The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I heard two people talking about this the other night, and was wondering what you guys thought. Is being gay in your DNA, or is it 'acquired' through your life?
So yeh, enlighten me...
So yeh, enlighten me...
Page:
Heh. Thank you. Knowing that the odious loon is getting visibly upset at being questioned is making this all worthwhile.
That's some serious ownage, right there.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Light wrote:
> As a final point, you've already admitted that you yourself don't
> follow biblical law as you have eaten blood, don't shun menstruating
> women, and don't believe that men who's testicles have been crushed
> will enter the kingdom of heaven. So by insisting others follow one
> law whilst you ignore others, you're showing your hypocrisy rather
> clearly.
>
> Light, Light, Light. I'm beginning to think, maybe you're the troll.
> Every time I tell you something you stick your fingers in your ears
> and pretend I haven't said it. Observe, I've told you many times now
> how the law has changed - it appeared you understood, but here you
> are re-posting the exact point I have already addressed several
> times.
>
Mwah ha ha ha haaaa! Ahh, I was wondering when you'd get to this stage;
Light - "you are an ignorant fool, and here are detailed reasons why"
Forest - "I know you are, but what am I?"
In fairness to you, it's taken you longer than Bell to degenerate to that level of desperate "Please leave me alone, or I'll try to insult you so that you get angry enough to forget that I haven't bothered to answer questions, and I'm being evasive".
Okay, you say the law has changed? It has indeed; for Christians. Yet you claim to be a Jew. The law hasn't changed for them. The Old covenant still applies. So you, my poor blinkered little friend, being both christian and jew (in your own words)have to follow both the old law and the new law. Don't you?
Of course, I raised that point in the Being a Christian thread, but you ran away and tried to pretend it hadn't been made, didn't you? After all, you can't have anything interfering with your fantasy of being special in the eyes of God, can you?
> Finally, when have I ever eaten blood - a law that still remains.
> Answer? Never.
Well, I asked if you always eat steak well done. You said you're not fussy. So if you've ever eaten even a medium done steak, you've eaten blood.
I note you're STILL avoiding the fact that as you don't shun mentruating women, you're failing entirely to follow the law that, as a jew, you are obliged to follow. And you're STILL avoiding the fact that, as you don't believe men who's testicles are crushed are barred from heaven, you are ignoring another law that, as a jew, you're obliged to follow.
This is fun isn't it? You're so desperate to be left alone to spread your fearmongering, self-important bilge that you'll happily unravel all the arguments you've previously used to try and get me to leave you alone. How does it feel to know that your devotion to God is being proved to be nothing more than a hypocritical devotion to yourself? And in front of all these people whom you've tried to talk down to as well...how embarrassing for you. Makes it difficult to convince yourself that you're the Son of God, doesn't it?
Oh, and incidentally; you've completely ignored the post about homosexuality in the natural world. Again. What a yellowbellied hypocrite you are...
> Light wrote:
> As a final point, you've already admitted that you yourself don't
> follow biblical law as you have eaten blood, don't shun menstruating
> women, and don't believe that men who's testicles have been crushed
> will enter the kingdom of heaven. So by insisting others follow one
> law whilst you ignore others, you're showing your hypocrisy rather
> clearly.
>
> Light, Light, Light. I'm beginning to think, maybe you're the troll.
> Every time I tell you something you stick your fingers in your ears
> and pretend I haven't said it. Observe, I've told you many times now
> how the law has changed - it appeared you understood, but here you
> are re-posting the exact point I have already addressed several
> times.
>
Mwah ha ha ha haaaa! Ahh, I was wondering when you'd get to this stage;
Light - "you are an ignorant fool, and here are detailed reasons why"
Forest - "I know you are, but what am I?"
In fairness to you, it's taken you longer than Bell to degenerate to that level of desperate "Please leave me alone, or I'll try to insult you so that you get angry enough to forget that I haven't bothered to answer questions, and I'm being evasive".
Okay, you say the law has changed? It has indeed; for Christians. Yet you claim to be a Jew. The law hasn't changed for them. The Old covenant still applies. So you, my poor blinkered little friend, being both christian and jew (in your own words)have to follow both the old law and the new law. Don't you?
Of course, I raised that point in the Being a Christian thread, but you ran away and tried to pretend it hadn't been made, didn't you? After all, you can't have anything interfering with your fantasy of being special in the eyes of God, can you?
> Finally, when have I ever eaten blood - a law that still remains.
> Answer? Never.
Well, I asked if you always eat steak well done. You said you're not fussy. So if you've ever eaten even a medium done steak, you've eaten blood.
I note you're STILL avoiding the fact that as you don't shun mentruating women, you're failing entirely to follow the law that, as a jew, you are obliged to follow. And you're STILL avoiding the fact that, as you don't believe men who's testicles are crushed are barred from heaven, you are ignoring another law that, as a jew, you're obliged to follow.
This is fun isn't it? You're so desperate to be left alone to spread your fearmongering, self-important bilge that you'll happily unravel all the arguments you've previously used to try and get me to leave you alone. How does it feel to know that your devotion to God is being proved to be nothing more than a hypocritical devotion to yourself? And in front of all these people whom you've tried to talk down to as well...how embarrassing for you. Makes it difficult to convince yourself that you're the Son of God, doesn't it?
Oh, and incidentally; you've completely ignored the post about homosexuality in the natural world. Again. What a yellowbellied hypocrite you are...
Light wrote:
> As a final point, you've already admitted that you yourself don't
> follow biblical law as you have eaten blood, don't shun menstruating
> women, and don't believe that men who's testicles have been crushed
> will enter the kingdom of heaven. So by insisting others follow one
> law whilst you ignore others, you're showing your hypocrisy rather
> clearly.
Light, Light, Light. I'm beginning to think, maybe you're the troll. Every time I tell you something you stick your fingers in your ears and pretend I haven't said it. Observe, I've told you many times now how the law has changed - it appeared you understood, but here you are re-posting the exact point I have already addressed several times.
Finally, when have I ever eaten blood - a law that still remains. Answer? Never.
> As a final point, you've already admitted that you yourself don't
> follow biblical law as you have eaten blood, don't shun menstruating
> women, and don't believe that men who's testicles have been crushed
> will enter the kingdom of heaven. So by insisting others follow one
> law whilst you ignore others, you're showing your hypocrisy rather
> clearly.
Light, Light, Light. I'm beginning to think, maybe you're the troll. Every time I tell you something you stick your fingers in your ears and pretend I haven't said it. Observe, I've told you many times now how the law has changed - it appeared you understood, but here you are re-posting the exact point I have already addressed several times.
Finally, when have I ever eaten blood - a law that still remains. Answer? Never.
Pandaemonium wrote:
> That was also totally ignored.
>
> Here we go.
>
> [URL]http://www.theregister.com/2004/03/08/inside_the_mind/[/URL]
Interesting, mice growing monkey sperm.
> That was also totally ignored.
>
> Here we go.
>
> [URL]http://www.theregister.com/2004/03/08/inside_the_mind/[/URL]
Interesting, mice growing monkey sperm.
Forest Fan wrote:
>
> What incidencts would these be, Light - backed up by suffecient
> evidence?
Well, why don't you have a look at the links that Pandaemonium has (re) posted? You ignored them first time round, and I'm sure you'll ignore them again, but it's nice to see you doing your best to pretend that something that proves you wrong doesn't exist.
So; still think it's 'unnatural' when there are recorded incidences in the natural world?
>
> Only an idiot would have a problem with skin colour - none are better
> then others. And all are completely natural - homo-sexuality is not a
> natural practice.
So speaketh the voice of experience...oh no,hang on; it's the voice of an ignorant, lonely little boy who demands the rest of us see the world through the same frightened eyes that he does.
As the links posted by Pandaemonium show, homosexuality is as natural as skin colour. As a further point, if it weren't, don't you think God would have (in his omnipotence) removed it? Oh no, sorry; you don't think, do you?
As a final point, you've already admitted that you yourself don't follow biblical law as you have eaten blood, don't shun menstruating women, and don't believe that men who's testicles have been crushed will enter the kingdom of heaven. So by insisting others follow one law whilst you ignore others, you're showing your hypocrisy rather clearly.
>
> Since when did humour enter this scenario?
The very instant you started posting implications that you were the Son of God. I find it hilarious that a friendless and socially retarded child can convince himself that he's God's chosen Son on the basis that absolutely no-one likes him. If that were true, the playgrounds would be full of Messiahs.
>
> What incidencts would these be, Light - backed up by suffecient
> evidence?
Well, why don't you have a look at the links that Pandaemonium has (re) posted? You ignored them first time round, and I'm sure you'll ignore them again, but it's nice to see you doing your best to pretend that something that proves you wrong doesn't exist.
So; still think it's 'unnatural' when there are recorded incidences in the natural world?
>
> Only an idiot would have a problem with skin colour - none are better
> then others. And all are completely natural - homo-sexuality is not a
> natural practice.
So speaketh the voice of experience...oh no,hang on; it's the voice of an ignorant, lonely little boy who demands the rest of us see the world through the same frightened eyes that he does.
As the links posted by Pandaemonium show, homosexuality is as natural as skin colour. As a further point, if it weren't, don't you think God would have (in his omnipotence) removed it? Oh no, sorry; you don't think, do you?
As a final point, you've already admitted that you yourself don't follow biblical law as you have eaten blood, don't shun menstruating women, and don't believe that men who's testicles have been crushed will enter the kingdom of heaven. So by insisting others follow one law whilst you ignore others, you're showing your hypocrisy rather clearly.
>
> Since when did humour enter this scenario?
The very instant you started posting implications that you were the Son of God. I find it hilarious that a friendless and socially retarded child can convince himself that he's God's chosen Son on the basis that absolutely no-one likes him. If that were true, the playgrounds would be full of Messiahs.
Forest Fan wrote:
> What incidencts would these be, Light - backed up by suffecient
> evidence?
Remember when I was explaining about my horny pair of female rats? Oh, sorry, you chose to totally ignore that didn't you.
I also remember a staff member posting a link to an article.
That was also totally ignored.
Here we go.
[URL]http://www.theregister.com/2004/03/08/inside_the_mind/[/URL]
[URL]http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/145/2/478[/URL]
> What incidencts would these be, Light - backed up by suffecient
> evidence?
Remember when I was explaining about my horny pair of female rats? Oh, sorry, you chose to totally ignore that didn't you.
I also remember a staff member posting a link to an article.
That was also totally ignored.
Here we go.
[URL]http://www.theregister.com/2004/03/08/inside_the_mind/[/URL]
[URL]http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/145/2/478[/URL]
Light wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
>
> By default the norm is to be straight. Everyone should follow what
> is
> natural and right - to be straight.
>
> Care to discuss incidences of homosexuality in the natural world, you
> ignorant blinkered little boy?
What incidencts would these be, Light - backed up by suffecient evidence?
>
> However homo-sexuals choose not
> to follow the norm and hence have made the decision to choose
> not to follow the norm.
>
> Hahahahahahahaaaa! Yeah, that's right. And black people choose
> to have darker skin, yeah?
Only an idiot would have a problem with skin colour - none are better then others. And all are completely natural - homo-sexuality is not a natural practice.
>
> Of course, I'm taking the proverbial out of you there. I feel I have
> to point this out because you choose to compare yourself to
> Jesus all the time, and drop hints that you're special in the eyes of
> God, so I figure you've probably got no sense of humour at all.
Since when did humour enter this scenario?
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
>
> By default the norm is to be straight. Everyone should follow what
> is
> natural and right - to be straight.
>
> Care to discuss incidences of homosexuality in the natural world, you
> ignorant blinkered little boy?
What incidencts would these be, Light - backed up by suffecient evidence?
>
> However homo-sexuals choose not
> to follow the norm and hence have made the decision to choose
> not to follow the norm.
>
> Hahahahahahahaaaa! Yeah, that's right. And black people choose
> to have darker skin, yeah?
Only an idiot would have a problem with skin colour - none are better then others. And all are completely natural - homo-sexuality is not a natural practice.
>
> Of course, I'm taking the proverbial out of you there. I feel I have
> to point this out because you choose to compare yourself to
> Jesus all the time, and drop hints that you're special in the eyes of
> God, so I figure you've probably got no sense of humour at all.
Since when did humour enter this scenario?
Forest Fan wrote:
>
> By default the norm is to be straight. Everyone should follow what is
> natural and right - to be straight.
Care to discuss incidences of homosexuality in the natural world, you ignorant blinkered little boy?
> However homo-sexuals choose not
> to follow the norm and hence have made the decision to choose
> not to follow the norm.
Hahahahahahahaaaa! Yeah, that's right. And black people choose to have darker skin, yeah?
Of course, I'm taking the proverbial out of you there. I feel I have to point this out because you choose to compare yourself to Jesus all the time, and drop hints that you're special in the eyes of God, so I figure you've probably got no sense of humour at all.
>
> By default the norm is to be straight. Everyone should follow what is
> natural and right - to be straight.
Care to discuss incidences of homosexuality in the natural world, you ignorant blinkered little boy?
> However homo-sexuals choose not
> to follow the norm and hence have made the decision to choose
> not to follow the norm.
Hahahahahahahaaaa! Yeah, that's right. And black people choose to have darker skin, yeah?
Of course, I'm taking the proverbial out of you there. I feel I have to point this out because you choose to compare yourself to Jesus all the time, and drop hints that you're special in the eyes of God, so I figure you've probably got no sense of humour at all.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Fosco wrote:
> H²O wrote:
> It's a strange world we live in.
>
> Yeah, people go to bed one thing and wake up a Newbie.
>
> Hint of intent here?
Guilty conscience Gump?
> Fosco wrote:
> H²O wrote:
> It's a strange world we live in.
>
> Yeah, people go to bed one thing and wake up a Newbie.
>
> Hint of intent here?
Guilty conscience Gump?
Page: