Stichman

Thanks man. That Novation Xiosynth looks well good for the money. What software do you use with it? Is that Xcite+ Pack included?

We were brutal. Dreadful. McCann was awful, but then again our other option is the equally depressing Muirhead. Put it this way; until he got injured, Stephen Glass was playing left back.

Haha! Her videos scare me. She scares me. When I hear people say "She'd get it", I think no. No, you'd get it, mate. She'd break you. Have you seen those thighs? Especially when she's belting out one of her man-hating numbers. Gulp.

Speaking of pop music, Sweet Dreams by Beyonce is an absolutely amazing tune.

So I've decided I'd like to invest in a synth. I'd like something with software so I could piss about on my laptop (which isn't a Mac). Ideally, it'd be something I could use as a midi controller to trigger loops and pre-recorded tracks and stuff, but also to tinker with live on stage and play arpeggios an' that. I know there are some synthy experts on here, so any advice would be brilliant. Oh, and incase you hadn't noticed, I'm something of a novice with this kind of thing Thanks a lot

Civnet. Best. Game. Ever.

Pack it in and go for The Mill on the Floss for all your effeminate classic needs. It's ace.

I haven't been to the dentist in ages. I'm going with this logic - It was fine last time I went > I have brushed and flossed regularly since > It is still fine Suits me.

The Radetzky March - Joseph Roth This is one of the best books I've ever read. It follows a couple of generations of an Austro-Hungarian family and beautifully charts the demise of the empire. Some absolutely brilliant characters and astonishingly vivid imagery. I just loved this so much, what a book. I can't recommend it highly enough.

Dan Brown is just so awful. His writing style is horrific, and Angels & Demons was one of the most cringey, cliche-ridden books I've ever had the misfortune to pick up. Never mind the fact that he just invents great piles of pish and passes it off as history, or the ridiculously far-fetched scenes like the infamous helicoper jump; he's just a bad, bad writer. I'm sure he spins an exciting yarn, but dear god that's about all he can do.

I just saw Let The Right One In, which is a Swedish film about a child vampire. Nice. It's visually stunning with plenty of artistic, lingering shots of snow. It's very quiet for large chunks and pretty slow-moving, so if that's not your bag then best steer clear. The young actors were immense, and although it was more than a little bizarre, I enjoyed it a lot. Not quite as brilliant as my brother had me believe, but definetely worth watching.

Aw shucks

No there's not, because I'm not suggesting we should give rights to babies on their ability to feel pain, etc. I'm suggesting that they have greater rights because thay are humans. Argh! Species does not sit in those categories in the slightest. It is a massive jump to say because we treat humans equally regardless of their charcteristics that we should trreat other species in this way. I still don't understand this basic point; if we are simply animals then surely we shouldn't feel morally obliged to not kill other animals? If we are simply the dominant species then it is in our nature to eat any other animal if it serves our interests. I don't think there has been any valid argument as to why this is even a moral issue in that respect.

Argh. What a performance. As somebody has said already, Fletcher was immense but he's been gash for the rest of the qualifiers. I thought Naismith was brilliant, Maloney played well and the back four looked assured (goal aside). Kenny Miller is pish though. I don't care how much he runs, he just can't score. He's terrible infront of goal. I haven't seen the replays yet, but that looked like a total sitter off that rebound. On that note, Commons is woeful too. I thought Burley got the team spot on, and we were just so unlucky. It's hardly his fault that we couldn't stick it in the net. I don't think sacking him will acheive anything; we were actually pretty exciting to watch out there. Still, we should be getting out of this group so he'll probably get fired. C'est la vie.

I'm getting really tired of Kenny Miller. Everyone always give it the old 'he runs his heart out for the team.' So? So would I if you gave me a game, but I'd still be gash. He has scored some great goals for us, but he has absolutely no composure in front of goal and he's probably the last person I'd want running through one-on-one with the 'keeper.

Why use that example then? o_O Okay, so what are an animal's 'rights'? Who decides what they are? Animals obviously can't voice their opinion on the topic, so presumably we have to decide for them. So... Peter Singer decides? I decide? You decide? I believe in animal welfare, but I don't believe that animals should have any inherent 'rights'. Again, that is a wholly human concept that we are trying to apply to animals. So, I'm allowed to prefer humans? Ace. Well what if an animal has to suffer for the benefit of a human; say to test new cancer drugs or so someone without the luxury of a Western diet can eat and stay alive? Is that permissible?

What? I don't mean protecting humans from animals, I mean protecting humans from poverty, illness, each other, etc. It just worries me when people value *other* animal life more or equal to human life. Sorry, I should have said "if you think that is wrong then so be it". Obviously I don't think it's wrong.

I don't really understand this

I must say I wasn't at all interested in the majority of the headliners (although Idlewild were dependably ace). This meant I had a class time catching a lot of the bands in the smaller tents; Little Kicks were predictably good and I enjoyed Cast of the Capital's set. Sadly didn't catchy IRL as I was trying to locate two vanishing guitars at the time. From our point of view, it was great to exorcise the demons from our terrible performance a couple of years ago. We had a nice big crowd and thoroughly enjoyed it. Cheers to the Wizard guys for having us!

This is going to be busy. I can't wait.

We've been through all this! I'm speciesist, remember? Clearly I wouldn't eat a mentally-impaired person, because they are a human. I have more interest in protecting human life than protecting animal life. If this is wrong, then so be it.

We clearly differ over what we describe as 'unnecessary.' It is possible for me to kill an animal in order to eat it whilst simultaneously ensuring that animal doesn't experience unnecessary pain. I'm sorry if I haven't stated the recognised reasons why it's fine to eat meat. I've just attempted to state why I personally eat meat. Maybe, as a fellow meat-eater, you could enlighten me? Interestingly, I don't think there have been any satisfactory answers as to why I shouldn't eat meat. This is especially important because apparently I'm the one that needs to be persuaded. I couldn't care less if someone is a vegan, I just take issue with being told I should be one, or it is somehow 'wrong' to eat meat. There has been no argument in this thread that would even begin to make me think about not eating meat. Maybe we're all just a bit pish at arguing.

Haha, 'interesting'? I didn't say at any point there was all that much aimed at Christianity, other than from the guy who I was replying to at the time. It just annoys me when people throw in cheap, gleeful sideswipes at religion at any opportunity. You're not bothered as the reasons to why we eat meat? Really? I guess I'm not bothered about the reasons we shouldn't eat meat! Previous behaviour isn't necessarily a good model, but in this case I think it is. Ah, you see, I don't think an animal should suffer unnecessary pain. I'd be less bothered about a cow in pain than a human in pain, but I certainly seek to avoid causing pain to a cow. I think we all agree on that. The difference is I just don't have a problem with it being killed and eaten. Haha. I don't have a problem with some of my views being conservative. Neither do I think it explains my reaction to this debate. I think it describes it, albeit rather generally. Have you ever considered you're taking a very liberal and unconventional standpoint? I bet you have.

How do we differentiate between ideas that are 'valuable' and those that aren't? 'Valuable' because they fit in with his personal preconceptions and ideas? 'Valuable' because society tells him morality is valuable? Exaggeration Of The Year Award! I think you're confused. I am plainly asking why he picks and chooses over what he praises and what he condemns from religion, when his knowledge of it is so sketchy that he resorts to laying the blame for the nasty eating of meat squarely at the door of nasty Christianity? A) I asked him if his morality stemmed from religion and he said it probably did. B) Why do we have desires relating to moral behaviour? If not from religion, where did they come from? They have to stem from somewhere. Presumably we'd think it moral to be moral because somewhere along the line we are protecting ourselves from the immorality of others. So why apply this to animals who have no comprehension of morality? I don't mean natural as in 'it happens in nature'. Obviously. That's why I put it between this ' and this '. I mean that as mere animals, surely we have as much right to eat other animals as any other animal does? Why should we feel compelled not to kill and eat them simply because we have the ability to overthink the process? It's because we consider it a moral question. So the big questions we have to address are; what is morality, where does it comes from, why should we value it and why should we apply it to animals?

So why are you so happy to take some ideas from religion without much argument, but totally reject others as ancient, irrelevant ramblings? If you accept 'morality' as a desireable trait, why do you so readily reject the idea that humans are inherently superior to animals? Surely morality is just as 'foundation-less' as any other idea originating from religion? Presumably,this 'deeper' area you refer to is just your natural conviction that it's nice to be nice. It's natural to want to protect your own species. Just as it's our natural compulsion to eat meat, which probably originates from our desire for self-preservation. Nobody is arguing against morality, so why are you arguing against our equally 'natural' consumption of meat? Oh, and I'm sure you'd agree that just because the majority of people think something is 'right', that doesn't make it so...