That whole interview is very interesting to read today. Particualry the comments by Mr Blair that if Saddam were to agree to more weapons inspections there wouldn't be any need for a war.
No I missed that one, sometimes he does just appear to be bored by his guests rather than bother attacking them so I guess Bill just fell into that category.
I wonder if there is a term for "being attracted to new techonolgical devices which you have no earthly use for". If not there should be because I am suffering from it.
I remember Mr Blair being interviewed once by Jeremy Paxman, who is a fairly determined and quick witted BBC interviewer, and they were talking about Blairs recent meeting with Bush on his ranch somewhere
Paxman: "Tell me Mr Blair, did you pray together ?" Blair: "I'm sorry, pardon ?" Paxman: "Did you pray together ?" Blair: "Er, um pray ?" Paxman: "Yes pray. You're both Christians aren't you ? And one of the things Christians do is pray isn't it ?" Blair: "Pray.... er yes they do, um no er George and I didn't pray" Paxman: "I see."
I reckon you should be able to drink drive, and talk on the phone's as much as you want. In fact it should be encouraged, the only proviso I would impose is the fixture of a large metal spike onto the steering wheel, it doesn't even need to be all that sharp.
Well maybe not for you and I, consumers on the other hand are brainless sponges who are only just capable of clicking a button in order to request 'more'.
I assume that must be the case because it certainly seems to be the viewpoint of most large companies.
I suspect ( hope any rate ) that now Mr Blunkett has been removed that the I.D. scheme will be gradually shuffled off into obscurity and dumped.
I am convinced that once the general population realise the exact details of the scheme being proposed they will change their minds and thoroughly reject the idea.
Most people at the moment tend to think "Oh well, I have nothing to hide so an I.D. card is probably a good thing". However when you point out to them that they will be paying for this card out of their own pocket and the numerous other disadvantages they soon change their minds.
The only real way to stop Spam is to take action against the companies using these spammers services.
I realise this might not be the easiest thing in the world to do, given the shady nature of both spammers and their clients but on the whole I would imagine the companies are the kind of companies trading standards etc would be interested in anyway.
What we need is new laws and investment into shutting down dodgy businesses who feel the need to use spamming and other annoying bulk marketing.
I have noticed over the last few months that the MSN Bot has been a far more frequent crawler around my site than the Google Bot which was previously far and away the most active crawler which visited me.
Anyway for various phrases my site comes out in the number one position whereas on Google it's somewhere down in 10th place. To be fair though I am not sure my site is the best resource for these particular phrases.
Re:A lot like Gamesworkshops' Space Hulk
on
DOOM: The Boardgame
·
· Score: 1
Did you ever try Incubation by BlueByte ? It was a great game and very similar to Space Hulk in that you had a load of marines with different weapons and it was turn based.
There was an awful lot of weaponary to choose from to arm your team and they gained experience as they went on and survived missions.
As I pointed out earlier I should have said agnostic rather than aethist.
I said: "and I would have been successful if you did make a choice about whether to abandon your belief in religion based on the evidence made available to us by science."
You replied: "Such as ?"
The point is there is no evidence. Why decide to believe in religious dogma , why not fairies, chocolate cream wagon wheels controlling our destiny ?
I am perfectly happy to make society my god provided you are willing to accept that god can be anything i want it to be.
Society does determine moral values, the moral values of the Christian Church are different today to 400 years ago because society has changed and the churchs morals have changed more or less in line with the morals of society.
Society can enforce it's moral values on individuals because society creates it's morals from a consenus opionion of what's right and whats wrong. People who think differently to society in these manners will be dealt with by their society.
"There is no evidence to suggest that they are fantasy."
You believe something which at some point someone has simply made up ( as opposed to having discovered through scientfic enquiry ). You believe this without the need for any facts or evidence to support the belief. It is overwhelmingly likely that a belief in something which has just been made up or invented is not true and therefore a fantasy.
Obviously my comments apply just as much to anyone who has a firm belief that there is no god, I don't think that will be many people.
The difference between aethists and people who belive in religion is that aethists have not erected vast religious edifices around their central belief in a god ( or belief in no-god ).
Whilst the jury is out on the final existance of something we would recognise as a god I will go out on a limb and say that there is a good chance that most organised religions are barking up the wrong tree entirely.
I was calling religious beliefs fantasy because there is no evidence to suggest that they aren't, people who cannot tell the difference between fantasy and reality are delusional.
I don't believe that is an insult ( it wasn't meant as one ), you obviously disagree with me and with what I said but that's your perogative.
As to evidence, like I said there is so far no evidence whatsoever to back up any of the central beliefs of any religion which means that at this time those beliefs carry the same scientific weight as anything which anyone cares to make up ( e.g. fantasy ).
I would say I probably misrepresented myself as an Aethist since I don't have any belief that god doesn't exist, just that there is no evidence to support the view that their is a god.
Slashdot Mirror
That whole interview is very interesting to read today. Particualry the comments by Mr Blair that if Saddam were to agree to more weapons inspections there wouldn't be any need for a war.
It wasn't verbatim but is pretty much how it seemed to go filtered through the prism of my general hatred of Mr Blair.
No I missed that one, sometimes he does just appear to be bored by his guests rather than bother attacking them so I guess Bill just fell into that category.
I wonder if there is a term for "being attracted to new techonolgical devices which you have no earthly use for". If not there should be because I am suffering from it.
I remember Mr Blair being interviewed once by Jeremy Paxman, who is a fairly determined and quick witted BBC interviewer, and they were talking about Blairs recent meeting with Bush on his ranch somewhere
.... er yes they do, um no er George and I didn't pray"
Paxman: "Tell me Mr Blair, did you pray together ?"
Blair: "I'm sorry, pardon ?"
Paxman: "Did you pray together ?"
Blair: "Er, um pray ?"
Paxman: "Yes pray. You're both Christians aren't you ? And one of the things Christians do is pray isn't it ?"
Blair: "Pray
Paxman: "I see."
Or maybe even Mavi$ Beacon
I reckon you should be able to drink drive, and talk on the phone's as much as you want. In fact it should be encouraged, the only proviso I would impose is the fixture of a large metal spike onto the steering wheel, it doesn't even need to be all that sharp.
3. Listening to music is a passive activity that can be and is immediately blocked out in an emergency.
The trouble is I like to listen to music with my eyes closed.
maybee yes, maybee no.
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz off
Well maybe not for you and I, consumers on the other hand are brainless sponges who are only just capable of clicking a button in order to request 'more'.
I assume that must be the case because it certainly seems to be the viewpoint of most large companies.
I suspect ( hope any rate ) that now Mr Blunkett has been removed that the I.D. scheme will be gradually shuffled off into obscurity and dumped.
I am convinced that once the general population realise the exact details of the scheme being proposed they will change their minds and thoroughly reject the idea.
Most people at the moment tend to think "Oh well, I have nothing to hide so an I.D. card is probably a good thing". However when you point out to them that they will be paying for this card out of their own pocket and the numerous other disadvantages they soon change their minds.
With the spectre of I.D. cards looming over the UK I am curious about why the lady was being asked for her I.D. ?
The only real way to stop Spam is to take action against the companies using these spammers services.
I realise this might not be the easiest thing in the world to do, given the shady nature of both spammers and their clients but on the whole I would imagine the companies are the kind of companies trading standards etc would be interested in anyway.
What we need is new laws and investment into shutting down dodgy businesses who feel the need to use spamming and other annoying bulk marketing.
No they've thought of that. They will use 3 or 4 coats of paint at the start and maybe more for longer journeys.
They would drop the solar anchor
Well apparently more people die drowning in shallow puddles and shallow washbasins than die from Carbon Monoxide poisioning .
It does ( "Were you looking for all about 'cabbages'" ), I am amazed that Google haven't patented that behaviour.
I have noticed over the last few months that the MSN Bot has been a far more frequent crawler around my site than the Google Bot which was previously far and away the most active crawler which visited me.
Anyway for various phrases my site comes out in the number one position whereas on Google it's somewhere down in 10th place. To be fair though I am not sure my site is the best resource for these particular phrases.
It's certainly fast as well.
Now that's what I call flamebait
I think this should be modded FUNNY rather than FLAMEBAIT
Oh please, do shut up.
Did you ever try Incubation by BlueByte ? It was a great game and very similar to Space Hulk in that you had a load of marines with different weapons and it was turn based.
There was an awful lot of weaponary to choose from to arm your team and they gained experience as they went on and survived missions.
As I pointed out earlier I should have said agnostic rather than aethist.
I said: "and I would have been successful if you did make a choice about whether to abandon your belief in religion based on the evidence made available to us by science."
You replied: "Such as ?"
The point is there is no evidence. Why decide to believe in religious dogma , why not fairies, chocolate cream wagon wheels controlling our destiny ?
I am perfectly happy to make society my god provided you are willing to accept that god can be anything i want it to be.
Society does determine moral values, the moral values of the Christian Church are different today to 400 years ago because society has changed and the churchs morals have changed more or less in line with the morals of society.
Society can enforce it's moral values on individuals because society creates it's morals from a consenus opionion of what's right and whats wrong. People who think differently to society in these manners will be dealt with by their society.
Your last paragraph is arrant nonsense.
"There is no evidence to suggest that they are fantasy."
You believe something which at some point someone has simply made up ( as opposed to having discovered through scientfic enquiry ). You believe this without the need for any facts or evidence to support the belief. It is overwhelmingly likely that a belief in something which has just been made up or invented is not true and therefore a fantasy.
Obviously my comments apply just as much to anyone who has a firm belief that there is no god, I don't think that will be many people.
The difference between aethists and people who belive in religion is that aethists have not erected vast religious edifices around their central belief in a god ( or belief in no-god ).
Whilst the jury is out on the final existance of something we would recognise as a god I will go out on a limb and say that there is a good chance that most organised religions are barking up the wrong tree entirely.
I was calling religious beliefs fantasy because there is no evidence to suggest that they aren't, people who cannot tell the difference between fantasy and reality are delusional.
I don't believe that is an insult ( it wasn't meant as one ), you obviously disagree with me and with what I said but that's your perogative.
As to evidence, like I said there is so far no evidence whatsoever to back up any of the central beliefs of any religion which means that at this time those beliefs carry the same scientific weight as anything which anyone cares to make up ( e.g. fantasy ).
I would say I probably misrepresented myself as an Aethist since I don't have any belief that god doesn't exist, just that there is no evidence to support the view that their is a god.
Like I said I'm not trying to insult anyone.