Messages

People can complain about fracking all they like, but have they considered that maybe those earthquakes are being caused by something else.  Angry gods for example.  Or stampeding buffallo.

I'm not saying its definately the gods and buffalloes, but we can't immediately discount them without proper evidence.

Spectogaphy.  The exoplanet passes in front of its star, and they measure the wobble in light.  The light frequency tells you what the planet's atmosphere is made of, whilst the wobble size and period gives how big the planet is and how fast it's moving.

"But why, some say, the Moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

We choose to go to the Moon! We choose to go to the Moon...We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too."

What's good for excessive naval fluff? I've been hanging it in the trees so birds can use it in their nests, but they all seem to have perished.

did you take it out first?

Whilst the Threadjacking thread may commonly be used only for threadjacking, I think its wrong to take any position on this.  After all, if we don't unquestioning allow all political opinions to be expressed everywhere, we can't allow any anywhere without some sort of value judgement, which could lose us shareholders

Then you need one. 

You just don't want to need one. 

Or rather, you want to need as many as the wealthy people who run transport companies say you need, for whenever you need to use their services.

"Your nan and me always wanted to go to Norway"

"Why didn't you?"

The correct answer is "we couldn't affjord it".  Anything else is a waste of dialogue.

I doubt they check ecclesiastical credentials at the door.

She wasn't just sitting in an audience and asked a question. She was part of a small, selected group, intended to represent the views of the nation, who were in front of the camera, asked to give their views on Brexit...but she's leader of a scam internet church, who appeared to be dressed as a vicar of the Church of England. In doing so, it gave undue credence to her views, in the same way it would if they had introduced her as a doctor, or professor, or knight of the garter.

The BBC might not be checking credentials at the door, but I would certainly hope that if they invite someone in front of camera, they make sure they're not pretending to be something they're not.

It's been a long term problem with the BBC. The number of 'ordinary members of the public' who appear in the audience of Question Time who are actually plants, or who were selected because they would say something ridiculous, is absurd. 

Farage accepting money from the EU after Brexit?

He's suddenly concerned about racists joining ukip.  Never happened when he was in charge. They were just bad apples.

Brink's Kurtis conspicuously isn't throwing up at the first of the magic words...

I have concerns about how this will end, and her first name..."Bridge"

after the chat last night I got curious and decided to straight to the horses mouth and looked at the comments on the Telegraph's website.  Dear lord is that a world of entitled hate and fear! It really was quite breathtaking.

It's pretty much the same anywhere on the internet where either accounts are just throwaway, or the community size means there's little chance of encountering the same person twice.

Anyhoo...when poor Bradley discovers he's the [spoiler]standing white passenger, and there's nothing he can do about it[/spoiler]...ooofft. Big, macho tears.

No. I got it.

Far as I can tell you seem to think there is one way for all women to view and express their sexuality and everything else is pandering to the patriarchy, well? Is it?

I think that women can express their sexuality and way they want. I also think that a bloke drawing a picture of a woman for an audience of blokes is not a woman expressing her sexuality. To pretend that its somehow liberating for a male creator in a male dominated industry to take a feminist character and draw her in her pants is an gross simplification. But I'm male, so my views are pretty much irrelevant. As I've said, it would be interesting to hear the views of female boarders...unless, of course, their are hardly any, possibly because they're not drawn to this sort of representation

I was also making fun of the several false dichotomies you introduced into the argument.

Near as I can tell, the idea is that plenty of women like being portrayed as sex objects, as evidenced by there being some women who work in comics. Not portraying women in this way is sexist, slavishly following cultural norms.  Creators can do what they want with their creations, even if its entirely counter to the original concept and the view s of co-creators.  And if you don't like women being set free in this way, that's just like the people who think women shouldn't be involved in DrWho, and you just should buy the art, just like they shouldn't watch the show. Also, you probably think that all Ian Gibson art should be pulped. Is that what you want? Well? Is it?!

Maybe we could ask some of the many women who post on this forum...