Posts by Rich Lock
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
And that was just page 1! Of 38.
Well, since he's on crutches, he probably doesn't have anything else to do other than rant away for 38 pages. Sitting around at home, watching Oprah, getting bored, needs to vent.
Oh, wait, I see what you meant. :)
It really, really tickled me that instead of just saying 'my cat has more sense', he went as far as to say 'My British Blue cat has more sense'. Like that makes all the difference.
'Well, if it were a persian or a long-hair, I'd disagree. But since it's a British Blue, I feel I must conceed the point'.
-
Something interestingfrom yesterdays Observer online.
Not posting for any specific reason, other than it seems relevant to the general discusson.
-
please, please, compliment me on my sincerity, and my effort, because, really, those things ought to count
Yes, bravo, Deborah. That crystallised a lot of half-formed thoughts that have been swirling around in my head for the last few days. Especially this bit.
I accept the Church's teachings.
Lets be clear about what that means. That means she regards homosexual sex as a sin. That means she regards the conception of my children as a sin. It means that there should be no abortion, no contraception, no divorce, unless the church gets to clip the ticket. There should be no marriage unless the marriage is between a man and a woman. The Catholic church is a very, very intolerant institution, and when pressed, Tess said that she subscribed to its teachings. So all that talk about the people in the pews, the ordinary Catholics, was a massive fudge.
As we used to say back in the day, maximum respect.
And I'd also like to give a, uh 'big shout out' (as I believe teh kidz say) to Gio's swan song a page or two ago.
-
I should clarify that I wasn't defending Chuck at all when I said we don't know what the jury thought. He was trying to link their lengthy deliberations to the possibility that the jury found him guilty because of the flick, not the punch.
Personally, my flabber was ghasted when the words 'punch', 'lightly' and 'face' were used in an approving context wrt an adult disciplining a small boy.
Seriously, wtf?
-
I don't think cocaine works as a nasal *de*congestant, somehow...
I understand that after some years of prolonged use, it can be quite effective, in the same way that scorched earth policies are quite effective at weed control.....
Which Devonport pharmacy are we talking about, though?
The snobby genteel one in the high street? Or the new grungy, sleazy one by the supermarket that I keep thinking is the $2 shop?
-
Which era ? Octopussy, Thunderball ?
Zardoz, of course.
-
There is a link between BDSM and having been lovingly smacked as a child, as you can read on The Yes Vote web site.
What it say on the yes vote webiste is:
Corporal punishment before age 12 significantly increases the probability of future verbal and physical sexual coersion [sic]
I suggest you learn the difference between 'coercion' and 'consensual' before you get yourself in a lot of trouble.
-
I think the fact the the two year old couldn't take the corner and hit his head shows that it wasn't the safest spot
How can I say this nicely without too much swearing?
Given the amount of [censored], lying, [censored] in that utterly vile article quoted by Scott, what exactly is it that makes you think the two-year old 'hit his head'.
I don't actually know the facts as presented in court, but it seems to me that a good guess would be that the only thing this two year old was 'hitting his head' on was his fathers fist.
-
The fact that education is a lifelong process encourages a certain humility about other people's mistakes.
I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make.
If you're trying to say that everyone makes mistakes and that they shouldn't be expected to carry the weight of those mistakes around for a lifetime, especially if they sincerely change their views, then I would agree. But it depends on the mistake, or more specifically, how big a doozy it is.
Wikipedia sums up 'The End of History' as follows:
[Fukuyama argues that] the progression of human history as a struggle between ideologies is largely at an end
He was 40 at the time that was published in 1992. That kind of grandiose, absolutist full-speed-ahead-and-damn-the-torpedoes, no-shades-of-grey-round-here-no-siree type of argument is what I'd expect from a teenager, and not a middle-aged academic.
It was also laughably absurd even at the time. For those who had eyes to see, there were the stirrings of a whole bunch of potentially extremist ideologies before and around the time of publication - they were right in his face if he'd not been ideologically blinded.
The Yugoslavian/Balkan wars had broken out in 1991.
Here's a handy timeline of terroist attacks on Americans in 1979, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1988.
The first World Trade Centre bombing was in 1993 - afterwards, but the roots of that sort of extremism were clearly evident beforehand.
I could go on and talk about internal, Michigan Militia'-type internal dissent in the US - the McVeigh bombing was not that long afterwards.
I could also slightly stretch a point and talk about the battles between globalisation protestors and 'The Man' which reached something of a peak at the 'Battle of Seattle' in 1999, but which were certainly evident back in 1992.
I've given examples of three ideologies which were evident at the time, any one of which could have got very nasty. As it turns out, one of them did. He didn't take into account any of them.
I'd say when you drop that sort of a clanger, a couple of decades in the wilderness is the least you can expect.
-
Why does god need armour? Being omnipotent you'd have thought she could just dodge?
Interesting philosphical question.
Can God, being all powerful an' that, make a bullet that will penetrate his/her own all-powerful armour?