Huguenot

Alan Medic, Micklewright... anyone else want to start controlling other people? ;-)

Thanks mate, read all of it. I'm not sure what your point is? I think later on Micklewright tried to make the case against foie gras, but that was AFTER he'd already pursued a unilateral strategy of trying to prevent it being available to the public. The fact that his method was a chat with the restarauter is irrelevant - he's in a minority, other people don't agree with him, and instead of respecting their views he tried to step around them and prevent them getting access. It doesn't matter that it's foie gras, and Mickelwright's end goal is banning the sale of meat full stop. The fact is that when he couldn't persuade people to agree with him, he tried to impose his opinion on them. Frankly, what on earth does he think gave him the right to do that?

If you click on your own name you go through to a page which gives you the option to click on 'view all posts by MrCheeky'. Click on this, and scan through until you find the offending post. Click on the headline and you'll go through to the post. Click on 'edit post' in the bottom right hand corner of your post, and edit as appropriate. However, this won't necessarily get you off Google I'm afraid. Google 'cache' or save website pages to make it easier for their search engine to provide you with faster results. This means that changing the forum won't change the saved page in their cache. There's realistically nothing you can do about this execpt hope that the passage of time de-prioritises the page so it no longer appears on results.

'Lap' actually refers to a loose strip of a garment - so your 'front' shirt tails, or the front of a pinafore or wrap-around skirt. So your lap doesn't go anywhere when you stand up - it's right there where it always was...

Three simple charts... I think they (the right wing extremists) are that cynical and short-termist.

If you live on the outskirts of zone 2 next to a tube station without parking restrictions it won't be possible to park your car there anyway. Commuters will put paid to that. Before you know it you'll be begging for restrictions... "you know we will eventually all have to pay to park on the roads" Rightly or wrongly, you're not actually paying to park on the roads, you're actually paying to prevent other people parking on the roads ;-)

From the OP: "Le Chardon is still serving this horrible dish, and it would be wonderful if we could encourgae them to remove it from the menu. "Franklins, EDT and Beauberry House have all agreed to stop serving Foie Gras. "What do people think about this?" Apart from the unsettling use of 'we' that smacks of Orwellian doublespeak, it seems fairly clear that this is an underhand and manipulative unilateral attempt to control other people from doing what you disapprove of. It's essentially morally corrupt, and is an incredibly arrogant strategy. It also staggering that such tactics would be claimed to have equality with the ending of the slave trade. The slave trade was ended through reason, democracy and social engagement, not the guerrila targeting of those who considered it reasonable. TM hasn't actually tried to 'persuade' anyone of the rights or wrongs of foie gras, which would be entirely reasonable. Instead he has chosen to reject the terms and arrangements of normal free society (of which persuasion is one) and opted for direct action without any social mandate at all. This approach has closer moral equivalence with animal rights terrorists than it does with William Wilberforce. I'm surprised that this debate has revolved around foie gras - it seems entirely separate to the real issue, which is whether it's at all acceptable for a minority special interest group (only around 100 of ED's 5,000 residents it seems), should be rejecting the views of society and trying to force people to conform to their point of view. It seems obtuse that Micklewright should consider himself a hero, when his actions are those of a tyrant.

I guess that's the point - there was such a range of critical factors without which homo sapiens couldn't have emerged - that each one of them simultaneously is not the key reason, and is the key reason. Homo habilis was the first human species that has evidence of meat eating around 2.5m years ago, and a brain size of 800ccs. The next dominant species was Homo erectus - and that was the first species with extensive evidence of the use of fire, and a brain size of around 1000ccs Homo sapiens has got a brain size of around 1400ccs. There's consequently correlation between meat eating, cooking and brain size (which we assume reflects dominance, although it's not always the case). But correlation isn't causation, and we don't actually know that homo habilis gave rise to homo erectus. One thing is clear, that big brains make huge energy demands. It's pretty much confirmed biochemically that this energy couldn't have been delivered without a diet including meat, even though the energy itself comes from carbohydrates in low nutrient cereal crops. This is because cereal crops could not have played a big part in diet without the high nutrient and protein delivery of meat. In fact humans in developing parts of the world today still suffer from diseases like beri-beri and pellagra, which are caused by diets that are too much restricted to cereal crops and the consequent nutrition deficiencies. In addition, the dense nutrition delivery of the meat/cereal combo freed up enormous amounts of time for early humans that would otherwise be spent eating (chimps spend 80%+ of their waking hours eating). As any fule kno, the devil makes work for idle hands: all this free time would have leant itself very effectively to tool creation and warfare - both activites which enhance intellectual development. Hence being omnivorous is critical to the development of homo sapiens, but not the only issue. I usually hear these arguments as a dig at vegetarianism, but I don't think it's a very good one. Our insight and technology into nutrition mean that a meat diet is no longer critical to create the right blend of energy and nutrients. However, I do note that vegetarians never seem very happy, so maybe this is meats real contribution to society ;-) *joke*

I'm never far away... *whips satin lined cloak around shoulders and melts into the shadows*

I think you'd be hard pushed to call them all actors; here's the leading lady... http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9KdYW0xWpRA/TSCGlvKYOMI/AAAAAAAAAAw/1Rlv8aXHU4Q/s1600/keeley-hazell.jpg

Do you know that Harrringtons have no shoulder seams and deep pockets because they were designed as a golfing jacket? The lack of shoulder seams means they move more freely during the swing. Would skins and mods have known that they were being just so... middle class... when they wore them?

That's a hell of a risk for a folding bike. I saw one in the Quiet Room and that place is a death trap; there's no handle on the inside of the door.

Mainly I just look cool. http://riotonline.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/james-dean-harrington-250wi.jpg James Dean has been favourably compared with me.

Ah, I wore mine with Dolores Hart. http://www.nycscootering.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/elvis_harrington_jacket.jpg Elvis Presley has been favourably compared with me.

They did, and they shouldn't have. However, I find the ignominy heqped on the bankers to be a little bit disingenuous. It smacks of someone eating so many wine gums it makes them puke, and then blaming Maynards.

Ooooh, you flirt, you! ;-)

Frankly I don't think her problems are anything to do with sex. I think she has an anxiety disorder that manifests itself in compulsive sexual behaviour. No different from being a compulsive w*nker. The only connection with sex is that society puts a level of importance on it - but I think it would be quite incorrect to judge this as oppression or disapproval. Sexual mores are pretty liberal in Singapore, and a trip down to the East Coast Park on a Saturday night will encounter hundreds of shaking tents put up by teenagers getting a bit of hanky panky outside the parents home. It's widely accepted, and the subject of plenty of gentle comedy. I try and avoid Wikipedia, but this put it quite well: "Because sex carries significant emotional, moral, and religious importance, it often becomes a magnet for obsessions in people predisposed to OCD. Common themes include unfaithfulness, deviant behaviors, paedophilia, the unfaithfulness or suitability of one's partner, and profane thoughts combining religion and sex. People with sexual obsessions may have legitimate concerns about their attractiveness, potency, or partner, which can serve as an unconscious catalyst for the obsessions." I don't want to get want to get bogged down in the various associations of the word 'deviant', but in the sense that it just means 'unusual', I think I'd classs sex with 251 men in 10 hours to be sufficiently uncomfortable to be classed as deviant.

Ton eeeeeeek! Picking your nose and wiping it on the wall? ;-)

That is a spectacular website! The only diaspointment is that they don't have a toothpaste mangle. I'm confused as to why the the Miracle Tap Sprayer - Chrome/Black Best Seller! which fits 95% of all taps should have such a close following by the buyers of the Adapter S1 for Miracle Tap Spray Connection, which is also a must have.

F*ckwit

NTV

It was nothing to do with my patience. Any normal person would have flipped their lid after a ridonculous, repetitive and witless 5 letter word game, that some shonk turned into a four letter word game after I'd insisted it was against the rules of netball.

http://www.atomretro.com/images/steve.jpg I thought Harrington jackets were mod? I also thought they were still cool. Sh*t. Back on the hanger then. Steve McQueen has been favourably compared with me.

I'm probably worng, but I seem to remember that Sue was the mothinator. There was an extended (and extremely satsifying) thread on this issue a couple of years ago. IIRC, a swift and final solution was eventually agreed on for the clear and present danger of moths. Bastards f*cked up an unreasonably expensive suit of mine. They're on my sh*t list.

It is a constant source of wonder to me how people ascribe the wonders of democracy to the machinations of an individual. Thatcher, Blair... who else? All that Thatcher did on coal was pursue the agenda of the British people (i.e. not herself, but her electors), who did not want to use their own tax contributions to fund the extraction of poor coal that they did not want, at prices they weren't prepared to pay. If the coal miners of Ripon had been able to provide a product that the people wanted at a price that people were prepared to pay, then Thatcher couldn't have done anything. The fact is that they couldn't and they didn't, and school teachers in Hereford weren't prepared to pay them for the luxury of continuing. Same with the Unions. They fucked it up for themselves when they left people like me in darkness eating cold food for two days a week in the seventies. C*nts. No drama or confusion there. they tried to f*ck the nation and they got done over. Good.