Ginger_Warrior

There is also some anecdotal evidence to suggest the Yes campaign told a few porkies about the No campaign's funding, ans were sending emails to people who hadn't even asked for them. Granted, it's small fry compared to some of the things the No campaign got up to but it's not saintly conduct either.

Can't remember the quote verbatim but it was Dale Carnegie who said you can seal more business in two months by taking an interest in other people than you will in two years trying to appeal yourself to everyone else.

People vote BNP every year thinking whites are honestly a minority in Britain; I know this because I've been involved in the Hope not Hate campaign. I'm not going to deny them their vote because they're stupid, all I can do is inform them that actually about 9/10 of the country's population are white and whatever they may have told them is wrong. ...eh?

It is a legal precedent, which is valid logical reasoning. "They're doing it, so should we" is another matter though. Heavy alcohol consumption is discouraged by just about every healthcare professional going--if it isn't by some, they need sacking or kicking into the 21st century--and the same would apply for marijuana. Likewise with smoking vs marijuana.

Probably because their opinion is that FPTP is more democratic than AV... :mellow: I don't understand why you're complaining that people had seperate reasons voting No. The referendum was whether people wanted AV, not whether they disliked FPTP. Twice as many people said they didn't then said they did, it's just arrogance to say the reason for that is because people were ignorant. Also, even if they were, how much fault does the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign have to take for not educating people otherwise?

I don't think I've ever been friends with anyone who has a stutter, but that's not for discriminatory reasons. I guess if I did meet someone with a stuttter I'd notice but it'd seem a pretty daft thing to judge them on so I'd probably just ignore it. I tend to butt in to people's sentences in everyday life during pauses when they can't think of the right word so I'd probably just do the same here. Dunno if that would do any harm or not but that would be my normal response.

Well: 1) Cameron clearly isn't unpopular because the Tories have held their vote in the locals; 2) The deficit wasn't made over 13 years of Labour government, it was due to the bailout of the banks; 3) I was more getting at how popular Cameron is within the Conservative Party amongst the far-right. He's seen as being too moderate by some.

The same thing that happens every four months when this thread goes full circle on the OT merry-go-round. "You take weed you're stupid" "Taking weed is OK the Lancet said so" (etc.) Zzzzz

And frankly, Cameron is unpopular enough with the more right-wing elements of the Conservative Party--though maybe less so after last night--without ticking them off for opposing a new voting system that would kill them in a general election. I don't think anyone is proud of the way this referendum was campaigned, but when it was timed to coincide with the local elections, in a way it was almost inevitable. This should have been done on another day. When you put a referendum on an election day you will get party politics tainting the result, and as the results have shown, there is a huge anti-Lib Dem sentiment sweeping across the whole country and they were the only major political party to support the Yes vote. Clegg's face was all over the No campaign and for good reason: He is politically toxic, and they knew it would get people opposing AV. I don't think it's fair to blame Cameron for the Lib Dems' woes and how that was reflected in the AV vote. And yes, it isn't "right" that party politics has had an influence here, but the Lib Dems themselves chose this date, and so they've themselves to blame.

70% of the electorate doesn't agree that it's broken, if you believe some outlets. It might be closer to 65% but still.

Alton Towers has the better rides, no doubt, but the waiting times might kill the patience of small children.

But the fact is it is a Lib Dem thing, this is just inescapable. An AV referendum was agreed and lost in the wash-up period of the last Labour government but only the Lib Dems have ever put their full weight behind it, and when you consider they're everyone's second party it's not hard to see why they would want that. If it's any consolation, I know some students--who for some bizarre reason beyond my understanding still think Nick Clegg walks on water--voted for AV simply because the Lib Dems would be better off, not because they thought it was better than FPTP. The aim of having an MP rather than an American-style federal system is that we elect one representative to put forward our local issues in parliament. If individuals don't have enough faith in the party they feel best represents them, that's not really my problem, it's that party's. It isn't too much to ask a voter to pick the one candidate that best describes them. EDIT: Daily Mail reporting anecdotal evidence of a No vote, 70%:30%.

</showoff> :razz:

Once you get the hang of Chompy hunting it's not too painful. Just buy a load of arrows off the GE since making them there is impractical and bring two bellows to keep a continuous supply of frogs. You'll figure the rest out.

I wasn't aware that was needed to vote for one person. No, this is the Lib Dems knowing that a coalition deal with the Conservatives was politically unpalatable so they used the deal to forge themselves a better position for the next general election by effectively rigging the voting system. Do the Lib Dems care about the Greens? No; they're political rivals, why would they?

Except cricket is hardly as simple as he makes out, especially when determining a the target score for the team batting second in a one-day cricket or Twenty20 cricket match interrupted by weather or other circumstance. ...I don't understand how that disagrees with me. You've posted a video that shows the flaws of making a system so complex that a lay person no longer understands it. By lay person I mean that Cox doesn't follow cricket, not that he's necessarily below average when it comes to intelligence. This is exactly why I oppose AV so... thanks for proving my point. FPTP is the simpliest of the two systems, therefore it requires the least burden on those voting. You're voting for one representative ∴ you vote for the one person who best represents you. Easy.

I meant enjoying Castle Wars, not RuneScape in general. Like, when you play sport at an amateur level. It's not with a view to gaining something else. It's just for the love of the game. Probably because sport is designed with an aim to facilitate enjoyable experiences, in other words people play sport not because they expect a reward but because they don't and much of the enjoyment comes from experiencing how the game plays out. Any consequent reward is a bonus. Since CW is a competitive minigame, or at least is meant to be, the same would apply. Those playing CW for the sake of playing CW wouldn't care about setting a target for this cape, since they wouldn't find the setting of specific targets as enjoyable. Setting predictable targets which involve playing an unpredictable game like CW bastardises the whole point of why the minigame was made. That reason above all else is why the requirement should be removed.

I suppose many would argue the reward comes in playing the game, the 5K limit is just to say 'Job well done' as a personal milestone that isn't meant to be grinded, but makes a nice benchmark for this particular cape. Though I am sat wondering how you can have enough time to be a minigame/CW fanatic AND do everything else in the game. Surely one or the other would have been a better way to do this.

I think Jagex introduced limits on non-combat spells in CW since people were abusing it for the lack of randoms. I might be wrong though. And please, let's NOT turn this into a "200m xp isn't fun" argument. I can't personally stand the prospect of training anything up to 200m, and I think CW is one of RS's best features, but if some people like it, live and let be.

He's using an analogy to explain why he opposes the AV system. Hardly treason.

When the batteries die (Wii remote for example) but you press the 'On' button and it turns back on. How you can do this hundreds of times... why can't the batteries just let you use the energy that's blatently left in there?

Well if you're going to go crazy with completionism, may as well draw it out a bit. (That means I like the 5K CW req)

If a lack of friends is what's getting you down then join a voluntary organisation. Doing something you feel is socially 'good' will provide its own happiness (apparently just as much as we would gain from suddenly doubling our income) and it's a chance to develop social skills and make new friendships with people there.

I get on with life, because no-one ever achieved anything wallowing in self-pity. Well that applies for most trivial matters anyway. If we're talking down as in a family member's just died then obviously I take that more seriously.

So I was walking home today with a Barcelona polo shirt on. Three young Asian boys outside their house as I was passing said, "They'll win tonight". Aww. Not exactly prophetic but it's a done deal... surely.