bignumber5

Issues upon issues - Hal, did it ever occur to you that people are disagreeing with you because, well, they don't agree with you, rather than this clandestine conspiracy nonsense you're spouting? And bringing up and exposing the identities of the moderators as if that somehow makes any difference to anything is the online equivalent of the race-card: they're not dissin' you cos dey is moderators, dey is dissin' you cos dey fink you is wrong. The moderators are allowed their personal opinions as well, or do you think we should be running a catholic set up and metaphorically having our sex advice from obligate celibates? Bad form, Hal. (I'm not a moderator, by the by, just a bullshit filter: I'm sure you'd have outed me if I hadn't owned up) To the topic of the thread, this whole thing seems like GB can do no right - one of his personal things seems to be responding to recent service bereavements. He said in the phone call that he'd spelt it right but that his handwriting is pants, which, if you've ever seen his scrawl, is very plausible indeed. This is not a story of a no.10 cock-up, it's the story of a grieving woman in the angry stage being exploited by a tabloid for their own "GB is usless" campaign. He might not have had the best run, but I didn't see Blair handwriting a letter of condolence to every grieving forces family and I don't see Cameron getting round to it either. Cut the poor bugger some slack, say I. And wherever possible try not to identify him solely by his disability, I think we're better than that.

On a similar thread a good few months back, I posted this: Nothing seems to have changed, other than I am personally getting far less out of the forum than I used to, and that's largely down to the fact that the same whingers are whinging about the same rubbish: I think this about admins recent action, I think that about a recently banned forumite. Discussion is all very well, but to those telling admin how they want the forum to be run, I say this: It might be a free world and a free country, but it's not a free forum, it's admins forum. It isn't run according to the Geneva Convention or the world of fair as decreed by the individual disgruntled, or just plain argumentative, user. It is run according to how admin wants it to be run. And I think it's well run. If you don't like something and have a constructive solution or suggestion, discuss that with him/her by all means, but yet another repetitive public outcry of moaning with no constructive content is tedious - if you really don't like it, don't let the lounge door hit you in the arse on your way to a different forum.

No where near as many as "pink pants and badgers"...

But it is not pulmonary oedema, which is what the post mortem appears to have found. To speculate blindly is one thing (and I've already covered my opinion on what kind of thing), but just ignoring announcements of fact to continue doing so - what's going on with you lot?! And ordinarily I would be enjoing the details of *Bob*'s past too, except they appear to be getting paraded as a CV of 1st hand experience as if that settles him firmly into the expert witness chair.

The list making could equally be turned around: you name everyone that did die from drugs & alcohol and everyone not on that list died some other way... But all that misses the point of probability vs. deliberate causation/increasing personal risk, specifically in the area of pathology, which is unfortunately the direction that this has taken and so my inner geek needs to have its say because, to quote Ben Goldacre, I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that. Statistically, I am unlikely to die with pink pants on my head and a badger in my mouth, but should I choose to don such attire and jump off a cliff then I beat the statistics. Statistics only indicate the probability of outcomes within a group but do not affect the judgement calls of the individual. To state that the probability of a young gay man in the music industry having experience with GHB is greater than the probability of, say, a 62 year old tea-shoppe owner having done the same thing is statistcally accurate, but the chances of a single young muso having done so are absolute: 0 or 1, which is the same as for the other person. To assert that a certain cause of death is likely in an individual without knowing anything more than these demographics is, as *Bob* has freely admitted, speculation. You can serve it with a knowing side-order of "well, yeah, but come on..." if you want to, but speculation it remains. It might be a larf, but it answers nothing and it can potentially be offensive as it implies jugdements about risk behaviour that are not necessarily based on anything. Opening the door to stereotyping, even statistically reasonable stereotypes, is a slippery slope and one that I wanted to confirm that I am absolutely not on. If Stephen Gately turns out to have died in a GHB related manner, I will still feel validated in this view because, crucially, I'm not saying he didn't, I'm saying that I don't think there's anything to base that conclusion on at this time. Alternatively: Jimi Hendrix deceased, drugs. Janis Joplin deceased, alcohol. Mama Cass deceased, ham sandwich. And I can't believe Liberace was gay; women loved him, I didn't see that one coming... :))

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No-one has said anything about 'suspicious', BN5. > > But 'no cause of death' is a mystery, especially > if you're only 33. As I understand the legal aspects of investigating these things, any drug related death is classed as suspicious because it needs to be clearly established that the drugs were taken willingly. I may well be wrong. No cause of death known might be mysterious, no cause of death emailed directly to *Bob* for summary judgement may well just be privacy. Should I ever consider a career as a forensic pathologist or a coroner, I'll be sure to have you on speed dial.

In a case in which the Police announced on the same day that they were not treating his death as suspicious - did they also need to say that it wasn't mysterious? Which other adjectives do you need covering?

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > probabilty v possibility? A much debated premise in many circumstances, from risk assessment to racial profiling. But the point I was trying to make is that it's fairly unnecessary to trample on a man's grave in the name of demographics.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > iaineasy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I reckon it sounds like a GHB overdose, > > My money's on G too. Based on what, exactly? I mean, assuming that we're happily throwing away the concept of respect for the dead and debating the cause of death of a young man about whom we know virtually nothing, where's this coming from? Or, as I suspect, are you just working with the equation of stereotyping that young + gay + sudden death = club drugs? I'm not saying that it's absolutely definitely not, by the by, because I don't know: the point is that there isn't really anything being put out there at this time that points in that direction clearly enough for such definite sounding statements of what is or is not likely.

Some excellent cutting and pasting there - I believe I've found the epitome of dull just now...

Ah, memories (hazy ones, though): I too started on DogBolter!

recently back from a short trip to Canada where pretty much everyone has them, so they can all chat using some sort of instant messenger thingy. Means that they never check their messages so as a purveyor of a humble ring-or-text type device, I was outgunned and often not replied to... I thought they looked better than an iphone if you need to do anything proper on them due to the proper keyboard, but iphones seem to have more toys. "Business or pleasure" seems to be the question...

Un-British?! How dare you, sir. I take issue, as does every University rugby player in Britain, past and present... ...the walking:drinking ratio point is a good one, though.

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Drinking games are crap and bloody dangerous. Sounds like stag night fodder to me - Circle Line, Monopoly, or Pub Golf in the area of your choice...

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nope. > > It's more > > T outside TB. tables outside the bishop?

On the one hand, valid question - Ireland is not Britain - on the other hand, issue-y question - there are several variations on the names of a lot of land masses, including one in which the entire of Australia, New Zealand and the surrounding South Pacific Islands as a single continent is referred to as either Oceania, Australasia or just Australia. In terms of political mapping, Great Britain is England, Wales and Scotland, The UK is adding N.Ireland, and Ireland/Eire is a separate place. Apparently the preferred term in politics for the whole Geographical she-bang is Britain and Ireland, which, based on the political definitions, technically omits Northern Ireland... argh! Is there a right answer? I think that certain terms have been thrown around for so long that it can be difficult to make changes (as an Englishman and, therefore, the subject of none that have recent, painful memories, this is a very easy standpoint to champion), or next we'll be changing the name of London because it harks back to Londinium and we are no longer under the yoke of Roman rule etc where does the madness end etc etc... That said, The British Lions officially changed to British and Irish Lions in 2001, despite a long line of Irish players over it's previous history of not having Irish in the title. I think the exercising of a little lattitude and "it's ok, we know what you mean, we know you don't think you rule us" has greased the wheels, but we were imperialist basterds for a very long time, it's on maps and old documents all over the place, and getting round to apologising for it all and putting all of it right is taking a while.

I once left my bike chained up outside guy's hospital in l.bridge with the seat taken off and with me, and the front wheel taken off and locked to the back one, the frame and a railing - safe at houses, I thought. Some toe-rag nicked the quick release bolt from where the seat post inserted into the frame...

Hardly a student, and hardly likely to be offended by medical terms ;-)

Which stands up fine until you notice that male newsreaders are often an obvious 10-20 years older than their female counterparts, and often not exactly Pitt-a-likes: The latest scandal over Strictly judges on the BBC highlights to a certain extent that while women are free to hold any post that a man is, if it's in the public eye they'll get replaced on the grounds of their eye-easiness (and age as a factor by association) long before the fellas will...

Rugby

macroban Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The correct word is pervasive. > > The simple solution is to ban football. But these violent whites love their football - if we ban it in public, they'll take it to the streets, unregulated: jumpers for goalposts, even getting children playing... that way madness lies, madness I tells ya...

to tempt fate by offering a serious response, i think the London Archers are based in Pimlico somewhere - I used to fence round there (crossing blades rather than flogging ookey merchandise) and I seem to remember the Archers practice met nearby. Not sure if that counts as local - sort of depends where you're travelling from. Potentially could be just the other end of the 185. If you're hoping to look out of London rather than inwards, I'm positive there's a Bromley Archery Club. I don't know any more than that - have always rather liked the look of archery myself but never gotten round to giving it a go. Good luck with your search for a new club.

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- BN5 is a ... lucky fella. Agreed ;-)

g'wan!

7.15pm: cup of tea, sofa, channel 5. looking forward to it - patient waiting for Broad to shine appears to have been worth it...