SeanMacGabhann

I'm in 2 minds on this point - I certainly think that in the past James is quick to take offence and some people have said as much, me included. But this time, I have more time for the argument. You seem reluctant to give ground because, as you have said, where does it stop - in your words "There are many 'minority' groups who could say to the world, "you've learnt how to stop hating black people, why can't you learn to stop hating us?" But I don't see what would be wrong with that. If any minority groups (not sure I like that phrase either) want special treatment I'm tempted to say "and why would that be?". But if the same people are saying "we don't want special treatment but would people mind awfully if we could stop being discriminated against or attacked?" then I really don't see any problem with that Both racial and gay awareness have come on plenty since "the good old days" - is it helpful to compare how both "groups" currently stand? Maybe it is... I don't think either are where they want to be or should be. And any progress made has always been bitterly opposed along the way (good old Section 28 eh?)

thumbs aloft for that post Moos - "a little bit of courtesy and patience on all sides " will help us with most things Now, how about all of those people who huddle around teh space between teh doors and the bottom of the stairs when there is acres of space upstairs? And then give you the skunk eye when you have to pass through them from upstairs!

they should call it a "bargain" - we like a bargain

I'm not saying anyone on here is saying it pk - but as the thread started out with a gay person suggesting that persecution of gays was deemed more acceptable than racial persecutions, it then moved on to "ah but it is some people's belief that homosexuality is wrong" which surely gives ballast to people like: This this and this and so on...

Morning MM I've gone through the whole gamut with Napster - back in the original outlaw days (when you could get tracks long impossible to get on CD as people uploaded vinyl conversions) to the current legit version. I went for the subscription model and I don't know about 6 million tracks but it's pretty exhaustive. I haven't got any hi-tec solution to playing the music - a simple pair of phonos to jack cable from the laptop to the amplifier does the job Quality is absolutely fine for checking albums out, listening to stuff you had forgotten about or general background music - but it's no replacement for a proper copy. I do like being able to tee up a couple of dozen songs on the playlist and then forget about it I wasn't aware of the multistreaming aspect - I might check it out later and get back to you. I suspect there are people better qualified than I to help with any hardware setup, but I'm happy to help if I can

Seamusmac shoots and scores! Tonyfromburbs - you missed the Millionaire one that gets me most - IF you are going to go for a 50/50, do NOT say out loud "I think it's between C & B" before going for a 50/50 only to find the two choices left are the same two you just gave away

Haven't we gone off the point a little bit tho'? Whether you are gay by choice, birth, curiosity, whatever - it should be of no consequence to anyone else But if you are homophobic (and to be fair to religions, it doesn't require a religious faith to be homophobic) to the point of attacking and killing gay people - TO DEATH! - it's not really a like for like choice is it? No-one can really believe "Barry, you do have a point about the joys of gay sex, but unfortunately, because of my beliefs, you have sacrificed the right to safety and/or life" is a valid viewpoint? That seems to be the gist of what some people are saying (even if it is qualified with an "I don't necessarily agree with it" ) No wonder James gets touchy...

Of course i believe that certain religious beliefs are wrong. Indeed i dont know of any religious person who believes everything their chosen religion teaches so i dont think thats a controversial view I do sort of agree a little bit about your last paragraph tho . . But like you i think thats a bigger discussion

Pk Dont be naughty. Thats not what i said. And you know it Choosing a religion is not the same as ones sexuality. One is real and one is a choice. But if one chooses a faith it doesnt entitle you to hold opinions such as homosexuality is wrong. Such a person might think it does. . . But that is not the same thing. And if one chooses such a belief should one be given a free pass?

Or just come along to the monthly forum drinks. First friday of every month. Everyone welcome and hangover guaranteed

DaveR - making some good points all 'round and I wouldn't in any way agree with James' accusation of you being homophobic - but the quote above isn't comparing like for like The ONLY basis some people have for imagining homosexuality is a sin is their belief in some old book, written by blokes, translated by other blokes and to all intents and purposes, worthless as a guide to modern life. In other words they aren't ENTITLED to it. They can choose to believe it but it doesn't make it so. James on the other hand isn't choosing anything. He just is.... Belief can only get us so far - reality and reason are needed to rebut belief

It might be but I get a "content not found" when I follow the link. Might be a work thing...

Don't know you are born Melb... back in my day it were all 30 minute load times with the very real possibility of it failing on minute 28 - grrrrrrrrrr

Definitely!

Just realised by the time I had sent that last post that several more had been posted - so just saw jimbob's re: my selfish comment As I said it wasn't quite what I said but more than one person has picked me up on it, and I did write something like it so... I'm just goingto re-iterate I didn't mean it that wa - it's not about "me" in the way that it read. Yes I did write it but I'm really not that selfish - just a rushed post But I'm still on the anti-camera side!

I don't think I put it QUITE that way Keef, but I see what you mean. I should have emphasised what I think the wider impact on society as a whole will be - not "my" life. But I still think people being unduly worried, or "soft fools" in your words isn't a good enough reason for something so drastic Good comparison with the previous car drivers debate (now I get where you were coming from) but it's not really the same thing. I'm not really for traffic cameras either. What I'm giving out about in that other thread is - and hang on, I'll find it... here we go, from about a week ago "Look - if people want to dicuss the merits or otherwise of cameras/fines/litter/whatever, what's the problem. But that's not what's happening. What's happening is that people are behaving like children - waiting to be caught at something and then bleating how unfair it all is. ie - it's not about the principle of the thing - it's the childish "mwaaaaaaaahhhhh" that eminates after a parental smack. Calling it an easy cash-cow is equally childish. " So in the scenario on Marmora Rd if CCTV were everywhere and someone did "some bad things" and got caught, I would adopt the same attitude But that doesn't make the presence of the cameras themselves desirable. Fixed cameras on roads for traffic are bad enough but the wider spread of CCTV is something else again. I'm not worried about it becoming a "cash cow" catching people doing things they aren't supposed to. It's about how we view ourselves - which sounds poncey but still. If you were in a relationship but relied on a camera to follow your partner around the whole time to be sure they weren't cheating.... it's not great is it? Saying to them "well if you aren't cheating you have nothing to worry about...." isn't good enough...

What Ant said basically, Keef To quote from a song: "The way to keep people in line is to scare the shit out of 'em" I'm not advocating any criminal activity - be it vandalism, road rules or anything else. And most of us have been the victim of some criminal at some point or other. But if the questions is "right, what can we do about it?" I don't think the answer is "CCTV cameras" First of all what problem are we solving - has crime become 2 times worse? 10 times worse? 50 times worse? Or about the same? Or have things even improved? (for now let's just call it "crime" and not break it down into the multiple types). My belief is that installing cameras: Has minimal positive impact on crime Is politically easy to sell - "look we are doing something" Installs an infrastructure that makes it juuust a bit to easy for future governments to keep tabs on all of us. And really, when in any historical period has any good from a country which monitors it's citizens that closely? Sorry if I'm not making sense as I am busy (honest) and I am rushing these posts

we are talking adjectives here, rather than verbs mind you

ooops - I didn't mean to call you timid PGC - you are many things but not that! I was referring to the statement made earlier by jimbob "they do fill a function in that they will make others feel safe" That's not a function - that's just appeasing people who believe everything they read But I'm not spoiling for a fight - just aghast that people are so acquiescent. I can't think of anything positive about cameras at all - and plenty of negatives. Expensive, intrusive (and just because they don't impact on general citizens lives now doesn't mean they won't - who knows what action would have been taken if that mystery smoker INSIDE the Clockhouse had been caught on camera ;-) )

Blimey the Staasi would have been delighted if East Germany had more citizens like Steve, PGC and jimbob Here is what camera's will achieve: Should you be the victim or perpetrator of a crime in the future, you will need to have thought ahead and at least look good for when ITV 57 shows the CCTV Crimes - LIVE!!!. Have a look at some of the most crime-affected areas in the country. See all the cameras there? Gazillions of them. So who is it helping? Do people really feel safer because of them? And is that a good enough reason anyway - should my life be affected by someone elses timidity? Any government can wash their hands of social ills if they say "well, we have invested x million in CCTV upgrades" etc - and never once address the reasons behind the crime in the first place.

And who mentioned the holocaust anyway?

Come on Steve use your imagination the definition of "anything" has changed and will change over decades and governments. At present the balance remains with "the people" but with sufficient power "the state" can take control and start to dictate. This government already stands accused of being too busy-bodyish and all political parties seem far too supine when faced with demands to do something, anything. Have a look at the controls introduced at airports since the escalation of terrorism. I'm not doing anything wrong but I'm certainly affected. Do I think measures such as 100ml containers have the SLIGHTEST impact on my actual safety? None whatsoever - but I am forced to comply anyway Extrapolate that much power via CCTV and what do we end up with?

skysports 2 was showing it

Really PGC? I always had you down as a Chris Moyles fan - Radio 1 pumping out every morning ;-) In any case I see your confusion now - even if I am startled at how sheltered you are on the subject! I'm not gay but, as mentioned before I have often been attacked when I was at school and called all the usual derogatory names for gay people by the attackers - so I know exactly where James is coming from.

eh PGC? Using a word in a sentence isn't the problem. Using a word in a derogatory fashion is. And it wouldn't even be that bad to use it in a derogatory fashion (ie gentle teasing) if people weren't being killed by others just for being gay You probably know all this and are spoiling for a fight.... :X