Walsingham

It's a lie! He says that then starts blubbing like a toddler!

Don't forget to drink our far superior beer when you get to London.

Like hurlshot I too have experience of actually teaching kids and perhaps this is why I agree with him. It's the difference between being in prison and being a prison guard. Firstly a really expert bully can subdue not just a class of fifty, but can (by franchising and various other methods) extend that fear over groups of up to 2000 kids. I've seen this in action. Certainly part of the equation is to have individual targets defend themselves when attacked. This is the equivalent of the 'armed village' concept . But unless you intend for every person passing trhough the school to spend time buffing up when they are really are there to study then you need to dismantle the bullying apparat. I could go on all day (and there's no guaranteeing I won't) about the process of dismantling a bully. But suffice to say that I have done so on at least one occasion without so much as a cracked knuckle. Unfortunately the methods I used were far too devious for the UK - a number of lies and misinformation were used - and would almost certainly have got me fired if I'd done so in the UK. However, the bullies themselves were by the end beginning to engage in class, and had more or less quit their shenanigans. This approach does not preclude toughening up the kids en route. But it is my belief that a stable secure foundation is the best environment in which to do that. As for net bullying being somehow evidence of a feeble victim I think you're misunderstanding the power of psychological warfare. Female bullying typically takes ONLY this form, but can still result in cripplingly low self-esteem, drug use, attempted suicide etc etc. This is particularly true of teenagers, who are usually extremely plastic in their attitudes towards themselves. They're trying to work out who they are and where they fit into life. If they spend five years being told they're scum and deserve to be abused, where do you THINK they will end up? However, like I say, you should really be asking yourself why bullies should enjoy the luxury of bullying, rather than why their victims should have the luxury of state defence.

Oh crabsticks. I thought we were playing something like canteen chess.

True. I confess I was being mendacious. I love that word.

I'm sure Meta will know which ancient philosopher we're mimicking!

I liked Viconia, and BG2 made me see Drow in a completely different light. I _DO_ recall Drizzt from BG1, and I tell you it was literally hatred at first sight. I spent more than 24 hours before I killed him. I din't even know if it was possible, but I stuck at it.

I haven't used any mods for it at all, and I'v eplayed BG1 through completely 3 times. Maybe I should mod up?

Got you, you swine! Stand still while I deploy this entirely fantastical planet destroying superlaser.

Not in my opinion. It's been my observation that folks as enjoy that theory cease doing so as soon as the inevitable meeting occurs 'twixt them and someone mightier than they are.

You say that like the two things might be unconnected!

Another thing that scared me was reading Hard Times, the John Constantine graphic novel. I sincerely can't think of many things more dreadful than going to a US federal penitentiary. Well, excepting maybe another country's penitentiaries.

I thought we were playing a different game. If it's this one then I'm in.

Volo, what you're talking about is great if you reckon we should live like apes! I was taught that a strong man doesn't just watch his own back. He stands up for others. I agree that bullies exist, and part of fighting them is getting tough. But equally some people find it hard to deal. My question is not "What right have people to expect to be defended?" My question is "What right do people have to bully?" You think Big Jimmy should be permitted to beat down and terrify someone just because they can? The converse argument a friend of mine uses is simply that if he sees anyone hurting someone just because they are able, then he goes and hurts THEM because he is able.

The US has (in theory) nearly two months worth of crude stockpiled, last time I checked. Definitely at least one month's worth.

Is that gap on the southwest section? If so I'm in for a nickel, and flop two bishops.

Eurocrats are roundly condemned by themselves above all as wasters, in my experience. However, I think that the lessson of the USA teaches us that centralised bureacuracies are like antlions. You can struggle all you like and you slide faster into the centre. Going back to the soldier what would your reaction be if Harry claimed that due to a legal technicality he wasn't going? Would we accord him the same generosity offerred to this bloke of Sand's? Interestingly, the last time I can recall teh Army letting a prince go on campaign in a colonial war It was the grandson of Napoleon. He too was in a cavalry recce section. They embarked on a foolhardy investigation of a kraal and were slaughtered.

Finches?

*half smile* I'm the one usually accused of pushing out the terrorism boat, but on this occasion we're pretty safe. Nuclear targets are naturally hardened, can be hardened further, and really remarkably robust. Modern plants contain enough safety features that deliberately precipitating an accident is almost impossible - which is not to say that someone like Iran might not have problems. Compare that to the safety of a gas pipeline/gas storage and things take on a different shade. I should add that I used to be in favour of diversifying into renewables and alternatives for the simple purpose of insuring against attack, and foreign strongarm tactics. Many diverse source sof power are more robust. However I've not seen a single set of figures that show how such means could power existing demand. People want power almost as much as they want bread in this day and age. No democratic government will ever survive voluntarily implementing a policy that resulted in brownouts or blackouts. I know that many people over forty in this country were suspicious of Labour until 2001 for this very reason.

Well it would be rather mean of me to wish otherwise, but you could try empathising with people who found it harder. I was a bully at prep school, and a victim of bullying when older. i found it far more distressing than any of the occasions where I was actually offered violence, theft, or other abuse ever since. I regard it as a fundamental target of civilisation that no-one should suffer from it.

Actually it's saying "What's in ham?"

I wouldn't for a moment argue that energy efficiency is an improvement we need to make. But I still don't see how we can have populations growing at the current rates, every head of which is using more and more powered gadgets, and not expect demand to increase. I should also say that so far as I can see the nuclear option - barring acts of terrorism - is pretty safe. It is also, as Meta says, very waste effiicient. Overall my point of view is that it is futile to expect a consumer oriented free market not to try and grow. And if the UK/US doesn't provide energy then producers and businesses will move overseas to countries like India and China that couldn't care less. Then what will we have? About as much hope of getting our good intentions affect the world arena as Lesotho.

Are we calling him the Black Prince now? When did that happen? Doesn't bode well, as the original Black Prince massacred thousands. I imagine he was willing to go to war when he signed up. The question was always whether sending him into combat, being such a celebrity and therefore a target, put him and his fellows in too much risk, i.e. they'd have to spend so much effort protecting him that they wouldn't be able to do the job they were there to do. I hope someone competent has made an objective assessment and decided that he'll do more good than harm. I hope the Royal Family hasn't just insisted that their boy should get what he wants regardless of the consequences. I actually dubbed him that. Remember you heard it here first. I think it suits him though. I know he's had a tough time, all told. But he is a bit of an idiot on occasion. . ...Come to think of it, I guess that makes me the Black Moderator. As for making him a target I don't think that is necessarily such a terrible thing. Knowing where an opponent will try and strike is half the job in counter-insurgency. Would _I_ enjoy being in his troop? Not bloody likely! However, you could at least rely on not being short of things like vests and rations. I think from the point of view of the monarchy itself I think it does a lot of good for them. However, it will be interesting to see how the Murdoch press twists this against them.

Back to the soldieer... I note our 'Black Prince' is off to Iraq: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6383747.stm As was said in the commentary to the article. "If he wasn't going to go to war he shouldn't have joined the Army."

Tremors = awesome. I don't think it's crazy. It's just open minded.