dorbie

More veneer and an absloutely feeble attempt at evasion. He's a politician, the systematic opposition to the death penalty by any means is tied to the anti death penalty agenda. This is clearer in the recent California decision also mentioned in this thread. The affected squeamishness of politicians and other phonies is a sight to behold.

Death is pretty absolute. I see that Florida just bungled another execution cbs5.com/deathrow/local_story_349172601.html and California's current death machinery has been declared unconstitutional by a Federal judge. And your point is? The issue with those rulings is the pain inflicted at death not the death penalty itself which is not at issue in any of these decisions. I suspect painless deaths are in the minority for the rest of us. Whatever happened to hanging and firing squads? I'd love to see a judge outlaw something that was common practice when his document of reference was scribed, then again it wouldn't break new ground and I wouldn't really love it. It's pretty sad that the attempt to make the death penalty appear as humane as possible has led to additional suffering for the recipients but there's a lot of blame to spread around here. The history of the U.S. death penalty encompasses imaginative torture devices like the electric chair & cyanide gas!!!!! It really highlights the phony culture that pervades US politics IMHO. I though it obvious but I'll explain for you. 1. If absolutists need not apply but should stay in their fantasy world (rehmwa), then that clearly includes death penalty supporters. 2. Try as hard as they may, the official purveyors of death in the most technologically advanced nation are still unable to do it right despite years of trying. I suggest this means it really cannot be done right. The concept of "doing it right" is a moving target, it will continue to move because the objections raised are not the core objection, they are the tools used to try to push another agenda. The idea that an execution must not only by painless & reliable but look pretty is utterly ludicrous. These are not issues most people worry about, it is a veneer of political bullshit which gets us back the the culture of phoney politics, a game you enjoy playing when it suits your agenda.

Death is pretty absolute. I see that Florida just bungled another execution cbs5.com/deathrow/local_story_349172601.html and California's current death machinery has been declared unconstitutional by a Federal judge. And your point is? The issue with those rulings is the pain inflicted at death not the death penalty itself which is not at issue in any of these decisions. I suspect painless deaths are in the minority for the rest of us. Whatever happened to hanging and firing squads? I'd love to see a judge outlaw something that was common practice when his document of reference was scribed, then again it wouldn't break new ground and I wouldn't really love it. It's pretty sad that the attempt to make the death penalty appear as humane as possible has led to additional suffering for the recipients but there's a lot of blame to spread around here. The history of the U.S. death penalty encompasses imaginative torture devices like the electric chair & cyanide gas!!!!! It really highlights the phony culture that pervades US politics IMHO.

Lot's of things are secondary to women being murdered but the world doesn't stop for it. I didn't imagine people attempting to change the language, someone else suggested these words were unacceptable using these crimes as an opportunity to foist their PC agenda on our society. Women prostitutes are being targeted and murdered, that is pertinent information to anyone who might be genuinely concerned about these crimes. It is VITAL to get that fact out there, and downright irresponsible to mince words over it. Saying the killer deserves our utter disdain isn't really saying anything, almost nobody would disagree, and nobody is directing hatred towards the victims by characterizing them accurately.

That's an issue, and a legitimate one, but does not preclude other issues raised by this thread. If you've been following the thread you'll know that people are objecting to the use of the word "prostitute" to describe whores. Women being murdered does not convey special privileges on anyone to redefine our language.

And how many sexual partners have you had???? I've never charged anyone for sex, which it the issue at hand.

I do have empathy for them but I have little tolerance for people who want to change the language to destigmatize prostitution, something that can make the problem worse. They chose to be fucked daily by strangers for the money the freaks gave them, truly awful behavior.

The other pertinent statistic is that not all drug addicts are prostitutes, and of course nobody is forcing young women to do drugs, that starts with a choice in a society with no shortage of warnings on the topic.

I think "end times" is the appropriate title.

Your point about Mr Grant is a distraction, but you seem to be saying rather incredulously that all customers are out of their mind, this is irrelevant, the point is there are customers and those customers have a choice and your example of Mr Grant makes my point for me it doesn't refute it. It's just not credible that all UK streetwalkers are drug addicts, women do this for a spectrum of reasons, but pretending they're all victims is rank B.S. They are whores, most of them made that decision or were driven there by their own choices especially in the U.K. and with the appropriate stigma calling a slapper-prostitute-whore what they are will hopefully make that decision more difficult for other young women. It's up to them to claim their dignity back, I'm not obliged to conform to your screwed up world view just to make whores feel better about their chosen profession. These terms become pejorative because of the activity, not the other way around.

Good summary! It's amazing that the same assholes that hounded her when she was alive tried to sanctify her as soon as she was dead, largely thanks to their demand for pictures of her. It's rank hypocrisy but I don't see it as guilt driven so much as trying to evade any introspection or guilt, same for the bozos who still buy the same papers frankly. The same idiots who get outraged over stupid Diana crap used to lap up photos of her cellulite or stories of her infidelity from an absolte cad. For a fun read go investigate what happened to the photographer suspected of killing Diana. That's the only conspiracy theory I give credence to, and good riddance mate.

P.S. sorry for my earlier response, the point of my analogy was that it makes no sense, it was intended to highlight the lack of logical foundation of the post I was responding to. That's why I started my post "Your argument makes about as much sense as saying...". i.e. no sense.

Read the first sentence of the post I was replying to, if that doesn't clarify things then I pitty you.

It's almost the reverse. The BG radiation sphere is constantly receeding and every point in the Universe sees its surface of the hypersphere reveal more stuff as progressively older light from more red shifted proto-matter reaches it.

Yes everyone would see the BG radiation all around them no matter where they are. The BG radiation is from proto-matter particle soup before it coalesced, we're looking back in time at that soup when we observe it. It is extremely red shifted. Every region we see BG radiation from is now in a similarly evolved state to our part of the Universe (on a large scale). Observers there see BG radiation all around them, some of that radiation was emitted from our particles billions of years ago before we underwent gravitational collapse. Some parts of our Universe cannot see us yet because we're red shifted beyond the visible boundary of their BG radiation sphere, just as we cannot see beyond our BG sphere to events earlier than it's opaque boundary (not that there'd be much to see), but it is not the boundary of our Universe or an event horizon in the sense you imagined.

You are absolutely wrong on this. The regions we see on our background radiation sphere are now coalesced into galaxies and matter like our part of the Universe. As observers on those coalesced worlds look in our direction they see background radiation emitted from our part of the proto-matter particle soup just as we see theirs.

Well said.

Bollocks, many have a choice, they just don't like the alternatives. Your argument makes about as much sense as saying nobody in their right mind would pay some stranger for sex especially when they've been with with thousands of partners, but apparently there's a roaring trade.

That is incorrect. The background radiation is the 4D surface of the glowing universe as it cleared and became transparent to that radiation (arriving at our vantage point red shifted/delayed) Looking at BG radiation you're looking back in time at the bubble of the universe that is visible to us, the outer boundary is just th history we can 'see', you're looking back in time at the glow from the particle soup we all came from, but there is absolutely a history prior to that BG radiation. It is not an event horizon it's just looking back at when the particle soup expanded enough to cool and clear. It's a beautiful thing to contemplate really, every vantage point in the universe looks around and sees its own expanding bubble of creation as ancient microwave light finally reaches the local observer. Somewhere out there maybe 12 billion light years away some creature might be observing microwave radiation from the particle soup that formed our part of the Universe and trying to detect the variations that led to gravitational collapse and ultimately to us.

There are other things to worry about: http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/systemsafety/newsletters/tp3658/PDF/2_2004.pdf I love the part that says they changed the wiring diagram one serial number to another.

Did the pilot live? Yes but AFAIK he's paraplegic. There were 130+ on that aircraft, 3 died AFAIK, they'd all been allowed on at the airshow and the pilot was demonstrating how slow the Airbus could fly with the fly-by-wire design, but he claims that when he executed the procedure to go around (from memory it was supposed to be a simple throttle up) the computer held him in his landing configuration and the outcome is on the video. The official inquiry discredited him, but there was a lot at stake. I think he's an idiot for doing it in the first place but I don't believe for a second that he commanded his aircraft into the trees like that, but hey, you can probably be sure they fixed that bug.

Now you're getting into the deep seated beliefs that are driving this train. Good work. This is the main philosophical difference between most Christians in the U.K. and most in the USA. Evolution is not subject to the flat-Earth 'experts' you constantly hear in the U.S., I don't think you can fully appreciate it unless you experience it. It's not limited to evolution, Christians here will cite the moon rotating in phase with it's orbit as evidence of God, and if you politely explain tidal locks and the theories of impact formation well that's an argument against their faith. Its an endemic ignorance from people who don't have even the rudiments of a scientific education but seek to dictate what the curriculum should be. Just wait till you meet a U.S. biology major who doesn't believe in any form of evolution theory.

Certified for what? Where's it going to land? Airbus designs are big on computers doing the work, to the extent that they actually try to cut the pilot out of the loop. Their whole design philosophy is flawed, IMO. I personally will be very reluctant to get on one. I saw the airshow footage of that Airbus landing in the forrest. While the pilot was a fool to be doing MCA demos with a full plane he swore that he throttled up to signal to the computer that he was executing a go-around and the aircraft insisted on completing the landing. Here's the video, just click accept to see it: http://www.airdisaster.com/download/af320.shtml

It could be worse it could hit another full A380.

What is this crapola? Matrix philosophy as philosophical inquiry?! Please discuss the issues without reference jibberish like "one hand clapping" or Hollywood dialog.