Please explain what's not been delivered ?

I map my own car , it works , it's more power , I get glitches & problems
And I still to this day stand by what my original thread was about
And because I played safe on the day it's one big failure
Mmm
I played safe ran a map on the clinics dyno that delivered 40 hp more than stock
On a map that I did in 10 minit maybe less & free
So by my reckoning that's £0 per 1bhp increase

Yeah what a failure that is

 

Oh dear I seem to have pushed your buttion.... that was easy

 

Give over , after the stick on the mapping thread and a million comments after
You've got not a cat in hells chance
Even though you would like to think because I've replied it's reeled me in I'm very sorry it's certainly not
Do you honestly believe after all this time you could even begin to make me bite over that topic

No mate afraid not you obviously think you're way better than you actually are

 

Whatever The evidence is clearly there in post 661 Blah blah gone all defensive blah blah

Anyway back to topic in hand.

So in synopsis you are trying to make us believe that you don't really believe any of what you wrote and did it for a laugh as you think it's funny to have me posting in here repeatedly despite the fact that in order to do that you had to be posting in here for just as long anyway. On top of that even if it were true it's a pretty stupid way to get your laughs and perhaps a good comedy film would be a better opton next time

Or of course there is the other option which is that you mean it, but for some reason are now trying to back out which would be pretty daft even for you! Maybe the Mrs has read it and doesn't like your tone (no pun intended) so you are indulging in a bit of furious backpedalling.. who knows and who cares

Either way it makes you look a bit childish as we were trying to have a serious debate here, but if that's what you enjoy then fine... knock yourself out!

I shall be leaving it there unless you wish to rejoin the debate as an adult!

 

Look at the title in the poll , the clue is in there
Does that honestly look like or worded in a way that's fitting for a serious debate
You can not and will never be able to have a serious debate on this forum on such a topic
Ffs look at half the posts

Yes it's childish , yes it's a waste of time ,( but beats just watching tv on a freezing wet Sunday afternoon )

I've no reason to back peddle at all , why should I , Paul ( mrs son ) knows I'm cool with him ( in reality )
And I couldn't give a toss what anyone thinks or says of me on here , it means nothing
I've been slagged off by a few on here in the past , but as soon as you meet in person everyone all of a sudden realises what's what and in reality we are all the same
And 90% of what's said on here is total b/s
Other than of course genuine advice about car problems

I'm tired now and pretty bored , so I'm off ,

 

I think he was actually talking more about people like you!

Good thread though, keeping me entertained

 

Except I'm not the one claiming to be offended

I'm certainly not offended by homosexuals or by those that choose to be offended by them, I just think they are idiots.

Other than that good post

 

Strange you seem to come across as being offended by other people's views, which is what General Melchett was getting at

 

Strange you seem unable to comprehend my last post even though you seem to have a good grasp of English.

You can disagree with someone's point of view without being offended by it or them... you do understand that yes?

It makes me laugh you are trying to turn this around onto me, somewhat ineffectively I might add, when there are a plethora of people in this thread saying they are offended by the thought of homosexuals and especially the sex act involved and offering no valid reason as to why.

This board is becoming a very weird place

 

Just keeping the fire stoked

 

Thanks my english is p*ss poor at best usually

 

Well on Scoobynet even p1ss poor would put you in the top 10%

 

 

Its not difficult to rattle shakin stevens cage

 

I noticed that some people have suggested that I am spamming the forums:

I would just like to point out that I have duplicated 1 post (although it is not completely identical) - I re-posted the "10 reasons why the Government is wrong to redefine marriage" because after my initial post detailing this, people were still posting and asking "what difference will it make?" "just let them do it, it doesn't make any difference"

Clearly they have missed the original post, so in the interest of informing certain individuals of the impact this will have, I reposted it so that they don't have to troll through as much of the thread to find it.

Apologies if this has been perceived as spam, this was not my intention.

http://c4m.org.uk/

 

As above

 

I tried to add http://c4m.org.uk/ to my signature, but it would appear that this forum does not allow signatures for my membership type, so I am adding it as a manual signature. Please do not mis-interpret this as SPAM.

Just to re-iterate, I have duplicated 1 post (although it is not completely identical) - I re-posted the "10 reasons why the Government is wrong to redefine marriage" because after my initial post detailing this, people were still posting and asking "what difference will it make?" "just let them do it, it doesn't make any difference"

Again, I apologize if this has been mistakenly perceived as spam. I would also like to point out that I posted perhaps 4-5 pages of some of the information from this and other websites for the purpose of providing accurate evidence to back up my argument on the issue of the re-definition of marriage.

Lastly, I would like to point out the definition of SPAM, as it would seem that some people are a bit confused and do not fully understand the actual meaning as per definition.

SPAM.

Noun: A canned meat product made mainly from ham.

Verb: Send the same message indiscriminately to (large numbers of recipients) on the Internet.

I do not believe my posts fall under either canned meat products or indiscriminately sending the same message to a large number of recipients.

--------------------------------------

Manual Signature: (not spam) http://c4m.org.uk/

 

Gay spam. Yum.

 

"slightly ominous stance" how is being tolerant ominous?!

"antagonizing, insulting and belittling" not really, just questioning and defining the words used by you...damned by your own hand really.

For the record let me again reiterate I do not believe the government should raise legislation that forces marriage to be redefined. I think it's down to each religion and their followers to decide what they believe is correct. The governments’ only vested interest is they (well some of them!), believe this stance will win them votes.

It's really your opinion on homosexuality that sucks but you are not alone and as another poster said...you will never stamp out bigotry entirely.

 

How apt

 

 

Just another quick post addressing the views of some people on this thread who are of the opinion that anyone who disagrees with homosexuality or re-defining marriage is a bigot.....

Nick Clegg tried stating this too, but quickly withdrew this part of his statement. I wonder why.....Lets see:

Clegg calls gay marriage opponents ‘bigots’, then withdraws the remark
Posted on 12th, September 2012

Nick Clegg has withdrawn comments in which he branded opponents of gay marriage “bigots”.

The Deputy Prime Minister was expected to launch an attack on opponents of the policy in a speech at a reception later.

Extracts released early by officials said: “Continued trouble in the economy gives the bigots a stick to beat us with, as they demand we ‘postpone’ the equalities agenda in order to deal with ‘the things people really care about’.”

Some 90 minutes later aides had corrected the text, insisting an early draft had been released in error.

The revised version said: “Continued trouble in the economy leads some people to demand we ‘postpone’ the equalities agenda in order to deal with ‘the things people really care about’.”

The coalition’s pledge to introduce same-sex civil marriage by 2015 has been criticised by religious groups and triggered unease in Conservative ranks – with some ministers suggesting they might not support it in parliament.

Prime Minister David Cameron has signalled that MPs will be given a free vote on the issue, but stressed his personal commitment.

Opponents of gay marriage voiced fury at the use of the word “bigot” in the initial version.

A spokesman for the Coalition for Marriage said: “These intolerant and intemperate remarks by Nick Clegg show that there is nothing liberal about him whatsoever.

“The majority of people in this country oppose the redefinition of marriage, according to polling, and his comments effectively criticise millions of ordinary men and women.

“Nick Clegg should confine himself to fixing the broken economy, which he was elected to do, rather than attacking those people who back the centuries-old definition of marriage.”

So, I think its fair to add that those guilty of the bigot branding are in fact the intolerant, and may I add, hypocritical ones!

Sorry! EDIT!*

--------------------------------------------------

*Manual Signature: (not spam) http://c4m.org.uk/

 

Clegg is a **** who is fighting for his political career. It's nothing to do with having a moment of clarity and a lot more to do with his statement meaning he woudl have lost even more votes!

The bigoted are the people that dislike homosexuality for no valid reason and by the way use their prejudice as their basis for opposing gay marriage rather than any argument formed in logic!!

 

If that was addressed at me (if it was at least have the cohonas to quote me), then clearly you can't read. Clegg withdrew his statement because he called people who didn't want same sex marriage to go ahead bigots, which is incorrect. I'm calling people who are homophobic bigots.

If it wasn't then you crack-on Sambob

 

I do not wish to get into a direct dialogue with certain individuals as it just ends up in a slagging match. Instead I will address issues in a general fashion as I am doing. This has no bearing on whether I possess "cohonas" or not.

I have already provided many valid reasons for disagreeing with the re-definition of marriage. I can also provide valid reasons for disagreeing with homosexuality in itself (please note, disagreeing with homosexuality is not necessarily homophobic nor does it by default make you a "gay basher")

A few other people have made very valid points about why they disagree with homosexuality, and for the purpose of a working society I have already posted much information (which some people have branded as spam) as to why re-defining marriage to include homosexuals would have a negative effect on society and future generations.

However, some people seem to have totally ignored these valid points, and not only that, but have condemned anyone who has made them, and disregarded them totally. It is insinuated that we who disagree with homosexuality are intolerant, yet when we would like to discus the topic, providing evidence and our views, it's simply disregarded and we are branded as homophobes, bigots & spammers. It is quite clear, and I'm sure others would agree, that this is intolerance and intemperance and perhaps some are more bigoted themselves than they even realise.

--------------------------------------------------

Manual Signature: (not spam) http://c4m.org.uk/

 

Sambob,

This is ridiculously simple!

There are heterosexuals and there are homosexuals.

I have no issue with either!

You have an issue with homosexuals!

Yet you declare me the bigot.

To make matters worse you have no credible reason as to why you think like you do - the nonsense you posted are not valid points just because you say they are... it offends God being one gem for instance

Utter muppet!!!!

 

Again, I would just like to reiterate that I do not dislike people personally who happen to be homosexuals, I simply disagree with homosexuality.

Here's few of examples (definitions ex·am·ple Noun: A thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule. Verb: Be illustrated or exemplified. Synonymsinstance: - sample - model - exemplar - pattern - paradigm) as some seem to be having difficulty getting their heads around this concept.

Example 1) I dislike my daughters stealing pens from my office and not returning them. However, I love my daughters dearly and do not hold this against them personally.

Example 2) I dislike my cousins mental problems, which as a result have caused his immediate family no end of grief, but I do not hold this against him personally.

Example 3) My cat likes to sharpen his claws on my carpet, despite having a perfectly good scratch post accessible to do this on. I dislike this, but I do not hold it against my cat.

And thank you very much for posting this f1, you have re-enforced my point here.

 

Some more valid points on the subject published by Robert A. J. Gagnon :

1) The nature argument. Marriage is not just about more intimacy. It is about merging with one's sexual other half or counterpart, a complementary sexual other. Erotic desire for what one is as a sexual being is sexual narcissism or sexual self-deception: an attempt at completing oneself sexually through merger with a sexual same. Most people intuit something developmentally deficient about being erotically attracted to the body parts and essential gender that one shares in common with another. See my online discussion in "Why the Disagreement...?" pp. 30-46 here; and my published entry on "Homosexuality" in New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics (Intervarsity Press), 327-32.

2) Negative side effects. Attending homosexual practice is a disproportionately high rate of negative side effects as regards (a) health (sexually transmitted disease, mental health problems, and shortened life expectancy) and (b) relational dynamics (short term relationships, high numbers of sex partners). These problems are, in the first instance, attributable to the non-complementarity of homoerotic unions: the extremes of one's sex are not moderated and gaps are not filled. Approving homosexual behavior will also contribute to the gender identity confusion of adolescents and, by virtue of denying any significance or value to male-female differences, will bring about the destruction of all gender norms and societal endorsement of transvestism and transgenderism. See The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 452-60, 471-85; more recently, my online "Immoralism, Homosexual Unhealth, and Scripture: Part II: Science" (here for pdf, here for html).

3) Increase of homosexuality. Cultural endorsement of, and incentives for, homosexual behavior will likely lead to a higher incidence of homosexuality in the population, affecting young people at higher rates. This means that more people will develop a higher risk for the problems discussed in 2 above. For documentation of this point, see The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 395-429; and now with updates, "Why the Disagreement...?" pp. 30-32, 120-25 here.

4) The intolerance of the homosexual agenda. Caving into the homosexual agenda will lead to the radical marginalization of those who oppose homosexual practice and, ultimately, the criminalization of opposition to homosexual behavior. Homosexual activism represents the greatest threat to civil and religious liberties for our children. At stake are such things as: mandatory indoctrination of our children in all school systems, public and accredited private, from kindergarten on, through convocations, skits, videos, workshops, and teacher instruction; loss of one’s job if one does not sign a statement saying that one “values sexual orientation differences”; mandatory workplace attendance of “Gay Pride” events and “Coming Out” celebrations; fines and even imprisonment for speaking out against homosexual practice, even in church services; having one’s children taken out of one’s own home for teaching “homophobic” ideas or, if one’s child professes a homoerotic proclivity, for “child abuse”; loss of accreditation of all Christian colleges and even seminaries that cannot prove “non-discrimination” in the hiring practices towards “gays and lesbians” or that permit any faculty to speak or publish in a manner critical of homosexual behavior per se; and refusal of colleges and universities to admit any students who do not sign statements affirming the value of homoerotic relationships. For documentation of these matters, see the book by Alan Sears and Craig Osten, The Homosexual Agenda. See also my documentation on pages 10-18 of my critique of David Balch.

5) The destruction of marriage. Granting civil union status or, worse, marriage to homosexual unions will ultimately weaken marriage for everyone. The introduction of same-sex registered partnerships in Scandinavia has coincided with a sharp rise in out-of-wedlock births. Granting gay marriage or its functional equivalent has not helped marriage in these countries; it has made marriage increasingly superfluous. When eroticism is perceived as merely "more intimacy" rather than as a means to a "one-flesh" reintegration with a sexual other into a sexual whole, when the only requisite for sexual unions is commitment and fidelity (and a truncated definition of commitment and fidelity at that), when "lifelong" becomes "long-term" and "long-term" is thought of as a 5-10 year-union, when even the concept of "serial monogamy" is called into question by the high incidence of "open relationships" among male homosexual unions, when sexual unions are once and for all severed in society's perception from a commitment to have and raise children, and when society rejects as bigotry the notion that a mother and father are both needed for the optimal development of children--when all these elements are in place, consistent with the pro-homosex agenda, the general public will cease to value marriage as a special and even sacred institution. "The profanation of marriage" will have gone full circle--both its secularization and debasement. Imagine society granting marriage licenses to any union that met the conditions of a committed friendship and ask yourself how long marriage can survive as an institution. See the links to point 2 above.

6) The normalization of all consensual sexual relationships, irrespective of number and degree of blood relatedness. The whole push to normalize homosexual relationships is predicated on the assumption that there are no structural prerequisites to valid sexual relationships; that commitment and fidelity are sufficient criteria, unless society can prove harm to all participants, in all circumstances, and in scientifically measurable ways. Given such premises, there is no logically consistent reason why society should resist various forms of multiple-partner sexual unions, whether traditional polygyny, "threesomes," or some other arrangement. Since the restriction of the number of sex partners at any one time to two persons is predicated on the existence of two distinct and complementary sexes as necessary and sufficient to produce a sexual whole, the elimination of such a premise must result in the eventual elimination of a number requirement. It is not surprising that the recent Supreme Court decision that found a right to same-sex "sodomy" in the Constitution has sparked a lawsuit to validate polygamy; nor it is surprising that the ACLU has filed a brief on behalf of the polygamist, citing the sodomy ruling and insisting that the burden of proof is on the state to prove that polygamy is always harmful (for the record: It isn't). Similarly, if consent, commitment, and fidelity are adequate for establishing a sexual union and, further, if the concept of too much structural sameness becomes irrelevant, then there is no reasonable basis for withholding public recognition of man-mother or adult brother-sister unions. One wonders, in the face of such an assault, how long resistance to adult-adolescent unions and, eventually, adult-child unions can be maintained. Note that I am not saying that by approving homosexual unions we may open the door to something worse: polygamy and incest. There are good grounds for arguing that homoerotic unions are worse for society than polygamy and adult consensual incest. Nevertheless, approving homosexual unions will, in the end, have the effect of discounting any concept of inherent structural incongruity as regards sexual unions. See my online discussion in "Why the Disagreement...?" pp. 35-45 here.

Note: Most of the links above are to my online article, "Why the Disagreement over the Biblical Witness on Homosexual Practice?" at http://www.westernsem.edu/wtseminary...n2%20Aut05.pdf

© 2004, 2006 Robert A. J. Gagnon

http://www.robgagnon.net/SecularCase.htm - for the links should you wish to view them.

--------------------------------------------------

Manual Signature: (not spam) http://c4m.org.uk/

 

sambob, do you believe that the bible is the word of God? - thanks

 

Good news

Best thing you've posted so far.