Verbal

Clearly you didn't intend to. However... And to the next question: 'demand'. How can this be something that's just kind of 'there'. It's manipulated, stimulated, depressed, prone to collapse or to come from nowhere. As Henry Ford used to say, if he gave people what they wanted he'd have produced faster horses. And his natural successor Steve Jobs specialised in creating demand for things where none previously existed. No amount of clever software-writing gets around this problem, that demand is fabricated: we need what we want, we want what we need - and we want and need things we once never imagined existed. Your Utopia is built on sand.

1920 in Oxford - not sure about Cambridge. And women continued to be excluded from some colleges until 1974.

Not a book? And yes, precisely, you imply a Lovecrafty 'society', as a thinking, feeling entity - whether you intended to or not.

No, but Newnham is a women-only college, and the 'early start' on this form of provision (not positive discrimination, since women were excluded from the majority of Oxbridge colleges) dates back to the 19th century.

Are you kidding? I was quoting YOU. See post 72. Again, when you say 'society' makes decisions, or, more quaintly, 'has needs' what do you mean by 'society'?

Actually not one word of that addressed the questions I asked. Let's start with a simpler one: can you define this apparently conscious 'society'?

Dune and turkish do look alike.

Dear God, where to start? This paragraph alone is utterly baffling. What on earth is this 'society' that's made a 'conscious' (!) decision that it 'needs' jobs? Is it this same mysterious 'society' that decides what jobs need to be accomplished? What is a 'functioning society'? And how can you calculate what a 'country' (no longer 'society'?) 'needs to be done'. You can only get away with a paragraph as odd as that by anthropomorphising 'society' and/or 'country' to the point of absurdity.

The one in 'Friends'.

I'd like to have no financial system. I'd like everything to be free, for human rights to be enshrined in global war, and human needs prioritised above everything else. Essentially, a resource-based economy based on actual human requirements. In which case you should call yourself Mohammad, and go and discover some tablets. (Sorry: formatting went to hell)

I don't think you quite grasp the point of 'science'. They don't build stuff and do experiments only to confirm what they think they already know, or think they know. As far as I understand it, the Higgs Bosun is a particle necessary for the 'standard model' of quantum mechanics to cohere. The standard model itself may itself be wrong, despite it's extraordinary predictive and explanatory power, just as Newton's mechanics were proved wrong when they were displaced by Einstein's theory of general relativity. (Not that it stopped Nasa from using Newtonian equations to send men to the Moon.) What I don't get about the OP is the suggestion that the 'alternative theory' is anything new. It just sounds - 4D; the curvature of spacetime - like a retread of general relativity.

I can't answer this one. Try google?

Three reasons why Diane Abbott is innocent: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/david-schneider/diane-abbott-is-innocent_b_1185591.html I'm convinced.

This is pretty amusing...Diane Abbott runs away from Sky. [video=youtube;o6h-NHq8BNw]

Almost 400 Met officers have criminal records. Anything's possible.

WTF are you on about? Besides, this is a thread about the murderers of Stephen Lawrence - not Megrahi, nor, luckily for you, those, like you, who advocate violence against women. It's worth pointing out to those outside the capital that these convictions have a significance for Londoners especially, that goes beyond the events at the Old Bailey yesterday and today. The criminal gangs that terrorised communities were actually fostered to some degree by an incompetent, corrupt and occasionally violent Metropolitan police (The hacking scandal is just the latest to hit a profoundly dysfunctional and criminally infused police force). In other words, the very authorities that were supposed to protect Londoners made them more vulnerable - taking bribes from violent thugs like Clifford Norris and obstructing inquiries, victims and witnesses that came into contact with them. The Lawrence case highlighted the corruption to such a staggering degree that it forced the Met into reform. Not enough of course - not yet, anyway. While in 1999, blacks were five times more likely than whites to be subject to stop-and-search, now the figure is seven times more likely. Things have, in this instance, actually got worse. But it is at least less likely now that someone - god forbid - in Neville Lawrence's position will be treated the way the Met did originally, when they accused him of being part of the problem, and generally regarded him and his wife as nuisances. Today, I doubt we'd have to wait for someone of the stature of Nelson Mandela to demand that plainly identified suspects be actually, like, arrested, and that evidence be sought. The death of Stephen Lawrence, the Macpherson inquiry, and the hacking scandal are slowly rolling back the lid on the corruption and wilful incompetence that has been allowed fester in a uniquely unaccountable force. Doreen Lawrence was undoubtedly right to say she felt no desire to celebrate after the convictions - after all, there are still at least three more murder suspects out there who need to be brought to justice, and what follows in the next few months will be a test of how far the Met has come But the verdict IS a reason for Londoners to celebrate. Now that there's a reasonable expectation that Met officers might arrest drug gangs rather than profit from them, the city just feels a little safer. Here's hoping.

When did I do any of that, genius? Exactly when, ever? You're going to have to come to terms with this conviction and its consequences. I can see it may take some time.

If you actually read anothersaint's post you wouldn't post such peevish rubbish.

I think you'll find you're disqualified from being a solicitor. As BTF says, these are minimum sentences.

Whatever you say, what you really think is clear enough.

Ignorant possibly, but wilful, lemon-sucking obduracy more likely: it's the verdict itself you hate but you can't bring yourself to say it. No one has said they 'only care that they have been convicted of a racist murder' - simply that a racist murder was committed, the murderers not only appeared to get away with it for years, partly through an incompetent, corrupt and 'institutionally racist' investigation, but actually enjoyed revelling in their notoriety. After all these years, the racist creeps have been put away for ending the life of a talented young black man. There is every reason to celebrate that justice finally prevailed....up to a point. There are three other suspects to deal with yet.

The best price you'll ever get on your flat - at least for a decade or so - was two years ago.

The last bit is nearer the likely outcome. Greece will certainly default and exit the euro. That's initially bad for Greece, and good for the euro - one bad debtor out of the zone with the banks bearing the default costs. And so on, if the domino effect takes down another southern European country. But Germany and France - both individually much bigger economies than Britain's, and combined FAR more powerful an alliance - will simply be at the core of a smaller, better balanced eurozone.

The judge has refused to hear their pleas of 'I didn't mean it, honest' mitigation. Brilliant!

Turn yourself in. Now would you mind if we got back to the thread?