pap

I know there are other factors, Spudders. Time of day, general level of horniness, ability to get away with it afterwards, etc. I take all of this on board. But ultimately, it is a yes or no decision. Wasn't it Chris Rock that said ladies know whether they want to do you within five minutes of meeting you?

These are good points, and personally, I admire your willingness to bone almost anyone. It's a great public service. I'm also a little envious of the options you have on offer. See, I'd never have conceived being at an orgy when the Star Trek cast walk in. Life just isn't that exciting, my good man. That all said, I do feel the would or wouldn't scale has merit for a few reasons. First, it works for most cases. Second, you can secretly pronounce it "wood or woodn't", and no-one will be any wiser. Finally, bluff old traditionalists like yourself can still revert to the marks out of ten scale once you've satisfied the "would or wouldn't" question. Try it out for a week.

I've been watching Star Trek : The Next Generation. I have a big thing for Beverly Crusher. Always have. Personally, I think Gates McFadden was a perfect example of "attractive woman at her age". In the traditional marks out of ten scale, she'd rate a 6, 7 or 8, depending on how ugly your current partner is. It's all relative, y'see. In the "would or wouldn't" scale, the results are incontrovertible. She's a "would", even now, when she's got 20 years plus on her pristine TNG MILF appearance. I put it to the entire forum, male or female, that marks out of ten is a woefully inadequate standard for assessing potential sexual partners. I invite you to embrace the new standard. It's simpler. It's true or false. It's binary. Would or wouldn't. My question here is quite simple. Who would you accept under the "would or wouldn't" classificatiion that you would not accept under the traditional marks out of ten scale? For now, let's constrain it to people we're all aware of. My starter for ten? Katie Price? Would or wouldn't?

Flawed argument, for many reasons. First off, the installed bases are huge now compared to what they were. Second, games are not the only way to make money from a console. Today's consoles are entertainment portals, offering other digital goods and services for sale. Finally, I take issue with the notion that used games are killing off the potential for continually improved games. The most innovative games of the last decade haven't usually been big console games. Usually, they're either independent download only releases, on PC or console. Look at the big hitters. Call of Duty, a very accomplished FPS. FIFA, slightly different game every year with slightly bigger number. This is the annual market games publishers chase. They're going after mainstream tastes, which is pretty much the opposite of what you want if you're looking for innovation and improvement. If anything is responsible for the lack of continually improved ( and by that, I mean genuine revolution, not iterative refinement ), it's commercial consideration. You only need to look at the number of sequels in gaming to suss that one out.

Nope. He was wrong mate. He said he'd heard a worrying rumour that Sony were going to lock games. They're not. I said it'd be near commercial suicide for any company to ditch pre-owned. So, proved right on point one, and I reckon, soon to be proved right on point two.

Is it really that bad? PS1 was £299 on release in the mid 1990s. £429 for a much more capable machine doesn't sound too bad, ESP when an iPad will set you back that much.

Personally I think you lost your mystique when you started having a go at gypsies. I don't remember too many Batman comics where the caped crusader descended on a travelling camp to dispense disdain.

Yeah, I should have mentioned that these positions were not mutually exclusive. There are people who are d!cks and c*nts at the same time. They can go f*ck themselves, imo.

This is some real compressed p!ss-taking here. It's very impressive.

You're presenting the exception as the norm. If you're a d!ck to people in real life, you can expect some comeback. I speak from experience on this one, as a hopefully reformed former real-life d!ck. I have the occasional relapse, but I'm learning. You know what's worse than the self-aware d!ck? The d!ck who doesn't know he's a d!ck. Gemmel doesn't know he's a d!ck. This thread proves he is. You don't know you're a d!ck. Everybody else does. (someone correct me if I'm committing the cardinal sin of speaking for the entire forum without justification). Verbal certainly doesn't know he's a d!ck. The thought has never even entered his head. Me? D!ck? Impossible! It just doesn't compute. tbf to buctootim, I think he knows he's a bit of a d!ck, even though he denies it outwardly. As for myself, one of the funniest things I ever read on here was from returned ursine brother Bearsy, when in a debate about individual characteristics, he pointed out that "no, you is more d!ck than c**t, pap". I have never argued the point, and never will. I can cope with being a d!ck, Hypo. I can even cope with admitting that and people knowing my real name. Everyone can be a bit of a d!ck sometimes and admit it. It's having to fess up that you're a full-time c**t that's the problem.

Your point is that revealing identity leads to superglue in locks. My point is that many people are public, have been public for ages, participate in the debate and don't get this, myself included. There are five main reasons why people are anonymous. 1) Concealing wanton skiving from employer 2) Hideous 3) Blobby 4) Nob-jockey sniping under cover of anonymity. I have no problem with any of the first three, in isolation or combined. There are enough nobs on the internet to make your life a misery if you're chunky or don't conform to whatever facial norm is supposed to be attractive these days. I can understand why it's not worth the bother. It's really the last one I have a problem with, and that is where you and others fit in. I've no doubt that if you went public and told the world who you were, there's a fair chance you might get a slap from a less tolerant individual. That's not because you're going public; it's because of the things you've said, which at times, have been horrible and if pursued, could have seen you in court. The observant amongst you will have noticed I've listed only four reasons. 5) All the nasty sh!t said as forum antagonist x will be attributed to real life person y That right there, is the real reason trolls can never come out from under the bridge.

So have the same things happened to stevegrant, who is also an admin of this forum, and is also public?

Yeah, you started at the end. Did this happen because Keith disclosed his identity, or because of other things he said or did?

We'll have to agree to differ, my crustacean pal - especially as your evidence just seems to be repeating the same thing. Let's not fall out over it. The rest of your post is encouraging There's a thing, a rare and beautiful thing called being comfy in your own skin. First off, it means that you don't give a f**k if people refer to you as normal or not, but mostly, it immunises you from the common-or-garden boll*cks that passes for debate these days. The last seven days have been particularly illuminating; I've been in conference most hours of most days, and stuck inside an environment where you cannot even access blogspot.com. Blogspot, ffs! Despite my relative lack of activity, it just kept coming. Last week, we had the wonder of Verbal stewing for a day, without stimulus, before scatter-gunning his oft-associated diarrhea onto the rim of the Lounge. This week, Gem-"f**k off is the only response you deserve"-mel goes one better with a whole new thread. Thanks for pointing that out, by the way. buctootim has just hated me for ages. But yeah, such feelings are ultimately born of self-loathing, which is why I can't really give it to them back. Sure you can wheel out the go-to quips about the potential erectile dysfunction of older men, and perhaps form a link between that and starting threads at midnight about a poster who apparently deserves no response, but this is off-the-cuff stuff. No real thought has gone into it. These puckfuppets? They spend hours creating entire backstories for me. It's flattering in a way, but really, and I can't really believe it's me that's about to say this, they need to get out more

What a load of self-serving bullsh!t. People manage their real-life identities on much bigger networks than SaintsWeb. You may wonder how it's possible. My theory is simple:- Not being total cocks 100% of the time gives them confidence to be themselves. It's a simple rule, but it's true. I've been public on here for ages and post far more provocative sh!t than your Catwoman-esque meows from the corner. Have I had grief as pap? Yeah, of course - and I'd be an idiot not to expect it. Any fallout for real-life me? Not a bit of it.

And the millions he's probably creaming from Infowars. Or the international travel budget. Or the fact that despite the fact that there are many people in the world who detest the bloke, some people actually like him.

And of course, he has no problem letting people know who he is.

I will accept your new friendship request on the 9th August, Glasgow.

I take issue with the "clearly a loon" bit. I prefer the term "functional eccentric". It's all about money, you see. Skint people are nutters or loons. Anyone with cash in the bank gets to be eccentric.

The genesis of my lil moniker has been described before on here. Don't make me do it again. Of all the dictionary meanings though, I like "Material lacking real value or substance" or "Something resembling a nipple" best.

It's a very noble sentiment, Viking Warrior - but I require my representatives to have GCSE level English.

ffs lads. This is some pretty p!ss poor ribbing of what I'd consider an extremely easy target. Same beans as last week for me too; stuck behind a corporate firewall and only able to see your deposits trickling in over 3G. I've not been impressed. Let me know if you need any help doing me up, boys. Frankly, you're flagging - and there's a sh!tload of embarrassing material I'm happy to give to assist you in your efforts. This is a collaborative effort, after all. btw, though the content isn't too complimentary, I'm thrilled to have someone else name a thread after me on SaintsWeb. Mods; please send my "forum big boy" badge forthwith. Would never have been possible without Gemmel. Thanks, geezer!

I must be damned good at this then. I clearly had foreknowledge of Gemmel's later attempt at a point.

What's funniest about Gemmel's OP is this. http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?45089-New-legislation-in-light-of-Woolwich-attacks/page3&highlight=alex+jones Given the fact that Gemmel is now starting threads with my handle in the title, I thought I'd post this little blighter and all. My theory is that Gemmel's cock don't work or his wife has stopped putting out. Not even Alex Jones gets that granular.

Certainly wasn't a brain cell.