Anthony

I spent a long time thiking about mine. Think I used it on the FTT site before it PB set up VT. It was in the days when it just didn't occur to me to use anything other than my own name. I see new member tenniscourtlions has just signed up! Michael Boulding, is that you?

CHeesy dance cover version of Madonna's Angel. It really is as good as you thnk it might be.

Talks a lot of sense. Talks a lot of cock. My kind of bloke.

Intersting that they've just done a deal with 7Digital so you can buy the tunes you're listening to. And 320kbps sample rate too. Doesn't say about DRM though. The article makes an interesting point about how fewer users are signoing up for subscriptions than they thought, so this 7Digital tie in has come quicker than thay anticipated.

I'm going to love me lots. Again. I'm quite good now. Can't see a bloody thing though; barely enough to make pedantic grammar points on web forums.

I'm with Snowy. You CAN do grammar Jondaken.

I can imagine the original law being "Thou shalt not derive joy from animals" And when a senator doesn't know what husbandry is, shouldn't she be sent away on a sabbatical to, I dunno, school?

I would like more money. I have, however done nothing to earn or deserve any more.

I'm descended from Bavarian royalty. And descended is definitley the right word. For me class (in this sense) is about your attitudes and expectations.

Yes.

It's often easier to open a bag of frozen food by breaking the bottom seal rather than the top one, as the bottom one is a little weaker.

Oh, right. I assumed when you said 'redecorated' in a thread about booze, I assumed you'd had a party and... Sorry for doubting your integrity.

Nope, just give me something with taste and substance, rather than marketing.

Last night I had a couple of pints of Bass with my bro. 3.60 for two pints in a hotel just off Leicester square. Now that's a bargain!

Bought a few cans of red death yesterday; local shop selling it off at 50p per can as it was going off. Oh, and a can of Skol.

Even the commentators are embarrassed about how poor the game is.

Who were bottom of the league, and are now 18th.

Time for boxing gloves then. Stop you biting them. Or a tramp's bottom. Works equally well. As for the game, I think this is possibly one of the most unpredictable ones of the year. It's close, with a high standard deviation.

Yes. But I refer you (and non goddies) to my previous post that appealing to science to explain things is somewhat missing the point. One has to appeal to the heart and offer reassurance acceptance and love. I reckon I'd be a really good Christian if I didn't have to believe in God and all those ridiculous 'miracles'. Most of the rest is spot on as a guide to living my life.

Random mutations of genes when replicating. Most of the time they just clone themselves perfectly. Every now and again they make a 'mistake' and mutate. Sometimes it results in a 'runaway' growth (cancer) sometimes it results in something that is non-viable (dies). Sometimes it results in a slight enhancement, but always there's a slight change.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother posting at all.

Looking through the eyes of science I see plenty of evidence for hte theory of evolution and therefore the non existence of a god, and I am happy with this. Trying to convince a religious person of the non existence of god through science and logiacl argument is completely missing the point. Ironically, of course, one has to speak to the heart. One has to say, "Don't be afraid, there is still deep meaning to your life, past, present and future."

I'm with you on that one. Amen even. And the only real area where I split with people like that is the whole imaginary friend thing. I always thought (cynically) that it was a convenient crutch this whole god business, filling in a psychological and emotional gap. Then I read the Voltaire quote and realised that I wasn't the first to come up with it. "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him."

Ah, bollocks, gotta explain myself now! The way science works is that you come up with a theory, then 'test' it. A theory is an explanation to a set of observations. For example, "This apple fell down on my noggin, so I reckon there is a force (and I shall call it gravity) that pulls things to the Earth." So what happens is you then come up with scientific experiments using available knowledge to prove/disprove it. The starting point of science is to believe nothing (although one does have to make some basic assumptions about one's senses) and slowly through the above method try and explain the world around us. A dogma style approach would be, "This apple fell down on my noggin, so I reckon there are weeblies inside all things that are in love with the Earth that God created and want to be close to it at all times." You then write this down in a book, people believe it and accept it. If you submit the dogma to testing using scientific method you may or may not find it to be accurate, although seeing as somebody tried to explain it using their prejudices, fears and imagination the likelihood is it won't hold up to scrutiny. The starting point of dogma is quite the opposite of science; believe what you're told and do not question. Rereading the above makes me sound like some kind of evangelical fundamentalist atheist, which I guess I am, but if you choose religion then that's fine by me; you won't get me shouting at you how I'm right and you're wrong.

No, but it's not about belief, it's to do with scientific method (eg hypothesis testing). Religion is dogma, atheism is a method.