revolution saint

Smoke a lot of cigarettes - it won't get you healthy but it will get rid of the weight.

Mr Scott....PE Teacher...? You gave me a detention once....

Deppo was the best poster on here and funny, shame if he's gone.

BGT, strictly come dancing, X factor - you name 'em and I don't watch any of them. Unfortunately for a while at least we'll have to put up with people talking about them because they are undeniably popular. Are they fixed? It wouldn't surprise me but then I've never watched them. My theory is that given the multitude of channels and options on viewing now on offer that non family viewers long since gave up viewing mainstream channels during peak viewing times - there's enough to offer elsewhere. Sport, films, documentaries etc. It's pantomime TV, it's cheap but people find it entertaining - helped by the mainstream media who have vested interest anyway. The good thing about anything this formulaic is eventually it gets boring and people won't watch it - I have no doubt something equally moronic will take it's place though.

I'm quite enjoying it actually. Was a poor penalty though

I bought Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier today. Never read anything of hers before. Hard to believe it wasn't available to download but it did give me an excuse to use up a voucher I'd got for Christmas.

Then they would be proud sponsors of Mumsnet.

That would be the same people (although I wasn't aware of it). It raises the question though - if I were to bring out an advert saying "Proctor & Gamble - proud exploiters of Mums" then I'd be expected to be able to back that up. Are they required to do the same when claming to sponsor something that can't ever be proved? And what constitutes sponsorship?

I'd forgotten about that....

I see P & G have been running this advertisement campaign for a while now. My question is can they legitimately make this claim? Obviously there are "Mums" but as far as I'm aware there isn't an organisation or entity that represents them so how can you sponsor something that doesn't exist? I can see how you can sponsor events and organisations but can you sponsor something as disparate as Mums? And how do you prove it (or do you even have to prove it?)? Could you also theoretically sponsor black people, white people, Dads, etc, etc? Just interested as it seemed a strange claim to be able to make.

If I were a genuine clairvoyant then I wouldn't waste that talent on sideshows like readings. I'd steal your credit card details and pin numbers. Or I'd use it to be legitmately successful. Of course there may be genuine clairvoyants around and that's why we don't know about them. Personally I can't see how it can possibly true though.

How would you know? That's the point people are trying to make - not that drugs are good but that legalisation would enable us to know the extent of the problem. At the moment we only know it's consequences and as you agree, they are not good.

No one is talking about drugs being as readily available as alcohol. We're talking about controlling a situation and being better able to help people who are addicted. I could turn the argument on it's head if you like - is the current situation so great? You quote examples of people you know (victims) as justification for keeping the status quo but surely it's an indictment of the very system you appear to be trying to defend?

Well that's your opinion - most pro legalisation posters seem to believe that it would lead to less drug use, less crime and less health issues as well as cutting off the market to the dealers.

At what point did anyone suggest otherwise?

First up my personal drug use shouldn't enter into the equation - just as I don't need to have played professional football to have an opinion on it (or in your case barely actually going to games). It's a non argument but FWIW I have been addicted to drugs both legal and otherwise. You seem to be confusing the point I was making that legalised drugs wouldn't be "weaker" - they would be safer.

And the current system is working so well? I don't think legalisation solves everything but I think it would help. As for your average estate agent - I don't think legalisation would encourage a non drug user to start (it wouldn't be like popping down to Tesco) and if he's already doing it then it won't change anything except for the fact that we might possibly be able to help him or her, it would be less dangerous, and we could control the supply better than we are. And that's without even considering that personal drug use could be considered a personal choice anyway.....

That's where I say we can at worst manage the situation better - we'll know who they are for a start.

No, I meant purity as in not dangerous - most overdoses occur because the drugs have been mixed and people don't know what they're buying. Not a particularly mental opinion I would have thought but I apologise if the complexity of the argument caught you out.

Drug use should only be harmful to the individual concerned so from that point of view it wouldn't affect anyone else. If someone drugged up got in a car then that's a different issue. What legalisation would do is make sure of the purity of the drug, allow authorities to be aware of drug users and because of the high correlation between drug use and crime it would cut crime. Of course it wouldn't cut all crime but it would help substantially. Whether we like it or not drug addiction is a problem and costs us as a society - it won't go away and the current approach isn't working. Legalisation would help us manage the situation better and maybe it would also allow us to help a hell of a lot of the poor sods addicted to drugs.

Yeah it was some chap who looked like the old Dr Who (David Tennant), I think he played in the foundation match the other week. He didn't score.

I think you only ever need to read one Dawkins book on evolution - doesn't really matter which one but once you get the general idea, it does as you say become repetitive. I've never read any Hawkins but he sounds like a Dalek so I assume it's about Glenn Hoddle?

Blatter has pimped football to the highest bidder at every opportunity and it's product has suffered (although it's bank account hasn't). Take the world cup - it should be 16 teams and not the bloated behometh it is now. UEFA are no better (increasing the size of the Euros) and as a spectacle the Champions League is a pale shadow of the European Cup. Unfortunately whatever follows FIFA (if anything) will be driven by greed, sponsors and money as well.

Well I've had an unbelievable weekend of betting: Barcelona to win Barcelona to win and Messi to score P'Boro to win and CMS to score Rep. of Ireland to win and Keane to score Inter Milan to win Was let down by Torquay but still cleared enough for a S/T next year. So what's everyone's thoughts on Swansea V Reading? I'd probably go for Reading but not too sure.....luck's got to run out soon so might sit this one out....

I won't deny it's unfair, or that it's a money spinner but under the old system the season did peter out for mid table teams and resulted in boring meaningless games. This is far better although it's a right kick in the teeth for Hudders right now.