Alpin, why don’t you read kimbers website? Its very interesting, plausible and factually appears to be accurate, whereas the photo you have posted is at best inconclusive, and at worst a deliberate attempt to make some sort of capital out of a tragedy of epic proportions.

Youse’re getting boring now, and it’s starting to descend into personal abuse once more. I can’t be bothered, as you obviously believe you are right, and that’s that.

Good argument though. Thanks for the game.

Take care now.

2 – 0 8)

Rudy Said :

I await your ‘proof’ with great anticipation, considering no-one else has been able to ‘prove’ the real reason for the towers’ collapse yet!

G said (several times)

Yep but then thats not whats in question here is it?

&

Now you introduced the concept of “alternative theories” all I have done is offer to eat my (unwashed) shorts if you can produce some evidence to back up your fantasies. I’m still waiting, so how about a direct response to a direct question. Can you produce some evidence to support your suggestion?

Sorry son, You’re not going to divert me with that one.

PS : Quick while no one else is looking ….. a bit of advice if you don’t mind, When you’re self evidently in a hole, Stop Digging!

I wonder if that poor girl was thinking about conspiracy theories when those nutjobs were beating the crap out of her…

I’m guessing that we’ll be finding that she was a CIA plant to discredit the Taleban fairly shortly

No, I mean the way that all the rubble was loaded into trucks and driven out of the city, after the search for survivors was called off, before investigators had the opportunity to study samples. Much of the metal was recycled very soon after. Bit odd, woon’t you say?

Nope thats pretty much exactly what I’d expect, and who says nobody was allowed to inspect the rubble? But then what does it matter becuase obviously all the guys working on the removal of the debris were obviously also on the payroll of the CIA, so they wouldn’t have said anything if they spotted anything unusual in the aftermath right? So maybe the inspectors were on the payroll too….. I mean where will it all end???

Can you?

Yep but then thats not whats in question here is it?

Like I said to Rudy, he absolutely did have WMD’s. No more no less. I’m certainly not going to get into a completely separate argument over that….. well not just yet anyway.

Skipped over a few points there Rudy.

Now then is

The gassing of Kurds in Northern Iraq is fact

you admitting that I was right and that Saddam Hussein did have WMD’s? Further to that is it also agreement that you did indeed raise the matter?

Incidentally I think you might find that Husseins consistent attempts to hood wink and mislead the weaspons inspectors may have had more to do with the invasion than anything else. Seems like it may have backfired on him somewhat.

In a crime situation, the investigators would need to provide incontrovertible proof that certain events took place, before they could categorically state what really happened. In this situation, as the ‘evidence’ had been conveniently removed, before investigators could examine it, then the claims of the official report are unfounded.

Trying to divert again? By removed, I take it you mean the painstaking way in which the rubble was sifted through and then taken out of the city, once the intial serach for survivors was finished.

Now you introduced the concept of “alternative theories” all I have done is offer to eat my (unwashed) shorts if you can produce some evidence to back up your fantasies. I’m still waiting, so how about a direct response to a direct question. Can you produce some evidence to support your suggestion?

I believe you introduced WMD’s…..

And if you don’t believe the USA government would perpetrate such a horrific act of murder, on thousands of innocent people, then just look at Iraq. We were told Saddam had WMDs

I then debunked your argument by pointing you to the Human Rights Watch ( you know independant charity) website where they have investigated the incidents in question and declared it a crime against humanity. Obviously they also are agents of the Demons Bush and Blair also.

Mind you lets not let facts get in the way of a good argument.

Now then as far as evidence is concerned, could I just remind you thats its you conspiracy folks who need to prove your argument, not the other way. Its you telling me which way is up, not the other way. I quite simply believe that the most logical conclusion is the right one. Now then about this evidence you can’t produce ……..

TBH, the FEMA report is no more believable than ‘alternative’ theories. Most of it is based on assumption and not factual evidence. As there was none to examine, as it had all been taken away…

Obviously not read it then.

I also quite like the way alpin has tried to introduce the Pentagon to divert the argument away from the Twin Towers. Nice one, but I stand by the original eat my shorts (unwashed) offer. Any one piece of evidence…

Incidentally alpin just have a think about how much trouble are governments get into over whistle blowers. Rigging up the Towers to collapse would take dozens of unhindered experts months upon months to do. I’m guessing that the folks who worked there may have possible mentioned it as they strung cables through their offices etc etc.

In my experience, if it looks like a fish, smells like a fish and tastes like a fish thens its probably a fish.

Like I said :

English had pleaded guilty to kidnap, false imprisonment, sexual assault, assault by penetration and two counts of rape.

Please tell me what might be extenuating about that. He kidnapped the woman in a Tescos car park drove her off the Thetford Forest and subjected her to a sustained sex attack. There was no attempt in his defence to represent him as mentally ill. Individually each of those would normally carry a severe sentence. The trial judge described the offences as severe.

Yeah, but think how boring it would be without him.

1 – 0 I believe

Rude boy, evidence (substantiated and irrefutable) please..

Something of substance like this…

FEMA Report

And before you go there I know its being disputed by the lawyers representing the families of those killed, its so they can prove negligence on the part of the Port Authority in not upgrading the insulation sufficently quickly as recommended to them well prior to 9/11, curiously, a recommendation that underlines the danger to the buildings in the case of fire, due to insufficent insulation! (Thats so that they can claim compensation which is specifically excluded in insurance policies the world over in cases of acts of terrorism.) I reckon thats a conspiracy too! Poxy insurers…

Rude you really are as dopey as everyone says you are aren’t you?

Now then back to the evidence…… I’m waiting ……

Any one piece will do, doesn’t have to be anything major.

Apparently this lot are making stuff up too

Like I said any one piece of evidence!

PS Saddam did have WMD’s the UN inspectors spent a considerable amount of time cataloguing and keeping track of them. Not only that he actually used them on the Kurds and the Iranians. Its just that they weren’t there when we invaded the country. Never at any point is there a real question of whether he actually had them or not. Unless……. well unless all the dead kurds and Iranians were actually working for MI6 or the CIA and their mass suicide was just a fiendish plot all along….

A more sensible one would be what did he do with them ?

Rude boy, I’ve listened to the Sh1te about 9/11 for years, a member of my family is in fact the Grand Wussak of the local klaven and has tried to persuade me for years. Quite simply, there is NO evidence whatsoever to support the suggestion. Everytime something is debunked the argument simply shifts to another piece of drivel and then to another and another. Wake up and smell the coffee man for goodness sake.

I’ll happily go toe to toe with you here and I’ll eat my shorts unwashed if you can produce any piece of substantiated irrefutable evidence to back up your claims.

Further to my previous post and your response the fact that modern warfare methods are being used currently is wholly irrelevant to the point I was making earlier. What do you expect? They roll up and use slings and arrows?The point is that the places are unstable and have been for thousands of years. Our involvement either, colonial or otherwise is recent history in terms of that simple fact, (not a word that you seem able to bring to a discussion)

At no point did I say it was right, nor did I say it was wrong, just that its better to live here than it is there, and if you’re that unhappy about the way things are here perhaps you would be better to go there and check it out for yourself first hand and then if you survive the experience you can report back with your new enlightenment on the subject.

Regarding your debasement of our political system, and what our society stands for, just try to look at some of the positives rather than the negatives, of which I grant you there are many. For example, rather than talking of our involvement in the slave trade, for instance (which incidentally had been going on in Africa when we in these islands were all running around in skins), how about talking about William Wilberforce and our nations impact on reducing it? Got the idea?

Rude boy you’ve watched too many series of 24….. its not for real mate its a TV show!

Personally I love the way everyone overlooks the history of Afganistan and Iraq and somehow manage to work it round to slating their own country. So lets get a few things straight Afganistan has been a lawless, violent and dare I say extreme area since the time of Alexander the Great. As has the North West Frontier, now known as Pakistan. (A the G incidentally is also the guy who is responsible for the fellas with Red beards wandering about there). In fact further than that the Sikhs are a warrior cast specifically bred by the Indian Moguls to keep the nutters from the North out, and I think you will find that goes back a fair old way. Likewise Iraq has been fought over since time began. Thats got **** all to do with either the UK or the US, we are just the latest in a long line of sad buggers to have a go at sorting the mess out. (Bit like Vietnam where folk tend to forget it had been constantly at war without significant break for 1000 years before the yanks showed up and has been for a significant period since they left!.

The $64,000 question is why? Well I’m guessing its got a tiny weeny bit to do with its strategic importance. However, I’m not that fussed frankly, as I happen to have the luxury of living in a wealthy country which does have free elections, and if I don’t like the way its going I can do several things about it including voting and demonstrating against it, or even standing for parliament whilst wearing a white suit. How many Iraqi’s or Afgahni’s have ever been able to do the same??

Simple really. Now for all those who don’t like the way things are done here, I do believe that the Taleban and Mullah Omar have vacancies for suicide bombers. How about popping off and learning about the culture first hand rather than spouting utter crap on here? If you come back, you may well be better informed than you are now.

Well I reckon its about the 3 R’s myself, Revenge: Removal: and Rehabilitation.

Revenge: Not the most worthy of motives, but I guess you have to pay heed to the Daily Mail contingent.

Removal: Which may well be the need in this case, but clearly there is an argument for removing some people from society.

Rehabilitation: To me this is the most important and the one that receives the least attention. Quite clearly if TJ is right, and certainly I accept the more people in prison, if a little unsure about the longer bit, then its not working when we are operating at a recidivism rate somewhere between 80 and 95%. So in my simplistic view of the world it seems to me that if something’s blatantly not working then its time to do something else… isn’t it?

Having been a victim myself of an assault, (thankfully not sexual), I know that what I wanted most was some form of understanding of why it had happened and to be honest some form of apology. The rest was secondary.

In this particular case, I have a horrible feeling that the poor lass who was the victim is probably feeling a lot like she’s been raped twice right now, and whatever else that cannot possibly be right, surely?

I dont think Im going to be any better qualified to pass judgement on him

No one asked you to pass judgement on him to be fair, merely what constitutes a serious crime nowadays, as apparently this isn’t, (I am of course presuming that they hand out longer sentences than 5 years 4 months, with remission after half of that for serious things……. surely don’t they?)

Surely the current idea is a bit of an emperor’s new clothes moment. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t sexual and religious equality part of our law now? Given that that law is supported at European level and is therefore senior to ours, then surely the Monarch has her proverbial backside in the air over this. So Gords doing Maj a favour then right?

kevonakona – Member

Who are the non-helmet people?

From my desk i can see my Giro Atmos (sitting on the roadie saddle) and sitting in the back of the car is my Giro Havoc. Not anti-helmet in any way but fed up of poles with bias, deliberate or not, reinforcing a particular view point.

Actually fella I was trying to see TJ’s point, rather than prove or disprove anything in an obviously unscientific poll. I’ve been around cycling a long time and I’ve heard all of the arguments many times, but frankly I just don’t get the argument. I’ve never, and I mean never seen anything that supports the arguments that not wearing a helmet is safer or better for cycling than wearing one. Seems to be borne out by the experience on here. So armed with that fundamentally flawed view I’ve climbed right back up onto the fence and still await the day when someone can convince me that not wearing a skid lid is a good idea.

Other thought is that much like the Jade Goody thing if you’re fed up with something best advice is to ignore it in my experience.

Cheers for that people.

obviously totally unscientific and only kind of proves that stats and surveys are prone to dodgyness if nothing else. To me it just shows that very few folk have been injured by their hats in any way, let alone seriously, which reinforces my own experience.

I’m going to hop back onto the fence on this one, and wait for TJ whose views generally I concur with to convince me further. So jury still out here TJ.

Oh yeah and the other thing…. isn’t it interesting how defensive the non helmet people are of their view. They seem to get quite aggresive quite quickly about it. So whats that about ?

aracer – Member
What exactly are you trying to prove, G?

Just trying to see if TJ’s general thrust is supported by actual experience on here. For example I’ve never come across anyone who has been injured by their helmet, apart from superficially. I have come across two who have pretty much certainly lost their lives due to not wearing one, (OK OK it was the impact with large hard things that actually killed them, not the absence of a helmet, but one struck the back of his head on a rock, and the other had major skull damage from hitting a windscreen).
I also know from my own experience that the wearing of a lid does certainly without any doubt in my mind save me on a fairly regular basis from everything from minor bumps and scrapes through to less regular heavy impacts. So I just can’t understand where all this research and evidence that is being quoted is coming from. TJ is normally lucid and well argued on most things, so I have to give his views credence, but honestly hand on heart I just can’t see this one, and it appears that is borne out by those on this forum to a great extent.

Note to self : Write out 100 times I must read my own posts before replying to them! Doh!

Early doors I know, but that really does seem to back up my experience to date, which is that wearing a helmet seems to be a good idea. Whereas not wearing one on a high percentage of occasions whilst riding does seem to indicate that the individual concerned is not someone I want to be around.

Keep it coming

Ah, I’ve got you now.

I believe thats the same argument as used by Edward Debono that making cars less safe means that people will drive more safely to compensate. I’m not sure thats true though.

I also disagree about the “makes cycling seem more dangerous” thing. I reckon people getting killed by pratish motorists does that perfectly well regardless of the helmets issue. I also think that the fact that so few people get killed riding MTB and the fact that it such a collosal growth area tends to take the argument in the other direction. i.e. People see it as being safe, (perhaps in part due to the part helemts play), and therefore aren’t put off from doing it. Surely thats a more logical viewpoint?

Jimbo – Member
He takes all the credit for the “good” years, announces the end of “Boom and bust”, yet claims the current recession is “nothing to do with him”.

Isn’t that supporting the argument that he shouldn’t be blamed for the current economic situation?

I presume you mean he wasn’t responsible for the good years despite alledgedly claiming to be. If that is the case then surely you can’t then argue that he is also responsible for the collapse of the worlds banking system. I think you have to argue that the good years were down to him to be able to give him the blame for the current situation also. Think it through.

Still don’t see the argument against helmets.

I can see an argument that there is no evidence of substance that supports the anecdotal facts that are at my disposal that wearing one is a good idea (because it has saved me from injury several times and never once caused me one), but surely that argument is that one that wins the day. If wearing a lid was a negative or bad thing, surely there would be empirical evidence to support that? Which if I understand TJ correctly there isn’t. Besides it is self evident that people don’t go rushing off to their local A & E to report the fact that they haven’t hurt themselves now do they so there is hardly likely to be any evidence on that side of the argument is there?
Having said that I like TJ would not wish for compulsion, I’d much prefer people to choose to do the sensible thing, through the example set them. I fear however that by the same token that Jade Goody is newsworthy in any way other than as a statistic, common sense will continue to be an oxymoron

I think you’ll find that Bank deregulation was under Mrs Thatcher just before the economy overheated at the end of the 80’s, number of things done that led to previously unheard of issues arising including shockingly he economy overheating, and before you get there its like Pandoras box once you’ve opend it it can’t be closed.
Regarding corrupt cronies thats a bit rich, given the documented history of Dennis, Mark and Carole Thatcher, and I beleive yet to be proven unlike the various things that the Thatcher family have got and still do get up to.
The bogus war on terror? The one that was supported by the chinless wonder and the self same one that the Tories are a wee bit quiet about for that very reason?
No responsiblity would be not trying to shore up the system. Personally I’d let the bastards go down myself, but I’m sure some economics waller will be along shortly to tell me how wrong that would be.

And I don’t vote for him before we get to that bit. Just take a look at it evenhandedly.

Anyone mentioned Natasha Doo-hickey yet?

Stupidty?

I really cannot understand anyone of TJ’s obvious wit and intellect arguing against wearing a helmet. If buts and maybes apart, dangerous sport = minimise the risks whenever you can. Personally I’ve properly bust 3 helmets now, and theres not once where I thought “I wish I hadn’t been wearing that”, I’ve also got past numerous other incidents unscathed where the lid has deflected or absorbed an impact without the impact doing me any harm.

The only exception being a night ride where a low hanging branch caught my head light, and being attached to the hat I was whipped off the bike backwards. Spose that’ll have you arguing via the self same logic that you should night ride both helmet and lights free?

Can I be added to the list of people who won’t ride with non helmet wearers please? Quite simply I do not want the responsiblity for them or for their stupidity.

Dumb hairdresser gets media break, exploits it fully via even dumber public then dies tragically young.

No more to be said frankly!

Speaking as a resident of Ipswich, I can’t really see the argument for maintaining the status quo. Clearly what we are doing now is neither right nor working. So there is no question that we need to do something different IMHO, and then keep doing something different until we arrive at a solution that works. Walking round with blinkers on and sweeping things under the carpet doesn’t actually solve anything. If it be that legalising prostitution removes the sex trade from the control of the drug pushers, people smugglers and other nasty low lifes then thats a result IMHO.

G

Blimey ! Where to start?

I reckon MLC comes about for one of two major reasons

1) You wake up one morning and realise that you’ve got less time left than you’ve had already,
2) somehow or other you discover that you are yesterdays news at work, and probably will not be getting much further than where you are now.

That then leads to a period of navel gazing shortly followed by attmepts to recover/revitalise lost youth, missed chances etc etc. This phase often will follow some considerable time after the adult purchase of a scaletrix, the first sign of impending doom,(thats without any pretext of it being for your kids incidentally, simply a blatant boys toys moment).

In there there will be all sorts of efforts to recover youth which will include attempts at ridiculous testosterone rich sports, boffing the office bike and generally acting like an arse. If you are lucky you will come out the other side of it and come to an understanding of the siginificant things in life, and your successes with those as opposed to your perceived failures in many other areas. If you’re not you’ll end up i na disaterous relationship with the bike bitterly regretting what you’ve done to your one big success until that moment.

Best advice : Get on with it, get it out of your system, but always be totally honest with the office bike, and tell her that you won’t be leaving the Mrs. Never ever admit anything, even if you’re caught in up to hilt, this allows the real woman in your life the dignity of choosing whether to kick you out or not. And finally remember everything over 40 looks a bastard in lycra… learn to live with it!

Hmmmmmmmm

What a cock springs to mind frankly!

The error rate in what he has written didn’t stop at point one albeit his credibility did.

The simple fact is that we are at a point where a number of fundamentals of our economic and societal systems are in question as a result of the current crisis. In essence elected governments are elected on the basis of the electorates selfishness, (i.e. I will vote for the bloke who promises me most). Perhaps we all need to look in the mirror on this one.

So hands up eveyone who has taken on a loan or mortgage that they can’t afford to pay back, run up a supersize credit card bill (i.e. one that really can’t be paid off prior to interest being charged), or is simply living beyond their means in some way.

Then take a look in that mirror and say hi to the person responsible for the credit crunch.

:-|

:oops:

and another thing

Mr Agreeable said

And for the record, I can think of a few circumstances where addressing someone as “lady” could be considered offensive – think “mate” but with none of the friendly connotations.

Now there you go you see, I can’t follow that at all and really don’t see where that word is offensive except if the context and intent makes it so. SO MOST ESPECIALLY not in the context, tone, and sense that I used it in. So frankly I object to getting bashed over the head for the innocent use of a word which apparently now means something completely different, in fact diametrically opposed to what my experience and education have shown it to me to mean.
As defined by Websters Dictionary:

A woman of refined or gentle manners; a well-bred woman; – the feminine correlative of gentleman.

Joemarshall said:

Oh for goodness sake. **** is a shortening of the word Pakistan, that has been in common use since the 70s as an insult for pretty much anyone non-white, by nasty people like the BNP, National Front, and other racists who generally agree with their ideas. Brit is a word that everyone has used for ages to describe British people, and has no negative connotations. How hard is it to understand that obvious fact?

Yes it’s just a word, but you still shouldn’t use it to refer to people, in the same way as you shouldn’t say c*nt on blue peter. It is obviously offensive, and I find it really hard to see how people can’t get that?

Thanks joe, that is in fact my point. In essence the word is not any different to Brit, but it is the intent with which it is used that makes it offensive, and repeated usage in that way has made it in effect a swear word on a par with “c*nt” as you so succinctly put it. However, the word of itself does not have racist undertones, it is the common usage and intent behind that has that.

Thus, the real issue is one of attitude and intent, and NOT, repeat not the words themselves. Chasing about after the use of this word or that is pointless and frankly fruitless, as all that happens is yet another word gets purloined from the vocabulary and and misused and abused.

So going back to the point of the thread. Harry ? Well I think he should know better absolutely, but is he a racist because he used ****? Probably not, thats probably more to do with his upbringing and education, but thats another whole can of worms, and had he not used the word then probably his actual attitudes would never have been exposed, so overall it was a good thing right? As for Sikhy, well does it offend the guy its aimed at? Are you in any way derogatory or predjudiced about him or his religion in any meaningful way, No? well in that case it probably isn’t racist, but check for the PC police before you interact with your mate next if I were you.

Surely it is possible to be insulting, abusive or racist using virtually any words within our language? Isn’t it the intent that carries the offence, or do we now have PC police everywhere where any innocent use of any word whatsoever potentially offends someone somewhere?

For example, I recently received a proper trimming up over the use of the word “lady”. To me in my generation (52 ans) the word is a respectful term with absolutely no negativity attached to it. So when and by whose say so did lady move into the same area as slag, slut etc.?

****, well thats a shortening of the word Pakistan, in much the same way that Brit is for British and so on. The insult is in the intent with which its used, and quite simply it can be said in mnay ways and in many circumstances without it being negative. Equally so the other way around.

So intent is the issue surely.