Posts by stephen walker
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
going anywhere else and sniffing at the natives.
oh no, we woudn't want to criticize the US, no, no, no. I mean, it would be so...hypocritical, you know, because we're...well, we're not perfect. In fact, we're totally... f***ed up. So you just quieten down, you antipodean rabble...otherwise we might get to see the business end of an ICBM. HA!
-
but came across this interesting comment in the readers' feedback to the story on Stuff
OMG! Amongst all the dross in those readers' feedback/your views pages, someone is actually doing the journalists' job for them.
How terribly Web 2.0
Another nail in the coffin... -
IO,
I totally agree. The litmus test is:
Is the user controlling the drug or the drug controlling the user?meth, freebase, sugar, television, nicotine:
the latter seems prevalent... -
(InternationalObserver, this comment is in no way trying to have a go at you)
I cannot fathom how people can even mention crystal methamphetamine and MDMA in the same sentence.
Mild use of crystal methamphetamine results in:
1. Narcissism
2. Lots of boring monologues
3. Higher metabilism and the possibility of weight loss
4. Sleep becoming unimportant
5. Lack of empathy
6. Obsessive behaviorsMild use of MDMA results in:
1. Lots of hugs
2. Permanent grin
3. Strange sweating and the need to drink lots of water
4. Putting on and taking off ones jumper often
5. Lots of empathy
6. Temporary destruction of egoAbuse of crystal methamphetamine may result in:
1. Loss of teeth and bone structure
2. Paranoia
3. Mindless violence
4. PsychosisAbuse of MDMA may result in:
1. Depression
2. ???The former is a psychostimulant and the latter a psychotropic.
-
But the reality is that [capitalism]'s just a glorified pyramid marketing scheme that can't sustain itself.
Bingo.
And well before it runs out of low-wage countries to exploit, there is the little problem of finite resources. On top of that, overcomplexity introduces the risk of sudden and massive systemic failure.
A key prerequisite of the current flavour of capitalism is never-ending economic growth over the medium-to-long term. When resource depletion curtails this relentless growth drive, the interest-bearing-debt-based financial pyramid scheme will collapse. As the flow of available resources ebbs, the economy must shrink. You can't fight the laws of thermodynamics (even if neoclassical economists believe substitution can keep the growth game going forever).
-
In the 1987 election, Galloway won Glasgow Hillhead from Roy Jenkins with a majority of 3,251. Re-elected in 1992.
In the 1997 and 2001 elections Galloway was the Labour candidate for the seat of Glasgow Kelvin, winning with majorities of over 16,000 and 12,000 respectively.
Um, so Glasgow is a suburb of London?
You might not want to say that too loudly at Celtic Park. The Bhoys might not see the funny side... -
They've forgotten the outcome of the '80s as well. After all, Reagan and Thatcher won the Cold War. Stupid as it sounded at the time, their foreign policy worked. So might Bush's. So might Blair's.
This is a piss-take, right?
Wahahahaha!!!
Such cunning use of dark irony!
Aaahhh, y'not joking? Oh. I see.Here's a few more screamers, then:
- A war criminal is still a war criminal, whether he is "elected" or not (I thought we figured that one out at Nuremberg). Even Blair's best mate, Lord Goldsmith, thought he was a war criminal, and had to cover it up.
- "the outcome of the '80s" was 11 September 2001. duh. And Saddam Hussein. duh. ad infinitum.
- Bush and Blair's criminal foreign policy working? Of course it's working. duh. Projection of racist power and massive enrichment of criminal corporate henchmen. Working like a treat, actually. -
Sigh ... Phil Wallington has now weighed in on the Press Council story, declaring ""That article was absolutely fine - it's freedom of speech".
is this guy the worst media commentator RNZ has ever dug up, or what?
nine-to-noon is bad enoughas it is...
-
I think I put a little more stock in the New England Journal of Medicine than you, Eleanor.
why? because they have got a nice fancy name and web site?
the summary you linked to is exactly as Eleanor said: three boys have been observed. this is not a sample size capable of generating any kind of probability confidence, it's a glorified anecdote.
-
Are you saying that science denies the existence of anything that lacks a complete explanation of its behaviour?
Are you saying that science makes absolutist statements?
can you please provide the quotes where I said anything of the sort? I would politely ask that you stop making stuff up, thanks.
Science can claim to have a monopoly on solutions because it is prepared to take on information from all sources.
this looks like a tautology to me: if something works, then it must be science. except that, who decides what works (scientifically proven to work better than chance)? so much of what works or doesn't is either disputed (data/methodology) or subject to a constantly changing consensus (interpretation) that your statement starts to look a bit hollow.
IMHO, there are countless things that work, which have never been accepted by Western scientifically based medicine.