Fact vs. Fiction chat & forums.

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Show ALL Forums

Author

Thread: Fact vs. Fiction

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 10 (view)

Fact vs. Fiction Posted: 4/2/2005 1:06:04 PM
Well as one of the several British posters here's my tuppence worth. 2. Can the Queen of England over-rule a Parlement decision? Firstly, she's not Queen of England, especially as England doesn't exist (currently) as a political entity. She is, rather, "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith." Queen of Britain is just fine. Secondly, she has to give her assent (sign off) any acts of parliament. Now this means that she can't overrule a decision but can refuse to allow an act of parliament to pass in to law. In practise this would trigger a constitutional crisis and I'm not sure how it would be dealt with. Options include: The Queen dissolving parliament and an election being called the main issue of which is the role of the monarchy; The government passing a law overruling the monarch's ability to pass parliamentary legislation; The government taking the role of the monarch to the courts and getting them to decide. So it's unlikely but theoretically possible. How did the British Government go to war in Iraq when public opinion there was overwhelmingly against it? How does any government take an unpopular decision? Because it can. Like most countries we've got an elected dictatorship; a government, once elected, can pretty much do what it likes unless it's defeated in parliament.

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 8 (view)

Okay here's my dumb question Posted: 3/27/2005 12:16:23 PM
Well you've posted 8 times and 4 of those times have been to proclaim your virginity. You're either a troll or should seek counselling rather than posting on a public forum.

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 2 (view)

so HOW DO YOU KNOW the difference...? Posted: 3/27/2005 12:04:55 PM
Well I had a great reply for you but "nope TOO BIZZY" ciao

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 4 (view)

What makes someone moral? Posted: 3/27/2005 11:45:32 AM
Well I think you have to start by defining what you mean by 'moral'. I've no doubt that many suicide bombers feel they're being moral by ridding the world of one or more enemies; and that they'll be rewarded by the god in whose name they commit their act. The same's true of most religious extremists down the ages: they thought their 'atrocity' was a moral act.

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 5 (view)

Needin some advice Posted: 3/27/2005 11:23:32 AM
Well you've a picture showing you in a short-sleeved blouse, a gold chain, a baseball cap on back-to-front and a pair of sunglasses indoors. I'd say you were well matched with her "awful fashion sense" frankly.

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 69 (view)

What did you eat today?? Posted: 3/27/2005 6:51:03 AM
Strikerz I love cooked pig and adore black pudding - which sounds just a little nicer than 'bood sausage' or 'blood pudding' I'd never heard of Morcilla so found a Spanish website and tried Google's translation, which came out as: Blood sausage Their basic ingredients are blood and butter of pig , rice, onion and pinions (according to the zone it varies the rest of condimentos) is inserted in natural gut and they cook. The quality of raw materials is the first exigency without artificial additives . The final result must be of black color and with the whole pinions I hope it taste better than it translates!

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 7 (view)

Picture IDs for Voting in the US? Posted: 3/24/2005 8:25:07 AM
I think that the barriers to voting should be as low as possible and anything that discourages people to vote needs careful thinking. The article Shan linked to didn't indicate that personation was a problem. The only part that talks about this states, "We've not had any incidents ... where we've had a complaint of someone presenting themselves at the poll and pretending to be someone else," I'd say, then, that one needs more evidence of voter fraud before taking such a step. Unles, of course, one believes the Irish Republican maxim, "Vote early and vote often".

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 15 (view)

Amusing ourselves to death? Posted: 3/24/2005 7:57:23 AM
RDtoo I totally agree with you. I never watch the evening news here unless there's some event I specifically want to see pictures of. BBC Radio 4 still makes an attempt at serious news journalism - but even that's been infected by the drive to make news entertainment - or even worse, to allow the medium to become the news.

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 36 (view)

Why Jesus died on the Cross Posted: 3/24/2005 7:53:25 AM
It's the same mindset. Baignet and Leigh are either fraudsters or - more likely - onto a good moneymaker because of gullible idiots like you. Getit?

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 33 (view)

Why Jesus died on the Cross Posted: 3/24/2005 7:34:33 AM
however groups like the templars and later the masons swore to protect the truth and the bloodline Why do so many thread in the 'religion' section get highjacked by the Da Vinci Code idiots? It's a **ing novel. Worse than that, it's a **ing crap novel.

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 12 (view)

What did you eat today?? Posted: 3/24/2005 6:24:09 AM
By the way Kikoro, should you reword the thread so that it reads, "What did you have to eat today so I can scoff if an animal was harmed in the production of your breakfast"?

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 11 (view)

What did you eat today?? Posted: 3/24/2005 6:22:16 AM
Oh I'm sure a bread roll with grilled tofu or pan-fried lettuce would be equally delicious. NOT

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 12 (view)

Amusing ourselves to death? Posted: 3/24/2005 6:20:30 AM
Woodrow, I agree with you to an extent. Yes, people like entertainment and, yes, TV does tend to do that rather than being 'issues' driven. Indeed, i'd go a stage further and say that TV's only role as a news medium is its ability to show pictures; if there's no picture there's no story. However, you statement "the media does it because it's what the audience wants", while being something I agree with, isn't in accord with the themes of BNW. We have (some) choice and, at least, an awareness of options. In BNW people have neither. My point being that in BNW mindless entertainment and such like wasn't a product of choice but a product of drugs and social conditioning. Of course, it may be interesting to ask why people choose crap when there are so many better alternatives - but maybe that's for a different thread.

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 29 (view)

Why Jesus died on the Cross Posted: 3/24/2005 6:08:29 AM
well there "could be stuff in the old that the committee who put the new together didn't want (me) to know". However, since I have access to the 'old' I'd say they'd done a poor job. Besides, the new isn't a replacement for the old so while it's possible that your question is valid I'd say the likelihood of it being so is vanishingly small.

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 9 (view)

What did you eat today?? Posted: 3/24/2005 6:00:03 AM
It's a bread roll, spread with butter and filled with rashers of crispy, smoked bacon. Guaranteed to cure all hangovers if served with half a pint of strong tea.

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 10 (view)

Amusing ourselves to death? Posted: 3/24/2005 5:08:47 AM
Well I haven't read Postman but from what I recall of BNW what destroys society is control, manipulation, social conditioning and mind-altering drugs. Amusement is just about the only thing left for people to pursue - and they do that because they have no awareness of alternatives. Woodrow, I'd have said your comments were more true of 1984 than of BNW.

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 5 (view)

What did you eat today?? Posted: 3/24/2005 4:44:07 AM
Well I'm across the North Sea from you and started off with a bacon roll and an apple.

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 25 (view)

Why Jesus died on the Cross Posted: 3/24/2005 3:16:26 AM
If I could just clear up a couple of misunderstandings Look the bible as we know it was written around ad300 What we have as the bible today wasn't written around 300 AD. The books that make up our present bible may have been assembled between 300ish and 400ish AD but the writings themselves are considerably older - the oldest OT books being (then) perhaps 800 or 900 years old and the newest NT books being maybe 200 years old. by a church that had a vested interest in excluding women Much as like to deride the church for its misogyny I'm afraid that it existed before the church. and denying the descendants of Jesus, a direct descendant of King David, who should have been the leaders of that church. Well there's no proof that Jesus had any descendents. The only member of Jesus family whom we know about was James and he became 'Bishop' of the church in Jerusalem (see Acts 15). Indeed, there's nothing in the NT that says church leadership should pass from father to son so even if Jesus had children their paternity wouldn't automatically make them leaders. The more I learn the more I distrust anything that came from the roman catholic church and that includes their version of the Bible Well fortunately you don't have to worry about this. What could be called the christian bible predates the roman catholic church. Indeed, the 27 books of the NT were generally accepted before Constantine's conversion to Christianity in 325 CE. So you may have issues with the bible and you may have issues with the Roman church - but please don't confuse the two. Whatever the bible may be it certainly isn't a product of the Roman Catholic Church

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 50 (view)

Saving yourself for marraige! Posted: 3/24/2005 2:23:50 AM
Well I think that of all the things one should bring to a marriage such as trust, respect and commitment virginity is pretty low on the list. Also, why single out virginity for special treatment? If you want someone to be your "one and only" then why not choose some other quality such as "the one and only girl to whom I've given flowers" or "the one and only girl to whom I've said 'I love you'"? I think focussing on your virginty gives undue prominence to sex and overlooks the many other aspects which go to make up a relationship.

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 122 (view)

Bible Myth or Fact Posted: 3/21/2005 1:57:03 PM
You're missing my points here. 1. I was not debating the accuracy or otherwise of scripture. I was simply stating one cannot contruct a detailed doctrine of scriptural inspiration from that verse in timothy. I said nothing about translations or transmission or manuscripts; you did that all by yourself. 2. I didn't change that particular scripture nor did I remove "god-breathed". I simply altered the word-order slightly which one is perfectly entitled to do. What I put up is a valid translation. 3. See a couple of examples under point 5. 4. Remember your statement, "It has been stated in this post in various forms that the Bible and certain events are not historically supported or supportable. This is horribly false." Now prove The Garden of Eden from archaeology and history. Do the same for Babel. 5. I think you got the point. You stated it....things change. Even those with a Christian world-view don't regard everything in the bible as unchanging or unchangeable. Not only do things change but christians disagree - and each group use scriptureto back up their beliefs. So in sum, the bible never claims inerrancy; Paul in timothy doesn't state that the bible as we have today is the inerrant 'word of god'; there are events in the bible that have no historical or archaeological support and the bible says things that christians no longer believe or practise.

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 22 (view)

Curlers of the world UNITE! Posted: 3/21/2005 1:24:28 PM
those d*mn scots, blame them Loo, such is the state of scottish sport that even a win at women's curling is hailed as a triumph. we don't get many of those these days!!!

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 119 (view)

Bible Myth or Fact Posted: 3/21/2005 12:58:19 PM
Tallguitar There are certain points you need to consider: 1. The quote from Tim. doesn't mean, "The canon of scripture as we know it today is true in all respects - factually and without error." 2. That verse could just as easily translated as, "All god-breathed scripture is useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking". This, I'm sure, puts quite a different slant on the whole "bible is the verbatim word of god" debate. 3. There are bits of 'scripture' that you ignore or gloss over or think have been superseded by later revelation. 4. Of course there are certain events in the bible not supported by archaeology. The Eden myth, for example. You cannot say that there's any historical record of it. What's more, it defies belief that Gen 1 & 2 are a literal account. 5. "To disbelieve in some part of the Bible is to deny some part of Christianity" is nonsense. I don't believe the hare chews the cud nor do I believe that people who commit adultery should be stoned to death. Do you? The Christian trinity is not Father, Son and Holy Scripture. There's enough of worth in the bible as a piece of literature without trying to ascribe to it quasi-spiritual qualities.

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 20 (view)

Irish thread Posted: 3/21/2005 12:46:23 PM
Lizzy, you're kind but sadly deluded. I went up Ben Nevis the hard way in January with 2 blokes ages with yourself - and I definitely felt my age the next morning - whereas they acted like they'd just been for a walk round Stephen's Green. Newfie's are from Newfoundland - Canada. Not unlike the Kiwis - but crap at rugby.

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 10 (view)

Favorite dinner food? Posted: 3/21/2005 7:34:38 AM
Well Easter's almost here - so I'm looking forward to my first spring lamb: Rack of lamb marinated in lemon juice, garlic, rosemary and olive oil; Roast in the oven for just about 30 mins or so; Serve pink with Gratin Dauphinoise and green beans. Food of the gods, I tell you.

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 34 (view)

RELIGION THE BIBLE Posted: 3/21/2005 6:56:45 AM
[quoteyou would see that the bible is not written to control it is written to free. That’s right, how do you think that the USA came to be. It was because a bunch of devote Christians, who read the bible many times, believed that god wants people to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness Can you tell me who, exactly, you're referring to here? Who was this "bunch of devote Christians"?

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 13 (view)

Fourteen Characteristics of Fascism--------Sounds like a place I know Posted: 3/21/2005 6:25:07 AM
I think this is yet another example of someone trying to make the facts fit the theory. Firstly, he gets some things wrong. 1. He states that "Power of corporations protected". Well this simply isn't true. What he's doing is taking the practise of Corporatism and either misunderstanding it or deliberately misleading the reader. The Italian fascists set up a system of compulsory unions which involved a committee of workers, employers and party officials. the intent of the policy was to give control of major industries to the state rather than leave it in the hands of private enterprise. The Nazis didn't do this. 2. Not all fascist movements since 1945 can be regarded as militaristic. The French fascist movement in the 1990s, for example, didn't ape a paramilitary style. 3. The notion that, "most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion" is simply nonsense. In Nazi Germany hundreds of priests were arrested and Hitler was opposed to organised religion. Now, Mussolini tried to get papal support for his regime, but probably because, as a good Italian boy, his mother would have slapped him if he'd been nasty to El Papa. Secondly, these characteristics aren't uniquely fascist. The vast majority of Britt's points are true, too, of other totalitarian regimes such as The Bolsheviks and Mao's Cultural Revolution. Indeed, apart from his (wrong) assertion about corporatism it could be a perfect description of Russia under Stalin. Thirdly, he's obviously working to an agenda. The full text of the article includes the following statements: And fascism’s principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for. We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not. So it's pretty obvious what conclusions he wants you to draw. I'd say it's a pretty shoddy, badly researched and thinly disguised piece of scaremongering.

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 5 (view)

advice please Posted: 3/20/2005 6:43:36 AM
Well I'm a neat-freak and spent time with my niece and nephews last summer (aged then 15, 12 and 9) while my sis and husband took and long break. My sister is much more tolerant tham me so I found their mess hard to thole (though I adore them in every other way. I guess living on my own makes other people's mess seem just so, well, messy). Anyway, my plan was the following: Don't threaten unless you're prepared to carry it out. No point in saying you'll move to an apartment if you don't. Have exclusion zones where their stuff never appears. With me it was my bedroom and the kitchen. You may have other areas. Have common areas where their stuff may appear but must be put away before a certain time. Have their own space where stuff can be all the time but must be tidied away when you tell them it must be tidied. Now to make it work, I had to do the following: Carry through any threats made; Have a confiscation policy. "Tidy this up by 5pm or I'm confiscating it for 24 hours." Then lock it away. Don't return it within the specified time scale. Even if they phone Social Services or the police. Even if it means them missing a soccer game or failing to hand in homework. You said it so you have to see it through. Have a 'throw it out' policy. "If that's not tidied it goes in the bin". Do it. Take the bin to the dump so they can't retrieve it. Do NOT replace it. Have a rewards system. "let's get this tidied then we'll go and see a film, or eat out or chuck your little brother in the river or whatever." Or reward them without telling them beforehand, "You did a good job there. Here's £5 for some makeup." Cull their stuff. They'll have things that are broken or too small for them or unusable. Give them away or throw them out. Make more room. Tidy up and make neat their rooms so they have storage space. I made some shelving for them because they had too little. More shelving combined with a cull of their 'old' stuff made a difference. Don't threaten unless you carry it out.

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 123 (view)

Liberals want it both ways... Posted: 3/18/2005 2:52:58 AM
there is a disconnect between the reasons the president gave for war and what most people think were the reason he gave Kadmus, we've had the same disconnect 'over here' (which is not really surprising because I think Bush and Blair worked hard to ensure they were saying the same things). Our government is now holding to the same line as you, which could be summarised as: We never said Saddam was an "imminent threat"; that was the press sensationalising selected parts of our argument. If you look at all we said before the war then the WMD issue was only a small part of the argument. Oh, and now that democracy is being established in Iraq why not praise us for our boldness rather be picky about how we got here." The issue I have with that is that it neatly allows the government to gloss over the fact that we were seriously misled and deliberately misinformed. Of course, going to war with Iraq may well have been a 'good idea'; Of course, too, getting rid of Saddam surely was a good idea. Using the end to justify the means is never a good idea and putting the blame on someone else (in this case the media) is cowardly and reprehensible. Bulldog, I'll not comment on your Hitler analogy; it's crassness speaks for itself. However, if you assert, "all over the globe, people are killing each other, is it only our duty to intervene when it affects us personally?" I think the answer must be "well that's what your country has done." Those of us who lived through the worst excesses of the IRA terrorism in the 1970s and 1980s and who remember the support given to the IRA through NORAID take American claims of 'freeing the world from terrorism' with a huge pinch of salt. You may be doing a lot now - but only because it has effected you personally.

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 15 (view)

war with china? Posted: 3/17/2005 11:11:52 PM
RD, if the Irish did want one thing then there wouldn't have been civil war. The problem is that some Irish want one country and some Irish want two.

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 118 (view)

Liberals want it both ways... Posted: 3/17/2005 3:33:34 PM
Kadmus, much as I hate to disagree with you I do think you're being unduly harsh on Elwood. Sure, your president may not have used the phrase "imminent threat" but one needn't use those exact words in order to convey that exact meaning. Thus, if I said "I'm going to punch you on the mouth right now" you'd be foolish to think, "that's not an imminent threat 'cos he didn't use the phrase". Now I think if our governments publish a document that states that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons capable of being deployed within 45 minutes that counts as an imminent threat.

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 36 (view)

Marines Snubbed Posted: 3/17/2005 3:22:21 PM
Merely an observation that Woodrow's cap was back-to-front and I thought he should know.....then again that may be how these youngens wear them in Canuksthan.

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 34 (view)

Marines Snubbed Posted: 3/17/2005 3:12:48 PM
Brilliant rant woodrow. I'd even give it the accolade of: Best Rant Ever From a Bloke Who Doesn't Know Which Way Round to Put His Hat

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 28 (view)

Marines Snubbed Posted: 3/17/2005 1:32:23 PM
I'm ashamed of this as a unionist AND as an American Well I'm neither a union supporter nor an American but I'm thoroughly patriotic and I utterly fail to see what a man's job has to do with where he parks his car. If the people who own a group of parking spaces choose to limit their use to people who drive a vehicle manufactured in a certain country and not sporting 'bumper stickers' supporting a particular person, then so be it; I really don't see why we've any right to stick our noses in their business. How'd it have been if the union had said they'd lift their parking restrictions for, say, people paying more than $50,000 a year in taxes 'cos they're giving so much more, incrementally, to funding 'the war'? Or they'd be ok if journalists parked there irrespective of car manufacturer or 'bumper sticker' 'cos they're doing such a dangerous job and suffering so many casualties?

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 12 (view)

war with china? Posted: 3/17/2005 12:53:41 PM
"The biggest mistake England made with this whole spliting of Ireland was not commiting near-genocide on the Irish like we did to the Native Americans" do you think it's too late?

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 10 (view)

war with china? Posted: 3/17/2005 9:32:13 AM
Please regard the following as being in parentheses as they're remarks about a couple of postings above and not related to the main thread. Northern Ireland is governed by England Northern Ireland is currently run by the British parliament. More specifically, the departments of state in NI are being run by the Secretary of State for NI due to the fact that the members of the elected Northern ireland Executive cannot work together. Note, too, that the British parliament contains members from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Please note that 'England' is not a political entity. There is no English Government. In the words of Paul McCartney "Give Ireland back to the Irish". The Irish run Ireland. The people of Ulster are just as Irish as the people in Eire. They may belong, politically, to Britain but that doesn't make them any less Irish. Besides, there have been what you call "Protestant plants" in Ulster for longer than most Americans have been in America but I don't hear you chanting "Give America back to the Navajo". Catholics and Protestants labels caused a big rift among the British today This is simply untrue. The vast majority of people in Britain couldn't give a stale Bath Bun about whether someone is Catholic or Protestant. There's a small group in Ulster for whom it's an issue and there's a smaller group in the West of Scotland who still think it's important. I've no empirical evidence for this but I'd reckon there'd be more druids in Britain than members of The Orange Order.

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 19 (view)

Marines Snubbed Posted: 3/17/2005 9:04:37 AM
Well I think if you choose to make a political statement then you have to accept that some people disagree with you. I don't see how choosing a job that involves getting a short haircut and wearing khaki prevents you from being disagreed with. I don't see, either, why we should be dewy-eyed and sentimental about some group of people based on their career choice. But then, again, I don't see how, in these days of professional armies, soldiers are automatically more patriotic than those of us whose daily assault course is no more demanding than jumping on to an office chair and whose idea of taking evasive action is avoiding the panhandlers at the tube station.

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 51 (view)

John Forbes Kerry and George W. Bush - Kissing Cousins and War-Mongers Posted: 3/17/2005 8:40:23 AM
What really disturbs me about this thread is the singular lack of evidence people are using to back up their arguments. Now, of course, there is electoral dissatisfaction; Of course, too, there's a lack of proper representation. What you've singularly failed to do, however, is explain how this has come about apart from odd mutterings of some unproven blue-blood conspiracy. Moreover, you've failed to address my questions about how one gets involved politically and how that involvement can effect change. Furthermore, you've failed to address the issues of apathy and laziness. As far as I can see you've chosen to ascribe the failure of the system to the least obvious and least explained reasons and totally ignored the simple and self-evident ones.

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 13 (view)

Why? Posted: 3/17/2005 7:14:25 AM
I'd like to chip in with some praise for Canadian women. When I do a 'who's on in London' search I usually get lots of London, Ontario girls rather than London, England. It's nearly enough to make me move.....

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 45 (view)

John Forbes Kerry and George W. Bush - Kissing Cousins and War-Mongers Posted: 3/17/2005 2:32:31 AM
Mr Fixit Of course I agree that, "merely claiming to (have) "rubbished" something (is that even a word) does not make you correct. It is rhetorical". That's why I chose a word showing criticism rather than, say, "disproved" or somesuch. ie I made a judgment of your evidence and thought it was dross. Of course, your assertion may be true but the evidence didn't back this up. I think the point I was really trying to make was that while there may be a "indeed a connection between leadership and blood" you have to prove it and thus fair you've put up evidence that stretches my credulity. Now sid may, again, be right when she said, "to assume that the process has anything to do with the public or its opinion is very naive". However, that is nothing more than undiluted rhetoric. Indeed, when I asked some questions about the process I didn't get an answer. I think, as a rule, that we get the politicians we deserve as a result of indolence and apathy on the part of the electorate and power-lust and resources on the part of the elected. If there are other forces at work then I'd be interested to know. However, you have to try harder. As I said in my second post: if you are concerned about the existence of a political cabal which stands apart from party politics then I'd suggest that you substantiate your claims in a way which the casual and ill-informed reader (like me) can believe.

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 5 (view)

Garlic is Toxic?!?! Posted: 3/16/2005 2:37:04 PM
Surfer, I'd assumed he'd posted an article he'd found somewhere rather than giving his own experiences. could well be wrong though

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 2 (view)

Garlic is Toxic?!?! Posted: 3/16/2005 12:29:46 PM
Toxic or not I care not. I'd rather eat garlic and die. Then again, I am a smoker.....

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 88 (view)

Bible Myth or Fact Posted: 3/16/2005 12:18:24 PM
well that's one interpretation of the myth anyway it'd help if there was consensus on the view that all languages stem from the same root

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 86 (view)

Bible Myth or Fact Posted: 3/16/2005 12:09:55 PM
SirT, you're going to have to try and rephrase the above. I'm not really sure what you're getting at.

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 97 (view)

Oral or Intercourse? Only one for the rest of your life.....what would you pick? Posted: 3/16/2005 7:54:25 AM
Maybe i need to find a different type of girlfriend. Well there was a thread about inflatable girlfriends the other day....maybe that could give you some ideas.

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 119 (view)

Books - who likes to read? Posted: 3/16/2005 7:11:02 AM
OK done. Let me know if you want any changes/additions to the post and i'll edit it.

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 118 (view)

Books - who likes to read? Posted: 3/16/2005 7:02:03 AM
Sorry - I thought it was you or Tera!!! I'll do it right away M'am bows and walks out the room backwards

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 116 (view)

Books - who likes to read? Posted: 3/16/2005 6:59:40 AM
A pushy member already huh?

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 41 (view)

John Forbes Kerry and George W. Bush - Kissing Cousins and War-Mongers Posted: 3/16/2005 6:30:47 AM
Our Prime Ministeris holding back from proposing we join the Euro because he knows that public opinion is against it; The goverment watered-down its anti-terrorist legislation last week because of opposition from the public, The Lords and pressure groups; The goverment changed our system of local taxation because of public outcries; Our government insisting that the new European Constitution contains provision for member states not to participate in certain areas because it knows that's the only way it has any hope of getting the constitution ratified at a ballot.

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 109 (view)

Books - who likes to read? Posted: 3/16/2005 6:14:52 AM
OK, I'll throw my hat in to the Miss Prym ring followed, next time, by memnoch - but could swap the order (if forced) Now if I was Mr Organised I'd suggest we start a thread saying something like: A. we're having book club which everyone's invited to join; Let us know if you'd like to participate. B. We're going to be reading "The Book" C. We'll start on This date and end by That date - ....to allow people time to get the book and to set an outer limit on the discussion. D. Tera or Bells will be the moderator for this book......just to keep a hand on the tiller and keep the discussion going rather than be heavy-handed. E. Please tell us if you've ever participated in such a thing before - and give us tips and ideas of how it should be run. F. Give us ideas on how to run it even if you haven't participated G. Don't post suggestions for future books here. We'll post new thread for this. What do you think?

grovecot

Joined: 2/21/2005

Msg: 38 (view)

John Forbes Kerry and George W. Bush - Kissing Cousins and War-Mongers Posted: 3/16/2005 6:00:15 AM
Well I can only speak for Britain's system since I know that best. I know how to join a political party; I know how candidates for local or central government are selected; I know how leaders of our political parties are selected; I know what to do if I want to be part of that process. I don't participate, though, because, as bells said I, "dont care enough to check or balance those I (they) give power to". Now sidheanwwyn, you said that: to assume that the process has anything to do with the public or its opinion is very naive Do you need anything other than citizenship to join one of your political parties? Do you need anything other than party membership to be involved in selecting candidates for office? Do you need anything other than party membership if you want to run for office? (laying aside the money thing since I'm being idealistic here) Do you need anything other than citizenship (and money) if you want to start your own political party? In other words, if you don't like the system, are you excluded from participating in changing it?

Show ALL Forums