1_man_army

I don't know what's wrong with Norton but this should go in the computers and tech forum.

"Never Gonna Give You Up" has been the #1 song in Europe, America, and Australia at some point in time in the '80s. Tell me how that makes the song crap. You're working on the assumption that popularity = quality. I'm basing my opinion on my own feeling that the song has very cheesy lyrics, I hate the whole Stock Aitken Waterman sound (they are to music what McDonalds is to fine dining) the backing track and the production is just generally naff (listen to that horrible drum beat). Is that enough for you?

...but he is a massive [bleep] I don't care what he is like as a person, I admire him because he was a brilliant player.

A crap song made worst and a thread in the wrong forum.

I wear a long raincoat and nothing else ;) .

Diana Ross also missed the first penalty on 1994 Fifa World Cup. Roberto Baggio missed the last penalty in that tournament but he has a much more stylish haircut than Diana Ross. Edit - This is the best clip I could find of it (without having the whole opening ceremony). [yt]WXjCKwBtG0I[/yt]

Erm this isn't a rap song. Chris Brown makes RnB music (albeit bad rnb music).

You mean 8 Diagrams? The only Wu album Ive really listened to would be Enter The Wu-tang (36 Chambers) I really like that album. Yeah, I meant 8, my keyboard is a bit broken (and I short read my own posts more). 36 Chambers is good and The W is pretty decent. I'm not too keen on Iron Flag though and I've not listened to Wu Tang forever.

I like the Wu a lot but 7 Diagrams was pathetic.

I noticed that Damian Marley kind of leans to "Gangsta reggae" :lol: if you could call it that. I find it a bit disrespective to his father but i'll still listen to it. I'm not a fan of Nas though. Hopefully it'll be something diffirent, fresh. I don't think his work is disrespectful to his father at all. He's taken his own route rather than trying to be a poor imitation of his father (which some of his brothers have been guilty of at times). Their collaboration on Road to Zion was pretty decent, I'm a fan of Nas' so I'm looking forward to it personally.

If you eat nothing but rabbit you will die of malnutrition as it takes nutrients from your body to digest it. I know I stole that from QI but I don't care

I've never really gotten into Doom at all, I might look for a couple of songs to test the waters. Nas is releasing a collaborative album with Damian Marley in June which might be interesting.

You didn't read the more recent posts did you?

Distributing child pornography. This sucks, parents need to start parenting these days :thumbdown: While by the letter of the law your 100% correct, the reason there are laws against distributing child pornography is to protect children. This case is puzzling as the person involved here would normally be considered the victim if the material was distributed by somebody else, so it poses the question of whether you can be both the perpetrator and the victim of the same crime? My own personal view over this is, because it is her that is depicted in these pictures that she is distributing then she shouldn't be charged. There is a difference between paedophiles distributing images of abuse and what is basically a very stupid girl who is trying to impress somebody (albeit in a very misguided way).

Generally, I don't smoke but I do like to smoke a cigar on special occasions like birthdays, new year etc.

I don't like the song but the implication is that he's getting money like many of the oil rich arab leaders (like the Sultan of Brunei). He's only referring to money. That being said, its one of Busta's worst singles ever.

While I don't necessarily agree with trying children as adults I'm a bit shaky on the idea of social rehabilitation. For crimes like this that involve extreme violence I'd prefer that they were monitored more closely (such as in a juvenile detention centre). However, my misgivings are trumped if that method works though.

That is the exact rationale for juvenile courts given under the Britannia encyclopaedia. Regardless, the notion of acting like a juvenile is a fallacy in this argument because you can argue that crime in general is not juvenile behaviour. The reason that children can be processed as adults is a purely political, it is a reaction to public hysteria. The legal system is not a tool for vengeance and the desire to try children as adults comes from a desire for revenge which does not help anyone.

You've got the whole legal system backwards, you are innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that he should be tried as an adult. Edit - I found this article interesting http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0303-04.htm So you're saying if they can prove that he knew he was killing them, he can be tried as an adult? Yeah, that whole shotgun to the back of the head seems like proof. Edit - They could surely prove he knew he was killing the lady, but the unborn child would be a little tougher. So maybe drop it down to one charge instead of two. While, yes that is the what will happen in practice (most likely) it isn't something I agree with. There is a difference between your concept of killing and death as a child and knowing the gravity of what it as an adult. Also as the article suggests, children are not competent enough to be able to aid their defence in an adult courtroom considering the atmosphere in a courtroom and the complex language used. That is why I don't believe any child (and definitely not one this young) should be tried as adults. There is a juvenile system in place for a reason, why have it if you just bypass it when it suits?

Heroin has a sedating effect, weakening the muscles and putting the individual into a drowsy state. Its effects rarely put others at serious risk. When high on heroin people can't do much to others but when they're craving the next hit, many junkies will do anything to get it. That is where the effect on others comes in.

You've got the whole legal system backwards, you are innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that he should be tried as an adult. Edit - I found this article interesting http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0303-04.htm

You don't need to know elgebra or abstract thinking to know that when you shoot someone with a shotgun point blank, they die. He knew he was getting rid of her, which was his intent. The only thing he didn't know when looking at this whole situation, was how much trouble he'd get into as a result of his actions. So if he gets off the hook since he isn't educated enough about it, why don't people who are just plain stupid get off the hook? He is a child. Children are impulsive and aren't don' have a full concept of responsibility otherwise there would be no age limitations on anything. However, children do commit crimes which is why there is a juvenile legal system. If you avoid this system by trying children adults then there is no point in having it. To compare this case to cases where stupid people commit crimes is ridiculous. However, people with learning difficulties are treated differently in the system as they also often don't grasp the concept of responsibility which is slightly more comparable to this case as even stupid (but otherwise "normal") people do grasp the concept. Lenicular J - Nobody claims that a foetus a 9 months isn't a child, if it was much earlier in the pregnancy you could make that argument but not at 9 months

It isn't a simple case considering we are dealing with a child here (two counting the unborn victim). The legal system has to deal with all contributing factors and not just pick and choose what they feel is important.

I don't smoke and that really bothers me. Somehow it's acceptable for a person to be 100 pounds overweight and sedentary, but it's not ok for a person to be a smoker and active (sports, etc.). Being overweight doesn't harm those around you though. :-w It harms me when a fatty takes up half of my seat on the train when they sit next to me, so in a way it does. :P

She's a leech because she married a man who had a kid from a previous marriage?