Well I could wait for you to die, since you're so "old", but I guess there wouldn't be much change in the amount of reasoning or data you'd be bringing to this, would there?
I could argue on reasoning and data, but I prefer to argue with style points. Did you miss my lotus blossom eats preying mantis position? That's the one where you do a neck chop, a triple somersault, and pull a machine gun from behind your back and yell "surprise".
Am I supposed to feel bad because I didn't know who Beth Ditto is? I'd rather I still didn't to be honest, but there's obviously a few fans here, so you can keep her.
And who's Hans Solo? Han Solo's German cousin?
I could argue on reasoning and data, but I prefer to argue with style points. Did you miss my lotus blossom eats preying mantis position? That's the one where you do a neck chop, a triple somersault, and pull a machine gun from behind your back and yell "surprise".
I could say that's poetic if I wanted to be nice, but it's certainly just more bullshit.
You "could" argue on reasoning and data? Has anyone any evidence of this or have you kept it secret from the world for some higher purpose? Back to the irritable bowel for you opinions then, yes?
I could say that's poetic if I wanted to be nice, but it's certainly just more bullshit.
Was my time wasted, then? Bugger. I'm not sure which would have been more entertaining to watch - me performing that move, or me trying to put on the lycra with the aid of baby powder, olive oil, and a warmed up serving spoon.
That "killer quote" doesn't say you were addressing him you pillock. You do know the difference between talking about someone and talking to them? Probably not, as you seem to know shite all else.
If you were talking "about" him, then why did you use the second person pronoun? You know, the word "you". Isn't that the generally-accepted way of talking "to" someone?
The great thing about the Spectrum was third party manufacturers were ready and very willing to provide whatever peripheral you required. There was nothing you wished for that someone didn't make.
Was my time wasted, then? Bugger. I'm not sure which would have been more entertaining to watch - me performing that move, or me trying to put on the lycra with the aid of baby powder, olive oil, and a warmed up serving spoon.
By any other forum's standards this thread would've been locked because only one person has made any attempt to stay on topic. Yours truly. Am I under a bridge or what because that makes all you pointless argumentative freaks trolls!
By any other forum's standards this thread would've been locked because only one person has made any attempt to stay on topic. Yours truly. Am I under a bridge or what because that makes all you pointless argumentative freaks trolls!
By any other forum's standards this thread would've been locked because only one person has made any attempt to stay on topic. Yours truly. Am I under a bridge or what because that makes all you pointless argumentative freaks trolls!
You really haven't a clue about what goes on here, do you?
I'll let you into a little secret.
None of what I've posted in this thread contains any hard evidence, nor any real form of argument.
And yet all that's perfectly acceptable.
Meanwhile I'm enjoying my Saturday listening to Test Match Special (EDIT: NZ now all out for 381) whilst preparing the soundtrack to the 1989 documentary chapter.
Do you *really* think I'm taking any real notice of what you're saying as well?
You really haven't a clue about what goes on here, do you?
I'll let you into a little secret.
None of what I've posted in this thread contains any hard evidence, nor any real form of argument.
And yet all that's perfectly acceptable.
Meanwhile I'm enjoying my Saturday listening to Test Match Special (EDIT: NZ now all out for 381) whilst preparing the soundtrack to the 1989 documentary chapter.
Do you *really* think I'm taking any real notice of what you're saying as well?
That's OK, everybody's already accepted that you're full of shit. You don't need to rephrase it.
Do you think anybody will take you're "documentary" seriously when you admit you use trapped wind where others use data? You'd like to think this is taxing in some way for me and really disturbing my day in the backgarden, in the sun, with a beer, but it's not.
Do you think anybody will take you're "documentary" seriously when you admit you use trapped wind where others use data?
Oh don't worry, I really do argue about things I care about, and I have all the data on-hand to back up my documentary. It wouldn't be a documentary without that, would it?
Do you think anybody will take you're "documentary" seriously when you admit you use trapped wind where others use data? You'd like to think this is taxing in some way for me and really disturbing my day in the backgarden, in the sun, with a beer, but it's not.
Have you seen any of them? Probably not, so why comment?
and it is loved by thousands of people when you have been disowned by the C64 crowd on both forums and usenet can't you take a hint?
Jesus, he didn't. He corrected an minor grammatical mistake on a web forum. I haven't seen anyone stupid enough to do that in years as it does nothing except make the corrector look like a retard.
And I said "you're documentary" which would expand to "you are documentary" not "you are the documentary". You couldn't even do that right.
EDIT: That "an minor" was a real mistake. Not a pedant trap.
Why did I think it was a moog?? Everyone knows it's a theremin. I think it was cause the Beach Boys played it live on Ed Sullivan in '69 and they used a moog invented thing that sounded like the theremin. Still love to hear that moog though.
Oh don't worry, I really do argue about things I care about, and I have all the data on-hand to back up my documentary. It wouldn't be a documentary without that, would it?
That's why I put quotes around it. Whether your "documentary" is based on facts or on various inflammations of your upper colon has yet to be demonstrated.
That's why I put quotes around it. Whether your "documentary" is based on facts or on various inflammations of your upper colon has yet to be demonstrated.
Can?t say i have eaven read 10% of this thread, but DanSolo seems quite right to me. When the WOS community got overwhelmed by the fact that the c64 really is more popular than the spectrum you stick your fingers in your ears and start shouting.
Slagging off DanSolo for being right just make you look childish and stup?d. What does it matter anyway. You had spectrums as kids and has found memory of the games. Does it really hurt that much admitting the c64 was then, and is now the more popular of the two?
Do you honestly expect to make an accurate assessment of an arguement after only hearing less than ten percent of the comments?
Listen to ten percent of the arguments of the Holocaust and you could become convinced that it never took place at all (though how anyone can argue that it didn't is beyond belief to my mind, yet they do). Listen to ten percent of people about any subject and you can become convinced of something that's totally wrong.
I'm not saying that the Speccy is or isn't more popular, or better, or more highly regarded etc than the C64. I'm just saying that DanSolo is a troll, who refuses to listen to either reason or argument. But don't take my word for it, either read the entire thread, or please don't come to any firm decision about it. And whilst you're at it, look at how he called me a "cunt face", and tell me whether I deserved that.
But please don't make up your mind about anything just by knowing less than ten percent of the relevent facts, or you could end up joining the Nazi party, or thinking that aliens routinely abduct and have sex with people in America, or that cocaine does no harm at all.
You have people wanting others to be open minded about their beliefs and choices....yet if someone disagrees with them and has their own views on the matter......they accuse them of being closed minded!....
Not arguing...I've always found it amusing that those that shout to for freedom of expression etc....have very little tolerance for those that disagree with them!
Religions frquently preach tolerance but practise (often very harsh) discrimination. I don't want to start a whole new argument here, but religious groups preach that money is worthless and has no spirital value and is therefore unimportant, and yet at the same time the religious leaders are filthy rich.
Look at Christianity; the Catholic church is supposed to be both the richest organisation, and also the largest landowner in the world. Yet half the world is starving. It's also said that the Catholic Church has shares in arms (weapons) firms. And they protected the Nazi war criminals after the war (in exchange for stolen gold and art treasures) and the priests routinely cover up cases of child abuse amongst their fellow priests. Do you think that any of that would please God and Christ? Of course not. If any priest really believed in God then he'd certainly never value wealth, or let people go hungry or afraid or harmed, or in any way disobey the wishes of God, as he'd be too afraid to go to the eternal Hell which he believed in. But most religious leaders, it seems to me, don't believe in what they preach, they just do it to gain wealth and power.
And if you doubt that, then answer me this; when have you ever seen two holy leaders from any two opposing beliefs arguing with each other? If someone truly believed in Christ, then he'd try to teach everyone about Christ's work and teachings. The same with any other religion. But no, every religious leader sticks to his own religion, and only tries to convert those gullible enough to listen but yet trapped in a web of lies by any other religion.
Like all conmen, they keep to their own "patch", their own group of mugs.
For example, according to the (Christian) Bible, Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, the light. Only through me shall you find God". Now remember, this is Jesus Christ speaking, who is actually God (Jesus was a divine soul, in a human body), and therefore he cannot be wrong, according to Christian beliefs, since they belive that God is infallible.
So therefore, no non-Christan can ever enter heaven. No Jews, no Muslims, no atheists, no agnostics, no Hindus, in fact no-one who isn't a Christian (you also have to be a "good" Christian, but that's irrelevant to my point, which is that only Christians can enter Heaven, according to Jesus and therefore according to Hell).
So that being the case, why do you never see a Christian priest/vicar/minister etc trying to convert Muslims, Jews etc. I'm not saying that it doesn't ever happen, as a true believer of Christ would do so (or a con man who saw a possible convert), but you never see a high ranking churchman do so. TV stations would love to show something as controversial as, say, the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, arguing with a top Muslim Holy man about which religion was correct, but such discussions never take place, because no heads of either religion want to rock the boat and risk losing followers (from whom they gain cash and power).
Every Christian preacher from the newest priest to the Pope himself must theoretically believe that all non-Christians are doomed to Hell, but do you ever see the Pope, for example, preaching that Islam is a pack of lies, and that all followers of Mohammed will surely burn in Hell, unless they repent of their false religion and instead become catholics? Of course not. He doesn't want to rock the boat and lose the money and power that he currently has.
Look at the differences between the Catholic and Prodestant variations of Christianity. Both believe that they are right, but neither argues publically against the other, and calls the opposing version a "sinful and corrupted version of Our Lord's Commands to Man" (or whatever phrase they'd use if they did believe).
And no religion can offer up any facts at all to support them. You might be a Christian now, Lockett (and I don't mean to offend you with any of this, I'm just stating what I believe), but if you'd have lived two thousand years ago you'd have worshipped Zeus, or Ra, or Jupiter, or whatever, depending on where you lived. Even today, if you'd been born a Muslim, then you'd follow that religion instead, or you'd be a Hindu if you were so born.
Comments
i aint really been in the troll one thats why, but......hes in the right place then :D
I could argue on reasoning and data, but I prefer to argue with style points. Did you miss my lotus blossom eats preying mantis position? That's the one where you do a neck chop, a triple somersault, and pull a machine gun from behind your back and yell "surprise".
And who's Hans Solo? Han Solo's German cousin?
I wish you'd Jabber in a Hutt
You "could" argue on reasoning and data? Has anyone any evidence of this or have you kept it secret from the world for some higher purpose? Back to the irritable bowel for you opinions then, yes?
Or a shed :D
Was my time wasted, then? Bugger. I'm not sure which would have been more entertaining to watch - me performing that move, or me trying to put on the lycra with the aid of baby powder, olive oil, and a warmed up serving spoon.
If you were talking "about" him, then why did you use the second person pronoun? You know, the word "you". Isn't that the generally-accepted way of talking "to" someone?
It's the same with the C64, actually.
It would have to be a C64 theremin.
This thread is depressing.
Or the bottom of a very deep well.
Must be some kind of....reverse...psychology???
You really haven't a clue about what goes on here, do you?
I'll let you into a little secret.
None of what I've posted in this thread contains any hard evidence, nor any real form of argument.
And yet all that's perfectly acceptable.
Meanwhile I'm enjoying my Saturday listening to Test Match Special (EDIT: NZ now all out for 381) whilst preparing the soundtrack to the 1989 documentary chapter.
Do you *really* think I'm taking any real notice of what you're saying as well?
"C64 is sublime, don't you agree? Is it not? Why not? Prove it! I want evidence!
You little bastard piece of wood, who do you think you are? Git."
Even a bench has better things to do, I suppose.
Wonderful - and spot on :)
Do you think anybody will take you're "documentary" seriously when you admit you use trapped wind where others use data? You'd like to think this is taxing in some way for me and really disturbing my day in the backgarden, in the sun, with a beer, but it's not.
FFS he's not becoming the documentary.
and it is loved by thousands of people when you have been disowned by the C64 crowd on both forums and usenet can't you take a hint?
Oh don't worry, I really do argue about things I care about, and I have all the data on-hand to back up my documentary. It wouldn't be a documentary without that, would it?
Have you seen any of them? Probably not, so why comment?
Thousands?
Erk.
<checks download stats>
Bloody hell, you're right.
Blimey.
Nope. Not nervous about 1989. Not nervous at all.
Eeep.
Notice how I said your work was loved by thousands I can't vouch for your personal bed post notches. ;)
And I said "you're documentary" which would expand to "you are documentary" not "you are the documentary". You couldn't even do that right.
EDIT: That "an minor" was a real mistake. Not a pedant trap.
Well, if you meant the latter, then various parts of me would have been worn down by now.
Why did I think it was a moog?? Everyone knows it's a theremin. I think it was cause the Beach Boys played it live on Ed Sullivan in '69 and they used a moog invented thing that sounded like the theremin. Still love to hear that moog though.
https://discordapp.com/invite/cZt59EQ
...to you.
Check the archives.
Do you honestly expect to make an accurate assessment of an arguement after only hearing less than ten percent of the comments?
Listen to ten percent of the arguments of the Holocaust and you could become convinced that it never took place at all (though how anyone can argue that it didn't is beyond belief to my mind, yet they do). Listen to ten percent of people about any subject and you can become convinced of something that's totally wrong.
I'm not saying that the Speccy is or isn't more popular, or better, or more highly regarded etc than the C64. I'm just saying that DanSolo is a troll, who refuses to listen to either reason or argument. But don't take my word for it, either read the entire thread, or please don't come to any firm decision about it. And whilst you're at it, look at how he called me a "cunt face", and tell me whether I deserved that.
But please don't make up your mind about anything just by knowing less than ten percent of the relevent facts, or you could end up joining the Nazi party, or thinking that aliens routinely abduct and have sex with people in America, or that cocaine does no harm at all.
yes! DanSolo called me a retard, do I get a badge of honour or something?
Calling a documenter documentary is a little redundant at the best of times.
Active C64 sites (provided by 2 posters)
slayradio
csdb
lemon
protovision
forum64
sfodb
64ending
c64gtw
HVSC
project64
retrohackers.
GameBase64
Active Spectrum sites (provided by all other posters)
WOS
Religions frquently preach tolerance but practise (often very harsh) discrimination. I don't want to start a whole new argument here, but religious groups preach that money is worthless and has no spirital value and is therefore unimportant, and yet at the same time the religious leaders are filthy rich.
Look at Christianity; the Catholic church is supposed to be both the richest organisation, and also the largest landowner in the world. Yet half the world is starving. It's also said that the Catholic Church has shares in arms (weapons) firms. And they protected the Nazi war criminals after the war (in exchange for stolen gold and art treasures) and the priests routinely cover up cases of child abuse amongst their fellow priests. Do you think that any of that would please God and Christ? Of course not. If any priest really believed in God then he'd certainly never value wealth, or let people go hungry or afraid or harmed, or in any way disobey the wishes of God, as he'd be too afraid to go to the eternal Hell which he believed in. But most religious leaders, it seems to me, don't believe in what they preach, they just do it to gain wealth and power.
And if you doubt that, then answer me this; when have you ever seen two holy leaders from any two opposing beliefs arguing with each other? If someone truly believed in Christ, then he'd try to teach everyone about Christ's work and teachings. The same with any other religion. But no, every religious leader sticks to his own religion, and only tries to convert those gullible enough to listen but yet trapped in a web of lies by any other religion.
Like all conmen, they keep to their own "patch", their own group of mugs.
For example, according to the (Christian) Bible, Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, the light. Only through me shall you find God". Now remember, this is Jesus Christ speaking, who is actually God (Jesus was a divine soul, in a human body), and therefore he cannot be wrong, according to Christian beliefs, since they belive that God is infallible.
So therefore, no non-Christan can ever enter heaven. No Jews, no Muslims, no atheists, no agnostics, no Hindus, in fact no-one who isn't a Christian (you also have to be a "good" Christian, but that's irrelevant to my point, which is that only Christians can enter Heaven, according to Jesus and therefore according to Hell).
So that being the case, why do you never see a Christian priest/vicar/minister etc trying to convert Muslims, Jews etc. I'm not saying that it doesn't ever happen, as a true believer of Christ would do so (or a con man who saw a possible convert), but you never see a high ranking churchman do so. TV stations would love to show something as controversial as, say, the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, arguing with a top Muslim Holy man about which religion was correct, but such discussions never take place, because no heads of either religion want to rock the boat and risk losing followers (from whom they gain cash and power).
Every Christian preacher from the newest priest to the Pope himself must theoretically believe that all non-Christians are doomed to Hell, but do you ever see the Pope, for example, preaching that Islam is a pack of lies, and that all followers of Mohammed will surely burn in Hell, unless they repent of their false religion and instead become catholics? Of course not. He doesn't want to rock the boat and lose the money and power that he currently has.
Look at the differences between the Catholic and Prodestant variations of Christianity. Both believe that they are right, but neither argues publically against the other, and calls the opposing version a "sinful and corrupted version of Our Lord's Commands to Man" (or whatever phrase they'd use if they did believe).
And no religion can offer up any facts at all to support them. You might be a Christian now, Lockett (and I don't mean to offend you with any of this, I'm just stating what I believe), but if you'd have lived two thousand years ago you'd have worshipped Zeus, or Ra, or Jupiter, or whatever, depending on where you lived. Even today, if you'd been born a Muslim, then you'd follow that religion instead, or you'd be a Hindu if you were so born.