Walsingham

When? When? When?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX1CvW38cHA Your response to this is Bill Hicks? Man, you can fantasise all you like about all the great things people will experience on drugs. But I don't think it's wise to make policy based on wishful thinking. You have to take a worst case, and assume that you are going to see more people dependant on drugs, either psychologically or physiologically. The benefits aren't going to be felt in the first world. They're going to come in producer nations like Colombia, and trans-shipment nations like Nigeria and Mexico.

I have been told several times by professional web designers that white on black is like sports socks with dark trousers.

The problem is not the offence to one's notion of human dignity. The problem is the organised crime and terrorism which prohibition has funded to a degree literally impossible without illicit narcotics. Drugs kill, but the war on drugs (indirectly) kills so many more it's hard to even guess the figures. I should also point out, as I've done before, that of the five people I've ever interviewed or known who've kicked hard drugs it was when they got access to cheap reliable drugs that they had the breathing space to realise their life had gone to ****. When they were grafting and dodging cops that took all their time and attention when they weren't high. I'm not naive enough to think you wouldn't see people dying all over the damn place. But I'm cynical enough to regard the deaths of people who choose to get high as less serious than people who simply try to live in Mexico, Afghanistan, Burma etc.

It depends a great deal on how much I trusted them. I'd put up with anything but heroin if I trusted them. If i don't trust them then it's only a matter of time before I see my malt whisky going up in capillaries. And that's inexcusable.

Given the steadily declining share price of the companies drilling near the Falklands I don't hold much faith in oil being found. I think this is far more about a lousy Argentine administration attempting to shore up a failed economic platform with blood. So no repeating history there.

The helmet is useful. It just makes you look like an arse. I'd cheerfully pay caps to be rid of the fething thing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13803111 Argentina's flagging president is calling the UK arrogant for refusing to negotiate over the Falkland islands. There's a whole bunch of arguments why we shouldn't negotiate, but the one which should be universal is that the islanders themselves VOTE REPEATEDLY TO BE BRITISH. Only one islander has ever transferred citizenship in its entire history. Argentina is trying desperately to revive the argument that this is the UK behaving as a colonialist power, but Argentina's claim dates back to the Spanish Empire, and in theory includes stretches of Brazil, Paraguay etc. I am putting this before the forum in an attempt to muster support for the islanders right to self-determination. No more Argentine and British lives should be lost over this issue. But neither should Britain be obliged to compromise her territory for the sake of a fantasy.

The basic problem architecture is pretty simple. Humans want to get high. 'Period', as you colonials say. Getting high involves poisoning the brain. You can poison the brain with almost anything. But whatever you use it's likely to be quite limited in volume. Low volume combined with multiple options means you can't reliably prohibit said poisons through intervention. Ever. I apologise for bringing this up again, but it ought to be a finisher. Drugs are a problem in f***ing prison. So unless someone can come up with a way of making free citizens subject to MORE control than prison then prohibition is demonstrably never going to work.

Oil, fresh chilli, cubed spam. Fry. Add chopped onion, fresh mint, fresh coriander leaf, frozen peas. Fry. Stir in cooked white rice. Fry until bits of rice go crispy. Fresh black pepper. That there is awesome, my good man.

Not sure about this video. It's either a bit genius, or laughably awful.

I don't know why anyone uses d.o.b. and mother's maiden name as security data anyway. Bloody silly.

Sorry t obe deliberately provocative, but since we are a democracy, isn't 'public opinion' a better basis for law than science?

I object strenuously to you blaming Gearbox. I ran into some of their senior guys a few years ago, and they were very switched on. Not to mention that I've played and enjoyed many of their games.

You can't crack down on 'hedonism'. It's in our freaking brains. Hardwired. Have a squizz at Iran's attempts to handle drugs and 'hedonism', and maybe you'll see my point.

From the wiki on mustard oil: A Nazi cow, probably grinding up that WMD made from castor beans

Saitek make glowing peripherals of all sorts. Just get her some of that. Or you could simply install LEDs into a regular PC. I think even my rudimentary electronics skills would stretch that far.

In summary, you're supporting some sorty of fascist police action? Not only do I find the notion to have a significant cost in terms of morality, blood, and treasure, but I don't believe it would come close to achieving any significant impact on the use of drugs. To me it sounds as if you just want to shoot a bunch of people. And if that's your objective then just team up with LoF or some other half-baked revolutionary cultist.

FFS, thi sis supposed to be the funny thing sthread. Not the 'let's have another circular jawbang about atheism' thread.

I'm sure there used to be a different forum theme. I used to use it. Unless that was just my cataracts falling off.

If I was really that bothered about how my PC looked then I'd just have a custom case made for me. Then at least you can pretend you don't have the same taste as every teenage nerd on the planet. Been a very interesting and productive week this week. A bit more drunk than I aspire to, overall, but hard to feel genuinely upset about that as the downside!

Well, I'm neither understanding or supportive. Pull your gaming socks up, man!

You may just be unlucky. I've only dated two girls who thought class A drugs were cool. One was a nurse, and we can't go around shooting nurses. The other was an ex soldier, and you're welcome to try and shoot her but I suspect she'd simply kill you first. Your argument falls apart like wet cake when you try to claim that everyone who uses dope or gets drunk thinks heroin (for example) is OK. Everyone I know has tried dope, and almost all of them are borderline drunkards. Virtually none of them use hard drugs. Only one of them uses them regularly. I agree that several sections of society, particularly celebrities use hard drugs in a fashionable way. This is having an effect on usage, because it sends a message that the use of these drugs is both safe and fashionable. But shooting the crap out of thousands of people isn't an improvement. In many ways it's what we already do, and it ain't working.