Jeremy

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The way I see it is it?s doesn?t only have 2 sides > nor is it an argument. Yes I suppose there are many different perspectives. But to say it's not an argument - I would actually say it's one of the great debates of our times. Unfortunately it's one which will probably never end, because it's impossible to prove or disprove something which cannot be observed or measured. That doesn't mean it's a pointless debate though. When you have wars and violence with religion at it's root... schools teaching creationism instead of evolution... countries governed by religious law... morals dictated by scripture over common sense and empathy... widespread oppression... misguided people valuing mythology over and above science. Why shouldn't people stand up and point out the lunacy of it all?

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But claiming there is no God is a)arrogant and b)pointless Why - if that's what I believe, why is it arrogant? I think I have an informed opinion and have listened to both sides of the argument for a long time now. I will concede that there is a slim chance that our understanding of science is not sufficiently advanced to understand how such a phenomenon could be possible. And there is no way we can disprove a theory which is impossible to observe. But in my judgement the chances are so slim that for all purposes it's negligible. That doesn't mean I wish to shout deists down and tell them they are wrong... that's not my intention at all and I'm sorry if I came across that way. But at the same time I don't see why I shouldn't discuss my beliefs without being accused of arrogance.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Which laws of physics are we talking about here? The ones we know about.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How do the laws of physics explain thought or conciousness? Totally different thing. We can't explain how conciousness comes about, but we can scientifically prove it's existence (octopus in front of a mirror, etc).

Sure, you can always argue that we don't understand enough about the world yet, or that god operates outside the scope of we mortals call "science". And if you start bringing in those arguments, then yes of course it is impossible to disprove. But then you come back to the spaghetti monster argument... you could claim that there is a moster made of pasta floating in the ether, but we can't observe him because he occupies a space outside of our earthly existence (but he can see everything we do, so evidently this "barrier" is a one-way thing). Personally, I will stick my neck on the line and say that he's definitely not there. But if others want to cling onto the possibility that our glutenous guardian is up there, be my guest.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm also curious as to how Jeremys assertion that > the existence of god, a metaphysical concept at > best, is a physical impossibility? > That's what my duodenum said to my appendix about > me!!* Simply, the existence of God - as described by major religions - would mean ignoring the known rules of physics. You cannot ignore this fact with the simple disclaimer that God is a "metaphysical concept". Religion or "belief" is a metaphysical concept - "God" is not. God, according to Christianity, is capable of very physical interaction with the real world (interaction which, according to our scientific knowledge, is completely impossible).

Laurie Eggleston Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Currently, the > only route to the City is to take the 63 bus the > other direction to Elephant and Castle and then > get another bus, or tube; or to get the train from > Peckham Rye to London Bridge and then bus/walk the > rest of the way. Either way, TfL's website reckons > it currently takes over an hour (longer than the > journey from London Bridge to Brighton...) I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but this is complete nonsense!! ED station to London Bridge is 10-15 mins. Then a 10 min walk to Bank or a 20 min walk to Liverpool Street. This bus route extension may well be of benefit to Honour Oak residents, but it's of little benefit to East Dulwich residents.

Sorry, just remembered your "starting a band" thread...

What is your band, Easty?

The purpose of our existence is to procreate - or not. To contribute to the gene pool, to further natural selection, and to contribute to the success (or demise) of the human race. That is what we are "programmed" to do, that will be your legacy. The existence of God is physically impossible, as is "afterlife". And the concept of a supreme being who commands us all to worship him - under the threat of eternal torture - is not something I would ever wish to subscribe to.

You'd probably need to replace the pickup on a LP jr or Melody Maker, Jah... but apart from that, they are perfectly servicable instruments. And possibly nicer to play than a proper Les Paul as they're a bit lighter.

Stones, Who, Hendrix, Beatles, Beach Boys, Stevie Wonder, Four Tops, Marvin Gaye (Actually just realised I already posted, but it bears repeating). But my mum also likes some awful stuff... showtunes/Lloyd Webber/Elaine Page sort of stuff... and my dad like Dire Straits... thankfully I had the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff.

OK Brendan, what is the ultimate "pulling" guitar? Perhaps one of these: http://www.deanguitars.com/electrics.htm It gets funnier and funnier as you scroll down. Macro, what's the ethical issue with mex strats? I don't think the factory is a sweatshop or anything like that...

It's not such a simple question. Of course if you're playing rock music with plenty of distortion, Gibson is the one to go for. The lack of a humbucker from the standard strats and teles means that they were never a natural choice for rock. But if I was playing funk or soul or something, I'd go for the brighter, "twangier" sounding strat every time. Or for country (god forbid) the sharp, "cutting" tone of a telecaster would be ideal. Of course this whole debate is a moot point when the best guitars are made right here in the UK: http://www.gordonsmithguitars.com/products/category.php?id=1

Whenever I've eaten there it's been fairly bad. A pakistani guy I know says that Tayyabs is very good - it's not actually on Brick Lane, but fairly close by.

James Nesbitt : Herne Hill Jenny Eclair : Camberwell I think you're right about the Gavin and Stacey person though.

The likes of RBS and HBOS/Lloyds aren't going to dig us out of this recession... it's rather unfortunate for the government that they ended up owning the rubbish companies.

Windom - not sure I agree with too much of that. There are other factors in pricing a loan rather than just interest rates (i.e. credit quality) so to suggest that banks are ripping off customers because they're charging way above the base rate is a bit of a simplification.

General: Q: What is the best chocolate bar A: Snickers Sport: Q: Would Tyson have beaten Ali, if both men were in their prime? A: No Entertainment: Q: Were The Clash better than The Pistols A: Yes Science: Q: What sort of car we will be driving in 100 years time? A: Flying cars powered by nuclear fusion (with auxillary wind turbines on top) Geography: Q: Which place is hotter - Thailand or Egypt A: Trick question. Picture Round: Q: Which one is the "real" batman (show pictures of Keaton, Bale, Clooney, Kilmer) A: Adam West

louisiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > internet notification or nothing before long. Indeed... of course several banks/insurance companies are starting to offer products which are "paper-free". Seems like the obvious thing to do, in terms of environmental impact, costs, and also convenience. Paper bills seem pretty pointless in most cases too.

I've actually always been more interested in the quality of songwriting, rather than originality. There is some great music out there which is pretty unoriginal. If you can create a melody/chord progression/riff which sounds awesome and sticks in your head, then it doesn't really matter to me if the style reminds you of another band. (Although that's not to say that I don't love hearing a band who are fresh and original).

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Easties, whilst you have all my love and support, > you quite clearly implied that Dance Music is a > time delimited franchise established in 1997. > > That in itself is both snooty and pretentious. > > I can assure you with all the support of my peers > that dance music is a genre of music in all eras > that prompts one to dance. Even assuming Easties was referring specifically to modern, electronic dance music - there is a clear lineage back to House music in Chicago in the early 80s, and also Detroit Techno. This stuff laid the foundations of what is commonly referred to as "dance" music these days. I don't understand how anyone can claim dance music came along in the late 90s... house/techno/trance/etc were all firmly established in the UK mainstream long before then. It's like saying that Rock n Roll began with Elvis, or that metal began when Enter Sandman broke into the top ten.

Oldest trick in the book!

From my perspective - a lot of (not all) financial institutions are in profit this year. This is good news for the whole country, as the financial industry represents a huge chunk of the GDP. Equity markets are stable, and the pound is also stable. House prices are no longer in freefall. I don't think the situation is as bleak as a lot of people thought it would be, but obviously the problem this country faces now is the huge amount of debt we've racked up. Interest rates will HAVE to rise quite steeply. The public sector is shafted for the forseeable future, with large cutbacks inevitable. Something like 25% of our workforce are public sector - so even if private sector employment increases in 2010, I think unemployment is going to be a problem for a while to come.

* commits James' post to memory for use in future "double standards" debates...