
Sure - get in shape. But that sort of stuff? Don't get it.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 11:28,
archived)

and thanks. One of my boys loves Bob and Postman Pat.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 11:33,
archived)

and weirdly - Barney - he loves that annoyinh purple Dinosaur
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 11:38,
archived)

I refuse to expose my kids to that evil purple bastard.
I expected more from you Bilbo ;)
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 11:42,
archived)
I expected more from you Bilbo ;)

I found an old dancin ninja gif at the weekend, I'll have to dig it up for ya.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 11:37,
archived)

The first pic's a great comparison to Winstone in the film
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 11:56,
archived)






but it comes out like bernard manning.

I'm hoping that thing in his right hand will be a cheese burger?
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 11:08,
archived)

in fact i organised it
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 11:00,
archived)


although the main campaign was to stop the local brewery converting part of a public assembly hall into said chippy, the hall is shared with the pub
www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=21897504390
that's not the official press pic, which had more angry folk in it, the link is dead. the pic is the MD of mc mullens shopped onto col saunders
and we won for the second time.


Really? Well that's not so good then. If I was you I'd get someone in to look at it.
Na, no more than fifty quid. It just needs a new bit of piping and a couple of
washers then scoosh a bit of Jeyes through it. Try this lot, here's their number.
No bother, pal. See yer about.

I think I might have a Morrisonses cheese and roastbeef sandwich, Irn Bru, some beef Hula Hoops folowed by a nap down by the sea. Yerself?
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 10:52,
archived)

I have nothing
I may nip to the Onestop for a pastie
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 11:31,
archived)
I may nip to the Onestop for a pastie

:)
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 9:43,
archived)

I have to shuffle my way there yet.
I sprained my ankle quite badly last night.
/3 hours in A&E blog
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 9:53,
archived)
I sprained my ankle quite badly last night.
/3 hours in A&E blog

because no other fucker would dare to eat it.
'ning
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 9:50,
archived)
'ning


mmmmmmmmmmm......
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 10:03,
archived)

he has resorted to meatball making?
Monster! Monster!
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 10:19,
archived)
Monster! Monster!

"She must have gotten lost, been part of a convent, or something."
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 9:28,
archived)

... and then there was an audible "Oh, for fuck's sake..."
NINGS!
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 9:56,
archived)
NINGS!

.
You should have chilled and had a spliff instead mate
.

.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 9:10,
archived)
You should have chilled and had a spliff instead mate
.

.

"Scientist - what do you think?"
"I think this."
"WRONG! You're fired."
It's great - a career politician decides that they themself know more about a scientific issue than a formally trained, experienced scientist, who's been specifically employed to study it, does.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 9:16,
archived)
"I think this."
"WRONG! You're fired."
It's great - a career politician decides that they themself know more about a scientific issue than a formally trained, experienced scientist, who's been specifically employed to study it, does.

This is entirely normal.
Politicians soon become so satisfied with their own adequacy that they believe themselves to be more authoritative than those experts that are employed to advise them, in matters scientific, defense, security and legal.
Silly politician, you are not an expert, you are not even qualified to have a proper job!
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 9:25,
archived)
Politicians soon become so satisfied with their own adequacy that they believe themselves to be more authoritative than those experts that are employed to advise them, in matters scientific, defense, security and legal.
Silly politician, you are not an expert, you are not even qualified to have a proper job!

get stuck in:D
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 9:28,
archived)

it's the only outlet politicians have for I-think-my-own-thoughts - normally they just get told what to think by mandarins
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 9:28,
archived)

lacist lols
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 10:39,
archived)

I think it's down to the government not wanting to take on unpopular scientific opinion.
At the end of the day, most the beer-guzzling, fag-smoking masses believe drugs are bad and wrong.
If the governemnt makes proposals based on scientific evidence to the contrary, the public will desert them.
And I fear in this instance, a lot of the public feel that Dr Nutt doesn't know what he's talking about. Science or no science.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 9:33,
archived)
At the end of the day, most the beer-guzzling, fag-smoking masses believe drugs are bad and wrong.
If the governemnt makes proposals based on scientific evidence to the contrary, the public will desert them.
And I fear in this instance, a lot of the public feel that Dr Nutt doesn't know what he's talking about. Science or no science.


while keeping very schtum about they think about Dr Nutt's findings, which they probably disagree with, but they won't say that
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 9:39,
archived)

is the fact all the attention seems to be on his findings about cannabis, and very little on the 'dangerousness' of alcohol, and lack of regarding tabacco
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 9:26,
archived)

a scientific opinion. Saying that smoking a spliff is
less dangerous than getting sclerosis through 20 years of binge
drinking may be true but the examples are non-comparable.
Also making something legal because something "more dangerous"
is already legal makes no sense and is not the business of scientists anyway.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 9:53,
archived)
less dangerous than getting sclerosis through 20 years of binge
drinking may be true but the examples are non-comparable.
Also making something legal because something "more dangerous"
is already legal makes no sense and is not the business of scientists anyway.

You've just summed up Nutt's political
and financial interests in one sentence.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 10:05,
archived)
and financial interests in one sentence.

prosecute people who have a drugs problem and sit and hope it will go away..
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 10:12,
archived)

Criticising a suggested policy doesn't
mean I'm advocating the status quo.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 11:19,
archived)
mean I'm advocating the status quo.

Science can tell us the probabilities of things
Risk-taking is a personal choice
Banning the personal use of things for being dangerous is immoral
Besides, many human risks are unassessable because of humans not being automatons
Science therefore has no bearing on banning drugs etc.
...if so I like it.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 11:56,
archived)
Risk-taking is a personal choice
Banning the personal use of things for being dangerous is immoral
Besides, many human risks are unassessable because of humans not being automatons
Science therefore has no bearing on banning drugs etc.
...if so I like it.

Some risks are more insiduous than others
Comparing overt risks with hidden risks is invalid
People tend to overlook these risks due to being dimwitted
It is the duty of government to protect us from these risks, like a stern but kindly father
It's not the business of scientists to forcibly deny us things we like and treat us like retards.
In which case that would suck.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 12:04,
archived)
Comparing overt risks with hidden risks is invalid
People tend to overlook these risks due to being dimwitted
It is the duty of government to protect us from these risks, like a stern but kindly father
It's not the business of scientists to forcibly deny us things we like and treat us like retards.
In which case that would suck.

it's that every subsequent government will have to obey the advisory council on the misuse of drugs to the letter, after this incident, and Nutt wants to make it completely independent of government, which means that it would tell us exactly what to do and we couldn't get rid of it by voting.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 12:14,
archived)

Well it's good to see a request for clarification of my opinion. It beats telling me what I think every time. I agree with all of your above post except for the last line. I think science should have a bearing on drug legislation as I believe laws should not be made against damaging oneself but should be made against damaging others.
There is evidence that much violent crime, including murder, is carried out under the influence of drugs including cannabis. This also applies to alcohol. Maybe a long jail sentence, if we had any places left, would be a deterrent but banning or legalising drugs taking misses the point. It's the associated crimes that need to be addressed and from which we need protection. Killing yourself by "ignorance" when there is so much information available should be your own risk.
Even Dr Nutt says of his children, "I've always told them about the dangers of drugs."
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 12:26,
archived)
There is evidence that much violent crime, including murder, is carried out under the influence of drugs including cannabis. This also applies to alcohol. Maybe a long jail sentence, if we had any places left, would be a deterrent but banning or legalising drugs taking misses the point. It's the associated crimes that need to be addressed and from which we need protection. Killing yourself by "ignorance" when there is so much information available should be your own risk.
Even Dr Nutt says of his children, "I've always told them about the dangers of drugs."

More laws against doing things, like driving, while drunk or stoned?
I think I'm generally against punishing people for things they appear to risk doing, but reading* "Moral Luck" by Thomas Nagel recently has confused me somewhat. If you can be clearly shown to have increased your likelihood of committing manslaughter to 0.4%, it's hard to say why you shouldn't be punished for having committed 0.4% of a manslaughter. I think the point is probably that you can't ever be clearly shown to have done that, and such statistical assessments overlook individual differences, and the whole centrally managed system is anti-rational (preventing people from being independent agents in creating ideas); but then that could be said about all laws. Heh.
*Reading half of. Must find out how it ends at some point, might make me less confused.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 12:48,
archived)
I think I'm generally against punishing people for things they appear to risk doing, but reading* "Moral Luck" by Thomas Nagel recently has confused me somewhat. If you can be clearly shown to have increased your likelihood of committing manslaughter to 0.4%, it's hard to say why you shouldn't be punished for having committed 0.4% of a manslaughter. I think the point is probably that you can't ever be clearly shown to have done that, and such statistical assessments overlook individual differences, and the whole centrally managed system is anti-rational (preventing people from being independent agents in creating ideas); but then that could be said about all laws. Heh.
*Reading half of. Must find out how it ends at some point, might make me less confused.

and I wouldn't pretend to know even half of the answers.
Statistics I agree, should be brought into context. I don't believe that likelihood percentages should be taken into account if say, a person prone to bouts of anger knowingly takes a substance that reduces his inhibitions then commits a violent crime. Similarly if a driver drinks knowing his faculties will be impaired he is deliberately increasing the odds of harming others.
In general terms I believe our laws, enforced by the police, the judiciary and the prison system should protect us from anyone who would deliberately harm us. Unfortunately this ethic seems to have partially collapsed and we are far more likely to be jailed for trying to preserve our legal rights by protecting ourselves. Or maybe for accidentally harming, such as a doctor who makes a mistake.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 13:12,
archived)
Statistics I agree, should be brought into context. I don't believe that likelihood percentages should be taken into account if say, a person prone to bouts of anger knowingly takes a substance that reduces his inhibitions then commits a violent crime. Similarly if a driver drinks knowing his faculties will be impaired he is deliberately increasing the odds of harming others.
In general terms I believe our laws, enforced by the police, the judiciary and the prison system should protect us from anyone who would deliberately harm us. Unfortunately this ethic seems to have partially collapsed and we are far more likely to be jailed for trying to preserve our legal rights by protecting ourselves. Or maybe for accidentally harming, such as a doctor who makes a mistake.

If cannabis was made legal, all the gangs currently making money from it would not simply go and get a job at B&Q instead. They would use thier smuggling, storage and distribution network for harder drugs instead and move the problem up a scale, surely?
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 12:34,
archived)

It's true that those people with a primary motivation of being nasty, who are interested in selling drugs as an illicit way to make money (rather than out of a wholesome interest in drugs, like cheesemongers have an interest in cheese), would still find ways to be nasty and make money illicitly - quite likely less useful ways - and it wouldn't make any difference to that. (Those with a primary motivation of selling drugs for its own sake would find themselves becoming respectable tradesmen.)
Pot smokers would be less likely to meet any bad guys, which is nice, but that's about as far as the argument goes.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 13:08,
archived)
Pot smokers would be less likely to meet any bad guys, which is nice, but that's about as far as the argument goes.

the chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is unqualified to offer opinions on the misuse of drugs, and downgrading cannabis to class C is the same thing as making it legal.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 10:17,
archived)

Downgrading is an alteration to law and doesn't
fall within his remit.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 11:22,
archived)
fall within his remit.

.
Nutt didn't call for the legalisation of anything.
He wasn't presenting his opinion but an evidence based analysis of different drugs.
If anything the figures indicate that alcohol should be made illegal. (oh and I think you mean cirrhosis not 'sclerosis')
.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 10:24,
archived)
Nutt didn't call for the legalisation of anything.
He wasn't presenting his opinion but an evidence based analysis of different drugs.
If anything the figures indicate that alcohol should be made illegal. (oh and I think you mean cirrhosis not 'sclerosis')
.


people generally won't be prosecuted. To me that is an
underhand way of legalising it. Yes I did mean cirrhosis.
I also meant sclerosis, it's the same thing.
/medical expert blog.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 11:29,
archived)
underhand way of legalising it. Yes I did mean cirrhosis.
I also meant sclerosis, it's the same thing.
/medical expert blog.

good nings to you all on this bright, but brisk, Monday morning!
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 8:40,
archived)

Who's doing Movember? I have trimmed my goatee and am now sporting a rather fine David Niven.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 8:47,
archived)


my plan to incoroprate it into my sideburns is against the rules apparently.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 9:14,
archived)

I'll have to consult the T&Cs
*consults*
That seems fine
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 9:34,
archived)
*consults*
That seems fine

I prefer "splendid chap"
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 9:25,
archived)

in fact he did so much fucking in the 50s and 60s he changed the whole bloodline forever.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 9:40,
archived)

but yes I think yours is correct they revised it apparently
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 10:11,
archived)

Don't know if there are any conventions to indicate which is which on an album cover. Having looked up Symposium, they sound like a better band.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 3:12,
archived)

Top work. I hope they're paying you handsomely.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 3:22,
archived)

and some left over cake, various free drinks, and other stuff. Maybe that was all unconnected to the album cover actually. Seems fair, anyway.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 3:27,
archived)

For instance the piece of folded cloth is based on the one in this piece of explicitly pornographic pottery.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 3:31,
archived)

it always confuses me.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 8:55,
archived)

which reminds me, I should rip my copy of Talking With the Taxman About Poetry

If I've accidentally made a BNP advert instead of a scene from an ancient greek drinking party then that's seriously careless of me.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 4:22,
archived)

www.banconal.com.pa/
clearly.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 5:28,
archived)
clearly.

I mean what do they stand for? "Facilitamos las transacciones internacionales de nuestros clientes a través de una amplia red de bancos corresponsales". That could mean anything.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 5:40,
archived)

i already know what this person looks like, based on his neck hair alone.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 3:13,
archived)

took a while to find the bugger
www.ecal.ch/images_photographie.php?id=92&lang=en
wasn't he in the newsletter at some point?

I am currently on the frontpage of halflife2.net/
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 2:09,
archived)

Benicio del Toro in Wolfman remake for 2010
www.imdb.com/title/tt0780653/
unfortunately it's directed by the guy who brought you the Rocketeer and Jumanji, but OH, BENICIO
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 2:19,
archived)
www.imdb.com/title/tt0780653/
unfortunately it's directed by the guy who brought you the Rocketeer and Jumanji, but OH, BENICIO

ARRROOOOOOOAOOOAOOAOOAAAAAOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

didn't really know where it was going in the first place.

( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 0:51,
archived)



hmm... ah, there it is!
...does it hover?
(in other news, i think i just found my favorite tv tropes artical:
tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitleijqobqvle9an?from=Main.BRIANBLESSED )
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 0:31,
archived)
...does it hover?
(in other news, i think i just found my favorite tv tropes artical:
tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitleijqobqvle9an?from=Main.BRIANBLESSED )


But the difference is the stuff is actually fucking interesting to read.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 0:53,
archived)

some of those wimps find the Dresden Dolls "creepy"
tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/NightmareFuel/MusicVideos
AND YES, THERE GOES MY FUCKING AFTERNOON
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 1:43,
archived)
tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/NightmareFuel/MusicVideos
AND YES, THERE GOES MY FUCKING AFTERNOON

I started on these before lunch
www.nichtlustig.de/toondb/090928.html
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 1:58,
archived)
www.nichtlustig.de/toondb/090928.html


(Lacht Aus Laut)
or to be precise, LOL (Lautes Online Lachen)
very specific, these Germans
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 3:51,
archived)
or to be precise, LOL (Lautes Online Lachen)
very specific, these Germans

so you can see the appeal..
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 3:52,
archived)

which is surprising for a kind of single-subject-area encyclopedia. I guess it must be an Important Site.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 0:54,
archived)

everything2.com/
it has taken me to some surprising places, most of which I've since forgot
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 1:13,
archived)
it has taken me to some surprising places, most of which I've since forgot

that looks like it could probably flip over and run on its ears and tail

Little guy's probably more scared of us than we are of him.
And vice versa.
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 0:41,
archived)
And vice versa.


just somewhere I could show people my photos to whom I might not want to show my deviantart gallery (i.e. potential employers, workmates)
( ,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 0:38,
archived)
« Older messages | Newer messages »
