RE: WTF are you gibbering on about now? Try actually reading what I said IN REPLY TO YOUR ORIGINAL COMMENT instead of making it up. I was replying about your "Fake concern" comment. Of course it's not "a dumb thing to say" that people shouldn't be concerned about other life on this planet. Using your ridiculous logic of "fake concern" I could say the same thing about you. There's lots of things you haven't spoken out about - does that mean your caring for animals is "fake concern". I mean, being an animal rights protester ss just being 'completely fake and trendy' Did I say that? No. Care to tell me what I said about the rest of the board? I'm talking to you, and talking about your responses to me on this board over a period of time. Stop trying to drag the rest of the board in to it.
RE: I did, you owe him a tenner! You think he will bother to answer the question as to why he thinks it's not acceptable to kill innocent animals, but it is to kill innocent Iraqis?
RE: You're "not the first person to realise (for some genuinely strange reason)" the text in brackets was in an ironic tone of voice.
Not a chance. Some sort of personal abuse, definitely! That completely avoids the question and then he can carry on with the macho posturing that he believes passes for a debate.
RE: cool Oh ignore me and Windy, most others do. We used to be mates in person but then my non-violent outlook on the world seems to have irritated him to such a degree that he resorts to abuse and general name calling (this morning, im mostly being called a lovely person) LOL. It's hard to tell how much is just him mashing the keyboard in annoyance and how much is genuine hostility. *shrugs* I didn't see your post as aggressive, the first word of my reply should have been "Hello" and not "Hell" by the way. Ther perils of typo's. "triumvirate" eh? *goes to dictionary.com* triumvirate n : a group of three men responsible for public administration or civil authority Good word, shame the meaning isn't more exciting!
RE: I did, you owe him a tenner! Of course it's unacceptable you ******* moron. But there will always be innocent deaths in war. Are you trying to say war is never acceptable? The bad guys would love that. What you continually fail to address is the greater danger of leaving Saddam in place. While ever you continue to see the world in black and white you'll continue to talk B*ll*cks. Who's paying you to pose on here these days? You didn't "bother to answer the question."
Can't be arsed to read that either. Try to limit it to 1,000 words. (You might like to apply that to your w4nk songs as well.)
is that how things look in your twilight world of understanding? Your "non-violent outlook" irritates me? No mate, I just don't like fakes. Anyone who can sneer at the torturing of animals whilst arrogantly proclaiming himslf to be the only one who cares about the victims of war has a far darker side than I.
The bad guys would love that ! and then you go on to say HE sees everyting in black and white! ffs, you don't even know you're doing it do you? Stick to the personal abuse, you've mastered that, but stay away from serious debate as it just seems quite beyond your grasp.
Aw bless, you're so brave Bungle. (In a fondly amused voice.) Like a little Yorkshire Terrier barking at the big dogs from behind his gate. Funny little Bungle.
How many times do I have to tell you they don't work for you Bungle? (In a reproachful voice) You can't just pluck my phrases out of context and shove them in any old where. You're not clever enough Bungle. Go on, shout "PRAT!" again.
Was I talking to you Bungle? Wash the sand out of your vagina and get some work done. You'll be getting the sack like Acky.
RE: I did, you owe him a tenner! So "unacceptable" that you still defend it? Should have realised a "but" was on its way. I've never said that all war is unacceptable. Everyone has the right to self defence but Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone outside his borders, therefore attacking Iraq was an act of aggression. An act which according to the Laws of the Geneva Convention (laws made after the defeat of the Nazi's in WWII) is, "the ultimate crime". You seem to have a problem with universal laws that should be applied to all. Instead you believe that you get to choose when laws should and should not apply to yourself or those you support. I have not 'continually failed to address the danger of leaving him in place', you just continually choose to be ignorant regarding the arguments I made before and after the war as to why I believed it would be worse. If you'd have bothered to read the other post you'd already know. You really must be suffering from dementia if you don't remember me saying amongst many other things that have happened as a result that Iraq would quite possibly end up in a civil war (link to a BBC article from today - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5240808.stm) Given the dangers and complexity of invading Iraq you have some nerve to start boiling all those issues down to 'bad guys vs. good guys'. I mean for pity's sake man......... Why don't you ask everyone else who pays them to post during work time? I'm sure there's people made many more posts on here than me during work. For someone who posts "at his leisure" you're very shy about your post count. Why is that Mr. Potty Mouth? Don't want to reveal how much of your time you spend insulting people and talking about flavours of soup?
RE: The bad guys would love that ! I often think he'splaying devil's advocate in order to show anyone else reading this how daft these arguments actually are.
RE: No, sorry. I'm not reading that either. "FOOTBALL STAR IN SEX ROMP" - that's more your level, right?