Walsingham

http://yorkshire-ranter.blogspot.com/2007/...d-european.html Assuming we can trust someone called 'The Yorkshire Ranter' this article would suggest that each of the points you mention were counter-factual. We reeceived schizophrenic political support, the use of Ascension was moot, as was the provision of AIM-9L sidewinders, and we never got use of the satellites. I'm not anti-French, but I might point out that given this was an attack on a NATO member the French could have done a lot more. Presumably they were hoping to get big arms sales off the back of any war.

Mkreku: the Obsidian fora strategic testosterone reserve.

I agree that the negative comments were just stupid. But don't you think the kid deserves a break? I mean to hunt something like that one shot one kill you'd need ...I dunno. A whaling harpoon?

I agree. Steve, as I've said before, if Birvana is good, then I ain't going there until we can ALL go! But as an incentive the first round will be on me! This was a typo. I should not have 'Birvana'. I personally aspire to Beervana. A state of obliviousness caused by the imbibing of overstrength ales.

Am I right, fellahs? I mean am I right?

They did? I thought we only won because they helped us... Helped us? What?

I thought now might be a fun time to discuss the Falklands war, partly because of a comment by SteveThaiBinh which I will post below, and partly because of the recent discoveries of oil nearby and the renewed sabre rattling by the Argentines. It is important to know that of the five factual bets I've ever made about the Falklands war I've only won one.

Gorgon, again I was less than clear, although in this case it was because I am trying to keep the size of my posts down. I had also heard that the current cost of execution is higher than incarceration. However, that is a function of the process we use for completing the justice process, not a function of - as Sand so quaintly puts it - moving a nickel chunk of lead through somebody's head. Clearly, as others have noted here, the costs associated in the US are a function of our placing a large premium on preventing an innocent from being over-punished. However, what I think we've caught in this discussion is the feeling that we are not placing a high enough premium on the damage caused to innnocents by a subject being under-punished. Thus I would be interesed to compare the number of 'wrongful killings' associated with the UK (i.e. victims of repeat offenders) versus a no-nonsense rough figure of how many 'wrongful killings' occur in the US (i.e. men/women convicted on partial evidence).

I agree. Steve, as I've said before, if Birvana is good, then I ain't going there until we can ALL go! But as an incentive the first round will be on me!

I am sorry. I should have been more clear. I mean that - assuming execution is cheaper - in certain extreme cases it would make very good sense to complete an execution and use the saved money on alleviating the victims' suffering. By extreme cases I suppose I mean instances where an individual has been convicetd on the strength of multiple strands of evidence, and with a fast track review by a higher court. How DO you define 'bloody obvious he did it'?

Whatchit, mush. Or you're banned.

I keep meaning to read that book by the sole survivor of Marc Dutroux's merry band - I choose to live EDIT: Actually not the sole survivor. Can anyone read the following and tell me that the finite resources of the State should be spent on the minimal chance of reforming this character instead of spending the same money on his victims? High security costs tens of thousands a month. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3522367.stm

Wait. Let me get this straight... if I give up everything I enjoy then I _don't_ get eternally reborn? Whuh?

Just rewarded a very hard day's work with some Goose Green pale ale. In addition to having the same name as a battle in the Falklands war* it's absolutely delicious! One of the top five I've ever had. And that statement doesn't come easily. *You yanks ratted us out to the bloody Argentines in that one, but don't worry I'm sure that's aprt of the special relationship or something.

It's strikes me that you should have echeloned testers.

It's a badalganza!

I've just read the article and my conclusions are totally different. It sounds pretty reasonable, all told. Although I'm not convinced I'll enjoy it, it doesn't sound dumb.

I don't think I could do that, after all the horror films I've seen. I assume you were stalked by a psychopath who was eaten by zombies who were the undead remains of German POWs who were driven off by the ghosts of teenagers drowned by the former owner of the cottage who you were obliged to explode by luring him into the kitchen of the cabin and setting off the gas cylinders. Leaving you to walk wearily into the nearest town barefoot and singed, ending everything on a corny one-liner.

I think it cheats a ot of the experience as I say. We were playing a very fine Cthulhu adventure this evening set in WW1 and were being advanced upon by a strange skeleton thing. Having dispatched one previously with copious firepower we were grimly reloading and muttering to on eanother what we could do. Suddenly one of the party shouts "I'm going at him with my rifle butt. RAAAGH!" There's a moment of stunned silence and I shout "Come on then, you slugs!" and charge after him. Shortly to be followed by the rest of the squad. The first fighting went predictably badly, with no damage done by us. The return was two lots of claw lacerated innards. The point being we figured we were certain dead, knowing the referee wouldn't cheat to save us from what was a silly but altogether good roleplayed charge. Then in the second round the plucky but weedy feller who started the charge tried to grapple this flipping beast! Hilariously he actually succeeded in his roll with a critical. He successfuly swarmed over it and just grabbed its arms into a full nelson. Anyway I followed up with a double critical using my rifle butt and knocked it's head clean off. You've not heard such a hearty cheer in a long while. If the above incident had been done with a kinder referee there would have been far less payoff for getting away with it.

Marylebone?

Cigarettes are kinda essential if you're addicted to them. But I don't think I'd spot someone cash just because I worked in a store. That's bananas!

I did make that distinction, but you make a good point. Is an anthill artificial?

Sorry yes. my move: Loitering on the steps of Kings Cross

I for one welcome the representative of our abusive 'mother'. Mother nature started the fight for survival and now she wants to quit just because she's losing?

I'd like to apologise for this. It's just wrong on so many levels.