vortexring

How about a lead cosh? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

You're not beating yourself up over your cats are you?

Aye, I've heard it said (my folks live in Shawbury) Would that have been inside the Elephant and Castle by any chance? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Nothing that I know of; they were just not in the proper position... You've lost me on that one! See, I tend to think my instinct would be toward my love, my baby (my furry, precious angels). Seeing a panicked, human face, however, might strike my emotion; it would under other circumstances not involving my beloved fur-balls--I always help. So, I don't know. I am a few mango-mimosas into my Saturday evening. I will have to get back to this tomorrow. Fair enough - I still think most people would ultimately save the stranger first, thinking they might then have a good attempt at saving the pet next, despite the circumstances dictating that it can't be done. It's instinctive to save anothers life. Imagine you've wondered into the woods to find your kitten as you think he's got lost. You find him miaowing away, but next to him is a little human baby crying away. You know there's nobody around for miles and miles. Who would you pick up first? I've had a cat for 8 years, but in similiar circumstances the furry fucker would have to wait. Going back to your earlier scenario, I reckon it'd be the stranger I save, having now given it some thought. I think most would be the same, even if they are emotional cripples towards their pets. (Not insinuating that you are!) 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I view the question as more of a value of life too, but you can't rule out human emotional attachment to their pet in regards to the strength of this emotion. That's where I believe the problem to your hypothetical question lies. I'm only assuming most people would instinctively save the stranger rather than the pet, but I reckon there are plenty of people who'd reckon they'd save the stranger but when finding themselves in the situation you describe, save their pet. Or completely shut down through the trauma of the situation and save neither. (I'm imagining that person hugging themselves with their eyes closed wondering aimlessly away from the situation and bumping into tress bleating out 'MEH!' on impact kind of thing

Jeez, what a tangent this threads gone off on. To answer the original post: If faced with such a choice the difficulty lies with how close you are to your pet. If it's only a goldfish? Or a cat or dog you've had for 12 years? Or a little snapping bastard of a Chihuahua your wife inherited from a dead Aunt that you've been secretly trying to kill with rat poison when nobodies around? (Joking!) Instinct says save the stranger. Emotion says save the pet. It's actually a difficult question. I don't know is my answer. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Or tape your ankles up after you've shaved them! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Carp's lovely - a bit boney, but nice - the Eastern Europeans poach them out of the ponds in the UK pissing the Carp fisherman off no end. Haven't ever been able to figure that one out though - why fish for them if you're not going to eat them. . . edit: If you're ever over in the Czech Republic close to Christmas, have a look at what's being sold from the big tank on the town squares - live Carp. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Have I just hijacked another thread again?

Hey Randy, very well thanks! As for goat trails - how many people do I know who followed the sheeps trail to avoid the babies heads and ended miles off the intended route? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

It has been done! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I'd probably take a moment to decide, and more than likely decide to not bother and continue on my journey to pub. If I was coming back from the pub, I'd probably not even notice and continue receiving feeds from my internal drunks compass. It's very effective, in the fact I can fall over fences & crash through hedges yet it still remains orientated towards the intended destination. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

"The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspirational thinking (as well as Creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the 'evidence' for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under this rubric." Now who does that make me think of!? Have you read this article yet? http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11 If you haven't I'm sure you'll enjoy it. One of the most fundamental points regarding peoples responses to your CT 'debates' is that they are aware how you've raved about nonsense such as 'Loose Change' in the past. If you're so easily 'taken in' by such nonsense, what's the point of having a logical debate? You want to believe in your CT. That's the problem. edit: I've also no intention of PA'ing you, so I'll apologise in regards to the earlier post, although it was only meant as a light-hearted joke. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Hey Rhys, I actually think you might be onto something mate. Is it glue?

Disagree Rick, as I said earlier: "British infantry will hold impromptu shuras in just about every village they visit. They'll explain why they're there, and reassure them that they're not there for the poppy. Explain that they understand it's their only means of supporting their family. Explain until an alternative livelihood can be found they can continue this. Setting up clinics where the medics can treat minor aches and pains, and so on. Sure - the areas where the enemy were growing food was sprayed with poison. We also employed napalm although it wasn't that effective in the damp jungle. Hearts and Minds doesn't apply to the enemy. Correct.

I think so too - but hey, it is John isn't it. . . 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Quote: "Scotland's soaring murder rate is blamed on a "booze and blade" culture among the young... But it is not just the gang members who are in danger. The knife culture has become fashionable among teenagers across the social spectrum."Like I've been saying all along. Crime isn't caused by guns (or knives) - it's caused by culture. This story of yours seems to agree with me. Sure, to an extent. Although you should remember that whilst alcohol is a significant factor, there are numerous other very significant factors at play too. Just as you've a particular culture problem in America directly related to the misuse of firearms. So yeah, we're both agreed then. Brilliant.

Well, having drank in numerous bars in Arizona (Cactus Moon in Tucson was my favourite) and Britain, naturally I wouldn't presume they're both worthy of a similiar comparison. I even described how they're both completely different earlier, so what on earth is your point mate? edit: Drinking recently at the Voodoo Lounge in 'Vegas we were discussing the pleasant aspect of an open air bar on top of a multi-story casino. We were also discussing the amount of beer bottles, glasses and people that'd be thrown over the side if it was located in the UK with the same security personnel on duty. . . 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I don't care, because even with the American firearm murder rate and average chances of being black, in a street gang, and involved in the drug trade my chances of being killed with a gun are far lower than things like being in a fatal car accident. As a white guy with average chances of street gang and drug trade involvement I was safer in Seattle where any one can buy a handgun than across the border in Vancouver. I worry more about being mugged than being shot and I worry more about getting run down by a car. Stop worrying so much. You'll give yourself an ulcer. What? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Didn't ya notice the ? But have another cigar all the same!

Reckon they'd be on the far side of Polaris if they thought it might be safer. . . Still, apparently they're always quick enough to point out it's a political decision rather than military one. I'd probably answer something along the lines of: 'Sure, of course, of course. . .' then scream 'ACHTUNG SPITFIRE!' whilst goose stepping away. Then again, maybe not. (Sorry Christel!) 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Exactly! Have a cigar mate. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

So you're saying that Brits are less able to hold their liquor and their civility than Americans? That you blokes just can't be trusted to behave responsibly? It's not that we can't hold our drink - it's that so many make a conscious decision prior to intoxication to do the exact opposite! The Americans go for a night out which usually involves drinking a couple of bottles of budpisser whilst the British tend to go out to get utterly smashed on very strong continental lager, Jager bombs, and shorts, then eat kebabs and have a fight. So yeah, when it comes to a piss up, the pissheads are the last people you could trust to behave responsibly. They'd rather: "Kick your fuckin' head in".

I'm sure the politicians would tell you so, but I'm not so sure. I figured they're worth consideration though. Perhaps I'd have to look into it all a bit deeper to come to a conclusion but I can tell you this: I've travelled all over Europe (and the World) for years - and one of the worst countries where I've witnessed violence is without doubt the UK. However, whilst a significant amount is often alcohol related - it's by no means all. It's also came to my attention that Glasgow was/is the murder capital of the Western Europe: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/glasgow-is-britains-murder-capital-as-knife-crime-spirals-737329.html 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Well yeah of course. But some aspects of such a strategy are relatively straightforward in their incorporation. British infantry will hold impromptu shuras in just about every village they visit. They'll explain why they're there, and reassure them that they're not there for the poppy. Explain that they understand it's their only means of supporting their family. Explain until an alternative livelihood can be found they can continue this. Setting up clinics where the medics can treat minor aches and pains, and so on. I think the only members of the ISAF worth being critical with would be the Germans - except I never observed them anywhere. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'