issy2

Best clip ever! = Dara's face at .35-40...

Oh, really? I never would have guessed! And here we all were thinking that Wiki is a source of accurate information... Thats a really unfair thing to say... no-one seems to be recognising the fact that Wikipedia is an incredibly source of information, it costs you nothing and has a page about almost everything you could want to know about. Sure anyone can edit pages, but unless you can provide legitimate sources there's a warning above the topic. I'd be surprised if you could find anything inaccurate on there to be honest. Sorry if I'm overreacting. If I had £0 I'd live off my parents for the next five years, then get a licence busking with me sax in a Central London tube station or down by the south bank somewhere.

you didnt say anything so i will make a random guess, and reccommend the Hoosiers (oddpop!).... but if you live in Britain you'll already know who they are, so ... Mark Ronson, jazz/rock. Could someone reccommend me some catchy,'fun' songs? The kind of song which is a bit stupid but really makes you laugh... here are some of the kind of songs I mean (I also reccommend them they're great if silly ) The Cat Empire - Days Like These (skip the first 30 seconds and wait for the chorus) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vonv8oO6ak In The Summertime - Shaggy and Rayvon Pop! Goes My Heart - From the Movie Music and Lyrics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0A7dtdc-nU The Love Cats - The Cure http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LieB9eh0uwE Grace Kelly - Mika http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPUpxIBkcjM i feel my playlist is getting a little too serious bordering on depressing.

How dare they follow customs they have been brought up with. They told the guy he couldn't sleep with her until she reached a certain age. All the marrage was for now, was basically an adoption program. How about we get someone to make fun of your traditions and customs. I'm sure his customs doesn't involve marrying off underage kids because of poverty Yeah Sworddude could you name some controversial traditional American/British customs? The only one you could possibly say is Halloween, and thats not even wrong, just annoying.

Snap. I live in Britain too. When "crazy psychotic teens" (stupid stereotyp-er) want to kill you, you'll probably have a much better chance of survival when stabbed with a knife than killed with a gun. Are you saying if you're attacked you'd rather die than survive? Sorry if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick but thats what it seems like. Personally, if I had any chance of survival, I'd rather not lose my whole life. Anyway who do you think is going to be BUYING the guns?

This is such a great idea! Don't have a last FM but I can do what dragoonson did. Poopingman you didn't say anything, I'll say the Fleet Foxes :) Check out Mykonos and White Winter Hymnal on Youtube. Sorry Im not really into heavy rock/metal kinda stuff [hide=Sorry its so big][/hide]

Self defence, target shooting, hunting, collecting, as an investment - there is plenty of reasons. Self defence - No, as will be later discussed in this post. As long as police do their best to protect you - and it seems ridiculous that people have suggested they don't, in which case there's your problem - all you need is a little street cred and appropriate non-violent measures towards safety. Safety can be achieved any numbers of ways, and responding with violence is not one of them. *yawn* again, read the other posts in this thread before you bother posting. There has been studies showing about 2 million defensive gun uses per year in the US - no small number. As NoMoreDead said, most of those occurences will happen when the attacker has a gun. I know you'll respond with "Those guns are illegal anyway, so it doesn't matter" but I disagree. If people know guns are basically always illegal in the public population, police can crack down on guns as soon as the problem starts. They see a gun, or hear about them - they know its illegal and the problem is hopefully abolished before it's too late, before someone has pressed a trigger too quickly. Your point is? If we completely eliminated guns from the entire country (as in impossibly get rid of all firearms in the entire country) we would just have 30,000 more knife deaths. Humans are quite resourceful in killing each other and banning people from legally owning weapons is not going to stop them. Knives are illegal too, therefore, ^. So once you've got rid of guns and knives, what do you have? Baseball bats maybe? Which are going to be far less effective in killing people but most likely just as good self defence. A gun used in self defence is likely to kill someone, and that's murder. It would be easy for guns to get into the wrong hands, children are killed all the time by American guns, far too easy to kill too soon. Let the police take care of you. The worst thing you could do is take the law into your own hands. So? How does banning weapons change that? Do you expect criminals to turn in their (already illegal) guns to the police with all the law abiding citizens? As I already said, if basically all guns are illegal, it makes confiscating them easier. If someone's got a gun there's almost no way they can cheat their way out of it, the gun gets confiscated, end of, before its too late. But I'm not saying banning guns is the only solution - in this case cracking down on illegal guns would be just as useful. The current laws that "take away privacy" are totally useless against law abiding citizens - you have to be living in the Middle East for your phone to be tapped. Banning guns only effects people that abide by the law - criminals have not been allowed to own guns for over 200 years, what is going to make them give up their weapons now? And banning all "objects capable of killing people" is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard. First we will need all the rocks in the country (you could hit someone with it!), then your computer (you could throw it at someone!), then your clothes (they could strangle people!), then your car (you could run people down!), then any land you may own (you could use it to hide dead bodies!) etc. So I'm sure those 5000+ children killed every year are all killed by burglars and murders, are they? With a gun its so easy to accidentally take someone's life, criminals aren't the only people who kill with guns. As for your totally useless (in my opinion) attempt at irony, just wtf? Guns are better killers than rocks. And there you have just hit on a basic reason why banning weapons is NOT acceptable. If people do not have the ability to defend themselves, then if anything from a tyrannical goverment to an invasion by a foreign power occurs, then people have no means of resisting that. Britain is managing fine. Don't be so paranoid, sure a foreign power MIGHT invade but even if they do, isn't it worthless making guns legal just for that? If an invasion by a foreign power is the only advantage for owning guns, you've got yourself a pretty useless argument. It's at least three times higher in the UK. (source) Correct me if I'm wrong, but from looking at the link you posted you seem to be implying that Britain and Wales should make guns legal to counteract the sudden uprise in violent crime? If so, I'm sorry but that would be the worst possible thing to happen to our country, considering whats happening with gun crime already. If guns were legal few people would want to buy them except young men in gangs who go around killing each other. Here in Britain the solution to violent crime would not be providing victims with the power to kill their attacker, it is in preventing the crimes from happening in the first place. I personally think guns should not necessarily be banned, but heavily restricted, and people should be encouraged not to leave them in stupid places where their children will get them, and certainly not to use them until a very last resort.

I'd put it in a bank, then hire a technician to download a DVD converter for me, buy all my favourite films and put them on my iPod. I'd buy a really nice purple/dark blue armchair, we're kinda redecorating at the mo. And then I'd get a plane ticket to somewhere north so I could see the Northern Lights <3:

Thanks alot! I really appreciate the help, will let you know how it goes lol :)

Yay for tax money going to people "perioding" all over a piece of paper. Oh now that is just not fair. Have you actually seen any of her paintings? While I personally do agree it's disgusting, you clearly either haven't seen the paintings, or are dismissing any potential merit simply because of the medium used to paint with. They show alot of artistic talent and you have no right to disregard that. Well if she's doing this for fame or money, the shock value is certainly working. Good publicity.

Not if she used someone else's... :ohnoes:

The Deathly Hallows was good, but the ending wanted me to burn the book. It made the whole book suck, now im mad that I waited 6 hours in line on a freezing night to get it. Yes, that was one cold summer night. I paid like fifty buck (more) to get it first.I wanted a damn refund for 3 days and didn't touch a book :roll: .The ending really bastardised it.And not just the last chapter,I mean if the whole series was one book,and the ending was proportionate to the length,thats basically the 2nd half.Thoroughly disappointing,wanted to see him maybe playing quidditch (did he?I erased as much memory as I could)... Yeah Harry should definitely have been a quidditch player, waste of talent if you ask me :wall:

Hello :) I'd really like to be able to convert DVDs so I can put them on iTunes/my iPod. I've looked up on Google, but I don't want to download anything that's not actually going to work. I need something free and I use Windows XP, so if anyone has done the same thing or knows any good programs, could you let me know please? Thanks alot! Izzy

So summed up, your argument is "I don't think I'm better than anyone else, I just think gays are worse than me for acting the way they do". Whatever. See, I'm not anti-religious but this is what annoys me. You believing you're so much better than anyone else because a religion founded 2000 years ago tells you that you are. What evidence, or even what right, have you got to call homosexuality a sin? Unless of course what Jesus really meant was, "Love thy neighbour, hate thy gay". In which case, I apologise for my complete misunderstanding of Christianity. I myself do NOT hate anyone, only some things they do, and I know plenty of christians who think that, I do not see myself as better than anyone else I see myself just as equal as others and christianity (and the catholoics) were really part of the Judaism, it started out as Judaism, then the Jews rejected Jesus, those who didn't became Christians (they may have been called Catholics not sure :-k ) then later on they split into Catholics and Christians due to a pope adding some way of 'paying' for sins to lessen your time in purgatory, so technically it started 6,000-10,000 years ago Are Kilo and Mage Man the same person? If so or if not, can I just ask a Christian this, not criticising, but out of curiousity - Why is it that you think being gay is wrong, and is it related to your religion? As in, is it something you decided yourself, or does the Bible specificially say homosexuality is wrong? Referring to what Kilo said... it's pretty much proven, or at least there seems to be alot of proof, that being gay is actually in your genes. Therefore, not a choice. I've posted some theories/experiments, I'll you links if you want them. [hide=] [/hide] [hide=] [/hide] [hide=] [/hide]

So summed up, your argument is "I don't think I'm better than anyone else, I just think gays are worse than me for acting the way they do". Whatever. See, I'm not anti-religious but this is what annoys me. You believing you're so much better than anyone else because a religion founded 2000 years ago tells you that you are. What evidence, or even what right, have you got to call homosexuality a sin? Unless of course what Jesus really meant was, "Love thy neighbour, hate thy gay". In which case, I apologise for my complete misunderstanding of Christianity. I myself do NOT hate anyone, only some things they do, and I know plenty of christians who think that, I do not see myself as better than anyone else I see myself just as equal as others and christianity (and the catholoics) were really part of the Judaism, it started out as Judaism, then the Jews rejected Jesus, those who didn't became Christians (they may have been called Catholics not sure :-k ) then later on they split into Catholics and Christians due to a pope adding some way of 'paying' for sins to lessen your time in purgatory, so technically it started 6,000-10,000 years ago Are Kilo and Mage Man the same person? If so or if not, can I just ask a Christian this, not criticising, but out of curiousity - Why is it that you think being gay is wrong, and is it related to your religion? As in, is it something you decided yourself, or does the Bible specificially say homosexuality is wrong? Referring to what Kilo said... it's pretty much proven, or at least there seems to be alot of proof, that being gay is actually in your genes. Therefore, not a choice. I've posted some theories/experiments, I'll you links if you want them. [hide=] [/hide] [hide=] [/hide] [hide=] [/hide]

Sure its interesting, but why couldn't she just use paint? :oops: It'd save herself trouble and not disgust other people so much. Hmm if I remember rightly from the Phobia thread, someones got a phobia of menstrual blood. cant remember who it is though

Eleanor Rigby

doesnt really make sense but ill move all the keys one to the right so that wizjany becomes... eoxksmu Type my name while looking at the end of your nose (but try not to cross your eyes cos that can really hurt)

Forgive me if I've got the wrong end of the stick, but I think you're basically saying - "Producing children is natural, therefore those who can't produce children are unnatural, and morally wrong in having relationships" I have to be careful what I say in case I'm accused of taking things too literally, but how can you use nature as an excuse to say that two people who love each other is wrong? Love for another human being is never wrong. (unless you love a murderer, or something... but you know what I mean...)

As issy said, empirically you can assign and quantify values to humans lives, but I agree from a moral perspective it's a slippery slope which is probably best not trodden. Morally, you are certainly right, no one should ever be considered more important than another without good reason. But some people are going to have... an advantage... in how 'important' they are. Before I go any further I need to explain what I mean when I say 'important' - important in the sense that they are going to have more of an impact on the world, that after their death people will remember them more than someone else. It's certainly alot down to chance - I know this is an awful thing to say, but certain people are going to be catapaulted into 'importance' as soon as they're born, and will therefore have a massive advantage over others when it comes to making your mark on the world, changing other people's lives, etc. I don't think you can ever really say "My life is a serious thing" or "I don't take life seriously." It's all down to circumstance, to time and place. At the moment I'll say my life itself isn't, and that I'm certain to feel differently at a different point in time. About having more than one life - I find it really bizarre when people say "I'd like to believe there's a Heaven". I've never really understood that... I'd rather just die and not continue living, it seems stupid to spend eternity in the same place, with the same people. I guess it depends on what you believe about heaven.

please don't turn that into a new meme :pray: I've thought about that too. What's the point when it is just existence, and isn't going to matter when the universe collapses and everything is dead. Plus, what Mrpez said, the universe is infinitely big, so 1 person's problem out of billions on one planet out of the infinite galaxies doesn't change anything I'd have to disagree with you there. While I hate to be so uncaring, some people and their lives matter more, or make more of a difference, to the planet we live on. For instance if Barack Obama dies, it will have more of an impact on the world than a starving orphan in the slums of Mexico City. But then you could say, that starving orphan, in the right circumstances, could have grown up to be an an-poverty worker who tried to change the world. Bit like Mother Teresa. Sorry if that doesnt make sense/if its OT.

I love the first one, it had a very magical, celestial feel, very thought provoking. I love how it changes from neat and tidy and ordered to complete chaos. There's a few bits I really loved, "Just a chaotic bid to keep on course as the myriad forces of the galaxy impede your path" is a really great line :) Just one grammatical mistake - it's and its. "It's" is short for "it is", whereas "its' " is possession of something. Also "I have the ability to sneak up on unsuspecting cookie jars and take what I need. Sometimes, when my friends are over, we work as a team to thwart our restrictive parents." I'm not sure but I think this might be being a little unrealistic. While a kid at the age of two would certainly be able to walk, they wouldn't be able to open a screw-top jar. They wouldn't be strong enough for one thing, their hands too small, secondly how exactly would they reach it? They wouldn't be able to jump/climb onto a table, it'd have to be on the floor or within easy reach. And a group of two-year old friends probably wouldn't be left alone long enough to do any parent-thwarting. Anyway sorry if I'm taking that too literally/being pedantic but it is unrealistic. Good job on them though.

Here's some good websites, there's lots of tips on Google ;) http://www.ssdd.bcu.ac.uk/learner/writi ... s/1.06.htm http://www.eltnewsletter.com/back/Janua ... 472001.htm If you need any more help, I'd be happy to. Good luck, hope you get the job!

I hate the be the bearer of bad news but there's a pretty interesting "theory" (dunno whether its proven or not) stating that girls tend to fall for the 'bad' guys. This may explain some of it... [hide=] [/hide]

[hide=] These two are the best ones out of the list. It doesn't matter that the revolution happened 250 years ago, the parties are still present: the power-hungry government and the people. When the government screws the majority over, what do you think the majority should do? Stay and do nothing? Let the government do as it pleases? Any government isn't as trustworthy no matter where, or when you are. Especially when a certian government has the largest military in the world and one of the richest. Issy, you shouldn't take those statements literatly...think before you post a little. I know I have no solid facts or arguments to back this up but its so barbaric and stupid! Refer to my post up above. Without guns the people won't have a resistance against the country's military. No they would be illegal too ... :? He means that people would look onto other things to use, such as knives, bats, and stuff. Between you and me, I perfer to be killed through a quick shot in the heart than being beat to death. An absolutely ridiculous thing to say if you're actually serious! (Which I doubt) If so there is so much wrong with it I barely know where to start! Ok, firstly, crime and misspelt words and totally different things. Crime is, in most cases, morally wrong and has a bad effect on society. Misspelt words, on the other hand, are not morally wrong, do not cause misery, death or robbery, and do not have a particularly bad effect on our society. Yeah, ok, some people are weird about misspelt words, but dont try and retaliate with some stupid argument. Anyway, people are not going to be 'scared' by the potential of misspelling words. People are, however, going to be scared about guns. Again, stop thinking literatlly...the reason why people misspell words is because they are not educated. So if we educate the people about guns, there will be less gun crime; just like if we educate the students there will be less misspelt words. It's fine to make laws, it's another thing for them to be morally right. I could say "The rights of white and heterosexual people to have priorities over blacks and homosexuals shall not be infringed." So, that argument doesn't really make sense. Erm...what? There is no such thing as that law in the consitution and thus, it can infringed. We're talking about the consitution that created the country and current politicans trying to change all of that. Not hypotheical law making. They wont. Again, how can you know for sure? History proves people in power are mostly power-hungry and money-hungry. The US government is no execption. Lol! Thats so stupid. Tomorrow, I'll say, "Yesterday, no-one died in London due to gun and knife crime, so I can safely say there is no problem". As we know that's rubbish. A single day is not enough to come to a judgement on a country's problems. Ratio between Number of gun-related deaths : Number of gun owners. Pretty small number concidering how many people have guns. Oh, really? Well could you explain why every year over 5000 American children are killed by firearms? Why every two years more Americans are killed due to firearms than the number of American casualties during the Vietnam War? Why firearms cause thirty six million deaths every year? Or why Americans kill 19x more than any of the other 25 richest countries in the world? Yes, of course, clearly Americans are only using guns for self-defence! The good citizens are using it in self-defense, not the criminals. It is the police's job to crack down crime, not the government and their degrading of our rights. I think again this is in guncontrols favour? You think all gun-owners are serial killers. Lets say I give you a gun. Would you shoot me on the spot? I think not. You wouldn't really use the gun much until someone tried to rob you probably. Not to worry, that's what I'm like too. And I'm not blood thirsty nor anti-gun! No, because as far as I'm concerned only a criminal would carry a gun. Ended in your first sentence. If a criminal robs a store with a gun and the law-obeying shopkeep can't defend back, the criminal is safe and has the money. Hell, the criminal might even kill the poor ol' shopkeep. Died thanks to the government. How typical. [/hide] For the sake of this argument and the reasons you have put forward - It looks like I'm wrong, but I just don't see the need to carry a gun - it seems at though gun owners are overreacting to the danger. Still, (and I'm sorry for being 'narrow minded') however much you prove me wrong on paper, I'm afraid I'm not going to change my mind on this topic. Well said.