The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Bell, he promised Darwock he'd say nothing.
Besides, it's down to "argument technical errors".
"He said that I said when I really said..."
It's all off topic and not worth arguing about.
Back on topic, I agree with IB.
The report was never going to be bias free and people had already made up their minds what happened and just wanted the report to vindicate their story, otherwise they'd have an infinite amount of questions.
I can't comment on it because I've not read it but I still don't fully trust our government.
Besides, it's down to "argument technical errors".
"He said that I said when I really said..."
It's all off topic and not worth arguing about.
Back on topic, I agree with IB.
The report was never going to be bias free and people had already made up their minds what happened and just wanted the report to vindicate their story, otherwise they'd have an infinite amount of questions.
I can't comment on it because I've not read it but I still don't fully trust our government.
No.
Plus, despite me clearly asking, Goatboy cannot actually produce the reference for his Ignatious comment.
Could it be I was actually right and even now he is scrabbling to find a new meaning?
Could it be I was actually right and even now he is scrabbling to find a new meaning?
Belldandy wrote:
> Now, as much as I'd love to respond to Light, I fear that the majority
> of you would simply skip pass it and mark it down as another one of
> these customary spats.
>
> So instead I'll keep it short and simple.
>
> Light - no in fact anybody - find me where I say that the Hutton
> report validates the war. Light says that is what I am saying. So
> someone please find where I said it.
>
> Come one Light, no more messing around, find where I say it and quote
> the reply.
*waits*
So, despite several posts from Goatboy, all about as relevant to the topic as a goldfish, he nor Light still cannot find where I have said this. Strangely.
> Now, as much as I'd love to respond to Light, I fear that the majority
> of you would simply skip pass it and mark it down as another one of
> these customary spats.
>
> So instead I'll keep it short and simple.
>
> Light - no in fact anybody - find me where I say that the Hutton
> report validates the war. Light says that is what I am saying. So
> someone please find where I said it.
>
> Come one Light, no more messing around, find where I say it and quote
> the reply.
*waits*
So, despite several posts from Goatboy, all about as relevant to the topic as a goldfish, he nor Light still cannot find where I have said this. Strangely.
A fair point.
I've gotta apologise for dragging Bell through perfectly decent threads.
My bad
If we could have a "Your younger mates may think you know about things, but you haven't got a clue and we'll make sure you know it, you tool" forum, everyone'd be happy.
I've gotta apologise for dragging Bell through perfectly decent threads.
My bad
If we could have a "Your younger mates may think you know about things, but you haven't got a clue and we'll make sure you know it, you tool" forum, everyone'd be happy.
Can i just make a suggestion.
It seems Bell, Light and others have 'hijacked' this, and other threads. I'm not saying they did it on purpose or anything, but its just one of those things. X says this, Y sais that, X replies, Z jumps in, and before you know it, we're all off the origional topic.
Anyway, perhaps you can have a thread all on your own, where you can debate/ argue with each as much as you want. This will allow a thread, such as this one, to stay on track. Just an idea.
It seems Bell, Light and others have 'hijacked' this, and other threads. I'm not saying they did it on purpose or anything, but its just one of those things. X says this, Y sais that, X replies, Z jumps in, and before you know it, we're all off the origional topic.
Anyway, perhaps you can have a thread all on your own, where you can debate/ argue with each as much as you want. This will allow a thread, such as this one, to stay on track. Just an idea.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Do you chaps never get typer's cramp?
If I've got a few hours one sunday and have bought quite a lot of pornogra....... oh .... TYPERS cramp..? No, never
> Do you chaps never get typer's cramp?
If I've got a few hours one sunday and have bought quite a lot of pornogra....... oh .... TYPERS cramp..? No, never
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Do you chaps never get typer's cramp?
----------
Nah, it's just automatic pilot. My eyes glaze as I run through the bi-monthly "Why Bell is a tool" post, and Bell lays his Pokemon-masked face on the keys and headbutts in some bizarre Pickachu attack impression
> Do you chaps never get typer's cramp?
----------
Nah, it's just automatic pilot. My eyes glaze as I run through the bi-monthly "Why Bell is a tool" post, and Bell lays his Pokemon-masked face on the keys and headbutts in some bizarre Pickachu attack impression
Belldandy wrote:
> Ignatious, well to be honest it could be a number of references and
> the context you use it in means the meaning is vague.
--------
Which is a strange answer given your original comment:
""(nice little Ignatious thing BTW but to little end)"
Your original comment doesn't allow for "a number of references", and it certainly appears that you understand "the context you use it in", which renders absolutely no vagueness in meaning, as you clearly understood what I meant, otherwise your "nice little Ignatious thing BTW but to little end" would suggest that, actually, you had absolutely no idea what I meant - but would not allow yourself to appear like you didn't understand.
And your utter pettiness at trying to prove to everybody that you're the bestest ever and picked on by a hateful cabal of smoking communists that are trying to destroy democracy, truth, justice and the American Way means rather than simply ignore a comment you didn't quite understand, you had to preen and sneer to suggest "Well actually Goatboy, I got that and it was rubbish"
Except...well...you don't actually know what I meant and are now frantically trying to find a way to come out smelling of victory instead of, once more, shameful ignorance.
This is what happens when you make a comment you think will indicate your staggering intelligence, common sense and inner-fantasticness - but it always, always comes back to bite you on the ass.
If you only had the humility to say "I don't know/I don't read that/I don't watch that", then you wouldn't constantly be picked apart like this.
But you don't.
You have to appear as the Oracle of Everything, hence your googling for facts and figures to back up a stance you take immediately and stick to, even when it becomes untenable.
That's why you're a laughing stock here Bell.
It's not that you are this vilified seeker of truth, decency and saneness that is hunted and bullied by nasty boys (despite what you may tell yourself).
It's that you are a blowhard that postures and presents an initially impressive font of knowledge, but lacking any experience or personal thoughts to a topic, you are unably to support any ideas you present.
Because they're not your ideas, simply recycled propaganda from The Daily Mail/The Prime Minister and you don't actually understand the arguments.
But you'll never admit that (Michael Moore, Cannabis, Kapos etc etc) and turn in ever decreasing circles until even you cannot untie yourself, and promptly disappear until you think it's all forgotten.
Then come back and it all repeats.
> Ignatious, well to be honest it could be a number of references and
> the context you use it in means the meaning is vague.
--------
Which is a strange answer given your original comment:
""(nice little Ignatious thing BTW but to little end)"
Your original comment doesn't allow for "a number of references", and it certainly appears that you understand "the context you use it in", which renders absolutely no vagueness in meaning, as you clearly understood what I meant, otherwise your "nice little Ignatious thing BTW but to little end" would suggest that, actually, you had absolutely no idea what I meant - but would not allow yourself to appear like you didn't understand.
And your utter pettiness at trying to prove to everybody that you're the bestest ever and picked on by a hateful cabal of smoking communists that are trying to destroy democracy, truth, justice and the American Way means rather than simply ignore a comment you didn't quite understand, you had to preen and sneer to suggest "Well actually Goatboy, I got that and it was rubbish"
Except...well...you don't actually know what I meant and are now frantically trying to find a way to come out smelling of victory instead of, once more, shameful ignorance.
This is what happens when you make a comment you think will indicate your staggering intelligence, common sense and inner-fantasticness - but it always, always comes back to bite you on the ass.
If you only had the humility to say "I don't know/I don't read that/I don't watch that", then you wouldn't constantly be picked apart like this.
But you don't.
You have to appear as the Oracle of Everything, hence your googling for facts and figures to back up a stance you take immediately and stick to, even when it becomes untenable.
That's why you're a laughing stock here Bell.
It's not that you are this vilified seeker of truth, decency and saneness that is hunted and bullied by nasty boys (despite what you may tell yourself).
It's that you are a blowhard that postures and presents an initially impressive font of knowledge, but lacking any experience or personal thoughts to a topic, you are unably to support any ideas you present.
Because they're not your ideas, simply recycled propaganda from The Daily Mail/The Prime Minister and you don't actually understand the arguments.
But you'll never admit that (Michael Moore, Cannabis, Kapos etc etc) and turn in ever decreasing circles until even you cannot untie yourself, and promptly disappear until you think it's all forgotten.
Then come back and it all repeats.
Do you chaps never get typer's cramp?
Page: