Indigo

You kidding me? Falco's easily the coolest of the Star Fox team. He's like the token black guy.

You're missing the whole point of Christianity: that is that despite how vast and ineffable God might be, that he loves us and cares about us and our actions. He is not just some cold, distant God; rather, he desires a personal relationship with us. Your view of God is too shaped by the limitations of your understanding, which is limited to earthly realities. The concept of time for instance. You seem to suggest that in "governing all life and existence from the beginning of time to the infinite future" God simply would not have time to care about us. It also suggests that God thinks in relative terms of importance, and could not both govern all life and existence and care about the actions of that very life he governs. What she did was something to admire, not insult.

Just because one is forgiven does not mean that they should be exempted from punishment. You might remember that there was a high-profile murder case last year (a racially motivated murder in Liverpool). The mother of the victim spoke out and said that she had forgiven the killers for their actions. That is not to say however that she believed punishment to be unnecessary. Would you like to point me to that first quote? The 'punishment' is the effect of the knowledge of sin entering the world - it is not prescribed by God, it is the natural consequence. I don't quite understand how you arrive at God being more evil than the devil.

I think your summary of creationism was a little too simple. The accounts of creation in Genesis are seen as allegories. The full complexity of the creation of the universe would surely surpass our capacity of understanding. As for evolution, it is hardly fact. It is the currently accepted theory, and thus the current basis for biological science. Many are suggesting that the theory is beginning to show its age; there are cracks appearing. And so a paradigm shift within the current century away from evolution to a new or revised theory is perhaps not all that unlikely.

Excellent game. I felt France deserved the win. They made it hard for themselves by missing their second-half penalties and the drop-goal, but there was justice in the late try.

Ah, poker. What I love about it is that while there's of course an element of chance, a skillful player will nearly always prevail. For example, I had a game last friday. It's the third hand. I have A-2 clubs, my friend to the left of me has 6-8 clubs. The flop is 3-5-7. We both have a flush, me ace-high. There's some betting and raising, I have the nuts so I'm happy. The turn is a 9 of clubs. My friend has a straight flush, he's slow-playing it so he doesn't make his move just yet. The river is the Ace of spades. My friend is all-in. I know there's only two combinations that can beat me. 4-6 clubs and 6-8 clubs. The chance of drawing a straight flush is incredibly remote: 0.0311%. I'd never seen one in a proper game until then. Probability is in my favour. Do I call with the outcome of either doubling my stack or getting knocked out of the game, or do I fold having already betted a good half of my stack? You might say if anything this exposes how much of a game of chance poker is. My friend got very lucky to draw a straight flush, you could say. The fact is though, the cards are only half of poker. The other half is psychology and interpretation. Making that decision, I had to think for a good few minutes. I had played the hand out in my head. I stared my opponent in the eyes, and made a few remarks to try to pry some information out of him. In the end, I folded. Another player, with less experience than myself, called. When he turned over those cards, I was happy. Laying down my very strong hand was one of the best moves I've made. After that hand I managed to build my stack back up with some solid play to near-equal of my friend. It confirmed to me that it is a game of skill. Apologies for the length of this anecdote. Poker just fascinates me, as if you hadn't guessed.

Three healthy and filling meals a day. No snacking in-between. Go for a long brisk walk everyday, or a jog if you're feeling adventurous.

I am intrigued, yet worried. I don't trust Hollywood. It's too commercially-driven: the odds are stacked against the artistic vision prevailing. Unless Kojima has very tight control over the project, I wouldn't expect a faithful adaptation.

Catcher in the Rye is definitely up there. Sure, it's a common favourite, but rightly so. It's hard to explain its quality, but for those that love it, it just feels so personal - as if the book was written just for you. It gives expression to anyone who's at that ambigious time of their life, where it seems you are torn between two worlds: childhood, and the adult world. The cynicism, the dreams, the fear... it's all there.

I'm not too keen on such a view of the world. It suggests that someone's got to be unlucky, and so the circumstances of those "unlucky" people should somehow be accepted as the status quo, as an unchangable fact of life. As if it is fate. I don't think it should be said that it is "bad luck" for someone to be born in a specific country, when in fact those reasons why it could be considered as such are a consequence of the greed and selfishness that is ingrained into the world's philosophy, and therefore are not random. Yes, I thought about this just after I made my post. Read my edit.

It depends on what you consider to be "luck", but in most instances what is perceived as luck is merely chance. Though I suppose luck by definition is the result of chance. Since chance by definition is random, then luck must therefore also be random. So chance and luck are one and the same. Someone who is said to be "lucky" has merely experienced a consecutive number of positive outcomes involving chance. As these outcomes are all random, luck cannot be said to be a predetermined aspect. Hence "lucky" isn't valid as a personality trait, it is only a temporary description.

I hate skinny jeans. Yesterday I had to traipse all over town just to find a nice pair of boot-cut jeans. I guess it doesn't help that I'm not too big on traditional deep blue denim either. Eventually I found a nice and comfortable brown/grey pair. Set me back £50, but it was worth it.

It's got to be Normal.

Amaretto is a nice sweet liquer, it might be a good choice if you've not yet got a taste for alcoholic drinks. Amaretto Sour is the traditional mix, which uses lemon. Amaretto and Coke has a cherry taste.

This is nothing new. I encountered the same thing on the original dozens of times. It was most common on Bowser's Castle.

If Sky didn't have advert breaks every 15 minutes it'd be an easy choice. Uninterrupted 24 would be excellent.

I play poker quite regularly at college, not for money though. No-Limit Hold 'Em is my preference since there's more scope for bluffing, giving it more of a psychological edge. We had a game yesterday actually, and I won it quite convincingly. What I like about poker is just how deep and strategical the game is. Anyone claiming it's a game of luck clearly doesn't understand the game.

Beck - The Information Grizzly Bear - Yellow House Johnny Cash - A Hundred Highways Sufjan Stevens - The Avalanche Belle & Sebastian - The Life Pursuit

I'd buy this.

It's got to be Munich. I went to see it with a good friend; didn't say a word for two minutes after we left the cinema. Very powerful, and certainly underrated, muchlike many of Spielberg's recent films. Casino Royale and Walk the Line were also excellent.

You can't go wrong with a bottle of Peroni. San Miguel isn't half-bad either.

I saw the Lips on Monday. Great stuff. I loved the lighting, particularly the intense strobe-lighting during W.A.N.D. They certainly used huge background screen effectively; some of the videos were very impressive. And then there was Bohemian Rhapsody... genius.

I'm still waiting for Amazon. Anyone with me?

I'd rather Nintendo focus their resources on bringing us original content rather than wasting time rehashing Gamecube games.

It's got to be jazz.