Walsingham

Meditation, mother******s. Learn it.

Remeber that the play was originally intended to be performed by actors in massive battlesuits. And the swords are missiles. Great fething missile barrages.

We had freezing sleet last Friday. FREEZING SLEET CUTTING MY FACE! IN MAY!

It's an interesting question. If you want an interesting curveball view, check out the way Societies treat non-native soldiers. Particularly the campaign by Joanna Lumley to improve British Army treatment of gurkhas. My own view is that the public in most Western nations struggle to reconcile popular media antipathy to warfighting with the popular media affection for warfight_ers_. Tough, self-reliant, self-sacrificing. And the contrast between those values and the values of other public figures such as celebrities and politicians. Most people reconcile this struggle by painting the Armed Forces as victims in wars beyond their control. There was a British general who discussed this at length - it's not my idea. But I haven't time to look him up just now.

I think Drowsy Emperor's attitude to historical rewrites can be highlighted perfectly by him calling me politically correct. Although his complet misunderstanding of the way apartheid was sold to people as a solution to racial strife is a close second.

Unplanned parties are always the best. Fact.

That song got stuck in my head for the longest time.

I am amused that you are attempting to retrench to a more 'moderate' position by suggesting the solution is separation of incompatible 'races'. Nearly as much by your Daily Mail bleating about how the younger generation is too fat to fight. But not nearly as much as I am by your cherry picking a handful of anecdotal 'evidence' of how repressive 'Muslim' countries are. I have been all over this world apart from Russia and South America and I've seen some ****ed up ****. But not once did I try to explain it by saying "Yeah that **** I saw 6 people doing is definitely the way 2.6 billion other people who have the same hair or holy book, or soup recipes would behave."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic Well, wiki agrees with Nep.

Asserting that the tone of any Holy Book defines the social, cultural, and philosophical decision making of its official adherents is mendacious at best. I'm down as Church of England, my holy book includes the old testament. The clue is in the ****ing name. Yet one of my favourite foods is prawn curry. The new testament says "Thou shalt not kill" and I was signed up for the Army. The rationale for what you're saying is irrelevant, however. The logical destination of your reasoning is a religious war involving billions that could not end in any way other than extermination. I reject that destination. I reject your logic. I reject you. And now I want prawn curry.

I was thinking dialectic as well, but I think that's more of a rationalist approach to deriving truth. I agree with Tigs in that 'we' as a culture probably use it as the basis for a huge percentage of academic achievement, and thereby social advancement, yet we don't seem to have a word for it.

I don't think you are, ma'am. The original poster was entitled "What do passive aggressive ****ing cowards mean"

No. I can't hold fire any longer. Wait, no. I got it back under control again.

Well played, Rosbif. Well played.

I think it's pretty well established that we all want to kill you already. May as well add fuel to the fire.

I would refer the honourable member to my earlier statement, calling him a c***.

Query: historically a stronghold is both a strenth and a weakness. At the most basic level, assuming you don't build it somewhere bloody stupid then others will value and want it.

Still ill, but think fever has broken.

I mean the academically prized notion of a learned paper looking at both sides of a subject through loose discourse summarising with a "well we've looked at both sides and aren't we clever". I know philosophy, and probably Greek philosophy, must have come upw ith a word for it. Otherwise I wouldn't have been taught it in school. I say 'taught'. Obviously this would have been as a teenager so I was too busy scheming access to boobs to listen to ancient Greek. I love being this ill. It's like being drunk without the social conscience.

... A history far more complex, and more simple, and far less rooted in a clash of civilizations than you would like. The earliest example of grand and bloody holy wars goes back to Zoroastrianism, to the best of my knowledge. Yet that was only expedient to the needs of the nascent Persian empire. Ancient history is debateable, but suggesting it goes only so far as the Shah of Iran reveals the depth of your historic ignorance. I'd have thought it was perfectly well known that the British Empire was fighting Islamic fundamentalism - or perhaps it is more accurate to say it was fighting us - many years before Iran even existed, in places like the Sudan. If not in India even earlier. The only way your assertion makes any sense is by linking modern Islamic fundamentalism with post marxist revolutionary doctrines. Which is half my ****ing point. It's not Islam. It's revolutionary fascism with a dash of muslim supremacy to taste. If you really think this is a war I suggest to turn your brain on. It may come in handy.

Everyone stay calm. If we don't show fear, the Scandinavians will soon lapse back into bacon-scented somnolescence.

Relevant: tactical boobage

Forcing my brain along like an undead mule today. Hope I'm not prolonging the illness. Took plenty of outdoors breaks and ate as many chillis as possible.

Fwiiw I think bystander effect applies hwen a situation is ambiguous, like someone lying down unconscious. Two bloodstained shouting ****wits isn't ambiguous, it's just dangerous.