Posts by Paul Buxton

@Too many self-interested people

"Freedom does include the abiltiy to smell flowers, fresh air, even unpleasant things, without the smell of someone's smoke covering everything, possible rather more than your freedom to spend money on drugs and expect the rest of us to put up with the results of which you are unaware."

Freedom also includes the ability to cover everything with the smell of smoke. The oil companies have been profiting from this for years. And exactly what hardships are you having to put up with that are caused by me? I am unaware of them because there aren't any. What you advocate is freedom for you to do what you want but fuck anybody else that tries.

About smoking. I was in a pub smoking lounge a few years ago (when it was still allowed) and some arrogant bastard (was it you) started complaining noisily to her husband about the smoke. I pointed her to the no smoking bar which was just a few feet away and in a separate room but no, this wasn't good enough for her - "why should I be forced to move" she exclaimed and I replied that nobody was forcing her to do anything. I then proceeded to blow my smoke directly at her until her husband threatened me with violence at which stage the landlord ejected them both.

The same pub is now out of business since the smoking ban was brought in. See how these policies affect real people? And you're worried about your clothes smelling a bit, well fuck me, that's obviously more important than a family forced to move and endure financial hardship and a village left without a central cultural hub that was the pub.

Freedom has many guises but must always be tempered with tolerance. I've tolerated you bunch of puritanical bastards all of my life but I don't often see it reciprocated and the smoking issue is where it's most apparent. Is it because we've stripped your "right" to be discriminatory on racial, sexual, religious lines that you now feel the need to pick on somebody else, someone who you're "allowed" to discriminate against? Why do you feel the need to tell other people what they should and shouldn't do? That's the real issue here. I'm not telling you how to live your life so why do you feel that you have the right to tell me how to live mine?

Isn't it easier for everybody concerned if you just go and sit in the other bar? Or isn't that good enough for you? Do you really want it all your own way? That's not freedom, that's dictatorial.

Learn some tolerance and you will immediately become happier.

@Boris the Cockroach

Your point is what? That kids shouldn't do drugs? Well Duh!

Children (and for the sake of argument, let's put the cap at 18) will cause themselves harm if they smoke cannabis because they are still developing physically and mentally. Similarly, children should not drink alcohol or operate heavy machinery or prostite themselves because it does them harm.

Has anybody, either the author or any respondent, stated that children should be allowed to smoke cannabis?

So again, was there a point to your post that wasn't blindingly obvious to everybody already? We already agree kids shouldn't smoke cannabis but we're not talking about kids are we? I'm surprised you didn't just write "won't somebody think of the children" and have done with it.

@N1AK

"Why is it people defending the goverments position have to post as AC, do they realise their arguement is weak and not want to be attached to it?"

It's because they've bought into the Government philosophy hook line and sinker and are therefore terrified to stand up and be counted. They honestly believe that all the people with names on these boards will band together and hunt them down like the dogs they are and stab them to death whilst wearing hoodies and screaming "infidel".

It's not cannabis that makes you paranoid, it's the fucking Government.

Oh, and it's also because their arguments are weak and they don't want to be attached to them. ;-)

Truth stranger than fiction

This is the Lords right? Unelected aristocracy fighting for my liberty where our elected officials just "promise to listen in the future". Well the future is NOW.

I've decided that next election I'm going to vote for The Queen! Bring back monarchy, out with Stalinism! I swear allegiance to The Queen of England, the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.

Nuff said.

@AC (Not Maggie's Mate)

"Its about time some of you started to see beyond... ohhh blame the Gov, its always their fault. The truth is that its not always their fault (although its always their responsibility I must admit)."

The truth is that they are still planning more and more databases with my data held on them and with a track-record that is ludicrous. This is why people blame this government. It's not the loss of data that they're to blame for (though giving contracts to the lowest bidder is hardly the way we get quality now, is it?), it's the plans to lose more data that's pissing everybody off, including myself but not including you apparently.

Strange how somebody who supports the government (or at least doesn't condemn the government) over this issue should choose to remain anonymous. Are you scared we're gonna lose your data? If you value your anonymity then vote for a Government that won't waste taxpayers money on huge and unworkable centralised databases. Otherwise, just post all of your details here, your name, address, banking details, date of birth and mother's maiden name and I promise that we will look after it better than this present government ever could.

If you've nothing to hide then you've nothing to fear but if you have nothing to fear then you're either stupid or incredibly naive.

@AC

"2. Evolution is a theory with holes in it. These holes may be resolved over time but I'm sick of it being thrust on us as a fact, which it is not."

Stop talking now. Though Evolutionary Theory is a Theory, i.e. "NOT A FACT" (would you like me to go slower?), and I quote from the article which you purport to have read, "so far nothing better than evolutionary science has emerged to explain biological processes".

The main thing that makes the theory of evolution doubtable is the amount of complete fuckwits around on these boards who feel that they can argue a case against it by just stating "I don't believe it" or "despite the fact that I can make many predictions based on this theory that can be proven through tests, the Bible tells me different and I believe the Bible". But then again "survival of the fittest" doesn't necessarily mean "survival of the people with rational working minds".

If you want a real argument for creationism then read 1984, the thought police are particularly good at explaining this alternative theory (and that's no joke, read it and learn something so at least we can have a proper philosophical debate. They didn't argue for or against the existence of God, they simply proved that a man can fly and that 2+2=5 - but maybe read the next paragraph first, especially the last statement as that's also a requirement of successful debating).

But the real question here is: how the fuck did you manage to survive infancy? Do you just instinctively believe everything you're told by your parents and the people your parents have vetted? I ask this because I remember from a very early age that I was unable to do this. I demanded proof of everything and still do. I fell out with the Anglican church when I was 6 years old when I decided that if I wasn't allowed to question their theories (and I was told that I could not) then they could all fuck off and die (though this is just a small part of the child abuse that the church is responsible for, it's the one I'm qualified to talk about). Grow a fucking brain and learn how to use it.

And to think, people with analytical skills as good as yours (i.e. very very flawed) could soon have the most massive arsenal on the planet at their disposal.

But enough of the vitriol, though god knows you deserved it (and yes, I asked him, and he came to me in a vision, stole all my pop tarts, didn't flush the toilet and told me, "yes, that anonymous coward deserved at least the amount of vitriol you gave him, probably more"), let's hear your theory on how biological processes work then shall we?

Alternatively, shut the fuck up!

Now, for the sane people amongst you. Why is it that these religious types think that they are smarter than Darwin?

And, just for the record: Atheists haven't got a clue either. Your arguments provide no proof and you expect me to take a leap of faith to deny that very faith, surely that's a dichotomy. I can't work out which is worse to be honest.

I am an Agnostic. The only thing I understand is that I don't understand. However, I'm also aware that none of you understand either (and that's a fact) which is why it really pisses me off when people claim they do.

@Ryan

"I guess it's been enough decades for yall to forget that millions of God-fearing Americans cut from the same cloth as Palin as they gave their lives and blood to free europe from someone else who did'nt believe in God."

Believe whatever you want to believe. The fact that you believe in God means that you already do this but remember one thing, the truth is not open to democratic decision making processes.

Now fuck off!

@bothwell

"Are you suggesting that R.E lessons never contain any discussion of Atheism as a viewpoint?"

Whether or not "Atheism" (I know a lot of atheists who would argue that "Atheism" does not exist, one can be an atheist but one cannot believe in atheism as this implies belief in a system of non-belief which would, in itself, be contradictory) is ever discussed in RE lessons is immaterial, I'm sure it is discussed as a huge percentage of the students are from non-religious backgrounds and some of them are intelligent enough to question the whole religion thing, the fact is that "atheism" is not part of the curriculum so there will be no guarantee that it's discussed.

@Wayne Morellini

Thank you for that, it was beautiful. However, much as I can't disagree with it and to a large extent I like to believe something similar myself, it doesn't follow that this Entity is God or that this Entity is self-aware, let alone aware of our existence.

YHWH (God of Bible fame) isn't just a creator, he's is apparently much more. A shepherd to guide us, our salvation after death. The Entity of which you speak only seems to fit into one of these categories.

I'm aware that you never suggested that your particular entity was a guide or the keeper of the afterlife or YHWH, I have no idea if you are religious or which religion you may follow but I've found that when people talk about God then they usually mean a whole range of things that have nothing to do with Creation.

As beautiful as your theory is, it's a long way from this viewpoint to the Pearly Gates.

@ElFatbob

"what i'm more concerned about is that the holy grail of evolution may still have some hard questions to answer before it is touted as 'fact'."

The Theory of Evolution has never been touted as fact, it's a theory. There is, however, overwhelming evidence to suggest that the theory is true. On the other hand there is no evidence to suggest that creation myths are true and lots of evidence to suggest that they are not. One could argue that the science fiction writings of L Ron Hubbard are fact but we all know they're stories (the clue is in the term "science fiction").

"What interested me was an article i read (need to try and find again as it was about 7 years ago) by an mathematician, who pointed out that, in mathematical terms, the probability against all the elements coming together in the 'primordial soup' to make the first life form was so huge we would (mathematically, i presume) say it was impossible."

When you consider these figures alongside an infinite universe they suddenly become pretty good odds. The fact that it happened here is immaterial because, as the observer, we have to be somewhere and wherever we are is, by definition, "here".

"I suppose all i am trying to say is that blinkered thinking can have a religious veil or scientific veil, depending on what shoes you're wearing...."

This is true enough but scientists for years have studied evolution and tried to disprove it (that's what scientists do, they don't try to prove anything, they try to disprove things using scientific method) and like it or not, evolution theory holds a lot of water when scientific method is applied. We may never be able to prove it conclusively but disproving it may be impossible. Have a go at disproving it, I'm sure the scientific community would welcome any empirical evidence against evolution but all we ever seem to get is conjecture. Just because evolution can't explain something specific doesn't mean it's not true, it just means we don't know the answer, it doesn't mean there isn't one.

I trust you accept Newton's Laws of motion? Would it surprise you to learn that they don't always work? We can still apply them to everyday situations and get the right results but we can also prove them to be wrong under certain conditions. Are you suddenly going to stop believing that, if a bus hits you, you will be thrown in the opposite direction to which the bus was travelling at a speed determined by the speed and the mass of the bus and your mass? Of course you're not.

"Truth is sought for its own sake. And those who are engaged upon the quest for anything for its own sake are not interested in other things. Finding the truth is difficult and the road to it is rough." - Ibn Al-Haytham

Secularism?

As a secularist I have no objection to schools teaching creationist theories in classrooms as long as they are even handed in their approach and include all creationist myths.

This should be fun when they get to Egyptian mythology as Atum was the first god arising from the waters of chaos. He created the world by masturbating and also gave birth to two other gods, Shu and Tefnut from his emissions.

There are many other amusing stories of creation, it should keep the children entertained for a while and may even serve to get the kids who were unfortunate enough to be indoctrinated into their parent's religion to start thinking logically about the whole issue.

So as long as they are going to teach creation myths and not just A creation theory with a heavy bias on christianity, islam, judaism, whatever then I have no problem with it whatsoever.

Teaching it alongside evolution theory and labelling it as science is, however, ludicrous.

@Carl

"That's great, but how would you set up a telephone banking password like that in the first place? Maybe make 3 calls to 3 different operators and give them 2 characters at a time?"

An automated telephone system maybe?

Am I just smarter than you?

@AC

your all saying it should be blanked out, how are they suppose to verify its you ?

you " the password 1234abc"

bank - all they see on the screen is *******

-----------------------

Ok, let's try shall we?

The bank system could request the operator asks for the 2nd and 4th characters of the password.

Bank: What are the 2nd and 4th characters of your password?

You: 3 and F

Bank: (sounds of typing)

Bank's Computer system allows access

Bank: Thank you Mr Buxton, how can I help you today?

-----------------------

It's not rocket science, just simple security.

It seems that the customer is always right

Even as they try to dig themselves out of the hole they've created they get deeper.

The trick is to dig UP.

Lloyds is pants!

Police Baiting with Cameras is the New Black

"Where journalists and members of the public come into contact with the police, they are urged always to keep their cool."

Why is this necessary? Is it because we all know that your average plod has an IQ that a bullfrog would be proud of, can't deal with a reasonable and reasoned argument and when confronted by logic generally just put their "case" forward in a very blunt manner (i.e. "you'll do exactly what the fuck I tell you to do or you're nicked" - and this is a direct quote from a police officer) or simply beat you up (admittedly, I haven't had personal experience of this since the late eighties).

The problem has been around for a very long time. I do not have any legal qualifications, have never worked in crime prevention but I do have an IQ over 130 and I tend to know more about the law than the people who enforce it.

In future I'll be sure to ask for a court order and if plod then insists on stealing my equipment I'll have no choice but to perform a citizen's arrest - that should be fun!

How we laughed for 42 days until the bastards let us out!

Mine's the one with the high-powered SLR* in the pocket, I'm off to bait some policemen. >:-)

That's "Single Lens Reflex" and not "Self-Loading Rifle" (just in case the thought police are watching).