Knight of Swords

I would hazard a guess that Sue Denim is kidding Tv Tanned.

Yeah' date=' cultural artefacts have been destroyed Knight of Swords but Im sure that is not the main concern of the Iraq' population at the present time. You are right though, Iraq used to be called Persia and is steeped in history..... and now bombs, machinegun fire, chemical weapon attacks etc etc.[/quote']

Not even just Persia, remember Mesopotamia is in Iraq - the cradle of civilisation.

I suppose you're right though, people being bombed don't think much about 4000 year old hat stands.

Erm... I do show up to vote' date=' as do the majority of people I know... I realise as far as the nation goes the amount of people catching their vote is on the decline, however it is absolutely ridiculous to claim that nobody casts a vote in this country.

I said earlier that I am for people reading, expanding their minds and so forth... it's definately a positive activity to persue... I was merely making the point that say for example... I enjoy skiing... it's good for my body, it lowers stress etc... but I certainly don't expect to not pay for it myself... It is a hobbie which benefits myself and myself only. That's the point I'm making. I'm certainly not saying that people shouldn't go to university.[/quote']

You know what I'm getting at without taking what I said too literally. The reason it's worth people broadening their horizons is because culture is an important aspect of society. I'm not talking about educating a few people, I'm talking about educating everyone. Like the moron that I quoted in my previous post, there's always an attitude that intelligence, learning etc are somewhat pointless persuits (it's obvious when you look at how everyone interacted at primary school (ie neds have stronger personalities than geeks etc)). Is it morons who end up running everything (well actually it probably is, but the people who do all the actual work are educated)?

Education isn't a hobby, such as skiing. It's important. Politics is an obvious one. The more you read about politics, sociology, economics etc, the more you understand who you should vote for at a forthcoming election etc. Another example would be if more people were into creative arts, they'd spend less time watching TV or getting drunk. There are far more examples of this.

Ultimately, if the taxpayer's problem is paying for something he feels he isn't getting any return on, the taxpayer should realise that the reason he doesn't get any return isn't because graduates aren't contributing anything, but rather it's because he's missed the opportunity to take advantage of something which would be hugely beneficial to him.

I vote' date=' I pay tax and I don't read the Sun and I object to paying for some lazy bastard to spend 4 years pissing about learning for the sake of learning. I assume from your post you have finnished you art degree and are either working in MacDonalds or are still scrounging of the state.

I believe in free education but if you are educating yourself for the sake of education then you pay for it yourself in FULL.

There are enough useless scrounging parasites in this country without you adding to them. You shouldn't get a payout till you pay in.

[/quote']

So much for culture.

What pissed me off was the amount of cultural artefacts that were destroyed after we got rid of Saddam. The oldest civilisation in the world and it lasts about two minutes after the Yanks turn up.

I've got an arts degree (MA from Glasgow Uni) which is considered quite good as far as these things go. It's utterly useless in terms of finding work, but I learned a hell of a lot of interesting things while I was at uni. Being at uni gave me the chance to get into a lot of literature that I may otherwise have missed, a lot of art, philosophy, politics etc. I would say the answer to the initial question is that in terms of jobs, they're probably not the best degrees to go for, although some are specific enough that they are the key to getting into certain professions. If you enjoy education for its own sake, there's absolutely nothing wrong with doing an arts degree.

I'd also think the thing about "selfish" students is utter piffle. What's wrong with educating the public purely for the sake of education? Is it bad if more people read? Is it so terrible if people take an interest in the creative arts? Why is culture deemed such a waste of money in this country? Basically, most people who attack this type of education haven't actually been at uni and have literally no idea what they're talking about.

And so what if it comes out the taxpayer's pocket? It's not like anyone actually turns up to vote these days, so they don't have any say in how their money is spent anyway. It's just part of the old "let's attack students, they're all lazy hippies" mentality that people have because they read The Sun too much.

I really like using these chords together (you can move you pinky around to get good variations as well). These are the ones I piss around with the most when I'm playing the acoustic...

e---5---3---3---4---2---0---0---0---0---

b---3---5---3---5---3---3---2---0---0---

g---3---3---3---6---4---5---4---2---5---

d---3---3---3---6---4---5---4---2---5---

a---5---5---5---0---0---0---0---0---3---

e---x---x---x----x---x---x---x---x---x----

I always also liked using normal shaped bar chords but leaving the e & b strings open (anyone who's into Rush will recognise these chords). For some reason, I've also found changing from a major to a minor of the same note (eg Dmaj to Dmin) or doing the same except changing from the major to the minor7, works really well (Jethro Tull do the minor7 change all the time in their acoustic songs).

Sounds good. I'm also going to the Arches gig at the end of the month and being conservative in my old age, me and my pals have kept a good stock of mushies for the gig. Their ABC gig the other month was brilliant so I'm looking forward to this one a lot.

I've never seen the Uncle Meat film. I'd agree it was the best of the old Mothers stuff, although I don't think it's nearly as good as what Zappa went on to do. My opinion of 200 Motels is that you'd hate it unless you were a Zappa fan. I don't think the film's brilliant, but I really enjoy it, especially "Centersville" and the "I'm smoking the towels" bit.

Ruth Underwood was unbelievably good. One of the original Mothers groupies she was.

The quote from Uncle Meat reminded me of travelling up to uni and playing that album a lot. I don't know many people that like it, even less at half seven in the morning in a traffic jam on the way to Glasgow.

What's everyone's opinion on 200 Motels (film rather than album)?

I spend a lot of time in Glasgow and just thought the language was the type you hear the back of twelve in the city centre (ie drunk-wegie-ned-speak).

Generally, I pin most of the blame for us being shite on the Old Firm. The amount of decent young players that go to Glasgow and never get a game is shocking. They're talking about Kris Boyd going to Rangers at the moment. My opinion on Boyd is that anyone who can score regularly for Killie HAS to be a good player. He'll go to Rangers and be stuck on the bench and probably end up drifting into obscurity in the English first division.

A lot of the time, I reckon the Old Firm buy good SPL players simply so the other teams don't have them.

Personally I feel' date=' if Scotland were as good as England - their fans would be exactly as rubbish as the English ones.[/quote']

We learned in 78 not to go too over the top about winning pre-tournament games. However, I do remember a time not long after Vogts got the Scotland job, Chick Young said on the radio "The good times are here again" after Scotland beat the Hong Kong XI 4-1.

Apart from that, a lot of the reason the Tartan Army are different I think is because we don't want to gain the same reputation as the English fans.

Yes' date=' me and two thirds of the whole country apparently. It's all our fault.

Incidentally, given that the 90-day rule was requested by the police, I'd guess that your suggestion of simply putting people under surveillance is a gross over-simpification of how the police should do their job. They asked for this because as things stand, they cant deal with the terror threat effectively.[/quote']

The policeman that advised the government on the 90 day internment thing just so happened to be the same guy who lied to us all about the Brazillian they shot in the underground station (oh my God, I'm quoting Claire Short). You want to take his side, be my guest.

And yes, two thirds of the country who think that international terrorism will be remotely curbed by internment are to blame. Someone already said it didn't work against the IRA (with Al-Qaeda being ever-so-slightly more potent than the IRA), the Americans are already doing it and it doesn't work for them. On top of that, the government haven't actually detained many people under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime & Security Act (my figures might be outdated now, but I think it's 17 people since 2001), which translates to - how the fuck can you cripple Al-Qaeda by detaining seventeen Arabs? Would we have been in a worse postition had those people not been arrested? No.

The thing that really pisses me off is all the people who go on about protecting our way of life from Al-Qaeda. What seems to be happening is that we're foiling Al-Qaeda's plans to destroy Western Civilisation/ values etc by DOING IT FOR THEM.

And 2/3s of the country back this.

Well done those men.

John Leslie - "You sir, are a rapist"

I haven't read everything that's been posted (so forgive me if this has already been said), but I noticed someone saying that the advocates of animal testing have over emphasised it's importance. I agree that this is true, however, I know that insulin was tested on pigs and the development of that has saved a hell of a lot of people (also more interested in this from a personal perspective because diabetes runs in my family and I reckon I might develop it at some point). Testing on animals has its uses, although it would be better if we didn't have to do it. I don't know enough about the alternatives to form an argument about that.

Wouldn't test cosmetics on animals. That's been useful in the past, but we've long since learned how to make shampoo that doesn't irritate your skin etc.

Ach they're saying Blair was happy for this to happen. Some of the stuff that he still wants to bring into Parliament is apparently even less popular than this, so he wants to make himself look like he's trying tough on terror (identifying with the middle-Englanders etc) but his plans are being sabotaged by Brown's camp.

Basically, if he gets the stuff through, he's quite happy and if he keeps losing votes and eventually loses his job, he's going to make it look like it was Brown's doing and that Brown has let a personal quarrel take more precendence than the security of the nation. One thing it does indicate from this is that Blair thinks Brown's going to be the PM soon (presumably Alan Millburn isn't going to get the job after all).

Forgot to say, the other thing that might happen is that the Tories will back Blair's policies whilst a large quantity of the Labour Party won't, which will rip Labour apart. I wonder if Blair's thinking is that since he can't get anyone to succeed him from his own camp, he's going to make sure Brown inherits a poisoned chalice.

I posted something ages ago about rights being a stupid argument from either site. We then had page after page of waffled arguments from both sides about John Stuart Mill and libertarianism etc. I shall say no more on this.

Man walks into a fancy dress party wearing nothing but white pants.The host asks him "What the hell are you meant to be?"The man replys - "a premature ejaculation - i just came in my pants".

Made me laugh.

Mail order is the way to go.

Q. What do you call a man with a hotel on his head?

A. Norman Tebbit.

Clearly they are talking about repeated exposure.

Clearly I am as well.

Clearly people who work in pubs' date=' clubs and restaurants, or who regularly visit the pub, will be exposed to second hand smoke.

I suppose you put the evidence down to coincidence do you?

My argument is fairly simple. Rights have to be balanced. The right to breathe clean air outweighs other people's right to smoke.[/quote']

Your argument is fairly simple. It's also bullshit. What are the chances of getting cancer if you completely discount smoke from the equation? If you can tell me that, then a 20% increase in the risk starts to mean something. However, it may mean your chance of getting cancer increases from 1% to 1.2%. You can use statistics to prove anything (especially when you don't have a basis for comparison).

Oh yeah, if you can qualify "the right to breathe clean air outweights other people's right to smoke" then I'd like to hear it. As I said before, the "right" argument is bullshit from both sides.

I've played a Japanese Precision and it was a very good instrument for the money. It was better than the American Jazzes I've tried.

Come now, surely you can do better than that?

I didn't actually say the BMA's statistics were wrong, but in the context of your argument, they don't mean what you claim they do.

Don't buy a leather sofa, you'll never get up again.

What are the chances of getting cancer in the first place? How much passive smoking increases the risk? One fag or one million fags? And if you spend that much time in the pub, how much good are you doing your health? As I said, it's misleading.

Smoking can do this, it might do that blah blah blah. None of this is substantial.