Info and forum posts by 'biglebowski'
Joined on: Wednesday, 26th January 2005, 11:00, Last used: Tuesday, 3rd May 2011, 16:43
Access Level: Elite
About this user: This user has chosen not to submit a description :(
This user has posted a total of 1233 messages. On average, since joining, this user has posted 0.22 messages a day, or 1.51 messages a week. In the last 30 days, this user has posted 0 messages, which is on average 0 messages a day.
Recent Messages Posted:
I enjoyed it too. Really wish i had gone in there knowing nothing though. I reckon i would have absolutely loved it if i hadn`t known a lot of what was going to happen.
The funniest parts are definitely covered in the trailer, but there is enough extra stuff there to be entertaining.
Selective breeding, or inbreeding if you prefer, is a (relatively) natural process.
Well, i kinda understand what you mean, but (as your parentheses indicate) it is a fairly grey area.
Why is it natural to successively breed plants or animals (often making them very different from their origins), and unnatural to do effectively the same with biotechnology? Do you think we will reach a stage where we will consider such meddling "natural"?
As practices become the norm more and more we think of them of as natural. There is little natural about dying of natural causes. Actually that`s a terrible comparison, but you get what i mean i hope.
Genetic modification in its GM terms is fiddling around with the genome of the plant or animal chemically (and therefore unnaturally).
I think the specific term for this is genetic engineering.
In practical terms though, why is it considered completely safe to genetically modify plants and animals through selective breeding, while genetic engineering is considered a ticking time bomb?
I want carrots that are orange, red, yellow, long and straight, crooked, ugly.
Of course, the orange carrot is a genetically modified carrot introduced in the 1600`s.
We have been genetically modifying crops for centuries through selective breeding. Nobody seems to have had a problem with it.
What people seem to object to is genetically engineered food products. To use the same argument in medicine it would be like saying that altering a person`s health via external forces is evil, but to do it via surgery is wicked and wrong.
The offside rule shown is obviously written with the ball and players all in play
Before i saw this incident i would have agreed with you.
But according to the UEFA general secretary this rule was written so that it would apply to players not on the pitch.
"The goal was not offside because in addition to the Italian goalkeeper, there was another Italian player in front of the goal scorer. And even though that player at the time had actually fallen off the pitch, his position was still relevant for the purposes of the offside law," said UEFA general secretary David Taylor, quoting Law 11 in football`s rule book to justify referee Peter Frojdfeldt`s decision to award the goal.
"This is a widely known interpretation of the offside law among referees, but it`s not generally known among the wider football public."
Taylor said the law has to be applied this way otherwise teams could intentionally leave the field to catch opposing attackers offside.
"If you didn`t have this interpretation then what could happen is the defending team could use the tactic of stepping off the pitch deliberately to play players offside, and that clearly is unacceptable," he said.
Taylor said a similar incident occurred in a Swiss league match between Sion and FC Basel last season, causing the Swiss media to quickly realise that Monday`s incident was a valid goal.
"They understood the situation entirely clearly because they had this discussion about a month or two ago," Taylor said. "So, the Swiss media was very quickly onto this and said, `No, no, this goal was entirely, correctly, and validly awarded."`
But my point is that if the injured defender is very near the goal line, but off the pitch (as was the case) then the attacker is not "nearer to his opponents goal line than ....[the] 2nd last opponent".
The use of "between" is only a reasonable interpretation if you assume that both defender and attacker are on the pitch, which wasn`t the case.
This item was edited on Thursday, 12th June 2008, 14:13
as i said my gripe would be more than because of the place he was off the pitch how can he fulfil the role of a defender playing an attacker on side as the defenders must be "between ball and the goal line"
This isn`t what you quoted in the rules though. It doesn`t use the word "between" at all. It just says closer to the goal line than the defender.
I can see how people think that common sense should come into play when deciding whether a player is playing people onside.
But what about the common sense angle of the offside rule. I don`t think van Nistelrooy was remotely goal hanging (which as i understand it is the reason for the offside rule in the first place).
If the referee is expected to use common sense, rather than sticking to the letter of the law, then i reckon the goal would still stand for that reason.
Just did a sweepstakes here and i got the Netherlands.
Just looking through the teams and there`s not many booby prizes in there. Couldn`t write off any team really. That`s what it seems like anyway.
Missed this match but sounds like it was exciting.
Pretty harsh on Harlequins. At least they still have a chance to qualify for Europe though. Really highlights the madness of the Heineken cup qualifying rules though. The decision to give the extra space left by the Italians not entering should have been given to either the French or English league.
Now Newport Gwent Dragons have that spot, despite languishing third from bottom of the Magners league (with 34 points from 18 games). Craziness really.
Moreover since Ireland have 3 automatic places, then Ulster (second from bottom with 29 points) also have a place.
I can`t help but think that teams like Quins deserve a place more than either of the aforementioned sides.
Yup, what are we going to do now that the PC brigade have curbed our powers to strip search people in front of members of the opposite sex. This truly is the end of civilisation.
Just out of interest, how would you react if this was a female prisoner complaining about male officers being present during a strip search?
That link says
On ideal mooring in Lancashire with own garden
Forgive me for being slow, but does that mean there is land with it or is this a rooftop garden on the barge or something? Does it also mean that you don`t have to pay anything to moor it there?
Also, how where does waste go? I would have thought there would be laws against straight dumping into the river.
This item was edited on Monday, 21st April 2008, 19:00
I run my laptop off the mains a lot. I still get excellent battery life (it is about 18 months old now and i get 3.5 hours of word processing and even a small amount of statistical computing). Mine`s a Macbook, and according to a programme i have that monitors such things, the battery still has about 95% of it`s capacity available.
I second a laptop. It is really handy being able to just grab it and sit down on the sofa and watch tv. Okay, you have to plug in the mains adapter everytime, but that`s not so bad. Given the choice of one or the other i`d have to go for the laptop.
Just reading up about it. A few articles mention that every league and cup game for the past four years has been sold out at Welford road. That is impressive.
I kinda worry about the new Thomond. The Magners league is not attended nearly so well as the Heineken cup. Hopefully it won`t look terribly empty if only 10,000 show up for a given match.
What stage is it at?
And what capacity will it have?
I`ve had a pdf of some artistic impressions of what the new thomond will be like for those interested.
Here`s a crappy screenshot of one of them.
It`ll hold over 25,000.
I am the world`s best driver and am getting increasingly frustrated by the shortcomings of the drivers surrounding me.
My driving is so good, that the drivers around me are frequently compelled to celebrate my unrivalled driving prowess by honking their horns and flashing their headlights at me.
Is this like saying that tying a cat`s tail to a burning log isn`t illegal, because that specific torture isn`t mentioned in any lawbooks, but it would be against a law regarding animal cruelty.
So, there is no law saying you can`t drink a soft drink while driving, but there is a law saying both hands must be on the wheel at all times, unless you`re changing gear or something.
I`m fairly sure i`m not following the argument here.
Okay. Why are you not hounding her for the lottery numbers?
If i met someone who could predict the future like that, i don`t think i`d leave it at them guessing my kids birthday. I`d want to know as much as possible about it. I`d want to find out the limit of their powers so that i knew what i could reasonably expect them to answer correctly.
Are you doing this?
In that scenario,to suggest they have stooges, listening to the audience in the bar or the auditorium, is to suggest everyone will talk about their grandad in the correct terms.
No. If that is how they are getting their information all they need is a handful of the audience to do so. Unless they are actually talking to every member of the audience on the stage.
This item was edited on Friday, 16th November 2007, 15:23
So you`re assuming that these people, if given prior notice of your appointment, have all the investigative powers of MI5 at their disposal, all for a £20 fee?
Let me get this straight. You are attempting to portray yourself as the hard-nosed rationalist being all incredulous that it could possibly be a sham, and that xfg is a fantastical and gullible dreamer because she prefers to believe it isn`t, in fact, sorcery, but just a complicated parlour trick.
How does that make sense in your head?
You are the one who believes it is possible to read people`s minds/dead ancestors based on a guy doing it for profit on a stage.
Out of sheer interest, BLB, how would you react to someone being able to accurately name deceased relatives, street names, places etc.?
Something like "lalalalalalalalalalbwwwwwwwwwwwwwcan`thearyou" ?
What is the purpose of this question? Here`s the deal. I`m gonna go ahead and assume that you think that humans are incapable of self-powered flight (i mean just flapping their arms). Now i`m gonna assume that i`m a crazy person who thinks it is possible. Imagine if, in the course of a debate i asked you ....
"Out of sheer interest, bowfer, how would you react to someone being able to levitate off the ground just by flapping their arms.?
Something like "lalalalalalalalalalbwwwwwwwwwwwwwcan`tseeyou"
Now, would that be
a) a well thought-out and incisive question aimed at opening the eyes of close-minded cynic by presenting a possible hypothetical scenario
b) the pointless ramblings of someone who finds it incredible that people are being sceptical about a human talent that has never been empirically verified.
This item was edited on Friday, 16th November 2007, 13:32
Are you saying that`s not his choice?
He has a duty to be paraded in front of closed minds, like yourself?
Yes, that`s exactly what i`m saying. Well done. Your comprehension skills are as sharp as ever.
No, i am not saying that he should be forced at gunpoint to perform his psychic skills infront of a close-minded individual such as myself. I might disrupt the brain waves see. Totally logical and not at all a cop out. For example, i can play guitar, but the minute someone walks into the room who doesn`t believe in guitars my talent deserts me.
No, what i am saying is that, given the guy is already making a living out of it (and so has no compunction about using his talent for commercial gain), that i find it less likely that it is his choice not to make his profile higher and make more money, and more likely that it has to do with not being found out.
That`s all. A little too convenient, is all i`m saying.
Anyway, i`m off to ride my unicorn. You don`t believe me? You`re close minded, man. You need to open your mind like me. Cos i`m all enlightened see. I`m willing to accept the possibility of unicorns and it`s enriched my life. I can`t be bothered with people who dismiss them out of hand despite the entirety of human history failing to provide a single shred of objective evidence for their existence.
Are you seriously suggesting that if you had a talent whose very existence has been the subject of controversy for the last god knows how many centuries, and has never been scientifically investigated or demonstrated, that you would be quite content to make a meagre living from it and moreover would be completely uninterested in furthering human knowledge on the matter?
To compare to musicians is pretty facetious. A fairer comparison would be if you were the only person in the world who could demonstrate they could actually play a musical instrument live, and then decided to do local gigs to small audiences.
Has it not occurred to you at all that another possible (and less naive) explanation is that he doesn`t want to garner publicity for fear of being exposed?
Is he a millionaire?
If this medium does what you say on any kind of consistent basis then the truly remarkable thing is that he isn`t world famous/stinking rich.
Now how the hell do you argue with that, taking it as read that it`s not a set-up and the people aren`t stooges.
I think i`ve found the inconsistency with your argument. It is indeed impossible to argue with, if you a priori accept there aren`t any shenanigans going on.
This item was edited on Friday, 16th November 2007, 11:03
I stopped buying Lynx cos it is Alan Partridges favourite deodorant.
I hate League of Gentlemen. It is certainly well made, and very memorable I just don`t find it funny in any way though.
Everybody Loves Raymond i enjoy though. I don`t mind his voice and i can`t remember any episodes when he goes on about golf. Don`t know which series i`ve been watching though.
Dont think its been mentioned thus far (I havent noticed it and am not trawling back 6 pages to find it) is Alan Partridge - what a load of old tosh - unfunny to the Nth degree
Whaaaat! I love Alan Partridge. I guess i can see why you mightn`t like him. I don`t think the script is that funny. I just like the character and the way he says things.
Anyway, i see your Alan Partridge and raise you Keeping Up Appearances. Man, it`s like that show is actually trying to be unfunny. My mum loves it though.
Not sitcoms ?
Good point. I still hate those shows though.
So sitcoms i don`t like.
Trailer park boys
The mighty boosh
Birds of a feather
Will and Grace
Last of the summer wine (although i probably enjoyed it thoroughly growing up)
Two pints of lager and a packet of crisps (also gets the award for the worst sitcom title)
I`d also like to give a shout out to Ned and Stacey fans. Haven`t seen it in years but i used to love it.