Walsingham

Boy, it's a good thing another mod got here first. I nearly toasted you for being a bot! My apologies, but we're a might twitchy round these here parts. Sounds interesting, do keep us posted.

I'd rather play in a slightly duff system that was imaginative and personal, than an impersonal off the shelf system. Speaking purely personally.

While I agree with the sentiment, Cyric, there is the fact that our entire species may well have achieved its dominance through genocide of the neanderthals. Moreover, that every culture that I can think of has practiced it at one time or another. This suggests to me that while it is unarguably repellent could it be necessary? A disquieting thought...

I feel compelled, moreover, to observe that making your own pyrotechnics is a) damned dangerous b) In the UK likely to get you a free ride in a police car

I should clarify my previous post to say that as ~Di points out, what did he THINK was going to happen if he goosed Uncle Sam? A pat on the head and a girl scout cookie?

That sounds incredible. I'm totally going to Alaska just to try it.

I thought the problem was that drug addicts steal the money needed to buy the drugs they want. Who's to say they wouldn't continue to steal the money needed to buy the drugs they want, then buy the drugs legally? By giving them the drugs for free, there's no reason for them to steal. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Give that man a state-funded coconut. That is precisely the crux of my crime-reducing argument.

And back on topic, gentlemen?

I don't think it's pompous. It's not like the regular forumites have acccess to the mod NSA files. Wait, I shouldn't have said that out loud. Here, everyone. Look at this pen, and smile for the birdie.

Thanks but umm... Can I play Gears of Wars on goat? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, but you can play 'God Save the Queen'.

It wasn't Azarkon, and nor was I accurately representing his ability to spell. I apologise.

I hope you receive a goat. And that goat is totally non-flammable.

I disagree, if we explode it rather than burning it, then the goat builders have won. We essentially admit our civilisation is unable to burn a goat, which is just embarassing. I refuse to believe this of Western Civilisation, that gave us the machine gun, the nuclear bomb, and the vindaloo.

I think it's fairly obvious that they will try to set a high tariff on the crime, since this is one where a penalty may be seen as a deterrent. Such a high penalty can also be used to frighten later defendants into plea bargaining. Which in a hard to prosecute case like hacking, is no bad thing.

I think it depends on the instance. We are born with most of our liberties held either by the state or our parents. The situation becomes more complex as we move into school, and some of our liberties are taken/transferred to the teachers, and anyone larger and meaner than we are. We then become teenagers and begin demanding them back. Some of these demands are met. Some of these demands are NOT met with derision. So practically and chronologically speaking I'd say I won my liberties from a lot of people/organisations, including the state. Philosophically speaking, and removing the time element, however, I'd say we are in constant tension with the state. It is a negotiation that begins with neither and both holding ALL the liberties.

Yes, but I still think it's as if they

Do they have any idea how bad an idea it is to say 'this goat is completely not flammable'? Hell, I immediately thought of a couple of ideas. 1) Up the oxygen (already suggested) 2) Use a second chemical treatment to transform the existing treatment into something flammable. 3) Use thermite. 4) Explode the goat. 5) All of the above. Re-treat the goat, salt it with thermite charges, then introduces a lot of oxygen via gas canisters at once, and ignite using teh thermite at a safe distance. Although I'd have thought the Finns would already be on this.

[Obi-wan] There are alternatives to fighting... [/obi-wan]

If I may interject, and frankly the board lets me do so ( ) then I'd say we've got two analogies for the body politic. On teone hand I'd say Azarkon is saying you can treat your country like a pizza. It comes as whole, but if there's something on there like shrimp you can pull them off and eat the rest. ~Di seem to be implying that your country is like a gobstopper. You can't pick out things in it that you don't like. You just have to suck on it, and grimace if you come across something that disagrees with you. You either do that or spit the whole thing out. I hope neither of these analogies comes across as condescending to either viewpoint. However, I would say personally that the former is a fallacy springing from our capitalised consumer-oriented upbringing. We are used to 'having it our way'. But the reality is that our country is much more like a gobstopper. And just in case you are wondering, yes it is lunchtime, and I haven't even had breakfast. :D

Good idea. It's probably more of a surprise when the frogs arrive by post with instructions that unless they are consumed posting privileges will be disabled.

You forgot the frog eating.

I think Pop makes an interesting point, but as a decision maker we surely have to consider utility in our lawmaking. We could outlaw everything nasty in the world. But how in God's name could we enforce all those laws? I can outlaw thinking mean or racist thoughts, but what's the point? Govt isn't just about principle, it's about what's achievable. I'm not going to debate the possibility of somehow halting illicit drug taking if we oriented our entire society on that purpose, but as we stand it's just not feasible. We're already pushing the limits of what many people find acceptable intrusion in trying to halt it. As for your point Gfted, however wittily put , the cost of giving heroin away really is absolute peanuts. I'll reiterate for those sitting in the cheap seats, it costs less than 100 dollars to 'feed' the worst addict on Earth for a year. In fact if we grew the stuff without disruption it ought to be cheaper than wheat flour. Are you seriously telling me that you wouldn't like to see reduction in jail populations, and more free time for our cops to prosecute things like murder (not to mention less crimes in general) for such a trifling sum? Not to mention, as I said previously the benefits to our war on terror, and the weakening of oppressive regimes worldwide? I apologise for sounding incredulous and patronising, but I really just don't get it. :">

I mentioned this thread to a chap I met on the train who was in the Forces, and his response was to the effect that people were very happy to criticise a) those nasty men with the guns and b) a foreign policy that was focussed on improving domestic circumstances But you somehow never saw them relinquishing the benefits of the state they were in. This argument echoes Al Qaida statements that all US/Uk citizens are guilty of the 'crimes' of our governments. In short, criticising the soliders for not quitting the Army is no different to you being criticised for not leaving teh country. I have my own views on this argument, but I promised him I'd put it to you.

Make sure you learn your maths or languages and get assigned rear echelon roles.

I'm not saying you're daft, but come on. We have tried the War on Drugs. Nice plan. Didn't work. Carrying on with our heads in the sand is costing everyone needlessly.