david_carnell

Aye, well, one can dream eh, Keef?!

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not just the Mrs Banks types, DC - not so very > long ago, you wouldn't have been able to vote as > you are not a property owner! > > I accept that it's probably not enforcable, maybe > we just need to teach history better. Mmm, of course you are historically spot on PGC. And yes, I think we do need better education, exciting education regarding how history and politics are not fusty academic subjects but run through our every-day lives. But essentially what we need are politicians who people can believe in. I don't think it is coincidence that the fall in turnout mirrors the decline in the true ideologies of the major parties. Pragmatism doesn't allow people to be inspired.

monica Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 2 > for the sceptic (scepticism's OK - really!) > Does homeopathy work - well, does it? > The test of homeopathy is whether patients get > cured - not whether it can be made to fit into a > trial who's paradigm provides a way to justify > giving potentially lethal drugs to patients as > being safe enough to be in their interest (so > called 'scientific' trials).Thousands upon > thousands of patients the world over swear by > homeopathy and they have been treated for > virtually all ailments known to mankind "So called" scientific trials??? You mean double-blind trials that homoeopathy regularly fails? Or peer-reviewed journals that routinely discredit homoepathy for the woo that it is? > > Do you actually know what homeopathy is? Really? > If you don't really know what homeopathy is, how > can you make any judgements about it? (hint: you > can't) Find out what it is first, not what you > think it is. All the disdain, scorn or ridicule I > read about homeopathy is based either on > assumptions, supposition, ignorance or laziness, > or a combination of all four. Much of it is > deliberate misinformation masquerading as evidence > by those with a vested interest. Is that really > the intelligent way to approach a subject? An open > mind will be required. Tell us more, Monica....please. I'm serious. Tell me what I'm not seeing here. Explain to me about water having memory. Because I onced pee'd in the shower and now I'm scared water hates me. > Is homeopathy dangerous? Not compared to orthodox > Western medicine, where thousands (*106,000) of > patients a year die from the effects of its > medicines. You're sooo right. No-one ever has died from homeopathy. Why? Because it's water. You can't die from a inert, harmless liquid. Unless you drown in your own sanctimony. > How does homeopathy work? > It's one thing to be sceptical, quite another to > be prejudiced. Admitting you don't understand > something is the first step to discovery. If you > are the sort who prefers to find out for > themselves rather than be told what to think, keep > reading, if not, keep bleating. It may take time > and be challenging to understand but do persevere > it will be worth it. Start with the information on > this site or explore the web where there is a huge > amount of positive information and understanding > waiting for you. In my experience sceptics of > homeopathy require only one thing to accept > homeopathy, and that is to be treated themselves > (by a qualified homeopath!) and see it work for > themselves. This doesn't answer the question of the first sentence. > Is there any proof it works? > Homeopathy has been proven to be effective. Yes > proven. The proof is there in medical records > across the world - proof. Unequivocal: e.g. the > categorical proof that it cures cholera. So what > have you to lose by exploring homeopathy, why not > see if it works and work out how later? We have established this. We believe you. Read Bignumber5's post. But why does it work? Is it because of the magical properties of water and the skill of the homoeopath? Or is it due to time spent talking to patients that GPs can't give combined with the powerful placebo effect? > Can I treat myself with homeopathy? > That really depends what you are trying to treat > and how well informed you are. There is no reason > that you cannot treat yourself and your family for > common acute ailments - if you are well enough > informed about homeopathy. On the other hand if > you are not well enough informed, i.e. if your > prescribing is not effective or the condition more > serious than you realise, it can be a case of a > little knowledge can be a bad thing if you try to > treat conditions that are beyond your experience. > Better to consult an expert in the first > instance. How much will this "expert" charge me? > Why does homeopathy get bad press? > Why all the hoo hah? Some people really get hot > under the collar about how homeopathy just cannot > work - a classic case of wearing coloured glasses > and proclaiming that everything has to be that > colour. Some peope make a living out of knocking > homeopathy. Corporate funding and vested interest > is allegedly behind a lot of the media reports. I > have not yet seen a single article or report or > test against homeopathy that does not fall apart > when properly challenged. But the challenges go > unreported and anyway by then the damage is > usually already done; the readers know no better > and believe what they read. Yet all the while > people continue the world over get cured by > homeopathy. So if you want to see the 'good press' > on homeopathy not the anti-homeopathy propoganda ( > that's what it is) then checkout the alternative > health magasines and online resources. So, if I want to read all the good stuff about homoeopathy I should read about it in advertorials in magazines published by, and for, those involved in the industry? And you have the hypocrisy to moan about "vested interests" of big-pharma. > So who's right? > Some very persuasive speakers hold very > anti-homeopathy views. As do most chemists and > pharmacists (and who seem to think 'science' means > 'chemistry'). That is their view and they are > welcome to it, but homeopathy works despite their > disbelief,. they are simply expressing the limits > of their understanding, of their world view, and > they are not prepared to accept anything outside > of that. It's not an arguement worth persuing with > them. As an intellectual debate you can take > whichever side you prefer, however if you are > unwell and need a cure, then a debate about who's > right is not what's needed; what's needed is > action: see the (qualified!) homeopath, get your > remedy, either it will cure or it won't. Debate > over. If you're ill you won't care who is right?! You might if you use woo instead of actual medicine and suffer the consequences. Debate over? I think not. Not by a long chalk.

Moos Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > By the way, d_c, PGC didn't mention suffragettes, > but universal suffrage. Yes, I know that. But the "suffragettes died to get the vote" argument is often used as rationale/guilt-tripping when discussing your responsibility to vote.

PGC - I have flirted with the idea of compulsory voting (a la Australia) over the years and have flip-flopped from one camp to another. However, currently and until someone persuades me otherwise, I would have to say I am opposed to the idea. Whilst I can sympathise with the idea and certainly appreciate the sentiment (suffragettes always get the violins going) I have some major concerns: 1) On a practical level, is it enforceable? And what would the punishment be should you refuse? I can forsee poll-tax style mass non-cooperation. 2) In a nation that is supposed(!) to pride itself on the liberty and freedoms of the individual, can coercing people into a ballot box ever be acceptable? 3) Would such a measure really result in a more engaged and politically educated public or merely a largely disgruntled group of ballot-spoilers?

Yes, I thought so. But the lad breaks more metatarsals than...err...something that gets a lot of broken toes. Anyway, if he can stay fit I think he should be first choice on the wing. And at 6'8", Banahan gives you something a bit different from a winger. Oh, and he likes a dust up. .

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Which opens up another discussion - should we vote > for local candidates, or on a party basis? > Difficult. The "purist" answer is vote for local > candidate but pragmatically there is a need to > take the wider view. In practical terms only > voters in swing / marginal seat have any impact on > the election result and they are the ones that > must consider most carefully. Perhaps MM, you will allow me to expand the remit of this debate further by asking in this age of political disillusionment, serious debate should be given to the reform of the electoral system. If only a tiny minority of the population's vote matters (i.e. those in marginal, winnable seats) and in some places turnout, even for general elections, is falling below 40% then surely a switch to a form of proportional representation is now needed? I'll vote Labour at the next GE, not because I like Harman, or Jowell, (frankly I loathe both of them) but because I'm voting on a national level. What does irk me though is that when I have canvassed for the Labour Party at election time, the national/local perceptions of most people are horribly skewed. At local elections, people will moan about national issues (Iraq, NHS, etc) and vote accordingly despite this being irrelevant. And yet, come the GE I hear people whinge about local issues (street lighting, council housing etc) but blame the national government rather than the local council. It is, quite frankly, infuriating.

I like Shaw but he's hardly a long term solution. Kennedy will feel mightily hard done by to be dropped. Borthwick is neither captain material or playing well enough but Johnson doesn't seem to have the balls to drop him. Tbh, and as I've discussed with Bignumber5 (another big rugger fan), I don't think sackey is good enough for international rugby. If he's fit, I'd much prefer strettle and would like to see bath's matt banahan given a chance too. But we get monye. Meh. Malzieu will be too strong for him.

Bump.....for those that are playing. Or anyone who wants to discuss this weekend's massive fixtures! I've only made one change so far. I don't think any of the three new boys England are bringing in will make much difference - the French are going to clobber us.

Top post, SirBigNumber5. Clear, concise, factually accurate and no bullshit. Nice one.

I presume you want it interactive - i.e. a hyperlink. Use the little "globe and paperclip" icon. Just paste the link and type a description. Bingo.

Shu.Kurimu.Sensei Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Message for you: Wake up, this thread is now about > Tony, Kalamitykel and Charlie's debate, butt out > troll. Heh....if the two of them could just have sex and be done with it, we could save on all this endless flirting-disguised-as-debate malarky. Although I do LOVE Mssr Fry.

We allow you to vote Brendan. Good grief, does the Queen know about this? Piers, I won't bother to engage you on this, not because I don't enjoy our little t?te-a-t?tes but because we both know and respect each other too well to think it'll make a blind bit of difference. And it'll bore everyone else rigid!

Then prepare to get angry then Keef.... I confidently predict that I will never vote Conservative. Ever. Because of the sins of the 80s, and because I think they'd be equally disastrous for this country if they had another chance. I shall be voting Labour at the next general election. But I'm interested why no one seems to be voting LibDem, either as a protest vote or from genuine conviction.

Or head. And he is ginger.

Ronaldo does have a face only a mother could love. Or a WAG. He just invokes a primal urge for violence. One stepover, two, three, SMACK! There was an article in the paper today where Wenger called for more protection against thuggish players. Whilst I agree that constant dirty play and career-threatening tackles detract from skill and technique-based football it would me a shame if the fan-favourite "hardman" disappeared from the game.

What RosieH, Sean and AnnaJ said.... ....I don't mind appropriate ranting, raving, swearing and the rest of it but the level of tedium that has been prevalent over the past couple of months is beyond the pail. Swearing and sex can be funny. But everything in moderation.

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > david_carnell Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Something similar to this please: > > and your starter for "Ten" : The making of this > Film resulted in the creation of.... Erik The Conqueror?

Something similar to this please:

Aye, spot on ????. And don't even get me started about supporting a team who aren't even in the Premiership and having to listen to you lot compete in a todger-waving contest.

Unsurprisingly Mr MacG, I'm quite enjoying your support act and some of the other material she has on youtube. The allure of the 'Sticks continues to allude me, however.

Le Tissier had the same problem. Any other nation would have used him as a creative lynch-pin. England tried to put him in their B team. Eejits.

Thanks Mick. And without wishing to blow my own trumpet when you look at the amount of people playing I'm not many points away from the top 50. And only 4 points behind your mate who is 100 league places above me. It's very close.

Sorry lads. My Idle XV are proving anything but. Declan, you dropped O'Driscoll?!! Argh. Console yourself with another celtic victory over the auld enemy. And the fact that I dropped Armitage only for him to get England's only try. I'm currently trying to work out how many England players I can get rid of ready for the next round. Even Italy players are looking attractive. At least they don't have a 1 in 7 chance of being sin-binned. Useless shites. I'm talking to you Danny Care and Phil Vickery!

Belle Vue? Doncaster Rovers old home.