Do your own research.

[asky]

This phrase gets a lot of usage on this forum and I would like to make sure that it comes with the caveat, "From a variety of sources"

Please dont define your research to freeman/lawful rebellion sites and open it up to the entire net and librarys.

Asky

[number_6]

I agree with asky.
("What a surprise" they cry out in chorus)

If any on here can stomach a sensible approach to basics of law this is a pretty good study:

http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=2987&topic=all

[iaintoff]

hehehehehehehehe

[bones]

oh jeez get a different job you two.

[mark1963]

This phrase gets a lot of usage on this forum and I would like to make sure that it comes with the caveat, "From a variety of sources"

Please dont define your research to freeman/lawful rebellion sites and open it up to the entire net and librarys.

Asky

Is that refine not define or do perhaps?

And what does that last sentence actually mean?

[number_6]

oh jeez get a different job you two.

Of course, bones.
You are only able to observe everything from one perspective.
I wouldn't expect anything more of you.

[herald holmes]

What is Law #6? Do you even know?

Expand your research base, and do a little thinking..

[asky]

mark wrote
Is that refine not define or do perhaps?

No the statement stands as it is
define
to determine or fix the boundaries or extent of: to define property with stakes.

"Dont define" means dont restrict your research to sites with an agenda.

Sorry if it went over your head mark

asky

[mark1963]

mark wrote

No the statement stands as it is


"Dont define" means dont restrict your research to sites with an agenda.

Sorry if it went over your head mark

asky

I know what it meant - thank you asky.

It just did not look grammatical - that's all.

Anyway, it's been my experience that many on those "agenda" sites are actually very good researchers and research books like Gilbert's Trust Law - which may be the next area to be blown wide open.

As one researcher put it

If it walks like a contract, talks like a contract, then it's probably a trust.

[asky]

As one researcher put it

If it walks like a contract, talks like a contract, then it's probably a trust.

Which researcher would that be then?

asky

PS What area has been "blown wide open" that we have all missed?

[number_6]

What is Law #6? Do you even know?

Expand your research base, and do a little thinking..

Why does it bother you so much when I suggest it may be a good idea to consider not only FOTL ideology but alternative viewpoints also?

[mark1963]

Which researcher would that be then?

asky

I forget his name , but, he has been researching trusts for a number of months now along with some others.

It's a new area for the freeman and it has potential by the looks of it.

So. I'm going through Gilbert's myself these days. A bit slow to start with.

[asky]

I forget his name , but, he has been researching trusts for a number of months now along with some others.

Try and remember please because an advanced google search of that quote brings back nothing , so I would be interested to know where you read it.

I presume you see him as an expert now after "a number of months"

asky

[herald holmes]

Why does it bother you so much when I suggest it may be a good idea to consider not only FOTL ideology but alternative viewpoints also?

Research everywhere through every resource, but don't forget to think for yourself.

What is Law 6?

[mark1963]

Try and remember please because an advanced google search of that quote brings back nothing , so I would be interested to know where you read it.

I presume you see him as an expert now after "a number of months"

asky

Well, he and others have more knowledge of Trust's and their oft insidiousness if that's what you mean.

From what I have found out - Credit Agreements appear to be trusts - no consideration needed.

Many trusts can be invisible - with no written form - just an action - perhaps like entering a court for example - I'm a bit hazy on that.

Anyway, I'm not knowledgeable enough yet - but I will be.

So yes - I will take advice - but like always I will find out for myself - hence Gilbert's Trust Law book.

[rumpole]

So yes - I will take advice - but like always I will find out for myself - hence Gilbert's Trust Law book.

I'd give that one a miss - its a US book (as is the much hallowed Blacks Legal Dictionary) . A riveting read no doubt but next to useless for an England & Wales resident.

[stinker]

Well, he and others have more knowledge of Trust's and their oft insidiousness if that's what you mean.

From what I have found out - Credit Agreements appear to be trusts - no consideration needed.

Many trusts can be invisible - with no written form - just an action - perhaps like entering a court for example - I'm a bit hazy on that.

Anyway, I'm not knowledgeable enough yet - but I will be.

So yes - I will take advice - but like always I will find out for myself - hence Gilbert's Trust Law book.

Credit agreements are not trusts. There is consideration. Anyone with even a cursory understanding of trust law could tell you that the structure of a trust is an entirely different entity to a consumer credit agreement. I presume you do mean a consumer credit agreement as other forms of credit agreement don't generally have a statutory prescribed form - which would rather defeat your argument.

I think I'll trust my 15 years of working in law and my two law degrees over some dipstick (the researcher, not you) that has spent a few months "researching" and having not got the basics right, now doesn't understand the significance of the text of these "law books" and makes a mess of it.

Trusts are a very interesting construct and can arise in a number of ways. It is also a very complex area - and not really suitable for beginners.

[mark1963]

Credit agreements are not trusts. There is consideration. Anyone with even a cursory understanding of trust law could tell you that the structure of a trust is an entirely different entity to a consumer credit agreement. I presume you do mean a consumer credit agreement as other forms of credit agreement don't generally have a statutory prescribed form - which would rather defeat your argument.

I think I'll trust my 15 years of working in law and my two law degrees over some dipstick (the researcher, not you) that has spent a few months "researching" and having not got the basics right, now doesn't understand the significance of the text of these "law books" and makes a mess of it.

Trusts are a very interesting construct and can arise in a number of ways. It is also a very complex area - and not really suitable for beginners.

It's a young field and you may be correct - then again.....

As for the complexity - I will not argue there but once the terminology is sorted out in my and others heads then that makes it much easier. It is a lot easier to look at now than it was just a few short weeks ago - and every journey starts with....

It does appear to be the key and it looks like everything is a trust. But, I don't expect you to agree with that. What about if you've been fooled by them as well?

As I say - you may be correct.

[mark1963]

Credit agreements are not trusts. There is consideration. Anyone with even a cursory understanding of trust law could tell you that the structure of a trust is an entirely different entity to a consumer credit agreement. I presume you do mean a consumer credit agreement as other forms of credit agreement don't generally have a statutory prescribed form - which would rather defeat your argument.

I think I'll trust my 15 years of working in law and my two law degrees over some dipstick (the researcher, not you) that has spent a few months "researching" and having not got the basics right, now doesn't understand the significance of the text of these "law books" and makes a mess of it.

Trusts are a very interesting construct and can arise in a number of ways. It is also a very complex area - and not really suitable for beginners.

As for consideration - that's the point - when these loan companies are challenged on that they never produce evidence that consideration on their part was shown.

Just another piece in the jigsaw.

[hadabusa]

asky, i see youre reading.

offtopic but you wont mind, heres easy sundie win4 @jref, thisll win hands down.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=112753

[rumpole]

As for consideration - that's the point - when these loan companies are challenged on that they never produce evidence that consideration on their part was shown.

Just another piece in the jigsaw.

The credit the loan company provides is the consideration. Res ipso loquitor :)

[mark1963]

As for doing my own research:

Here is a starter for those interested in Trusts - hint - we all should be IMO.

http://www.lawfulrebellion.org/2009/12/04/do-your-homework-1-trusts-and-equity/

Small chunks are best I think.

[mark1963]

The credit the loan company provides is the consideration. Res ipso loquitor :)

I'm not going to argue the point on that - we all know that is untrue.

Bank of England Quarterly Review Q4 2008 page 105.

[stinker]

As for doing my own research:

Here is a starter for those interested in Trusts - hint - we all should be IMO.

http://www.lawfulrebellion.org/2009/12/04/do-your-homework-1-trusts-and-equity/

Small chunks are best I think.

If you want a decent read, I'd suggest avoiding the "textbook" series. They tend to be poorly formatted and they leave a lot out. I don't think they are really suitable for anything more than A Level law exams. A more readable, more thorough and more referenced guide to trust law is here:

Hanbury & Martin: Modern Equity: Amazon.co.uk: Dr Jill Martin: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51h323b-TRL.@@AMEPARAM@@51h323b-TRL

[number_6]

The credit the loan company provides is the consideration. Res ipso loquitor :)

The FOTL argument, rumpole is that the bank creates credit out of thin air so the bank has in reality given nothing, therefore no consideration.
The FOTL claim also that there is no need to pay back a loan as the bank suffers no loss.

[mark1963]

The FOTL argument, rumpole is that the bank creates credit out of thin air so the bank has in reality given nothing, therefore no consideration.
The FOTL claim also that there is no need to pay back a loan as the bank suffers no loss.

Mis-quoted 6 and you know that.

[mark1963]

If you want a decent read, I'd suggest avoiding the "textbook" series. They tend to be poorly formatted and they leave a lot out. I don't think they are really suitable for anything more than A Level law exams. A more readable, more thorough and more referenced guide to trust law is here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hanbury-Martin-Modern-Equity-Jill/dp/1847035124/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_c


Thanks for the information.

[number_6]

Mis-quoted 6 and you know that.

No, seriously I don't know.
Perhaps you might give rumpole the FOTLs version?

[rumpole]

The FOTL argument, rumpole is that the bank creates credit out of thin air so the bank has in reality given nothing, therefore no consideration.
The FOTL claim also that there is no need to pay back a loan as the bank suffers no loss.

Hmmm - consideration need not be adequate (See Thomas v Thomas 1842) but must be sufficient. Even if they created credit 'out of thin air' they've still done something to their detriment that the borrower has discerned a benefit (in other words consideration)

FOTL'ers don't like paying their bills do they? :D

[number_6]

Hmmm - consideration need not be adequate (See Thomas v Thomas 1842) but must be sufficient. Even if they created credit 'out of thin air' they've still done something to their detriment that the borrower has discerned a benefit (in other words consideration)

Exactly so.
(But this will be ignored by FOTL)

The FOTL also claim strangely that even though in their belief no real money changed hands that whilst they have no obligation to repay the imaginary loan, they may at the same time keep the property.

[micklemus]

Hmmm - consideration need not be adequate (See Thomas v Thomas 1842) but must be sufficient. Even if they created credit 'out of thin air' they've still done something to their detriment that the borrower has discerned a benefit (in other words consideration)

FOTL'ers don't like paying their bills do they? :D

Logic like that will see you castigated round these parts!

;)

[rumpole]

Logic like that will see you castigated round these parts!

;)


It's 'logic' Jim but not as we know it :D

[number_6]

rumpole, none of my business etc. but please stick around.
Your posts are excellent.;)

[micklemus]

I'll second that.

[mark1963]

Hmmm - consideration need not be adequate (See Thomas v Thomas 1842) but must be sufficient. Even if they created credit 'out of thin air' they've still done something to their detriment that the borrower has discerned a benefit (in other words consideration)

FOTL'ers don't like paying their bills do they? :D

Balderdash - a mis-representation of the meaning.

Now you justifying the magic-ing of money.

If I were to try that - it would be called fraud. I could put figures on a screen. I have a computer - honestly.

The borrower has discerned a benefit because he was not given all of the facts ie. disclosure.

[rumpole]

Balderdash - a mis-representation of the meaning.

Now you justifying the magic-ing of money.

If I were to try that - it would be called fraud. I could put figures on a screen. I have a computer - honestly.

The borrower has discerned a benefit because he was not given all of the facts ie. disclosure.

The borrower got goods, services or credit that he would not have been able to obtain without the lenders involvement - that's 'consideration', old boy.

For example I brought a book this afternoon from Waterstones using a credit card. Visa have lent me £7.99 which I'll pay back at the beginning of May. Visa will in due course pay Waterstones (& keep a little bit for themselves)The whole transaction was 'electronic' but that doesn't bring into question the validity of the contract between me, waterstones & visa.

[mark1963]

The borrower got goods, services or credit that he would not have been able to obtain without the lenders involvement - that's 'consideration', old boy.

For example I brought a book this afternoon from Waterstones using a credit card. Visa have lent me £7.99 which I'll pay back at the beginning of May. Visa will in due course pay Waterstones (& keep a little bit for themselves)The whole transaction was 'electronic' but that doesn't bring into question the validity of the contract between me, waterstones & visa.

Again balderdash old bean.

DISCLOSURE - If people knew of the fraud would they be happy to work to pay back that system?

Some would I'm sure but most probably would not.

Again if I started my own bank and gave credit via my computer screen I would be arrested for fraud - which is what the system is now.

Anyway - this will probably turn out to be a circular argument - so no more posts on that.

BTW - with what I am finding out about trusts - is that the whole arguments moot - it's not about money at all. It's about chattels.

[rumpole]

BTW - with what I am finding out about trusts - is that the whole arguments moot - it's not about money at all. It's about chattels.

From reading the American Gilbert book?

You are of course aware that the yanks very much march to the beat of their own drum & have done so since 1789. That over 200 years of worth of different cases, decisions, authorities etc. Coupled with the fact the lions share of English & Welsh Trust law was developed in the 19th Century (Victorian gents wanting to provide for their illegitime children for the most part) I fear you may be getting a incorrect idea of Equity & Trusts as it applies in the jurisdiction you reside in.

[haarp]

The FOTL argument, rumpole is that the bank creates credit out of thin air so the bank has in reality given nothing, therefore no consideration.
The FOTL claim also that there is no need to pay back a loan as the bank suffers no loss.

Again what is credit? Can it be touched?

[haarp]

Hmmm - consideration need not be adequate (See Thomas v Thomas 1842) but must be sufficient. Even if they created credit 'out of thin air' they've still done something to their detriment that the borrower has discerned a benefit (in other words consideration)

FOTL'ers don't like paying their bills do they? :D

So are you saying that "thin air" is nothing and out of nothing you can create something (being credit)? Well if that is the case as we are all equal in law, anyone can create there own currency out of this "thin air" and pay them back with even more currency as if everyone can create something out of nothing then you can have as much of something as you wish as there is an infinite amount of nothing out there to make something.

One word: TWAT!

[rumpole]

Again what is credit? Can it be touched?

See s9(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 - any 'cash loan or financial accomodation'

[haarp]

Exactly so.
(But this will be ignored by FOTL)

The FOTL also claim strangely that even though in their belief no real money changed hands that whilst they have no obligation to repay the imaginary loan, they may at the same time keep the property.

I claim that no-one can own property number6. So bang goes that shit, your talking. What next? Show me the original receipts, from all the previous owners and I will agree that a human can own property and land. They may say they can but can they prove they can? I think this has something to do with what 1964 wrote about freeing the mind of the seemingly touchable, tangible stuff and getting beyond it to the more important spiritual stuff. Why we are here! What is our purpose?

A human being may be able to use what is abundant or scarce but not lay claim to it as it is for all! Disagree with this and you agree that might is right and things can be taken by force which brings about slavery as humans become slaves.

Think on!

[rumpole]

No you said "credit". I comprehend what cash is, it used to be backed by a standard that was based around gold. I comprehend what a loan is! I loan you my dildo and KY Jelly to pleasure yourself if you wish (or not). I comprehend that financial accommodation is when finances accommodate one another, not in a sexual way. But, what IS credit! What you have defined is an ACT defined by someone else that you accept to be truth!

What if someone else did not define CREDIT as the same as you but just as numbers on a screen that since the loss of the Gold Standard are not backed by anything and are simply there to create the myth of interest payment?

This may well be lost on robots like you!


Money is as much about confidence as anything else. If people have confidence in it then it has worth.

Your dildo & jelly analogy is distasteful & unnecessary.

[mark1963]

Come, COME now rumphole! Many like the dildo and K.Y. approach to many a passage. From the greatest poets to politicians and royalty! What is your issue? Good for some and not others!

Come ON dear chap. Take one for the boys!

LMAO - sorry

[rumpole]

But what if some people have NO confidence in that kind of currency rumphole?
What then? Do people actually have a choice as to an alternative that won't be shut down?






They switch to bartering and / or the central bank / authorities step into stabilise the currency (like during the hyper inflation in post WW1 Germany) There is absolutely no evidence to suggest this is happening in Western Europe let alone the UK.

[micklemus]

No you said "credit". I comprehend what cash is, it used to be backed by a standard that was based around gold. I comprehend what a loan is! I loan you my dildo and KY Jelly to pleasure yourself if you wish (or not). I comprehend that financial accommodation is when finances accommodate one another, not in a sexual way. But, what IS credit! What you have defined is an ACT defined by someone else that you accept to be truth!

What if someone else did not define CREDIT as the same as you but just as numbers on a screen that since the loss of the Gold Standard are not backed by anything and are simply there to create the myth of interest payment?

This may well be lost on robots like you!

Interesting argument but where does it get you? Judges are "robots" like us and they apply the law.

Credit is simply the sum of money available to a borrower in excess of his deposit/funding, i.e. in excess of his/her/its own money.

I don’t believe that in English law they have chosen to define the obvious. However, there are extensive definitions of different types of credit agreements. We can look at those if it assists. Not sure if it does though.

[haarp]

Interesting argument but where does it get you? Judges are "robots" like us and they apply the law.

You have just said that, I am us and thus am a robot. Did you make the choice for me as to what I AM, Mike?

Credit is simply the sum of money available to a borrower in excess of his deposit/funding, i.e. in excess of his/her/its own money.

Is CREDIT that simple Mike? The world is tied up knots with starving people trying to escape just to feed their children! You are begging for a retaliation. You are not stupid but also not too clever. You've been seen through. See bottom of page.

I don’t believe that in English law they have chosen to define the obvious. However, there are extensive definitions of different types of credit agreements. We can look at those if it assists. Not sure if it does though.

Not define the obvious! I wonder why? Agreements are personal so don't bother listing you neighbours agreement to service his neighbours wife mate? Don't bother muddying the waters as it assists nothing!

So here you go Mike! I watched this stuff for longer than I can care to remember, been part of it....... Well for so long and will not say how long that is....... but........ here YOU go! You are the forum member who posts, "love ME" posts but then says sorry, your love wasn't enough! I'll go back to my carers. Go back Mike, you in your present form are useless! You are no good to anyone, least of all yourself.

If you are human, I really hope you can live with yourself.

This may have been a worthless post.... But at least the freeman inside thought it worthwhile to bring an agent back from the brink of the RE-CYCLE BIN!

[rumpole]

Oh! I'm sorry rumphole! Everythings okay then. People aren't starving and fucking dehydrating and becoming dis-eased and generally feeling like shit because of the way the world is (mainly through the use of credit which equals debt). Sorry for that, hang on clever people must be stupid. The reason for the problem is Freemen and women who want to be able to feed themselves and their children.

No, no! You carry on and deprive youngsters of the right to life and YES THAT'S YOU AND ALL YOUR LIKE HERE AND THERE WHO MAINTAIN THE FUCKING SYSTEM!

Back to K.Y. jelly, slipped any up yet? At least you have the option.

Think of all the Sudanese women who would gladly take your place so they don't get raped by misguided young men who you love to be in the world but not living next door to you!

Two words: Double Tap!

Two words: Lithium Carbonate :D

[micklemus]

Money is as much about confidence as anything else. If people have confidence in it then it has worth.

Your dildo & jelly analogy is distasteful & unnecessary.

+1

I've mentioned on another thread that this money analysis is difficult to follow.

Usury is definitely a problem, no issue there. Having "nothing" to back money is not a problem in itself though.

Money is a medium of exchange. The classic example of the very first medium of exchange is cowrie shells. Cowrie shells did not need to be backed by gold or other assets for the users of this system to appreciate their worth. It sidelined the difficulties associated with barter. And so money was born.

Money does not need to be backed by gold or anything for there to be a consensus on its worth. If that were not the case we would not use it everyday. We only need consensus on it's worth, not proof that there is a wheelbarrow full of gold in a shed somewhere which relates directly to the notes in our hands.

HOWEVER....

Usury (the charging of interest) changes the dynamics by introducing inflationary and other pressures. In the process that can affect one's confidence in money and in turn affect its worth.

I can therefore follow arguments about interest being problematic.

Where I get to is this though - IF people accept that money is worth something when they use it every day, as surely we must, isn't it a bit crazy to suggest it's worth nothing when institutions seek to recover what we have agreed to pay? And indeed dishonourable.

In stating the above, I have to emphasise that I agree with Haarp about the horrendous inequalities around us. I'm only trying to find common ground which might lead to reasoned and effective argument.

[micklemus]

You have just said that, I am us and thus am a robot. Did you make the choice for me as to what I AM, Mike?



Is CREDIT that simple Mike? The world is tied up knots with starving people trying to escape just to feed their children! You are begging for a retaliation. You are not stupid but also not too clever. You've been seen through. See bottom of page.



Not define the obvious! I wonder why? Agreements are personal so don't bother listing you neighbours agreement to service his neighbours wife mate? Don't bother muddying the waters as it assists nothing!

So here you go Mike! I watched this stuff for longer than I can care to remember, been part of it....... Well for so long and will not say how long that is....... but........ here YOU go! You are the forum member who posts, "love ME" posts but then says sorry, your love wasn't enough! I'll go back to my carers. Go back Mike, you in your present form are useless! You are no good to anyone, least of all yourself.

If you are human, I really hope you can live with yourself.

This may have been a worthless post.... But at least the freeman inside thought it worthwhile to bring an agent back from the brink of the RE-CYCLE BIN!

Might be a shame my previous post didn't appear before you posted the above. Think you also misunderstood my reference to "robot" - I was suggesting that you view people like me, Number 6, Rumpole etc as robots and that you are not.

I'm trying to tell you I agree with you on a lot of this, but I'm also trying to take some of the hysterical inflexion out. Never mind.

PS - It doesn't matter to me whether you love me or not, nor what you think about me. Come on, thats a slightly ridiculous comment. If I was that insecure I should think I would have stopped looking at this forum ages ago.

[haarp]

Two words: Lithium Carbonate :D

And there you go! So I will respond in kind!

.

[haarp]

Might be a shame my previous post didn't appear before you posted the above.

I'm trying to tell you I agree with you on a lot of this, but I'm also trying to take some of the hysterical inflexion out. Never mind.

PS - It doesn't matter to me whether to love me or not, nor what you think about me. Come on, thats a slightly ridiculous comment. If I was that insecure I should think I would have stopped looking at this forum ages ago.

Sorry Mike, you've chosen your path. It's done.

[number_6]

No, no! You carry on and deprive youngsters of the right to life and YES THAT'S YOU AND ALL YOUR LIKE HERE AND THERE WHO MAINTAIN THE FUCKING SYSTEM!

Back to K.Y. jelly, slipped any up yet? At least you have the option.
Why is it that every time when attempting to debate with a FOTL in an adult manner it is always without fail the FOTL who becomes insulting and offensive?
Perhaps they believe that ranting and raving strengthens their argument?
It is quite comical.

[rumpole]

Where did anyone become insulting and OFFENSIVE?
Your opinion or fact?

I shall be going to push excrement from my anal passage now! I shall wipe my muscular exit point with tissue paper and will communicate with everyone soon!

Lets see who this offends!

There will be no video camera of the event!

Shame!

You did when you started going on about dildos & jelly. You've further exacerbated the offence given by raising your rather horrible excretory related paraphilia.

[micklemus]

Where did anyone become insulting and OFFENSIVE?

Your opinion or fact?

I shall be going to push excrement from my anal passage now! I shall wipe my muscular exit point with tissue paper and will communicate with everyone soon!

Lets see who this offends!

There will be no video camera of the event!

Shame!

What is “fact” in any circumstances? Nothing more than what we believe it to be. Our interpretation of the information before us.

I should think some would therefore regard it as fact that you are insulting and offensive, regularly so it would seem:-



“So bang goes that shit, your talking. What next?”

“I comprehend what a loan is! I loan you my dildo and KY Jelly to pleasure yourself if you wish (or not).”

“One word: TWAT!”

“Enjoy your life, while you can.“

“No-ones derailing anything you NWO agent!”

“Go back to the toilet brainthebrian as your crap is coming from both ends now.”

“Complete wanker”

“Are they too difficult for your slave mind?”

“Childless fucking morons who don't even care about their family or friends.....”

“As was the original point, no-one gave a damn about your yawnable opinion!”

“The fact is, the numbers are rising and you and your mates are going to have to deal with these rising numbers and when you DO, have to DEAL with these numbers then maybe the numbers will deal with you!”


How about we move on from that and try to look at issues, maybe even follow the spirit of this thread?

[number_6]

just depends on who gets to YOUR number6 first!

Are you threatening me?

[hadabusa]

What is “fact” in any circumstances? Nothing more than what we believe it to be. Our interpretation of the information before us.

I should think some would therefore regard it as fact that you are insulting and offensive, regularly so it would seem:-



“So bang goes that shit, your talking. What next?”

“I comprehend what a loan is! I loan you my dildo and KY Jelly to pleasure yourself if you wish (or not).”

“One word: TWAT!”

“Enjoy your life, while you can.“

“No-ones derailing anything you NWO agent!”

“Go back to the toilet brainthebrian as your crap is coming from both ends now.”

“Complete wanker”

“Are they too difficult for your slave mind?”

“Childless fucking morons who don't even care about their family or friends.....”

“As was the original point, no-one gave a damn about your yawnable opinion!”

“The fact is, the numbers are rising and you and your mates are going to have to deal with these rising numbers and when you DO, have to DEAL with these numbers then maybe the numbers will deal with you!”


How about we move on from that and try to look at issues, maybe even follow the spirit of this thread?

lol, i dig your patience,man:cool: