Ginger_Warrior

Well, now that that's (Jard Y Dooku saves the day again!) sorted, I'll lock this up. :wink: Locked ~Ginger Warrior

I can't remember much but I think this has something to do with the ISPs themselves. I personally feel that sites like YouTube, and increasingly media organisations such as the BBC and C4 are being scapegoated by ISPs for their own problem. I think Virgin Media have been the only company not to have this problem, and they blame that success on the fact they use fibre optic cables, which from a scientific point of view actually makes a lot of sense to me.

Maybe I'm just ignorant, but v3.0 looks no better than this one... :|

1, 4 and 10 are the best easily. You really get the impression of speed by the blurred trees in the background against the bike in 4 and 10! 1's just great 'coz of the stunt. Really good piccies! :)

I like the white. Easy to read, simple. Why change it?

Instead of doing individual sciences, some schools do Double Award Science. All three put together in slightly less detail, with an award of two GCSEs. Sixth forms actually prefer it that way...

Hehe, you think i'm nerdy? One of my friends came top 5 nationally in 5 subjects out of 10 :shock: He makes me feel postively stupid :P Thanks though mate. :) Does your area operate some kinda Nazi-inspired authoritarian style to education where you have to work 40hrs a week or you get no rations or something? Jesus! :shock:

Latest news from Wales suggests they're results are significantly lower than the rest of the UK.

Nice! I'm hoping for similar to that.. I doubt i'll be able to get an A* in history though Not overly difficult. TBH, in some strange way, debating on a forums like this actually helps, since half of History is actually arguing your personal judgement, not merely knowing the past. I definitely feel learning how to argue properly helped me get my A AS Level in Modern History, and I learned that from here.

Oww... so that's what Mcnubcupcake was on about!!! Don't blame ya for setting up your own, but we'll keep those comments to the Staff Board lol. :wink: Anyways good luck with the Smithing!

There's already a thread for this: http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?t=692369 And... holy Hell assassin! Well done! :shock: That's almost a ditto version of my GCSEs, not that they'll get me anywhere now they've been dumbed down so much. Apparently, a new survey out today says 60% of businesses say GCSEs don't provide students with enough skills to progress in life. Congrats you everyone who's getting their results today. Thing is, what was your problem in RE, English and Music? You stupid idiot! :P

Wow. Never knew you dropped by here lol! Most crewbies run a mile form this place. :P IMHO, it really makes no difference. It's ridiculous and untrue to suggest you have to choose your career so young. TBH, none of us really know until we're in our early/mid 20s.

3 As and a B AS Level, thanks for asking. Not bad As either, two of them just below 90%. So good my GP was was actually astounded by them when I had to see him today for this bronchitis lol. He says my asthma's come back! :cry: Good Luck to everyone going BTW, and trust me, it's no big deal. Even if you don't get the grades, check with your FE college because they may still accept you. The minimum grade things aren't generally unbreable rules, they're to stop people who have no hope getting in, so don't despair!

Same here, I think it may be a bit dependant on your theiving level. Just look at what it says when you actually get punched, or when you try and open the door full stop. I think it mentions using your "theiving skills". How on Earth can you go there Myssy!? You'd die within half a minute with 10 HP lol!!!

In all of the Western World. Oh wait... thilly me... I mean Iraq of course, except they're not there now because Saddam played "hide and seek" with them. But believe me, according to this jazzed up dosier I have in my hands they were there before we went there! Honest! And they can use them in 45mins! :shock: :wall:

If someone else could confirm this, I'll gladly put it on. Makes sense considering Mithril Dragons can't be poisoned normally... unless... hang on... Eureka! How did you try poisoning him? Using mel̮̩̉̉e weapons doesn't poison metal drags, unless using ancients and some other method... but you get the drift?

Where's the logic in that? You've missed a big part of that. Where does it say that just because you can have children, it means you'd be good at raising them up? I'm intrigued as to where you've crossed that bridge...

I thought history taught us, "Seperate but equal, is not equal". You can hardly compare a ruling the US Supreme Court in the (I think) BROWN case to the treatment of homosexuals in the modern day world. Both are forms of prejudism, but no-one has ever enslaved someone based on their sexuality. The issue with blacks in America was completely different.

Keep it. The fact there's a surplus of consoles would only mean you wouldn't get much for it. And considering it's a gift from your Dad... nah don't sell it.

You're really picking a wrong fight with me if you can't tell the difference between a right opinion (which for the matter can't actually exist), and a valid opinion. Again, double standards. Religious faith isn't a justification for an opinion. Like BlueLancer, I would hope you can formulate an opinion for yourself instead of having a book tell you how to live your life. If you have an opinion, I expect for you to able to put some substance behind your argument. I can tell you for one that if you tried arguing in an exam on religious grounds only, you'd get half marks straight away for a lack of a strong argument. If you want us to provide validity to our scientific arguement, then I expect you to do the same. I'm not saying it's possible... again go away and learn the difference between a valid and a (hypothetically) "correct" opinion. And if morals have nothing to do with science, why are there protests over test-tube babies? Vivisection? Why is it all GMC-registered doctors have to undergo ethical training before they can practise? You make it sound like science cares nothing about morals or ethics - you couldn't be further from the truth. Just another mindlessly narrow-minded comment by you.

It's that kind of attitude I'm questioning. Somehow, you feel homosexuals doesn't deserve to be at the same level in society as heterosexuals are. It's fine you have that opinion, but I want to at least provide an insight into what brought you to that opinion.

Care to elabourate on that? Or should I presume you're just taking the Mikey and deliberately causing a flame war for attention-seeking?

I'm accusing you of double standards. If you can't understand that, then don't bother trying to reply. I'm basically saying that it's seen as perfectly acceptable for you to say science means nothing, but if I did the same for religion, you'd be offended. Just because your religious doesn't mean you abide by different rules of tolerance than I do. I'm basically asking why is it I'm seen as lacking any sense of moral direction because I lack religious backing to my arguments, yet I can't accuse you of not following logic. I'll leave this argument here since as it's a seperate topic in itself. I'm challenging your viewpoint just as much as they are, just from a different position. Again, if you feel my argument is irrelevant, don't reply to it. Simple, and reduces spam. :) I'm not asking you to prove an opinion is right. If you've only just realised you can't prove an opinion to be right, then you're a bit behind. No opinion is ever right, however, I'm challenging your opinion. You seem to be implying that homosexuality is actually something you have control over. Just as you've asked us to give credible sources, I am asking you to do the same for your theory. Again, just because you have a religious side to your argument doesn't mean it's valid without your own sources.

And note I said "accept", not "support". I wouldn't agree with gay marriages being in a Christian Church, nor would I expect them to be held there unless the viewpoint of that particular branch of Christianity changed. But that's not because I disagree with homosexuality. I just accept that the Christian Church has an equal right to deny homosexuals a marriage in their own church. Hence, I'm open-minded. I take a viewpoint, but I accept the viewpoint of opposing bodies.

Eelspremiers, your argument is flawed in two key parts: What dyu mean 'science doesn't come into it'? If I went out on the street and said religion had no bearing on the world I'd be laughed at. It annoys me how you say science has no bearing on the world, but if an athiest such as me said religion doesn't come into anything I'd be flamed. Human emotion is partly down to hormonal activity, therefore science is probably directly connected to this. If you're gona play the "proof" game, can you prove homosexuality is unnatural? And no, the Bible isn't proof. It's a set of guidelines.