Probably been lurking on the big hitter religion threads.

Check the “for sale” section too. She might be flogging Cruise’s Grifter, just to spite him.

The view of Mme Paradis’ arse in Noce Blanche

Not seen that. Next stop, Lovefilm…

I’m a bit taller than the scientologist… that’s got to count for something.

…and there’s no way on this earth that you could possibly be a bigger w****r. Or a more wooden actor. I think you’re in with a shot to be honest.

Scientology? Of do eff off, would you?

I’m proud of being ejected from the Auckland branch of their “church” for making a similar protestation. Not long after, I was similarly ejected from the San Francisco branch of the Moonies for the same reason. Why wouldn’t they let me stay? Bigots…

“Hair is the first thing. And teeth the second. Hair and teeth. A man got those two things he’s got it all.”

– James Brown.

Don’t worry mate, I’ve got a full set of neither.

Other than noteeth, who’s probably brushing his hair all nice just in case, does anyone else really care?

I doubt you would still feel that way, as you lose control and come off a junction.

EDIT – no I missed a joke – it’s too early!

Oh, and have a watch of an Irish film called “Garage”, RealMan (if you haven’t already!). I have a feeling you may enjoy it.

Laws are for idiots and criminals. Intelligent moral people do the right thing regardless of the law. I ride on the footpath, run red lights on my bicycle, but drive at appropriate speeds which are often less than the prescribed speed limit, I pay my taxes and act considerately to my fellow man.
The law serves a similar purpose to what the bible did many years ago. It provides a set of rules of how to appropriately conduct yourself, if you are incapable of making that decision yourself.

This makes a lot of sense, providing that we unfailingly “act considerately to [our] fellow man”. Hugor’s right in that it’s only people who fail to understand the reason for a law that need to be restrained by that law. There are grey areas, admittedly, but if you always think about the consequences, or potential consequences, of your actions then you won’t break many laws, and the ones you do will impact on nobody.

EDIT: …unless you’re breaking a law to make a point, but that’s a whole new discussion…

I could never resist a bite of the ones I was cooking for my girlfriend’s son when he was younger, so when he looked at me like something was up, I’d just tell him he had four fish fingers and one fish thumb.

Ahh bollocks sorry. Although to be fair it is pretty obvious what’s going to happen, the film is pretty much devoid of hope entirely.

…and a really good film is worth watching even if you know what’s going to happen…

There must be an argument for “red = stop and give way, proceed only when absolutely clear”? Maybe we need to jam some of the signals on four-way amber in off-peak hours?

That’s a great idea.
I also think that cyclists should be able to go through reds to turn left, or go straight ahead where there is no left, providing the coast is clear. Crossroads and right turns are a bit trickier.

When it goes the other way and the foreign film is a product of Hollywood, the question seems less relevant.

Don’t quite understand what you mean…can you elaborate?

whether they are dubbed or subtitled, IMO subtitles better.

Nothing ruins a good foreign film more than dubbing. Why, oh why, do they ever do that?

Have you tried Almodóvar films?

No, I haven’t, but may give them a look, cheers.

“The Skin I Live In” is great, if strangely disturbing…

but I’d say it’s got one of the best endings of all the films I’ve ever seen.

I know what you mean – it somehow redeemed all that bleakness in one short scene.
That final shot in 21 grams, too – if I remember correctly it was a disused swimming pool in the snow – I still don’t fully understand the relevance of it, but it captivated me when I saw it. Innaritu seems to have a way of leaving a film rattling round your soul.

I love Central and South American films – saw a lovely Argentinian one called Las Acacias last week.

I thought Biutiful was brilliant, but so bleak it was almost painful to watch. Don’t remember it feeling over-long though.

Thinking on, bus drivers up here always cut me up on my ride to work and back. B*st*rds! Give ’em nowt.

Ours is distinctly uninspiring cuisine/variety wise, but on the plus side you often get a bit of yesterday’s menu dried on your cutlery…mmmmm!

Like the banks do ?

Decent!!

Outside of any argument about additional workload, the transport authority will be taking a huge wedge from all the additional fare income, so why not distribute some of that amongst the poor buggers who are at the sharp end? Any decent employer would do that.

Seem to be a lot of “consultants” these days, many of whom lack any experience and knowledge in any field whatsoever, or any applicable education. I feel sorry for real consultants who actually know their onions…

Shhh! Don’t start a fuss or they’ll all leave the country, and they’re all geniuses, much better than us peasants, and they’ve worked SO hard for all their money, and they deserve every penny, and you’re just jealous, etc. etc. etc. blah blah blah.

Now your Commander In Chief is shaking hands with one of the enemy’s main leaders.

Are you going to be impressed?

Doesn’t that depend on what’s being achieved by the handshake?

Again, you’re just using terrorist as an insult.

No, I’m using it in accordance with the definition of terrorism as the use of violence and intimidation, especially for political ends.

French and Dutch resistance in WW2. Terrorists?

Sure – at times.

…and to the French and Dutch resistance, we can add Blair, Bush, Guevara, Hitler, Bolivar, any perpetrator of violence anywhere, ever.

“Terrorist” isn’t just an insult that you throw a people you dont like, as you suggest.

I take your point. In a purely literal sense, you’re correct. I think globalti was more referring the subjective, vernacular use of “terrorist” and “freedom fighter.” Which is sort of more in tune with the subject of this thread.

wrecker – Member

French and Dutch resistance in WW2. Terrorists?

Examples of them targetting purely civilians?

One of us is missing the point. Z11’s quote is to what I was referring. It doesn’t mention the target of the operation.

if you carry out military action whilst disguising yourself as a civilian, you’re a terrorist.

French and Dutch resistance in WW2. Terrorists?

great minds, Zimbo…

I always thought you were a genius, v8!

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

In fact, Konabunny, give me just one example where this isn’t true…

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

There’s always someone that rolls out this trite untrue bollocks.

Why is this untrue? Enlighten me?

@zimbo come on I know you’re dying to tell us about your maverick world

No I’m not.

it’s a “demonstration” of you ability to pay attention to “detail”.

Is it? I don’t know what line of work you’re in, but a tie wouldn’t do that in my world.

onehundredthidiot – Member
Always a tie, you can take it off if you look conspicuously over dressed. Frickin’ hate the non tie bollocks. If your here to impress/sell something have the decency to take it seriously. Not as though you’ve finished work for the day and are about to sit down for a chat and a pint.

Why do you need a piece of useless string round your neck to be “decent” and “take things seriously”? We’re one of the few countries that still cling to the archaic importance of ties. But that seems to be dying out, and not a moment too soon.

geoffj – Member

In the (admittedly maverick) office where I work, we have a theory that ability is often inversely proportional to the cost of your clobber.

STWers in inverted snobbery shocka!

It ain’t snobbery, it’s based on empirical observation…

she rocked up a while back with a set of DDs

deadlydarcy – did you lend her your boobs?

Yep. That’s art.

Fake. Like huge beach balls, so you can’t even see the woman behind them.

oneoneoneone – Member

trousers, shoes, shirt and a nice jumper

Yaaay! Everyone loves a nice jumper. I’d second a nice jumper.

What is the percentage split between verbal/non-verbal communication?

74/26? Rough guess with absolutely no thought whatsoever gone in to it whatsoever. Just some random numbers. What do you think?