Chindie

Now, you see, what you've done there is just link to a different report saying the same thing. It isn't an earthquake. I don't care if it registers on the Richter scale, if you put a machine to register seismic activity in a working quarry it'd register activity that was likely rather high. It doesn't make it an earthquake. I'm not arguing that the climate is changing or whatever, what I'm arguing is that that isn't making volcanic activity any more common and earthquakes happen.

The Guardian piece on earthquakes isn't strictly an earthquake IIRC, unless you call any tremor through the ground caused by anything an earthquake. Earthquakes aren't caused by impacts onto the crust, they're caused by the crust itself being moved against other parts. By this thinking, the tremor felt through the ground caused by an explosion would be called an earthquake. It isn't. And the Reuters piece doesn't seem to suggest that climate change will make them happen more often, it might allow them to happen more often. There's a difference. I can't say I particularly buy either. There also not more activity IIRC than what might be expected. When the earthquake off South America happened recently I remember linking to a pece that said activity was actually slightly down IIRC.

I've seen people try to tie the earthquakes and volcanoes and whatnot to pet climate causes. About the only causal connection I can conceive of for climate change causing the Iceland volcanoes is the Gaia hypothesis: the ash will tend to reduce temperatures thus mitigating the effect of any global warming that may exist. I don't buy it. Indeed. I just don't see how they can be related. They're fundamentally seperate items. A rise in temperature isn't going to affect the tectonic plates that are the root cause of volcanoes and earthquakes, they only move because of the absolutely enormous amount of heat underneath them. A few degrees on top isn't going to trouble them. And my spelling and whatnot in that previous post was atrocious :oops:

Could you elaborate on that? I'm not entirely show how minute changes in climate and water levels/ice caps would affect the tectonic plates. dmittedly It's been a while since I've done geography properly but that doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

I knew it was a mistake to post in here again.

Freedom of the individual IS (well, was) the cornerstone of Britishness, so not stupid at all really, you just need to think a little harder about the implications of the rest which was highlighted by Gringo. There's no definition of what is British, it's a completely alien concept. I'd like to think it does mean some things, but realistically it doesn't. I had to do a minor exercise on the idea of nationalism, and we were asked what is Britishness, and the best I could find was someone born in the territory called the United Kingdom. It's a concept that doesn't really exist imo.

I know. Picking on the small things when you agree with the main points. Strange isn't it. It's not fear-mongering if most of it is right No not really, the points made I roundly agree with but he listed everything for a reason, and part of that is patently ridiculous. He shouldn't have put it. It's used to further his point and it's absolutely absurd. Or do I just have to accept it line and sinker becuase the rest is roughly right? :?

I said I can't argue with the rest Gringo? And wasn't a fan of how keen they are on chucking away civil liberties? :? I just picked up on the point being made that was completely stupid.

How have they destroyed family life and the concept of Britishness, exactly? I can't argue/can't be arsed with the rest (i.e. the EU, been there, done that...), and I'm certainly no fan of how keen they chuck away civil liberties, but destroyers of family life and the concept of Britishness, well... that's as far as I'm concerned fear mongering rhetoric that doesn't really have any basis whatsoever.

It stopped solely being their home when they started a business. Don't like it? Pack up and find something else to do. I'd also suggest that it would make someone mildly homophobic at least if they decided they didn't like homosexual activity in their B&B, particularly if they allowed heterosexual activity.

I really don't have a problem, but thanks for the concern So discussion is intolerant? There are no people more intolerant than those who are not prepared to consider all views. The law was ill thought out and may be flawed, as are most of the PC laws passed under the stewardship of this government Don't start a B&B after 2007 I presume? It's quite clear the 'your' I say there isn't specfically you. No, discussion isn't intolerant. What is intolerant is suggesting that it's right that some people should be denied the same rights as everyone else because of the beliefs, which are downright backwards and loon like, of someone else. As theDon says above, this is rather like suggesting other races should be treated differently because they clash with the business owners beliefs. What's your problem with political correctness? Is institutionalised politeness really that bad? It can be a bit heavy handed at times, even I would admit that, but it's no bad thing whatsoever at heart. I'd say if you had a problem with certain people, even 20 or 30 years ago, don't start a B&B at all. All this law has done has legislate something that should have been law years ago. It isn't right to discriminate against people. That isn't PC, or 'plain speaking', or anything, it's just right.

Graylings a complete clearing in the woods on that front alone. He's just fundamentally wrong. If you become a business this country doesn't allow you to discriminate against certain people. If you have a problem with gay people, don't start a B&B. Simple. He's being intolerant. Plain and simple. If your views are in the dark ages thats your problem.

As most know I think Cuellar has been fine at RB. He's not as good going forward in the traditional sense, but he has other atributes that we've benefitted from imo, particularly with attacking and defending set pieces. He also comes across into CB very well, which has lead to a few vital interceptions and tackles from him this year. As for TSV's question above, IIRC we've had, in his entire Villa career, 2 assists from Luke Young. Cuellar's provided 3 this season IIRC. We've had this debate before however and AVFC-POB would be foaming at the mouth at this argument for effectiveness. As for Cuellars ability going forward, he's gotten markedly better recently imo. He's seemed a helluva lot more confident on the ball and while a lot of his crossing is crap, he often will play the ball to feet from those kind of positions and we've had some joy from those with Gabby and Carew latching onto them, no-one else in the side does it from a crossing position, they either pump it in to someone's imaginary head (theres never anyone on them seemingly) or run to the by-line and spank it across the box.

Just watched it with my housemate, must be the 25th time I've seen it, it's utterly brilliant. Watched with the trivia-o-meter on for the extra depth. So many quotable lines. But the first 40 mins, upto when they leave the house, is just about cinema perfection for me, it captures the atmosphere absolutely perfectly. And it's funny. Anything that nails an atmosphere like that has me sold be it film, music whatever.

Given that this is Gabby15, I'm surprised he asked permission. Real men eh? What makes a Real Man?

Did you see her gash? A delicious double-entendre.

The fact that since last week the Heil have basically been attacking Clegg as 'un-British' says it all about it as a paper, **** vile rag. As for the vote, I'm now not voting, sadly.

Not a cool or unknown film, but Shaun of the Dead is **** brilliant. I maintain the first 40 or so minutes of it some of the most enjoyable I've come across in film.

If the badgers had honey badgers on their side, they'd trounce beavers. Honey badgers are unkillable. And on topic... is it worth my while watching last nights debate? I can't help thinking nothing new will have happened.

brace have stadiums of over 80k each week and play cl each year they can afford to do it we cant Yes, I did mention that they aren't exactly skint.

Being pedantic Barca started in 06 and are still doing it. Then again I'm pretty sure they not exactly un-flush, shall we say. but barca had a comercial need for it, get fans used to sponsor followed no doubt by the biggest deal in history, we had no need to do it I'd say there is a doubt there about Barca, it's leaping to conclusions theres no basis for. We were not entirely altruistic in offering Acorns our sponsorship, and I doubt we would have had we had a big enough sponsor on the table. As it was, we didn't, and we took a small hit (because don't forget that only the big clubs have big sponsors, and even then they aren't enormous money. biggest is about £10m a season, Chelsea. Others drop off quickly to very small sums, couple of mill a season is about average) and gave up sponsorship, gaining an image boost in the meantime.

...badgers?

Being pedantic Barca started in 06 and are still doing it. Then again I'm pretty sure they not exactly un-flush, shall we say.

They do say that Thatchers headstone will be a urinal.