Walsingham

Lord of the Flies - Communism's answer to the Mormons.

I was quite drunk last night and on arriving home I cooked a very hot curry, and ate it whiole drinking about 2 litres of green tea and playing Red Orchestra. "Break! Break! I have eyes on an unidentified russian tank at the barracks. I mean I say unidentified. I can see it perfectly clearly but I'm too drunk to tell which sort it is." I didn't realise I could get so drunk I was unable to identify different types of tank.

We were discussing this last night and teh only thing I could think in his defence is that random testing is better than testing on grounds of 'looking like a Sunni' or whatever some newly hired security officer might choose to do. We also decided that this had to a deliberate attempt to swindle due to the shopping theft tag put inside in place of any sort of microchip. If he simply thought dowsing rods were acceptable he wouldn't ahve put in the 'chip'. We decided in our drunken court that such behaviour should be prosecuted as fraud THEN prosecuted as treason THEN he should be extradited to Iraq.

I wish you'd stop saying **** like that because given the evidence it makes no sense. Perhaps you should start by defining what you mean by 'isolationism'? You want the Moon on a stick, don't you?

I think that if anything proves there was an unhealthy bias against women and infavour of men it's Scott of the Antarctic. If a women had suggested any kind of epxedition to the antarctic it would have been refused flat. But Scott suggested going WITH HORSES and it was like 'oh that's fine'. Or at least that's what my Norwegian friend says.

As appears to be the case more and more often, I am in agreement with Gorgon. I know it's difficult to obstruct special interests, but for the love of all that's good and holy, WoD, don't be ****ing HAPPY about it!

And then the zulus attack! Quite so! Did I ever tell you that a Great-Great-Grandfather of mine fought in the Boer War? Cornwall Light Infantry, if I recall. No you didn't! Did I ever mention that back in the late eighties I met an ancient Boer farmer who actually fought in the war as a child? I rather pleased to report that I was able to get along just fine with him, on showing the proper respect, and equally refusing to be ashamed of British behaviour. My main memory is us toasting each other with beer. The subordinate memory is him insisting we watch that strange black and white TV comedy about the duchess and her butler who gets progressively more drunk as he plays all the old guests at dinner.

Welll, you make a coherent case, and out of respect for your general good sense I shall ask around and see what people think of your version. I will probably thus ruin my chance of promotion, but then who wants to be a lance corporal anyway?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8476381.stm Some complete arsehole has been selling 'bomb detectors' to Iraq to the tune of tens of millions. I say arsehole because apparently they are pretty much just a wobbly metal stick attached to a black plastic handle. It has been described as a 'dowsing rod'. I raise the story for your attention mainly because I am deeply ashamed that my country has only just taken action, at the same time as I'm a little bit proud that the BBC have finally exposed it and action is being taken. I simply cannot understand how our government's attention can have so far drifted as to be oblivious to the fact that an ally in desperate straights is being honcoed by a British conman! Heads must roll. It also subsequently occurs to me that there is a wider question which was inspired by my steadfast horror. To whit: is it worse to sell a bomb detector that is pure hocum than it is to sell a cancer detector which works on similar lines? A practice common throughout the world as I can attest to from personal experience.

Yes... yes you can. Mmmm... Natalie Portman....

And then the zulus attack!

For those just tuning in, the relevance as I see it as follows: Sarah Palin believes in 'staying the course' in Iraq and Afghanistan. The legitimacy of that view directly reflects on her. The relevance of the balkan conflict is that the UK attorney general mentions teh legitimacy of western intervention there as proof that international law supports military action on humanitarian grounds.

Ocean water hauled from Neptune.

What I like is the fact that this 'sovereign nation' will sink back into obscurity after absorbing all the aid. It's like pouring water onto sand. I'm still not saying we shouldn't help now. I'm just pointing out that as a species we refuse to move beyond the latter 20th century madness of isolationism.

Let me just say that I do not believe that a British army commander would have allowed that slaughter to have gone unchallenged, however unprepared. But it is fair to point that the Dutch were unprepared to to fight. That this is hardly an excuse is underlined by the fact that they had set up a 'safe haven' for refugees. Typical UN to say something and refuse the means to actually carry it out. Effectively all the Un did was herd the victims into a sack.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7...nd-Neptune.html

The role of buddhism in shaping Japanese martial culture.

As I say I have to go with what I hear from sources I rgeard as credible. We have senior NCOs in my unit who were in Yugoslavia during the time in question, and I have friends who were officers in the same area at the same time. They all support the version which asserts there was terrible slaughter of civilians on ethnic lines. So you can understand why I would have trouble accepting a divergent view you propose. You raise another example of the failure of 'peaceful' intervention by talking about Rwanda. I do not think this contradicts my view that in certain situations - particularly time critical situations forec is the only credible option. Yet during the 1990s everyone persisted in the fantasy that the UN could magically make badness go away. It didn't stop attacks in Yugoslavia. It didn't stop genocide in Rwanda. It didn't enforce sanctions or the terms of peace in Iraq. What exactly is the alternative? As for your assertion that invasion = chaos = terror = casualties... again I say that I cannot accept this. It implies a mechanistic role for the terrorists which assumes therefore that they are somehow not human. That they had no choice. Of course they had a choice. Further I put it to you that the terrorists had a choice about whether they targeted coalition forces or perpetrated mass casualty attacks on civilian areas. For example, attacks which used suicide bombers then followed up by using ambulances so the injured and those helping them would be would be hit again (yes, the bit in the film was taken from real life attacks). This is not to deny that mismanagement of the occupation contributed to the problem. But the decision by radicals and the decison by Iran to insert terror cells and support terror was not - to my mind - our fault. But if you don't agree then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I don't see how we can close the gap, quite frankly. Perhaps you can explain your position more fully.

True, but it's overplayed, whereas this is buried treasure.

Can I just say "Mmmmm... Natalie Portman..."?

I'm just glad I introduced a topic that doesn't involve war.

Again I am baffled by studio execs. If you've got 5 frakking hours of footage just bung it all on three DVDs and release it. DVDs cost **** all to make and print. If they didn't we wouldn't have starship troopers 3.

Better: Children, don't get weary. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmtCw0NMfBM

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be aid, but massive infrastructure projects might not be the best post-disaster aid compared to basic training and other such low(er)-tech, but vital, things. Yeah. OK. I see what you mean.