The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Well, it looks like he got away with it, anyway.
I don't think anybody is too surprised that a Tony Blair appointee didn't find fault with Tony Blair but, still, it's annoying.
Roll on a proper inquiry into Iraq.
I don't think anybody is too surprised that a Tony Blair appointee didn't find fault with Tony Blair but, still, it's annoying.
Roll on a proper inquiry into Iraq.
Page:
I am rubber, you are glue!!!!!
You wish.
unknown kernel wrote:
There is
> plenty of discussion here about the report itself so why not
> concentrate on that?
Cos Bell will have to admit he doesn't know what he's talking about...
There is
> plenty of discussion here about the report itself so why not
> concentrate on that?
Cos Bell will have to admit he doesn't know what he's talking about...
Belldandy wrote:
> Only of the main points SO FAR. No one outside of the political
> parties and BBC and Kelly family knew the entire reports summary
> findings until the moment Lord Hutton finished that last sentence.
> And unless unknown kernel is one of the above named parties then
> there is no way in hell he knew what it actually said...
Hehehehehe....Bell, are you saying that it was wrong to respond to something before having been in possession of all the facts of the summary?! I wouldn't be surprised as we all know you ALWAYS wait until being fully informed before wading in. Just like you did in the Rush Limbaugh thread....
Have you demonstrated your hypocrisy enough for one day, or is there more?
>
> Carry on, I expect your usual reply.
Would that be the one where I address the points raised? As opposed to your approach of running and hiding?
> Only of the main points SO FAR. No one outside of the political
> parties and BBC and Kelly family knew the entire reports summary
> findings until the moment Lord Hutton finished that last sentence.
> And unless unknown kernel is one of the above named parties then
> there is no way in hell he knew what it actually said...
Hehehehehe....Bell, are you saying that it was wrong to respond to something before having been in possession of all the facts of the summary?! I wouldn't be surprised as we all know you ALWAYS wait until being fully informed before wading in. Just like you did in the Rush Limbaugh thread....
Have you demonstrated your hypocrisy enough for one day, or is there more?
>
> Carry on, I expect your usual reply.
Would that be the one where I address the points raised? As opposed to your approach of running and hiding?
For god's sake: I started a thread, consisting of two throwaway lines based on a report in The Sun. It wasn't meant to be an in depth analysis of The Hutton Report, I just wanted to start a thread about it and so I did, an hour before the thing was released. There is plenty of discussion here about the report itself so why not concentrate on that?
Only of the main points SO FAR. No one outside of the political parties and BBC and Kelly family knew the entire reports summary findings until the moment Lord Hutton finished that last sentence. And unless unknown kernel is one of the above named parties then there is no way in hell he knew what it actually said...
Carry on, I expect your usual reply.
Carry on, I expect your usual reply.
Belldandy wrote:
> We can carry on this nitpicking for as long as you like but I'm sure
> you, and others, would rather get back to the actual topic...
Mwah ha ha ha ha ha haaaa! What, you mean like you mewling "Why are you agreeing with Flockhart!?!" when I clearly wasn't?
Not only a gutless coward, but a wailing hypocrite too. No wonder you're held in such high regard...
> We can carry on this nitpicking for as long as you like but I'm sure
> you, and others, would rather get back to the actual topic...
Mwah ha ha ha ha ha haaaa! What, you mean like you mewling "Why are you agreeing with Flockhart!?!" when I clearly wasn't?
Not only a gutless coward, but a wailing hypocrite too. No wonder you're held in such high regard...
Belldandy wrote:
> Pretty obvious. Any point I made was based on Lord Hutton's actual
> words, whereas your comments began before he had even talked about
> the topic of your comments.
Erm...there were summaries of the main points on Reuters, ananova, and the Groniad websites when I posted. Just cos you'd not read them, doesn't mean they don't exist. If you remember, Hutton had released the report earlier in the day before presenting it. Don't you recall that Bell?
>
> We can carry on this nitpicking for as long as you like but I'm sure
> you, and others, would rather get back to the actual topic...
In other words, 'please stop talking about this as you're showing up by bullying abuse throughout this thread to based on unjustified self-importance'. This IS on topic Bell, because it goes back to what you said in this thread. So are you trying to say now that you're condescendtion earlier in the thread had nothing to do with the topic?
Heh. Coward. Running away when you don't like it, eh? Why aren't I surprised?
> Pretty obvious. Any point I made was based on Lord Hutton's actual
> words, whereas your comments began before he had even talked about
> the topic of your comments.
Erm...there were summaries of the main points on Reuters, ananova, and the Groniad websites when I posted. Just cos you'd not read them, doesn't mean they don't exist. If you remember, Hutton had released the report earlier in the day before presenting it. Don't you recall that Bell?
>
> We can carry on this nitpicking for as long as you like but I'm sure
> you, and others, would rather get back to the actual topic...
In other words, 'please stop talking about this as you're showing up by bullying abuse throughout this thread to based on unjustified self-importance'. This IS on topic Bell, because it goes back to what you said in this thread. So are you trying to say now that you're condescendtion earlier in the thread had nothing to do with the topic?
Heh. Coward. Running away when you don't like it, eh? Why aren't I surprised?
Pretty obvious. Any point I made was based on Lord Hutton's actual words, whereas your comments began before he had even talked about the topic of your comments.
We can carry on this nitpicking for as long as you like but I'm sure you, and others, would rather get back to the actual topic...
We can carry on this nitpicking for as long as you like but I'm sure you, and others, would rather get back to the actual topic...
Belldandy wrote:
>
> If I remember rightly the only people doing so were you and unknown
> kernel...
Okay, so I'll allow you the sophist point; when I said 'everyone', I should have said "Unknowm Kernal and I". Okay, we both clear on that?
Now; what exactly is the difference between kernal and I using a summary, and you using a summary?
>
> If I remember rightly the only people doing so were you and unknown
> kernel...
Okay, so I'll allow you the sophist point; when I said 'everyone', I should have said "Unknowm Kernal and I". Okay, we both clear on that?
Now; what exactly is the difference between kernal and I using a summary, and you using a summary?
Page: