Pipski

real bad side of the job: wages suck (Å19k starting iirc and with that you have to live in Central London). lol, one of my elderly uncles worked for MI5 but he couldn't make this generally well known, so everytime he was asked what he did for a living he made something up. Trouble was, he never stuck to the same story and could never remember what he'd told people before. So they'd be somewhat surprised when he went from being an architect to a surgeon in 6 months!

Oh Christ give me a brake will you We were having a discussion about immobilisers - and I happened to say I actually have one in my new car. Immobiliser is an item already used in the car industry - albeit with another function than the article you refered to. I explained and you said no. However, what I said in my former post was that "it must be something new" ! Is it so hard to get that into your head? brg, I was not disagreeing with you! Seriously! I realize that I started the reply with the word `no' but that wasn't meant to imply that you were wrong! I would have hoped that the rest of the post made that clear but mebbe not. By `no' I meant that `no it isn't the same kind of immobilizer / tracker fitted to your Ferrari' (or whatever). Only reason I posted at all was to give the link to the full article `cause it appeared to be something that interested people and that they weren't aware of. I'm CERTAINLT not angry! As far as I'm concerned a debate in one thread is totally separate to one in another, rest assured. (I hope I've dealt in the other one with the issues re: likening you to Stalin - for the record that's not quite what I said). I'm sorry if my post cause you upset, that wasn't the intention. I can accept that the comment about `persecution complex' was a little over the top. I gladly withdraw it, it was just me being a smart alec. I'm as sceptical as the next man about war in Iraq, as far as that goes we probably agree more than you seem to think. But it doesn't inform my position about everything. And like I say, what happens in another thread, stays there. If you want to debate it further we should probably do it by the messenger though.

OK. I agree, you would expect a US Army newsletter to have some bias. I wouldn't expect a US Army newsletter to report a story about Iraqis urinating in American food for example. But there is a difference between selective reporting and making stuff up. The source (here) is a US Army newsletter, that doesn't make the story untrue but it does mean that a pinch of salt is in order. Where is your source for assuming that this guy was a pro-Saddam opportunist? For what it's worth this story has been verified by Snopes so at least we can assume that it's true. Snopes raised no serious issues about the veracity of the account as presented in the newsletter, nor does this story seem to have been especially trumpeted in the mainstream press (as you might expect were it being seriously used as a piece of heavyweight propaganda). No. However, based on the accounts available by people (doctors, artists, bodyguards etc.) employed by Saddam, if he wanted you to do something he would let you know and then you would bloody well do it! I don't see this as a situation where you can say "well, if he was really made to make statues then every other artist in the country would be forced to make statues." That just doesn't follow. That argument assumes that he had some kind of control over Saddam's choice. That he somehow crawled his way into Saddam's affections and was therefore appointed head head-maker. I've seen nothing to suggest that that is how Saddam worked. He was a dictator, let's remember. He decided who he wanted (for whatever role) and then they did it. He didn't hold auditions, he didn't ask people to bid for contracts, he just told them. For what it's worth I agree, it is very kitsch. But this statue hasn't come to peoples' attention because of its artistic merits. It's come to peoples' attention because of its theme. It won't win awards, it won't be well remembered, it won't change hands for vast sums of money. But it is a timely reminder that while it may be tempting to make `black & white' generalisations like `the Iraqi population hate the occupying forces' that there is a greater range of opinion and degree of ambivalence in the country than we sometimes automatically assume. Sorry, this is pure speculation. Why is it necessary to assume an ulterior motive? Do you think that a track record of making statues for the Americans will do him great favours in post-war Iraq? If the occupation forces are so unpopular (and I don't dispute that they are) then there must be dozens of other themes he could base his sculptures on that are more resonant with the population. If he wanted to become Iraqs `sculptor laureate' he'd be better off doing a sculpture of cluster bomb victims or something.

That was not my point. My point was, to put it another way, what anyone's opinion is of its artistic merits is not really very important. As it stands it looks fairly typical of the kind of art that is popular in that part of the world, it doesn't look very fashionable when measured with our yardsticks but that is immaterial. This is what I was trying to get across. I've no wish to dispute your right to dislike it - especially as I think it looks pretty naff myself. You still seem to think I was labouring under the belief that it was a mantlepiece ornament or something. The point IS what he had to do during the Saddam era if people are going to bandy around accusations like "ambitious opportunistic collaborator". I disagree. I am not using the word `reactionary' "out of context'. I used it in a precise way in a context it exactly fits. You are judging the guy based on pure speculation about his motives for doing what he did. You have nothing to back it up apart from opinion and conjecture. Your conclusions were not arrived at through the analysis of his words or his actions but purely drawn from your own (clearly strong) feelings about the American-led occupation of Iraq. If by "impresise designations" [sic] you are talking about the terms `left' and `right' wing then I couldn't agree with you more. For the record I didn't accuse you of being Stalinist, I just found Stalinist elements in your reaction to this news article. If you look back at the phrasing of my original post you'll see that I never accused you of that. This is not me fencing semantically, I was very careful in the phraseology I employed NOT to liken anyone to Stalin. `Cause that would be somewhat unwarranted. Oddly enough, it has. Seeing as how I live in Europe and am European, I am very well aware of that fact. Again, I am not proposing a vote of thanks to TBA, nor am I personally in favour of the way the war was engendered and conducted. I simply think that a few people in this thread started slandering this man on no fair basis and stepped in. Not heard that term before. However, again, - and this is the point we keep coming back to - if you want to accuse this sculptor of being stripy / an opportunist / anything of that sort, you need to: a. prove the statues he made for Saddam were made voluntarily and that he profited from them. and b. prove that he's benefiting in some way from making statues for the Americans now. It may be that both those points are true but I've not seen anything to make us assume so, have you? If so, what? Remember, we are talking about the actions and beliefs of ONE MAN, not the whole country. Hell, if there are people who still believe the world to be flat in this country then is it not possible that there is an Iraqi sculptor who just wanted to show that he sympathised with the losses suffered by the Americans as well as his own people?

Do we know how long it's supposed to transmit for once it's landed?

Who's disagreeing? I haven't disagreed with a word you said! Can you say `persecution complex'?

Merely working with what was given. Prove otherwise. I seem to have a more balanced perspective than you right now. You really think I don't know that? It's a turn of phrase. `I wouldn't give it houseroom' / `I wouldn't have it in the house' means that it doesn't appeal to me personally, doesn't suit my tastes, is not what I would choose. Well there's a staggering non sequitur. Whereas you would quite happily defy a presidential order in Saddam's Iraq, despite the threat to yourself and your extended family? Well fab for you, you are clearly an unimpeachable figure of unquestionable moral rectitude. This guy is an ordinary mortal. But is anyone forcing him to make statues for the occupation forces? I doubt it. The right has no monopoly on being reactionary. One can be a left-wing reactionary just as one can be a right-wing revolutionary. `Reactionary' is not defined by politics. Look at the state of art in Stalinist Russia to find a good example of left-wing reactionary thinking. I'm talking about the knee-jerk antipathic reaction, based on no reported facts about this guy, that he must be some kind of stooge or lickspittle of Bush just because he can appreciate that soldiers have died. Child! Quisling? For making a f***ing statue? Jesus, I would have thought a Norwegian of all people wouldn't bandy terms like that around so easily. I am not in the least sentimental about this situation or this person or his ugly statue. And I don't `love' him, I just don't find anything in this story to make me, or anyone else except possibly a Ba'athist, hate him.

So it's a little saccharine and not what you'd choose to have in your home. Who gives a flying f**k? So, on the basis that this guy, while living in a totalitarian dictatorship that, mark you, punished insubordination with torturous death, made some statues of a tyrant, you find him guilty of being some kind of a collaborator? And because, when relieved of the tyrant for whom he was making busts he chooses to express his gratitude to the people responsible for his liberation, you then peg him as a brown-nosing creep! Very understanding, nice, well done, you. Er, the statue reflects the view of the Iraqi who made it. You may find it disgusting if you think that only the majority view should prevail. Do you? There is nothing that p***es me off more than this reactionary bull****. It is possible to be both intelligent and left wing without having to sneer at and be cynical about every little thing that is done by everyone. The kind of mindset that would condemn a man on the other side of the world on the basis of making a sympathetic statue of a bereaved soldier - even one of a soldier from a country with which you don't necessarily always agree - is the kind of frightening, Stalinist, Khmer-rouge kind of Pavlovian orthodoxy common to sixth formers, self-important students and mass murderers the world over. Just because you might feel that everyone in Iraq should loathe Americans and they all don't, doesn't make them traitors.

No, it is new and, at the moment, the company that makes it is only fitting it to industrial vehicles - HGVs, bulldozers etc. Â They are seeking to branch out into domestic cars, hence the story I read in the press. Â Companies in the US have been refusing to adopt the tech because of insurance difficulties and the risk of litigation if someone dies as a result of it. EDIT: Â Here you go

There's a company here in the UK selling immobilizers that can be activated remotely. At present they can only be activated when the stolen vehicle is parked but the police are requesting immobilizers that can be activated during a high speed chase, so any stolen car can be brought to a halt safely. Whether that happens will depend on how safe the tech is deemed to be. It's operated from a central tracking centre by the company that makes the immobilizers.

From what I hear half the problem is that there is no list of registered voters. Â Corrupted voting would be a problem. Â No point in having elections if everyone is afterwards going to assume that they weren't free and fair. Â Not surprised Iraqis rejected the caucus system anyway, I still can't see the sense in it myself. EDIT: If it's not going to be for another year then, were he to lose the election in November, G.W.B. could always stand for President of Iraq!

I remember just before a storm in Yorkshire seeing the entire sky turn dark brown. That was weird. I guess it just happens sometimes.

He means psychic, you know, `what shape am I thinking of Prvt. Denoir?', that kind of thing. Psychic Water Troopers! The first and last line of defence ...

Oh sweet Jesus, I'm North Korea! [/code]<p><img src="http://bluepyramid.org/ia/nk.gif"><br> Â <font face="Georgia Ref, Verdana, Eurostile, Tahoma, Arial" size="5">You're North Korea!<br> Â <i><font size="3">Look out! You're absolutely wacko. Completely insane. There's no telling what you're going to do, and it could make you a danger to yourself and others. People are so scared of you that they usually just cover their eyes and pretend you're not there. The main impact this has had is to make you even more scary, as you yearn for attention and contact with the outside world. Everyone just wants you to calm down.</font><br><font size="2" face="Times New Roman">Take the <a href="http://bluepyramid.org/ia/cquiz.htm">Country Quiz</a> at the <a href="http://bluepyramid.org">Blue Pyramid</a></font></i></font></p> I disagree with this assessment of my personality! And I'm David Copperfield? How in the hell does that correspond to N. Korea??? Oh well ...

Well I finished the test then clicked on the wrong Danish button and ended up back on the homepage with my results deleted. I am seemingly too stupid to sit the test.

Mensa are so clever that in the UK they knowingly appointed a convicted fraudster as treasurer. Needless to say, he ran off with all their loot, leaving them rather surprised. Real geniuses.

Just finished watching a documentary (The Third World War: Al Quaeda on the Beeb) and it showed a clip of Bush giving his speech about "if you feed a terrorist, you are a terrorist", presumably a speech made on an army base (`cause he's only given one speech outside a military army base in the last three years), in which he was wearing a jumpsuit with what I swear was a US Airborne `Screaming Eagle' patch on the sleeve. Is he entitled to wear that badge?

Anyone out there who believes in the `Bible Code', PM me, I have some swampland in Florida you might be interested in. (sorry, vB code isn't working, some cookie problem I suspect) The following challenge was made by Michael Drosnin: When my critics find a message about the assassination of a prime minister encrypted in Moby Dick, I'll believe them. (Newsweek, Jun 9, 1997) Note that English with the vowels included is far less flexible than Hebrew when it comes to making letters into words. Nevertheless, without further ado, we present our answer to Mr Drosnin's challenge. http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm....5593205 (again, apologies for lack of code.)

We had Internet through cable so there was only one access point. Everyone else's PC was on an Ethernet. To get internet access you had to have the `gateway' PC connected. However, it might well be different if you're getting a modem, rather than a cable connection. I dunno if you've looked into it but some uni's are very nice and, if you get a place in halls or in a university-owned house in your first year, will offer you a connection via the university system at nominal rates. This is usually a T1 speed connection, therefore would be great for gaming ...

Hmm, aren't we forgetting the `reverse vampires'?

I've got BO - (rimshot) - just acquired it and have only played twice (vs PC natch). Loving it. This is a truly cool game.

If it's anything like the bb set up I had at uni you won't have a problem. Assuming you're sharing the connection over a home LAN, with one PC directly connected to the Interweb and the others sort of `piggybacking'. In that case, although you only have one PC connecting, each PC on the LAN should have its own IP. Don't ask me for details of how that works `cause I'm not very techie, but we never had problems. (NB: Make sure that the person who has the direct connection is an easy going PC addict, `cause you'll need their unit to be turned on if you want to connect to the Web from one of the others. For this reason it's good if they are a heavy sleeper, who won't be disturbed by the sound of their PCs fan being on at odd hours! In fact you could even rig their PC to `wake on ring' so that you could switch it on remotely ... Oh, and make sure that they take good care of their system too, take reasonable anti-virus precautions etc. And preferably that they have a nice fast machine.)

What the Hell is a UK Met's marine unit? Of course we could stop all these terrorist boats easily, if only we hadn't scrapped the RN. D'oh!

No, never. It wasn't bragged about at the last election so I doubt they'd be happy to bring it out this time if they could avoid it. Me neither, except that to miss it he had to send someone else in his place. Were his parents your parents he would have been sent. (I could be wrong, that's based on the assumption that your parents aren't millionaires )

Have there been any more revelations Stateside about how Bush actually got his NG position? A documentary here last year maintained (and backed up with eyewitness testimony) that he leapfrogged thousands of other candidates with better aptitude scores etc. to get in and avoid the draft. And to those who feel that this is a non-issue with regards to the presidential elections, I can see where you're coming from but I'd point out that the willingness to save his own worthless hide, exaggerate his exploits and bask in the reflected honour of other veterans implies, to me, that this man is not trustworthy to be president. Whether he did 9 days or 9 years isn't the issue, it's what it says about the man that counts. Of course, not my country, not my choice.