Bazdavies79

sorry but this is an excellent idea

No it's not, it's my body, and the government has no right to decide what happens to it, if I want to donate, it's my right to opt in, it's not the government right to demand it.

What's next? The government deciding how long we live for? A shite idea and one I would protest about!!

That's an odd analogy. I'd love to hear an explanation of how it fits into our discussion lol.

Nobody is telling anybody they must do anything, no rights are being lost because you can opt out.

All that's happening is a change in the presumption for people who do nothing from a 'no I don't want to donate' to a 'yes I'd be happy to save a life'. Far be it from me to put words in your mouth, but I think that is where your beef is, you believe as a point of principle it should be the other way around.

Whatever angle I look at it from I still believe your wrong and I haven't read a compelling argument in this thread to make me change my mind, because as I said, no rights are being lost and lives will be saved. So the point of principle argument is all that the people opposed have got.

My only concerns are with the homeless, mentally ill and disabled. People who might be incapable of opting out for some reason.

I'd be happy to donate but have never got round to becoming an official donor, on the flip side, I doubt there are many people in the country who would forget to opt out. I'd guess that people who feel strongly opposed to the idea, are more likely to opt out, so on that basis I think it's a good idea which will undoubtedly save lives - maybe even yours or mine.

I'm sure there will be safeguards in place to ensure there are no 'mix ups' and I have complete faith the process will be handled sensitively and respectfully. I think the system has been used very successfully in Spain? or Holland? for many years.

The bottom line is, no freedoms or rights are being lost, and it will save many lives.

He'll sort out that defence in no time :shock:

I still think it'll be Shearer.

Didier Deschamp now favourite. Houlier has told the French FA he wont move there.

Y'all gotta hear this from the great bluesman Booker White playing

They really need someone like Jose to sort out the total mess that's there. Jol wont have a clue what to do with the defence, Shearer would be totally out of his depth and I can't see Harry moving. I've a gut feeling it will be Shearer.

Young, I cant tell you all how nice it is to finally have a flying winger at the club after how many years? I'd hate to lose him.

I'd most probably look something like this :shock: and be talking even more crap than usual if I did that.

It's such a complex issue, I'm getting a headache just thinking about it. I think I'll go and take an aspirin.

I'd imagine a legalised safely produced and controlled ecstasy tablet would still be more dangerous than Aspirin. It's the long term effects of taking what is essentially a super strength anti-depressant which is the real danger.

Chicken Shack - 'I'd rather go blind'.

A criminally overlooked and under appreciated track IMHO.

DOL has given an interview for SSN outlining the difficulties he had with Doug. He points out he tried to sign Carson for £750,00 but Doug blocked the move because HE thought we had a better keeper in our academy. That says it all really.

I have no problem with DOL, I always thought he was misunderstood - his intentions were always what was best for Villa, so in my book that makes him a top man.

DOL kept the club ticking over during one of the most turbulent periods of it's history and achieved 2 respectable positions. His last season would have been better except he was not allowed to strengthen in Jan. Which incidentally was the major factor in the player revolt, which is often wrongly blamed on DOL, IMO.

MON has a totally different job of returning the club to former glories. He's doing ok so far, without setting the world alight. So for me it's a close call between the 2.

No, not really. It's close call, but no, I wouldn't say so.

I said, MON has not been all that yet. IMO.

Yeah, we've come on leaps and bounds in terms of how the club is run. It's a tough call at the moment as to whether we have improved managerially.

Read the whole article here.

Thats a good read.

However, my argument, based on an assumption of course, is that if there are other civilastions out there, there are some that are at a more advanced stage than us scientifically ( there may be some that are at a less advanced stage).

If that is the case, and they have mastered space travel, why have we not had any contact from them?

Why would they come here if they don't know we're here?

Thats two asumptions you have based on not a single shred of evidence.

There is absolutely no proof that extra-terrestial life exists, yet people think 'there must be' - I don't get it, what are you basing this assumption on?

A theory of probability. The equation has been done and threw up a rather large number of planets capable of supporting life. Admittedly the equation makes some assumptions, i.e. the number of planets orbiting stars, a re-jigging of the figures can result in a very different outcome, but even the most conservative estimates point towards life being highly probable. Studies on our own planet have also shown that life is very hardy and able to develop and survive in the most hostile of conditions.

Edit - I don't think you need find a twin of earth to find life.

Yes, I expect there to be life.

But none that can travel the huge distances between or within galaxies.

Evolution is a very slow process, so to get that advanced something odd would have to happen.

life can be anything from the smallest bacterria to animals, I have no doubt other matter exists but it may not be carbon based.

also say ET was found where does this place religions, does it prove that there is a 'god' or does it mean as other things are out there that we are not alone disproves the 'god theory' ?

What do you think? I don't think it would make a blind bit of difference to the 'god theory' myself.

What implications it might have on religion, is another story. I think religion will do what it has always done and 'fit it in' neatly somehow. There are many more damaging scientific discoveries which have been made in the past which religion has managed to gloss over or deny in some way or another.

But it doesn't, where did this idea come from. It, as far as we know, started from a big bang and is still expanding, into erm...something. It will eventually fizzle out into black or everything will collapse in again triggering another big bang. Our known universe is mind numbingly big though, light from the farthest galaxies can take billions of years to reach us travelling at 186,000 miles per second. To confuse matters there is also a theory that it may be just one of many universes across many dimensions.

Although I'd miss hearing sweet music and the voices of loved ones I have to choose hearing. I value my independence above all in my life, losing my sight would mean me losing much more of my independence.

There is life out there of some form, but they are not visiting us.

I should be at work now, but I've come down with man flu so I'm on the sofa with a blanket and a Lemsip. I think this is going to be a close fight, I hope Hatton doesn't get a cut.

Well done to Blandy for writing such a long piece on the subject. I don't think I'd have bothered though TBH. The time it took to write that you could have been doing something a little more important, like picking the fluff out of your belly button.

Really, the thing was cleared up on SSN almost immediately, the balls were called correctly.

End of. What more is there to say?