HAL9000

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If the mental health thing is true, then that has > to be taken in to account. I've done some Googling on this: the mental issue seems to have been raised by Amnesty International (typical) and is based on Saudi reports that the man laughed during his interrogation / confession. > If the child's father gunned this man down, then > by their law, he should also be executed. Sharia Law is largely based on the principle of an eye-for-an-eye. I'm not sure that the avenging father would face any sanction if he acted in accordance with the basic principles of Sharia Law. Book 34, Number 4481: Narrated Abu Shurayh al-Khuza'i: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If a relative of anyone is killed, or if he suffers khabl, which means a wound, he may choose one of the three things: he may retaliate, or forgive, or receive compensation. But if he wishes a fourth (i.e. something more), hold his hands. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty.

He may be amongst us even now - how would we know? All he needs is a new ISP and he's back with a clean slate. If he's not already here it probably won't be too long before he is.

BB100 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Has anyone considered how there must have been a > God to start speech and language? Are you referring to the Christian Logos - the Word - that is said to have pre-existed Creation and is the medium through which it was initiated? Judaism holds similar views regarding the Hebrew alphabet. Kabbalists believe that the written Torah (i.e. the Pentateuch), which Judaism recognises as the Word of God, mystically and cryptically embodies the entire Creation or Universe. See Number-Word mysticism.

Reminiscent of the classic

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This murderer is being sedated (if Hal is correct) > and beheaded Officially, the Saudi authorities deny sedation for beheadings and amputations (to enhance the deterrent effect and because intoxicants are forbidden by Islam). In fact, for beheadings, it is used to a varying extent depending on the condemned's likely level of co-operation, without which it would be all but impossible to carry out such a sentence in a humane and orderly fashion. In the case of amputations, the authorities claim full amputation by sword followed by medical treatment, although they do acknowledge the administration of local anaesthetic. In fact, most of the time (always in the case of nationals), the executioner applies a ritual strike to the limb that merely breaks the skin - the condemned is then taken to a nearby hospital where a proper surgical amputation is carried out leaving a neat, skin-covered stump. Apart from official executions, various members of the Royal family and the ruling hierarchy have the authority to perform summary executions and punishments (in fact, Islam gives that authority to every Muslim) where the evidence warrants it ? in such cases the punishments are administered on the spot without any thought to sedation or medical intervention. Such events are quite rare, though.

Looks more like something between a flame and a snipe to me - not bad for a beginner, though. Quite good, actually.

Criminality in Saudi covers many activities that are legal elsewhere: for example, wearing a cross in public, the consumption of non-medicinal alcohol or pork products, the possession of non-Muslim religious texts, videos of any unauthorised material, un-expurgated western glossy magazines, private satellite dishes, insurance policies, interest bearing securities, revealing bare flesh in public, eating or drinking anything during daylight hours in the month of Ramadan, women drivers, homosexuality (both sexes), apostasy, failure to pray at prescribed times, etc, etc. My last visit to Saudi was in the early eighties. The death penalty for Muslim-to-Muslim alcohol supply was first declared while I was there. At that time the Saudi customs service was battling large-scale smuggling of alcohol and other prohibited items such as narcotics/stimulants, pornography, foreign prostitutes, western videos, weapons, etc. The criminal police force was swamped by crimes of theft and violence by foreign workers (including a case of cannibalism). The local newspapers were full of wanted notices for foreign workers who had disappeared from their jobs, usually with large sums of money. Amongst Saudi nationals, the crime rate appeared much lower: mainly domestic or interpersonal violence, crimes of passion or honour, homosexuality, adultery or fornication and some alcohol and drug related offences. Deaths caused by road traffic accidents were said to be amongst the highest in the world. I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether the world's strictest implementation of Sharia Law acted as an effective deterrent.

rcmacf Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > HAL9000, ABC? From the movie Glengarry Glen Ross: Always Be Closing!

I'd like to make a blanket apology for any personal insults that were inferred from my above posts - none of which were intended or implied. I have no issue with any of the forum?s moderators and was at all times being inquisitive rather than accusatory. I?m content to conclude the matter here unless anyone else insists on continuing.

Noooo. I'm not claiming anything of the sort - I'm sitting in front of a trading terminal that would shame mission control right now and New York's pre-market session has just kicked off. I can't deal with all of that and you two at the same time. That's all. I'll be more than happy to continue this later. As for my argument - I've explained it fully in previous posts and you can see for yourself what he did just by scrolling up a bit. I'm sure both of you know exactly what I'm talking about. Catch you later boys.

rcmacf Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So, who's for the pub? That's the spirit lad - ABC!

> If you condone and defend vicious sniping I don't know if mockney does or doesn't - that's why I'm asking. His response so far doesn?t inspire confidence. Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if both of you were to disclaim any knowledge of our resident little snipe's favourite pastime - despite his own admission. Anyway - two moderators - one of me - time to bow out gracefully methinks. C'est la vie.

The fact is, we don't know who is moderating at any particular time. All we know is that you are sometimes a moderator. We can only judge you on your words and deeds as mockney. If you condone and defend vicious sniping then you?re skating on thin ice, in my view. I don?t think one can have it both ways and maintain a credible claim of impartiality?

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hal - I think that's an unfair and a disingenous > comment on several levels. Where had Mockney done > this? If he hasn't, which I i'm pretty sure he > wouldn't and hasn't, then surely he is allowed to > post his opinion as a poster without the > suggestion that it's bias or less valid becuase > he's a mod? shit, we'll end up with no moderators. Almost without exception, whenever Huguenot's attempted snipes back fire, mockney pops up to obfuscate the matter or defend him. Here's an example from this thread a few post up: > Re: Gordon Brown's letter > Posted by: mockney piers Yesterday, 02:13PM > > I think he may have been referring to imbezzled (sic) Mockney is not stupid - he must be aware that Huguenot had just made another false accusation and that I had caught him in the act.

Mockney - you have earned a great deal of respect on this forum. I think everyone would agree that you are an intelligent, fair-minded and reasonable contributor. And you are obviously very loyal to your friends. But it does you no credit to actively support what appears to be a systematic policy of misrepresentation and attack that we have seen here time after time. It's on a par with bullying, in my view. Especially when the target may not have sufficient online experience to recognise that they are being set up: they rise to the bait and end up looking foolish trying to defend positions that were foisted upon them by a self-confessed "vicious little snipe". A snipe hunt, a form of wild-goose chase that is also known as a fool's errand, is a type of practical joke that involves experienced people making fun of credulous newcomers by giving them an impossible or imaginary task. Perhaps you think scoring points like that is funny? I don't think it is. Hapless victims end up getting frustrated, humiliated and upset - perhaps even banned. You are intelligent enough to realise what is going on unless you have been blinded by loyalty or gain some vicarious pleasure from such antics? But the most important point is that you are a sometime moderator ? that job requires you to uphold the interests of everyone on the forum, not just your personal friends.

Well, let's hope Chicken Bits Soup isn't someone's idea of a first date!

Huguenot - I apologise if you thought my comment was personal. It's your rather unusually posting style that I was commenting on - just in case you'd forgotten the somewhat embarrassing situation you got yourself into quite recently - that's all. Just a friendly heads up. There's nothing nasty intended about mockney, either. On the contrary, I think it would be an awful shame if that prince amongst men were tarnished by his immediate appearance whenever a clanger is dropped. Have a nice day.

HAL9000 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > mindyourownbusiness44@gmail I've received BBW's email address from Ladymuck - thanks. I'm just following up my own post to say that my reconstruction above is not accurate enough to warrant any attempt to contact BBW on that address or a variation thereof. However, I'd be happy to pass on the genuine article via PM on request.

Mark Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ladymuck Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > do you have any objection to my posting BBW's > email address here? > > Yes, if people want it they can PM you. My Dear LadyM, please PM me with BBW's email address lest East Dulwich collapses into a black hole of iniquity.

Typical Huguenot: you assert some unwarranted but controversial meaning within another poster's contribution then attack them on the basis of your manufactured Strawman. You've been busted. Haven't you learnt anything from your recent self-exposure on here? It not even been a week and you're back to your old tricks. Spare a thought for your friend mockney who faithfully scurries after you trying to cover up your droppings: at least he still has a reputation worth preserving.

BBW added his email address at the bottom of the rapidly deleted Right to Reply text, which I only read through once before it was gone. Would anyone who also read that text help confirm my memory: mindyourownbusiness44@gmail ... now was it .com or .co.uk? I think it was .co.uk but I'm not sure. Anyone?

computedshorty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is a simple answer. > ... > You can produce them yourself, best staying with > A4 folded to A5 size, this gives you book pages, > you can add pages as you go. The printing of these > is a bit complex as the printed pages have to be > printed in a certain sequence, firstly by choosing > the reverse side to the previous page. There is a simple answer - it's called Click Book. It does all the formatting and complex printing automatically. I've used Click Book and highly recommend it.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Okay, I can't be reasonable for ever... Clearly. > "the one failing-eyed man" > > What? > > That's effing outrageous, you paint his handicap > as a character flaw. It's an ironic word play that cleverly weaves GB's feeble excuse into the prose. > "Vote tory, we hate disabled people but we can't spell". Or better still, "Vote Tory, we hate disabled people but we can spell." Eh? > Not particularly clever, and deeply unpleasant. ?Oh wad some power the giftie gie us To see oursel's as others see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us, And foolish notion? --Robert Burns

I know exactly what you mean. As a volunteer, I work with allegedly wrongfully convicted prisoners in the UK through Innocent and have visited several Saudi prisons and rehabilitation centres (the latter being as good as anything we have in Europe, in my opinion) as an official guest of the Saudi government, which is how I came to be invited to witness beheadings and amputations. It does change ones perspective on life, the universe and everything.

Ladymuck Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BBW has asked me to post (on his behalf) ... > ... My stance is this: I know > full well when I'm about to put my foot in it, > although I don't genuinely go out of my way to > annoy others and put them off using the forum. To > suggest that I'm in some way mentally handicapped > to the point of my fingertips making involuntary, > knee jerk contributions is quite frankly ludicrous I apologise for any confusion my original post has caused. There was no intention to suggest any mental handicap in my original post where I said, "involuntary compulsion or behavioural problem". It was Mockney who elevated that description to a "disorder". "Involuntary compulsion" can allude to, say, an addiction - but not necessarily to drugs - it could be an addiction to risk or danger or confrontation, for example. As for "behavioural problems" ? frankly, if you don't have any, I don't know who has! I genuinely believe that you?d benefit more by inclusion rather than exclusion. I await the return of your new persona with interest. Good Luck and Take Care.