Walsingham

I had a similar approach for many years. I'd simply accept the notion that God existed, but I refused to acknowledge his sovereignty. Why should it make any damn difference? I do, however, agree with Gorgon. If faith in God is what it takes to make it through the day then how is that worse than my childlike faith in pies and ale?

Never mind that. There was the whole business with people hunting albinos to use their organs for muthi magic. While in Nigeria they are afraid of using a gourd as a motorcycle helmet because it might allow the driver to cast spells on you (LINK)

I think those buses are really preaching to the wrong religious fanatics. I mean ours don't burn down churches, as a rule.

Good idea. Let's just trade houses. Is that allowed?

Case in point, in just one part of the Congo hundreds of civilians slaughtered by a tinpot militia. Where are their offers of international aid? I think this is particularly relevant if we consider numbers to be crucial. I'm not saying anyone dying isn't serious. I'm just saying that if we look solely at numbers dead ther are a lot more serious offenders to tackle before we get down the list to Israel.

It is funny when it counts, and switches to serious when it works. It's inherently a funny and poignant idea, IMO.

I've seen some excellent results with that in Northern Ireland. But you're really crossing a very tiny barrier that is alsmot artificial. I'm not dismissing your idea, but you'd have to deal with language and social class issues into the bargain with Israel/Palestine. ~~ Wrath: an arms embargo would mean stopping everything to check it. I took that to mean enforcing the blockade. In any event, if we try then UK forces WILL end up killing some Palestinians. At that point we would pack up and leave. The entire thing is a non-starter. ~~ Aside: Don't you think it's interesting that we get all this media attention for a couple of thousand casualties, when the ongoing wars in West Africa get sod all? Places where even small forces could do a great deal of good? Places where the casualty lists run into the hundreds of thousands?

Fanataics should scare everyone. I've seen some pretty scary fanatical atheists recently. Thumping on about how religion is the cause of all the World's ills, and should be ruthlessly stamped out...

He really is a classic character.

I'd actually leave my cellphone. I hate the bloody thing.

I would... erm... yeah it all depends on why. Good stout boots are going to definitely be in there. Passport, obviously. A pair of pliers, a knife, my poncho>?

As a general rule, any opponent smart enough to field an orbital laser array deserves to get me. I would feel almost rude if I failed to die.

No. But pot-kettle-black rings true.

I'm not planning on doing it myself. I 'm more of a niche henchman than a dictator. There's a lot less job competition in the former than the latter. I was just considering the stumbling blocks. GD has hit on something there. Perhaps the point is that 1. Natural everyday context is never going to match, because you'll have currents and local eddies. You play football, I play football, and they're two very different things. 2. But this can be over-ridden by priority cultural features, such as an overwhelming threat. This provides a context beacon by which to navigate. Could this be an unforseen feature of the EU?

Hold on, hold on. Possibly better question: what generic qualities make a successful setting?

I'm telling you, man. World of Darkness, Victorian Hindu Kush setting as above. Steampunk stylings. TREMERE QUEEN VICTORIA.

Satellite weaponry?

Yes, best drink ever created. I vote DR comes to the UK for beer.

It would explain a tremendous amount. Particularly about the Fox network.

While reading the Dune series of books I've been pondering the problems which must attend (conceptually) on ruling an entire world. Principally, how does one holdtogether an entire planet when most human politicians seem incapable of holding together any civilisation larger than Wigan. Doing some wider reading I ran across a theory that communications define the size of a civilisation. Roads, originally, and rivers. They carried ideas by person and by post. Then ideas moved to the printed book, and this allowed them to move slightly faster and to establish some permanence. Then you had the far sending of communications via signal flag, telegraph, telephone, and radio. As these got bigger so too did teh Empires and civilisations you could maintain with them. With me so far? But it occurred to me that sending and receiving the idea is only part of the picture. I started lookng at the psychology of communications, and identified the obvious barrier, which is language. But again, this only explains so much. Until I got to the point in the psychology book discussing the theory that there is an abstract representation underpinning language, and that representation relies upon context. Context at a local level means that when I say "Meet you for tea at 1600" you can understand it is going to involve us being in proximity in the late afternoon. Context adds information, such as the knowledge that you can expect more than just hot leaf water; perhaps biscuits. But in other ways it means that I am not insulting you, or that I am insulting you. For example if I said that to the Queen it would be deliberately over-familiar. It occurred to me that we have exhausted the technological barriers to sending and receiving anywhere on the world. What we lack is advances in communicating or sharing context. Or was I simply in the bath too long?

Gordon Brown pledges UK Forces to police Gaza blockade. I have to say that on first consideration this is possibly the worst move imaginable for the UK short of directly shelling Palestinian hospitals. 1. We are short staffed in most respects and need defence cash for the main event in Afghanistan 2. It makes it look like the UK and the Israeli govt are on the same wavelength which I can't agree with 3. It won't achieve anything tactically, as I'm sure Hamas will still get enough munitions to kill people 4. It won't achieve anything strategically because, as I say, I don't believe any end is possible.

I am still confused by the notion that the absence of God means I can enjoy my life. God wasn't sopping me before, and in any case, how can teh absence of something which never existed improve anything? In fact, if God doesn't exist then a priori can my life have any meaning? And without meaning how can I enjoy it? Help! Save me Jebus!