vortexring

Well, at least for the one who died I'd hope! What happens when the Pope dies? Another one 'popes' up my dear!

Do see your point(s) Marg; indeed, it is a personal responsibility issue, unless of course an individual escapes from his personal responsibilities through the internet, which doesn't make him less personally responsible but perhaps negates, through cyberspace, his personal responsibilities, and. . . . This issue with the death threats via PM's - I seriously hope relevant investigations and effective actions have been taken against the perpetrator. I don't know of anyone on the internet who takes as much time and effort to make his or hers posts and threads as informative, relevant and personally non-confrontational as you. Anyway, on a lighter note, sometimes it's fun to invoke 'profanity, ad hominems, or other behavior too common on much of the internet.' But only where there's at least a perception the receiver can at least take it in some form of jest, and a perception where the receiver has the intellect to understand how superfluous the internet can be if one allows it to be. And doesn't.

Yes, yes! But what happens when the Pope dies? '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.'

Probably, if they were Polish! '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 think John has a good point of sorts. It's what Gord Broon is doing over here. Below you'll find a link, providing excellent examples of his mis-calculations! Top tip: Just click on the = symbol to save yourself time - and of course, turn up your volume too.

The bravery of being out of range? '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.'

Perhaps. I wonder though; lets imagine an 'old day' Pope decides to fundamentally change something. And then equally, a modern day Pope decides to change something different, but as equally fundamental. Who do you think might have the greater potential to make the change? p.s. What happens when the Pope dies? '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.'

Knowledge can give you power, which can then give you control.

What a terrible, cynical suggestion! Don't you know they're only there to help? I see the joke mate, but let's not forget I mention 'old days'. . . or are the objectives still the same??? '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.'

Some pretty fascinating assumptions. Maybe it's more about having a medium to say whatever you like, without normal consequences? Maybe it's a medium where an individual can express themselves through means and subjects they wouldn't/couldn't do in their normal life? Maybe it's an opportunity to be somebody they're not? Such as something simple like an extrovert? Maybe it's a medium to further express their normal selves to a wider audience? Keep in touch with friends? Discuss hacked top secret NASA files containing aliens?? Freedom to be whoever you want to be, whenever you like? edit: Look at Jakee - He's actually a Church Minister in real life. You'd never have thought so would you?

I figured you were on about supermarket type mushrooms with their brown fertiliser - which is sterilized - and also gets brushed off prior to cooking! I prefer picking them myself, just don't like a basket full of cow poo, or a mushroom stained browny/green for that matter either. '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.'

Why does a priest have to listen to the confession? I'm sure the Catholic church might answer something along the lines of absolution; a remission of sin or of the punishment for sin, made by a priest in the sacrament of penance on the ground of authority received from Christ. But surely the matter's between the sinner and his or her God? Seems to me having the priest listening to everyones sins in the old days had more to do with knowledge, power and control. '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 isn't funny. Unless of course, provided with three glasses; seperately full of urine, shit and milk, you're happy to drink either. How anybody could happily eat cow shit or drink cow piss is beyond me - the dirty bastards!

No Marc, No! And anyone who thinks otherwise has themselves a first class ticket to the toaster. Alright? '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 ain't cow poo! '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.'

What a brilliant idea! They'd sell like hot cow-shit cakes! '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.'

No. I refuse. Can't make me. . . '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.'

"In 2001, the RSS and its offshoots – which include the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party – began promoting cow urine as a cure for ailments ranging from liver disease to obesity and even cancer. The movement has often been accused of using more violent methods, such as killing 67 Christians in the eastern state of Orissa last year, and assaulting women in a pub in Mangalore last month. It also has a history of targeting foreign business in India, as in 1994, when it organised a nationwide boycott of multinational consumer goods, including Pepsi and Coca Cola." It should stay here; it demonstrates how mental and backword some nationalist groups can be throughout the world. '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.'

Aren't they contracted to Gatorade? '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.'

Indeed! '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.'

"Does your Pepsi lack pep? Is your Coke not the real thing? India's Hindu nationalist movement apparently has the answer: a new soft drink made from cow urine. The bovine brew is in the final stages of development by the Cow Protection Department of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), India's biggest and oldest Hindu nationalist group, according to the man who makes it. Om Prakash, the head of the department, said the drink – called "gau jal", or "cow water" – in Sanskrit was undergoing laboratory tests and would be launched "very soon, maybe by the end of this year". "Don't worry, it won't smell like urine and will be tasty too," he told The Times from his headquarters in Hardwar, one of four holy cities on the River Ganges. "Its USP will be that it's going to be very healthy. It won't be like carbonated drinks and would be devoid of any toxins." Bloody hell. And there's more: "Hindus revere cows and slaughtering them is illegal in most of India. Cow dung is traditionally used as a fuel and disinfectant in villages, while cow urine and dung are often consumed in rituals to "purify" those on the bottom rungs of the Hindu caste system." Say it ain't so! "In 2001, the RSS and its offshoots – which include the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party – began promoting cow urine as a cure for ailments ranging from liver disease to obesity and even cancer." Good God! As a kid I'd pick field mushrooms in fields with cows, that were also generally full of cow poo - naturally rejecting any mushrooms even slightly marked by any cow dung lurking within the grass. Seems I should have been picking the cow pats as well - I'm sure my Mum would've loved having her kitchen disinfected with cow dung..... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article5707554.ece '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.'

Interesting article from the 10th February 2009: "While we prepare to shunt perhaps 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan (which still will not be enough), Russia continues to play the Asian chessboard. The Russians are picking off pawn after pawn, and steadily eroding our foreign policy influence with them and other Central Asian countries. The Russians know that we need a land route through their country to Afghanistan, especially as we begin the slow process of increasing our combat presence. The Pakistan land route is one Achilles' heel to our Afghanistan effort, and Russia is working hard to make sure that Russia is the other Achilles' heel, which will strengthen the Russian position on matters such as missile defense. Russia, at the present rate, will eventually exercise considerable control over the spigot to Afghanistan. The Russians are successfully wrestling us into a policy arm-lock. While Russia takes American money and gains influence over our Afghan efforts, we will continue to spend lives and tens of billions of dollars per year on Afghanistan in an attempt to civilize what amounts to Jurassic Park. We must start asking Russia, and others, who the true losers will be if we abandon Afghanistan and leave a resurgent Taliban to lap at their doorsteps. I am not advocating that we abandon Afghanistan, but our own population and allies might grow weary during the long journey unfolding before us. The direct threat to us derives far more from al Qaeda than the Taliban, and we can keep punching down al Qaeda for a lot less than it's costing to prosecute the Afghan war while abdicating significant influence to Russia. Russia has much to worry about if NATO countries begin to abandon Afghanistan. Some recent and unfolding examples: Russia allows transit of US military supplies Russia is not a country given to a humanitarian spirit, and they do not cooperate on matters such as the International Space Station only for the sake of space exploration and science. Russia can only be trusted to behave in ways that enhance Russian power and wealth. Beyond the fact that we will need to dedicate decades or even a century to Afghanistan, no country in the neighborhood will cooperate except when it directly affects their own interests. They will attempt to squeeze every dollar and concession from us as we help secure their neighborhoods, all while the present drug-dealing Afghan government is bucking like a mule while our government is preparing to pin a significant amount of our combat power in a landlocked country. The sum of many factors leaves me with a bad feeling about all this. The Iraq war, even during the worst times, never seemed like such a bog. Yet there is something about our commitment in Afghanistan that feels wrong, as if a bear trap is hidden under the sand. If I had not witnessed firsthand what our military accomplished in Iraq, I might think our efforts in Afghanistan are destined to fail. But we are plainly succeeding in Iraq with the long, dark days well behind us. Our military is proving far more capable of fighting in Afghanistan than any military in history. The Soviets got crushed by the Mujahidin, with U.S. help. The Taliban and associates, however, get stacked up every fighting season, though our casualties also continue to increase. If I did not believe we could achieve success in Afghanistan, I would likely not go back. As we enter a new fighting season in Afghanistan this year, we need to know that the President has our backs. Not just that he is behind us, but that he is covering our six and ready to politically and economically pounce on those who hamper our efforts. We need to know that the President is fully engaged in this fight, that he is there to win and for the long haul, that he listens and takes close counsel from our senior military, and that he has faith that we can make this process work. But eight years from now, this thing will not be over. We must also understand that Afghanistan is what it is. The military is acutely aware that Afghanistan is not Iraq. The success we are seeing in Iraq is unlikely to suddenly occur in Afghanistan. If we are to deal with moderate elements of the AOGs (armed opposition groups) we must do so from a position of strength, and this means killing a lot of them this year, to encourage the surviving “reconcilables” to be more reconcilable. Predicting the trajectory of a war is fraught with peril, like predicting next season’s hurricanes. Anything can happen, and often what changes the course of a war has little or nothing to do with the war. For instance, a failing global economy, or supervention of some chain of events perhaps still unimagined could cause the Af-Pak war to become less relevant. Caveats behind us, it seems that 2009 will see the sharpest fighting so far. That much has been clear for some time, and 2009 is now within our headlights. We can already resolve from the fog much of what is likely coming this year. Imagining what is beyond the headlights, my guess is that 2010 might bring the sharpest fighting of the entire war. My guess is that 2010-11 will likely be crucial years in this process, and that many allies will be making decisions during those years whether to stick it out or to punch out. By the fall of 2010, we should be able to resolve whether our renewed efforts under President Obama are working or failing. The Great Game continues, but it’s no game for the people who are fighting it." http://www.michaelyon-online.com/how-much-is-afghanistan-really-worth-to-us.htm Okay.......then I read this article about possible American policy change concentrating more on national reconciliation in Afghan: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/mary-dejevsky-america-to-change-policy-in-afghanistan-1604608.html Then this article on Britain preparing to send 300 more troops to Afghanistan, which could mark the extent of its contribution to the US-led “surge”. Britain will deploy the specialist troops within weeks in a move being seen as an attempt to head off any larger request for British forces from President Obama. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5712146.ece But this is also interesting: 'China's bigger role in Pakistan, Afghanistan' Next week, US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is due to make her first trip to Beijing. She must make a case for China - a regional stakeholder - to play a greater role in stabilising Afghanistan and Pakistan.... http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2c913216495213d5df646910cba0a0a0/?vgnextoid=fceadf289756f110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&vgnextfmt=teaser&s=opinion '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 isn't one off local seasonal extremes that's his point here. It's the unseasonal international extremes that's significant; because it is; because it isn't a one off unseasonal international extreme either.

It's 'cos you're not paying her enough attention. Give her a simple task, like grate the cheese; chop the parsley or something - I do it with the kids - works a treat! Further more, you can criticise her to death back! '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.'

Why not reply to the suggestions by saying: 'Duh...Yeth Buth' every time? Who knows, you might even cause them to start a FIGHT!