Brendan

Do you mean in time and space or more sort of, metaphysically?

Search me.

Well it looks like the whole dam suburb has gone to the bogs since I left. Hell in a handkerchief and up the swanny.

I'm quiet sure I have no idea what your on about.

I don't know what you're on about with that picture.

I'm pretty sure you aren't allowed to sell meat that has been killed with poison of any sort. The only questions to ask when it comes to meat are, was it killed humanely, is it endangered and does it taste good. There is also nothing wrong with controlled culls when necessary. We no longer live in an open wilderness where nature can be allowed to take its course. Even in Africa and America where a piece of land the size of this island is a drop in the ocean the ecology is impacted my human activity and therefore needs to be managed to maintain an equilibrium and prevent weaker species dying out. In fact you can make a stronger moral argument for eating or wearing an animal that was culled necessarily than one that was bred in captivity for the purpose.

Take it easy. Some of these people got sensitive feelings!

Although that may say more about the company I keep than the journalisming profession.

I agree with your premise but not your conclusion. In my view you measure opportunity by outcome. If the kids of poor people are all still poor and the kids of rich people are all still rich then their opportunities were obviously not equal. EDIT for shit grammar

I know some journalists and they aren?t really all that big on things like quantitative and research especially not if it takes 2 years. Just saying like.

Good question. I suppose it is what we imediatly measure equality against. What if you asume that the basic tenants of equality are equal access to things like, security, education, healthcare, housing, legal representation and having freedom of movement. And whatever else is determined by society to be an essential. If those sort of things are assured the rest is just doo-dads and you can say justifiably say that if you want a posh car or a fancy house you can bloody well get a better job. As long as there is equal access and people have the opportunity to move up and down without facing discrimination the actual gap between earnings isn?t that important suffice to say that it needs to be stable and it does need to be taken into consideration that in a free market the price of essentials is often determined by what the richest are willing to pay rather than what the poorest are able to pay. Trouble is we live in a place where access to the things I mentioned above is determined by wealth and they are therefore denied to large sections of the population. This causes inequality and entrenches privilege and there is no way that any human being can validly argue that inequality and entrenched privilege are anything other than historical evils which we should to be ashamed of and be striving to overcome.

Then go get snot flying drunk in Soho, just coz it's fun.

Go see Rude Britannia at the Tait.

The system which allows greed to take advantage of poverty is to blame. I thought that at least has always been obvious. The arguments just seem to be whether it is good to allow these systems to proliferate because greed is good and well you know it?s only poor people suffering and fuk them anyway or whether laws should be put in place to ensure fairness and stability.

I sort of wish that post was true but alas my evil genius does not stretch to those lengths.

Yep. It's me. This shit has given me some marvellous entertainment over the years but now I tire of it.

Attention seeker gets attention.

The P4. If you want to get to Brixton get the P4 from the village or college road.

Ok let?s for a minute assume, no matter how inexplicable it seems, that when confronted with the idea I immediately noticed a number of factors that will influence the 2 things and I didn?t assume that it is simple proportional relationship. And then, if it?s not too much of a leap of faith, that I assumed most people would also recognise that. And then, if it isn't too unbelievable, that as well as being a sarky arse I was pointing out the general rule that you need a form of equilibrium within any system for it to be stable.

Why not? Next they?ll be saying that it is illegal to share music files of songs that are played regularly on the radio.

I don?t see why it is even contentious that inequality in a system causes instability. Surely that at least is obvious even to those so utterly inhuman that they can?t get their heads around the real issues which require a grasp of concepts like decency, empathy and fairness.

TheArtfulDogger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Never go to the toilet after handling raw > chillies Similarly, try to avoid watching reruns of Baywatch after preparing Mexican food.

In the Life of Brian there is the, What have the Romans Done for us, scene. It is because of this this, I?m assuming, that the rhetorical question, ?What have the (insert subject here) done for us.? has become a bit of a modern colloquialism.

Surely something someone posts on a public forum is fair game, in so much as anything published in the public domain is, as long as you acknowledge the source and don?t try to pass it off as your own?

I?ve never actually been inside a gym in my life before. I?ve seen pictures and I?m not risking it. What does the American Hardware Manufacturers Association have to do with it though? Some sinister Masonic connection perhaps?