jayseven

Well yeah, I mean you and a bunch of mates made fun of him, using his own facebook, whilst in his own home and using his own computer. It can be understandable. I have certain friends where this would be hilarious, and others who would simply destroy my life. But yeah - it's fair enough.

Well, yes. If tehre were no thanks we would have; a) "thanks" (unlikely) b) "lol I agree" c) "I have little else to offer, but found your post informative" d) "The secret to dodecahedron calculations is in remembering the qualitative definition of a dodecalakasha; as defined by Ali G et al (2005), the shape is concurhaisdfapsgndasdgbalse ashdgf ash dfi The argument is; In most cases, if a reply is worth making then a thanked post will not prevent that reply. If someone finds that thanking a post somehow summarises what they were going to say anyway... then are we really missing anything? Think of it like this; [Without(, or before) thanks (existed)], what are the likely replies to a post/thread/comment? Attribute each of the following a percentage probability of occurrance. - Lol - I agree - I have nothing forther to add, but I wanted my name to be known - I disagree - Something you said was interesting, and I feel I can expand upon it - This conversation could be furthered, but I have not the words The point is; if someone thinks they can further the discussion, they will. The thanks button is how people deal with the fact that they have nothing extra to say - but want the rest of the forum to know that they agree with what's been said, and that they at least tried to think of something extra to say. Maybe make it a personal rule of yours, to reply as well as thank a post. I personally prefer to see the added benefits that the thanks bring to the forum rather than assume they're too new, therefore to blame for rubbish nonsense such as 'forum being shit'. Make more threads. Make more posts. Do your bit.

Yeah, don't force it dude I've got a pile of reading to do for other people; tutoring two kids in different years at school (one my cousin) so I have to read their reading lists. Thankfully education panders the masses so it's just books like Of Mice and Men that are short in length -- my only problem is the other books are all Australian Literature, and really hard to come by. The libraries are all out, and the books themselves aren't exactly popular save for school texts, so book shops either don't have them or are providing a good example of how expensive aus is... Y'see, I get $30 for an hour tuition, but the price of a NEW book here is easily $30 - that works out as about £20. For some reason books have a high tax here..?

If the thanks was not there, the conversation would not be furthered. Would it? Any ifs or buts you have... Could they not have replied those as well as thanking? Can't blame the effort-relieving tools for users not being arsed to put more effort in. It's not a conspiracy. People just suck.

^That was the first thought I had. "Ridley's brother has died! Oh no! ... Shit, what films did he do?!" True Romance is The Film on his list that I loved. I've enjoyed the first season of The Good Wife, which he had a hand in. Man on Fire, Spy Game, Enemy of the State, Beverley Hills Cop II... I'll watch Top Gun this week, for him. Sad story.

The game is all about the 'campaign' through the season. At the start there's no backstory from which to really weave magical stats and legends out of, so yeah they talk a lot of arse! I saw a fun stat on the BBC match summary - only th 8th Prem game where all three subs have scored a goal. I'm sure not a single pub quiz in the land will ever ask that, but hey.

I'll extend the deadline to the end of september? I've taken like 3, myself. Need a BISH day!

The books are, largely, not connected to each other and there's little need to read them in order. Some of the events in Consider Phlebas are referenced later, but the book's last third isn't great. If you have a habit of putting books down then skip it - whereas I was a completionist so I was determined to start from the first and read them all. I'd say that the Culture series is like BSG - it's about civilisations, politics, espionage and diplomacy as much as it is about spaceships and laserbeams, if not moreso. Player of Games is the easiest to get into, and Use of Weapons is trickier and more convulted in narrative terms, but the scope is grander and sets you up to appreciate the sheer scale of The Culture. So yeah; if you aren't committed to reading all of the books then start elsewhere - though I do recommend that you do read all of them - but I understand that it's rather a large commitment!

Culture. Start with Use of Weapons or Player of Games.

^ Down and dirty, reminds me of my white cider days with my buddies. Just getting trashed for the sake of being trashed.

Vote: No lynch Let's go!

@Nolan it works. Did you keep it?

Welcome to what-I-was-saying-over-a-year-ago-ville!

I had a friend who was forever really shit with timekeeping. He'd always be a minute late, which was problematic for when we neede to catch a bus at a precise time. He eventually texted me and a few other mate to say "I'm sorry but I'm gay and I hope it doesn't affect our friendship." I simply replied "ok cool, so when's the bus?" Perhaps he was expecting more from he situation...

It's friday evening already! IN YOUR FACE!

This is a typical human spammer - 21 posts with little more than a few smileys strung together. If all they had to do was a single character, or a single smiley, then I'm sure it'd be more than 21 posts. While it's simple enough to get rid of them before they do too much annoyance, if it's easier for them to post then there'll be more of them, and this site could potentially become really, really annoying.

I HAVE A POINT YESSSSS

38. Tomb Raider GOLDEN ANNIVERSARY Is tha right?

I did remember a good one after I typed that, too - Hamish and Andy. Radio presenters who do occasional travel-blog shows - Caravan of Courage is where they have to one-up each other as they drive a winnebago around their chosen country. They've done Australia, USA, UK, and Europe. The shows have the regular amount of adverts (i.e. loads) but they pack the content in pretty decently.

I can tell you now that I am seriously missing the BBC. There are literally NO AUS-made shows of any worth. We all know about Neighbours and Home and Away, but nobody watches them here. Most of the TV is dominated by reality TV. The news is shit - all biased, all conservative, all selfish, all fear-mongering. There are LOADS of adverts ALL THE TIME. Everything is a repeat. Product placements everywhere. Infomercials in the middle of regular shows. EVERYTHING IS ABOUT MARKETING. It is shit. The only good thing is sport... but they're not interested in the sports I'm interested in - and they play adverts during soccer games so you're likely to miss goals. Everyone is gambling-crazy. Australia is self-centered. Julien Assange is an AUS citizen but they're not showing any coverage of what's going on over there. UK has constant comedy attempts from BBC and Channel 4, and plenty of serious journalism in Horizon and Panorama compared to the shock-tactic 60 Minutes and A Current Affair -- these shows are melodramatic and simply aim to have viewers in order to up their ratings so they can get more money from sponsors. UK's approach to sponsors is way better - you'll have presenters here hold up an item and say a pre-scripted slogan "so nice you'll buy it twice!" sort of thing. Bondi Rescue about lifeguards is one of the staple reality shows. No real worth. You can check out wiki's list of aus shows and see. Even if you just think that there are two or three good UK shows - Top Gear, Sherlock, Doctor Who, or whatever you wish for - that's two or three more than AUS has to speak for. US TV = you pay for it, you can get good stuff. However there's much more shit to sift through. UK = Good stuff for the price of a TV license, just not in as large a quantity. AUS = No good stuff. Unless you pay for the UK/US good stuff. UK TV is one of the things to be proud of, even if you think it's rubbish. The rest of the world has it worse.

Me, myself and I? How much are you paid to promote those websites?

Dude. You need to highlight this to the company they work for. That's not legit practice.

Oz = cheaper car shit. Plus most places (i.e. westfield, almost psuenemic with shopping centres around here) offer free parking for the first 90 mins or so.

Dysthymia is a type of depression. What you're saying is people here don't have severe or major depression. Apathy is supposed to be "I nothing you" but most times it is received as "I actively do not care;" there's semantics involved but there's also the way emotions and perceptions work. Floating through life saying "my intentions are pure, therefore I can do no harm. Anyone who is upset by this has to deal with it themselves" doesn't really recognise the fact that you cause ripples, you leave a wake. I did forget how 'blunt' you weres. I must try and remember that's simply because you state your opinions, and omit the bit where you also clarify that you are indeed just stating your opinion. What is the purpose of you studying psychology? Do you have a goal?

Two facets to this. 1. This is ridiculous. I can't remember any of my economics a-level, so I'm asking for help to understand this. RPI is Retail Prices Index. My understanding is this is a comparison of how much items cost now compared to last year. The RPI comprises of a bunch of commonly purchased items to try and reflect the reality of how inflation affects the individual. So why is it at all sensible for the government (and associated private rail companies) to use that percentage figure as the basis of their price increase, let alone decide that an extra 3% on top is a 'good' idea? I need help to get my head around this concept, because at the moment it just seems like a greedy "well if everyone else is putting their prices up, then so we will too." It is a move that means many people who commute are looking at the cost of simply getting to and from work taking up to 15% of their earnings. The government Transport Secretary Theresa Villiers said "In the longer term we are determined to get rid of these above-inflation fare rises all together," which just means that eventually the fare increase may just simply fall in line with inflation. We won't say when, and we can't say for sure that inflation in the future will be any more affordable than it is now. 2. Is there any cause for complaint? His argument may be sound (see parentheses after this mini-rant) but he is perhaps a bit entitled. He is essentially saying "I want a house and a wife and kids, and I have to do this thing called work in order to pay for these things, but that's not enough! I want more!" Is it fair to have an above average boat on the river of life and yet still feel like you deserve a bigger engine? The price increase will not put anyone out of their homes. People who are commuting to london will be earning higher wages, in general, so it is a price hike that is affecting those who are more affluent. The price breakdown means that it's not every journey everywhere that is going up that much. (I tried to work out the maths - he earns 21k yet his rent and bills are 19.2k, his childcare is over 7k... so either he's running on a defecit or he's talking about his shared costs as if they're his own. If his partner is earning full-time minimum wage then she'll be getting, what, 13k, leaving around 4k a year for fun and games, minus trains? I don't know!) I'm flailing a bit at the concept of what I'm trying to say, here. All spun from the BBC article "Rail hike of 6.2% sparks angry reaction.