More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

by veya_victaous Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:17 am

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/the-things-most-likely-to-kill-you-in-one-infographic-a7747386.html

Humans are notoriously bad at assessing risk. It's why someone lights up another cigarette while worrying about getting killed by a terrorist, and why so many of us calmly drive to work everyday but feel nervous getting on a plane.

To help people make sense of all this, the UK's National Health Service put together the Atlas of Risk, which we first saw tweeted by Duke University physician Peter Ubel.

Here are the leading causes of death in the UK, with larger circles representing more common causes:

by Guest Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:20 am

How many of the above deliberately try to kill humans?

These are many things that people can suffer from, due to a multitude of reasons and its disgusting and insulting to even compare them to where people are murdered. The fact is there has been 35,000 Islamic terrorist attacks alone since 9/11. Why not tell the above, to the victims of all terrorism and ask them if the above brings any small comfort?

by veya_victaous Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:34 am

suicide
murder
war

how many are preventable with funds?
And you tell the families of suicide victims why we spent 10 times more chasing shadows.

And like you can talk, You encourage terrorism almost daily with you ranting declarations of war.

by Guest Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:36 am

veya_victaous wrote:suicide
murder
war

how many are preventable with funds?
And you tell the families of suicide victims why we spent 10 times more chasing shadows.

And like you can talk, You encourage terrorism almost daily with you ranting declarations of war.

We are talking about a specific type of murder

Compare
Terrorism to many like crimes of passion, robbery, hate etc.

Change the fucking record, as nobody buys into your hysterical bullshit accusations

by nicko Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:31 am

Veya should be arrested for hate crime !!

by eddie Tue Jun 13, 2017 10:44 am

I'm not too sure why everyone is jumping all over Veya for this thread.

by Guest Tue Jun 13, 2017 11:07 am

eddie wrote:I'm not too sure why everyone is jumping all over Veya for this thread.

Simple, because such a stance is poorly trying to down play the issue of terrorism and doing this based off many illnesses that people have little control over. All are separate issues of which people can and do lose their lives over, but where there is many preventative measures as well. I ask you what relevance does any of this to the families of victims of terrorism? Shall we just drop all security measures, as you might die from something else?

And the following false accusations gets boring.

veya_victaous wrote:

And like you can talk, You encourage terrorism almost daily with you ranting declarations of war.

by 'Wolfie Tue Jun 13, 2017 5:10 pm

Thorin wrote:How many of the above deliberately try to kill humans?

These are many things that people can suffer from, due to a multitude of reasons and its disgusting and insulting to even compare them to where people are murdered. The fact is there has been 35,000 Islamic terrorist attacks alone since 9/11. Why not tell the above, to the victims of all terrorism and ask them if the above brings any small comfort?

* The leading causes of heart disease are bad diet, cigarette smoking and sedentary lifestyles...

* The #1 cause of cancer is cigarette smoking..

* The leading cause of accidental deaths in Western societies would be car accidents..

* One of the leading cause of death among teenagers is suicide..

* Workplace deaths outnumber attacks from Terrorists.

* Clean water and sanitation would reduce a lot of diseases in Thrd World countries..

Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant, Dodge..

Onwards and upwards with your endless crusading..

by 'Wolfie Tue Jun 13, 2017 5:14 pm

Thorin wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:suicide
murder
war

how many are preventable with funds?
And you tell the families of suicide victims why we spent 10 times more chasing shadows.

And like you can talk, You encourage terrorism almost daily with you ranting declarations of war.

We are talking about a specific type of murder

Compare
Terrorism to many like crimes of passion, robbery, hate etc.

Change the fucking record, as nobody buys into your hysterical bullshit accusations

You're the one spouting bullshite here, Dodger...

Gun nuts in the USA still manage to kill more innocents each year, then all terrorist attacks..

Both are types of murder.

by 'Wolfie Tue Jun 13, 2017 5:17 pm

eddie wrote:
I'm not too sure why everyone is jumping all over Veya for this thread.

The likes of Didge and nicko simply can't handle the truth...

They would rather 'shoot the messenger' than face up to their own hatemongering proclivities..

by Guest Tue Jun 13, 2017 5:21 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Thorin wrote:

We are talking about a specific type of murder

Compare
Terrorism to many like crimes of passion, robbery, hate etc.

Change the fucking record, as nobody buys into your hysterical bullshit accusations

You're the one spouting bullshite here, Dodger...

Gun nuts in the USA still manage to kill more innocents each year, then all terrorist attacks..

Both are types of murder.

And the forum clown cannot read it seems

What did I say dumbo?

Take your time about different types of crimes

So how many gun crimes, are crimes of passion, robberies, hate, etc?

Do you understand that terrorism is yet another type of murder?

Were you born stupid or did you only learn this trait from regressive teachers?

List of terrorist incidents in January 2016
List of terrorist incidents in February 2016
List of terrorist incidents in March 2016
List of terrorist incidents in April 2016
List of terrorist incidents in May 2016
List of terrorist incidents in June 2016
List of terrorist incidents in July 2016
List of terrorist incidents in August 2016
List of terrorist incidents in September 2016
List of terrorist incidents in October 2016
List of terrorist incidents in November 2016
List of terrorist incidents in December 2016

by Guest Tue Jun 13, 2017 5:22 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
eddie wrote:
I'm not too sure why everyone is jumping all over Veya for this thread.

The likes of Didge and nicko simply can't handle the truth...

They would rather 'shoot the messenger' than face up to their own hatemongering proclivities..

So yet more bullshit from the forum clown

Try reading what has been said you complete dumbo

by Raggamuffin Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:56 pm

People tend to be more afraid of things they can't control. That's why they're probably more afraid of flying than driving their car. They feel they can control their car.

Suicide is also the decision of the individual - it's something one can control.

by Guest Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:03 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:People tend to be more afraid of things they can't control. That's why they're probably more afraid of flying than driving their car. They feel they can control their car.

Suicide is also the decision of the individual - it's something one can control.

Good point, but more importantly, the list is based on a mean over a lifetime.
I mean if we take the 12 year old who died in the Manchester bombing. Was she more likely to die as a 12 year old to pregnancy complications? Heart disease etc?

Of course not. The list is based over what people do die of over a lifetime.

So the list is a falsehood when its not based on age ranges, which will dramatically change based off what they are more likely to die off.

The reality is such an argument is still poor doing that. We know people are less likely to die of asthma, but this does not mean that the medical profession tries any less to save lives and treat asthma. Like any situation people can possible, die we have many measures to help stop this from happening.

by JulesV Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:43 pm

Thorin I don't get what you are screeching about so hysterically. Though I am aware that it does not take much to get you going. All someone has to do to incur your wrath is to dare post an opinion you disagree with.

Veya did not pluck the chart out of thin air. It seems extremely accurate to me. Cos it tallies perfectly with the causes of death in the typical ratio's. An accurate graph.

by JulesV Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:47 pm

Terrorism is horrific and even ONE one death from such an attack is one death too many. But this should not skew the facts.

Frankly we'd need a terrorist attack every day, sevral times a day, with multiple casualties each time, to make it match heart disease and cancer as a leading cause of death.

by Guest Tue Jun 13, 2017 10:09 pm

Jules wrote:Thorin I don't get what you are screeching about so hysterically. Though I am aware that it does not take much to get you going. All someone has to do to incur your wrath is to dare post an opinion you disagree with.

Veya did not pluck the chart out of thin air. It seems extremely accurate to me. Cos it tallies perfectly with the causes of death in the typical ratio's. An accurate graph.

Who is screeching?
I generally leave that to yourself when you go off the rails at getting a red.
I suggest you read back to where i was falsely accused of the following.

veya_victaous wrote:
And like you can talk, You encourage terrorism almost daily with you ranting declarations of war.

I will refer you to my next points

I mean if we take the 12 year old who died in the Manchester bombing. Was she more likely to die as a 12 year old to pregnancy complications? Heart disease etc?

Of course not. The list is based over what people do die of over a lifetime. And will be different per country, where for example the probability of dying due to war in Syria, is significantly higher than anything else at present.

So the list is a falsehood when its not based on age ranges, which will dramatically change based off what they are more likely to die off.

The reality is such an argument is still poor doing that. We know people are less likely to die of asthma, but this does not mean that the medical profession tries any less to save lives and treat asthma. Like any situation people can possible, die we have many measures to help stop this from happening.

So you tell me of what benefit is such a skewed list of probabilities to what can lead to peoples deaths?

Does that diminish the level of terrorism or the threat?

Shall we scrap are terror levels based off this?

by HoratioTarr Tue Jun 13, 2017 10:29 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/the-things-most-likely-to-kill-you-in-one-infographic-a7747386.html

Humans are notoriously bad at assessing risk. It's why someone lights up another cigarette while worrying about getting killed by a terrorist, and why so many of us calmly drive to work everyday but feel nervous getting on a plane.

To help people make sense of all this, the UK's National Health Service put together the Atlas of Risk, which we first saw tweeted by Duke University physician Peter Ubel.

Here are the leading causes of death in the UK, with larger circles representing more common causes:

Is anyone really stupid enough to think that you stand more risk of getting killed by a terrorist than dying in an accident? I doubt it.

I should say no statistics on the planet will make those who lost their children in the Manchester Arena bombing feel better or more fatalistic about their loss, or it would assuage or mitigate their grief. Statistics are irrelevant when the loss is personal.

by JulesV Tue Jun 13, 2017 10:29 pm

Thorin wrote:
Jules wrote:Thorin I don't get what you are screeching about so hysterically. Though I am aware that it does not take much to get you going. All someone has to do to incur your wrath is to dare post an opinion you disagree with.

Veya did not pluck the chart out of thin air. It seems extremely accurate to me. Cos it tallies perfectly with the causes of death in the typical ratio's. An accurate graph.

Who is screeching?
I generally leave that to yourself when you go off the rails at getting a red.
I suggest you read back to where i was falsely accused of the following.

veya_victaous wrote:
And like you can talk, You encourage terrorism almost daily with you ranting declarations of war.

I will refer you to my next points

I mean if we take the 12 year old who died in the Manchester bombing. Was she more likely to die as a 12 year old to pregnancy complications? Heart disease etc?

Of course not. The list is based over what people do die of over a lifetime. And will be different per country, where for example the probability of dying due to war in Syria, is significantly higher than anything else at present.

So the list is a falsehood when its not based on age ranges, which will dramatically change based off what they are more likely to die off.

The reality is such an argument is still poor doing that. We know people are less likely to die of asthma, but this does not mean that the medical profession tries any less to save lives and treat asthma. Like any situation people can possible, die we have many measures to help stop this from happening.

So you tell me of what benefit is such a skewed list of probabilities to what can lead to peoples deaths?

Does that diminish the level of terrorism or the threat?

Shall we scrap are terror levels based off this?

By 'screeching' I meant peppering the thread with insults. Laughing

Your argument is that many of the diseases shown can be treated nowadays, or are preventable in the first place.

True, but nevertheless we all have to die sometime. No one lives for ever, no matter how ''advanced'' medicine gets. And heart disease, obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer of the breast, lung and prostate are all far more likely to be the cause of death than is some random religious nut.

Post mortems even in the school children who die of assorted causes, show that their blood vessel plumbing is already starting to fur up with cholesterol, and it's downhill all the way. Add obesity to the mix and that increases the likelihood of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer in adulthood.

That chart is accurate so don't shoot the messenger lol.

by Guest Tue Jun 13, 2017 10:35 pm

Jules wrote:By 'screeching' I meant peppering the thread with insults.

Your argument is that many of the diseases shown can be treated nowadays, or are preventable in the first place.

True, but nevertheless we all have to die sometime. No one lives for ever, no matter how ''advanced'' medicine gets. And heart disease, obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer of the breast, lung and prostate is far more likely to be the cause of death than is some random religious nut.

Post mortems even in the school children who die of assorted causes, show that their blood vessel plumbing is already starting to fur up with cholesterol, and it's downhill all the way. Add obesity to the mix and that increases the likelihood of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer in adulthood.

That chart is accurate so don't shoot the messenger lol.

So why have you not pulled up Wolf then for example? Does that mean he and Veya are screeching also?

No, that is not my point at all and you clearly did not follow.
For example the risk of heart disease and cancer increases with age, where the risk of terrorism is constant by age. That all are at risk through terrorism, just as someone is with a car accident etc. People younger are going to be less at risk to many conditions. You then have to decrease or increase the risk on life threatening illnesses, due to lifestyle, diet ect. As this is based off what most people die of over a life time. It also is taking a general look and not a individual look and nationwide look, which will again change thew demographics and percentage of the risk. For example people are going to be significantly more likely to die of war in places like Syria and Iraq, as they would of terrorism.

So is the chart accurate?

I do not think so at all, as i have easily demonstrated.

For example what was the risk of the 12 year old who die in Manchester, dying at the age of 12 of Heart disease compared to terrorism? Or that of any of the recent victims? Do you see how the probabilities will change, dependent on the age of death?

So I will ask again

So you tell me of what benefit is such a skewed list of probabilities to what can lead to peoples deaths?

Does that diminish the level of terrorism or the threat?

Shall we scrap are terror levels based off this?

by JulesV Tue Jun 13, 2017 11:00 pm

Thorin wrote:
Jules wrote:By 'screeching' I meant peppering the thread with insults.

Your argument is that many of the diseases shown can be treated nowadays, or are preventable in the first place.

True, but nevertheless we all have to die sometime. No one lives for ever, no matter how ''advanced'' medicine gets. And heart disease, obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer of the breast, lung and prostate is far more likely to be the cause of death than is some random religious nut.

Post mortems even in the school children who die of assorted causes, show that their blood vessel plumbing is already starting to fur up with cholesterol, and it's downhill all the way. Add obesity to the mix and that increases the likelihood of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer in adulthood.

That chart is accurate so don't shoot the messenger lol.

So why have you not pulled up Wolf then for example? Does that mean he and Veya are screeching also?

No, that is not my point at all and you clearly did not follow.
For example the risk of heart disease and cancer increases with age, where the risk of terrorism is constant by age. That all are at risk through terrorism, just as someone is with a car accident etc. People younger are going to be less at risk to many conditions. You then have to decrease the risk on life threatening illnesses, due to lifestyle, diet ect. As this is based off what most people die of over a life time. It also is taking a general look and not a individual look and nationwide look, which will again change thew demographics and percentage of the risk. For example people are going to be significantly more likely to die of war in places like Syria and Iraq, as they would of terrorism.

So is the chart accurate?

I do not think so at all, as i have easily demonstrated.

For example what was the risk of the 12 year old who die in Manchester, dying at the age of 12 of Heart disease compared to terrorism? Or that of any of the recent victims? Do you see how the probabilities will change, dependent on the age of death?

So I will ask again

So you tell me of what benefit is such a skewed list of probabilities to what can lead to peoples deaths?

Does that diminish the level of terrorism or the threat?

Shall we scrap are terror levels based off this?

Veya and Wolfie can be gobby. But they do not spam every thread with their opinions and preachy sermons. YOU do. (well you did ask!)

Yes of course terrorism-related deaths should be included, but keep it in perspective.

You're right, a 12yo girl will not have full blown adult killer-diseases at that age, but by the same token the chances of her being caught up in a violent terror death are remote too. This might change, but it has not changed yet. Meantime people can only make charts based on current stats, ... and not on the basis of how the world might change in future.

Another thing - an atypical case should be recognised for what it is. Deaths among school age kids in developed countries are exceptionally rare even taking into account the odd violent death.

As I've said everything I came to say, I will take my leave of you now. Smile

by Guest Tue Jun 13, 2017 11:07 pm

Jules wrote:
Thorin wrote:

So why have you not pulled up Wolf then for example? Does that mean he and Veya are screeching also?

No, that is not my point at all and you clearly did not follow.
For example the risk of heart disease and cancer increases with age, where the risk of terrorism is constant by age. That all are at risk through terrorism, just as someone is with a car accident etc. People younger are going to be less at risk to many conditions. You then have to decrease the risk on life threatening illnesses, due to lifestyle, diet ect. As this is based off what most people die of over a life time. It also is taking a general look and not a individual look and nationwide look, which will again change thew demographics and percentage of the risk. For example people are going to be significantly more likely to die of war in places like Syria and Iraq, as they would of terrorism.

So is the chart accurate?

I do not think so at all, as i have easily demonstrated.

For example what was the risk of the 12 year old who die in Manchester, dying at the age of 12 of Heart disease compared to terrorism? Or that of any of the recent victims? Do you see how the probabilities will change, dependent on the age of death?

So I will ask again

So you tell me of what benefit is such a skewed list of probabilities to what can lead to peoples deaths?

Does that diminish the level of terrorism or the threat?

Shall we scrap are terror levels based off this?

Veya and Wolfie can be gobby. But they do not spam every thread with their opinions and preachy sermons. YOU do. (well you did ask!)

Yes of course terrorism-related deaths should be included, but keep it in perspective.

You're right, a 12yo girl will not have full blown adult killer-diseases at that age, but by the same token the chances of her being caught up in a violent terror death are remote too. This might change, but it has not changed yet. Meantime people can only make charts based on current stats, ... and not on the basis of how the world might change in future.

Another thing - an atypical case should be recognised for what it is. Deaths among school age kids in developed countries are exceptionally rare even taking into account the odd violent death.

As I've said everything I came to say, I will take my leave of you now.

PMSL at just about the most ridiculous reason to excuse others why claiming to berate me. What that means is you do not mind lefties being abusive and that you show the worst double standards. They certainly spam many threads being abusive, but hey ho, you sum up everything I posted about the video of the lefty students. Laughing

Are they remote? Clearly the fact she is now dead, shows you are emphatically wrong again. Again the charts is based over a lifetime, where again here you would have to chart this based off the ages they died compared to others their age who die in all the above listed situations. So again its a poor overall view based chart, that tries badly diminish the threat of terrorism. That is not to make people scared, but to be vigilante to the very real threat that we face. Well quite a few young people died recently, hence why such a chart will be forever changing, based on conflicts, health, cures, safety, new problems etc. Its never a constant. Providing the possibilities and risks on how people die, makes little to no effect on the threat level of terrorism. 3 deadly attacks and countless thwarted this year. Might give you a clue what little bearing it makes. Let alone how many are injured and scared physically and mentally for life due to such attacks

Lastly, I do not preach but reason my views, but it seems you copycat others poor views to misdirect from the reasons being presented by claiming I preach. Its a typical regressive trait sadly. Hopefully one day you will grow out of it.

Laughing

Still waiting for an answer

So you tell me of what benefit is such a skewed list of probabilities to what can lead to peoples deaths?

Does that diminish the level of terrorism or the threat?

Shall we scrap are terror levels based off this?

Night

by 'Wolfie Wed Jun 14, 2017 6:16 am

Thorin wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The likes of Didge and nicko simply can't handle the truth...

They would rather 'shoot the messenger' than face up to their own hatemongering proclivities..

So yet more bullshit from the forum clown

Try reading what has been said you complete dumbo

Go fuck yourself, you fucking warmongering idiot...

Come back after you have sobered up, and pulled your head out of your fascist arse -- and ask some civil, intelligent and reasonable qestions, and people may be more inclined to answer you..

Instead of prattling on with your dumbfuck crusading spamming.

by Guest Wed Jun 14, 2017 6:30 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Thorin wrote:

So yet more bullshit from the forum clown

Try reading what has been said you complete dumbo

Go fuck yourself, you fucking warmongering idiot...

Come back after you have sobered up, and pulled your head out of your fascist arse -- and ask some civil, intelligent and reasonable qestions, and people may be more inclined to answer you..

Instead of prattling on with your dumbfuck crusading spamming.

Wow more childish rants from the toddler

More infantile false accusations, where anyone who disagrees with you is either a fascist or a Nazi or a warmonger, a crusader and countless other idiotic claims

You see this is all you mindless dumb regressive's can do. You cannot take on my points, but shriek like a child not getting his way. As to intelligence, oh my, this from the forum clown who calls anyone who disagrees with him a racist and can never back up his tantrum accusations. Says everything as to why the majority here think you are an imbecile.

Now run along and get ready for nursery, like a good little boy

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 14, 2017 6:53 am

I don't think it matters what the statistics are, or how accurate the chart is. What matters is what people fear, and terrorism is up there, despite "spokespersons" saying that we are not afraid.

by Guest Wed Jun 14, 2017 6:57 am

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't think it matters what the statistics are, or how accurate the chart is. What matters is what people fear, and terrorism is up there, despite "spokespersons" saying that we are not afraid.

Indeed, the point is whether there is a significant threat from terrorism. Of which there is a huge threat. To conflate this to how people might die, ignores the very threat of terrorism itself and how numerous people in the Uk alone have lost their lives to terrorism this year. Of those who died, they all died before their time, showing the absurd reasoning of the stats on possible ways people can do over a lifetime.

by JulesV Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:33 pm

Thorin wrote:
Jules wrote:Thorin I don't get what you are screeching about so hysterically. Though I am aware that it does not take much to get you going. All someone has to do to incur your wrath is to dare post an opinion you disagree with.

Veya did not pluck the chart out of thin air. It seems extremely accurate to me. Cos it tallies perfectly with the causes of death in the typical ratio's. An accurate graph.

Who is screeching?
I generally leave that to yourself when you go off the rails at getting a red. I suggest you read back to where i was falsely accused of the following. .....

I did not see this stupid comment previously.
For someone who loves to toss words like 'liar' around, you are clearly not averse to telling a few porkies yourself, just to get attention.

I don't give a shit about reds, therefore I don't comment on 90% of the instances when I get one. The few times I comment, are whenever it seemed the red is given in a very pointless or malicious manner. Just like everyone else including YOU, comments on them.

You are PRETENDING that my anger was only because of the red. No, it was because of you being so very irritating.
You are also PRETENDING that being cross is my normal reaction to a red - damned lie. See above.

Happy to set the record straight, Thorin.

by Guest Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:58 pm

Jules wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Who is screeching?
I generally leave that to yourself when you go off the rails at getting a red. I suggest you read back to where i was falsely accused of the following. .....

I did not see this stupid comment previously.
For someone who loves to toss words like 'liar' around, you are clearly not averse to telling a few porkies yourself, just to get attention.

I don't give a shit about reds, therefore I don't comment on 90% of the instances when I get one. The few times I comment, are whenever it seemed the red is given in a very pointless or malicious manner. Just like everyone else including YOU, comments on them.

You are PRETENDING that my anger was only because of the red. No, it was because of you being so very irritating.
You are also PRETENDING that being cross is my normal reaction to a red - damned lie. See above.

Happy to set the record straight, Thorin.

Happy to set what record straight?

I proved you lied and you still deny it even when its there for all to see that you did.

Jules wrote:The best bit is that you proved a point I once made, Thorin.
Remember when I said you mention the left all the time and you denied it?
Yet your very first post after you're back contains a disparaging mention of "the left" .....TWICE!

QED my friend!
http://www.newsfixboard.com/t20913p50-why-has-didge-been-banned#401058

I proved I do not mention the left all the time, so you lied and even worse tried to change what you said, that was hilarious

You clearly do care about reds where again all could see you had a hissy fit and then even, worse came out with some really childish insults due to this.

Jules wrote:
That is blatant abuse of the reds/greenie system, which is why I don't participate in it. Cos the OCD obsessives spoil it for everyone, including the people who use the system properly.

Tell me, sad bastard, what would you do if the red/greenie award system is scrapped? You won't be able to get any more hard-ons by giving reds from your poky little basement in future, you'll just have to go and get a life won't you? - you know, get off forums, stop posting 24/7, learn a few social skills, meet women, have kids, etc. that sort of thing.
Sad turd.

I never even gave the red to you and look how you acted?
What I then have to ask is why you get so emotional based on a poster and not views?

I can understand emotions to hateful comments, but you get annoyed because you get pulled up for lying.
That speaks more about your inability to admit when wrong.

Now please continue to sulk over nothing other than your own failings here

Smile

by JulesV Thu Jun 15, 2017 9:10 pm

Thorin wrote:
Now please continue to sulk over nothing other than your own failings here

........... And please continue to post & preach 24/7, you priceless prick. Smile

by Guest Thu Jun 15, 2017 9:12 pm

Jules wrote:
Thorin wrote:
Now please continue to sulk over nothing other than your own failings here
........... And please continue to post & preach 24/7, you priceless prick.

Considering I do not post 24/7 and you again make childish insults. Proves you have been well and truly triggered. Just like most regressive's.
Try starting to admit when wrong, it may help you become a much better person, just some friendly advice.

Have a good evening

Night

Cool

by Sponsored content

More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

Re: More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

Re: More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

Re: More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

Re: More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

Re: More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

Re: More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

Re: More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

Re: More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

Re: More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

Re: More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

Re: More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

Re: More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

Re: More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

Re: More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

Re: More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

Re: More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

Re: More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

Re: More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

Re: More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

Re: More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

Re: More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

Re: More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

Re: More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

Re: More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

Re: More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

Re: More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

Re: More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

Re: More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

Re: More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist

Re: More likely to be killed by yourself than a terrorist