1_man_army

Ah bugger, phoned them then read this >__> I should have revised it a little first. Going to put a watermark on the images then email the given address nice lady Jane gave me and... ask for a small fee? Or should I just give up now and give em away? o___o Low res the hell out of them so they're not print-quality when you send them. That way they can't just be taken used without getting back to you.

You're best bet is to call them up & send them some low resolution copies of what you've got so that they can decide if they want to use them. That being said, they may just ignore you but it's worth trying anyway.

Man Utd have accepted an £80M bid from Real Madrid for Ronaldo. It looks like Real are going to break the world record twice in one month. That would be a bad deal for Barca. Eto'o is a better player and Ibrahimovic is probably the world's most over-rated player - so sulky, so lazy, doesn't turn up for the big games.

Thanks for keeping us on the road to that second place spot, now feel free to let us win and we can both go to South Africa lol.

Superhero Films - they're so formulaic, I don't need to watch them at times, I could guess the plot for most of them. There are few exceptions but for the most part they're just crap. There are far too many as well, almost every superhero under the sun has either been given a film or has one in the works - Hollywood needs to stop milking this crap. I'm not into metal (or any of it's many derivatives either) - I just don't get it, most of the stuff I've heard is the musical equivalent of a migrane. That being said, I'm willing to admit that I haven't sampled much and that I might react better to the genre if I listen to better examples of it. Anime/Manga - Ridiculous Japanese cartoons...I just don't get the appeal.

I presume you get Irish commentators during the world cup though, we get stuck with the English commentators for every tournament. I swear, if I ever meet Clive Tyldesley I may be compelled to beat him to death, that goes for John Motson as well.

Hopefully Scotland can qualify for the first time since 1998, it depends on us making it to the playoff place (since Holland pretty much have the top spot already) and hoping we get an easy team for the play off. That being said, even if we do get to the tournament, we'll probably do our usual glorious failures routine - get beaten by the rubbish teams and just about do well against the better ones and then still fail to get past the first round. England winning the world cup would make the suicide rate rocket up here, the English commentators are still insufferable about winning it over 40 years ago and show an absolute arrogance when an international comes around. I could only imagine how irritating they would be if they won another world cup.

You have to see the Nou Camp. It was damn impressive even when there wasn't a game on, I'd have loved to be in the crowd on a match day.

Well considering the fact that they are whaling an endangered species in the guise of "scientific research," I would go as far as to say that the harrassment they get is more than justified. The Japanese constantly use that false argument of scientific research even when there are methods of research into whales that don't involve killing them with an exploding harpoon and dragging them until they bleed to death. The Japanese even use aid money to buy support of nations within the International Whaling Commission. It isn't even like the Japanese people particularly support whaling, the sales of whale meat have dropped severely in recent years (scientific research my arse) but the main political parties continue to support whaling. I'm not a "greenpeace hippie" but they are completely right in this debate. Japan (as well as the other pro-whaling nations) need to give it up as there is no need for commercial whaling.

The next list should be up about Wednesday-ish.

I just saw this on the news 5 minutes ago. The way he was found sounds very suspicious to me.

Of course, individual stations can go further with their censorship if they choose, it's up to them because they're broadcasting the material and therefore liable for penalties if they break the rules. Essentially I agree with you though, adults should have almost no restriction on what they view (unless it infringes on other peoples rights) and that censorship should be there to limit the access that children have to certain content until they're at an age where most people are deemed responsible enough to view it

Nobody is arguing against that fact. It's important to realise that these studies are based on children not teenagers and adolescents. Nobody is saying that they don't know the difference, just that one influences the other. No offence to you guys but I'm far more likely to accept the considered opinion of a clinical psychologist who has performed these studies and has done the research than the opinion of two random guys over the internet who presumably play the games/watch the films and/or listen to the music in question. It is no great stretch to suggest that if you normalise certain behaviour that people will be more likely to reflect it. That doesn't mean everyone or even the majority will act out the behaviour it just makes it more likely. I admit this isn't my field of expertise at all since I'm not a psychologist so I can't exactly make the argument any more detailed than I have but you get the drift from what I've posted.

:lol: Do we have gladiators killing each other for our entertainment where the winner is bloodied from the loosers entrails? Do we go to the neighbouring town, kill the men and keep all the women as our own? Do we train our sons to kill from a young age? Do we offer sacrifices to gods, even if the sacrifice is our own child? Let me start by saying you're an idiot. Well done on taking a sensible argument of mine and being a prat =D> . I could go on and on...

Well, what's wrong with games that advertise shooting, violence, blood, and nudity? There are pretty much no games that have actual 'sex' parts in it, unless you hack (E.G. GTASA). Can the average person under 18 do that? No. The media and over cautious parents complain "i dont want my son to be playing this game" for, what I have seen the top 2 reasons are: 1. It's against my religion Well, maybe your son doesnt want to follow the same religion? At 13 it's easy to make a decision like this. 2. It promotes (insert something like: guns) And what is bad about that? If we had no guns, we'd have no army. There may be the obvious comeback of "guns started warfare" but wars could be fought using fists, feet and simple weapons, and nuclear bombs, etcetera. Children are far more likely to be influenced by media at a young age, if you glorify violence as a way to win and get on in life to children from a young age then they're more likely to act it out later. As for your point about guns, sure there would be no armies but you don't want children to be using them either. We live in a violent society as it is without pushing violence as a way of life and as entertainment onto children. I agree with you on the religious point and it's an argument I use often - you can't make laws solely on religious grounds. I also concede that too often video games, music and films are used as a scapegoat within the media to explain why certain crimes are comitted but that still doesn't make games like GTA4 suitable for children.

Censorship is a necessary evil as it keeps (or at least should keep) certain content, particularly sexual and violent content away from children. However I do agree that material that is designed for adults should not be subject to any censorship unless it infringes the rights of other people. That's okay in the home but it can't be applied in the outside world. If there is no censorship of consumer items (such as DVDs, CDs and games) then any child can buy what they want if they can afford it.

^^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7117000.stm The Eagles Greatest Hits isn't even in the top 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_be ... _worldwide In short, no....just no.

Gommorah - It was an interesting film. It followed a few stories that all involved characters who were working with (or against) the Camorra in some way. It's almost the opposite of every Hollywood mafia movie as it shows their life as it is - grimy and brutal. No big money and no playboy lifestyle, nothing too flashy - even the violence is dealt with in a very simple and matter of fact way. It's a good look at a variety of different aspects of the Camorra; their control of waste management, their recruitment of new blood, how they deal with trouble and how they relate to the communities that they control. I quite liked it but it won't be for everyone - that fact that it revolves around a number of different stories could put some off as could brutality (although they doesn't bother me personally). It isn't a run of the mill gangster picture despite the wannabe Tony Montana in the film (that will make sense if you see the film) The only problem I had is that you're kind of thrown in at the deep end right from the beginning - there is a war between 2 Camorra clans but I still don't know why (not that you really need to know to be honest). It isn't a vital bit of information but I would have liked to have known. That being said, it was late when I watched this so it is possible I missed something (if anyone else who has seen the film can tell me if I'm right or not).

I cant wait for this aswell. Hopefully it will be more Damian Marley then Nas though. It's safe to presume that it will pretty much be 50-50.

I'm looking forward to the Nas & Damian Marley album, Distant Relatives which is due out on 23rd of June. I think it'll be pushed back though since there hasn't been much news on the album recently.

It was like men against boys last night, if I hadn't known better I wouldn't have thought that it was Man Utd playing last night because they were so poor. It was like they lacked any will to win the game and their top players didn't perform at all. I was disapointed watching them because I thought they would be able to take Barca before the game. That being said, Xavi and Iniesta were brilliant, they pulled the strings throughout the game. Even with a makeshift defence, Barca didn't look to be in trouble. I was impressed by Busquets as well, he was the youngest guy on the park and doesn't play regularly but he never looked out of place and seemed to do well on the big occasion. A great day for Guardiola as well, a dream first season as the manager of one of the world's great clubs. It was a well deserved victory for Barca, hopefully this will shut up ITV's commentator (Clive Tilsley I think) who was so arrogant before the match about how great Man Utd were and how they would dominate.

Yeah, I watched it last night, it was good.

I agree with you, but seriously what is this babble ? 1.)" Hiroshima and Nagasaki". Firstly this was never an issue and a element to this thread. Whoever brought it up should piss off. 2.) "cannot lecture others on the issue of nuclear weapons while it is the only nation to have used them" again irrelevant. Alothough it may decrease the believability and validity of the argument, it doesn't make it wrong. On a global scale what happened over half a century ago, may be relevent it different spheres but here the only thing at hand is NK's use and development of nuclear weapons and its intentions to utilize them. Why cant it lecture, bad for the "international image". No. 2.) "the only nation to have used them and still has a massive stockpile" Application is entirely different to intention. This massive stockpile argument has no good argument. 3.) "the US isn't in a position to judge on this issue" Why ? I can't see why. Explain more clearly. What you're saying is that the US should keep its mouth shut because it has a better postion [or worse if you see it in that light] in terms of commenting on NK's nuclear technology. It's an extraneous argument because firstly it says that ones in postions of power have no right to say anything because of this, which is in a way postive discrimination. And secondly equating matters of world peace and securityto pre - cold war notions is well - stupid. IT HAS NO RELEVANCE. Bah, I'm bad at conveying my thoughts transparently. Posessing nuclear weapons gives you no lesser or greater right to comment on anything. Except the NPT which is a pile of [cabbage]. EDIT: Spelling As for your second point, it is relevant whether you agree or not - it is the argument that is used by nations with nuclear ambitions to justify their positions, by painting the US as hypocrites they can get their countries behind them on the issue. This issue therefore gives these nations a logical argument that they can use to justify their position. That is why the US can't pass judgement on the issue - because they've put the nuclear bomb into practice and the North Koreans (and the Iranians) will use that fact to bolster their arguments for having them. I do think that NK should not have these weapons but I think the case for them not having them and the pressure on NK has to come from others (primarily China and Russia because they're friendlier to NK). The US does have a role to play in this issue but in my opinion they can't take the leadership role because of their use of the bomb and how that fact can and will be so easily exploited by NK.

They need to take a leading role in convincing North Korea to not go down the path they're going down at the moment. China and Russia particularly have to make a bigger effort because they still have a close-ish relationship with North Korea. NK is content to ignore and antagonise the US, Japan and the UN. The problem for China is that they don't want to do too much and end up with a bigger humanitarian crisis in NK that'll potentially lead to millions fleeing to China.

UK has nukes and we have no problem with that. But do YOU want countries like Iran and NK to have them? Personally I don't care if they do. And if I did, I would be equally concerned about USA having them What? The United States KNOWS not to use them, but NK and Iran have horrible leaders who want more power and might actually want to use them. You want them to have them? Then enjoy living in fear pretty soon! Remind me, what is the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons outside of testing? [/hide] The same nation that realized it could save lives in the long run; unfortunately, they killed more people then intended. Let's not have the whole 'was Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified' argument for the millionth time on tip.it - that wasn't my intention. My point is the the United States cannot lecture others on the issue of nuclear weapons while it is the only nation to have used them and still has a massive stockpile, it's hypocritical. Now don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of North Korea having nuclear weapons but the US isn't in a position to judge on this issue.