Ginger_Warrior

I think you'll find the ceiling gets pushed higher regardless of what social class you come from or what gender you are. People will forever moan about their lot in life, I'm afraid. Except those who have been kicked out of their house and lost all their possessions. I've found such people to be more appreciative of the opportunities we all take for granted.

Oh no, it's moved from the General Board to here...

It's actually in the Laws of the Game (association football) that a football should be as spherical as possible, but given they were written in the 1870s and footballs used to be made of a blown up pig's bladder coated in leather this was impossible, so I've no idea where this 'It's not a ball' argument is going. In any case, it's more spherical than an American football. Furthermore, "football" is an umbrella term for a number of sports which use a ball: Association (soccer) football.Gridiron football - featuring both American and Canadian football.Rugby football - Which is seperated itself into rugby union football and rugby league football (hence the two sports governing bodies in the UK, Rugby Football Union and Rugby Football League respectively) and even more recently, mixed varients.Australian rules football. Conclusion: Make a second thread asking whether rugby should be called 'egg-chasing', or accept that both gridiron and soccer are both called football by any other name.

Dentists do this as well. So annoying. You'd have thought after examining fifty mouths a day they'd know better by now, but apparently not. It's a bit like a paramedic asking, "Are you alright?" :rolleyes:

I'm not sure but I think where it normally says "Wobbufet's HP stat was lowered," it would now say something like "Wobbufet's HP stat won't fall any lower," if it had 0 HP EVs before the berry was fed. If you have 6 EVs, it would go like: 6 EVs - 10 EVs = 0 EVs, NOT -4 EVs. But you'd still be able to do it.

Confidence is very different to petulance, arrogance, or even an exaggerated sense of self-importance, all of which are ironically defence mechanisms to cover a lack of self-confidence. There's little question that self-confidence does help when trying to attract other people though, whether it's sexual or otherwise.

You don't stop caring for each other once a relationship is over. That's perfectly natural. I've often believed that what seperates teenagers from grown adults is the ability to do something we don't really feel like doing, but doing it anyway because it's the best thing to do. People say taking more responsbility in the house is a sign of growing up; nobody ever wanted to clean dishes, or spend money on food other people are going to eat, but we do it anyway. People say getting a job is a sign of growing up; nobody wants to waste eight hours of the day in a stuffy office making phone calls to people we'll never meet in our entire lives, but we do it anyway. People say graduating from university is a sign of growing up; nobody likes doing an all-nighter the evening before the final exam hopelessly trying to cram information, but we do it anyway. Nobody likes admitting that a relationship is never going to return back to golden days, but people have to do it anyway, because more often than not, neither side really knows how to deal properly with seperating from somebody else. For what it's worth, my last relationship ended four years ago. I've been with other girls since, on nights out mostly, but nothing serious (I haven't exactly been trying, granted). But I still have feelings for my ex. She's in a new relationship, even so she's told me she feels and cares about me still. We've both accepted however that it didn't work the first time round, and nothing's changed to suggest it would work the second time of asking. We can still care for each other in a Platonic way, on the condition it doesn't go further than that. I'd point out however that we didn't talk to each other (as in, nothing except very brief, often venomous eye contact) for a good two years before we figured that out. That's what you need to prepare for.

All I'm saying is I'm not prepared to use this thread as a means of being derisive towards someone we don't personally know, and someone who has no ability to defend themselves. The aim of advice-giving is not judgementalism.

I saw a crushed can of Mountain Dew on the street this afternoon. I doubt a can full of liquid was smuggled on a trans-Atlantic flight somehow.

No it doesn't. This thread doesn't exist to claim a moral highground. Once you leave a relationship with someone, you cease to hold the right to cast any kind of aspersions whatsoever about the way that other person lives their life. So she gets drunk at 15... underage drinking aside (which is a matter for her parents, not you) it's perfectly within her right to decide how she celebrates the end of her exams. It's been said before, and it clearly needs saying again: Just. Ignore. Her.

Hitler is one example of how human rights violations frankly don't matter too much when it comes to civil disobedience so long as people's quality of life is improving and maintained. Germany at the time was the hub of European art and education, the Germans themselves were hardly stupid; it's implausible to believe that ordinary Germans didn't know where the Jews, the gays and political activists they outed to the State were 'disappearing' to. But so long as Hitler was moving the country as far away from the Wall Street crash as possible, they didn't care. For a modern example, look at China. Week after week we hear more stories about crackdowns and abuse on political activists, but so long as the middle class keeps growing and the country is developing as rapidly as it is, there isn't any real movement against the government at all. A businessman in Shanghai isn't going to care one iota about a farmer some 500 miles away being forced of his land by force without being offered compensation if the Party presents this modernisation as meaning he can buy a new car, or a fancy new apartment, or a wider variety of food and drink than his family have ever experienced before. Gaddafi's downfall, like Hitler's on the rare occasion he faced dissent in pre-1939 Germany, is that he's focused too much on guns and not enough on butter. In a strange and twisted way, he hasn't been nice enough. To say he's made the Libyan people richer overall is slightly incredulous when you see the scenes in Misrata everyday. They're not killing their fellow countrymen because they feel they're too rich.

Why does the fact she's 15 make any difference at all? In fact, come to think of it, why is this even being discussed? It's none of our business whether she goes out and gets drunk because her exams are over.

Well at least it's nice to know she's taking the break-up with such poise and dignity. Not your problem, bro.

Also, "rich" is a very broad measure of wealth. Without confusing the presumption that economic power must lead to democracy, I'm not for believing that wealth per capita has improved all that much over Gaddafi's rule. In fact, we know this because unemployment in Libya is sky high. This rebellion has as much to do with poverty as it does civil rights.

Well there was the Winter Olympics. If as a Canadian you're happy watching Sidney Crosby sink the US in OT over and over again then I guess it's not so bad but, yeah... it's ESPN or bust really. :razz:

So if I'm contradicating myself then I guess the regulators are also contradicting themselves whenever they place an M rating on a game like DA:II but fail to do so for a game like WoW or RS, both of whom are only rated T, yet both games where violence plays some part. Gore is a part of violent imagery. I'm not saying it's the be-all-and-end-all of violence but it is part of it. Your argument is akin to suggesting Super Mario World has the same impact on a young child as Call of Duty does. They both, after all, contain some level of violence. Such a position is clearly asanine.

I've found http://www.broadbandchoices.co.uk/ to be a pretty good place to find comparisons on broadband, phone and digital TV. While we're on the subject on digital TV, you into sports? The MLB, NBA and NHL are nowhere to be found on the UK's five free-to-air channels. One match per week--the late game every Sunday--in the NFL is available through Channel 4 (kick-offs usually around 2am by the way, so maybe not convenient for work) and the Superbowl is shown on the BBC. F1 is also shown on the BBC. In which case you'll be wanting Sky TV with Sky Sports and the ESPN package (MLB, NHL and NBA are only available through ESPN America here). You can get Sky Sports through other digital TV providers but it costs a ton, so you may as well go for Sky instead.

I'm just not convinced that the graphical violence seen in console-based games has the same effect on a 12 year old with a predisposition to violent tendancies as RuneScape's random 'click-and-wait' system does, where gore is extended to red splats on a screen which look more like tomato ketchup stains than blood. Frankly, the age limits agree with me. GoW2 is rated M (18+), RuneScape isn't. There's an obvious reason, which for some reason you seem intent on denying in order to make some vague, tenuous argument that apparently all kids are subject to violent images or scenes. Personally, if I were a parent, I'd be more concerned about how much of my kids' free time RuneScape consumes at its so-called 'end-game' and how that impacts on their personal lives than I ever would be about them developing violent tendancies because they one-hit a greater demon.

I think I speak for the whole of the VG&C board when I say RuneScape is about ten thousand miles away from what we're actually talking about here. We're comparing GoW and Dead Space--'Strategic Dismemberment' springs to mind--to... what? Dag Kings? [hide=][/hide][hide=][/hide] The connection between them is, at best, tenuous.

Let's just clear this up now: there really isn't any doubt that Gaddafi is using illegal weapons of war on non-belligerents, including some alleged incidents of rape as a means of torture. Multiple international news agencies have confirmed this, many of them holding a commitment to neutrality in their reporting.

Agreed. OT: BTW Blitzel sucks BTW. Lrn2Joltik.

For what it's worth, I still buy into it. I'm sorry if that amazes you, but I don't actually consider myself an ignorant person. I've played as many FPS games as anyone else. I think one of the key problems with video games in particular is that violence is often accompanied by a lack of moral context. I wouldn't want my kids to grow up thinking that violence is completely unacceptable, because sometimes war is an inevitability. However, I'd want them to realise that we are at war for a reason and that war in itself isn't necessarily an excuse to do whatever actions a soldier or a commander in real life might want to do to their enemy. Same goes in everyday life--violence is acceptable, but only in very certain conditions. The point is that parents should take more responsibility when it comes to deciding on how much is too much for their own child, since every child is different, and not rely on the state to intervene or lazily depend on regulatory bodies to provide all the information--which is easily available in the public domain--to make that judgement for them. I think the campaigns to have GTA4 etc. banned have been more to do with mothers wanting to lecture other people about how their methods are so much better than anyone else's. If it wasn't, they'd just ban the game from their own house and have done with it, but no, everyone must know how sanctimoniously they've beaten their child over the head with their own morality. For me it's in the same league as bragging in the school playground about how wonderfully talented their child is over everyone else's. Letting everyone know they feel GTA4 should be banned is just their way of self-validating the fact that they've taken a personal decision to do so, regardless of whether the facts stack up.

Go for a few dates, read his body language, see how you both feel and go at whatever pace seems most comfortable.

I can't believe this was eight years ago... thank you Last.fm for bringing this little gem back. [hide=][/hide]

I didn't watch qualifying yesterday because I was watching the rugby at Wigan but my decision appears to have been vindicated. 24/24 cars left, pole sitter still leading, all but no overtaking. This has been the ultimate definition of a procession. Sam Tomkins' hat-trick was much more exciting than this.