assassin_696

That sums up the failures of communism very nicely, although i'm still an idealist who believes we have to at least believe in some kind of change if we want true justice, but clearly communism fails and i'm against it's ideals anyway. Pedantism alert That's a misquote actually, I believe the phrase was "It is easier (fixed, thanks for pointing it out Sepherus) for a camel to pass through the eye of an needle than for a rich man to enter heaven" Which is actually a reference to an archway in a Middle Eastern city where traders would have great trouble trying to pass through, although the message is the same. Why am I so pedantic? :(

Let me think... If I wish to understand a work, should I read a translation of a transcription of a translation, in a language that is not my primary language, or should I read a translation of a transcription that is in my native language? I will also point out that though the KJV is a good translation of the Latin Vulgate, the Latin Vulgate by virtue of not being Greek and Hebrew fails to fully convey what the intention of the original text was in several places. A direct translation tends to do a better job in that department. I rather admire Asimov. He is one of very few atheists who actually had any idea what he was really rejecting... Though even he had a skewed vision of Christianity, and I would assume consiquentially other religions as well. He viewed them through the assumption that it is not the case that there is any god. I'm not saying that is necessarilly a bad assumption but it ought to be obvious that to view a theism through that lense will always give you a skewed image of what that theism is. It would be about the same as me looking at the world around and marveling that you and I see the same world and you still don't believe in God. Of course I see HIM in it. I believe in and know HIM so it only follows that I recognize HIS handiwork... even if that isn't actually what I see. However, if I desire to understand you and what it is that you see I have to see the world without that preconception. I have to see it through the lense of there is not a God. I can do a fair job of that, having actually been there once upon a time. So I have a fair idea what an atheist sees, looking at the world. However I find that it is often the case that like I was at that time, most atheists are very ignorant about what it is that they actually reject. Now, if you are only interested in your own life and having reason to act in whatever way seems best to you, that is fine If I know you I will pray for you, but it is your right to be that way. However if you claim to be persuant of the truth, then have the courage to actually look at what doesn't agree with what you believe to be true. If it doesn't make sense, it doesn't make sense and you know that... and that affirms that what you believe is more likely to be true by virtue that this particular belief system does not appear to be true. If it does make sense then you can believe it based on reason, and know that you are one step closer to what is actually true. That's fair enough, but I do have a pretty good idea of what i'm denying. Although I was never Christened I was brought up to believe in God, and have studied Christianity and other religions up to GCSE. It is only within this year that I turned from deist to atheist. I'm not claiming that I have the absolute truth, I don't believe there really is such a thing, I just claim to have questioned my beliefs enough to come to the conclusion that religion or the God hypothesis doesn't stand up to rigorous questioning, in my view. I just care about what is true. Anyway, my point was that the King James version has had such an influence on English literature that reading it is very useful in understanding some of the classics, and the prose is much richer.

Yeah, at my school there's a janitor who's not quite all there, he kinda wanders round and acts a bit grumpy. Most people rip the p*ss out of him and are always trying to wind him up, but I really don't have time for that, he's just doing his job and he's alright to me because I don't treat him as if he's below me. Another one of the janitors is a really, really nice guy but again he's not quite all there and one of the times that wound me up the most was when one of the teachers was semi-rude to him and brushed him off when he was trying to be friendly. It's not limited to the students. The truth is, people like that are generally working as hard if not harder than half the arrogant kids. Course, not everyone's like that, some of the other kids are alright to them, but going to a private school you get a lot of kids who've come from rich families and they think that gives them a right to treat people like that like dirt. It's disgusting.

If you're looking for 'literary richness', then sure, read the King James. But if you want accuracy, read the New International or English Standard Version. The King James, though good for its time, is rather outdated. The usage and meaning of words change over time, and since so many words in the KJV have changed definition and conotation, it's not very useful if you want to understand the original meaning of the text. I suppose it boils down to a difference of purpose. For me looking at it from a literary point of view, the Bible is an interesting work of fiction which has had a profound effect on the history of English literature and so should be read in the form which best helps me comprehend how it affected Shakespeare et al. Perhaps looking at it from a theological point of view, the modern translations are more accessible, but I still think a lot of the meaning is lost with any translation.

I was going to write a step by step critique of your argument, but what it boils down to is this: Communism doesn't work. In your last paragraph you also made a glaring assumption that the only thing that can save developing countries is communism, when in fact that's probably the last thing they'd want. Personally, I think anarcho-syndicalism holds up far better as a revolutionary social construct designed for the workers than communism, look into that and look at the categoric repeated failures of communism.

Oh no please don't read a modern translation, if you want to read the Bible properly and understand it's literary richness and how it profoundly influenced so many great writers, read the King James (Authorised Version). It's also accepted as one of the more accurate translations. That said:

Little Cream Soda - The White Stripes My new favourite song off Icky Thump.

Ah I see, yeah I thought it might be something like that, obviously you probably won't need half the physics being a doctor (although some could come in handy), instead it tests someone's ability to think logically and to think round a particular problem. Yeah I could see that. If either you or mad are somewhat curious about STEP, here's the link to the page on the Cambridge website, which has links to a few sites with worked examples and tips, to give you a feel, i'd recommend Stephen Siklos' booklet which gives a great overview as well as some worked questions, if you're anyway curious. In a weird kind of way i'm kind of looking forward to the challenge (if I do it), it's just a lot rests on the results of it :P

warren, you're missing the fact that your interpretation (and your fellow symbolic Christian's) is a liberal one, and there are many people who believe that very word of the Bible is to be taken as absolute fact, and is not merely symbolic. In other words, fundamentalists. You can't speak for every Christian (in fact, you're speaking for a relative minority) when you say two thirds is only supposed to be symbolic.

^^ Yay for spaghetti westerns :D Bought three more CD's in town on Wednesday: Zeitgeist - The Smashing Pumpkins (not bad, some amazing songs, some mediocre) Libertad - Velvet Revolver (much better than their last one) The Nightfly - Donald [bleep]en (on How2Pk's recommendation, really enjoyed it, it's definitely music which I could see working just as well at chilled out type parties in the background as well as listening to it properly)

Yeah, it's about time some of you southerners got the same rain that we've been having :P BBC forecast is okay for today in Yorkshire, it says it might rain later but not as bad you're getting it. To be honest, living on top of a hill I don't mind really heavy rain, it's more exciting than just this perpetual greyness that we're getting. It's been a rubbish summer so far weatherwise :(

Yeah, I mean I don't know what it's like growing up on a working class council estate but I imagine hard drugs might be common, but I certainly know that most middle class kids get exposed to a bit of the old Mary Jane at some point or other :P

[hide] Well I know kids that have been studying more than me, but me personally? I have been studying from 10am-9pm Mon-Friday with a two 1 hour breaks... SINCE MAY 15TH!. The test is now only 29 days away... :ohnoes: [/hide] Haha, damn trapical, reading that made my possible future test look positively easy :P The worst 4 letter acronym I can throw back at you is the STEP test, and looking at MCAT it looks nowhere near as bad but i'll have a shot of jumping it up a bit :P Basically, it's the hardest university entrance exam that could possibly be devised. The only people who sit it are those who want to do mathematics at Cambridge (or sometimes Warwick) but since I mightstudy mathematical physics in my first year I might be doing it. There are three exams, you can only take two, and each is a three hour exam. There are 14 questions on each paper, and to get the highest grade possible, 'Outstanding' (S) you only need to answer 6 of those questions well, not completely. No one could answer all the questions completely (well, it would be exceptionally rare, and has never happened before to my knowledge). Each question is designed to take about 45 minutes. The questions themselves are all, well, hard to say the least but are structured so that you don't need to know anything beyond the A-level maths syllabus to actually be able to do them, instead you need phenomenal creativity for ideas of how to answer them. I think it's designed to weed out the top 2% of A level further maths students, who are already a fairly dedicated bunch. In short, it's hard, but is only really maths, unlike yours which encompasses quite a lot so I won't complain too much. I'm curious though, why do you have to know so much physics? Anyway, good luck with it, and sorry for sidetracking this thread again.

Not by me.

I don't mean to jump the gun here but it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t matter if you're from lower, middle or higher class, it has no affect on who decides to try it, to a certain extent. I think your paragraph missed a generalisation point by the way you worded it by a smidge. From experience I know a lot of extremely wealthy people who do drugs including pot, a lot of extremely poor people who have no money because they spend it all on drugs, including pot and also including the middle class. By all means I hope this hasn't offended you as I highly respect you. I don't think we should be pointing the finger though at lots of middle class people when it applies to various types. I'm sure you're most probably aware of that but just wanted to jump the gun before someone else did. I'm pretty sure you didn't mean for it to come out the way that it sounded to me. Perhaps I'm reading too much in to the fine print? Thought I'd bring it to your attention any who. If you have sources and statistics, you could most definitely say that, however. I'm sure you do though. Either you might have misinterpreted what I said or i've misunderstood what you've said, but I don't think I meant it how I think you took it (if ya get what I mean) :P My point was basically this, most of the politicians who have admitted to taking it came from fairly well off middle class families, and from my experience in living in one and mixing in some middle class type circles (which i'm neither proud nor ashamed of, it's just circumstance) cannabis use is fairly common. Of course as you said, drug use extends to all classes of society (although from what I know and have seen, sadly the working classes have more difficulty supporting their habit and hence is more likely to spiral into a self-destructive addiction, although that can of course equally apply to anybody). I wasn't meaning to generalise at all, I was simply saying that from my own personal experiences, i'm not at all surprised that a bunch of people brought up in middle class families took cannabis recreationally, but that I don't think that fact reflects on their current policies, but nor would it reflect badly on a working class politican who did the same. In short, I didn't mean for class generalisations to come into it, all I was saying was that based on personal experience, I wasn't surprised, and didn't think any worse of them for doing it many years ago. Perhaps it was slightly misleading, although my intentions were not how I think you interpreted. Thanks for bringing it to my attention though, hopefully I've made things a little clearer. :)

Wherever I May Roam - Metallica

I really couldn't care less, it's a fairly mild drug which lots of middle class kids who go to the universities they went to will come across anyway, it doesn't reflect at all on their policies in my opinion.

Drunken posts ftw :P Sorry to hear about your cancer by the way.

That's a reasonable assessment Ichimaru, except when you talk about the paranormal, things which are by definition beyond what is commonly accepted as science and actively defies logic and what we know. But that wasn't the point, the point was that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, not the corollary.

No, YOU silly. As Nad has already said, the burden of proof lies with you to come with an explanation for whatever. Nad is not someone who the burden of proof rests with, or me, or Zonorch or anybody else who isn't making the claim of paranormal activity. When there is no concrete proof of something you should assume a position of skepticism leaning towards a potential rational explanation, to think otherwise and demand an absolute proof for this rational explanation and assume the paranormal without this absolute proof is as you put it so nicely, silly. [/hide] :roll: Alright. Let me make it simple for you. Something happens. Let's say lights in the sky. Some people say it's aliens. Other people say it's just lights coming from emengency cars. Whoever is able to prove their point wins. No and no, and don't patronise me. Clearly, if someone is able to prove their point with proof then they 'win'. But the fact is, you have to ask yourself, without conclusive proof either way, which is more rational and hence likely outcome? Emergency cars clearly, and doubly so since there is absolutely no conclusive proof of aliens visiting that doesn't have a rational explanation. There's keeping an open mind and there's assuming the paranormal. I'd be open minded as to what the explanation was without proof or evidence, but when there hasn't been a single proven case of paranormal activity anywhere ever guess which side i'm going to lean towards? Yeah, the rational explanation.

No, YOU silly. As Nad has already said, the burden of proof lies with you to come with an explanation for whatever. Nad is not someone who the burden of proof rests with, or me, or Zonorch or anybody else who isn't making the claim of paranormal activity. When there is no concrete proof of something you should assume a position of skepticism leaning towards a potential rational explanation, to think otherwise and demand an absolute proof for this rational explanation and assume the paranormal without this absolute proof is as you put it so nicely, silly.

I don't get any personally, but I sound kinda old now so they normally mistake me for my dad. I try not to be rude or anything with them, they're just people trying to earn a living and they probably don't want to do it anymore than you want them to call you, it's just a living. So I normally just say "Thanks but no thanks" and hang up, it's easier.

Ace! Have a great time together! :)

Satenza's stolen most of mine, so i'll add some others not mentioned: This is probably the definitive Oasis album for me, it starts off with a bang, and reaches highs and lows with songs that stand up very well on their own but together work fantastically well. The sound of one of the most painful love situations channelled through possibly the greatest guitarist who's ever lived. To me, this is Clapton's absolute masterpiece. It contains the absolute legendary Layla, but also many other equally powerful heart wrenching songs of a love that Clapton couldn't get. Contains more arena filling anthems than you can shake a stick at. Sheer alternative brilliance. See above. I've lost interest in writing a clever review, so i'll just say if you haven't already listened to it, do.

Way to spread the message of religious tolerance! =D>