mockney piers

Still here.....

'tis but a ghost. Either that or you're undergoing a pareidolic experience from unrelated phenomena ... *pokes seabag :) *

pretty much; well, in Ireland which is close ;)

Nobody pokes any more, i miss poking *pokes keef*

"I don't really care if there is evidence this is not the case. In my view... " This is the homeopathy thread and I claim my five pounds

"Binned"

ok, ffs!!

This made for uncomfortable reading. I imagine http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-technology/scientists-discover-normal-person-called-piers-2013082878985

I knew you were off but living in denial is an easy thing to do. T'is a sad day but all the best for you and yours, and having hung about in the middle of nowhere in Suffolk for a bit I can see why Cornwall beckons. You'll be missed, though with You and huguenot into the realms of lurked, there is probably some sort of quantity theory of insanity balance that remains. (you're the sane part of the equation ;-)) .

Righteous kill, great cast, pairing De Niro and Pacino as police partners. Great supporting cast of character across. Script is merely bad rather than dreadful, performances are acceptable with dashes of Ok. Film is just....... awful. Badly paced, boring, implausible, the editing is confused and distracting, and that soundtrack is claustrophobic, no scene is allowed to breathe. Really really really bad, and that's before the third act reaches out to the worst post Shaymalan clich?s for merely dismal. Can I have my life back please!

The moderators have recently been inundated with reported posts, we'll do our best to get to them but we're a little short staffed these days. Pm me if you like and I'll deal with them.

Oh my, I'm so very sorry for your loss Ruth. I can only echo the sentiments expressed here. Simon was a firm favourite of mine and his thoughtful, insightful contributions will most certainly be missed, but above all it was his warm, wry sense of humour that shone through. My sincerest condolences Piers

I can be briefly tempted out of self-imposed exile to basically say 'what quids said'. I'll also do some terminlogogy quibbling as I'm not sure what unregulated capitalism is meant to be. As capitalism covers the means of production then there's nothing that fits this description outside of counterfeit goods, the illegal drugs market and perhaps about a decade of oligarchic consolidation in the post communist collapse. Unregulated markets? Again, drugs and failed states. Global markets are thoroughly regulated, there a tons of laws protecting most aspects,from consumer protection to anti cartel practices, through copyright protection and the list goes on. If we're talking specifically about banking then we're a billion miles away unregulated markets or practices. What we did have was a period where regulators were leaned on by politicians happy at the swelling coffers to have a light touch and avoid rocking the boat/killing the golden goose/insert clich?d analogy here, which in practice meant turn a blind eye to practices went into dubious grey areas and some that almost certainly transgressed the regulations. This wasn't some nefarious plot by cartoon caricature capitalists in stovepipes smoking evil cigars whilst crushing little people under their boots, but more like a massive exercise in self-delusion at every level, from the banking CEO's who encouraged risky business models, through the risk managers who tinkered with the figures due to the pressures to make certain deals, down through everyone who leveraged their house to use for loans, through the millions of people with one too many store/credit cards, knowing that they're screwed if they lose their job. We're irrational actors, we're selfish, and that's why we get into these situations and perfect hindsight is causing far too many people for my taste to claim some superior moral stance. The way forward? Accept that the world has changed and find our place in it, but the good times have indeed gone. Ban certain financial practices and enforce better regulation on the industry as a whole, there is a global anger and will to do so. I don't like arguments whereby we won't because nobody else will, that's just an abnegation of our resposibilty to our children, the parallels with the environment are too depressingly familiar sadly. If we don't like the rest of the world becoming wealthier at our expense then I suggest we invade the cheap producers of goods and places with raw materials and rule them with a good old fashioned iron fist and let our consciences be damned, because they're in pretty bad shape anyway ;) Anyway, as you were people......

That people eat pigs, laws aren't religiously obeyed (see what I did there?), that the written word is inherently unreliable and everything is open to interpretation. This isn't rocket science is it. What point are you trying to make?

My bet? People eating pigs. Either the defenders or the attackers or indeed someone else entirely. Perhaps the romans wanted to defile the remains of those that stood up to them as a gesture; typically roman behaviour but purest specualtion. Archeology is a cruel science.

You're not much cop at this history malarkey are you HAL. Entire people have religious proscription due to flag of pig vs flag of pig raised symbolically to poke finger in eye of people who have religious proscription. Pretty obvious which of those two survives occam's razor. The other thing to keep in mind when looking at history is that the people in question were people, not ideas, it's always good to remember that (masada being a classic case in point where they myth superceded the facts on the ground). For instance I have actually met christians who have had sex before marriage...weird I know but it's true. The proscription in question predates the romans by quite some margin in fact predates the crystalisation of jewish identity. Whilst we can never know its origins for sure, huguenot's hypothesis is at the very least plausible and your argument weak. For instance the government is about to ban smoking in cars. In thousands of years time when people find cigarettes in car ash-trays will they decide it wasn't banned, perhaps it was made law as a reaction to that damned frenchie Magritte? We know that pork can be eaten without ill effects, that doesn't detract from the fact that pork, like shellfish, is more susceptible to food poisoning and hence the most likely reason why some nanny state priest of the day decided to enshrine it in law. I hate you for making me come out of retirement to nit-pick but I couldn't let such misinformation of interest to noone but you me and huges go. That says more about me than it does you ;)

Ad yurgh

Two

One

Fuckit, kabooooom. Bang. 11011 or near enough.

Dulwich Fox and Sue kept having their conversation ruined by the noisy vikings http://images.mocpages.com/user_images/64378/1297969280m_SPLASH.jpg

I thought the subsequent paragraph was even better "Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma - which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice." wise words.

"If it was as easy as "paint it pink" there'd be plenty of other places we could buy, say, a cheaper tablet that works really well" and therein lies the conundrum. Technology enthusiasts have always found better products, even aesthetically cooler ones for less. Plus I've always been more fascinated by how things work under the covers than having shiny covers, but I admit to being in the slightly aspergic geeky minority. Many of Apple's great achievements were to package up exisintg ideas others came up with in a brand concious manner that people would buy into in their masses rather than people wh read geeky gadget sites imported from Korea (yesss, that's me again). All clever stuff though, it's not a criticism, but judging by some of the FB comments you'd have thought we'd lost a modern day messiah of sorts. Hats off on the tablet though, genuine innovation on technology that had several times failed to capture the imnagination and which noone thought would take off except Jobs.

To be serious for a second (nooo not again) I do have a lot of respect for the guy for simply being good at what he did. He saw what Pixar could be from the outset and his enthusiasm for technological progress and the idea that it can make our lives better appeals to my inner geek. Of his apple record he clearly understood that the Teds and Bobs of this world were crying out for something that made them feel good about using them rather than got the job done, so again, well done. Keef's phone may be sexier (as indeed is mine) but they are direct descendants of what Jobs (and co, lets face it he wasn't the technological force behind the products, he created an environment where innovation was encouraged though) created. But I'm not convinced he made the world a better place, the 'values' that Apple sells and prides itself on are both superficial and unashamedly consumerist. Hell, half their products have a shelf life of a year and I'm pretty sure most of the smaller ones are designed to be lost (and Ben Elton came up with that idea!!).

I was a mere babe in Sinclair's arms playing 3D Monster Maze on the ZX81. I'll be sure to blub like a girl and reminisce about my technological awakening in Mark Bozdogan's C5 when he (Clive, not Mark) pops his clogs.