BrandNewGuy

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not sure why the state should be funding a > lifestyle choice anyway. A mother (or father) with a working partner who wants to go out to work is also making a 'lifestyle choice'. S/he might say, "I have to go out to work," and that might be for reasons such as career advancement or wanting more money, but it's still a choice. A choice doesn't have to be an easy one...

neilson99 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I want kids. I want to stay at home. I want to do > more studying. Maybe even re train. I want all > this now, I'm not prepared to prioritise and make > choices and sacrficices, so I expect everyone else > to pay for it. I want more money by getting a job. I want someone to look after my child so I can do it. And I want someone else to pay for it... Cuts both ways.

:-) I said "not unlike" rather than "same as". I meant in terms of it being a completely unlifelike situation. I've just been Googling (in vain) to find out the last time there was a checkmate in a major tournament... I bet it was, er, a long time ago.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > on tv, when people are 'playing' poker and they > always say 'I see your five quid and raise you > xxxx'. This is a string bet and totally illegal in > poker your raise would be disqualified and you > would be held to a 'see' Not unlike TV chess, when one player triumphantly moves a piece and declares, "Checkmate!" If the other player didn't know he was one move away from mate (and therefore would have resigned), he's a pretty poor player and barely worth beating...

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Improved dramatically the lot of the poor to > electorate success, wether this will last in the > long term will be the ultimate test...my suspicion > is it was all on the credit card, but oil wealth > has been spent far less fairly and unpleasantly in > other oil rich places. So the binary view looks > simplistic. Shade of the Perons for me. He onnly improved the lot of the poor by doling out oil money and nationalised industry cash. Not a good idea in the long term. Kudos to him for sticking up two fingers to the corrupt pro-USA oligarchs that preceded him, but thumbs down for the support for dictators elsewhere and the inability to see that the long-term prosperity of Venezuela must rely on a thriving local private sector - which is not the same as the hated Yankee corporations. Venezuela's economy is now embarrassingly mediocre given its oil wealth and I fear the Peron analogy will come to be seen as close to the truth.

Alex K Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A complaint to the council might > lead to felling of a tree. Don't hold your breath - in our experience they won't lift a finger. Our insurance company's been asking them for two years... According to our assessor, Southwark Council is notorious for not removing or dealing with trees that cause cracking / subsidence.

Er, well maybe reading the thread will help you find out how they're connected. Sheesh...

Yeah, of course...

My problem is that I don't understand the first substantial phrase of the website's/organisation's 'manifesto', ie what it's about: " ONE BILLION RISING IS: A global strike An invitation to dance A call to men and women to refuse to participate in the status quo until rape and rape culture ends An act of solidarity, demonstrating to women the commonality of their struggles and their power in numbers A refusal to accept violence against women and girls as a given A new time and a new way of being"

I give up.

I'm not. An organisation puts up a statement that appears to me to be meaningless. No-one has explained it.

OK, so how many of the supporters of One Billion Rising are currently refusing "to participate in the status quo"? And how are they doing that?

hpsaucey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh = never mind, maybe too late on a Saturday.... > This is the Wiki text for anyone interested but > you'll have to go to the WIki link for the > references: I'm perfectly capable of reading wikipedia, I was questioning if the following means anything: "A call to men and women to refuse to participate in the status quo until rape and rape culture ends..."

No, that's not helping...

"A call to men and women to refuse to participate in the status quo until rape and rape culture ends..." I don't even begin to know what that means.

Foxes will in all likelihood attack chickens that "live happily in a garden". That doesn't make them a menace, it just means you need to be realistic and take precautions.

But with driving, the rules are fairly transparent, whether it's through the road traffic laws, the Highway Code or road signs and traffic lights. With Europe, it's not clear what "the rules" are, so it's difficult to single out transgressors or free riders. The European project has morphed through the years - and sometimes in directions that are seen as undesirable to British governments. Most Brits, I suspect, have no problem with something they see as "the common market" - it's the rest of the political structure that they're not so keen on.

In what sense is Britain a "free rider" in Europe? Financially? Philosophically?

Justine Greening? She was dumped from her post at Transport and sent to the "International Development" gulag. You'll find more power in a Duracell battery...

Now you're talking!

A cull wouldn't work in removing the fox population, so the argument is moot. Witness the shenanigans over the badger cull.

My my, people really are touchy about being scammed. It's not a stain on your character, it's just something that really shouldn't happen if you have your wits about you. And if it does, shrug it off and try not to let it happen again. I get a feeling that there are people in this conversation who feel it more virtuous to be scammed than to distrust a scammer. Weird...

I hope one of these cyborgs brings us news about them shutting down Waitrose in Lordship Lane after the great Iceland-inspired chicken nugget riot of '15...

Richard III may have been horrid and murdered the two little boys, but the Tudors who usurped him had an even more dubious claim to the throne so persisted in painting Richard as the devil incarnate (Shakespeare, I'm looking at you). There's no reason to think that he was any more or less bloodthirsty or ruthless than any other monarch at around that time. Great piece of archaeology though...

Sweet Bonnie Brown - The Velvet Underground