Forums
Guides
Features
Media
Zelda Wiki
Patreon
Lord Zero
There is no such thing as innocence. Only degrees of guilt.
  • Member since Apr 14th 2008
Last Activity
  • LordZerolio

    Posted by Alonely

  • Well you weren't wrong about most things, people become more wrong when opinions are introduced

    Posted by Hieronymus

  • Right you were about what?

    Posted by Hieronymus

  • Yes I thought you were quite deluded but you had to learn didn't you

    Posted by Hieronymus

  • I always supported you though, reality wouldn't be as easy though no :p

    Posted by Hieronymus

  • Even with qualifications it will be hard, a harsh reality it is

    Posted by Hieronymus

  • Or else?

    Posted by Hieronymus

  • Well shape up dude, don't make that mistake again. So what's happening with your career

    Posted by Hieronymus

  • What the fuck I typed out a whole sentence, lol at your response though

    Ah I see, well that was a rookie move wasn't itt

    Posted by Hieronymus

  • You moved in the someone on a relationship?

    Posted by Hieronymus

  • Dude what did you get kicked out for? Whereabouts were you in England?
    Now now, enough of that

    Posted by Hieronymus

  • Don't you miss it Anthony? ;p please tell me you control something by now

    Posted by Hieronymus

  • You've changed so much since your old pics, what happened to the long hair man :p

    Posted by Hieronymus

  • the logicians at the bar? well, they are taking the bartender's question literally, do you [B][I]all [/I][/B]want a drink. had the first logician not wanted a drink he would have replied "no" because he knows without asking the others that the answer is no, however he does want a drink but doesn't yet know if the others do, so he can only logically say "i don't know". same thing with the second because he does want a drink but doesn't yet know the third logician's answer . and then of course the third knows the answer because the other two have answered 'i don't know' instead of a flat out 'no', which means they each individually want a drink but don't know if the whole group does or not and since he is the last remaining 'yes', he can answer yes for the whole group.

    Posted by era

  • Why don't you talk to me on Skype anymore

    Posted by Aurelia

  • You spoil me so

    Posted by Aurelia

  • Yisssss :heart:

    Posted by Aurelia

  • OBVIOUSLY

    Posted by Aurelia

  • For now I am

    Posted by Aurelia

  • I'm back in Din now

    Posted by Aurelia

  • Yo. Bitch tits.

    Posted by Aurelia

  • Nope.

    Posted by Aurelia

  • I am and was

    Posted by Aurelia

  • Yeah I wish I could be more specific, but I never learned street names. I just have street layouts memorised so I know which direction to go. Plus I'm not actually *from* Preston and only ever just visit. AS I said, I am from just outside.

    Posted by Tabby

  • Preston sucks though. The bus station is an eyesore and a haven for jumpers and drug dealers, it was a black day when they decided not to tear it down.

    But there is a rather nice Chinese buffet place that I like just down the road from UCLAN. I can't tell you precisely were it is since my knowledge of the town is really based off memory, but you should try and find it someday.

    Posted by Tabby

  • Leyland, actually. So just outside of Preston.

    Posted by Tabby

  • Stop being hot

    Posted by Aurelia

  • That sounds nice. Here, you go to court for every fucking possible purpose. It gets really annoying.

    And yes. It happens like that, here. In fact, it's common knowledge. Everyone understands how corrupt the entire political system is, yet, everyone obeys.

    Posted by Yawn

  • The police here have a tendency to abuse their power and oftentimes lie to citizens. But that's something else completely.

    By what criteria do the police use to determine whether an event has sufficient evidence to go to court? And how are conflicts settled when sufficient evidence doesn't exist?

    Here, judges are appointed by the government. The individual who appoints the judges usually do so based on how closely their political views are. This, obviously, leads to a lot of political bias.

    Going through as a lawyer in this proposed system could possibly lead to a better law system and create better judges.

    Posted by Yawn

  • Yeah. Murica goes a bit wild with that.

    Quite honestly, I think there should be groups going out, finding the facts, the evidence, etc., and using it to find what happened. If need be, the two sides of the issue can argue out what happened.

    Attempting to sway one judge is extremely faulty. This individual could hold a belief bias, causing the case itself to not correlate with the law.

    Posted by Yawn