Walsingham

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbc7/listenagain/thursday/rams/1830.ram Many of you will already be familiar with The Man Who Was Thursday from the game Deus Ex, which exploits quotes from it. Many others will know the author G.K. Chesterton. However, it really has to be heard in toto before it can be truly understood. A huge rolling expanse of genius, with bomb-throwing, terrorism, and fat men dashing about amongst policemen and steam trains. The above link is only going to work until next Thursday, so get cracking!

.223 ...With that automatic extractor action revolvers are famous for. And why would .223 rounds be bumping around Iraq?

Owie! You're right!

Wait. by 'track' do you mean as in the kill chain? Aaaagh! the USAF want to kill Santa!

I think Trueneutral's got a point up to a point. Your fans are going to pick up on maybe some key features, but surely the whole point about YOU being the creative geniuses is that you are more imaginative and perceptive than they are. You'll be aware or at least compelled by subtexts they will miss completely because they are gameplaying apes. An example of this from another genre is films. Specifically the Matrix. They made the sequels from a fanboy distilled essence of the original that was to the first film what bovril is to steak.

This is driving me nuts now. Can someone tell me what calibre those bullets are?

The US is not a literal Democracy. It is a Representative Democracy and a Constitutional Republic. You can argue that this is still "as closely as possible" but I will argue that it is far from being reasonably referred to as a consensus. I accept this and counter with a "yeah, but we're talking about practical policy" for +2 dmg.

I too was baffled by white supremacists use of the terms 'aryan' and 'caucasian' ...until I thought "Hey, these are white supremacists! Why am I expecting them to make sense?"

I believe anew!

Tale, I am not objecting to your definition, merely challenging it... The point of democracy is to permit the law to represent as closely as possible the consensus of morality. Therefore and I think I am paraphrasing Ben Franklin here, to break the laws of a dictatorship is of no consequence to the individual besides the threat of punishment, whereas participation in a democracy makes you bound by its laws by morality also. Of course that in turn raises the question of where our immigrants stand. I would suggest that since they are breaking the laws of the country they are attempting to live in, and that country is a democracy, then they are committing a moral offence. However, my objection is to Sando's absolutist nonsense that this puts them on a moral par with gibbon-botherers and mountebanks. This in turn influences the position I believe the state should adhere to, which is adherence to the law - mediated by a humane temperance in judgement and sentencing.

OK, now you're sounding like an 18th century British magistrate. ...In a Mel Gibson movie. Remember I'm not saying society has to accept laws being broken. I am saying, however, that what a man does to feed himself and his family is rarely evil.

I think Pop got it right. I'm not saying PETA should be muzzled <sic>, just that they should be ruthlessly ignored. Although I am slightly impressed on reflection that for once they're harassing a major terrorist organisation rather than rich old ladies. I'd like to see them fling paint at their leaders in Paris! Obviously gradualism is worthwhile in even the most extreme situations. I often recall the example of a soldier who handed out lipstick to the survivors of Bergen-Belsen. When I first hieard this I thought it was grotesque. But it turns out that this simple luxury and emasure of control made a massive difference psychologically. However, PETA act as if they are the most crucial campaign on the planet, and I'm utterly tired of people who empathise more with animals than their fellow human beings.

Great (and old) spoof on how the media reacts to war. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvyX-CwHpAQ

It seems extraordinary to me - and on this occasion I am not suggesting I am right - that anyone could view a government that does nothing at such a crucial moment in the nation's history as a good thing! I was raised on statesmen like William Pitt, Benjamin Disraeli, Nye Bevan, Winston Churchill. Statesmen who used their authority to steer the ship of state, not sit drinking mai tais on the sundeck.

Would you expect the national chiropractor's association to comment on how bad he is, instead? Seems a bit outside their sphere. My point precisely. I am commenting on the wider issue of how asinine PETA's mission is in the context of the far greater evils afoot in the world.

It's like staring at Godzilla rampaging across downtown Tokyo and saying "You know, I don't think posture's very good." As he chews up a power station. I'm talking priorities here. EDIT: or criticising the unrestricted trade in arms because it is untidy.

Long long day staring at simultaneous equations, like a man trying to unknot spaghetti by blinking.

NO time to assist, I'm afraid. Good luck with your masters.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6948738.stm PETA speaks out against Hamas' treatment of animals. The terrifying thing is that in many people's minds this is a clearer moral issue than terrorism.

More precisely, I'm going to go with 7.62x45 Czech. http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm

Cant wins.

Discussion today: W. What are we playing next week? J. We could play Royal Navy. W. I know this one! Is that where we have a ****tail party and mock the French?

They need to be controlled. Anything that destoys moral on the home front should be omitted. Truth of whatever negative situation that happened can come to light after the war. Just look at Vietnam. News people sticking their nose where it doesn't belong cause moral issues at home, leading to war protesters and riots. That's a good example, if a tricky one in my mind. On the one hand the war was lost by a loss of civilian morale. But at the same time it was lost by diastrous and wrong-headed strategy and tactics. Facts that were accurately reported. My feeling is that the public reacted wrongly. Rather than fixing the damn problem they upped and quit.

I'm purely guessing here, but isn't that a mint condition 5.56 on the left and mint soviet 7.62 on the right? In any case Aram is right they must have been dropped. Besides which what's the news here? It's like reporting snow in the Arctic. Unless the point is to highlight that occasionally civilians make up stories. Have I ever told you about the time Jacques Chirac broke into my bathroom and ate half the soap? EDIT: In fact they're clearly both the same claibre. But I'm still saying 7.62 soviet.

Geee. And here's me thinking it was the primary source of power into the Earth's eco-system.