Johnny Bognor

I think you should offer yourself up for medical research. You have 54 friends on here (more than most) which suggests that your amygdala is pronounced. However, your political beliefs border on the left, so you kind of disprove both research projects. Offer yourself up, let them disect your brain and we may get to the bottom of this.

But whether or not you are a norman no mates does...apparently

No, not at all. My view is that you create the wealth first, then you have something to distribute. Re-distribution, before it is created, is the downfall of the socialist. Make bigger cakes and there is more to share. Share the small cake and there is not as much to go round. (Put nuts in it, Deppo can't have any, which leaves more for everyone else)

I have no problem with philanthropy...... respect to Mr Cadbury.

Dune, leave it. We have to show sympathy towards our norman-no-mates-leftie-friends (and I'll call them 'friends', because they need all the friends they can get)...... as according to this 'research'....... http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nn.2724.html ... they are socialy inept.

If you come down from your moral and intellectual high ground, just for a minute, I am not against research into the human brain. I am against research which is statistically insignificant (90 students? ...and thus proves nothing) when it is done on behalf of a celebrity for a 2nd rate radio show. If it is done to 'further' our knowledge, no problem with that at all. If it is done for a laugh (as is suggested in the article), then let the axe fall on UCL and give the money to serious scientists, who may benefit mankind from their professional research. Do you need a lift back up to the high ground (I can always call you a cab, don't worry, I'll pay for it) or are you going to walk back up? Actually, why bother walking up, when you can get someone else to pay your fare for you.

OK, serious point now. If UCL have got enough time to carry out crap research on behalf of a celeb and his radio show, this in itself shows that cutting university funding is no bad thing. When the university cuts come in, they should start with UCL as they clearly have got nothing better to do than waste tax payers money.

LOL at all the lefties on here, clinging to anything which feeds their superiority complexes. Just carry on in your public-sector-cotton-wool-wrapped lives, believing that you are intellectually superior in order to make up for the failings in your own lives and just leave it to us numbskulls to bring home the bacon...... as always.

I have to question whether anyone who takes this "research" seriously even has a brain.

I am not sure, perhaps we should canvas opinion on this?

They would both be carrying an A1 x A3 portfolio holder. Not quite what you woud expect in the movies, but a sure fire way of recognising each other nonetheless.

Yep, 2009 is the warmest year since 1860, and the naughties were the warmest decade since the 1860-1870's.

It is, but it reminds Verbal of the oscars (you know, the awards for film makers). He has been nominated in these awards and this is the closest he'll get to fame and fortune, so let him bask in the glory.

I am not so fussed on fox hunting. I think hunting down fox owners is a better sport.

Makes a change from film projection

Ice age? I think that there was a film about that once. The media bang on about man u this and man u that "since the start of the prem", forgetting the 100+ years of top flight football prior to the prem. It is just like the swiss scientists banging on about "warmest on record" which only counts for the last 150 years, conveniently forgetting the billions of years that the planet existed prior to 1860. It is a good analogy in my opinion.... so good, in fact, that you could make a film about it.

So it is the warmest since 1860 when meteorological measurement began. Can we now look at the statistical relevance of the last 150 years when compared to the last 1,000, 10,000, 100,000 or 1,000,000 years, where no measurements were recorded? It is a bit like the Sky Sports thread banging on about Man U being the top at xmas, 6 times since the PL started. Ignoring the 100+ years of pro football prior to the prem. Measuring a trend in a miniscule period of time, when compared to the age of the planet, proves...... well not a lot really. For all we (and the scientists know), the planet could have been cooling significantly up until 1860 and the trend is now being reversed. You can be forgiven, though, as statistics are probably not covered on a film studies degree. Having said that, I thought you were better than that. Saying "since records began" sounds grand in the scheme of things (the media are forever doing it), but the actual records are not that old in the scheme of things, so when you take that into account, it is not so impressive afterall.

Merry Christmas everyone and a Happy New 'Promotion' Year

2) 2 Left Feet 22) 180 degrees celcius is gas mark 4 39) 128, Two to the power of seven

They obviously do a compassion module on film studies courses. Another thing I have missed out on. Private companies in trying to get the best price shocker!!! (They clearly didn't cover business acumen or economics on your film studies course)

If Labour didn't go after them, why should the nasty wasties (notice that the plural of 'wasty' is 'wasties'). I knew I should have done film studies at uni, my spelling and grammar would been immeasurably better.

As far as the UK is concerned, the Norman invasion was nothing to do with religion. Nor was Hitler's attempt to dominate the globe. Japan started on the septics after they turned off their oil. Many wars are over power, politics, domination, resourses and of course religion.

OK, I was being a bit silly, of course everyone should pay their fair share, I suppose the point I was making (not very well, I admit) was that taxing the **** out of the private sector does not utimately save jobs. Brown increased empoyers NI..... great move. Increase the cost of employing people and guess what, you have less money with which to employ people. Anyway, Vodafone were tax dodging thoughout the abour government and no one was complaining then. Now the nasty wasty tory party are running the show, it is suddenly a problem. I think Hypo is on to something. When Brown abolished the 10p tax band (thus hitting the lowest paid the most, something I was against BTW), not a whisper from our leftie freinds on here. Had the tories done this now, you lot would be spontaneously combusting. Therefore, it leads me to the conclusion that socialism in itself is not hypocracy, but those who believe in it are hypocrites.

First this... Then this.... Surely taxing the **** out of Vodafone, won't do much to save redundancies to many Vodafone employees? Are you for saving jobs or not? I am a little confused. Ah, wait a minute. You're up for saving public sector jobs whist the private sector can go whistle. The private sector lost 1m jobs during Brown's car crash of a premiership and now things don't look so good for the public sector, you want the private sector to suffer even more? I thought the foundation stone of socialism was fairness. Doesn't sound very fair to me.

But those that argue for renewables go on about climate change. The very fact you call it greener energy proves this. If it is greener, great, but the emphasis should be on renewable (as opposed to finite). Ditch the green / climate change argument and look at security of supply (it wasn't that long ago that the ruskies turned off the gas pipes), the economic benefit (we import electricity from the french, what a waste of centuries of dominating the froggies) and the potential to sell this technoogy so that the nation's wealth improves. Add the fact that we have more natural energy than many other nations of our size, it is a no brainer for me. When the world runs out of oil, water and food, watch the **** hit the fan. The pacific part of WW2 was started due to oil. Do we never learn from history? As I said earlier, we'll wipe ourselves out long before this panet is inhabitable