Huguenot

No, now you're being childish Kel ;-) Saying "Kel is a wee wee face" is name calling, but saying "Kel did things from time to time that were reminiscent of a wee wee face" is an observation. More than that, it's a negotiation that highlights an area of concern with room to save face on all sides. The accuser can apologise for misinterpreting, and the accused can apologise for misrepresentation. Everyone walks away with a 'win', knowing that there's a line in the sand.

"I can't figure out what objecting to the proposed change of use will achieve. What will you cinema supporters do if the Church holds onto the building and tweaks their application as mentioned before? This could take years." Ooooh, the old 'we are relentless' method ;-) Nicely employed but a bit obvious. I'm glad that Lousiana's doing less Fisking, which always impoverishes debate - but Bizzy's older auntie 'pat on the head' approach makes me gag. Personally, since I see religion as a political movement, I see the acquisition of more public places to exercise their despicable rituals as a frighteningly virulent rampage perpetrated on the sick and the thick. If promoting its use as a cinema is a way to impede it, then it's a battle well fought. Forever.

I don't think describing someone's attitude as 'borderline troll from time to time' is particularly childish? I can appear borderline troll from time to time, and would have no more truck with someone pointing it out than if they remind me to look after my manners in other social situations. I had plenty of debates with AfN, but was never quite sure whether she was 'for real' or not. I say 'she' as she claimed to have a white van driver for a hubbie. In the end I concluded that she was a highly energetic creative thinker, labouring under the weight of inappropriate loyalties, poor choice of friends and not trying hard enough at school. That made her 'real' in my mind, and the message at top has done nothing to dispel that. Her argument's in the right area, but she's inarticulate and verging on violence because of her frustration at being unable to express herself. That doesn't make her a shoo-in for the forum. If you're pulling hair in the playground you only get so many gentle wrist slaps before you're expelled. QED.

Never had a cross word with broccoli. The lady wife's a different matter.

So Zero is English, and Nought is American? Very good to know. Zero it is.

As it happens, under British law primates do have rights that eschew those of more run of the mill mammals. Principally regarding testing. I'm concerned that Moos' testing may have involved a serious breach of these conditions in the name of 'research'. The Japanese, of course, 'research' whales.

I share the conviction, it avoids confusion. However, I'm never quite sure whether to use 'zero' or 'nought' I tend towards zero, but I don't know whether I've become americanised.

Absolutely Fuschia. Keef, you can't just go and 'remove' half the comments in a conversation. If people want to close then fine, but this Stalin'esque deletion doesn't work for anyone.

Well quite, although it seems that the OP has responded himself within the thread with specific reference to a God probably identified within the Council of Nicea 325. It's a sort of Catholic/Protestant cross-over interpretation as the OP obviously sees God as an independent entity, but also within the eyes of a baby.

Besides which, if I remember rightly, Glenton isn't even protesting about Iraq, but about Afghanistan. Regardless of the initial intervention, the armed forces are now operating under UNAMA in Afghanistan,all nice and legal - unless Glenton is protesting that the UN is itself illegal, and has no mandate for armed interference. Anyway, if he wanted to make a case for legality he needed to do it before he went AWOL, not after a two year holiday when he wants to come home. The phrase 'jumped-up attention seeking twot' springs to mind.

No, legality is a red-herring. He made a commitment to the army with all that entails, and undertook a mission that was recognised as legal in multiple jurisdictions at the time it was embarked upon. It is the responsibility of the top brass to ensure they're operating under a legal mandate, which they did in this case, twice. You cannot keep revisiting legal issues until you hear the answer that you want. It was not and is not the position of a serviceman to manufacture an opportunity to embark upon time wasting and costly legal enterprises every time they receive an order they don't like. It would be the end of our armed forces - an objective that I suspect is the agenda of his varied supporters.

:))

Get me again, you don't support the war because a few of our boys might end up in jail? That's it? In any case, you misread my position then and now: I didn't support the war, I merely reflected that if the UK and the US wanted to pursue this greedy lifestyle, then the war was a natural consequence of it. The lifestyle and the war are linked at the hip, in a filthy bestial coitus. What I thought was ridiculous was the arguments against the war: 'No war for oil'... what really? grow up 'It's not legal'... what has that got to do with anything, 'law' is what you make it 'The public was deceived'... no they weren't, they accepted a convenient excuse that was obviously fabricated by a weak government meeting unreasonable public demands 'There's a conspiracy'... the only conspiracy is to meet the demands of the electorate. I'd like to have seen no war, but that could only be achieved by the eradication of the need for it, not by whinging around Whitehall having driven down in your private car in your favourite nylon raincoats and imported cotton slacks. That was the ultimate in hypocrisy, and I wanted no part of it. Disgusting and shameful. If the UK continues to demand well beyond its means, it will reap the violence this pillage requires.

A binding force perhaps: "Theological heresies were indeed to prove a disintegrating force in the East in the seventh century, when differences in doctrine which had alienated the Christians in Egypt and Syria from the government of Constantinople facilitated the conquests of the Saracens. But after the defeat of Arianism, there was no such vital or deep-reaching division in the West, and the effect of Christianity was to unite, not to sever, to check, rather than to emphasise, national or sectional feeling. In the political calculations of Constantine it was probably this ideal of unity, as a counterpoise to the centrifugal tendencies which had been clearly revealed in the third century, that was the great recommendation of the religion which he raised to power." (Bury)

I don't take task with your characterisation of early Christian fundamentalists, I do take task with the assertion that they were active in such numbers, and represented such a vaste swathe of the working population that they single handedly brought the empire to its knees. Supported by Bury, Potter, Millar and Drake, and masked by the heretic Gibbon ;-) who, whilst systematic, was far from impeccable.

And, since I'm on a roll.... what the blinkers makes you think that 'legality' confers 'legitimacy'???? If someone actually proved beyond all question that there was a 'law' that allowed all in question to do as they did, would you suddenly stop arguing against it and start smiling? Like flip you would. Although maybe the implication that you would is what I find so infuriating? So why pursue this course of debate, since it's not the issue? The legitimacy of this war is a social issue and a moral issue. It was a war fought to protect the lifestyle of greedy western bigots from the threat of oil profiteering. It was pointless only in so much that it was delaying the inevitable. It was macro-socially effective in that it highlighted to greedy western bigots what a dreadful, dreadful pickle we're all in. Was 600,000 dead a small price to pay to save a billion? There are clearly those that argue no, it wasn't too small. I'm with you in the belief that it was 600,000 too big if all the outcome we hoped for was a few people to change their minds about greed.

It absolutely escapes me why Mockers is pursuing this legal debate. It's infuriating. Is it some sort of Capone entrapment - we'll get them with tax evasion? Old chap, do you really expect every squaddie to sit down with 'The Classical Lectures' before they go and get some water? I suspect the reason you enforce this frankly ridiculous position is because you're aware that the consequence is anarchy, and that's probably an end goal. A man with a gun has moral issues on a minute by minute call-up, but to expect the army to haul out the law book on every command is plain silly. The armed forces can and do expect other people to have those debates on their behalf, and then are rather obliged to do as asked. If there's a glaring exception then I'd expect the armed forces to highlight it, but the fact that there's debate to this day on the Iraq issue demonstrates that it's not that effing clear. To pursue this inane argument demeans you.

Oh HAL9000, I think you're overplaying that one. You're implying that the Roman empire died because they all stopped farming and wandered about until they died. I don't think latter Emperors considered Christianity as anything more than a convenient man-management tool - a concept that survives until this day.

Best idea is to delete your original identity, and create a new one.

Tillie, it was also regarded perfectly reasonable to slaughter the ill and the infirm, and put your enemies in big copper bulls before cooking them alive. Perhaps we could pick up with crucifiction again? Nobody would challenge the idea of a 'good death', but it demonstrates remarkable naivety to imagine that this will be the only conclusion. We don't accept capital punishment because it's not widely accepted that we should pay a price in the death of innocents to indulge ourselves upon the guilty. How many people are we prepared to accept being murdered through assisted suicide to support those for whom it's a valid and reasonable course of action? Or do you, as with MM, think that everyone can look after themselves?

And libertarianism as usual is a recipe for anarchy... "The individuals involved might want to make their own arrangements to ensure there was no question of coercion or manslaughter / murder" And how do you propose everyone can do that eh? Private security guards? Lawyers? You're really struggling with your imagination if you can't predict the enormous emotional pressure people can exert on each other to get what they want.

Is AllforNun back?

Damian, I don't believe your 'long run' argument holds any water. If there's nothing post-mortem, then the argument is to do what's best for your estimated four-score years life span (not nothing constructive at all). Unfortunately you'll discover that all your 'negatives' - e.g. cheating, stealing, murdering - don't work in the four score period either. Your well-being in the short term is intrinsically linked to the well-being of those around you on both micro and macro scales. Ignoring this context results in a drastic loss of quality in your 'current' life, and in disrupting the future of those younger than you, you'll make them seek to limit your influence in ways that might not meet your short term goals for self-indulgence. It's not called enlightened self-interest for nothing. You have to think it through.... ;-)

Well that seems understandable. However, if this is power to the people, then presumably these addicts won't be drawing a salary from the government to talk to other addicts? If they will be, then presumably your service is just another part of social services? Or are you suggesting another service using public funding, except that it's unaccountable?

Not sure I'm a great fan. Squeaky hair now means air-con fright night later. You need a touch of natural oils etc. etc.