the stain

Yeah, sorry about that. One of my CBs got crocked for the season too. Still you did absolutely destroy me on the pitch, if that's any consolation

Then we've reached an impasse. Is this as exciting as the brute fighting, or more so?

I didn't think of that. And it is brilliantly clever. Did you check to see if it had been used? I don't think I could face the disappointment again...

Grr! I tried 5 different brilliantly clever names for my brute and they'd all been used. Now I'm sulking. :mad:

Go straight to the solicitor. Nothing improves the quality of your life like a completely avoidable legal dispute with a man you can't avoid seeing.

I think we'll have to mark that down as a failed gag. You see what I was trying to do was imply that I was a subscriber to Paedo Weekly and had got into an accident trying to cross-reference adverts for children with car number plates. Would've been hilarious had it worked. In actual fact I've never been a driver, so I have to trace the kids via the DVLA.

It was reading that whilst driving that cost me my licence.

Or the massive hand pushing down your throat and rummaging in your belly.

And shaft him I did. The arrears are now 4 points, with 2 games to play. To an extent it's out of my hands now. I've won every game since taking charge, but I still need 2nd place to fail to win twice for me to get a sniff at promotion.

I laughed my lims off. All my colleges want to know what the joke is lol.

I go reluctantly into any new film with Di Caprio or Winslet in, since that atrocity. Probably spiting my own face, but it's so hard to forgive.

You're on. You're bloody on.

The strong yellow jet of my excellent league form is forcing at the pinched tip of the last three games. Amon Duul III stand 7 points adrift of 2nd place, with the top two still to play. The guy who took over the high-flying bot team has seen his form drop out of his grotty, sex-loose ringpiece. I will shaft him while he weeps. Just picked up a bargain keeper. The run in will be tight.

People who don't want to understand.

There's loads of cool arty shops in the old town. The Museum of Modern Art is excellent. There are bloody hundreds of pubs. You'll quickly tire of the bagpipers on Prince's Street.

No, being unable or unwilling to extend your compassion to people whose beliefs you don't share. I'm not a 'bible-basher' either, but where's the value in pouring scorn on them?

No, I was suggesting you were.

Maybe they're some some of those other type of people, the ones who aren't dead inside long before their body gives out?

Fair point, but you can't legislate against stupidity and irresponsibility. If a doctor ****ed up because he was on acid, it would cause a massive outcry and probably a press campaign against acid. But the root problem would be the doctor, not the acid. In the same way that legalising drugs wouldn't make honest people out of gangsters, it wouldn't make idiots out of reasonable people.

And a lot of them aren't, a lot of them are closing. They're not all hoarding nazi gold But the article was saying that the salary was only part of the expense, that's what I was getting at.

Do you not think it falls under palliative care? Easing the suffering of the dying? For most people of faith, their spiritual and religious experience is central to their existence, and the crux of it is when they're facing the end. Wouldn't it be a bit mean to suddenly deprive them of this consolation at the crucial moment? FWIW I reckon faith communities and churches should pay the salaries, but hospitals should still extend the use of their facilities.

I wish I had the facts to hand to back this up, but i haven't so apologies for that. But trials in this country prescribing decent, legal herion to exisiting users seem to suggest that use didn't rise and that, if anything, it was easier for users to quit because purity and dosage could be regulated (coupled with the fact that heroin is far less addictive than the substitutes given to ween people off). The truly addicted generally have no money because black market heroin is so expensive, and so harmfully cut, that it prohibits gainful employment in a way that a pure and legal supply wouldn't. I don't know that this argument carries any weight. Alcohol is legal. You're contract at work obliges you not to turn up drunk. People aren't going to lose all sense of responsibility overnight. There's clearly a difference between hardcore addiction and recreational/devotional drug use. The latter has always been with us, in every culture, and it is IMO outrageous of governments to presume to limit or prohibit that aspect of human experience. The former (again IMO) is the result of a mode of civilisation multifariously at odds with its own nature. That situation can only be exacerbated by criminalising the people who find themselves in some way spiritually displaced. No news on consortiums though, I'm afraid, although if I push enough of this horse...

I don't think the standard argument runs that the 'criminal element' (as in everyone involved in the supply of drugs) will suddenly smarten up their act and get a job in a bank. More that the element of criminality is removed from drug use e.g. heroin addicts will suddenly stop being criminals by default and, if there was a safe, legal, even prescribed supply, wouldn't have to commit further crimes like robbing houses to feed their addiction. Police can stop wasting their time busting kids for possession. That sort of thing. Of course there will always be people who want to break the law for financial gain. It's madness to conflate the two issues. Barfy - You make some valid points that I'm not going to argue with, mainly because I'm not interested in restricting the supply, but in legitimising the supply.

Surely if we know anything about the black market it's that it likes to supply to a demand..?

That does nothing to decrease demand.