Flaight

Not so much a kid or that long ago I must say but I used to pull up girls skirts at school, and in some cases pull down their underwear. I did that on and off between the age of, like 6 to 13, to girls who did something annoying to me so as far as I was concerned it was justified. Looking back I was such a twit back then. I got a few cautions from the house master. Some girls really hated me for it and one girl I met last year still held grudge against me for exposing her in the class.

You sure that was a dream lol

Sorry for a pseudo (or actual) double post, but generally, that is a fantastic remark. I don't mean this specifically to anyone here, but generally it's so true. I've learned so much things over the years about this. For me, travelling did it. While ago I wrote at length about my brother's interest in Japan and me getting sucked into it. He lives there now. I've travelled a lot since and one realization is that the very basis, the foundation, of how we think is a result of our upbringing. If you prefer, it's a social conditioning. We observe our surroundings, particularly those who you trust or love, and learn how we should be thinking. This forms the frame of reference, against which we will judge everything in our later years. I guess just aging helps a bit, but personally, travelling & interacting with other cultures have been the greatest weapon against prejudice, preconception and cultural intolerence. The world wasn't quite as black & white as I had first thought. Being able to see the same thing from various different angles is a skill which you practice to aquire. An opinion formed as a result of this is bound to be richer, deeper and more constructive in a long run.

If I were to be serious, and if I were to generalize things for simplicity: 1 - I'm annoyed with the modern concept of 'justice'. A criminal gets 10 years in prison, instead of 50, and apparently "less justice" has been done. What is less justice exactly. Justice is the means through which an error will not be repeated. It isn't about feeling good after seeing the criminal get punished. Justice has a profound meaning, yet these days it is so lightly used, it's cheap. Often it means nothing to me because a lot of the time it seems to me like 'revenge', which isn't the same at all. I think many people mix up those 2 different concepts. 2 - I'm annoyed with a factless, so-called 'opinion' which is so common on the internet. People default to the argument "But I'm entitled to my opinion" and/or "Hey, it's ONLY an internet forum" when they run out of valid argument. In reality, often it's them who were taking things very seriously in the first place and were digging their own graves as they had no factual ground to support their views. They find themselves cornered (rightly so), and are having to resort to lame excuses and personal insults to keep defending themselves.

Nah, if that had been the case you'd be dreaming of eating her... please, don't do that to me rokhed. Really? Never heard of that one. Actually with tampons, skinning and taboo and all, all this reminded me of a friend of mine who is a pathologist in France. I recall him telling me about a murder of a raped woman. Apparently you cut out the groin area together with the internal sexual organs, so that the front, back and inside come out together in 1 piece. EEEWWW!!! A great meal time conversation. If I had nightmares about this tonight, I'll be holding you all responsible :shock:

That's creepy... the sort japanese horror writers would come up with I reckon. I like that sort of creepy crap though. lol. I can read into that. I think it implies someone you or you in your past life had relationship with and she hated you so much that she didn't want to have a baby with you. It's a telepathic curse. Tampons, the blood, eating it ... it all ties in

When I was younger, every year a cold or flu would bring me down and the same dream would come again and again when under temperature. Maybe some of you can read into this, because I can't. ================================== It's set in a kind of highlands in scotland, but it's all green with trees and all. Maybe more like alpine area in France. I was living in a small wooden hut on top of a mountain. It had a great view and down below I could see a Kingdom. A city, surrounded by high mountains. At night the lights would come on on all those little houses down there almost like stars. Then, one evening, they would start making a huge VCR (a video casette recorder). Huge, as in probably about 10 football pitches. It covered a large fraction of the city. They are somehow suspended at roof height. Or maybe they're resting on the roof of all those houses. I could see workers constructing it. But from this height, they were all stickmen. The VCR was so huge, I could see hundreds of workers climbing on top and working down the sides. Every night, the VCR would become more and more complete, until one night, it became complete. Then they started climbing up the mountain, hundreds of them civilians holding up the VCR from underneath. Thick trees of the mountain paths would often hide a lot of the details, but as sure as hell it was coming my way as you couldn't ignore that massive shape creeping up the side of a mountain. I somehow knew it was meant to be a present for me, yet I was scared crapless. I'd hide in my hut with duvet over my head, but I couldn't help looking out the window to see them progressing upwards. That's where the dream would end. I'd see this same story every year when bed ridden, but I never got to see what happens in the end. It's funny when I type it all out like this, but in the dream it was a horrifying experience.

Dodgy performances. I guess Ecuador proved my argument all along that Beckham is needed, if only for freekicks. I'm beginning to really doubt Walcott's involvement now. Quarter finals and he still hasn't come on. Which is probably a good thing as it means Rooney and Crouch are fit and well. Another funny thing is, some sections of the media are now raving on about how we should go back to 4-4-2 after that game. And few days ago they were raving on about how fantastic it is that missing Owen meant Sven is forced to play 4-5-1!! Talk of irony.

Yeah I agree about "4-5-1 blessing" theory, but still, if England is serious about getting into the finals and even surviving that too, 3 strikers is a gamble. If Rooney got red carded or something and crouch goes out with a knock, we only got Walcott the following game... !!!

And Walcott ... if he doesn't feature in group stages, how on earth will he be replied upon in the 2nd round? I wanted to see him vs Sweden, from 75min.

Walcott in particular. I can't see how he'd be of any use if he isn't tried in the next game.

That I agree. Something I've wondering about for a long time. For me, there's also the element of extreme levels of so called "commision for racial-equality", which sometimes comes across extreme on the other end of the scale. That way of looking at it opens a can of worms. If we were to look at it that way, it would transpire that the reason why the "host culture" is in the state it is in now is because of the British Empire - the very thing the "host culture" thrived on. The people of "host culture" then becomes responsible for looking after those "other cultures" and their welfare. In other words, the way it is now is the consequence of what the "host culture" did all those years ago. No, I don't quite look at it that way. That's where I begin to disagree. I don't think you quite got the point of my last post. I was not questioning about "trying to redress the balance". In fact I support it. But I'm questioning how such policies are manifested - in other words, HOW it's achieved and HOW the issue is tackled. If BNP had any dignity and decency they claim to have, they would have a much more deplomatic and sensitive approach to the subject. So far, a large bulk of BNP has been sentiments without substance, hardly constructive. In the end, push comes to shove, the reason why 'racist' tag comes with BNP is because of the manner in which they project themselves. It's like Robert Kilroy-Silk (though a different party), who had some good points to make, yet the manner in which he presented himself was his down fall. He discredited himself, not because everything he said was wrong, but because his approach was to start with a sentiment then justify it with *some* academic work (a lot of which turned out to be rubbish). He's a laughing stock now. I agree. I've generally been against so called positive discrimination. If the manner in which BNP present themselves was anything to go by, that is hardly "traditional values". It's ironic if that's what they were trying to 'protect'. That's just hate driven politics, scavenging for reasons to justify their sentiments, then fashion a policy out of it. That's back-to-front. Just because we don't want to sacrifice the traditional values does not mean we have to get offensive. It seems that you and I share a lot in common in terms of wanting to defend the old values. The difference is that I don't agree with how BNP is going about it, while you seem to be happy just because you like their sentimentalism. The way it stands at the moment, BNP's greatest enemy is wisdom & cultivation of the public; a fair level of education and sound reasoning skills would tear away their guise. Irrational, sentimental values can be fudged to appear rational, so long as you can appeal to people at emotional level. But there is a limit to how far passion alone can go under the microscope if it lacks integrity and sensitive strategy. Say, if you had a house full of flies you want to get rid of. One party may tackle it by spraying inside, while another party may suggest bulldozing the whole town. The fact that you want to get rid of those flies may be the same, but your wisdom will tell you which way is more constructive.

I think you make a good point there and I found myself nodding as I read them. But when it comes to the way BNP projects itself, it really does not come across like that. It's almost as if a part of their appeal is that of racist attitude and that they'd rather gain support from "that part of community" than to clean out the party of such elements. It's almost as if a strong racist-like sentiment is needed to drive the core philosophy of the party, and I don't think I'm wrong in saying that such attitude came across on camera from time to time, while the party didn't seem to make much effort to do anything about it other than "explaining" it in the context of political correctness. They won't get away with that by saying "only some members are racists". That just won't do, I'm afraid. They need an explicit, aggressive system within the party to root out such elements to justify their claims. Would that be possible for BNP? I don't know. My point is that while certain sets of policies and idealism may be right, it's how that principle is manifested by the party that counts. As it stands, BNP only has itself to blame for the racist image, IF that is how it comes across to some people (myself included).

It seems there are a few separate debates going on here, but all are mixed up to confuse you all. So, to give my personal view on each subdivision: 1 - Is BMP racist? To me, sounds like yes. 2 - Is everything they say necessarily wrong? No. 3 - Do I support them? No, not while they are being so narrow minded. 4 - Do they look like they have the ability and talent to run the country? No...

My personal opinion is that it's human tendency to see the world in Black & White. It works both ways, unfortunately. Ironically this thread has exposed another side to human emotion as well, such as wanting to see those convicts getting beaten up in prison etc. That is in itself the display of Black-and-Whiteness of this situation. It's a question of which way you swing to extremism and I generally find any extremism detrimental to an overall effort to bring justice. I think Objective thinking is the key. Emotional argument, for whichever side, usually ends up going wrong.

Yes it is worth it in its own right, but it's a strange psycho crime horror, more in line with the classic Psycho and Stephen King's 'Misery'. It's also VERY wordy, heavily scripted and if you don't like that it seems to go on a bit. If you find yourself hooked to it, though, it's a fantastic film. Even the dialogue that goes on and on is fascinating then.

I agree, though I find murder of any reason is unbelievable. As for the issue of homosexuality, I think things have moved on suddenly in the last 10 years. The problem is that by human nature, we tend to spend longer coming to terms with a new way. For example, even today you can find people who have an irrational hastred towards the Germans, Italians and Japanese because of the WW2. And that's after 60 years! I find that there are a lot of things which move forward quicker than people can keep up with. Globalization is one of them, playing with DNA is another. The issue of homosexuality also seems to fall into this category, where the development is too quick for some people to catch up.

It is generally true, yeah. We've always sucked, for example, in friendlies unless we were playing a rival.

Yeah, I think you got my point Subtle difference, but it's huge. Many people I've talked to about this just don't "get it". I've come across too many people who say "I'm not scared of Aliens or Ring because I know they used rubber and ceramic to make those monsters". And I'm like, dude, you're missing the point of what constitutes as "horror". It's not what you see, but what you feel that creates a real horror. Many movies like Chainsaw massacare combines various elements of it and that is valid to me.

Yes, I think Alien is a valid Sci-Fi horror because it doesn't rely upon gore to create horror. There is a genuine terror of unknown, and it creeps inside your mind as the element of unknown. That is a valid way to "tap into the horror inside you" as I put it earlier. I'm not saying inclusion of Gore automatically disqualifies it as horror. A perfectly good horror may use Gore as a utility to set up the scene. The point is, Is the Gore primary or secondary in scaring you? With aliens, it's secondary.

I'm going to be very arrogant here because I'm very opinionated about horror. I don't accept "Gore" movies as horror movies!!!! Gore movies are 'Gore movies', not 'Horror movies'. "Gore" horror cheats by "shocking" you in a realistic way, like showing heads flying across the room and human body getting mashed into a red potato salad. To me, that's just a "Gore & shocking movie", and don't qualify as "Horror movie". For me, the real horror is internal, not external. A real horror movie taps into the greatest fear that lives inside you. This isn't about what you see with your eyes, but it's the feeling. It's nothing to do with amont of blood or limbs flying across a room with lots of tomato ketchup. I suppose you could call them "supernatural" or "creepy" horror. The likes of Grudge and Ring (Japanese versions) did very well in this area. The point is this. Sometimes, just sometimes, when I'm alone in a room typing away on my PC, I feel a presence behind me. I know I'm alone in the house. Nobody else is here. but I just feel it. But I don't want to turn around, because I know I will see something horrific. I might see a ghost staring at me. I might see a monster's face right behind my shoulder. I don't want to know, so I don't look back. When I get up at 3am for a wee, I don't want to look in the mirror in the loo. If I do, I might see something I don't want to. I might see an old woman staring at me in the mirror, behind me. I'd rather not know it. If there's something going on, I'd rather not know. I just want to go back in my warm bed and sleep. Forget all about it. Let that parallel universe shift. Now, I'm scared. I keep looking back over my shoulder every 20 secs because I feel something is creeping up behind me. But everytime I do so, nothing is there. I'm relieved. But I know, one of these days, before my death, I will turn around to see something I didn't want to see; a being of another world, taking my life away. I wish I didn't see it, but that would be too late. That, ladies and gents, is the real horror - it comes from inside you, not outside. A real horror movie taps into that side of your mind.

lol fair enough. But seriously. If you are in an average car (not a bicycle or a convertible), and you fall in a river, at some point you would have to get out. I can think of: 1) opening the door 2) opening the window to make way. But, I can also imagine water rushing in when I do that. Water is "heavy" in this sort of situation, so I wonder how hard it would be to force the door open. If it happened to me today (with my little knowledge on the matter), I would: 1) Open the door a bit. 2) See the water flood in. 3) Find the door near impossible to open. 4) Might just wedge myself in and eventually get out, while I can hold my breath or 5) drown trying. The question is, is that the best I could have done?

When we tried a diamond, usually the problem was that our wide players kept playing out-to-in. It should be inside outward or diamond would fail tactically and we lose width which our way of playing relies on (i.e. running up the side and putting a cross in). 4-4-2 diamond is surprisingly different from your bog standard 4-4-2 we see week in week out in the prem in that the midfielders have to think differently. I think that's where we fail 4-4-2 diamond. Our players are just too used to thinking in a normal 4-4-2 way, and that way of thinking messes up the diamond. Our side likes to run a lot. Beckham often makes an early cross, but still, a virtical movement down the sides is usually the way we play. Central midfield is left up to the 2 midfielders (Gerrard + Lampard). This way of assigning various roles in the midfield gets messy when you try to apply it in a diamond. Also when Rooney returns, the man behind the 2 strikers in a diamond would be a waste as Rooney likes that little hole in the central midfield. He doesn't want anyone else to get in the way.

A fairly random question, but something I've wondered for a long time. If you are driving a car (or if you're a passenger) and fall in a river/sea, what's the best course of action? I remember reading somewhere that you will be beaten by the strength of the door and you usually fail to get out in time and drown. So, what would you do to increase the chance of getting to the surface?

Lol. I didn't even know this thread existed. About Hargreaves, there's an article about him in the papers today and I felt a bit sorry for him to be honest. He is a decent player, deserves to be in the squad but he isn't flash either because of his role. Personally I wouldn't play him in the starting 11, but then again booing him seems pointless.