CosmicCastaway

As far as I know, the proposed constitution will not generate 'closer ties' with anyone. The constitution itself is more about streamlining the way in which the union works. Getting rid of all the little documents and just having one large blanket one in other words. Personally, I think blocking the ratification of the constitution would be a case of 'cuttting ones nose of to spite your face' so to speak. Especially the current conservative party standpoint of, 'we will block the constitution full stop', which is just playing to the irrational paranoia of SOME of the general public. Bloody knee-jerk politics.

The problem is, in the UK in general the populace are forever being given a 'cloak and dagger' type of affair about the European Union in general. For whatever reason, successive UK governments have been extremely reluctant to involve the people in any sort of discussion about it (or even discuss it full stop!), and henceforth the general people on the street treat it with a level of suspicion. This propsed referendum on the constitution is the first real involvement many people will have had. Personally I think a general constitution can only be a good thing, hopefully streamlining the whole adminning of the EU in general. Anything that reduces the levels of bureaucracy generally inherent in the system, can only be good. As for the rest of Europe. The UK is practically there anyway. The integration of the Euro will always be sore point however. If it gets adopted or not, I don't really see it hindering cooperation/trade with Europe. On a side note, I always enjoyed using the many varied currencies when I travelled through Europe, it added to the experience. Obviously having one single currency is easier and streamlines business and commerce, but it takes away some of the thrill of travelling in my opinion.

I would say that it's the god awful running of the country that, that is promoting the ruining of the country. But then that's all down to a matter of opinion really.

So if they're not impressed with the running of the country, the upshot is perhaps that the country is being ruined no? Running it to ruin is pretty much the opposite of running it well. It's all fairly academic anyway as the poll is out of date, and future polls are somewhat unlikely given the current situation.

According to the same poll, they're not too impressed with the US/coalition ruining their lives and country either.

My local police force just bought themselves a new toy: MD902 Explorer And very nice it is too.

AIDS? Billions of dollars of research into the matter and all they have found is a few small treatments to make them last a bit more longer. Need more time? Nah, don't think so. Think you missed the point there, science has already proved that AIDS exists, it just hasn't found a cure yet. The Baron didn't say 'find me something to whic science has no answer', he said 'find me something that cannot be found through scientific means that is true or exists'. AIDS is definately true and exists, that HAS been proved.

It's like Longinius said, it's all about the way you ask the questions. About the June 6th one. No doubt June 6th means many different things to many different people (perhaps a significant personal event). But if the question was what is significant about the date June 6th 1944? The response may well have been different. But I'd have to agree that general historical knowledge is lacking somewhat in the UK, I have no doubt that the case is the same in many other countries as new generations come along.

I'd guess at 'Spellbound Dizzy' perhaps? There were loads of Dizzy games. Varied depending on the platform, I think the first one I played was 'Treasure Island Dizzy' on the spectrum, waaaaay back when...

Isn't that one of the Dizzy series of games? Bit wierd they were! Although I admit to spending some time with them in my earlier years.

Well I'll have to disagree with you there. 'Good' media is certainly not a universal thing. It's definately more of a personal opinion. As for that, someone clearly thinks they are 'good' otherwise they wouldn't end up making money. Obviously those individuals definition of 'good' differs somewhat from yours. I'm not attempting to convince you that you should play the game, clearly you've made your mind on that matter. MLF said it quite well by referrring to it as a form of 'gaming snobbery'. Looking down on a game and the people that play it because it doesn't meet your lofty requirements for 'good' is quite humorous really. It appeals to lots of people for different reasons. Clearly some people that play Flashpoint also play the BF1942 games and enjoy them, otherwise this topic probably wouldn't exist. It's in my list of 'good' games anyway, right along with Flashpoint and many others.

Not sure I understand where you're coming from here as 'good' is a very personal definition. If I don't like something I tend not to class it as 'good'. It would seem that they ARE they way to make money, and I'm sure anyone currently playing something like UT2004 would question the 'lower quality for everyone' part. Now you see you can't patch terrible gameplay, as that once again is a matter of opinion. I quite like the way it plays, you obviously don't. Anyway, like I said comparing the two is entirely pointless. It's an entirely different style of play. However the attitude adopted by most that dislike the game seems to be somewhat like: "I don't like oranges, therefore all oranges are crap"

Yeah but then you have to get into defining what makes a 'good' movie / game. It's different for everyone. If you don't like the style of play that something like BF1942 offers, don't play it. Similarly with movies, don't like the look of it? Don't watch it. Nobody forces you to participate in these things. Oh, and most of the stuff I see being levelled at BF1942 were patched out of existence a number of revisions ago. So comparing a first release (which is perhaps what most have played up to) with a fully patched up Flashpoint is somewhat pointless. Of course comparing the two is fairly pointless anyway.

Listening to the news this afternoon, it seemed like there was mention of a group that had split from the ETA being held responsible. (No link I'm afraid, twas the radio) It also mentioned that it was very different from previous ETA attacks, and no warnings given. (Something they apparantly had done previously) So automatically placing the blame at their door would be perhaps a little premature? Plus for groups like that it's very important to take the responsibility for your actions, they would gain nothing by executing something like this and then denying it.

Surely that's basically saying because banning landmines now, won't clean up all the mines laid in the past we shouldnt bother? If people can't buy them legally thats one more obstacle in the way of their being used. Thats a pretty good reason to ban em if you ask me. Sure if someone wants them badly enough, they could build their own. But why make it easy?

Rofl! Well he doesn't think much like you, so he MUST be!

Yup. http://www.tv-l.co.uk/index_frameset.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/lordoftherings/ Mid-way down the page under the "You need to know that..." section. Good enough for me!

Nor do I (in the traditional sense), but that doesn't mean I can't get into the spirit of things. Seasons greetings to all!

Baghdad tanker blast kills many http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3326499.stm and on a slightly lighter note: Christmas brought to Iraq by force http://www.theonion.com/3949/top_story.html The onion strikes again!

It's the freedom of expression, surely it's not possible to be for one type and against another? You have to be for freedom of expression or not. There isn't an inbetween. You can't say "I'm all for freedom of expression!! Except this sort, this sort and this sort." Wearing religious garb is a form of self expression, just as wearing a t-shirt is. Personally, if you're in a public institution like a school you abide by their rules and dress code, if you don't like the way it works you find another school.

Can you be for one type of freedom of expression, and against another? You argue for the right to wear religious garb in public institutions, but are against someone expressing their alternative views (regardless of how onerous they may be) in a similar fashion?

Agreed. That just about covers how I feel about the whole situation too.

I'm not sure it's actually possible to act as 'peace keepers' when you (meaning the coalition, or whats left of it), are one side of the reason for the absence of peace.

It'd definately be something worth seeing. You'd have to fight for you're cheese and tomato sandwich from then on.