Evrae

I'm watching the news at the moment and it looks pretty bad - about the same as in the north the other week. I'm pretty lucky where I live (suffolk) - it hardly ever even rains, and then its not for long.

do you mean philosopher?

Why Liberal christians in particular? For me its the whole bally lot of em. Though I suppose you can write the fundamentalists off to ignorance.

Actually you could argue that killing someone painlessly is only a crime against those who find out about it. Its only those left behind that feel pain of any kind. The dead are dead and gone. It sounds heartless, but its true. Anyway, what this topic is really about is would you be willing to kill a stranger for money. The actual amounts don't matter. And I don't really know. Not for a tenner. But maybe for ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã10000 if there were no comebacks. I dunno really. I'd probably have to convince myself they deserved it. But at moment ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã10000 seems a lot. I'd love to be able to say noway noob, but it would probably be a lie.

Unfortunately the BBC is a pretty special case. I can't think of another state owned broadcaster that is apolitical. I'm just thankful that the politicians resisted the temptations when it was set up. The question of whether media reflects or determines what the public wants is a tricky one. In some areas the media has a massive affect in shaping public opinion. In other areas, the media reflects the opinion of its audience. An interesting case was when the Sun newspaper decided to make a big deal about paedophiles. Now everyone agrees that paedophilia is a dreadful thing. But the newspaper used rhetoric such that mobs attacked released paedophiles, and even the offices of paediatricians (something completely different). Were these articles the result of public opinion? Partly, yes. But they also shaped public opinion, resulting in senseless violence. They also partly changed what people thought was newsworthy. The issue of paedophiles living near schools became newsworthy because the Sun (or Murdoch) decided to make it so. So it is a bit of both. The media can alter what is popular, but only slowly. First you need an audience, then you can start working on their opinions.

Ah, so you take them alongside A-levels. That makes more sense. But they are still bloody hard. Our maths teacher showed me one once, and I could only see how to go about attempting a couple of questions, let alone actually do them. But go for it! And good luck to you.

When do you take the STEP paper? Because you need the knowledge from the Further Maths course, yet also need it to apply to uni. Luckily I didn't need to do it for the course I applied for (Physics at Oxford), but had I wanted to do maths i probably would have needed to, and been unable.

At least the Sun keeps it on the inside pages. The Sport on the other hand, is basically a porn mag for poor people - same price as a newspaper but with less news and more pictures.

Now the question is, do girls think about it, or does that sort of thing come naturally?

Could someone please explain what the american SAT is? Because in Britain, SATS are a national test taken at ages 8, 11 and 14. Not too difficult, not important and they take up way too much teaching time. It sounds as if the American SAT is some sort of entrance exam for university (college?). Am I right?

Recently, four or five members of the British cabinet admitted to smoking cannabis at university. The leader of the opposition, David Cameron, has repeatedly refused to comment, while hinting that he has. My question to you lot is - does it matter? Should we expect politicians to have obeyed the law at all times, even in their earlier years? Should such people be trusted to formulate drugs policy? And when asked why she regretted it (which shed had to say for obvious reasons), one politician replied 'because its against the law'. Does this matter? Is taking cannabis morally wrong?

I would go on about the wonders of the BBC, but unfortunately they've been in a little trouble lately. So I'll say what the BBC is in theory. The BBC is (in theory) one of the only non-political state owned broadcasters in the world. Plenty of countries have state owned broadcasters, but the follow the governments orders. In theory the BBC is completely apolitical, and separate from government. Its publicly funded, direct from viewers via the license fee. In theory the only people its responsible to are the public. Very few people in England actually appreciate how great the BBC is, until it goes wrong. And then there is hell to pay. At the moment the BBC is in deep [cabbage]. They basically got caught lying - altered the implied order of events in documentaries to give a completely different meaning. And then it was found that the big phone-in charity quizzes had been rigged, as had one of the more popular kids programs. There has also been a few issues with a perceived systematic bias in reporting of the Middle East. Some accuse it of undue bias towards the Pallestinians. Aside from that, the BBC is excellent. Most of the programs are of good quality, unlike those of the private broadcasters. For the most part it is (or at least appears to be) impartial. A bit too impartial in my opinion - getting the leader of the BNP in as a talking head on immigration was going a bit far. The problem with the media is that it is so hard to tell when it goes wrong - after all, its rare that they will admit it. Which is why I still respect the BBC. They owned up and apologised, saying they'll make it better. And I believe them - they can hardly do otherwise. At the same time, it is important to read things from more than one source. I read newspaper from across the political spectrum - the Telegraph, the Guardian and the Times. Solidly Right, Left and nearly in the middle respectively. But yeah, from what I've heard from friends who've visited America, we are pretty lucky in England with our TV.

keep it, and then buy pounds in a few years - the exchange rate has got to change sometime. If i didn't have uni to worry about, id probably convert about half my money to dollars.

Are You hinting something here? Could be, could be. :P Of course, I mean the sort of people who instinctively go 'omg - gotta save my little kids from these terrible perils', instead of thinking for two seconds.

i really despair. I suppose if you used your hose as your main means of getting water into your mouth, then you might be right to worry. A little sip here and there won't matter. You probably risk your health more by breathing. It sounds like the fuss the papers kicked up a few months back here about Wi-Fi networks in schools frying kids brains - all that harmful electromagnetic radiation. The one talking head who knew anything pointed out that you are more at risk from sunlight than radio waves. And then there is the 'Telephone masts cause cancer' scare. The long and the short of it is that news sources like to scare you. It keeps you coming back. And the morons lap it up.

I must admit that I'm puzzled by the predominance of atheists on these forums. I know I'm one, and I can hardly complain, but you'd expect them to more accurately reflect the whole of society. Any ideas why that could be? Oh, and Lenin64, does your name accurately reflect your political beliefs? I'm just intrigued - I've never met a committed communist. Though one of my teachers does come pretty close...

Oxford definitely isn't that elitist - after all, I got an offer. And I'm only taking three full A levels. I'm just waiting to see whether I get my A's But I will say this - take a foreign language at GCSE. Until recently it was a requirement for admision at Oxford in any course. I don't know about Cambridge, but it'll be similar. But seriously, take subjects you enjoy. You'll be more likely to do well. Don't pressurize yourself this early. Wait until you choose your A levels before putting on the pressure. And whatever you apply to do, make sure you really want to do it. Thats one of the main things they look for. And be prepared to not get in. Psyching up this early is looking for trouble IMHO. Though I have to say that if you want to be an author, will a fancy degree really help you? The creativity can't be taught, and the skills at writing well can be learnt from many places - the OU does a pretty good creative writing course. Sorry if I sound a bit negative. I wish you the best of luck.

I am a fan of Anne McCaffery, especially the Pern series Tamora Pierce, even though her books are aimed at to younger, probably female, audience I still love them. Arthur C Clarke, especially the more thought provoking ones. Michael Crichton, even though he borders on Adventure, I would still classify him as Sci-fi. Dan Abnett is pretty good as well. I haven't tried Asimov in a while now. I didn't really enjoy his books, but I might now. You've inspired my to give him a go again.

I have to say this topic has been... informative. And thought provoking. I actually read the lot. And now the bit I'm dreading. I hate myself for saying this, but here goes anyway: Korskin, you seem an alright person. My reason for hating myself? You are religious. But thats another topic altogether. The reason you seem alright? The fact that you were willing to argue your point, without relying on the 'God is right' argument. You started off with abald statement backed up with In my view, this is one of the most moronic statements it is possible to make. And you were rightly challenged. BUT instead of going off on a self righteous bible bashing spree, you actually tried to find reasons for your views. That in itself is impressive to me - too many people rely on 'the bible says so, reason enough'. Heck, I personally don't think they were very good reasons, and were a bit absolute, but that isn't the point. Now most of your arguments, I disagree with. In fact, I don't think that sex outside marriage is neccessarily bad, but I'll get onto my thoughts soon. And then this: Now, this made sense to me. It might not be what you were trying to say, but the message that got through to me was this: That if everyone followed the code of morals set out by the bible, the world would be a better place. And heck, I cant disagree with that. Okay there are pretty objectionable bits in the bible, but the overall message is a good one. So thank you Korskin for taking the time and effort to put forward a better argument than your first one =D> And now I shall add my own thoughts. And I hope that everyone, especially Korskin, can see my point of view. I personally cannot accept as some do that the bible is automatically right because it says so. That is a circular argument, and abhorrent to me. So while a lot of the stuff in it makes sense, I would rather find other reasons for it. We can assume that the bible (and this goes for any holy book) was written for a reason. Something that big does not just come about through idle doodles. There are then two possibilities for its reason for existing. The first is that it was divinely inspired, and that there is a god exactly as described. I'm afraid I find this hard to accept, for many reasons. The second is that a group of people recorded their history, legends and beliefs in a manner such that they could be tranferred throughout that society, and understood by that society. This appears more likely to me. Which leads on to this - the moral codes set out in the bible must therefore be the moral codes of this group of people. These moral codes developed (evolved if you like - evolution is not just genetic) for a reason, and must have made the tribe more successful. After all, if they were bad for the group we wouldn't be following them! By this argument, god is a metaphor, a reason to follow the moral codes. If you accept this, there is no need to beleive in a god, as you can follow the moral codes for the simple reason that they are good for society. Now let us assume that, despite that argument, god does exist. The argument is no less logical, no less worthwhile. If the moral codes are in fact derived from god, the end result is the same. Now, I personally am of the belief that god does exist. This allows me to assume that the moral codes are able to change over time. What is good for you yesterday may not be good for you tommorrow. Those moral codes should still serve the purpose of being good for society. And now we come to my opinion on sex. I do not think that marriage is neccessary. However, I do believe that a certain level of commitment is neccessary. There is still a small chance that a child might be born as a result. Regardless of individual counter-examples, a loving, stable two parent family is best for a child. A couble having sex must be prepared for that eventuality. This level of commitment is probably about the same as required for marriage. I think that everyone should have a moral code to aspire to, whether inspired by religious dogma or logic. If that were the case, and people kept to it (impossible I know), the world would be a better place. But you cannot assume that your moral code or reasons for it are the only ones. I hope that made sense to everyone. It certainly cleared a few things up in my mind. Thinking about this in a logical manner certainly has made me slightly less hostile towards the religious. My hostility stems from a church youth group. People who believe that schools purposefully lie to us about evolution, and that the earth really was made 6000 years ago in six days, and that all evidence to the contrary is god testing us. I broke with the group after realising their inability and unwillingness to back up their assertions in an argument. I somehow came to believe that all religious people are like this. So thank you Korskin.

I couldn't agree more. I'm not french, and can only speak a little, but we go there every year on holiday. It really pisses me off when everyone says stuff like 'I hate the French'. Most haven't ever been to france, or if the have it was to paris on a school trip. Its completely illogical and stupid.

Beware of a substance called 'White Lightning', aka Drain Cleaner. It masquerades as alcohol. Since you'll be in London, go to the British Museum. It won't tell you much about Britain until you wonder how the heck all that stuff ended up there :) And while you are here, take the opportunity to learn to spell correctly. And read the daily mail once, and only once. Then keep an eye out for anyone buying it, punch them in the face, follow them home, set fire to their house, and the neighbour's houses. I'm joking, but this paper is a joke. Second biggest selling in the country, and the owners supported the Nazis. OK, it was before the whole 'invading the world, commiting genocide' thing happened, but they supported the general ideology. Oh, and a lot of people hate Americans. This is because America is bigger, richer and more powerful. And starts wars. So yeah, there are bad bits and good bits. Just be glad you are not old enough to drive. Petrol is expensive.

Unfortunately, the internet is no longer completely free. It is far more so than the real world, but is not completely free. Governments have the capability, if they choose, to track you down for what you say. At the moment that requires cooperation from the big industries - which they give. China imprisons people for speaking out on the internet, and American industries cooperate. I think that the nature of the internet has changed over time. It used to be a thing, a research tool, a giant magazine. Then it changed to a method of communication. Now it really is a place.

I have to say that i take this with a pinch of salt. I know a guy who has been in the local papers and TV numerous times because he 'only eats jam sandwiches'. In fact, everyone that knew him knew this was complete rubbish - his parents just milked it for the publicity. Secondly , this is nothing. In the back of my favourite magazine (Private Eye) they have a selection of funny stories from papers around the world. Apparently there is a 19 year old Korean so addicted to online games that he wears a nappy to let him keep playing in his local internet cafe. When the owner complained to his dad, who went round to take him home, the kid pulled a knife on him. Thats what I call dedication - sitting in your own [cabbage] to play! But yeah, if it is all true, his parents should take some blame. But i don't believe that his behaviour caused the family to split up on its own. And he should take some of the blame too. I know I'll take the blame I deserve if my exam results are [bleep]ed up. If I get into Oxford university, all well and good. If I don't I'll be bloody pissed off - with myself. People nowadays are too ready to blame anyone but themselves - thats the main thing wrong with society.

Part of the problem is that there are too many topics that people post a single answer to. They don't bother to read the other posts, and don't bother to have a discussion, even if it is just to disagree very strongly with someone. As I am about to do. Just because someone joined later, or is younger, or has a low post count, or is f2p, does not mean they are inferior. There is too much of that at the moment. I saw someone basically imply that all f2p are lazy, worthless idiots. The prolific use of the '10 year old' put down. All these things are pretty cheap. They don't explain anything,and they are ill thought out and illogical. By making such generalisations, without clarification or explanation are insulting everyone in that group who doesn't exhibit that behaviour. Don't you want to encourage good traits in those groups of people, instead of instantly condemning? With such language you are giving no incentive for people to be responsible - as they will still be branded as inferior. For another thing, why should longer established players be superior due to accident of timing. I discovered RS later than you. Does that make me inferior? I discovered it through miniclip. Does that make me inferior? The answer to both is no. Having said that, I have noticed that the Tip.It forums have declined sometime during the past few months. I don't know why. I don't think anyone really does - its just one of those things. Maybe in a year they will be great again

heck yeah! I could have sworn mirrorforced's used to be even funnier. He had a sig with it in, before the acheivement capes. It had the flippers and all, as well as other stuff - looked crazy cool. But I can't remember what it was. If you read this Mirrorforced, please tell us - I loved that sig!