Pete_the_Viscous

I'm another of those people who've not done it -- hence another of those people who don't understand what the problem is in giving it up: it sounds so easy. Obviously it's not, if people have trouble doing it, but it's hard to imagine. Anyway, someone on the first page said something about going and eating some cake every time you want to smoke, and I recomend something similar. Whenever I want to stop myself doing something -- not that this is often, but sometimes I find that I've got into bad habits like major procrastination -- I make myself go and do something else; as with most things, like sickness and pain, wanting to do something (in my case "nothing at all") is easier to forget when busy. ...Who am I to say, though.

What Mercifull said. (Edit -- what he said a few posts ago is to what I was referring) Also, what if one needs a stranger to access one's things -- if, for some reason, one can't present one's hands (or irises, or whatever), then the other person can't do it.

(Was there an original copy of the bible there, too? -- if you out there don't get that, it's not worth going into) On topic, I'm just not funny; at least, not intentionally.

I personally have nothing against tatoos, mainly because a lot of people for whom I have a lot of respect have them. That's not to say I'd ever get one, or that I respect someone more for having one, but I don't bear disrespect for people simply because they have them. On the other hand, getting them because they're "cool" I dissaprove of, and I think a lot of designs look silly -- that is to say, out of place / don't really fit with my impressions of the person.

Yeah: if there's one thing to say about Blizzard, it's that they're very good at ballancing things. It really depends, however, on the players. For instance, on the server my character is on (Draenor), a lot of people are of the oppinion that the Alliance don't work in teams in the Battlegrounds. I've not noticed this; also, I've not noticed that the horde do it any better -- though they do win more often. To be quite honest, though, the Alliance side seem, on the whole, to be more polite. When, for example, I help an alliance character with one of my horde characters, they tend to /thank; when I do the opposite (i.e. help a horde with an alliance) I get mostly /spits and /laughs. Of course, this isn't true for all people -- I've met some very nice horde people with my alliance character, and some total eegits with my horde alts. Other than that^ they seem well balanced.

Ahhh Lego. We used to make prisons and death-camps for the little men, with glass walls so that they could be jeered at.... "sigh" childhood innocence.

I think a lot of fuss would be made about this because it was whilst playing a computer game. One could just as easilly die from sitting around doing anything for too long; it's just because computer games have a bad reputation amongst those people who like to complain a lot and need a scapegoat.

In no particular order: Dave Gilmour Eric Clapton Brian May Jimmy Page Joe Satriani Tony Iommi "He who plays guitar for Metallica", whose name I don't know. "He who plays for Thin Lizzy", I know Garry Moore did, but so did Brian Robertson; I'm not sure which I'm talking about.

But why do you want to be Loretta, Stan? Very gangsta of you, if you don't mind my saying. Anyway, I'll keep it in mind, and try and remember to, if and when I quote you, change the name to that, etc.

This is just another one of those things that we can't argue properly on a message board -- we won't get anywhere... ...but I'm being pessimistic. If you ask me, the point is not whether truth is absolute -- the nature of truth is to be absolutely true (don't mention "half-truths"; in those cases, someone just isn't telling the whole truth, or is telling a lie that is close to the truth); no, I think the question is always whether or not a particular thing is true or not. For example, we've all (probably) given examples to try and explain what we're talking about in this thread. In those examples, something was either true, untrue or a matter of oppinion (in which case it is true that one person thinks one thing, and true that another person thinks something else). Some examples: A thinks that the box is red, whereas B thinks that the box is blue. The box either gives out mainly red light or blue light (unless it's purple, in which case you could argue that they're both telling the truth (and that both statements are "absolutely" true)). On top of that you could start arguing whether or not the box exists, and then whether anything exists at all; that's just depressing, though, so don't let's start that one. A thinks that truth is "absolute", but B maintains that it is not: B says that "it being true for one person doesn't make it true for another person". B doesn't realise that this is beside the point, as in that case, either one person is wrong -- as is often the case -- or, more importantly, it is absolutely true for one person that the box is red, and absolutely true for the other that it is blue; one of the important things to remember is that absolutely does not = exclusively. I think that a lot of arguments about truth arise from the the fact -- and I use the term fact loosely :) -- that, while describing something quantitatively we have something to compare what we are describing against (e.g. "This box is bigger than that box", which is "true" or "untrue" -- absolutely so -- or "There are seven of these boxes", which is similarly "true"); when, however, we describe something qualitatively, we don't necessarily have something against which to compare that which we are describing: though the box is blue (let's just say that it is blue after all), who is really able to judge whether it is so? Without going into the science behind what makes the box blue, what method do we have of judging "blueness"? The point I am trying to make is that, though the box either is or isn't blue (or red, or whatever: any colour you like -- great tune by Pink Floyd), arguments will arise as to whether or not it is blue, simply because people don't know what they're talking about (as I have no doubt demonstrated in this post). A might know something that B doesn't (why, for example, the box is blue -- hang on, was it A or B that thought it was blue? Ahhh, forget it). Now on to other things: is murder wrong? To apply what I said earlier, either murder is wrong, and all those people who dissagree are wrong and, though they think they know why it isn't wrong, they are missing the point; or murder isn't wrong, and the opposite is true; or murder doesn't exist. To quote Terry Pratchett in Small Gods: ...damn, I can't find the book. To paraphrase Terry Pratchet in Small Gods: "It's a funny old world, and you might as well have a laugh"* -- the philisophy of... and I would tell you the character's name, only, as I say, I can't find the book. The idea, though, is this: we can't argue about these things, as we don't know enough about them. I've said it in loads of posts about religion and science and I mean it (assuming I exist): we (or rather "I" -- I don't know about you) don't know enough about things like this to argue about them; they're too complicated, and we'll never change each others oppinions. *I'm pretty sure that's what he says, at least. Edit: I wrote "does = ", when I meant to write "does not ="

Thinking about it, no, I've never cheated in a class. That's not to say that I've never wanted to, mind: I've always felt tempted to look at other peoples' answers when sat next to them -- never in a serious exam, of course -- but I've not really done it. The thing is, I've either not thought the subject matter important enough to learn, or I've.. learnt it; simple as that, really. I suppose I want to know how well I'm likely to do in the final exam, where I won't be able to cheat. [nostalgia] Oh, actually, I'm lying: a friend of mine cheated all the time in German :D. Oh... those were funny lessons. Still, [own trumpet blowing] we were miles ahead of the others, and got the top marks of the year* [/own trumpet blowing] so we weren't doing it for any reason other than for fun. [/nostalgia] *not that that was much of an achievment: instead of set system (i.e. bottom set, middle set, top set) we had three "mixed" groups. On top of that, we had a terrible teacher; if it wasn't for the teacher's assistant explaining things to us when the teacher was out of the room, we'd have all failed, no doubt.

I've only once answered the door to Jehovah's Witnesses, and they were very reasonable, not that they actually tried to convert me on the spot (for we all know how that would have ended up :D ); rather, they asked if I would be interested in receiving a leaflet about their faith (not in those words - I forget what exactly they said), and, trying to be open minded, I said yes. So far, so good, I thought. Finally, however, I did get a leaflet from them (two in fact); I think it was called "Watchtower" or something. I read through it, and my mind is firmly made up that it's a load of twaddle. I'm all for variety of religions, and for differences of oppinion, and so on and so forth, but I draw the line at actually lying to people about things in the face of damning evidence to the contrary. After all, who can actually say what happened 2000+ years ago? Archeological evidence is all very well, but it's just evidence, when it comes down to it; just as the bible is evidence. We all choose whichever one we believe, and that's fine (I'm a science person, I'll remind people). However, what I read in that leaflet was pure lies about things that you can go and see for yourself, such about as what is written in the bible. I can't remember what it was exactly, and I threw the leaflet away ages ago, but I have a few bibles (I think everyone should have at least one, even those of us who aren't Christian - a perfect tool to use against those of us who are Christian if they ever get any of it wrong), and it was just not true what they were saying. For example (and this is just an example to show the sort of thing I'm talking about): the leaflet said that "and in the Bible we read that so-and-so did such-and-such and the Lord spake, saying, 'First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin, then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less...'" Whereas in the bible (at least, the copies I have) it said otherwise. I suppose my problem with it is that it was talking about things that can be proved -- religions, in my mind, don't deal with things that can actually be proved; they deal with faith and things like that. Oh, any Jehovah's Witnesses reading that -- pay no attention; what do I know, after all. ---and now for the bit to get me on topic--- Now, Satanism on the other hand, seems to be about ideals and lifestyles and other such things! That's a religion to go for if you ask me.

What cjlhdevil said about the type that 9/10 people would get stands: it's no fun if people actually understand it. The ones that actually require some sort of knowledge, I don't have a problem with. This one, from Thinkgeek.com, for example: front back ...as I say, I don't have a problem with that sort of thing, as I'm pretty sure that most people wouldn't get it. Also, I don't mind those ones that take something that people would get, but do it in a nice looking way. I can't show an example of that, however, because, though I'm sure they exist, I can't be bothered looking. So anyway, look at ThinkGeek for a lot of so-so ones, interspersed with some good ones.

Ah, also good were the Yorkie adverts ("It's not for girls")--clever, because they no doubt got loads of pro-equality feminists to buy them. Not that I'm against equality, of course--just saying.

Yeah, and also that one for the new(er) golf--with the Singing in the Rain thing.

No, I'd rather keep what dignity I have. If I were asked to do a merely unpleasant task, or degrading one, then I'd do it (if it weren't against my morals, or anything) for money, yes.

Reminiscent of Father Jack... So anyway, I tend to like adverts for booze and [bleep]s--not that there are any of the latter nowadays--as they always used to be the cleverest, and were almost always funny. These days, thought, there are fewer good booze ads, what with the drinking culture, and their having to appeal to a completely different audience. There are still good ones, mind you: not only did I like that Guiness advert Surfer; but also I liked the new(er) joke version of that, where the surfers run into the water, then run back out because it's too cold. Oh mercy (said in a principle skinner sort of way) -- the word fga (whoops! I mis-spelled it this time) which, I suppose, could be rude if you want it to, is picked up by the censors. I did, of course, mean gays. Just kidding. (I meant cigarettes, if you didn't get that from what I said) Just imagine if I had actually been talking about adverts for what the censor thought I was talking about, though :s . Edit: I changed the link to one where you can actually watch a good video of the advert. Edit the second: This is another booze advert on the same site, and my does Jack Dee look young in this one. I think that site only has videos of the ones it made, so I can't find any other booze/cigarette adverts.

...I'm willing to bet that there was at least one other person in that tube station wearing a padded jacket and a rucksack who was in a hurry. It's not as if it's rare.

:) Lucky for me:

Haha, good point :), I didn't think of that. Yeah, it is sort of fun watching people like that... but I'd still rather see the actual game.

I've just thought of something, but no doubt because I've not been listening to the reports, it's old news. The man reporting said that there were several armed policemen there, and that he heard however many shots... ...could it not be that the policemen all fired, (so letting of that many shots in total), and the guy assumed that he had been shot 5 times in a row by the same person? Maybe there have been other witnesses now who saw it and it's not like that. Just thought I'd say that, though.

...I remember watching that one and thinking, if it's an embarrassing subject (I think the voice-over mentions how lots of people don't talk about it because it's ebarrasing), then how is it going to help, giving the website a name like that :).

That's high!--It looks like it's pointing at about 125*, which is 51/52 celsius. *which still seems a bit hot; http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/n ... qTrip.html says: "...The troops operate under extreme conditionsÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

I had always believed the fourth dimension to be time. What you were describing, whomsoever gave the example of the box (I can't tell who said what), is indeed 3 dimentions. If you have a box of dimentions 1 by 1 by 1, and draw a line from the bottom-front-left corner to the top-back-right corner (so across the box in all directions) it's going up by 1, back by 1 and right by 1. So had I, other person, but then I suppose it doesn't matter in what order they come; it might be the first dimention, for instance. So, inthe box example, add time and you have this: going up by 1 (and time increasing by 1), boing back by 1 (and time increasing by 1)... etc. Sorry if this is a double post. I might not be able to edit the other one away, either, as it's lagging a lot for me.

I'd find it more interesting if the people's egos didn't obscure my view of the game.