If God was a bit more logical and cunning, he/she/they would have allowed the ferry journey FROM the godless mainland, but then caused the failure on the way back, thus trapping godless people among the believers and enabling them to have been burned at the stake.

Anyone got any good "If God was…" aphorisms.

My favourite: "If God was a woman, sperm would taste of chocolate"

What is truly moving is that somehow money and person-hours are still available for identifying and providing proper burial for long-lost bodies.

I suppose it's because WW1 is still a war with surviving relatives – my maternal grandfather served in the trenches. Obviously, he survived!

Just a question though. How far back can we take it. Lots of people know they have ancestors who died at Waterloo – should we start opening the grave pits there?

Lots of Scots have ancestors who died at Culloden – ditto?

his sour blend of cold sanctimony and chip on shoulder

Now that is a lovely insult. Thank you. I cherish it for the food metaphors: "sour", "cold", "blend", and "chip"

and for the unexpectedly educated Latinate vocabulary: "sanctimony"

and for the lovely cliche "chip on shoulder"

and for the laboured irony of "nice man"

And do you think snowboards are superior to skis too?

(Just to get back to the original assertion that started this debate)

I have no intention of growing up when it comes to having fun.

I didn't suggest you grow up as regards to fun. I suggested you grow up in your attitude to having your flippant remarks answered with reasoned debate.

This is often a problem with stroppy adolescents:

Adolescent: "Flippant, unthinking remark!"
Adult: "Reasoned response."
Adolescent: (sound of door slamming)

So I'm wrong, you're right? Bollox

is that door slamming.

Grow up.

One of trickiest parts of skiing is mastering the smug supercilious attitude.
A moment to learn, but it takes a lifetime to master the disdain properly

I don't quite get this – are you suggesting that I've still got a lot to learn to master the skier's superciliousness when it come to boarders?

Or are you suggesting that I've got it spot on?

'De gustibus non est disputandum'

unless your taste is for sex with children, presumably. I guess it's the exception that proves the rule here.

Unless your idea of mountain fun includes travel in mountain terrain. A snowboard would be no fun on the Haute Route. So the range of fun on snowboards is more limited than that available on skis.

So I'm wrong, you're right? Bollox.

In a debate, one person puts up an argument, and other people evaluate it and propose counter arguments. Grow up.

It's actually quite good fun, but not a patch on snowboarding

It's the other way around. Snowboards are mountain toys, which offer really good fun.

Skis are mountain tools, which offer the user a potentially much richer mountain experience – ski touring and mountain travel, for example.

People who have to be grown-up in the mountain environment – avalanche control teams, ski patrol – always wear skis. Snowboards are not a patch on skis.

Shawshank is bolx:

So this guy has a huge poster, which covers the slightly less huge hole he has carved out, with a teaspoon, to the outside world via various pipes and sewers.

Connecting an airless prison cell to the windy atmosphere outside would surely make the poster flap a bit? Create a bit of a draft in a cell which should be draft-free? Suck the poster backwards and forwards a bit in a manner suggestive that the wall behind it was less than solid, to any guards who might have been inspecting the cell?

And as for sympathetic portrayals of lifers!

Howzabout Shawshank 2, starring Kenneth Noye? Or Harold Shipman? Or Fred and Rosemary West? Or Myra Hyndley and Ian Brady?

Just as Im getting into bed for another early shift

This sounds as if you equate getting into bed with your gf for sex, with dragging yourself to a workplace you hate

Time for a new gf?

Aha! We have a stereotypical definition of what one wears for a British wedding:

wearing a top hat

I'm British, and I didn't wear a top hat to either of my weddings. And I "respected the custom" of other people who didn't, too. I even "respected the custom" of people who wore jeans and t-shirts, because I didn't put some stupid, mediaeval, atavistic religious bollox into the equation.

God I love my Montana – fabulous amounts of space, loads of little pocket thingys to store stuff, guides for electic cables to carry them over the floor, huge windows, luminous guylines, velcro securing tabs for anything that might flap, ingenious venting systems, variable combos of entrances including a little porch for storing wellies and for emergency pissing, huge headroom, and those little perspex windows at ground level so you can roll over in your sleeping bag and see outside without even lifting your head up!

It's a pig to put up though.

trailmonkey

Despite what you might wish for, British does not solely mean white, christian/secular

Have I in any possible way given any definition of what I wish "British" means?

So how do you know that I define British as white, Christian, or secular?

Anyone can wear what they want to anyone's wedding because on both sides

its all about respecting other peoples customs

<repeating himself>

It cuts both ways, you see

</repeating himslelf>

If he goes dressed as a British person no-one could possibly be offended because

its all about respecting other peoples customs

It cuts both ways, you see

Sorry to have to point out the obvious

Just noticed this at the start of the thread:

Please no anti dog posts here, if you want, I can start another post for you to get your teeth into if you like

Go on then, start one – but not anti-dog. Anti dog-owner. Because the problem is not dogs, it's their owners

I've hardly begun to express my feelings about dog owners and the animals that have the misfortune to be owned by them

This thread is useless without sound:
Constant, pointless, agggressive, persistent, anti-social barking 24/7

This thread is useless without smell:
That noxious whiff from your child's shoes which turns into an appalling stench when you realise he/she has trodden it all over the house and has probably put some of it into his/her mouth by handling a ball which is also similarly contaminated

And of course, these posts are useless without pictures: coil after coil of steaming, stinking, soft, gooey, unctuous, squelchy and nauseating excrement

I can see that certain personality types need dogs – I've no objection to that

But please – if you are of that personality type – please don't inflict the noise and excrement of your dog on better-adjusted people

I'm guessing this wedding is in Britain somewhere?

And you are guests of people who would consider themselves British?

So dress as if you are going to a British wedding.

FFS What is your problem?

Like TWO bags of walnuts stuffed into a brown condom

ryvita pumpkin seeds + loads of butter + strong cheddar cheese + sliced beetroot

Ear plugs + BOSE noise-cancelling over-ear headphones.

Without this combo I would now be serving time for the murder of my neighbours and their effing effing effing effing effing barking effing effine barking effing dog

It’s bollocks to say that

they have learnt their values from the society in which they grew up

The society in which they grew up offers them MULTIPLE choices about the kind of lifestyle they might pursue. If they went to an ordinary school, that school will have offered them a pathway to Oxbridge if they wanted to take it. I know this because I taught in a school with desperately bad pupil intake, some of whom went to university and one of whom went to Cambridge to study law. Many of the others chose to go to prison instead.

Don’t tell me I’m responsible for the bad choices of people to whom better choices are freely available (with a bit of effort)

This post has previous – FFS pay attention people!
http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/good-old-ronnie-biggs

This subject has previous:

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/cracking-time-lapse-video#post-354285

Remember that they have learnt their values from the society in which they grew up. You are a part of that society.

Bollocks. I’m part of the society in which they grew up. Values they would have learnt from me are: obey the law; pay your taxes: pay your fines; be nice to people; find useful paid employment; love your partner and children; work hard at school and try to do a fair day’s work in whatever paid employment you find; obey speed limits; use the white lines on the ground as a guide to where to abandon your car in car parks; eat decent food; don’t deal with criminals; licence your vehicle; insure your vehicle; go to parents evenings at your kids school; don’t get tattooed; don’t smoke; use drugs to alleviate illness rather than to alleviate your general social and psychological inadequacy; ride a bicycle

Just realised I haven’t actually made my point, which is:

A government must not interfere with the legitimate representatives of its enemies, because the governments of its enemies might thereby be provoked into interfering with that government’s own legitimate representatives

Remember how in the opening sequence of Gladiator, the Romans are awaiting the return of their negotiator with the Germani

and they send him back headless on a horse

and then a huge German comes out and throws them the head of their negotiator

and then the Romans absolutely slaughter the Germani, at least in part fuelled by the fate of their negotiator

Russell Crowe’s call to “unleash hell” was justified by the violation of diplomatic immunity (though obviously it wasn’t called that then)

In the Middle Ages, heralds were inviolable. Killing a herald was a legitimate justification for all-out war.

You’ve heard the expression “don’t shoot the messenger”?

That’s where it comes from.

Even the most vicious of enemies need to keep open the possiblity of talking to each other

The British and Americans were in constant touch with the Germans in WW2

British governments were always in touch with the IRA

meikle_partans

That’s a really interesting forum name. What does it mean?

I’m guessing Scottish (meikle = mickle, as in little? partans = parts, as in genitals?)

Whatever. Someone has to be a bit grownup and point out to the original poster that a bit of research into kids'[ dietary requirements might precede ignorant postings on here

You know very well

You know very well

Twice in the same post!

How do you know what I know very well?

Interesting that you should try to shift the argument into a completely different area. But not that interesting ……. I’m off.

This is identical in tone and content to what my adolescent daughter says when she’s losing the argument:

“Whatever, Dad. (Sound of door slamming)”

FFS why would bras be illegal in France?

Unless Jock Straps were too!

Feeble intellects like yours, however, need all the support they can get!

The Lynch sinch – holds your brain up under attack from superior forces!

Ernie

You trivialise the point. French law doesn’t just give women the right to dress like men – it gives women the SAME RIGHTS in everything as men.

It recognises that there are places where that is difficult to enforce – like in the family, or in the street.

But it also recognises that there are places where the state can use its muscle to GUARANTEE women’s rights.

Women who persist in adopting traditions which repress and limit them have a simple choice – don’t work for or get involved in French State institutions – go work elsewhere.

Women who want to cast off mysoginistic restrictions can go work for the French State and experience freedom

Rude Boy’s got a headache.

The prospect of brutal penetration often does that!

Here you are, you horrible little mysoginist:

La loi garantit à la femme, dans tous les domaines, des droits égaux à ceux de l’homme.

Now tell me where it says men have to cover their faces, or their hair, or their entire bodies

Now tell me whre it says men have to have their wives permission to leave the house, drive a car

You’re a pathetic troll – get under the bridge

they may not wear one in a French school

That’s because French schools are “activities of the French government”, whereas popping down to the shops isn’t. DURRRRRRR!

In this country, my ability to go shopping is restricted only by free market conditions, except on Sunday, when it’s limited by Christians

RudeBoy

Actually you need to get up to speed on French politics on this.

Since the Revolution, the French State is committed by law to being secular. That means that nothing in the activities of the French government can permit or promote religious sectarianism.

So, actually, it is THE FRENCH, through their constitution, who are proposing this. Sarkosy is merely, as is his duty, promoting the French constitution.

God I wish we had the same freedoms

Analysing your list of your daughter’s diet you appear to be feeding her a diet based around fat, salt, sugar and other cabohydrates. Summarising your list:

milk (fat)
processed breakfast cereal (sugar, salt, crap additives)
bread (I’m guessing white sliced)
meat (fat)
cheese (fat)
banana (sugar)
yoghurt (fat)
chocolate buttons (fat, sugar)
skips/quavers (fat, and crap additives)

There is another food group known as VEGETABLES which you might want to explore as a source of nutrition for your offspring – Google it if you’re not sure what they are

I hear she was discharged because of concerns about hospital acquired infections

The hospital was worried they were going to acquire an infection from the evil old bitch

May she rot and suffer for a long time in this world first, before she rots in the grave to which her post-colonialist Falklands farce consigned so many brave men on both sides

like an idiot i watched it.

Don’t be so hard on yourself

Ask yourself: If the Iranian regime could have suppressed that video, would they have?

The answer of course is yes, they would have.

So they would have deprived you of an important picture of what is going on in Iran.

By viewing it, however awful it makes you feel, you have informed yourself about the truth of the Iranian regime.

No doubt you have seen the British Army bulldozers shovelling emaciated corpses into grave pits in Belsen

Do you feel an idiot for watching that?

You’re not a voyeuristic idiot – you’re a witness to history

Get over yourself and watch as much footage out of Iran as you possibly can.

Witness is evidence

TandemJeremy says:

“Hatred is very rarely seen these days”

You need to get out a bit more my son, read more newspapers, maybe just meet a few more ordinary people! Not much hatred here then:

Romanians v Northern Irish bigots

Taliban v moderate Muslims

Palestinians v Issraeli government

Al Quaeda v The West

Anyone who lived through the miners strike v Margaret Thatcher

Sunnis v Shias in Iraq

See that naive dope smoking pacifist over there?

That’s you, that is

Just be aware that the Scots hate the English with a historically-justified passion!

You will discover that your relatives from way back were obscure disease-ridden agricultural workers in the 18th century who went on to become obscure disease-ridden industrial workers in the 19th century who then died in childbirth, were killed in the trenches in WW1, were wiped out by flu in 1919, or were killed in the Blitz in 1941. So statistically you are bloody lucky to exist. I advise you not to go poking around in the general unpleasantness of your ancestry – it will only depress you.