egafd.com

I see you think my story is fishy and I'm taking the piss.If you were as intelligent as you are arrogant, you would realise that my story came in two parts:

1. I thought my mate (who knows my credit card/email details and has ordered things in the past as a joke) was responsible for getting this video sent to my address.

2. I realised this was not the case and turned my attention to the possibiltiy of credit card fraud as I have ordered a great deal of items over the internet recently.

Unfortunately I was labouring under the illusion that anyone with a modicum of grey matter would have realised the issue of the video turning up at my home no longer applied.However,you have proved this was clearly not the case.Apologies to anyone else if this seems excessively pedantic( at least I have resisted the temptation to explain to you the difference between Your and You're). I just thought the forum's purpose was for those in the know to educate relatively uniformed people like myself.I didn't realise it was simply a clique for you and a few others to insult anyone whose thoughts didn't coincide with your own. Many thanks once again to those who honoured me with more dignified replies.

Rule number one when posting

Supply all the facts in a clear and concise way that is not open to interpretation

In you first post you didn't mention your credit card had been used for the purchase and then you mention internet fraud in your second.Open to interpretation

Here we are at post number three and we learn something else
Your posts have actually created more questions than supplied answers in my opinion.Something for you to work on.

While Magoo works on his agressive posting

cheers
B...OZ

And don't have have a go at Magoo's grammar when you describe yourself as 'relatively uniformed' - the keyboard makes fools of us all if you type long enough.

Buttsie, you are obviously not familiar with the work of Jacques Derrida if you think it is possible to write in a way that is not open to interpretation. As Nietzsche argued,"There are no facts, only interpretations". As for Crimpo, since when has it been unacceptable to wear your family's clothes!

'you are obviously not familiar with the work of Jacques Derrida if you think it is possible to write in a way that is not open to interpretation'

Is that a fact or an interpretation?

Whether or not one derides Derrida (I haven't read him, but as a French philosopher, he is automatically suspect of producing fine-sounding gobbledygook - there, that's my prejudice revealed), you didn't tell your story as clearly as you should have done. Though magoo did jump to conclusions.

Now stop the sneers (on both sides) and let it drop.

Simon wrote a very good comment about this subject after all its is agaist UK law to take photos of underage girls or even video them I should know as I am in law.

I think that the people who comments about what he said are rough so I think we all should leave it there before its get out of hand.

Yours UK LAW LTD