hand anyone who
> makes a point he disagree's with...what a truly cowardly hypocrite
> you are.
Except a point is not the same as history. Events happen, there interpretation can be a point, but not the event.
> And speaking of cowardly hypocrisy, I note you've decided to move
> away from the fact that you spent 2 posts whinging about my never
> apologising for getting things wrong...after I'd apologised for
> getting something wrong. Are you hoping that will just go away?
To be quite honest I'm wondering why you felt the need to hijack the topic, because you have not actually even addressed the topic one bit. Notably you take issue with the person, me, who would do something different, whilst not commenting on anyone elses. I said stop the protestors, many others have various other violent acts as suggestions. I can see the hypocrisy there.
Belldandy wrote:
>
> I pointed, long ago, to the fact that Israel, during the, I think,
> 1973 war, had nuclear weapons and was prepared to use them in the
> event that Israeli forces could not hold back an attack. I mentioned
> that it was referred to by Clancy in one of his books - The Sum of
> All Fears.
Could you provide the links for that again please?
And as I recall, in The Sum of all Fears, Clancy refers to a rogue Palestinian group using a nuclear weapon in Denver. So what you're essentially saying is that, because Israel did or does have nuclear weapons, then it is entirely possible a terror group will get hold of them? And you had to use Tom Clancy as your justification for that?
Jesus...you wonder why you're ridiculed? If I wasn't SO sure you're a virgin, I'd be convinced that you like to pay women to beat and humiliate you. After all, you seem to enjoy having that done on this board.
>
> When Light said, in so mnay words, that this was rubbish and Clancy
> made it up, I then provided links to prove it happened and was
> possible. Strangely no one ever commented after that.
Did I? Please point out where I did so. Because you see, I don't believe I actually did say that. And I don't believe that things transpired as you say. Because you're a proven liar who lies and lies in order to avoid addressing the facts. Of course, if you can show that it was the case then I'll gladly apologise for getting it wrong. But I suspect you'll just try and avoid the topic.
>
> Ridiculous ? Not really, it is history. History is not ridiculous
> just because you happen to have never heard of something.
Bwah ha ha haaaaaa! Says the man who dismisses out of hand anyone who makes a point he disagree's with...what a truly cowardly hypocrite you are.
And speaking of cowardly hypocrisy, I note you've decided to move away from the fact that you spent 2 posts whinging about my never apologising for getting things wrong...after I'd apologised for getting something wrong. Are you hoping that will just go away?
>
> I pointed, long ago, to the fact that Israel, during the, I think,
> 1973 war, had nuclear weapons and was prepared to use them in the
> event that Israeli forces could not hold back an attack. I mentioned
> that it was referred to by Clancy in one of his books - The Sum of
> All Fears.
Could you provide the links for that again please?
And as I recall, in The Sum of all Fears, Clancy refers to a rogue Palestinian group using a nuclear weapon in Denver. So what you're essentially saying is that, because Israel did or does have nuclear weapons, then it is entirely possible a terror group will get hold of them? And you had to use Tom Clancy as your justification for that?
Jesus...you wonder why you're ridiculed? If I wasn't SO sure you're a virgin, I'd be convinced that you like to pay women to beat and humiliate you. After all, you seem to enjoy having that done on this board.
>
> When Light said, in so mnay words, that this was rubbish and Clancy
> made it up, I then provided links to prove it happened and was
> possible. Strangely no one ever commented after that.
Did I? Please point out where I did so. Because you see, I don't believe I actually did say that. And I don't believe that things transpired as you say. Because you're a proven liar who lies and lies in order to avoid addressing the facts. Of course, if you can show that it was the case then I'll gladly apologise for getting it wrong. But I suspect you'll just try and avoid the topic.
>
> Ridiculous ? Not really, it is history. History is not ridiculous
> just because you happen to have never heard of something.
Bwah ha ha haaaaaa! Says the man who dismisses out of hand anyone who makes a point he disagree's with...what a truly cowardly hypocrite you are.
And speaking of cowardly hypocrisy, I note you've decided to move away from the fact that you spent 2 posts whinging about my never apologising for getting things wrong...after I'd apologised for getting something wrong. Are you hoping that will just go away?
Bane wrote:
> unknown kernel wrote:
> I distinctly remember you using a Tom Clancy book as evidence for
> some
> argument you were having. I remember because it seemed ridiculous
> and because people made fun of you for it.
>
> I believe it was something like "Tom Clancy hinted at this in
> Clear and Present Danger, but the reality could be much worse"
> or something like that.
I pointed, long ago, to the fact that Israel, during the, I think, 1973 war, had nuclear weapons and was prepared to use them in the event that Israeli forces could not hold back an attack. I mentioned that it was referred to by Clancy in one of his books - The Sum of All Fears.
When Light said, in so mnay words, that this was rubbish and Clancy made it up, I then provided links to prove it happened and was possible. Strangely no one ever commented after that.
Ridiculous ? Not really, it is history. History is not ridiculous just because you happen to have never heard of something.
> unknown kernel wrote:
> I distinctly remember you using a Tom Clancy book as evidence for
> some
> argument you were having. I remember because it seemed ridiculous
> and because people made fun of you for it.
>
> I believe it was something like "Tom Clancy hinted at this in
> Clear and Present Danger, but the reality could be much worse"
> or something like that.
I pointed, long ago, to the fact that Israel, during the, I think, 1973 war, had nuclear weapons and was prepared to use them in the event that Israeli forces could not hold back an attack. I mentioned that it was referred to by Clancy in one of his books - The Sum of All Fears.
When Light said, in so mnay words, that this was rubbish and Clancy made it up, I then provided links to prove it happened and was possible. Strangely no one ever commented after that.
Ridiculous ? Not really, it is history. History is not ridiculous just because you happen to have never heard of something.
Belldandy wrote:
> Except it is you Light, because you have decided something,
> generalised it, and will continue to do so.
Er...no. I answered your complaint in full. Then you ignored it so that you could carry on bleating. And you've made yourself look like a whiny, self-pitying titmouse, haven't you?
>
> I'm not sure where the hell you think anyone could incorporate Tom
> Clancy into any beliefs,
Probably because you keep talking about him in different threads. Like in the Michael Moore thread, when you tried to turn the subject to Clancy in order to avoid the addressing the fact that you were criticising Moore despite not having read him.
> but hey, it is you we're talking about. I
> suppose you could mean some of his non-fiction stuff, but that is
> largely just tech info, description, not policy/tactics for the most
> part. The only thing he has done even remotely relevant is the new
> appalingly bad Teeth Of The Tiger...
So...right, you complain about the fact that you haven't mentioned Clancy, then you go on and mention Clancy? You really have got no sense of self-awareness at all, have you?
>
> Yep, it's you Light.
Heh. That's right Bell. I forced you to make that post whining about IB's joke. I forced you to spam the board that day. I forced you to make an idiot of yourself in every thread we've ever argued in. I forced you to run squealing from answering points. I forced you to say "I can't be bothered". I forced you to post as Halo Fan. And in this thread, this VERY THREAD, I've clearly forced you to skip over the clarification of the Clancy point, and my apology for your misunderstanding.
I can't decide if the fact that you're complaining about this despite the fact that I've actually addressed it already is a little sad, or really scary; in either case, it shows that you don't even bother to read the posts before engaging your auto-whine. It also shows that you really are determined to delude yourself into thinking that the reason you're held in such total disrespect by a huge number of the people posting here is something other than your own behaviour.
Let's make this clear Bell; the reason you're laughed at is because you behave like a clown. This post, where you've ignored the fact that I answered your questions, yet still complained that I hadn't answered them, proves what a blinkered and deluded cowardly little clown you are. By all means, keep kidding yourself that it's everyone else's fault that you're pointed and laughed at. Just don't expect to be treated with anything less than the contempt that you currently so richly deserve for being such an abject failure as a human being.
> Except it is you Light, because you have decided something,
> generalised it, and will continue to do so.
Er...no. I answered your complaint in full. Then you ignored it so that you could carry on bleating. And you've made yourself look like a whiny, self-pitying titmouse, haven't you?
>
> I'm not sure where the hell you think anyone could incorporate Tom
> Clancy into any beliefs,
Probably because you keep talking about him in different threads. Like in the Michael Moore thread, when you tried to turn the subject to Clancy in order to avoid the addressing the fact that you were criticising Moore despite not having read him.
> but hey, it is you we're talking about. I
> suppose you could mean some of his non-fiction stuff, but that is
> largely just tech info, description, not policy/tactics for the most
> part. The only thing he has done even remotely relevant is the new
> appalingly bad Teeth Of The Tiger...
So...right, you complain about the fact that you haven't mentioned Clancy, then you go on and mention Clancy? You really have got no sense of self-awareness at all, have you?
>
> Yep, it's you Light.
Heh. That's right Bell. I forced you to make that post whining about IB's joke. I forced you to spam the board that day. I forced you to make an idiot of yourself in every thread we've ever argued in. I forced you to run squealing from answering points. I forced you to say "I can't be bothered". I forced you to post as Halo Fan. And in this thread, this VERY THREAD, I've clearly forced you to skip over the clarification of the Clancy point, and my apology for your misunderstanding.
I can't decide if the fact that you're complaining about this despite the fact that I've actually addressed it already is a little sad, or really scary; in either case, it shows that you don't even bother to read the posts before engaging your auto-whine. It also shows that you really are determined to delude yourself into thinking that the reason you're held in such total disrespect by a huge number of the people posting here is something other than your own behaviour.
Let's make this clear Bell; the reason you're laughed at is because you behave like a clown. This post, where you've ignored the fact that I answered your questions, yet still complained that I hadn't answered them, proves what a blinkered and deluded cowardly little clown you are. By all means, keep kidding yourself that it's everyone else's fault that you're pointed and laughed at. Just don't expect to be treated with anything less than the contempt that you currently so richly deserve for being such an abject failure as a human being.
unknown kernel wrote:
> I distinctly remember you using a Tom Clancy book as evidence for some
> argument you were having. I remember because it seemed ridiculous
> and because people made fun of you for it.
I believe it was something like "Tom Clancy hinted at this in Clear and Present Danger, but the reality could be much worse" or something like that.
Reading that I just snapped, and had to join in laughing at Bell. Got me banned. What does that tell you, eh?
SNUGGLY READS CLANCY AS WELL!!!
> I distinctly remember you using a Tom Clancy book as evidence for some
> argument you were having. I remember because it seemed ridiculous
> and because people made fun of you for it.
I believe it was something like "Tom Clancy hinted at this in Clear and Present Danger, but the reality could be much worse" or something like that.
Reading that I just snapped, and had to join in laughing at Bell. Got me banned. What does that tell you, eh?
SNUGGLY READS CLANCY AS WELL!!!
Belldandy wrote:
> So, and seeing as you're so hot on people avoiding questions, where
> did I quote Tom Clancy?
I haven't avoided anything Bell.
>
> You see, I did not, meaning you either admit you are wrong, or stump
> up the evidence.
I think you'll find that when I said this;
>Okay, let me clear this up: I don't say that, in this post, you have >quoted Tom Clancy. If you got that impression, then I apologise but you >are mistaken.
I have admitted that you didn't quote Clancy in this thread. Do you see? Oh no, you can't. Because you're ignoring what I've said in the hope of making yourself look clever. And in fact, you've done the exact opposite.
> Oh dear you can't.
And in this thread, I didn't even try. What I DID say was;
> Bell admits that
> maybe he doesn't know everything, and promises to actually read up on
> the subject, rather than quoting Tom Clancy and Dubya as if they were
> biblical prophets.
Now maybe it's just me, but it looks to me like I'm making a rhetorical point; that you tend to believe in what Clancy and Dubya say. But can you see in that sentence where I've said "you said Clancy said this"? No? Funny that...it's almost as if you scan read it and then assumed you knew what I meant without seeking any clarification. And so, in your efforts to try and make me look stupid, you've made yourself look like an ignorant whining coward who can't actually read.
> So, and seeing as you're so hot on people avoiding questions, where
> did I quote Tom Clancy?
I haven't avoided anything Bell.
>
> You see, I did not, meaning you either admit you are wrong, or stump
> up the evidence.
I think you'll find that when I said this;
>Okay, let me clear this up: I don't say that, in this post, you have >quoted Tom Clancy. If you got that impression, then I apologise but you >are mistaken.
I have admitted that you didn't quote Clancy in this thread. Do you see? Oh no, you can't. Because you're ignoring what I've said in the hope of making yourself look clever. And in fact, you've done the exact opposite.
> Oh dear you can't.
And in this thread, I didn't even try. What I DID say was;
> Bell admits that
> maybe he doesn't know everything, and promises to actually read up on
> the subject, rather than quoting Tom Clancy and Dubya as if they were
> biblical prophets.
Now maybe it's just me, but it looks to me like I'm making a rhetorical point; that you tend to believe in what Clancy and Dubya say. But can you see in that sentence where I've said "you said Clancy said this"? No? Funny that...it's almost as if you scan read it and then assumed you knew what I meant without seeking any clarification. And so, in your efforts to try and make me look stupid, you've made yourself look like an ignorant whining coward who can't actually read.
I distinctly remember you using a Tom Clancy book as evidence for some argument you were having. I remember because it seemed ridiculous and because people made fun of you for it.
Page: