silverfox

Sorry Tarot, against my religion

No, didn't even notice it. I'm now about to become increasingly irritated by spending the afternoon looking and listening for it to decide if I'll become inceasingly irritated by it.

Santerme said: "...Oh, it didn't effect me either personally, I am safely tucked away in Maryland in 32 degree daytime heat and 100% humidity.." Most people on this thread seem safely tucked away in fairyland given the half-truths levelled against the Pope. Thankfully, the warm welcome and hospitality of the British people, who turned out in their hundreds of thousands, dispelled the apathy lie. As for protests, the handful of people that were visible were all a bit Private Eye, Dave Spart-ish "..."sickening... totally sickening... worse than Hitler..." "continued on page 94" stuff.

Snakes and ladders

>quire 2 (kwr) >n. & v. Archaic >Variant of choir. Quotation by Abraham Cowley Even Lust the Master of a hardned Face, Blushes if thou beest in the place, To darkness' Curtains he retires, In Sympathizing Night he rowls his smoaky Fires. When, Goddess, thou liftst up thy wakened Head, Out of the Mornings purple bed, Thy Quire of Birds about thee play, And all the joyful world salutes the rising day. Abraham Cowley (1618?1667), British poet. Hymn: To Light (l. 57?64). . . Seventeenth-Century Verse and Prose, Vols. I?II. Vol. I: 1600?1660; Vol. II: 1660?1700. Helen C. White, Ruth C. Wallerstein, and Ricardo Quintana, eds. (1951, 1952) The Macmillan Company. Quiristers Winchester, The Pilgrim?s School (Quiristers) Late fourteenth century origins On 28 March 1394 William of Wykeham formally opened his college at Winchester with 70 poor scholars, a warden, headmaster and second master, ten priest-fellows, three chaplains, three lay clerks, 10 commoners (that is, those who paid for their commons) and 16 quiristers. The latter lived in a very small house in Chamber Court. The statutes were issued in their final form in 1400. Concerning the quiristers they must be paupers and they should be under 12 years old, well mannered and with an ability to sing. They were to be eligible for Winchester college scholarships and would have a free education under a chaplain or other teacher in return for their singing. For many years they served in the college, helping the servants to make the fellows? beds and waiting at table. Each quirister was given cloth for a gown and they must not wear hats. For about 150 years Wykeham?s plans worked smoothly and each year four or five quiristers were admitted to the college as scholars. http://www.ofchoristers.net/Chapters/WinchesterQuiristers.htm

Oh Tarot, you are a card!

I heard it might become one of the upmarket Wetherspoons. I don't know how they brand them, but a sort of Wetherspoons Premier to fit in with the area (ie, not like the one in Forest Hill).

I understand there was a bit of a rumpus when the Sunday Times writer AA Gill called Clare Balding a dyke on a bike. Surely Lesbians in East Dulwich wouldn't be offended by that?

Who, what, where, when? Is this about the Lesians in Ed thread?

When was Friern Manor disbanded? Ie, given the later enclosures acts that succeeding landlords may have introduced it cannot have been an easy task to trace the original medieval boundaries. I know tithes were paid to the church by landlords, the size of which was related to their land-holding but I don't know how the dissolution of the monasteries affected this and the records of land held.

I sincerely hope you weren't too badly hurt DJKillaQueen. No, I don't hate anybody but I do get cross with silly cyclists. We sometimes play a game in the car with the children about cyclists to see if they shoot into the outside lane without looking/signalling when they want to go around a parked car. I'd say about 70% of them do. What worries me is that if I hit them if they shoot out in front of me they'll sue me and I could end up losing the house to pay them compensation when it was their fault. I understand that in Chicago the law is that motorcyclists have to occupy the same space as a car. That means if a car can't fit into that gap then the motorcylist mustn't. It stops all the weaving in and out of cars. I think that should be applied to cyclists to stop them surrounding cars at junctions in front of them and to the right and left of them.

oops, duplicate post as below

Thanks Sean, you learn something new every day.

Ouch, that's tough. Presumably the lord also had the Right of First Night.

DJKillaQueen said: "...And most accidents involving cyclists are the fault of drivers. Around 16 die in the capital each year, half squashed by lorries that turn left over them..." I rest my case. Any cyclist with half a brain would not try and squeeze past a lorry or any other vehicle on the inside left at a junction. Nor should they pull alongside any vehicle on the inside left. They should bring the bike to a stop behind the vehicle, wait for the vehicle to turn left and then, only if it's safe to do so, they should proceed through the junction. This is not irrelevant to the subject of cycle lanes as most cycle lanes I've seen are on the left hand side by the kerbs.

Yes, you're right. I can't really see a licensing system work for bicycles in practice. My real point is any Tom, Dick or Harry can jump on a bike and set off on busy roads. Many have never ridden a bike since their early teens and often on far quieter roads in the smaller towns they grew up in. Suddenly they feel they can take on Hyde Park corner and it's up to cars to get out of their way. However, a cycling proficiency test should be a minimum requirement. My worry is bicycle lanes only encourage nitwits to take to cycling.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And how would such a licence work for the under > 18's. It's a totally idiotic and unworkable idea > and last time I checked a cyclist usually comes > off worst in a collision with a vehicle. > > I did a cycling proficiency at school and it was > FREE. There are also similar schemes today for > anyone to do that are FREE. Simple - it's not required for under 17 year olds (legal driving age). Most under 17 year olds don't cycle to work, commute into city centres. For 17 years plus you have to display a metal disc on the bike (like the old cycling proficiency disc). No disc on bike, bike immediately impounded and you continue your journey on foot.

ImpetuousVrouw Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Silverfox, cyclists are allowed to cycle the wrong > way down one way streets: > > Cycle Contraflow Thanks ImpetuousVrouw. I see this was a trial experiment. Has it now been implemented as law?

Bellenden Belle said: On another note - three cheers for Southwark for giving everyone a chance to have a one-to-one bike lesson. [www.cyclinginstructor.com] I've said this before but in my opinion it should be compulsory for cyclists to pass a cycling proficiency test, ie a paid for taught course. Some of the antics of cyclists are frightening and a danger to themselves and the motorists who will get the blame if they're hurt through their own silly actions. Also, in these straitened times an annual road licence for cyclists of say, ?25 a year, would be a good idea with points deducted (and leading to loss of licence) for going down one-way streets, through red lights and pulling out from behind parked cars without looking over their shoulders and no hand signals.

Hi Admin, I just posted on the Friern Manor thread in the Gossip section and wanted to put a question mark in parenthesis because I wasn't sure if a Baron held the Manor. But a funny smiley-like symbol has appeared. What did I do wrong?

Hawking help us - more traffic chaos (geddit?)

Looks like I would have been one of the Baron's(?) serfs, or is that vassals?

Just watching Homes Under the Hammer on the telly and the auctioneer said: "Going once...going twice...going..." At this point the word thrice popped into my mind but the auctioneer said "...going for the third time." I thought he should have said thrice. I like the word thrice. Bit old fashioned but it's nice.

I think missus has hit the nail on the head - none of us know for sure and in the end it comes down to belief, gut instinct and upbringing. AND THIS IS TRUE FOR SCIENTISTS (note caps here). jctg - I'm not claiming more knowledge and understanding of theoretical physics than Prof Hawking. My understanding is science for the proles a la wikipedia with a measure of commonsense thrown in. Huguenot, good try (welcome back by the way) but again you've missed the point but nevertheless provided an interesting smorgasbord at which we can all nibble. Hal, I bow to superior knowledge and am prepared to stand corrected. Now, let's get back to basics. The Guardian newspaper carried a humorous article about this the other day which said that if God could be bothered to explain the workings of the universe to Stephen Hawking he would be one of the few people on the planet who might have a chance of understanding what God was saying. This article made a serious point - what do scientists actually know about the universe? According to scientists the universe is made up of about 4% ordinary matter (ie those lovely stars twinkling in the night sky); 23% dark matter, ie matter that is inferred to exist from gravitational effects on visible matter and background radiation, but is undetectable by emitted or scattered electromagnetic radiation and 73% of dark energy - a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and is the most popular way to explain recent observations and experiments that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. The stars I can see. But it seems scientists are struggling to get to grips with what dark matter is (the so-called scaffolding of the universe) and they seem to have no idea what dark energy is but somehow it's supposed to keep pushing the galaxies apart and the universe will expand for ever. Against this background of uncertainty (and let's face it quasi-scientific belief and faith), Prof Hawking now announces that the universe can be created from nothing because there are billions of other universes in the multiverse and gravity allows for it (okay I do him a disservice). Yes Huguenot, at the micro level of the sub-atomic, particles do whizz in and out of existence, but it is absurd to say "In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction..." It is absurd because while this is happening at the quantum level, at the macro level galaxies are forming and merging and having the life sucked out of them by black holes, supernovas are exploding and so on. Where is the nothingness? Can quantum mechanics exist in nothing? In short, Prof Hawking has bitten off more than he can chew. He should have stayed at Cambridge. He's gone funny since he went to Canada.

Thank you Jeremy, but you flatter me by saying I have out-thought Professor Hawking. Nor have I discovered anything that will rock the world of physics or cosmology. I'm simply saying "hang on prof, I don't care how many blackboards full of higher mathematical equations you've used to reach your conclusion but it doesn't make sense. Have a C+" Let's take one of his quoted statements from his forthcoming book: ?Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.? The first part of this statement somehow implies that gravity is a causal agent of spontaneous existence from nothingness. But if nothing exists, the force of gravity cannot exist. Gravity can only play a part if if already exists and the only way it can exist before our universe came into existence is in a parallel universe or in other universes of the multiverse. Therefore something existed to create our universe. I'm afraid on this point Prof Hawking is in danger of disappearing up his own black hole.