Weston Super Saint

To be fair, it's not the best shortening is it? One letter shorter than the original, same number of syllables.

Mad as a box of French frogs!! I'm no expert on French law but that looks like an 'employment' / health and safety at work law. I guess they'd have to prove she knew what the safety regulations were and also that her actions were a deliberate violation of them!

2006

Christ, even your own family have disowned you

Keep up Whitey

So why isn't it a perfectly reasonable answer to the question "does god exist"?

Of course it does! It exists on the wall charts of thousands of kids up and down the country! Why does the god question concern the existence of something in the present? Surely that's just your interpretation of the question! I would imagine those that are hoping to meet their maker are basing that hope on a future encounter not the present.

Couldn't that question be answered "yes" (I believe a God exists) and also "no" (I don't believe that gods exist)?

Surely the result of a football match is the belief in the existence of something - namely that there will be a result in said football match! Or does your binary yes / no option only apply to certain situations, in which case, what are they?

So you are saying it is a definite no then, given that "don't know is a subset of 'no'"

Will England win on Tuesday night (shows how much attention I pay to International football!)?

Simple question for you @Matthew Le God, will England win tomorrow night?

You didn't answer previously, so what law(s) did he break? I'm right behind you on this one, 'if' he broke the law, then he should be subject to the consequences of breaking whatever law he broke - generally a fine or other penalty / prison sentence. Presumably you have knowledge of which law(s) he broke as you seem adamant that he did, but for some reason seem reticent to divulge this information....

Would also mean that there a no questions that shouldn't need to be answered because they are invalid as Matty has previous claimed

It deals exclusively with either knowledge or belief. It doesn't cover incidents where netiher a knowledge or belief has been developed, such as a new born baby.

Surely / logically they must be labelled the same as you labelled Trousers, i.e agnostic atheists? Pretty sure dogs have no idea if there is a god or not and spend zero time pondering whether they belive in one or the other!

Are dogs atheist?

Not sure that is strictly true. An Atheist : Surely, someone would need to understand the definition of what a god is in order to not believe in them? Otherwise you could claim that all dogs are atheist. All trees are atheist. All fish are atheist ad infinitum.

Really?

Schrodinger's baby?

Does a new born baby have a 'view' of anything, let alone the whether the existence of God is or isn't knowable?

Not at all, he broke the guidelines. Morally he has done the right thing. I'm more impressed that a politician has morals (or is able to pretend he does)!

Fair pint 😲

To be fair, the teams could potentially have a legitimate claim against the organisers depending on what is written in the t&c's they've all agreed and the safety of the participants. The organisers haven't got a hope in hell of suing the woman involved. She didn't buy a ticket, didn't agree to any t&c's, would not have received any sort of safety briefing. She was effectively a member of public standing on the side of a public road. More chance of a snowball surviving a heatwave!

She's made such an effort to get her position at the side of the road, created a beautiful sign from waste cardboard (truly doing her bit to save the planet) and then caused tens of thousands of pounds / euros worth of damage because she was more interested in watching the camera than the bike race! The state of some of the bikes in the aftermath I'm surprised no-one was more seriously injured! Apparently, the tour organisers are going to sue her! Great idea, not sure it will hold up in court, even if it did and they won, not sure they would recoup any losses!!