bignumber5

I think the point they might also make is that they don't necessarily need to explain the traditions and practices of their faith to an outraged Atheist. Whether or not that is a valid response is interesting... because you have touched upon the one area where organised religion is down a point to Atheism, and it is on the subject of coercion: I find it hard to believe that there are households where a chap forces his wife to take control of her body and life in a religion-free manner when all she really wants is female circumcision and a lifetime of subservience. But that is all a bit off topic, so apologies: Is there a God? and Do people do mindbogglingly-hard-to-understand things as a result of their belief in a God? are 2 separate questions, and this thread is for the former. Edit for cross post with louisiana: all of your points about religious intolerance are the point i was trying to make. i think i wasn't being clear, i wasn't saying that organised religion has bee tolerant throughout history, i was saying the opposite, but also that atheism is now in danger of following.

Similar story with the chap who got stabbed as he got off a night bus because he had asked hoody-ewoks not to throw chips at his girlfriend. Not living in fear or not living at all? ...

"Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing: faith involves a concept of future events or outcomes, and is used conversely for a belief not resting on logical proof or material evidence." - some online dictionary or other. Atheism is based, as I understand it, on the absence of proof of God. But cannot disprove God. To follow it absolutely, therefore, requires at least an element of faith, no? If I have misunderstood the foundation of your belief system, as with any other belief system, I had no intention of misrepresenting your and your fellow followers and am genuinely happy to be corrected in the interests of education.

Like others on this thread, i consider myself to be agnostic by default. I have always found organised religion to be a bit militant, intolerant and judgemental. The culture surrounding Dawkins and his atheist following is that they have taken on the very worst of all of these traits: it has now become atheists that verbally attack with their teachings and attempt to convert others to their beliefs and their faith (yes, Atheism is a faith) in the name of debate. If a Christian attempted to convert a Jew in this country with the aggression with which Atheists attempt to convert everyone else, it would be considered intolerant of the individuals faith. Atheists seem to be the newest, fastest growing, and one of the least tolerant religious groups in our society. Whatever conclusions one reaches about the presence or absence of any God, to be accepting of those who disagree is a basic courtesy that many religions seem to have adopted. At what point does debating the existence of God become militant preaching for the faith of Atheism? ----------------- To prove or to disprove God? The Great Unicorn Hunt...

i haven't seen his medical notes so i don't know

Hypothetically, private care involvement should have no bearing on allocation of organs from non-heart beating donors (Heart beating donors are a bit more complicated), as the Transplant team (who make the allocation decisions) are an independent NHS multicentre team with no personal involvement in the care of anyone awaiting an organ until they are allocated one. Hypothetically, private healthcare would only serve to get you a nicer bed to recover in, and transfer a wedge of your bank balance to a surgeon. Hypothetically. So where can private healthcare upset the system? I have no idea: My involvement with transplant services has been mostly at the non-heart beating donor end, a little around heart and lung recipients, and all NHS. As for the overseas issue, I understand that if we don't have anyone waiting who is a tissue match but someone overseas is then it makes a lot of sense. And there are good chances that there will be an overseas tissue match when there isn't a UK one, because simple statistics are that there are a number of conditions, such as hepatitis, which result in the need for an organ transplant, which are more prevalent in other countries than here. If you have 100 times the number of people awaiting transplant, logic states a significantly increased chance that an organ will match someone from that group. Money at any stage will not make you a viable tissue match to an organ that you are not, nor will it stop you from being the only match currently on the waiting list if you are potless. I've not fully evaluated the evidence regarding this particular "scandal", and what evidence there is doesn't seem to be particularly extensive or objective. An independent enquiry seems useful.

antijen makes a good point at the end of her post about what adrenaline and the heat of the moment do to what we think our response might be and what it actually ends up being. But the reaction seems to be a crucial element. I understand that protection of property is covered by self-defence legislation (although I'm sure one of our legal-minded forumites could confirm or correct) and as such, the basic premise (in English Law) is that "the threatened harm must be imminent, although the response need not be spontaneous". Shooting a 16 year old in the back as your dog chases him away from you does not seem to necessarily be reacting to any threatened harm. As such there isn't really anything in my house that i'd risk getting stabbed by a house-breaker for. But in breaking into my home, you would be threatening the safety of mrs.number5. I might barricade us in the bedroom. I might also beat said visitor to death with the BT homehub that sits next to the front door. As much as I'd like to think that I'm 99.99% sure I'd go for the former, adrenaline is funny stuff.

fine efforts mini-PGC!

263 all out. But then Cook's gone for a duck... great start.

itunes

it's a personal preference but on friday/saturday nights, i think the bigger bars on LL (Bishop, BoHo, Adventure) leave a lot to be desired, a bit tarted up and looking for a fuk or a fight (or both), and perhaps not what you're best showing your dad... personally, i'd lean towards franklins and the mag and away from the goose green end, but very much a personal preference. The Herne has it's reviews above. Don't think you've said if they're london based themselves, but if not then a 50-50 split of ED as a place and how accessible places like the south bank are might work - sort of why we're all here, after all! Otherwise, speaking from experience of visiting friends and rellies in new areas, just have ideas in yor mind, not a military timetable of showing off your new neighbourhood - they never feel relaxed and are very aware of the tense smile of expectation across your face ;-)

My brick lane experience is limited to university rugby club outings, and so i can bring you this exclusive, if unwanted, information: virtually everywhere is BYO, and City Spice have a basement room with lino, plastic table cloths and wipe-down-able walls and chairs, available for large groups that look a little rowdy... grim, I know, but dinner for 40 on a wednesday night was trade that places would put up with a lot for. For an actual nice curry experience where you don't have to take your own carrier of bevvies, why not venture down the other other curry lane (lordship)?

Whilst I see the points behind the concept of addiction itself as fuel to the trade, I have to confess to getting a little bored of the constant stream of unrelenting wooly symapthy for those involved at street level. I'm not claiming for a second to understand the precipitating circumstances of each and every individual, nor do I think that the trade is dented for more than a second by putting a 17 year old dealer behind bars, but the concept that one can take a premeditated act with long term consequences for all involved that is against the law and absolve the involved parties on the grounds that "there's a bigger picture, that's where we should focus our efforts" does not ring true to me. Because it has significant implications regarding a variable tier of laws and their significance, and continues down a line of individuals failing to take any responsibility whatsoever for their actions which, though potentially politically and ethically appropriate for the issue at hand, sets a dangerous standard. I come down on the bleeding heart liberal side 95 times out of 100 on this forum, but I think this is a situation where 50/50 is more called for: I agree that targetting social welfare, poverty, unemployment and addiction will have profound effects on the drug trade, but I'm not sure ignoring the traders in the meantime is necessarily constructive, regardless of how pitiable their circumstances may be.

I seem to remember thinking that the one in the video store is a bit pricy for everyday use. Dulwich library is free but it's not the fastest connection. Welcome to town!

I'm really not sure that i understand the distinction being made between a singer and a vocalist: does a kindly soul feel able to enlighten me?

Are we getting a bit pished and going on about bands that were the next big thing over a decade ago? Cool. I'll just have a quick skinful and the Nirvana lecture will begin...

probably not, i'd imagine that's why nobody's doing it - lets face it, lefty though alot of us like to think we are, if there's an overindulgent demand in the market, ED is likely to be one of the first places where capitalism will thrive in that direction!

Margot Timmins and Hope Sandoval both fantastic choices

It's an odd bunch, coming as it does from the top of a friday head, but here it is: for a few of them it's based on a single track, but sometimes a previously ordinary voice has a moment of genius The Ladies Amy Lee Skin Tori Amos Eva Cassidy Chantal Kreviazuk, as well as several other Country singers whose names I don't know Sarah MacLaughlin (a bit American-girl-teen-pop, I admit, but still a beautiful voice) Mary Beth Maziarz (ditto) And The Gents John Rzeznik (Goo Goo Dolls) Trent Reznor Chester Bennington (Linkin' Park) Kurt Cobain Jeff Buckley Israel Kamakawiwo'ole, just for his version of Somewhere over the Rainbow (though a physically unpleasant looking individual...) and here's the 2 that will get me ripped a new one... Bono. He really has had his moments. It's the reason why he hasn't been beaten to death by a passing mob for being a complete arsehole. Paul Macartney. A long and largely crap solo career, but Yesterday, Let It Be and Hey Jude will always be great.

Is that one of those deep and meaningful type exercises where we establish that there is no lenk, only the lenk within?

*Adopts textbook neutral body language for dealing with confrontation* Mr MacGabhann, I never intended to imply that you lack any necessary tools for any sort of managerial re-stucturing strategy. My deepest regrets and I hope that this will not sully future co-operatives in the EDF team building arena. Perhaps you would consider leading the rounders team at the next be-all-end-all Funday-in-the-Park team-building day, or possibly choosing the venue for the cracker-hats-in-the-first-week-of-December luncheon?

What say you, sean? I imagine carnell can recommend a tailor and possibly BBW can get you tooled up... EDF away day, anyone?

this genuinely did make me laugh out loud! Although for some odd reason, the visual seems to be of Mr.MacGabhann...

...certainly one interpretation...

I think some people on this thread are being remarkably up their own arses about this whole business. Not wanting to prick about playing rounders because you're not very good at it has absolutely no implications about how good you are at your job, unless your job is that sodding meaningless to begin with, a la "The Office", in which case all you budding David Brents out there probably think this team-building crap is the be all and end all of professional development. At work, I am (essentially) in front line "customer" contact, I manage a small team and answer to someone with overall control on a daily basis, and the work is, at times literally, life or death decision making. In private/recreational life, I am large, reasonably athletic, with an interest in various sports, team and solo. In managerial development, I bloody hate all that enforced fun see-the-island-on-the-fun-bus nonsense. I think these 3 facts are completely independent of one another. Paulino, you in particular are being an egotistical management-speak muppet, and Huguenot I'm surprised to see you championing the view that customer service prowess is directly proportional to participation in unrelated tasks. I love what I do, and I'm pretty good at it. Not wanting to play rounders or go orienteering with you doesn't change either of those things. Perhaps you might put this question on the flip chart for your next reflection seminar: Forcing others to do something that they really don't want to do because it is your idea of being fun and constructive: what does that say about your management style?