HAL9000

I like to say thank you to all those wonderful forumites (you know who you are) that made it such a memorable and pleasant evening. Cheers!

As a wannabe troglodyte I've always loved this place. It's not far and a great place to take the kids. Some old Dr Who episodes were filmed there. Reviews Chislehurst Caves Old Hill Chislehurst Kent BR7 5NB 020 8467 3264

SteveT: You're quite right: one has to see it to believe it. I'm male, by the way - and a bit long in the tooth. [We missed each other last night but the three young ladies you were kind enough to chaperone to their first EDF Drinks night were praising your charm and chivalry. Hope to meet you at the next one.]

Horsebox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What's your point, Hal9000? Getting the facts straight, for example: no one was murdered. > You almost seem to be excusing Biggs by portraying > him as a minor player in the violent robbery. I'm not. I have no opinion on Biggs one way or the other. My only interest is in the government's reaction to the events.

If you want to discuss this seriously at least get your facts straight. The Great Train Robbery took place on 8 August 1963. No guns were used. Biggs played a minor role: he brought in the gang's own driver who didn't know how to drive that particular train so they were sent to load mail bags into the get away vehicle. An unidentified member of the gang - not Biggs - hit Jack Mills, the train driver, on the head with an iron bar, causing a black eye and facial bruising. Mills died in 1970 from leukaemia. The robbers were given draconian sentences because: A: they stole a lot of money from the government (?2.6 million = ?38 million adjusted for 2008 inflation) B: by using an unprecedented level of organisation that scared the sh*t out of the authorities.

I'll be there tonight - look forward to meeting y'all.

Bisto has just brought out granules called something like Chip Shop Curry Sauce - so DYI! HTH

EDF IQ Test Is Broccoli - A: a cross between a cauliflower and a barrister? B: a naturally occurring brassica? C: a producer of James Bond films?

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In the wider debate 'rampant corruption' is a > silly way to describe the UK. It's evidently not > the best, At the time - the mid-80's - the public's perception of honesty and integrity within the establishment were rather different. What I came to realise then was that the establishment was highly corruptible; it had various mechanisms and pathways built-in that enabled embarrassing or uncomfortable information to be easily suppressed across the board. Only the tip of the iceberg entered the public domain. Needless to say, I have been actively monitoring the situation during the last quarter century. I still hold the view that only a small proportion of establishment corruption is exposed. Most of the self-preserving mechanisms are still in place or have been replaced by more sophisticated versions. > but the coverage given to transgressions > (for example police malpractice) must prove that > it's pretty open here. Things have changed recently. But the machine is still being run by an old school adept at enhancing its internal procedures to avoid further disclosures via the same route. It will soon be business as usual. We, as a nation, are far too trusting - or should that be gullible? > Have you never been anywhere else in the world? I have travelled widely as it happens. Just because blatant corruption is rife elsewhere doesn't mean it should be allowed to continue here. The tendency towards corruption is deeply embedded within human nature. We should remain vigilant.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > His bandwidth must be incredible. Someone has actually bothered to quantify the question here: God's Bandwidth For those who can't be bothered to read the entire article: In an article for Nature, June 2002, Seth Lloyd of MIT in Cambridge gives the memory capacity of a universe simulating computer at 10^90 bits and a CPU that would have manipulated 10^120 bits of information in the time since the big bang. His estimate is based on the energy equivalent of the universe, but can be seen to be consistent with the number of particles contained within (i.e. 10^80). Is that cool or what?

citizenED Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The question is whether or not God is active in life. The idea of an all-seeing, all-knowing god certainly has a profound influence on modern life. He exerts a decisive influence whether he is real or not so long as people believe that he is real. Forgive me if that's not what you meant or I've just stated the obvious.

citizenED Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Perchance, I wonder if we can sort this all out by > Friday so that we can have a celebratory drink? Good idea. After this thread Holy Communion would be a wise precaution!

Santerme Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My understanding of DA notices are that they are > advisory and not binding. > > You seek advice on whether the information is > likely to be sensitive from the secretariat, but > you cannot be gagged by them. I'm not an expert. My understanding is that a D-Notice is usually issued to the media; supposedly to suppress publication of defence related issues. I don't know of any cases where it hasn't been effective in that respect.

macroban Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You might like to check when the 1983 notices will > be available. I'll check it out - thanks. I'm hoping that the official files will be released under the thirty-year rule in due course but suspect they'll remain sealed for as long as those involved are still alive - including me.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The stimulus has to originate > somewhere, it can't just magaically appear. Money is created out of thin air through a mechanism known as Fractional-Reserve Banking which lies at the heart of the global banking system.

I realise this isn't exactly what SteveT had in mind but the Government has a powerful array of gagging orders at its disposal. According to 'Freedom, the Individual and the Law' (Penguin Law - 1991) by Harry Street (Author) and Geoffrey Robertson (Editor), the following legislations are used to gag individuals and the press (although some may have been amended or rescinded since its publication): Treason Criminal Libel Interim Injunction Malicious Falsehood Contempt of Court Breach of Copyright Obscenity Conspiracy Offences Official Secrets Act 1911, s1 Public Interest Immunity Certificates D-Notices Blasphemy Sedition A D-Notice was served in relation to myself in the mid-80s that is still in force, as far as I know, so I can?t talk about it ? except to say it was probably the most bizarre thing that ever happened to me and really opened my eyes to the level of rampant corruption within the government and judicial system (of England and Wales).

Teasing aside, allow me to spell out this speculative argument clearly to avoid any confusion: The Old Testament is a human invention designed to deceive its readers. Josephus and Philo are cut from the same cloth: both are intent on deceiving their audience. The New Testament and its associated non-canonical works are also works of fiction. Hundreds of early Christian documents are known or suspected forgeries: one example If the OT is false then the Talmud and the Koran are also false. The common factor between them is that they are all mythologies presented as history. Without them we would know virtually nothing about pre-rabbinical Judaism or early Christianity and Islam. Yet, if they are all forgeries, then we really don't know anything about the real history of those religions because there are no independent sources. Given that virtually all of our knowledge is based on forgeries, by what logic can one accept anything passed on by the Church at face value? Logic dictates that one cannot accept anything without question. That is why I challenge the validity of some poster's opinions where they are based on Official Church History. The Official History is just as likely to be yet another self-serving mythology presented as history. There is no way of knowing ? apart from blind faith. QED

A recent study in the states has established that one lawyer contains about as much humanity as twenty-eight chimpanzees. One particularly hirsute lawyer was heard to mutter; If this is Justice, I'm a banana! HTH

A relative was recently prescribed Orlistat and asked me to check it out on the web: I couldn't find anything that merited serious concern. It's method of action is quite interesting: it's not absorbed into the body but rather stays in the intestinal tract where it binds with the enzyme that usually breaks down fats so they can be absorbed. The result is that fats remain in the gut and are passed out undigested. The main side effects are issues like oily stools, leakage, flatulence, etc. I didn't realise it was available OTC. I'd be tempted to try it if my diet wasn?t virtually fat free these days.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The poit rather being that they haven't actaully > caused mayhem at all ahve they. They have had an enormous impact on Western society - it's a matter of record, silly even to argue the point. > Really, a couple of buildings a few high profile bombs over the > past few years. Nothing has changed has it. What? We have been drawn into two wars - with others on the horizon! Hundreds of thousands have died. What planet are you on? > Commerce continues unabated, peoples day to day > lives would be utterly unaltered if it wasn't for > the news Perhaps you think that the origin of the recent financial crisis, which has affected almost everyone, and will continue to do so for many years to come, was not rooted in the massive interest rate cuts following 911, imposed to prevent a global financial collapse then and there? , and you're saying that a media war like > that could have existential consequences for a > thousand year old empire 1500 years before the > inventionnof the printing press. It's interesting that you raise that point. The innovation that brought Christianity to the Roman Empire was the papyrus codex, the first recorded use of mass media. Despite their frailty, some 8,000 examples have survived into modern times, giving some indication of their original numbers. > I don't require a spoon I require common sense. If > it looks like massive barbarian incursions with > preferable settlement termsover three hundred > years and it quacks like them then it's probably a > duck. Again, a revealing reference: how can one be sure what came first, the Christian egg or the barbarian duck? The only records we have are those filtered by Christian self-interest - the last group that would blame itself for the collapse of its own Empire. Common sense? It seems to me that you have a great deal of faith in the official history.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wouldn't be citing him as a reliable source. Gibbon's reliability regarding factual matters remains unchallenged. Bury, Potter, Millar and Drake cite him as their primary principal source. The fact that many Christian apologists have disputed conclusions that challenge official Church History should come as no surprise. More about that here: The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Christianity unleashed no less than three religio-terrorist paradigms on the unsuspecting Romans: those of the Nazorites, the Sicari and the Zealots. Not to mention the concept of Martyrdom (i.e. fanatics willing to carry out suicide missions - in today's terminology). A handful of Judaeo-religious fanatics have caused mayhem in our modern world yet Mockney and Huguenot cannot imagine the effect that hundreds of thousands of them could have had on the Roman world? I'm not claiming to be right - I'm merely investigating alternatives to the official Church History based on rational extrapolation. The whole point of this thread is to see through the religious smoke screen in order to perceive an underlying reality. You two claim to be rationalists yet appear predisposed to resist that notion. Go figure. Free your minds ? there is no spoon! :)

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh HAL9000, I think you're overplaying that one. I made a point of citing my authorities. Wand is a former Bishop of London and Gibbon needs no introduction from me - they are both eminent and impecable historians. > You're implying that the Roman empire died because > they all stopped farming and wandered about until they died. We are talking about a religious heritage whose adherents sacrificed their firstborn children by burning them alive. We are told that the earliest Christian converts chose to become lion fodder rather than cooperate with the Roman authorities. They were fanatical fundamentalist, in today's terminology. Why is it so difficult to accept that Roman converts would became mendicant preachers, or attempt to heal lepers by laying on of hands, or stop bathing, or eat without washing their hands, or castrate themselves, or handle venomous snakes, or drink poisons or consume Amanita muscaria? Isolated Christian congregations are still practicing many of those rituials today. > I don't think latter Emperors considered > Christianity as anything more than a convenient > man-management tool - a concept that survives > until this day. I'm not sure that Christian history is entirely reliable regarding what happened in the early days. No modern church publicises the bizarre interpretations of early Christianity. How many Christians know that early doctrine included reincarnation until around 600 AD? Or that Jesus had an identical twin brother? Or that Thomas was the other twin? Or that Jesus and Barabbas were both known as "Son of the Father" - the literal translation of "Son of God" in Aramaic? How many Catholics know that their Church was born out of a schism just 1,000 years ago or that the lingua franca of 1st century Rome was (koine) Greek rather than Latin? Not many, I'd wager.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've yet to see any convincing evidence > that morality has anything to do with it. "Morality" is a bit of an over-simplification. I?m relying on the work of Edward Gibbon and, for example, J.W.C. Wand. The argument is based on the incompatibility between the early interpretation of Christianity and the established Roman social order. The early Christians boycotted Roman law, taxation, civil and military service, slavery, trade, industry, agriculture, medicine, and family relationships, to name but a few points of contention. Converts abandoned their families and professions, gave away their wealth and property and wondered the countryside as mendicant evangelists. They made no provisions for the future in the forlorn expectation of an imminent Second Coming. It is doubtful whether any modern society would survive under such circumstances, let alone one struggling against the multitude of other problems faced by the Roman Empire. Of course, history is written by the victor - in this case Christianity.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > really? By shortly you mean a century and a half in the west Something like that. > and nine centuries later in the east? Byzantium survived the collapse of the western Empire but became mired in the Christian-inspired Iconoclast wars by the 8th century (from 730-ish AD) until Constantinople fell in 1453 to armies inspired by yet another Judaeo-religion. > The west collapsed because it went bankrupt after > losing north Africa to the vandals and having too > many commitments fighting barbarians and Huns on > every front. I happen to think that Christianity played an important role, amongst many other factors. Let me quote something to put your explanation into perspective: In 1984, German professor Alexander Demandt published a collection of 210 theories on why Rome fell, and new theories have emerged since then. -- Decline of the Roman Empire Modern historians cannot agree on the cause - your apparent certainty is unfounded. > Moral frameworks had nothing to with it. Well, at least not as far as you are aware, obviously :)

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > HAL9000 - that's a good point, but why accept the > New Testament over and above the Old Testament? > You are still picking and choosing which bits of a > religious text to accept. The answer is probably > that we accept the bits which fit our existing > morals. That is where Christianity differs from the other Judaeo-religions: it contains no moral or legal code. That is probably why the Roman Empire collapsed shortly after Constantine elevated Christianity to an official religion - it was completely unworkable. After the ensuing Dark Ages, a new interpretation of Christianity appeared - the version we have now - with an inconsistent and contradictory moral code bolted on. Morality was never part of the original religion.