Walsingham

Well, I'm still intending to check the rules on what the House of Commons will allow.

I still say that the best thing for English football would be if we had a really REALLY bad couple of years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7101689.stm German authorities y'know, stop a school shooting.

More like Chaotic lawful if you ask me. *Nerd Zing*

Whuh? Going around? Preying? Kick? You sure you don't want to change your moniker to Judge Dredd?

That's just the language you made up when you were working your way around Europe.

I was looking for MST3k videos, and got offered this tailored ad for... http://qbcdiagnostics.com/site/index.php?m...=page&id=16 a malarial diagnostic machine. WHO IMPULSE BUYS MALARIAL DIAGNOSTIC MACHINES ONLINE?

Having 'effectors' [iain M Banks] which altered physical characteristics would permit real showing off with a physics engine.

It's only the second time I've played it. The only reason I can see for doing it more often is to get a gun that is better than a brown bess musket.

Or they could use some roleplaying to come up with new ways to approach the problem. Do they REALLY have to kill the guuy? If they do, can't they poison him? Or dig a heffalump trap? Or play really bad music outside his castle until he goes crazy and surrenders?

There's a whole galaxy full of boobs and I wasn't invited?! ...I am worse off, I had been invited but then they threw me out! Anyway, glad I raised this. I see what you mean about style being important, rather than just function. Little pecadillos in style make all the differencee. In the same way that trousers have been trousers for the last 100 years, but a-line flared trousers with pockets in the knees are a novelty. My point about there being, say kinetic melee weapons is true, but tonking something with a sledgehammer is tactically basically the same as a sword, but still somehow more entertaining. The D-gun point also made me think that you're talking about a whole class of 'weapons' that work by altering the characteristics of a thing, to make it heavier, or lighter (how hilarious would that be? Zapping some cyborg and see it bob off into the air like a balloon at the State fair?). You could strengthen molecular bonds to make things tougher, but less animate, or weaken the same bonds to release their energy and make them explode!

Your point would be worth considering were the war justifiable or not. Indeed, one could argue that if it WERE justifiable that would make it even more effective as an advertisement for shooting people you didn't like. My objection to this idea is the notion that people take their moral cues from government. If they did I doubt we should ever have experieenced anything except the most grotesque offences against each other.

I went paintballing yesterday and am now all bruises. Not from the paintballs, but from crashing into the ground, and trees. It's amazing how one doesn't realise how badly hurt one is at the time. Got chatted up in the pub yesterday by a rather gorgeous brunette, and fixed a date for Tuesday. I deduce from this that I am most sexy when I have mud in my hair and am limping.

Firstly I like to complain about the lack of judgemental arrogance. Could we please have more? More judgemental arrogance I say! I agree with ~Di that parenting is not an exact science. I don't think it makes any sense based on the scanty 'evidence' available that the kid's parents were over-protective. It sounds to me like with regard to the internet they took sensible protections. We have no idea how they treated their kids outside the internet. They could have sent her out to sweep chimneys. In any case, as I say, the point is that they behaved responsibly. This is not to say that some parents appear to cause problems by being too protective. But who can say for sure? I mean, my parents were pretty good, took me into bloody warzones and made sure I brushed my teeth etc etc, and look at me!

@ Gothic 3, which I found aggressively tedious. I figured that the content would liely be the biggest issue, and (fanboy alert) this is also what makes Obs games absolute class for me. I love the content. I suppose in general one would only have two options to get ahead in this area. The first would be to acquire content in a cheaper way taht ran in parrallel to mainstream plot, perhaps by way of fan based subsidiary quests, characters and dialogue. Unfortunately this might compromise quality. The second option which might be interesting is to use a mental toolkit to be creative and efficient about content. Something like what TRIZ does for creative engineering. Basically ways to accelerate the process of having a cool idea, and expand it to take in further notions and ideas. I'd been thinking about this for a while and was thinking that basic quests tend to adhere to some simple rules of architecture. However, I'm hardly a world class dev, so I wonder how this sounds to you guys.

Fair point. Maybe it's just cause I'm tired, but it does make a difference if guns are REALLY easy to get hold of. I just don't see the solution as being about total banning of guns. Such a soluution punishes people who wouldnever harm someone with a firearm, and fails to tackle the heart of the matter with connection to crimes of passion and insanity. The former should be dealt with by better spiritual training, and the latter by more effective psychiatiric care.; both in society as a whole, not just gun owners. With regard to spiritual training, I'm going to be really unpopular and ask what effect a spiritual diet of nothing but NWN2 would have on a kid.

Interesting piece, covering something I was already tracking. My view (which is also in the article) is that a surge in violence is pretty predictable. 1. Sadr was a real second stringer, who capitalised on his father's (seemingly justified) reputation, and then capitalised on the dissatisfaction of young shiite men to from a party with a militant agenda using the gun. 2. Sadr wants to be taken seriously as a politician, and is now bargaining for a senior place at table by promising an end to violence. The trouble is the young men are even angirer now, because y'know, they just spent the last three years blowing up their own country and scaring away jobs. 3. Sadr seems to be clearing house, and may be using this time to remove people strong enough to claim his role as leader on a 'kill everyone' ticket. 4. If the above is correct then we have to look for Sadr to win his murderous purge. Isn't politics fun? EDIT: A similar dynamic is at play in Nigeria with the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta. A brokered ceasefire has provoked a splinter group to hive off and commence bombing again. POST-EDIT: And before that we saw something similar with the Real IRA, or as I like to call them: I Can't Believe It's Not Murder. ~~ I would also like to retract my use of the word 'jackass' to describe Sand. Simply because a man does not accept second order dynamics, and doesn't listen to a word I've said does not give me the right to be insulting. I apologise for my tone, but stand by my objection. 'Truth' does not excuse hammering on a family's heartache.

I agree with this sentiment. I'm a little surprised that anyone would view this with what sounds like pseudo-Drawinian satisfaction. I've seen the strongest people being weak at one time or another. It happens. I don't think it's wise to push people when they're in that state. On the other hand, and linking to GD's observation, this sounds like another kid trying to shore up their own insecurities. With such a rapid transition from gleeful to zero they probably had no idea how seriously they were affecting her, rather than this being bullying in the classic sense. As for making a law for it, given I don't think there's any culpability that would seem nonsensical.

Matters personal.

Prank responses are better. Obvious salesperson caller (bored): "Hello, may I speak to Mr Soandso" Me (Deep Scots accent): Was that Colonel Sonandso?" Caller: "Mr Soandso, the head of the household." Me "Aye, ye might call him that. I'll put you through." *long pause on hold* Me (very posh English): "Yes? Colonel Soandso speaking" Caller: "Hello Mr Soandso..." Me: "That's colonel..." Caller: "I'd like to talk to you about double glazing." Me (cross): "Look, who is this? Where are you calling from?" Caller: I'm calling from Thisandthat glaziers, to discuss our winter deals. Me: And how did you get this number? Caller: Erm... we have a list we call through. Me: And you got MY number through this list? Caller: Yes Me: And you have no idea WHERE you've rung, do you? Caller: Not really Me: Look, I'm too busy to clean this up right now. I want you to go and speak your supervisor when this is over and have this number erased from your list PERMANENTLY. This facility should certainly not be on a bloody double glazing sales list. Apart from anything else we're underground. Is that clear? Caller (scared): Yes. Absolutely. I'm very sorry. Me: You came through directly or were you transferred? Caller: I was transferred. Me (with deep disgust): Huh. *I hang up.* *We receive no more calls from this company* The above works especially well if you can field it through several people. The best wheeze is to have each person transfer the caller curtly without really finding out what they want, and punting them through a sequence of seceretaries/ guard rooms first.

Points well taken. I know and accept that any government mandated system is likely to wind up being administered by cretins and thereby fail, but it has to be worth trying? I suggest we bring in Fionavar as Fio strikes me as someone who knows this kind of thing. There again, maybe the real point I'm driving at is the general principle of educating the population at large that violence isn't the way forward in most situations. Failing that, the notion that gun violence isn't the way. If you HAVE to hurt people don't kill the swine.

GD you make an interesting point. It does indeed suggest that there is a significant difference between legal and illegal gun owners. Would you happen to know how many offenders are repeat criminal offenders? I'm beginning to think that maybe the answer is legal ownership if done in conjunction with lessons in responsible use and anger management, possibly adding in non-firearms self-defence. Thoughts?

Thanks for taking the trouble to explain your views so clearly and logically, Azarkon. It's a pleasure to read. Unfortunately, you've given me a lot to chew over and I'm not ready to respond yet. I do, however, disagree that partition is the solution, after getting partway througha number of books I've been given by Alex de Waal. He talks about the history of conflict in the Sudan. He observes that although a north/south split is what everyone is pursuing, it really fails to account for the myriad east/west and patchy local conflicts. Divide to make peace and you'll end up with an unworkable mess. [assuming I've correctly understood him] To a certain extent I think he would argue in favour of 'growing up' a little. What is needed is a pinch of federalism, combined with a heck of a lot of tough the **** up. Sacrifices are needed to get through this, including the sacrifice of short term interests. An often universally repeated truth, viz British efforts to make peace in Northern Ireland. Sand, we've already taken apart your bizarre notion that only money spent within the geographic boundaries of the US benefits the US. The whole point about 9/11, and Pearl Harbour, and the sinking of the Lusitania before that, is that things outside the US affect the US. If Iraq goes down the tubes, and the entire region begins taking weekly nuclear jihad classes your domestic issues will seem pretty small beer. In any event, I still say it would kinder to at least mention the reasons why their sons may NOT have died in vain. It's called compassion.

Nice to see you doing your bit to help them with their grief, jackass. For a man who has claims a quasi-religious mission to keep his nose out of other people's affairs you don't seem to practice what you preach. If I can stick with the training I'm due to get posted in about year's time, and if I die I can tell you right now it won't be in vain unless people like you have their way. It is neither sane nor moral to write off the agony of a nation over a quibbling point of order. Or am I appealing to a Christian principle of assisting those who are weak and in pain, which you contend is evil?