Walsingham

Given your credibility in these matters I am obviously taking notes. Presumably, human rationality being what it is, It would be beneficial for unusual circumstances, not just - say - inebriation to be in effect? A drunken evening pursued by an escaped elephant is better than just a drunken evening?

Present company excepted. LC.

In my experience, about 70% of the time they just want a friendly face to tell them they still look good. Remember, women are completely mental.

Touche.

Actually that was my fallback theory, LC.

There's this thing called 'teams'...

Nah, jest keep governments small, ineffectual, and weak. That way when they screw up, and they will, they always will, it won't do too much damage to society. Yeah, and then, like if anything important wants doing we can watch them flap about like wet hens. ~ I approve of the eight ball idea. Is there some way we could install the eight ball inside Vladimir Putin's shiny forehead? Then it would be both mystical and manly. EDIT: Plus, to shake it we could grab him by the lapels and jink him about.

Today I realised that the only time I've been a good employee was in the Army, and even then I was a pain in the ****ing arse. I'm polite, granted. But I simply don't take orders very seriously. LOL. Strange thing to realise while I was fixing the house. Maybe all I've ever needed wisdom wise was a big hammer and a pair of pliers.

More sort of 'paddling at Morecombe'?

Well, taken to extremes and without any humanity, yes. Oh blast. This just reminded me we have a UK Health Minister who believes in homeopathy.

While I agree in most cases, rolling up the legs to the ankle or one inch above the ankle is acceptable in my book. What, so you look like Huckleberry Finn?

We should kickstart genegineering an eight-legged gazelle. Not only would be it liberate political commentary, but watching it trying to jump would be hilarious.

Can I ask we include flags of individual states in the Union?

To illuminate my point a little further, a man won't die for Fermat's last theorem.

I was just wondering if the introduction of the 'like' button had met an observable: 1) Rise in overall posting 2) An individual rise in posting among some users 3) A change in tempo of posting (i.e. pulses) Idle interest for me, but the results could be interesting in general social scientific terms. I'm thinking there would be a rise amongst certain users, with likes functioning as rewards.

You do realise that it's not in the least bit cute when you _fake_ an inability to write English?

With respect, Zor. Your previous post rather implied Manning's release had been vetted before release. It's why I went back and double checked. Going back to Snowden, it seems to be the case that he went public because - and I am paraphrasing a quote - Congress was being lied to. I feel this reinforces my point entirely. Why not speak directly to those Congressmen who were being lied to? They'd have eaten up the scandal AND run with the ball.

Much better. Gotta love the Guard.

Yes, and get a bloody avatar. You look like obyknven right now, and it's freaking me out.

Actually, let's ALL write to the Queen.

I'd actually pay a licence for the BBC, atleast they make some quality programmes, unlike the Swedish equivalent. I'd pay in a heartbeat once I'd have a TV, no problem - fair is fair. I don't have a TV antenna, parabolic dish, nor a fricking TV. I don't even have a radio. Write to the Queen. Make your case. My sister wrote to the Queen when she was six and got a reply.

Hope she's OK, man. But not wanting to sound callous, 90 is pretty much as far as I'd like to go.

I only technically need a radio license, but I pay for a Tv license because as much as the BBC annoys me, it annoys people I hate much more.

There's a TV show in the UK called "Can't cook/won't cook." I mention it because human behaviour involves both aspects. You need to have accurate understanding (predictive and insightful), but you also have to act on it. The reason I'd argue people ignore discordant information is because if we didn't then we'd have a more accurate picture but constantly be reversing course. The net result would be something very similar to lunacy. The relevant military aphorism is that it's better to execute a crap plan with energy and courage than to wait for a perfect plan.

Yeah. I know that. the point is that it's less likely to be wrong today, because it gets tested and improved. Whereas a lot of faiths are 2000 years wrong. However, if you're on edge and need to feel certain, leaning on something which you KNOW keeps breaking isn't very reassuring.