Question of the Week: Terrorism

First topic message reminder :

It has been 13 years since the war on terror began so the question I want to ask is this: Has the war on terror made the world (most notably western countries) a safer place?

Duty281 wrote:No I want you to prove it. Should be simple enough.

TopHat24/7 wrote:still not even sure what gender he/she is tbh.......

there is your proof

That's rubbish proof; completely inconsequential.

I expect better from a lawyer and YouTube professional.

Duty281 wrote:That's rubbish proof; completely inconsequential.

I expect better from a lawyer and YouTube professional.

So we have proof that you lied you was a girl and I posted proof about your age being a lie eg your posts on other forums that contradict your claims.

Once a liar always a liar.

Yes that last sentence does apply to you very aptly.

The most amusing thing of all is how fixated you are with the idea.

Duty281 wrote:Yes that last sentence does apply to you very aptly.

The most amusing thing of all is how fixated you are with the idea.

I just find it funny that someone (YOU) is so sad that they lie about their age/sexuality on an internet forum. Funny thing is you used the same username as other forums where your posts on those sites highlight your age is not 18

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:No I want you to prove it. Should be simple enough.

TopHat24/7 wrote:still not even sure what gender he/she is tbh.......

there is your proof

That's not proof, that's someone taking the mickey out of you.

Proof is a quote from Duty (in context) stating he's a girl

Post the links so we can see this alleged proof CS, ie where he states how old he is. You thought I was over 40 which is way off (well not as way off as I'd like

well this is fun

If you enjoy watching people make themselves look completely ridiculous on the internet that is

Still boys (or possibly girls?), do try to play nicely

Not quite sure why CS felt the need to jump in quite so aggressively, the only thing Duty was doing was having a chuckle at some rather outlandish conspiracy theories, spouted by one poster, and whose best argument against the numerous links to pages explaining said outlandishness (is that even a word?) was "oh well that's only an alternate possibility. Both [the outlandish conspiracy theory and the reasonable scientific explanation] are feasible", which is of course roughly the same arguments creationists and climate sceptics use, and in general people who don't quite understand scientific arguments.

Speaking of which, I read an article the other day claiming that human beings are (inherently) vegetarians. It "proved" this by listing quite an impressive bunch of characteristics humans share with other vegetarian species, which are different in carnivores or omnivores (such as shape of teeth I believe). WRONG!

Sorry for the rambling post

http://tigertalk.myfanforum.org/sutra30577.php

Thirteenth post down on that page: "Sadly not, my age is a prohibiting factor."

That was in 2011, clearly referencing that I'm under eighteen.

http://gtaforums.com/topic/597618-the-radio-stations-are/page-3

First post on that page.

There's some proper proof for ya.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:well this is fun

If you enjoy watching people make themselves look completely ridiculous on the internet that is

Still boys (or possibly girls?), do try to play nicely

Not quite sure why CS felt the need to jump in quite so aggressively, the only thing Duty was doing was having a chuckle at some rather outlandish conspiracy theories, spouted by one poster, and whose best argument against the numerous links to pages explaining said outlandishness (is that even a word?) was "oh well that's only an alternate possibility. Both [the outlandish conspiracy theory and the reasonable scientific explanation] are feasible", which is of course roughly the same arguments creationists and climate sceptics use, and in general people who don't quite understand scientific arguments.

Speaking of which, I read an article the other day claiming that human beings are (inherently) vegetarians. It "proved" this by listing quite an impressive bunch of characteristics humans share with other vegetarian species, which are different in carnivores or omnivores (such as shape of teeth I believe). WRONG!

Sorry for the rambling post

That poster, ONETWO, has decided to leave the forum after being a member for 3 years.

On the subject of Duty's persona, I quite frankly couldn't care less about what his age/gender/sexuality is, and can't see how on earth CS figures he's proved that Duty pretended to be a girl . I've lied about my age on forums before (sometimes because I didn't want to put too much information out there, sometimes because I felt it would be a wheeze) though my age is correct on this one (or maybe I'm lying, ha! ha! ha!), and quite frankly it's neither here nor there.

While I (very strongly) disagree with some of Duty's political views, and I don't despair he'll see the light eventually (I misguidedly voted right-wing when I was roughly his age on a couple of occasions, before figuring out that the only rational and indeed sensible option was to vote left or centre at the very least), he's at least worth a decent debate most of the time...

Duty281 wrote:http://tigertalk.myfanforum.org/sutra30577.php

Thirteenth post down on that page: "Sadly not, my age is a prohibiting factor."

That was in 2011, clearly referencing that I'm under eighteen.

http://gtaforums.com/topic/597618-the-radio-stations-are/page-3

First post on that page.

There's some proper proof for ya.

So you lie on other forums about your age as well then.....

Try the BT forum which proves you lied about your age, O wait, you was asking for a friend because adult friends often ask 14 year old kids to sort out contractual disputes   

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:well this is fun

If you enjoy watching people make themselves look completely ridiculous on the internet that is

Still boys (or possibly girls?), do try to play nicely

Not quite sure why CS felt the need to jump in quite so aggressively, the only thing Duty was doing was having a chuckle at some rather outlandish conspiracy theories, spouted by one poster, and whose best argument against the numerous links to pages explaining said outlandishness (is that even a word?) was "oh well that's only an alternate possibility. Both [the outlandish conspiracy theory and the reasonable scientific explanation] are feasible", which is of course roughly the same arguments creationists and climate sceptics use, and in general people who don't quite understand scientific arguments.

Speaking of which, I read an article the other day claiming that human beings are (inherently) vegetarians. It "proved" this by listing quite an impressive bunch of characteristics humans share with other vegetarian species, which are different in carnivores or omnivores (such as shape of teeth I believe). WRONG!

Sorry for the rambling post

That poster, ONETWO, has decided to leave the forum after being a member for 3 years.

Meh. He wrote a goodbye post on the boxing board (why do people even bother with those? do they hope that enough people will beg them to stay?), I suspect he'll be back sooner rather than later. Also, what was your point? Do you feel he was bullied off the boards by this thread? Quite frankly Duty and Derby (another whose politial leanings I disagree with) were more polite than I would have been given the rubbish he was spouting...

Mad for Chelsea wrote:On the subject of Duty's persona, I quite frankly couldn't care less about what his age/gender/sexuality is, and can't see how on earth CS figures he's proved that Duty pretended to be a girl . I've lied about my age on forums before (sometimes because I didn't want to put too much information out there, sometimes because I felt it would be a wheeze) though my age is correct on this one (or maybe I'm lying, ha! ha! ha!), and quite frankly it's neither here nor there.

While I (very strongly) disagree with some of Duty's political views, and I don't despair he'll see the light eventually (I misguidedly voted right-wing when I was roughly his age on a couple of occasions, before figuring out that the only rational and indeed sensible option was to vote left or centre at the very least), he's at least worth a decent debate most of the time...

No, no, no, my dear fellow. *Wags his finger like Columbo*

Right is right. Or something like that.

Free markets, controlled immigration, closer integration and trade with the Commonwealth, less interference of the government in day to day life, tightening of the welfare state, equal rights for all (no positive discrimination, mind!), overhaul the prison system, and the education system, abolish the House of Lords, oppose religion in all its forms, leave the EU, and let's all have a jolly good time.

I've inevitably left some stuff out, though!

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:well this is fun

If you enjoy watching people make themselves look completely ridiculous on the internet that is

Still boys (or possibly girls?), do try to play nicely

Not quite sure why CS felt the need to jump in quite so aggressively, the only thing Duty was doing was having a chuckle at some rather outlandish conspiracy theories, spouted by one poster, and whose best argument against the numerous links to pages explaining said outlandishness (is that even a word?) was "oh well that's only an alternate possibility. Both [the outlandish conspiracy theory and the reasonable scientific explanation] are feasible", which is of course roughly the same arguments creationists and climate sceptics use, and in general people who don't quite understand scientific arguments.

Speaking of which, I read an article the other day claiming that human beings are (inherently) vegetarians. It "proved" this by listing quite an impressive bunch of characteristics humans share with other vegetarian species, which are different in carnivores or omnivores (such as shape of teeth I believe). WRONG!

Sorry for the rambling post

That poster, ONETWO, has decided to leave the forum after being a member for 3 years.

Meh. He wrote a goodbye post on the boxing board (why do people even bother with those? do they hope that enough people will beg them to stay?), I suspect he'll be back sooner rather than later. Also, what was your point? Do you feel he was bullied off the boards by this thread? Quite frankly Duty and Derby (another whose politial leanings I disagree with) were more polite than I would have been given the rubbish he was spouting...

If I have to be 100% honest I ignored this thread once the thread turned into conspiracy theories so I have no idea really what was said.

It is sad that he left though because he was a good member.

Duty281 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:On the subject of Duty's persona, I quite frankly couldn't care less about what his age/gender/sexuality is, and can't see how on earth CS figures he's proved that Duty pretended to be a girl . I've lied about my age on forums before (sometimes because I didn't want to put too much information out there, sometimes because I felt it would be a wheeze) though my age is correct on this one (or maybe I'm lying, ha! ha! ha!), and quite frankly it's neither here nor there.

While I (very strongly) disagree with some of Duty's political views, and I don't despair he'll see the light eventually (I misguidedly voted right-wing when I was roughly his age on a couple of occasions, before figuring out that the only rational and indeed sensible option was to vote left or centre at the very least), he's at least worth a decent debate most of the time...

No, no, no, my dear fellow. *Wags his finger like Columbo*

Right is right. Or something like that.

Free markets, controlled immigration, closer integration and trade with the Commonwealth, less interference of the government in day to day life, tightening of the welfare state, equal rights for all (no positive discrimination, mind!), overhaul the prison system, and the education system, abolish the House of Lords, oppose religion in all its forms, leave the EU, and let's all have a jolly good time.

I've inevitably left some stuff out, though!

you'll see the light one day

Duty281 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:On the subject of Duty's persona, I quite frankly couldn't care less about what his age/gender/sexuality is, and can't see how on earth CS figures he's proved that Duty pretended to be a girl . I've lied about my age on forums before (sometimes because I didn't want to put too much information out there, sometimes because I felt it would be a wheeze) though my age is correct on this one (or maybe I'm lying, ha! ha! ha!), and quite frankly it's neither here nor there.

While I (very strongly) disagree with some of Duty's political views, and I don't despair he'll see the light eventually (I misguidedly voted right-wing when I was roughly his age on a couple of occasions, before figuring out that the only rational and indeed sensible option was to vote left or centre at the very least), he's at least worth a decent debate most of the time...

No, no, no, my dear fellow. *Wags his finger like Columbo*

Right is right. Or something like that.

Free markets, controlled immigration, closer integration and trade with the Commonwealth, less interference of the government in day to day life, tightening of the welfare state, equal rights for all (no positive discrimination, mind!), overhaul the prison system, and the education system, abolish the House of Lords, oppose religion in all its forms, leave the EU, and let's all have a jolly good time.

I've inevitably left some stuff out, though!

it is a contradiction saying less gov't interference in day to day life and then saying you want the gov't to criminalise religion and police it ( I assume if it is illegal).

You don't half make some stuff up, C_S. I don't want to criminalise religion.

Now stop changing the subject just because I proved you wrong. Tut, tut.

Duty281 wrote:You don't half make some stuff up, C_S. I don't want to criminalise religion.

Now stop changing the subject just because I proved you wrong. Tut, tut.

So you want to abolish religion without making it illegal. How will you do that?

Bt forums prove you lied about your age   Funny how you don't post that link in your defence

oooh are we having a religion debate? someone get s_r quick

my view on religion:

it's scientifically extremely implausible that there exists a "God". All that which we call "religions" have had (many) elements of their "sacred texts" disproved some time ago. If there is a "God", then he's a right mean old b@st@rd...

Mad for Chelsea wrote:my view on religion:

it's scientifically extremely implausible that there exists a "God". All that which we call "religions" have had (many) elements of their "sacred texts" disproved some time ago. If there is a "God", then he's a right mean old b@st@rd...

I don't believe in religion but I love reading the history behind it (good and bad).

No, I want to oppose religion, but not abolish it.

It would all, hopefully, die out in time. What could be done?

1) No faith schools.
2) No teaching of any religion in any school.
3) No promotion of religion in the media.
4) Ensure that religion doesn't trump individual human rights, and that it doesn't breach laws already set down in our judicial system. Where there is a breach, close it.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:http://tigertalk.myfanforum.org/sutra30577.php

Thirteenth post down on that page: "Sadly not, my age is a prohibiting factor."

That was in 2011, clearly referencing that I'm under eighteen.

http://gtaforums.com/topic/597618-the-radio-stations-are/page-3

First post on that page.

There's some proper proof for ya.

So you lie on other forums about your age as well then.....

Try the BT forum which proves you lied about your age, O wait, you was asking for a friend because adult friends often ask 14 year old kids to sort out contractual disputes   

Why is Duty's age and gender such a big issue for you? Why do you feel the need to constantly derail threads just to prove a point? Particularly one that's not even important. Grow up.

Its seriously weird how much C_S cares. Stalking him across multiple message boards.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:my view on religion:

it's scientifically extremely implausible that there exists a "God". All that which we call "religions" have had (many) elements of their "sacred texts" disproved some time ago. If there is a "God", then he's a right mean old b@st@rd...

Morning all, see I missed a load more fun :-)

This can be taken either way MFC, Science can be used to state their is a god or the unexplainable is used as proof that God is there. It's a bit of a fascinating subject (God and Science) if you've got the time to delve into it (I've dipped my toe in,) you first have to get the idea of God being an old geezer sitting on a cloud and then go from there.

If Religon is taught properly then it can be a good thing, it's when fanatics get involved that it becomes a problem. (especially fanatical atheists.)

CS can you post the link to where Duty lied about his age/gender then. Also if OneTwo's gone because of the thread then he needs to grow a thicker skin.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:http://tigertalk.myfanforum.org/sutra30577.php

Thirteenth post down on that page: "Sadly not, my age is a prohibiting factor."

That was in 2011, clearly referencing that I'm under eighteen.

http://gtaforums.com/topic/597618-the-radio-stations-are/page-3

First post on that page.

There's some proper proof for ya.

So you lie on other forums about your age as well then.....

Try the BT forum which proves you lied about your age, O wait, you was asking for a friend because adult friends often ask 14 year old kids to sort out contractual disputes   

You have a strange definition of a contractual dispute, when it were a simple price query. And it was on behalf of my grandmother, actually, who's computer literacy may let her down a touch.

Religion and online stalking, two subjects that have traditionally ended very well on here!

As a non-practicing agnostic (lapsed), IMO Religion's sole purpose appears to be to serve as comfort for the elderly who wish to believe that, after a life of drudgery there's something better waiting for them once they're done with seemingly endless nights of dinner alone in front of the TV, watching their friends die (often slowly and painfully and with zero dignity) and becoming cruelly aware of their own mortally whilst the families they loved and nurtured drift away to live the better lives they always hoped their kids would have but still wish they'd visit more often.

Or it's a pointless tool used by stupid middle class w*nkers to get their kids into a decent school.

Outside of that, I see little or no use in religion and whilst I donate to our local church food bank, I do it cos I'm a f*cking nice bloke not because I think it's my Christian duty

Morning Rowley,

To be fair we didn't do too bad last time we was talking about Religion in school, as long as we all keep a level head and what not (Plus I'm sure you'll be keeping an eye on us It wasn't a discussion of online stalking that caused a problem last time, it was someone actually stalking someone else too.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:oooh are we having a religion debate? someone get s_r quick

 
God  please dont.
 
Even he could do with a day off from talking about religion.

Derbymanc wrote:Morning Rowley,

To be fair we didn't do too bad last time we was talking about Religion in school, as long as we all keep a level head and what not (Plus I'm sure you'll be keeping an eye on us It wasn't a discussion of online stalking that caused a problem last time, it was someone actually stalking someone else too.

We WERE, lad...not we WAS. Should have spend time doing extra English instead of p!ssing about with religious studies

Kids, I sh!t 'em.

 

Worst thing is Dave, your right

Derbymanc wrote: 

Worst thing is Dave, your right

"YOU'RE" not "YOUR", you f*cking wind up merchant/dipstick (delete as applicable)

Derbymanc wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:my view on religion:

it's scientifically extremely implausible that there exists a "God". All that which we call "religions" have had (many) elements of their "sacred texts" disproved some time ago. If there is a "God", then he's a right mean old b@st@rd...

Morning all, see I missed a load more fun :-)

This can be taken either way MFC, Science can be used to state their is a god or the unexplainable is used as proof that God is there. It's a bit of a fascinating subject (God and Science) if you've got the time to delve into it (I've dipped my toe in,) you first have to get the idea of God being an old geezer sitting on a cloud and then go from there.If Religon is taught properly then it can be a good thing, it's when fanatics get involved that it becomes a problem. (especially fanatical atheists.)

CS can you post the link to where Duty lied about his age/gender then. Also if OneTwo's gone because of the thread then he needs to grow a thicker skin.

 
Thought that was Santa.

That's an old geezer sitting in a sleigh, he's Jesus's best mate

I thought Jesus was Santa and that he gave two fishes and five loaves of bread to good children and crucified the naughty ones

well, there's a number of minutes of my life I'm not getting back (referring to CS's obsession with Duty's age/gender/sexuality). Actually who cares if someone is pretending to be someone else on an online forum where most of us post under pseudos anyway? I mean if someone wants to invent a different life for themselves and live it through online forums that's a bit sad IMO, but I'm not too fussed. Am I really Mike Selig? And which one, I'm sure there are loads? Ooooh conspiracy...

Religion? Bunkum really, although the history is interesting.

I do have to pick Duty up over one thing though: in all your 1-4 methods of opposing religion you are arguing for state intervention are you not? So state intervention is not always a Bad Thing? And Free markets vs controlled immigration?

Duty281 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:http://tigertalk.myfanforum.org/sutra30577.php

Thirteenth post down on that page: "Sadly not, my age is a prohibiting factor."

That was in 2011, clearly referencing that I'm under eighteen.

http://gtaforums.com/topic/597618-the-radio-stations-are/page-3

First post on that page.

There's some proper proof for ya.

So you lie on other forums about your age as well then.....

Try the BT forum which proves you lied about your age, O wait, you was asking for a friend because adult friends often ask 14 year old kids to sort out contractual disputes   

You have a strange definition of a contractual dispute, when it were a simple price query. And it was on behalf of my grandmother, actually, who's computer literacy may let her down a touch.

First it was a friend and now your gran  
on ‎29-07-2010 22h12

duty281 wrote:
I was told on the phone that to get Total Sports Max (SS 1+2 for £12) I would have to upgrade from a bronze pack to a gold pack. However I thought that if I signed up for a new 2 year contract I could get Total Sports Max? Was I wrong?

Show us the links CS, we all think your lying.

skips around the room
'liar liar pants on fire, you want duty to pick you up higher'

Mike Selig wrote:y...

Religion? Bunkum really, although the history is interesting.

I do have to pick Duty up over one thing though: in all your 1-4 methods of opposing religion you are arguing for state intervention are you not? So state intervention is not always a Bad Thing? And Free markets vs controlled immigration?

I agree and it was a point I picked up on earlier regarding the opposition of religion by the gov't and less gov't interference.

The immigration point you raised is also a good one. Controlled immigration = gov't interference.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:http://tigertalk.myfanforum.org/sutra30577.php

Thirteenth post down on that page: "Sadly not, my age is a prohibiting factor."

That was in 2011, clearly referencing that I'm under eighteen.

http://gtaforums.com/topic/597618-the-radio-stations-are/page-3

First post on that page.

There's some proper proof for ya.

So you lie on other forums about your age as well then.....

Try the BT forum which proves you lied about your age, O wait, you was asking for a friend because adult friends often ask 14 year old kids to sort out contractual disputes   

You have a strange definition of a contractual dispute, when it were a simple price query. And it was on behalf of my grandmother, actually, who's computer literacy may let her down a touch.

First it was a friend and now your gran  
on ‎29-07-2010 22h12

duty281 wrote:
I was told on the phone that to get Total Sports Max (SS 1+2 for £12) I would have to upgrade from a bronze pack to a gold pack. However I thought that if I signed up for a new 2 year contract I could get Total Sports Max? Was I wrong?

Time to give it a rest now Columbo.

If you're that keen on delving through other poster's private lives, why don't you start an "Inspector CS investigates" thread, where you'll have free reign to uncover the skeletons in each poster's closet. You could look into whether Trussman really is as buff as he says, or whether Dave's serial killer interest masks something darker.

Mike Selig wrote:well, there's a number of minutes of my life I'm not getting back (referring to CS's obsession with Duty's age/gender/sexuality). Actually who cares if someone is pretending to be someone else on an online forum where most of us post under pseudos anyway? I mean if someone wants to invent a different life for themselves and live it through online forums that's a bit sad IMO, but I'm not too fussed. Am I really Mike Selig? And which one, I'm sure there are loads? Ooooh conspiracy...

Religion? Bunkum really, although the history is interesting.

I do have to pick Duty up over one thing though: in all your 1-4 methods of opposing religion you are arguing for state intervention are you not? So state intervention is not always a Bad Thing? And Free markets vs controlled immigration?

Her Majesty's government need only concern themselves with defence of the realm, keeping law and order, and looking after the economy. State intervention isn't always a bad thing, but I would prefer it to be scaled back as far as is reasonable. When you have something truly evil like religion, then that would be an instance where intervention is required.

Free markets v controlled immigration is always an interesting one. Of course, the notion of a free market in itself is paradoxical!

Controlled immigration is necessary to balance our pool of labour, whilst simultaneously striving to raise wages, which are constantly being kept low by a steady flow of cheap, Eastern European immigrants. And also to avert the overpopulation of Britain, which is rapidly becoming a concern.

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:http://tigertalk.myfanforum.org/sutra30577.php

Thirteenth post down on that page: "Sadly not, my age is a prohibiting factor."

That was in 2011, clearly referencing that I'm under eighteen.

http://gtaforums.com/topic/597618-the-radio-stations-are/page-3

First post on that page.

There's some proper proof for ya.

So you lie on other forums about your age as well then.....

Try the BT forum which proves you lied about your age, O wait, you was asking for a friend because adult friends often ask 14 year old kids to sort out contractual disputes   

You have a strange definition of a contractual dispute, when it were a simple price query. And it was on behalf of my grandmother, actually, who's computer literacy may let her down a touch.

First it was a friend and now your gran  
on ‎29-07-2010 22h12

duty281 wrote:
I was told on the phone that to get Total Sports Max (SS 1+2 for £12) I would have to upgrade from a bronze pack to a gold pack. However I thought that if I signed up for a new 2 year contract I could get Total Sports Max? Was I wrong?

Time to give it a rest now Columbo.

If you're that keen on delving through other poster's private lives, why don't you start an "Inspector CS investigates" thread, where you'll have free reign to uncover the skeletons in each poster's closet. You could look into whether Trussman really is as buff as he says, or whether Dave's serial killer interest masks something darker.

He could also look into whether Union's wife does actually exist and whether Chris is really 26. I have my doubts around both.

Come on C_S...how old am I really?

Rowley wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:http://tigertalk.myfanforum.org/sutra30577.php

Thirteenth post down on that page: "Sadly not, my age is a prohibiting factor."

That was in 2011, clearly referencing that I'm under eighteen.

http://gtaforums.com/topic/597618-the-radio-stations-are/page-3

First post on that page.

There's some proper proof for ya.

So you lie on other forums about your age as well then.....

Try the BT forum which proves you lied about your age, O wait, you was asking for a friend because adult friends often ask 14 year old kids to sort out contractual disputes   

You have a strange definition of a contractual dispute, when it were a simple price query. And it was on behalf of my grandmother, actually, who's computer literacy may let her down a touch.

First it was a friend and now your gran  
on ‎29-07-2010 22h12

duty281 wrote:
I was told on the phone that to get Total Sports Max (SS 1+2 for £12) I would have to upgrade from a bronze pack to a gold pack. However I thought that if I signed up for a new 2 year contract I could get Total Sports Max? Was I wrong?

Time to give it a rest now Columbo.

If you're that keen on delving through other poster's private lives, why don't you start an "Inspector CS investigates" thread, where you'll have free reign to uncover the skeletons in each poster's closet. You could look into whether Trussman really is as buff as he says, or whether Dave's serial killer interest masks something darker.

He could also look into whether Union's wife does actually exist and whether Chris is really 26. I have my doubts around both.

Darker than an interest in the mind of murderers? Shudder to think what could that be....and if anyone has any pictures.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:y...

Religion? Bunkum really, although the history is interesting.

I do have to pick Duty up over one thing though: in all your 1-4 methods of opposing religion you are arguing for state intervention are you not? So state intervention is not always a Bad Thing? And Free markets vs controlled immigration?

I agree and it was a point I picked up on earlier regarding the opposition of religion by the gov't and less gov't interference.

The immigration point you raised is also a good one. Controlled immigration = gov't interference.

Gets asked for proof, immediately changes the subject. Shows you he knows the square root of eff all.

I've just asked my dog if you was a whiny brat who obsess's over duty. He barked once which is proof enough that that's exactly what you are.

Duty281 wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:well, there's a number of minutes of my life I'm not getting back (referring to CS's obsession with Duty's age/gender/sexuality). Actually who cares if someone is pretending to be someone else on an online forum where most of us post under pseudos anyway? I mean if someone wants to invent a different life for themselves and live it through online forums that's a bit sad IMO, but I'm not too fussed. Am I really Mike Selig? And which one, I'm sure there are loads? Ooooh conspiracy...

Religion? Bunkum really, although the history is interesting.

I do have to pick Duty up over one thing though: in all your 1-4 methods of opposing religion you are arguing for state intervention are you not? So state intervention is not always a Bad Thing? And Free markets vs controlled immigration?

Controlled immigration is necessary to balance our pool of labour, whilst simultaneously striving to raise wages, which are constantly being kept low by a steady flow of cheap, Eastern European immigrants. And also to avert the overpopulation of Britain, which is rapidly becoming a concern.

So in other words you are happy with state intervention as long as it is benefiting a political idea you believe in.

Rowley wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:http://tigertalk.myfanforum.org/sutra30577.php

Thirteenth post down on that page: "Sadly not, my age is a prohibiting factor."

That was in 2011, clearly referencing that I'm under eighteen.

http://gtaforums.com/topic/597618-the-radio-stations-are/page-3

First post on that page.

There's some proper proof for ya.

So you lie on other forums about your age as well then.....

Try the BT forum which proves you lied about your age, O wait, you was asking for a friend because adult friends often ask 14 year old kids to sort out contractual disputes   

You have a strange definition of a contractual dispute, when it were a simple price query. And it was on behalf of my grandmother, actually, who's computer literacy may let her down a touch.

First it was a friend and now your gran  
on ‎29-07-2010 22h12

duty281 wrote:
I was told on the phone that to get Total Sports Max (SS 1+2 for £12) I would have to upgrade from a bronze pack to a gold pack. However I thought that if I signed up for a new 2 year contract I could get Total Sports Max? Was I wrong?

Time to give it a rest now Columbo.

If you're that keen on delving through other poster's private lives, why don't you start an "Inspector CS investigates" thread, where you'll have free reign to uncover the skeletons in each poster's closet. You could look into whether Trussman really is as buff as he says, or whether Dave's serial killer interest masks something darker.

He could also look into whether Union's wife does actually exist and whether Chris is really 26. I have my doubts around both.

I just sent you a PM with the names and addresses of the people you asked for.

You're struggling with reading comprehension, again, C_S. Tut tut.