Jamie123
-
Posts
3216 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
30
Posts posted by Jamie123
-
-
Sorry man, England can try to blame the bad referee-ing on that goal. But, the fact of the matter is - they just got outplayed. Period.
Germany has been playing really good soccer this tournament and that included the England match. England has been shoddy off and on this tournament. I mean - the very first game with USA was an indication of things to come. England had no chance against Germany. It looked like the 2 teams were not even on the same league!
Oh well...it's the UEFA Championship in 2012! (Unless the world ends first of course!) Just you wait!
-
As everyone knows, it is the right of every true-blooded Englishman to indulge in at least a day-and-a-half's moaning every time England gets knocked out of a major sporting tournament. And we DO expect our wives, mothers, girlfriends etc. to be sytmpathetic!
Why then am I being told "STOP GOING ON ABOUT IT!" and "IT'S ONLY A GAME!" (???) every time I say something about last night's 4-1 lose to Germany? It wouldn't have been so bad if the %$*&£!!! referee hadn't disallowed that second goal. It was over the line for goodness sake! And I couldn't believe the second time Germany scored - off a FREE KICK FOR ENGLAND!!! It's unbelievable! Is that Capello worth the money we're paying him? Someone's head has got to roll for this!! etc...
-
I remember movies being free at the base in Kodiak, Alaska. Popcorn was .10 a bag
Cinemas were totally different in the old days. You just paid to get in and could watch the movie over and over all day if you wanted to - so it didn't much matter if you missed the start - you could catch it again next time around. (I remember doing that with The Land that Time Forgot!)
Also, you got 2 movies in those days - the A movie and the B movie. And usually a Bugs Bunny or a Daffy Duck too.
-
Just found this on Wikipedia...
I wondered why they don't taste the same as I remember them from my youth. I thought my taste buds were going. That's a relief...Victory V is a British brand of liquorice-flavoured lozenges. Originally manufactured in Nelson, Lancashire they were devised by Thomas Fryer and Edward Smith MD in the mid-1800s and were initially made by hand to ensure that each sweet contained the correct amount of therapeutic ingredients; ether, liquorice and chloroform. Victory V lozenges are available in specialist shops and online, but no longer contain chloroform or ether. Today they are manufactured by Ernest Jackson & Co. Ltd. in Devon.
So bring back the ether and chloraform!
-
Candy cigarettes
You can still get them here in the UK, though they call them "candy sticks" now.
-
Victory V Lozenges
A few shops do still sell them, but they're relatively rate. There was a time when all corner shops sold them and you could get Victory V gums too.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, Victory V's are small, hard, rectangular brown lozenges that smell very strongly of chloraform. They they taste awful until you acquire the taste for them, and then you can't get enough of them. I used to go through a whole bag of them in 10 minutes. If you crunch them they splinter into little sharp shards that get stuck in your throat and make you cough.
Whenever I see any (which is disgravefully rare) I buy a pack and my wife then hates me because f the foul smell of my breath after sucking one.
Army and Navy lozenges are cool too. You rarely see them either these days.
-
Maybe if she'd worked harder in Uglification she'd still be in a job!The Mock Turtle went on. “We had the best of educations . . . Reeling and Writhing, of course, to begin with, and then the different branches of Arithmetic—Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision.”
“I never heard of Uglification,” Alice ventured to say. “What is it?”
The Gryphon lifted up both its paws in surprise. “Never heard of uglifying!” it exclaimed. “You know what to beautify is, I suppose?”
“Yes,” said Alice, doubtfully: “It means—to—make—anything—prettier.”
“Well, then,” the Gryphon went on, “if you don't know what to uglify is, you are a simpleton.”
-
Perhaps you remember the movie LIar Liar with Jim Carey. He was defending a woman who was clearly caught in the act of adultery. She was on the verge of losing all rights to her ex-husband's wealth due to a pre-nup agreement that said if she cheated, she would get nothing.
Yes I do remember that movie - I thought it was one of Jim Carey's funniest
Secretary: A burglar broke into my friend's house and cut himself on a knife. My friend had to pay him $10,000 compensation. How does that make you feel?
Jim Carey: Angry!
Secretary: Why?
Jim Carey: Because I'd have got him $20,000!!!
-
Agreed. However, the Lord also says he doesn't like "he who loveth a lie". So, we shouldn't get to the point where we default to lying when there are other more intelligent ways out of it that allow us to achieve our objectives through honesty.
Yes...If we have carte blanche to lie whenever it's convenient to do so, how would we ever trust each other? This is common sense and nothing to do with any scriptural argument.
It's in taking this to the extreme and saying that it's always wrong to lie whatever the circumstance that problems arise. Anyone who's thought about this for more than 30 seconds will see that whatever your mother/nurse/kindergarton teacher might have told you when you were 4, there are circumstances in which telling a lie becomes a necessity.
Say this to some people and they'll immediately say "So telling the truth doesn't matter?" This is the never-questioned voice of their kindergarton teacher - truth good lies bad - a false dichotomy which their early childhood indoctrination has never allowed them to spot. Anyone who does think about it will come to the conclusion that yes, of course telling the truth matters. But it's not always our first, last and only obligation.
Having said that though, it probably is good to teach children that lying is bad, just as it's good to teach them that I comes before E except after C. Rules have to be learned first before exceptions.
-
Didn't Abraham lie to Pharaoh by saying Sarah was his sister (and not his wife as she really was)? If I remember rightly, they went on to pull the same stunt on some other king as well.
I'm with Margin here - "thou shalt not bear false witness" is not the same thing as "do not lie".
-
I also found this information on Anglican payscales: (This is from 2000, so maybe add 50%.)
Curates: £14,680-£15,820
Parish clergy: £16,420
Cathedral-based canons: £20,200
Junior bishops: £24,790
Diocesan bishops: £30,120
Archbishop of Canterbury: £55,660
Of course, most priests get use of a parsonage free of charge, but even so you don't make a lot of money vicaring!
-
Oh, I am sure many do go without paychecks. But, MANY more are paid quite handsomely for their services. In fact, I bet when they move to larger paychecks...I mean larger flocks it is no doubt because they heard the call from the heavens.
Oooh Bytor! You're such a cynic! You're going to judge "the majority" of full time Christian clergy by what you perceive the typical "rich megachurch pastor" to be like? Sounds like exactly the sort of thing anti-Mormons get accused of.
And another thing! This is all very rich coming from a "Knight of Darkness" and "Centurion of Evil". (Though you look more like the Silver Surfer to me.) If I didn't know better, I'd say you were the kind of "priest" who wouldn't listen to music played by people who find guitars behind waterfalls.
-
Well, for starters....with a Minister you are missing the Priesthood...missing a man called By Heavenly Father to represent Jesus Christ and administer to the Spiritual needs of the Ward. There are other members that have specific callings designed to help with the temporal and spiritual needs of the members in addition to the Bishopric. Elders Quorum President and Relief Society President are there to help and serve as well as the High Priest Group leader.
All you're really saying here is that he doesn't believe other churches have the real prisethood, which more-or-less what every Mormon believes. I don't think Landy was talking about the relative merits of "true" and "false" priesthoods, but those of full-time and voluntary clergy. My own church (Anglican) has a great many unpaid priests whom we call NSM's (non stipendiary ministers) and OLM's (ordained local ministers). Their role is (I would imagine) very close to that of an LDS bishop. It would similarly be quite possible for the LDS church to employ full-time clergy (as the Community of Christ does) and have the best (or worst) of both worlds.
-
The zeitgeist builds momentum as it changes. There was a time when Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) was a British colony, where the black majority was exploited by a white imperial power. No one would have then questioned the rightness of that. Eventually the blacks rose against the white regime and took their country back. But the perception that the blacks were still persecuted gave the tyrant Mugabe the support he needed to gain control of the country and practically ruin it....freeing the slaves by fiat was perceived as a violation of property rights.
In Britain sixty years ago homosexuals were officially persecuted by the state. Nowadays they are fully countenanced; no one goes to prison for being gay and it would be illegal to fire someone from their job for practicing homosexuality. However, the idea that gays are a persecuted minority persists, and gay extremists are now demanding immunity from criticism - and those who oppose them (like the hapless Dale McAlpine) are getting arrested.
Again, there was once a "myth" that any woman who said she was raped was telling lies. That myth died some time in the 1980's. It's now replaced by another myth that "women never lie about rape". However, the Millie Tants are still using the old myth as a justification to hack away the legal safeguards protecting innocent men from wrongful conviction.
Everyone wants to push out their rights (or the rights of whichever group you see as "the victims") to wherever they perceive them to be, and don't look at the other side. It's so easy to do - especially if you allow yourself to get angry about what you read in the tabloids.
-
http://www.lds.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=406&stc=1&d=1273491239
When people say this, I think they often mean: "Where your rights conflict with mine, mine take precedence". I've recently been trawling the Internet for opinions on the McAlpine incident (http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/31905-preacher-uk-arrested-preaching-against-homosexuality.html) and I've noticed this phrase used more than once. Does person A's right not to be offended override person B's right to free speech? Or is it the other way around?
I can think of a lot of other places where this kind of argument is used:
* People who support rape victims say accusers have a right to justice. ("Women don't lie about rape! Victims should be taken at their word!") But men who claim they've been falsely accused would also claim the right to be heard.
* Pro-choicers claim women have a right to do as they please with their own bodies. Pro-lifers claim that unborn children (including cell-clusters just a few hours old) have a right to life.
* News of the World readers believe they have a right to know where convicted pedophiles are living. Others claim that children have a right to be protected from released pedophiles who've been forced away from their supervising authorities for fear of vigilantes (slippery-slope argument here, I know!)
-
Do you Ukers also have day and night political ads on the telly like we do in the States for months before the big election?
We have "party political broadcasts" which are like long commercials for the political parties. You also see lots of bill-boards posted in the run up to the election, telling you which way to vote and slagging off all the other parties.
-
Does anyone remember Father Ted? It was an Irish comedy show from the 90's/early 2000's about 3 barmy Catholic priests on a remote island on the west coast of Ireland. There was an episode where Father Ted (the parish priest) and Father Dougal (his clueless assistant) have wrecked a brand new car, donated as a raffle prize by Bishop Brennan (their boss). Ted suggests to Dougal that they rig the raffle so they win and no one finds out the car was destroyed. When Dougal objects, Ted's resorts to the slippery slope argument: (You've got to imagine this spoken in an Irish accent.)
Ted: If Bishop Brennan finds out we wrecked his car, he will kill us. And murder is a terrible, terrible sin. So by comitting this small sin, we'll actually be saving a bishop's soul!
-
I don't know right now if Cameron actually has enough for Clegg's folks to give them what they need. It looks to me, more like the coalition will have to be between the COnservatives and Labour... like that's ever going to happen.
Right now Cameron has 291 and Clegg has 51. Together they have 342, so if they can agree they can just about form a government together.
For Brown to win now, he'd have to come to agreement not only with Clegg's lot, but also with just about every other party.
-
I'm surprised there haven't been more posts about the UK General Election. The talk here is mostly about Obama, but I know a good many British people do visit here.
This morning's result is historic. I was only about 12 the last time this situation occurred - When Calaghan's government only managed to stay in power by forming an agreement with the Liberals. It looks like it's going to be a coalition this time: Unless he gets 90% of the uncounted seats, Cameron's going to have to cut some kind of deal with Nick Clegg.
-
Adorning the walls of your house with livy is a sin.
The sight of ivy on your walls makes you think you live in an "Ivy League" university. This gives you intellectual pretensions, and you start believing you're an expert on subjects you know nothing about - such as politics, foreign affairs and economic policy. In no time at all you've become a politician and are elected to high office. Soon you are advising the President and telling him to do all the wrong things - such as closing down schools and hospitals and putting up taxes. The people rebel against the government, and there is bloodshed and anarchy in the streets. The entire country is ruined....and all because of your ivy!
-
An interesting example of a fallacy is "begging the question" (also called petitio principii) in which the conclusion is initially assumed as a premise and then used to justify the conclusion. You hear it a lot in criminal cases, e.g. "He's shown no remorse at all, and it's quite obvious that he's guilty." Sounds good as rhetoric, but take it apart a little:
Premise: The defendent is guilty.
Argument: Good people show remorse for their crimes. The defendent has shown no remorse at all. Therefore he is not a good person, and this strengthens our conviction that he is guilty.
Conclusion: The defendent is guilty. (Now return to start.)
This works just as well if we reverse the premise:
Premise: The defendent is innocent.
Argument: Innocent people have no need to show remorse. The defendent has shown no remorse. Theis strengthens our conviction that he is innocent.
Conclusion: The defendent is innocent. (Now return to start.)
[sorry Mormonmusic - I've going rather off-topic here.]
Exactly the same principle is often used in electronic logic circuits. Logical loops whose premises feed from their conclusions can be in one of two states, indicating a logical 1 or 0. If the premise is forcibly changed, the conclusion is adjusted to support the new premise and the circuit changes state. This is how computer memories work.
-
A logical fallacy does not mean 'My argument is wrong', but simply means 'This does not prove my argument'.
Good post, Funky, but just one pedantic nit-picky criticism: You confuse an argument with a conclusion. A conclusion is a statement offered as fact. An argument is a series of logical steps beginning with a set of premises and ending with a conclusion. The conclusion may be unjustified because (i) the argument is false or (ii) the premises are incorrect. If the argument or pemises are false, this does not necessarily mean the conclusion is incorrect. It simply means it cannot be supported.
Which is pretty much what you were saying in different words :)
-
Half on topic.
This illustrates one of my pet peeves when it comes to these sorts of issues of eroding freedom (in the public sphere)
No one cares until it is their pet issue.
Government says smoking is bad, sorry RJ Renolds, but you must get rid of your cartoon add man as it might attract kids. No one bats an eye.
Governments says fast food is bad, sorry MCDonalds but you must get rid of your toys as they attract kids and suddenly everyone is up in arms about the government overstepping it's bounds:huh:
If we want to protect our freedoms we need to protect the freedom itself, not just the issues we agree with.
A few years ago a fella in the UK was sent to jail for "creating and possessing indecent images of children" on the grounds that police (who were looking for something else entirely) discovered images of porn models on his computer which he'd used image-editing software on to reduce the breast sizes of, and added school uniforms to. The law takes no account of the fact that (1) no actual children appeared in any of the images and (2) the images were for his own personal viewing and were (before the police forcibly took them) never shown with anyone else.
Though some people were as shocked as I was about this, many took the view that the details of the case didn't matter. A person's right to free speech didn't matter. His rights to his own private thoughts, and the right to do what he wanted in his own home (where he was affecting no one but himself) didn't matter. The merest suggestion of "kiddie porn" meant that - whatever the facts - he deserved jail.
It's rather like what Sir Thomas More (in Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons) said about "uprooting the law to catch the Devil". What happens when there's no law left and the Devil turns on you?
It didn't matter then, when it was only "some sicko" who was affected by these draconian policies. Now more mainstream groups are feeling the effects of having their free speech rights eroded, perhaps people will realise what we're in danger of losing.
-
Non-members claim that members claim the prophet isn't fallible.
Good grief Penfold! You've got it all wrong as usual.
Non-members claim that members claim that non-members think that Greenback thinks that members believe he's fallible. But what non-members don't know is that we know that they claim that he isn't infallible.
Now what could be simpler than that?
(Goes into a 7th level Yoga-Hopping Trance.)
The right of every Englishman...
in General Discussion
Posted
You're right - and the Rugby World Cup's coming up next year. Remember how wonderful it was when we won in 2003? We might have won 2 tournaments in a row if it hadn't been for that stupid decision in 2007 (Grrr!) There was no way that was "no try"!