Chindie

Isn't it because one of the creatures called the daddy long legs has the most potent poison in the world, just not the one we know as it? If they really did someone surely would have died from accidentally eating one or something. Nope its not. The crane fly isn't venomous, nor is the harvestman, and the cellar spider(the other one which is called Daddy Long Legs that actually is a spider), Wiki tells me is venomous but it's venom isn't even that effective against insects. Wiki hypotheses that with the cellar spider the myth might be born of the 'logic' one might get when seeing that cellar spiders eat the likes of the black widow, which is known to kill, so it's assumed the cellar spider has a stronger venom. IIRC the explanation I was thinking of involved a spider that looked similar, and hung around the same habitats as the cellar spider, but was actually very venomous, I wanna say the violin spider or something like that. Oh and if someone had eaten one, since spiders use venom, they'd be fine. Venom requires injection not consumption. Another tied in random fact . Edited for psellign.

Isn't true. No-ones quite sure why people say it is though, the only decent explanation I ever heard was that it was a travellers story after having been bitten by a spider species whose name I forget abroad, which has a nasty bite and hangs around the same kinda places. Also, random fact that ties in, daddy long legs can be taken to mean a number of invertebrates. some people call Crane flys daddy long legs, some people call harvestmen (you may have seen these on your wall, round body and really really long flat hair like legs) it, and there is actually a spider that is small with long spindly legs thats called it as well. And none of them are a threat to humans.

Sigur Rós - Fljótavik

It's perfectly possible to have a debate about opposing political philosophy's Ian without bringing parties into it. I find it pretty damn easy. But when it becomes left v right in these threads it goes to rack and ruin in seconds, and it's always the same reasons why. It turns into a fight, the same one over and over. Add in the style of some of the posting and it makes for really unsavourary (let alone dull) reading. I could take my stand on this issue without bringing the parties into it (it's pretty damn easy for me, I don't staunchly support either), it'd probably be better if we all could on some wider reaching moral/ethical issues imo.

Dear God can we leave the party political bollocks.

but what if there aren't enough organs? at the moment clinical need but surely those who would nto donate woul find the thought of other body parts in thier body wrong ? Not necessarily.

but what if there aren't enough organs? Then that'd be the way it goes, unfortunately for me in that scenario. Of course I'd want as many donors as possible out there. So long as they were all choosing to be in and not assumed that they should be.

Unfortunately, while that sounds all fair and good, it's not quite the way the NHS works, nor should it. It is a choice to volunteer to donate. If I required a donated organ, I should be entitled to it (when it comes to my turn, of course) regardless of whether I'd signed up to do it myself. I do suddenly feel I may have directed this worryingly close to 2 tier NHS medical care and all that jazz with this though...:oops:

But that certainly wouldn't lead to less people doing it than do currently. And as the article says, it wouldn't necessarily make any more either. But that certainly wouldn't lead to less people doing it than do currently. And as the article says, it wouldn't necessarily make any more either.

A couple of reasons why it might be right DDID. If Paddys article there is anything to go by, the presumed consent is at the will of the relatives. If they say no when you hop the twig, you're out. (and incidently, as Bicks I think earlier said, that's not on either. If you said yes, in sound mind and all that, thats final imo) And leading on from that, it mya have something to do with, as I suggested, not many people are actually want to donate and when asked, said they'd opt out.

:? if you don't want your organs to be used, you opt-out. It's quite simple. :? Read what I've said, the principle of the state assuming you want your organs donated isn't right, thats the individuals choice and it should be taken as no until they say otherwise, as it is not anyones place but their own to say what happens to them. It doesn't matter that the choice is still there, it's the fact that is assumed that the state can do what they like to someone's body in the event of their demise from the moment they are born, unless they go out of their way to say no. If anyone doesn't agree with that principle then I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree.

If the rule you mean is the individuals liberty, then no off the top of my head I can't think of any reasons to ever circumvent that principle. If more donors are needed, campaign more, get GPs to hand out the forms with every consultation, make it easier, make it more known. Don't simply presume everyone wants to donate just they can't be bothered. In all honesty I think the number of people who wish to donate is overestimated. An awful lot of people don't, through no reason other than they simply don't wish to IMO (I'm not one of them, in case that's thrown at me).

It's the principle of the state assuming that is someones wishes, which isn't right at all. Thats the problem. People say lots of people don't sign up because they can't be bothered. In this scenario you get signed up, possibly against your wishes, and you have to go out of your way to off it. That isn't right, and I'm pretty sure thats contrary to an individuals liberty and the choice to choose ones own destiny.

Well it isn't DDID, it's true. It is my choice, and no-one elses, what happens to me after death is what I want to happen, not what someone else decides should happen.

Why though? What use is are your organs to you after you die? Believe me, I'm dead set against state control wherever possible, but in this case I think the benefits outweight the negative aspects. It's no-one elses decision but my own. I have no need to justify further. I'd consider opting in, I probably will in fact, but purely as it's my choice to decide. I don't like the fact that the state would decide I'm in unless I decide I'm out, should be the other way round.

As it is with the opt in, I'd consider it. I don't know what my choice would be however. Opt out, and out of principle I'd do it. I don't the idea that the state presumes what I want doing with what is essentially, well, me.

Against.

It's one of the best pieces of TV ever made, and it puts nearly every piece of film on the war to shame. It's brilliant.

Doves - The Cedar Room

BoB repeats on were on the Beeb tonight, the new series isn't due till around 2009 it seems.

Brilliant. BoB was a great series, probably one of the best really. I don't think this'll quite match it, but great to see more quality series. On a side note, and I've mentioned it before, I'd adore a British Band of Brothers. Well done, it'd be excellent.

Feeder - Tinsel Town. They were bloody excellent on Yesterday Went Too Soon.

Bother is by their lead singers other project, Stone Sour, which is a more straight up rock band. by them is bloody good. It's pretty surprising that the bloke can switch from having a half decent voice to that shite shouty guttural crap so well. Surprisingly Slipknot do a fair few more down tempo less growled vocal stuff, and most tend to be pretty decent. Vermillion Pt 2, and Danger Keep Away are pretty decent, as is Circle.

Slipknot - Snuff. Bloody good, and nothing like you'd expect. Pretty simple acoustic piece and soft for these fellas.

Interpol - Specialist