Huguenot

It's Sean and Keef, sniggering.

Since people driving past them at speed are unlikely to do any business with them, they'd be a bit silly to promote high speed traffic over pedestrians don't you think?

Stalk them! A digital camera and a post on this forum should help locate the person.

Could you turn it into a hat or a brooch?

No, she went in a Honda Accord.

'I'm thinking about people who will be blown apart by these munitions' This is an example of your completely daft thinking tompaine. A boycott of this census will have absolutely zero impact on this. Neither will a boycott of the census lead the government to 'withold all the money'. Another daft comment. The government distributes tax revenues for infrastructure and welfare according to the outcome of the census. If the census is wrong because of daft idiots boycotting it, then it simply means the money goes to the wrong places. All that guff about the government controlling your family with the census is just embarrassing tin-foil hat stuff. Get a grip and get some therapy. So the only thing you achieve with a boycott is to ensure that people who need local infrastructure, services and welfare just don't get it. That's it, that's all you achieve. Nothing else. So either you haven't worked this out, in which case you're as daft as I think you are. Or you're willing to make everyone else suffer (little old ladies freezing in their homes) because you're the kind of arrogant self-worshipper who doesn't give a monkeys about anything else but your own righteous reflection.

Your position is ridiculous tompaine. The implication of 'boycotting the census' isn't about 'breaking the law and facing a potential fine of a grand' you idiot. The census is a far more important question about providing our society with the necessary information to help them build roads, hospitals, schools, libraries, to support those in need of assitance such as welfare benefits or community centres, and much more. The question is whether you're going to chuck this all away over some pathetic short term quibble over 'an arms company'. Unfortunately you, and people with similarly retarded outlooks on life, think this is a sensible trade off. What's more, you give the game away with your talk of 'breaking the law and facing a potential fine of a grand is not for the faint hearted' What it shows is that you think this is a game to show off your manliness; how, like some Knight of the Round Table, you are NOT 'faint hearted' and intend to disregard the 'risks' in some pathetic show of righteousness. Are you wearing a black t-shirt with a white unicorn on it? This isn't 'democracy', it's the childish squawk of pampered prats who think intellectual onanism is more important than keeping our society running smoothly. Get your hand out from down your trousers and think of someone else for a change.

Phi Phi's on the Phuket side, Ko Tao's on the Samui side - so you'll still need to choose! ;-)

There's no reason to worry about end of season - this doesn't happen in Thailand as it's not a 'school holiday' destination. It just depends on whether you mind the rain. Thailand is hot and wet all year around, but wettest June to October. The diving/snorkelling will be pretty poor June - October on the Phuket side, so if this is on the wish list you need to get to Koh Samui. Phuket has literally three times as much rain in June as Koh Samui. The waters are choppier and more stirred up in Phuket making boat/swimming trips more uncomfortable and less rewarding. Samui is a more relaxed and laid-back island, but it depends what you like. I don't like Phuket, and so would choose Samui anyway. Phuket is a good place to get mindlessly thrashed on beer and local heavy metal cover bands, Samui is for an altogether more soulful experience (but you can still get pissed if you want ;-)) Neither of them will be anything like your Greece or Lanzarote experience, it's much less commercialised.

I'm not sure how confident a traveller you are, but the advice was good: there's plenty of availability. I live in Singapore, and plenty of us just pop up for a weekend in Thailand without anything booked in advance. Usually we'll have a spin through TripAdvisor or AsiaRooms on a Friday afternoon to see what's around. June is beginning of South West monsoon, so it's rainer on Phuket side (Krabi as well) than it is on the Samui side of the peninsular. If you just want the beach, that's okay, as rain tends to be in short bursts and have a cooling effect in the evening. However, if you want to dive, the seas are murky during monsoon. You should also consider the north - Chiang Mai has got some good sights. If you really want an experience try getting a two day riverboat down the Mekong from near Chiang Rai (further north still) as far as Luang Prabang in Laos. Really spectacular. If you want to get quite a lot in, try and fly between the destinations. Get yourself the latest Lonely Planet and have a blast!!!

LOL! And wash your hands after touching door handles... Thankfully Brits are made of sterner stuff!

Good for you BRB - I think there's other threads on here singing your praises ;-)

Sorry - I can actually confirm that there's absolutely no chance of seeing the distinction in size of the moon even if you have perfect vision. That's because at night the pupil is 'fully' open to get as much light in as possible. This creates distortion in the image (because the human eye lens isn't perfect) Hence at night the resolution of the eye is closer to 2mm at 2 metres, and hence is worse than the difference in sizes between the 'two' moons. The moon couldn't possibly have been seen to be larger at perigee.

I haven't seen it yet over my side of the world :( Someone asked about the physics of it, so I shall share - but please don't let it detract from what is clearly a very beautiful and life-enhancing experience! The Moon is 3,479km wide. On average it's around 380,000km away from Earth. At this particular perigee, it's 356,577km away (so about 25,000 km closer). This means that on average it subtends an angle of 0.524 degrees to the human eye (or the equivalent of a disc 18.3mm wide - approximately equivalent to a 5 pence piece - at a distance of 2 metres). At the current perigee it subtends an angle of 0.558 degrees to the human eye (or the equivalent of a disc 19.5mm wide - still approximately a 5 pence piece - at a distance of 2 metres). Unfortunately this variation in size is very close to the 'achievable' maximum resolution for the human eye (which is defined by the size of the 'cone' receptors in the eye, and is 0.7mm at 2 metres for someone with perfect vision), and simply beyond it for many of us. In layman's terms, that means that in effect the moon cannot 'be seen to be' any larger than normal. The appearance of a large size for the moon is usually attributable to the proximity to the horizon. The closer it is to things of 'human' size, the larger our brains tell us it is. Hopefully though, that information will only add to the effect, because it reminds us how beautiful and fallible the human mind is!

And you think I wanted a 12 inch pianist?

Sometimes I don't know where you're coming from katie1997 :( Fossil fuel deposits are not spread around the world evenly. Whether it's the Middle East, Venezuela, Russia or anywhere else, it generates intensive competition to exploit those resources that most often resolves itself in either social upheaval or violent international conflict. This isn't a contentious or minority observation. I don't know what you mean by 'should' be distributed, I'm talking about geology not morality. Likewise, I have no idea what you believe causes climate change? As the Met Office describes: "It has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the climate is changing due to man-made greenhouse gases. We are already committed to future substantial change over the next 30 years and change is likely to accelerate over the rest of the 21st century." The principle source of greenhouse gases is the conversion of complex fossilised carbohydrates (oil, coal and gas) to produce carbon dioxide, other by-products and ENERGY. Whilst changes in land use alter the ecosystem's opportunity to lock CO2 back in to the earth, the fact is that in the UK, for example, 65% of carbon emmissions come from centralised energy generation (power stations) and 21% comes from burning fuels in transport. In other words almost 90% of greenhouse gas generation is from burning fossil fuels. I don't really see what there is to wonder about the response to the tragedy by the French government. Opposition to nuclear power is based on a complete inability for otherwise sane human beings to make a reasonable cost-benefit judgement on nuclear power. No, nuclear power isn't completely safe, neither is fossil fuel generation. The global impact of a reliance on fossil fuels has been a global catastrophe of incalculable proportions. Conversely nuclear power is less dangerous than a surfing holiday in Newquay.

Lol. I'm just trying to work out how you can have problems perpetuating generation after generation if you've been sterilised? Aside from being science fiction horror movie stuff, that kind of nuclear hysteria prevents people making sound decisions. It's simply not true or balanced. Even where nuclear power has been weaponised, in Hiroshima only 400 deaths were attributed to the after effects of the radiation. Whilst every one of those is a tragedy, it simply doesn't compare with the cities full of 'The Walking Dead' that KK describes. Getting a CT scan will give you more radiation exposure than being a mile away from the epicentre of the bomb. In the UK 1,000 cancer deaths a year are attributed to high natural radiation in the west of England, yet we don't see anyone cancelling their Cornish holidays. Or to put it another way, a 'nuclear catastrophe' is less dangerous to your health than going surfing. Either way, modern nuclear power stations aren't bombs. We need to weigh nuclear power against the other options. In this case there's only one: fossil fuels. Whilst 300 people are known to have died as a direct result of Chernobyl, this needs to be compared with the destablisation of the world caused by the unequal distribution of fossil fuels, the millions that have died in wars related to exploiting oil and coal, and the inestimable damage that will be wrought by climate change as a consequence.

Well I probably wouldn't have moved it, but rules often get interpreted arbitrarily. Thems the breaks. Once it had been moved the repeat posting was definitely breaking the rules, as well as being a tiny bit rude. It would have been a little bit wiser to enquire after the original move rather than jam it in again.

Well I think you were referring to the 'area around Camberwell Old Cemetery' which may not be considered so much ED as perhaps Honor Oak or Forest Hill? It will have been a close call. Even having said that it should probably have been in the property section. But this thread is still in the wrong place - it should be in 'About this forum', so I wouldn't be surprised if it gets moved also. ;-)

This section is 'ED Issues', but it was referring to an area outside ED, so I imagine that was why it was moved to the Lounge. When you posted it again it was still in the wrong section, and it was a repeat post which is widely considered to be spamming, so it may have been removed for that reason. Don't worry about it, it's nothing personal, just the administrators keeping the place tidy.

Above all, Randi McAfee is an excellent name for a confectioner.

Daizie, it's a machine

You guys are making me giggle.

Great stuff!

No, there were quite a few other people who had similar PM stuff earlier. It's never random - computers are rubbish at 'random'. It's often difficult to understand their calculations, so it can appear to be random. But it's not. Nor does it mean you can do anything about it. Forgezi etc. ;-)