Page 12 of 13

Re:

Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 2:49 pm
by Opa-Opa
stigodump wrote:I now have an image of a fetid corpse being rogered by a randy rabbit.

Thanks.

:lol:
It's a Sword thrust you naughty boy..!!!

Re:

Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:56 am
by psj3809
think yer self lucky

im another forum (none games related) and its the first time ive been banned........twice (for bugger all) and some of the rules, well tch
i think i mentioned it to donna over on retro survival once and she couldnt believe the rules they have
Strange ! I had a heated debate with someone on the old RG forum (someone was doing a boy racer souped up Escort website and i was taking the mick) and i got a private warning from Donna !!! No one had complained or anything about it

There were no swearwords or name calling, just a very heated debate. On the old forum one minute its like a concentration camp next minute the reverse !

Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 12:21 pm
by koopa42
I just checked in RG issue 2 (the old RG) and it didn't have w*nk lines LMAO maybe thats why it went bust :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Re:

Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:54 pm
by Dudley
koopa42 wrote:I just checked in RG issue 2 (the old RG) and it didn't have w*nk lines LMAO maybe thats why it went bust :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Except later in its life it did have adult ads.

Re:

Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:57 pm
by koopa42
Dudley wrote:
koopa42 wrote:I just checked in RG issue 2 (the old RG) and it didn't have w*nk lines LMAO maybe thats why it went bust :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Except later in its life it did have adult ads.
LMAO that says it all - I never made it to the later issues :oops: must have been the lack of those ads :oops: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:01 pm
by C4
Maybe publishers think since that most Retro gamers are reclusives, they would welcome these filth lines.

Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 6:35 pm
by RMLF
Not bothered to read the debate here, however...

So theres sex lines in a magazine.. so what, you dont have to read them or use them, and the revenue they provide helps the magazines existance...

Has anyone not seen FHM or New Women ( for any lassies lurking) recently, full of them.. average age must be, ooh all of 12-30 plus for FHM whats the big deal!

laters
Ralph

Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 7:39 pm
by Ash
I stopped reading T3 when they first put scantily clad lassies on the cover. They crossed a line there.

Re:

Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:11 am
by Dudley
Ralph Milne's Left Foot wrote:Not bothered to read the debate here, however...
With respect, you've read none of it but you feel sufficiently informed to dive in?

Ever considered standing for elected office?

Re:

Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:30 am
by koopa42
Dudley wrote:
Ralph Milne's Left Foot wrote:Not bothered to read the debate here, however...
With respect, you've read none of it but you feel sufficiently informed to dive in?

Ever considered standing for elected office?
Dudley have you ever not dove in and started on someone eh? fool

Re:

Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:40 am
by stigodump
Dudley wrote:
Ralph Milne's Left Foot wrote:Not bothered to read the debate here, however...
With respect, you've read none of it but you feel sufficiently informed to dive in?

Ever considered standing for elected office?
Oi! At least he tackled the SUBJECT of the thread which is more than what you do bouncing from thread to thread looking for an argument.

Have a little respect for your fellow posters!

Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:48 am
by Kaede
Right this thread is a bit long (and highly amusing) and clearly I have too short attention span to read it all.

Has anyone addressed this point:

A sizeable amount of you lot must be phoning these lines FOR SEXY CHAT!!!11 otherwise they wouldn't keep appearing in the mag, non?

DISCLAIMER: I Have never bought RG or phoned those lines despite my user name. :oops:

Re:

Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 7:08 am
by koopa42
stigodump wrote:
Dudley wrote:
Ralph Milne's Left Foot wrote:Not bothered to read the debate here, however...
With respect, you've read none of it but you feel sufficiently informed to dive in?

Ever considered standing for elected office?
Oi! At least he tackled the SUBJECT of the thread which is more than what you do bouncing from thread to thread looking for an argument.

Have a little respect for your fellow posters!
Yo' Stigofool I'll post what & where a damn well please mate - if you want to have a go at me then have a go at dudley too, the amount of times he kicks off is at least equal to me, also if I wanted an arguement I would have no doubt posted madly in both of the RG threads but haven't.

Re:

Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 7:19 am
by revgiblet
Hey Koops, I reckon that Stig was agreeing with you and criticising Dudley. Read his post again and you'll see that he didn't include your comment in his quote, only Dudley's.
hand_solo wrote:A sizeable amount of you lot must be phoning these lines FOR SEXY CHAT!!!11 otherwise they wouldn't keep appearing in the mag, non?

DISCLAIMER: I Have never bought RG or phoned those lines despite my user name. :oops:
That's the whole point, isn't it. There must be a reason for them putting those ads in gaming mags. As much as I hate the sterotypical 'sad pervert' image of the male gamer it's not going to have appeared out of nowhere. So own up. WHO'S PHONING THESE NUMBERS? You can tell me. I won't tell anyone.

Re:

Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 7:21 am
by stigodump
koopa42 wrote:
stigodump wrote:
Dudley wrote: With respect, you've read none of it but you feel sufficiently informed to dive in?

Ever considered standing for elected office?
Oi! At least he tackled the SUBJECT of the thread which is more than what you do bouncing from thread to thread looking for an argument.

Have a little respect for your fellow posters!
Yo' Stigofool I'll post what & where a damn well please mate - if you want to have a go at me then have a go at dudley too, the amount of times he kicks off is at least equal to me, also if I wanted an arguement I would have no doubt posted madly in both of the RG threads but haven't.
I didn't have a go at you, you bloody plonker. :roll:

Buy some glasses and re-read the post. The clue was in WHO I was quoting.