egafd.com

Alice In Blunderland wrote:

> This forum is full of the film details of bisexual actresses
> though, and some bisexual actors. This forum is beneath the
> radar of the vast majority I am sure whether they are straight
> or gay, and if they knew it existed would be looked at in equal
> contempt by most of them.

I'm sure that Gay people do not find the BGAFD, or similar, beneath contempt. The Gay people I know are very open-minded about such matters.

[quote]not that you are him which your mind saw as some sort of allegation, you have actually proved the point by doing in this post what he always did and resulting to name calling like an infant when somebody dares to disagree with you.[/quote]

I wasn't name-calling because we have our disagreements, but because I said I'd stop treating our debates seriously, since you said you'd throw yourself into a burning fireball rather than live without your balls.

[quote]if they are happy to lose a testicle and can deal with that mentally then that is excellent, I have never said it is a sign of weakness or suchlike at all[/quote]

Yes you did. Quote: "the reason they are of little importance to you is because you need to grow a pair," Is not the saying "you need to grow some balls" terminology for weakness? Were you not replying to my previous post where I stated I'd manage to live, if needs be, without them? Is not the obvious conclusion that you were accusing me of weakness exactly because I thought my testes were less important than my life?

[quote]I cannot even be arsed to respond to your childish Wazzaish rant in the next section[/quote]

Do you know you added another 244 words (I think) after this declaration? Lol.

[quote]I just want to see equality, I do not see why any form of cancer should be regarded as less important than another just on the basis of what sex you are,[/quote]

And I've already given you pretty valid reasons why, for instance, breast cancer has more media attention than testicular cancer. Basically, breast cancer kills more people. adding to the fact that women are usually more aware and organised in social bonding and events!

[quote]The thread actually started about a piece of legislation coming in, that encourages further than has already been happening for people to discriminate against men in favour of women[/quote]

I never said otherwise. I clearly stated: "I'd like to point you to how this debate of ours began:" Me and you, mine and yours.

[quote]The thread actually started about a piece of legislation coming in, that encourages further than has already been happening for people to discriminate against men in favour of women and for so called minorities to be favoured over people who are not gay, disabled etc to fill quotas, the overwhelming majority of posters in this thread have condemned it as being discrimatory itself rather than for eqaulity and why it is taking precedence over more important things that are happening here and elsewhere in the world. The only one I have seen defending it to no surprise is you as you do every leftie idea and piece of legislation, and anybody who disagrees with you is automatically a nazi or a member of the national front.[/quote]

Well, for your edification I'll point you to the following post in reply to Peter, where I stated that I wasn't in agreement in discriminating to hit set diversity targets. I want us all to be treated equally. Now, you have clearly accused me of 'defending' this legislation, alice, when this clearly isn't true. Asking for proof and pulling your theory to bits IS NOT defending the legislation. My problem was with your suppositions and conjecture, and later, your amateurish, crazed defence. I also NEVER called you a Nazi, or even mentioned the BNP......not even once.

So, even leaving your doltish ideas aside, you've accused me of:

1) Letting Wazza have use of my PC and internet connection = WRONG

2) Having no care of, and needing to grow, some balls = WRONG

3) Take orders from other people = WRONG

4) Agreeing with the legislation Peter brought to our attention = WRONG

5) Calling you a Nazi = WRONG

6) Mentioning the BNP = WRONG

When are you going to get something right, alice? Please let me know in advance as I really wouldn't want to miss it.

isn't this clearly a breach of EU regulations?

[quote]You should not be name calling at all, it is what people do when they know they cannot debate the points and attack the person instead, the minute I mentioned growing a pair of testicles as a quip you respond with name calling insults, that says it all about you.[/quote]

Ahhhhhh, riiiiiight.... So I can't call you names in jest, but you can throw out 'quips' as and when you please? Really, can't you come up with a better excuse than that, alice?

[quote]No it was terminology for get off the PC bandwagon,[/quote]

No it isn't. Telling someone to grow some balls is terminology for being weak in some way. It's nothing to do with PCness; you know it, I know it, and everyone else knows it. 'Grow some balls' and admit it!

[quote]And like I said no form of cancer should be more important than any other, you also ignored the question of prostate cancer[/quote]

You're still confused. I've never said any cancer is more important than another; I merely gave possible reasons why breast cancer has more media coverage than testicular cancer. I think I've repeated myself on this point 3 times now, but you seem to be unable to take it in. As for prostrate cancer: I wasn't avoiding the question but ignoring it. Why? Because my answer regarding testicular cancer is pretty much the same answer regarding cancer of the prostate; breast cancer just kills far more people.

[quote]I have accused you of defending it yes and that you tend to defend everything that may offend any 'minority' that is posted here in the good old pc way, I am sure you will say proove it like some cocky teenager in a police interview like you do for everything else you don't like hearing, but I have no desire to do so, you need only to look back at your own posts.[/quote]

Alice, alice, alice.....now come on.... I pointed you to the post where I specifically stated I didn't agree with the legislation and yet you've conveniently side-stepped the issue that you were completely wrong in accusing me of defending it. All this talk about talk of cocky teenagers etc is just hot air. Again, you were wrong so use those balls you care so much about and admit it.

[quote] > 2) Having no care of, and needing to grow, some balls = WRONG


I stand by it, [/quote]

You stand by it? So it wasn't a quip then? You're getting like Keith Rasputin, alice. Contradiction after contradition.....

[quote] 3) Take orders from other people = WRONG

Are we back to Wazza again? as I said in point 1 it was not meant to be taken literally.[/quote]

Back to quips again? I see...

[quote] > 4) Agreeing with the legislation Peter brought to our attention
> = WRONG

You have done nothing but disagree with anybody who has posted what a sham it is,[/quote]

I pointed you to the post where I stated I was against the legislation. Our disagreements are more about your delusions.

[quote] > 6) Mentioning the BNP = WRONG


It was the National Front not the BNP actually,[/quote]

Wrong again. I never mentioned the National Front either! I challenge you to find a post where I did. Go on alice.... have you the balls to check and find how wrong you are or will you make up an excuse so you can keep deluding yourself that you're right? Please, alice......pretty, pretty please - show me where I mentioned the National Front.

[quote]This will be my last post on this[/quote]

That's a shame. I'd have thought you'd have stuck it out seeing as you think I'm only resorting to name-calling because I'm losing the debate. So, err, you're letting me off the hook then? Lol... How merciful!

[quote]I would have been happy to carry on the debate but the earlier post with endless name calling/personal insults over nothing but a grow a pair of balls throwaway comment shows your mentality and how any further debate will end up.[/quote]

Love it! Mine are personal insults and yours are throw-away comments! Fantastic!

[quote]And that I have somehow accused Zevon of taking over your PC and barking out orders to you when all it was as I had already explained it was just a quip over the style of prose you both share,[/quote]

And on it goes! I'm name-calling and you're just 'quipping'! Hilarious!

Sam Slater wrote:

> You need to prove what you stated is 'certain' and happens
> 'everytime'. I don't think you can even come close.
>
>

This 'proof please' argument can be used to refute just about anything.

There's the old story about the opposition politician berating the government for not giving enough money to the starving Africans. The other guy responds with "Oh you talk about the starving millions eh? Well name just TWO of them!"

You may as well say that it it was wrong to ridicule Nazis on the grounds that just because some of them did bad things they shouldn't all be written off. Hey, come to think of it...those poor old Nazis are always getting such bad press. Time to end discrimination against Nazis. Every school should have at least one black, Muslim, gay HIV+ asylum seeking Nazi teacher with two heads.

Yeah, I know what you mean, Deano.

Still, it was a mighty statement by Peter that needed showing how daft it was.

Sam Slater wrote:

> Yeah, I know what you mean, Deano.
>
> Still, it was a mighty statement by Peter that needed showing
> how daft it was.
>
>

Nope, you know that people use conversational language in a way that doesn't stand up to scrutiny if analyzed in detail, but rather than concede the point, you went into 'wazzer' mode, and tried to win on a technicality by applying strict dictionary definitions to real world usage.

I bet you're a real barrel of fun if anyone around you says "I'd kill for a beer"

They obviously don't discriminate against patronising bitches in NL - otherwise the Harman bitch wouldn't have got the job. She's a disgrace, spouting crap and sporting that beer belly, what an example for children watching - she should be X rated.