1) the bus has been banned. this is quite clearly thetank multi accounting having realised his early terribad picks mean he'd have more points starting afresh as a referred friend. amazing how desperate some people are to get a skypoker brolly

No such calculations were made. To have worked that out, if indeed it's true, would require reading the rules and I'm firmly against such a thing.

I'm just here for the super fun. All actions have been with the goal of super fun in mind.

Why does he streak with his trousers on? Does he have a small willy? It's October, we'd understand.

It's not so much their fault. It just so happens that the following has come to pass...

TEBOW TIME!!!!

Mongcoooooooooooooooooos!!!!!!!

Solid all round football teams win gamez!!! So do the Denver Mongcos sometimes. BOOOOOOOOO FUCKING OOOOM

This afternoon I pulled over to the side of the road to see if anyone had done a "Six and the City" joke on twitter yet. Found that "Six and the City" was trending worldwide. Ah well.

Sovietsong recommended me.

[Rhythmix]

My picks for this week.

Rhythmix - They're a group and groups are shit.

The Risk The controversial both groups in the bottom 2 drama. The resultant Tulisa dilemma. Oooooo

TV is shit but this game is super fun.

One day Nasruddin went to Lake Akşehir with a bowlful of cultured yoghurt and a long spoon. He squatted at the water’s edge and began ladling yoghurt into the lake.

Hussein saw him and asked what he was doing. Nasruddin replied, “I’m adding starter to the lake to make it into yoghurt.”

Hussein asked, “Are you serious‽ Do you really believe you can turn the lake into yoghurt?”

“I know I can’t. I know it won’t,” stated Nasruddin. “But just imagine — what if I could, and what if it did?”

and I don't know for sure, but I don't think she spends the weekly meetings lobbying the PM on behalf of the Church of Englands vested interests.

She got rid of Gough Whitlam as the Aussie PM as recently as 1975

Sell that she got rid of Gough Whitlam. Hadn't heard of this before, but from what I've read about it briefly it looks like the Aussie governor general got rid of Gough Whitlam. He acts on the Queens behalf perhaps, but in practice he does stuff on his own initiative and doesn't take orders from her madge. Maybe technically you could say it was the queen wot done it via her governor general, but he defp acts autonomously (he's appointed by the Queen, but by whomever the previous Aussie PM recommended her to appoint.)

Looks like an interesting spot where the PM could sack the governor general (via the Queen by recommending someone else) and the governor general could sack the PM (on behalf of the Queen) and it just so happens that the Gov moved first.

The reality is the Queen stays out of it, and like here, her power is some sort of wierd constitutional failsafe. Clegg, Cameron and Brown would have sorted out something had the coalition agreement not taken hold (minority Tory administration most likely). Keeping the Queen out of politics a big factor in their dealings.

Big fan of the scientific method, don't get me wrong.

Dawkins paints a picture of religion clinging to dogma and willfully ignoring hard evidence and reason (which is fair enough as this is what happens in many many cases). Thing is he then contrasts this with the established thinking in science, which is initially sceptical about the new data, puts it to the test, and if it comes to light that their life's work is obsolete then so be it. They rejoice in the pursuit of mankinds knowledge and give the young mind that made the discovery a well earned pat on the back.

Thing is, history of science is littered with examples of paradigm shifts taking a generation to be generally accepted as the scientific consensus. The old guard get the initial scepticism bit right, but then just ignore and poo poo, marginalize and defame. Old generation has to die before the new idea gets picked up. Scientists can, and have been, just as stubborn as theists.

Atheists, militant or otherwise, occasionally a bit hasty to draw conclusions and report as scientific fact some things that would be inconvenient to many religious people, but that there isn't really enough evidence yet to make such a statement.

eg, Life can be generated spontaneously in the lab coz we made some amino acids in the lab. Or then there's the whole thing about extra-terrestrial life. It's out there coz it must be as space is so big.

Religious people may very well say, I'll show you God if you either make me a beastie or show me a beastie from elsewhere in the cosmos.




On nirvana's point about no scientist challenging evolution. I'm sure many put their minds to it as there is considerable profit incentive for them to do so. If they found a way of crafting a narrative within rigid and recognized scientific paramaters that called the evidence for the Theory of Evolution into serious question then, if they published at breakfast, they'd sell 100,000 copies before lunch.

whilst religion has given us some nice architecture and a lot of wars.

I am an atheist and I would argue that this is absolute hogwash.  Just off the top of my head I could argue that the best universities in the UK originally came from the Church, the Church played a huge part in the development of football in this country, religion was the major driver behind the invention of the printing press.  Just because something is factually incorrect and based on myth doesn't mean that it can only be a negative force.  I think this is where the arguments of Dawkins etc fall down because they seem so intent upon proving that religion is bad and evil.  For a lot of people (especially in very poor countries) it is one of the only positive factors in their life and I am not sure how helpful debunking them of their myths is tbh.

Religion only has these postive attributes when it is constricted by a secular society and becomes a lifestyle choice in that society.  When not constrained it will not tolerate dissent.

This is just not true. The UK does not run under secular lines.

Our Head of State is also Head of the Church. Leading Bishops sit in the House of Lords and are higher in the Country's order of precedence than the Prime Minister. Yet all these positive things came about through the church mainly in the UK.

The UK does not run under the anachronistic institutions you mention. The Queen is for tourists and the order of precedence is for wikipedia. The House of Commons runs the show.

Doesn't the queen have final say in passing new laws........in theory she can say no to whatever the house of commons passes on to her to sign,but doesn't to avoid a constitutional crisis.........would be a laff if she said "feck off Mr.Cameron...one will not sign this law"

If she did that then yeah, constitutional crisis. She's best to do it late on a Friday afternoon as then she might last till Monday.

whilst religion has given us some nice architecture and a lot of wars.

I am an atheist and I would argue that this is absolute hogwash.  Just off the top of my head I could argue that the best universities in the UK originally came from the Church, the Church played a huge part in the development of football in this country, religion was the major driver behind the invention of the printing press.  Just because something is factually incorrect and based on myth doesn't mean that it can only be a negative force.  I think this is where the arguments of Dawkins etc fall down because they seem so intent upon proving that religion is bad and evil.  For a lot of people (especially in very poor countries) it is one of the only positive factors in their life and I am not sure how helpful debunking them of their myths is tbh.

Religion only has these postive attributes when it is constricted by a secular society and becomes a lifestyle choice in that society.  When not constrained it will not tolerate dissent.

This is just not true. The UK does not run under secular lines.

Our Head of State is also Head of the Church. Leading Bishops sit in the House of Lords and are higher in the Country's order of precedence than the Prime Minister. Yet all these positive things came about through the church mainly in the UK.

The UK does not run under the anachronistic institutions you mention. The Queen is for tourists and the order of precedence is for wikipedia. The House of Commons runs the show.