Cool man.

http://www.howtodothings.com/family-and-relationships/a2638-how-to-use-baby-making-positions-during-intercourse.html

You can thank me later.

Congrats AG

far too many congrats going on itt

had to one up me didn't you

Congrats fingers
Congrats Congrats AG



In less important news, happy to finally have Gran Turismo 5 in my hands... well my PS3 right now.

congrats lfd!

Congrats Fingers
Congrats AG
Congrats LFD

See I did it in chronological order.

Congrats me.

[QUOTE=fingers mccoy;18284487]got engaged on saturday, gonna get married in july

allan if you read this don't tell anyone i'm gonna organise a get together in december[/QUOTE]

Holy fucking ballsing shit.

That is all.

what does "lod" reference?

it's a shortened name of the lesser known pokemon, 'lodomon'.

everybody's happy, blow jobs all round

And cookies, you forgot about the cookies!

well you have the cookies, i'll take the bj thanks!

Oh right i thought you were offering the bj's to the lod, thats why i wanted cookies.

hell no. it's kind of a congratulatory statement when things have gone well, as in "bj's all round" as a reward for such.

and no, i'm not organising it before anyone asks.

How about we all recieve blowjobs [I]while[/I] eating cookies?

Actually, I like the idea so much I'm taking it onto Dragons Den. I want £200k for 5%.

[QUOTE=EmbraceRandom;18287189]it's a shortened name of the lesser known pokemon, 'lodomon'.[/QUOTE]

No Pokemon's name ends in '-mon'.

:smoke:

[QUOTE=jaklyons;18287240]No Pokemon's name ends in '-mon'.

:smoke:[/QUOTE]

I beg to differ. Lodomon ends in '-mon'.
I have teh shiny

[QUOTE=jaklyons;18287240]How about we all recieve blowjobs [I]while[/I] eating cookies?[/QUOTE]

I second this motion.

can i have jammy dodgers?

[QUOTE=GottaPost;18287049]what does "lod" reference?[/QUOTE]

a drunk TBF

I still think its a pokemon.

Also, I always thought of the term 'left face down' as opposed to 'right face down'. It actually took me a while to work out its true meaning.

Silly baz, blowjobs dont make babies.


Just finished watching Munich for the first time.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCt2nZF2nLk[/url]

aperture science

[url]http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2010/11/children-police-kettle-protest[/url]

In every discussion about protests so far, I've said the police are not the enemy and should not be targeted. I said it was probable that some of them actually supported the cause. But this proves one thing; they are mercenaries. I would never choose my job over my beliefs. They ARE the enemy.

god bless the stronglod

[QUOTE=EmbraceRandom;18287636][url]http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2010/11/children-police-kettle-protest[/url]

In every discussion about protests so far, I've said the police are not the enemy and should not be targeted. I said it was probable that some of them actually supported the cause. But this proves one thing; they are mercenaries. I would never choose my job over my beliefs. They ARE the enemy.[/QUOTE]

Where the fuck have you been? The Metropolitan Police are thugs, and racist thugs at that.

Power is abstract. It can only manifest itself through action, in this case, armed violence. One human is no greater than another; if the police resort to armed violence, so too can the students. Their 'legalised' used of force is all that distinguishes them from every other man, and that distinction can be broken.

[QUOTE=EmbraceRandom;18287711]Power is abstract. It can only manifest itself through action, in this case, armed violence. One human is no greater than another; if the police resort to armed violence, so too can the students. Their 'legalised' used of force is all that distinguishes them from every other man, and that distinction can be broken.[/QUOTE]

...

So what the fuck is your point? How does that relate to my point?

Also, the distinction is important, and can very rarely be overcome. The students who helped destroy the police van, an object, have been arrested; the police who beat minors, young people, are unlikely to be charged.

Embrace, no offence (lie) but you're a fucking moron.

Think within context before you act out of it.

I tried to type out some sort of response here but I got so angry it wasn't making any sense.


I fully support the Po Po.

[QUOTE=spirit;18287739]...

So what the fuck is your point? How does that relate to my point?

Also, the distinction is important, and can very rarely be overcome. The students who helped destroy the police van, an object, have been arrested; the police who beat minors, young people, are unlikely to be charged.[/QUOTE]

Right...

[QUOTE=spirit;18287688]...The Metropolitan Police are thugs, and racist thugs at that.[/QUOTE]
I thought it was pretty clear that I agree with you here. My connection to this is that their right, or their power to use to violence, is abstract. Ultimately they are only human, no different from any other.
They're actions at Whitehall were inhumane, widely reported to be unprovoked, an abuse of their power. I respect authority, but how can it be considered fair that they can beat young people without provocation, and get away with it?
The protest was supposed to be a peaceful march on parliament. The police [I]denied[/I] that civil liberty and then got aggressive, 'kettled' people in which led to that marooned van being destroyed.

[QUOTE=Papa Shank;18287765]Embrace, no offence (lie) but you're a fucking moron.

Think within context before you act out of it.[/QUOTE]
Don't call me a moron mate it's unnecessary.
How am I acting out of context?

[QUOTE=AG;18288104]I tried to type out some sort of response here but I got so angry it wasn't making any sense.
I fully support the Po Po.[/QUOTE]
I did fully support the police and always stood by them, "they're just doing their job...some of them probably support the cause but are just there to keep the peace...why should they be targeted, even injured, because a minority are not acting with patience, composure nor sincerity".
However, whilst the report I linked in incredibly one-sided (I think her objectivity went out of the window when she was denied her right to protest and trapped for 7hrs in the freezing cold), it has been widely reported that their actions the other day were OTT. Why should I continue to support them? Not that I did, but if you had a younger brother there yesterday, peacefully protesting, and got coshed for it, would you say the police did the right thing?

Yes, I think the Police did the right thing.

The student protests contained the same sorts of people who threw fire extinguishers from buildings, set fires in enclosed spaces and threw placards and wooden stakes.

If adults did it, they'd be kettled. If children do it, they should be kettled.

Anyway, I don't wanna argue about it, because it makes me mad, the whole situation makes me incredibly angry. Higher education isn't a right.

Neither should it be reserved solely for the rich! So what is higher education then? If you don't think it is a right, then are you saying it should just be for those who can afford it?
Would you not agree that it should be a right for those who have grafted hard enough to get the highest grades? Personally, I think it is currently too easy to get into University and they should 'raise the bar'.

The group of protesters on Wednesday were, on average, younger than those at Millbank. Do you think it's fair that they were held accountable for the actions of an absolute minority of people who acted immaturely the week before? Do you think it's fair that the police can stereotype [I]all[/I] students by that minority? I would never throw a fire extinguisher off a roof, why should I be tarred with the same brush? They were an absolute minority, considering the amount of students who remained civil. Do you think that gives police the right to twat kids, unprovoked?

The government should encourage businesses to run scholarship schemes, imo.

There is a nice comment on that article you posted about football hooligans. You can't treat a mob based on the individuals in it, it acts differently. It only takes a few troublemakers to turn 90% of the mob violent.

I think the whole thing is worth it, because we got this awesome photo out of it.

[IMG]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5283/5204176793_894feef320_o.jpg[/IMG]

[URL]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5283/5204176793_894feef320_o.jpg[/URL]

But anywhooos. My issues with your posts so far are 'THEY ARE THE ENEMY' bit, and your final 'unprovoked'.

[QUOTE=AG;18288104]I tried to type out some sort of response here but I got so angry it wasn't making any sense.


I fully support the Po Po.[/QUOTE]

Do you support kettling? You say HE isn't a right, but do we not have a right to not be held without food, toilet facilities or water in an enclosed space past nightfall on one of the coldest days of the year so far?

[QUOTE=AG;18286552]Yayyyyyy!

Me and Ruth are gonna start trying for a baby!


I'm well chuffed.[/QUOTE]

How are the swimmers?

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2010/11/children-police-kettle-protest

I lol'd at the bit where it said that the protest lit fires to 'keep warm'.

As in, yeah... The comforting amount of warmth that a burning corrugated plastic placard provides over a cold night in London.

Not that they were just kids being destructive at all.

For me, whilst it is an incredible image, it annoys me that that image will probably become iconic. It's so manufactured and purposefully dramatic, in the sense that those girls [I]knew[/I] that if they did that, they would be photographed. It's meaning (that these girls were actually part of the protest but didn't want/condone vandalism or violence) is not clearly conveyed by the image and as such it pales in comparison to, say, the guy stood in front of tanks in Tiananmen Square. That image speaks for itself. This one does not.

[quote]The government should encourage businesses to run scholarship schemes, imo.[/quote]
This would be great, but businesses tend to care for themselves before the good of the country. That's business after all. I do think scholarships offered by businesses would be a great way of ensuring that people were actually studying a degree that could directly translate to employment afterwards; personally, film studies students would be better of studying English literature and then applying what they learn to film.

Also, I understand that police, in most cases, [I]have[/I] to generalise, they couldn't possibly single out the troublemakers from the rest of the crowd, even if the rest of the crowd were reserved. But I've never believed collateral is a good enough excuse to beat innocent people. They should have been aware that things may have turned out like they did the previous week, and been prepared to pounce if it did. They completely jumped the gun.

[quote]But anywhooos. My issues with your posts so far are 'THEY ARE THE ENEMY' bit, and your final 'unprovoked'.[/quote]
They may have been provoked by the incidents at Millbank, but they were not provoked at Whitehall. They can't deny the civil liberties of [I]all[/I] students because a minority at Millbank metaphorically shot their load too early. There are bigger fish to fry here, breaking windows at Millbank, as a use of 'action', was always going to be ineffective and demonised, because it was pointless vandalism. It had no meaning, no lasting effect.
Regarding 'they are the enemy', I can see why that would make me seem like I'm a 'fuck the po-lice!' kinda guy, but that is not the case. Like I said, I have always stood by the police, after all it is just their job to maintain law and order, some of them may even support the cause. I respect those that maintain peace within the law themselves.
But their over-the-top aggression on Wednesday makes it hard for me to continue defending them. The protest could have been peaceful from start to finish, but they fired the first shot, unnecessarily.

[QUOTE=EmbraceRandom;18288136] It's meaning (that these girls were actually part of the protest but didn't want/condone vandalism or violence) is not clearly conveyed by the image and as such it pales in comparison to, say, the guy stood in front of tanks in Tiananmen Square. That image speaks for itself. This one does not.[/QUOTE]

[IMG]http://ramblingsofpassion.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/051201_tiananmen-square_ex.jpg[/IMG]

This photo, which I assume is the iconic one you mean, doesn't speak for itself. The fact that the man [I]wasn't[/I] run over by the tanks is what makes the image iconic. Both images are equal in value.


Moaner, I do indeed support the kettling. As I said before, a mob needs to be controlled as a whole, not based on the sum of its parts. 95% peacefull, 5% violent is still 100% dangerous.

did they ever find out who that fellow was?

[QUOTE=AG;18288197]This photo, which I assume is the iconic one you mean, doesn't speak for itself. The fact that the man [I]wasn't[/I] run over by the tanks is what makes the image iconic. Both images are equal in value.[/quote]
I guess so. But my point was that it needed no explanation whose side that man in Tiananmen Square was on, whereas, visually, it seems that those girls are opposed to the 'macro' student cause, rather than the 'micro' elements they (rightfully, and with maturity beyond their years) oppose, i.e. those who conduct pointless, ineffective vandalism.


[quote]Moaner, I do indeed support the kettling. As I said before, a mob needs to be controlled as a whole, not based on the sum of its parts. 95% peacefull, 5% violent is still 100% dangerous.[/QUOTE]
Each to their own. My point is that they weren't [I]kinetically[/I] 5% violent, they only had the potential to be. But then every man/woman/child walking the street has a potential to turn violent. In my opinion, the police should have been prepared to pounce, not jumped in the gun.

seriously, there was corn, in my shit.

that was awesome.