Walsingham

There's a short film here somewhere. ~~ EDIT: In other news, I just lost my fence to the wind.

*Walsingham wonders how much it would cost to hire another PI to locate Shady, then to pay a dame in a red dress to walk into his office and say something sassy*

I think you might be interested if you do even a little digging around tax related crime. The history of revenue enforcement is almost entirely one of the revenue being cheated. North America and Northern Europe are just about the only places where its even a _culturally_ accepted norm to pay taxes. And that's only a small slice of those societies, and only for the last hundred or two hundred years.

But Wals' synthesis follows naturally from your particular example. Defeat smoking and something else will replace it as the preventable leading cause of death worldwide—this, in his view, will eternally perpetuate the mandate of those who seek to make everyone "healthier", which also connects with his "delusions of immortality" remark, before. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. What I am not so convinced of is his other assertion that everything affects cancer rates. This may be strictly true, but the extent to which this risk is relevant is what makes it suspect. I mean, your body fights cancer constantly, in your sleep. It could fail to naturally defeat it at some point, so an argument could be made that sleeping gives you cancer. This is clearly an absurd conclusion. And while I'm not more convinced than Wals than governments (and especially undemocratic, transnational bureaucracies) are exempt from reaching absurd conclusions (deliberately or by sheer disconnection from reality), I'm afraid this is a big ol' slippery slope. The amount of power and ability to regulate that states have is arbitrary and not everyone will agree exactly where the proverbial line in the sand lies. But it has to be drawn somewhere. Good analysis, thanks for running with the ball. I think I agree with your last point that this does not have to be a slippery slope. Eventually the enforcement resources would fail. But I think that point is waaaaay past where it would be good. A better option is to draw the line ourselves and state clearly what we expect, and no more. I may be misinterpreting you. On the subject of influences, I think it's established beyond the necessity of references that diet, stress, work environment, and exercise all affect cancer. That's more than enough to be going on with.

You know how I said to drink rehydration salts, and consider the possibility your feeling better was just your awareness breaking... Never mind, I guess you learned the same way I did. Fevers are the reason I don't do drugs.

Thanks, man. I learned about food from my family, my brother, and living on a tight budget for a while. Learn your food. It's about more than just feeling full.

Spaghetti with a little sauce made of garlic, olive oil, chicken stock, and sweated slices of courgette with oregano and pepper. Going to crack and egg in at the last minute for a hit of protein to feel full for longer.

I'm curious if this is some anti-smoking aid bot trying to drive up sales? I am still aghast at the idea that most of the products designed to quit smoking are sold by the same companies that sell the cigarettes. If they make a better margin on the anti-smoking material then I'd say that was the perfect setup.

Or your awareness of how sick you are just went bits up.

Finally got round to using my teapot I got given a few years ago. It's bloody genius!

I shouldn't even have to make a counter-argument here. I'm not saying you chaps are fools, you just haven't thought it through. Let's assume for the sake of argument that not getting cancer means you don't sick or die of something else. Because it still works for me. You chaps begin by stating that anything which worsens the incidence rate should be taxed. If it is taxed it has to be monitored, and both taxation and monitoring has to be enforced. Can you find me any aspect of human behaviour NOT implicated in cancer rates? The logical outcome of an open-ended commitment to controlling cancer rates is total monitoring and regulation of all behaviour. Ball to you.

Safe as an objective leads to walls, doors, the rule of law. Safer leads to a never ending war on drugs, terror, and the NSA. Healthy as an objective leads to clean drinking water, trauma surgery, and fresh vegetables. Healthier leads to drinking only mineral water, colonic irrigation, and delusions of f***ing immortality. Are you noticing a goddamn trend?

that's a good one Please tell me you've never heard of Bill Hicks. You have a world of funny awaiting you.

Booze free weekend, so off for a few pints with the boys.

1. Say it's not their fault. 2. Get them doing something practical. Repaint a room or mow the lawn. 3. It's up to you. I've known relationships bounce back from infidelity. But only when the guilty party volunteers a confession. In general I think once infidelity happens, you're borked. But I guess it depends on the people concerned. 4. If they're staying together my instinct would be to get on with it asap. Don't let the damage heal as a scar. If they aren't then talk to the lawyers. But I'm quite fanatical when it comes to affairs of the heart.

This is why you should either live close to your parents or find a domestically inclined girl. That's why you keep a few mars bars and rehydration salts handy.

Friends don't let friends play NWN 1. ~~ I've been reviewing documentation today, with the help of this music I feel epic.

"Let's get you out of those clothes..." "Saucy!" "No, it's just that you look ludicrous."

Proof that Russia has gone back to the time of the Czars. 'Potemkin' houses at Sochi:

Your cardinal mistake is assuming this is you being 'weak' - a trait concept - rather than a problem with your mental model of the NPCs. 99% of the time I sue the following to govern NPCs. Remember you need to work out a lot of this in advance. Either specific to one individual, or a group of people. 1. What is the long term goal of the NPC? - Wealth? Power? Love? Pies? 2. How are they currently trying to get to their long term goal? - Setting fires around the city? Working at the carwash? Wooing a prince? 3. If something goes wrong they will basically do one of three things: carry on as before (even though its not working), attack the source of the problem, give up and flee, or come up with some new plan. - I generally select which of the above by having them make and intelligence check of some kind, followed by a willpower/charisma check. If you've understood what I'm driving at, and you seem like a bright chap, then you'll work out how that last dice roll works by yourself!

AMC will feel the wrath of Walsingham. I'm like Bin Laden up in here. Bored rich kid. All I need is an excuse, yo. ...Was that racist?

Kroney, I'm 100% behind your last post. My point wasn't that the WHO are going to send healthtroopers into my fridge. My point is that there is an overall trend among the trans-national super-bureaucracies towards intervention under the banner of health. Expensive and wasteful research like that in the OP are just the excuse. The real motivator is that it gives the bureaucrats themselves a mandate for continued employment and budgets. I'm not saying you can't have state-funded healthcare. I'm saying that the objective can't be 'better' health for everyone. That's a mission which cannot end.

May I suggest you rename the PC 'Old Yeller' on your network?

I like the idea that posing like that is a habit that's hard to shake, like ex-military not putting their hands in their pockets. So Hurlie's wife stands that way next to the refrigerator, stove, and breakfast table on a regular morning.

I am now at the stage where the only time I smoke is to annoy non-smokers. True story.