sdavies

Thank fook they are graphite and not lead is all

That engine should be in an art gallery... beautiful bit of engineering How about moving this to NWS as That is pure unadulterated automotive PORN! :d;) I want one!! (My bank manager just woke up in a cold sweat knowing that something bad has just occured).

Hehe, I simply did a quick search on jobs with "EFT Consultant" and the trainee position (as the requirements I posted) popped up (quite a few times may I add) To be honest I wasn't entirely sure what EFT meant in your context at the time - hence the search. Not really technically my area of expertise More into end to end mobile data delivery - server and client development at the moment (mostly for financial markets - gets a bit tedious after a while), and anything else the company throws at me when I think I am on top of things lol.

242: Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.

I too thought that it was fine to go past traffic on the left if your lane just happens to be clear and moving at a quicker pace!?!? I would have thought to get nicked for doing this you would actually have to be pulling back out after the stint on the inside?? Perhaps we simply don't have the solicitors entire story

^- something with requirements like that? (cf 18-23k pa?).

LOL, better not post you my CV then Demand proof of regular mobile phone bill payments in the interview!!! Bless his cottons. What job would they actually be applying for?

Pickled beetroot and salt n vinegar crisp sarnies are a killer. Pickled eggs and mustard. Not really a combo but I am addicted to onion and chillies (and I wonder where my heart burn comes from? ) Loooove having bread with my gravy also, the other half looked at me a bit gone off the first time we sat and ate a sunday roast and I reached for the bread ... mmm nummy.

Yeah, but admit it... the flow chart was good though I say again, anyone for a beer (or soft beverage if your particular brand of systematic belief contravenes the use of fermented grape or grain products!?)?

Godwin's Law proven again Not that I mean to belittle the awful atrocities that that particularly nasty man did in his time - but I actually believe Hitler was in fact quite a religious man (brought up a Catholic, lately shunning that in favour of Protestantism?) - tiny bit over simplified, but you see what I mean - Hitler wasn't an atheist, although not sure that's what you were saying, just one mans ideas (the originator of Eugenic idea) having consequences far reaching than their original intention? The same can be said about many historical decisions and discoveries. Should we live in ignorance to avoid "discovering" such ideas? i.e. stop trying to find the way forward by bogging ourselves down in dogmatic preechings of long dead folk that have no concept about modern life (i.e. the ideas of folk back then may not have meant to inspire the religious diversity and debate they have brought about in todays world). I personally don't need to be "god fearing" or religious to help someone out. I don't think it will save my sould or get me a better place in the afterlife... it is just the thing to do, you help folk. You do something nice - I have an interest in my fellow humans getting on with their lives and suceeding. If we were all excellent to one another, there would be no problems (or probably place for religion ). I give to charity (occasionally ). Eugenics and anthropological debates are for another thread that is little to do with the differences between religious dogma and evolution of a theory or model to describe and understand the workings of the universe around you.

Actually re-reading that makes no sense I think it is hard to place the concept of "atheists" to be honest, they (not sure I include myself in "they" - but I am not agnostic) are seen to borrow from Science & Anarchy (popular myth (its own religion?) too). I know plenty of scientists that are religious to some degree, so the boundaries blur there too. In the end atheism wasn't what was being debated it was the fact that the Scientific way of approaching the universe is self improving and open to change - Religious dogma is set in stone and resists any change, even if the practices/theories behind them make no sense in a modern context. If scientist = atheist, then so be it, that's me Oh to add a certain amount of quirkiness, most scientists are - against their better judgement/nature - a little on the superstitious side lol, not sure what that proves though Science doesn't have all the answers, but it tries bloody hard to get them! p.s. anyone for a pint?

Heh true, no worries. I don't think it has strayed much beyond pub philosophy just yet - as long as we don't have the brawl later

I personally try not to *attack* other religions, although perceived attacks could be likened to when someone talks about putting an EFMIC on a Supra - we all tend to take a dig as in OUR minds it is the most ridiculous thing in the world to do, but it is down to the individual in the end as they may think it is THE ONLY WAY FORWARD! - just like people actually go out and preach their opinions on the streets - they are only trying to convince us that their way of thinking is the best and the rest are being silly, they are just trying to help! I occasionally take this internal view with religious practices that make no logical sense to me, I don't understand why people don't eat certain meats or would rather a child die because they don't believe in blood transfusions, it does nothing for the propagation of the species and defies my way of thinking. But I digress on that point. I don't rank myself as either agnostic or athiest. I simply don't think there should be a label, I am me - I need nobody else to define or classify me or my way of thinking, I chose my own path We all find our own way of coping/interfacing/understanding the world. I chose logic and science after being dragged through a church school I heard the "satan" quote many times before - when I was like 8 lol, holds just as much water with me now as it did then.... (think I was a born cynic or something). So in theory anybody that doesn't believe that there is a god, or follows a religious subclass of systematic thinking has no real goal in life, is likely to be immoral and will *burn in *? That being said, I guess I am morally questionable though Re: death; I personally am no more scared than the next man of his own mortality, I think we all have a healthy fear of death - it keeps us out of trouble and allows us to survive as a species I am severely allergic to pain. Oops gotta dash and pick the Mrs up... to be continued...

Oooh any pics? Sounds... err.. .almost perverse hehe.

My first post was having a tongue in cheek poke at the concepts of faith in general no one persons faith The other posts were equally relevant internet spaff. It has since deviated completely from the original thread with a minor debate on scientific methodology At no point has skin colour or specific religion been covered? (ok it was implied by Joes Bible piccy, and Jakes generic church wasn't directed at any one faith - just a poke in general at the idea that religion is a method of control and used that church shape as a commonly recognised image for a place of worship). Depends who you call a c*nt I guess mate. I personally welcome someone to debate away and call out anything I believe in As long as it doesn't turn into a hateful slanging match - that helps nobody.

WELSHIST!!!

Sadly no... although I have petitioned to make this the case!! And on the hot biker chick

Cheers Butt!

Guess my degree in Pharmaceutical Chemistry really was worthless You prove your theory with experimental evidence, and continue to develop it. If someone disproves it then you adapt or scrap the idea. Of course there will be many eager beavers attempting to disprove your cunning view on the world (as well as those just as happy to prove you right by reproducing your results), but it is up to them to disprove it, or interpret your results using their own theories. At no point do I recall anything that says you can only believe it as it cannot be disproved - sounds like religious dogma to me and some pseudo science hippy bullshit interpretation to be honest (not having a pop at you Matt, just the people that originate these mis-interpretations and logical fallacies (sp) - sells books though!). I have read a few of these in the past, which make for some good down the pub discussion makers, but have no relevance in the scientific community, and do not stand up to the cold harsh light of the sober day lol - then again, maybe we should invest in more Pub scientific philosophy debates :) - I'm in if you are !! ) First round on me (Anything to further science *cough*).

Many many many moons ago I think my Auntie was quoted 24k for a full set (apparently that was a good price too) - those were the individual teeth tapped and screwed into the jaw with special set fittings (sounded awful to me). Apparently venires are a slightly cheaper option ?? /shrug - I have no idea, trying to hang on to mine as long as possible!

It *is* ok to stop eating at an all you can eat buffet! lol. Nice one, haven't pigged out properly at one of them for ages (although my waist line occasionally may suggest I have).

Personally I thought a theory gained merit with experimental proof and reproducibility. The point I think you are trying to make is that the theory has to suitably suggest an outcome/observation from a reproducible experiment. This experiment has to be open to the rest of the scientific community for objective analysis and reproduction. Until anybody comes up with something that disproves/shows holes in the theory for whatever reason, the theory remains in tact. I think the flow chart actually does take that into account (if not a little crudely). The difference being, truly objective scientists are willing to accept that something is wrong if a theory can be disproved, and strive to gain a further understanding where their model of the world has broken down and move towards better understanding of the subject matter (as opposed to religious dogma I meant to say - bloody internet baulked). /shrug

Ooer, which bit of that thread is pertinent? Do I have to read it all Seems I missed it first time around Blimeys 40% that participated claim to be atheist Figures ANyhoo - was never meant to be serious, just tongue in cheek views that people have that make me chuckle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method p.s. which branch of science do you study mate?

Anybody with an ounce of sense wouldn't take offense at this stuff. If they were confident and secure in their faith and views they would discard it as internet tat anyway. Not like this stuff "Un-converts" people, and it is far from obscene