mockney piers

>>"You could apply that analogy to the Floyd* album too. >>Both albums very much captured the zeitgeist." I could except I was born a couple of years afterwards. I was specifically referring to my own relationship with Stone Roses, what I was up to and the hazy days of coming of age that are now steeped in nostalgia for me. It doesn't undermine how critical that album was in terms of my development and relationship with music. It's just it's now long enough away for me to also be more objective about the songs themselves and I don't think they live up to the pedestal on which they've been placed (in my head) for so long. Weirdly enough I fell in love with Saucerful when I was only about 12 and too young to understand what it was all about, but just loved the music! *and I too enjoyed Floyd night :)

Dylan, good call. Ooh ooh, Massive Attack's Blue Lines.

My Generation, now there's one that has stood the test of time!!

somehow I don't see this one reaching 25 pages. Had it been "M&S Simply Food on LL, cruelty free cosmetics and animal testing" it might have had a better hook.

I love speak your branes. Can we invite him here?

I dunno, 22 years has allowed me a bit of objectivity on this one and in my world it has been demoted to the ranks of the merely good. All that heady scent of youth dipped in acid and mdma has definitely kept it in the upper echelons for far too long. See also anything by the Happy Mondays (actually an even bigger drop to 'mostly irritating with a couple of passably catchy tunes').

A hotel lives or dies by the quality of its service, so this can only be a good thing surely? I'm assuming that it'll largely retain its pubness downstairs? "it'll largely retain its pubness downstairs" My, my, one superfluous letter could give that a WHHOOOOLE new meaning!!

Arcade Fire's Funeral was an outstanding debut for recent bands.

I don't think there's anything other than a sort of residual grudging respect manifesting as a puerile, knowingly humorous 'hatred' left between England and France. I don't think the French get offended by Waterloo or Trafalgar, many probably haven't even heard of the latter, leave alone the like of Poitiers, Agincourt and Crecy because nationalism only celebrates the good times. Much in the same vein that noone outside of history enthusiasts have ever heard of Orleans or Castillon (we lost those). I'm sure the war of 1870 and particularly the 1940 Battle of France stick in French craws much more these days. For that matter how many English would be offended by mention of all those battles we lost to the Dutch like the Medway, the Pearl Harbor of its day!!

Don't worry Ridgely, we're not changing Waterloo because of the french, it's actually because it was such a godawful piece of Eurovision drivel that it offends the ears of everyone who hears it! ... That or we're not changing it or trafalgar or anything else. This was just a misjudged idea of a poncey, dulwich thing to do, I really don't think it has anything to do with political correctness, whatever that amorphous concept that means different things to different people might conceivably be.

Naaah, Pink Floyd, The Piper at the Gates of Dawn. Sublime album and they only ever came close or bettered it with Dark Side...

Ooh, been a while since we had one of these. Had a similar rediscovery with Portishead's eponymous debut. Hadn't really been near it since This Life overkilled it, but it's still a pretty damn fine album. btw, do music threads get godwinned when someone says The Beatles were overrated?

Surely osbald stennart

And I do think theyre beautiful too.

Of course I wasn't Katie, more that though anything can be borne out by a page on the Internet, much of it has iffy sources or just plain conjecture presented with a lot of belief. Just sYing it's usually pretty easy to separate the wheat from the chaff. I too don't think wind power is the complete picture but it's an important string in the bow, we don't have much hydro or thermal opportunities, and tide and wave are nowhere near enou yet. Plus technology and costs will improve. Also it's worth remembering that MM doesn't think global warming is a real problem.

...and the mere thought of a bimbo sandwich!!! http://www.esquire.com/cm/esquire/images/sJ/bimbo-sandwich-0308-lg.jpg

Although who could resist a filthy earthy bonka? http://moblog.net/media/i/t/c/itchymoblog/mmm-bonka-coffee.jpg

These chaps can't resist a massive dyc http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20061213/bs2.jpg

"No need to do any thorough research but plenty of Mythbusters out there on the intranbet for whatever you want to believe"No time whilst at work and getting more into a debate than I ought to be. Coming from a history background, sifting through sources and motives comes pretty naturally. You may be able to find anything to support any point of view on the internet, but when one quotes a couple of other blogs propagating the same myths or a list of retired military wingnuts and academics from irrelevant fields, whilst another cites a dozen or so scientific journals, papers and government reports, it ranks somewhat higher in the plausibility stakes. here's that list for the above points out of interest References 1 Energy White Paper (2003), Our Energy Future - Creating a Low Carbon Economy, available online at http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/ourenergyfuture.pdf. 2 DTI (2004), DUKES, Annex E - Energy and the environment, available at www.dti.gov.uk/energy/inform/dukes/dukes2004/annexe.pdf. 3 See BWEA calculations. 4 Milborrow, Dispelling the Myths of Energy Payback Time, as published in Windstats, vol 11, no 2 (Spring 1998). 5 DTI (2004), Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2004, Table 5.10 Plant loads, demand and efficiency, available online at http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/inform/energy_stats/electricity/dukes5_10.xls. 6 See The Carbon Trust and DTI (2004), Renewables Network Impact Study, available online at http://www.carbontrust.org.uk/carbontrust/about/publications/Renewables Network Impact Study Final.pdf and National Grid (2004), Seven Year Statement, available online at http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/library/documents/sys_04/default.asp?sNode=SYS&action=&Exp=Y 7 Milborrow (2003), The Economics of Wind Energy, WREN International Seminar. 8 ExternE (2003) External Costs, Research Results on Socio-Environmental Damages due to Electricity and Transport, available online at http://www.externe.info/externpr.pdf. 9 See PIU (2002), Renewables Innovation Review, available online at http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/policy/oxeraresults.pdf; Hansard, 21 June 2004, Column 1225W, available online at http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/cm040621/text/40621w14.htm; Oxera (2003), The Non-market value of Generation Technologies; Oxera (2004), Results Of Renewables Market Modelling; DTI (2003), Economics Paper No 4; and Milborrow D, Becoming Respectable in Serious Circles, Windpower Monthly, Jan 2004. 10 RBA (1998), Stroud District Residents Survey, RBA for Triodos Bank, The Gloucestershire Water & Energy Forum, BWEA and Western Windpower. 11 For latest national study, please see TNS (2003), Attitudes and Knowledge of Renewable Energy amongst the General Public, On behalf of: Department of Trade and Industry, Scottish Executive, National Assembly for Wales and Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment Northern Ireland. 12 Mori (2003), Public Attitudes to Windfarms a Survey of Local Residents in Scotland, Scottish Executive Social Research. 13 RSPB (2004), Information leaflet on Wind Farms and Birds. 14 Extinction risk from climate change, Nature 427, 145 - 148 (08 January 2004). 15 EWEA: 68,000 turbines installed worldwide by the end of 2003. 16 Defra (2003), A Review of Published Research on Low Frequency Noise and its Effects, Report for Defra by Dr Geoff Leventhall Assisted by Dr Peter Pelmear and Dr Stephen Benton. Available online at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/noise/lowfrequency/pdf/lowfreqnoise.pdf. 17 The Working Group on Wind Turbine Noise, The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, September 1996. ETSU-R-97. 18 For a copy of PPS22, see http://www.odpm.gov.uk.

quick note to add that tidal and wave are far from there, but surely for an island like ours must be promising and attractive once workable. The big one as Katie says is to use less of the bloody stuff in the first place of course. We're building a house which will be super efficient and rely at least 50% of the year (the cheaper half sadly) on solar. Yep, even in Ireland believe it or not!!!!

It just sounds a bit dubious to me, especially b. I can't say as I've done thorough research but this wasn't hard to come by though can't especially vouch for the 'facts' they certainly sound more plausible than the above. And remember it's not just about CO2 but sustainability. Oil, gas and coal even if made cleaner are not a solution. Nuclear is notoriously expensive in the long run and we've all seen how bad when things go wrong, though I did see on Horizon the other day that the French are making good progress on making the waste products much safer, thought that's only part of the story of course. Anyway, mythbusters: Myth: Wind farms won't help climate change Fact: Wind power is a clean, renewable source of energy which produces no greenhouse gas emissions or waste products. The UK currently emits 560 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2), the key greenhouse gas culprit, every year and the Government target is to cut this by 60% by 20501. Power stations are the largest contributor to carbon emissions, producing 170 million tonnes of CO2 each year2. We need to switch to forms of energy that do not produce CO2. Just one modern wind turbine will save over 2,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions annually Myth: Building a wind farm takes more energy than it ever makes Fact: The average wind farm will pay back the energy used in its manufacture within 3-5 months of operation4. This compares favourably with coal or nuclear power stations, which take about six months. A modern wind turbine is designed to operate for more than 20 years and at the end of its working life, the area can be restored at low financial and environmental costs. Wind energy is a form of development which is essentially reversible ? in contrast to fossil fuel or nuclear power stations. Myth: Wind farms are inefficient and only work 30% of the time Fact: A modern wind turbine produces electricity 70-85% of the time, but it generates different outputs depending on the wind speed. Over the course of a year, it will typically generate about 30% of the theoretical maximum output. This is known as its load factor. The load factor of conventional power stations is on average 50%5 . A modern wind turbine will generate enough to meet the electricity demands of more than a thousand homes over the course of a year. Myth: Wind energy needs back-up to work Fact: All forms of power generation require back up and no energy technology can be relied upon 100%. The UK's transmission system already operates with enough back-up to manage the instantaneous loss of a large power station. Variations in the output from wind farms are barely noticeable over and above the normal fluctuation in supply and demand, seen when the nation's workforce goes home, or if lightning brings down a high-voltage transmission line. Therefore, at present there is no need for additional back-up because of wind energy. Even for wind power to provide 10% of our nation's electricity needs, only a small amount of additional conventional back-up would be required, in the region of 300-500 megawatts (MW). This would add only 0.2 pence per kilowatt hour to the generation cost of wind energy and would not in any way threaten the security of our grid6. In fact, this is unlikely to become a significant issue until wind generates over 20% of total electricity supply.

:) Did you spark him up a marlboro[ugh] and open his eyes to the truth over a brandy at the Blenheim Bar?

It's POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD I TELL YOU, I don't care who knows it *strips and runs around maniacally whilst attempting to get hold of Max Clifford on the speed dial*

Oh James James James. Quoted in the press using IPCGM. *audibly tuts* I'm afraid a peg or two has been descended there mockneyestimationwise. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23988961-bonfire-frightcouncil-gives-guy-new-name.do

Brilliant pgc. Can I add you to my crushe(s)d and devalued thread nominations?