politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB has a better than 36% chance of winning most votes on M
Comments
-
HmmmRichard_Tyndall said:
In part because there are still a lot of straight people who want gays to be, at best, seen and not heard. An openly gay couple in a pub or club - especially after the alcohol has flowed and brought out some of the inner intolerances in people - are quite possibly going to suffer abuse or worse. It is wrong and it is a shame but they would probably feel more comfortable in situations where they know they are not likely going to suffer that abuse.isam said:
I don't know that follows really.
I used to live in Brighton, which is one of the most LGBT tolerant/friendly places on earth, and I had never seen as many LGBT groups/nights... Why bother if you are living in a very tolerant place?
The concern should be that our society still makes such things necessary, even in a place like Brighton.
That's another thing which I think is used as a false argument to be honest..."openly gay"
"Would you feel uncomfortable if two men were snogging in front of you?" etc
I would, but I would feel uncomfortable if a man and a woman were snogging in front of me as well..in both situations I wouldn't know where to look, and would probably wish theyd stop or get a room
In most circumstances, how would you know a couple were "openly gay" in a pub? And wouldn't the things that alerted you to them being gay be equally uncomfortable if they were straight?0 -
But I have been cracked onto by a gay bloke in a straight bar.. I didn't start thinking there should be "Straight only" nights.. whats the difference?TheScreamingEagles said:
The same reason The Village had to start doing LGBT nights.isam said:
I don't know that follows really.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because "straight" people generally don't have to live with intolerance that the LGBT community have to.isam said:
Baffles me why LGBT people want to classify themselves as such in a group. Doesn't it just promote the idea that they conform to some kind of stereotype rather than being individuals? It's not like it's a special interest or a hobbyTheScreamingEagles said:For those suffering from polling withdrawal
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/12/28/pinknews-poll-nick-clegg-named-most-gay-friendly-leader-but-party-support-collapses/
If there was some kind of group specifically for people who fancied the opposite sex and referenced the fact that they were "straight" all the time, I'd find it quite self obsessed and unappealing
Some people have been murdered/killed for being gay in the recent past in this country for being LGBT.
I used to live in Brighton, which is one of the most LGBT tolerant/friendly places on earth, and I had never seen as many LGBT groups/nights... Why bother if you are living in a very tolerant place?
Straight women started coming to the Village to avoid straight men hassling them in normal clubs.
The straight men soon found out, and started to visit the Village to go after the women.
The straight men then got upset when the gay men started hitting on them, so it had to be explained to them, if you go to a gay club, you should expect to be hit on.
But to avoid any confusion and stop the place being full of straight people, they had special nights purely designed for the gays (and me)0 -
How about a bloke having his hand on another's leg - in a couple-ly sort of way rather than as part of a move.isam said:
HmmmRichard_Tyndall said:
In part because there are still a lot of straight people who want gays to be, at best, seen and not heard. An openly gay couple in a pub or club - especially after the alcohol has flowed and brought out some of the inner intolerances in people - are quite possibly going to suffer abuse or worse. It is wrong and it is a shame but they would probably feel more comfortable in situations where they know they are not likely going to suffer that abuse.isam said:
I don't know that follows really.
I used to live in Brighton, which is one of the most LGBT tolerant/friendly places on earth, and I had never seen as many LGBT groups/nights... Why bother if you are living in a very tolerant place?
The concern should be that our society still makes such things necessary, even in a place like Brighton.
That's another thing which I think is used as a false argument to be honest..."openly gay"
"Would you feel uncomfortable if two men were snogging in front of you?" etc
I would, but I would feel uncomfortable if a man and a woman were snogging in front of me as well..in both situations I wouldn't know where to look, and would probably wish theyd stop or get a room
In most circumstances, how would you know a couple were "openly gay" in a pub? And wouldn't the things that alerted you to them being gay be equally uncomfortable if they were straight?
You wouldn't think twice if a hetero couple was sitting like that, might if it was two blokes.0 -
A humbug walks into a bah...isam said:
But I have been cracked onto by a gay bloke in a straight bar.. I didn't start thinking there should be "Straight only" nights.. whats the difference?TheScreamingEagles said:
The same reason The Village had to start doing LGBT nights.isam said:
I don't know that follows really.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because "straight" people generally don't have to live with intolerance that the LGBT community have to.isam said:
Baffles me why LGBT people want to classify themselves as such in a group. Doesn't it just promote the idea that they conform to some kind of stereotype rather than being individuals? It's not like it's a special interest or a hobbyTheScreamingEagles said:For those suffering from polling withdrawal
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/12/28/pinknews-poll-nick-clegg-named-most-gay-friendly-leader-but-party-support-collapses/
If there was some kind of group specifically for people who fancied the opposite sex and referenced the fact that they were "straight" all the time, I'd find it quite self obsessed and unappealing
Some people have been murdered/killed for being gay in the recent past in this country for being LGBT.
I used to live in Brighton, which is one of the most LGBT tolerant/friendly places on earth, and I had never seen as many LGBT groups/nights... Why bother if you are living in a very tolerant place?
Straight women started coming to the Village to avoid straight men hassling them in normal clubs.
The straight men soon found out, and started to visit the Village to go after the women.
The straight men then got upset when the gay men started hitting on them, so it had to be explained to them, if you go to a gay club, you should expect to be hit on.
But to avoid any confusion and stop the place being full of straight people, they had special nights purely designed for the gays (and me)
(oh sorry - is it already the 28th? :-)0 -
Hmm well I might double take, because I assume people are straight I guess, but it wouldn't bother me... PDA's aren't my thing at all to be honest whoever it is doing itCharles said:
How about a bloke having his hand on another's leg - in a couple-ly sort of way rather than as part of a move.isam said:
HmmmRichard_Tyndall said:
In part because there are still a lot of straight people who want gays to be, at best, seen and not heard. An openly gay couple in a pub or club - especially after the alcohol has flowed and brought out some of the inner intolerances in people - are quite possibly going to suffer abuse or worse. It is wrong and it is a shame but they would probably feel more comfortable in situations where they know they are not likely going to suffer that abuse.isam said:
I don't know that follows really.
I used to live in Brighton, which is one of the most LGBT tolerant/friendly places on earth, and I had never seen as many LGBT groups/nights... Why bother if you are living in a very tolerant place?
The concern should be that our society still makes such things necessary, even in a place like Brighton.
That's another thing which I think is used as a false argument to be honest..."openly gay"
"Would you feel uncomfortable if two men were snogging in front of you?" etc
I would, but I would feel uncomfortable if a man and a woman were snogging in front of me as well..in both situations I wouldn't know where to look, and would probably wish theyd stop or get a room
In most circumstances, how would you know a couple were "openly gay" in a pub? And wouldn't the things that alerted you to them being gay be equally uncomfortable if they were straight?
You wouldn't think twice if a hetero couple was sitting like that, might if it was two blokes.
0 -
I don't think it is false at all. A man and woman holding hands or giving each other a quick kiss or hug would not get a second glance. Two men doing the same thing in a pub would. That is not being openly gay in terms of being provocative or doing anything a straight couple wouldn't do. But it is still likely to draw an adverse reaction in many places. Hence the reason many gay couples prefer to spend time in places where they will not suffer abuse.isam said:
HmmmRichard_Tyndall said:
In part because there are still a lot of straight people who want gays to be, at best, seen and not heard. An openly gay couple in a pub or club - especially after the alcohol has flowed and brought out some of the inner intolerances in people - are quite possibly going to suffer abuse or worse. It is wrong and it is a shame but they would probably feel more comfortable in situations where they know they are not likely going to suffer that abuse.isam said:
I don't know that follows really.
I used to live in Brighton, which is one of the most LGBT tolerant/friendly places on earth, and I had never seen as many LGBT groups/nights... Why bother if you are living in a very tolerant place?
The concern should be that our society still makes such things necessary, even in a place like Brighton.
That's another thing which I think is used as a false argument to be honest..."openly gay"
"Would you feel uncomfortable if two men were snogging in front of you?" etc
I would, but I would feel uncomfortable if a man and a woman were snogging in front of me as well..in both situations I wouldn't know where to look, and would probably wish theyd stop or get a room
In most circumstances, how would you know a couple were "openly gay" in a pub? And wouldn't the things that alerted you to them being gay be equally uncomfortable if they were straight?
The only way to make gay clubs and pubs unnecessary is to make sure gays are welcome without abuse or unwarranted inspection in all pubs and clubs.0 -
"International Friendly" — Basque Country vs Catalonia:
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/football/event?id=273294390 -
"coming out" of a railway station ?antifrank said:
It affects my entire life profoundly on a daily basis. It's like walking against a crowd coming out of a railway station. Everyone coming towards you is oblivious to your very different experience of the journey.isam said:
Baffles me why LGBT people want to classify themselves as such in a group. Doesn't it just promote the idea that they conform to some kind of stereotype rather than being individuals? It's not like it's a special interest or a hobbyTheScreamingEagles said:For those suffering from polling withdrawal
While 39% of those polled said they voted Lib Dem in 2010, just 16.9% intend to vote for Clegg’s party in 2015. Labour has seen a growth in support from 24.3% in 2010 to 31.1% today – becoming the most popular party for LGBT voters.
However, the prime beneficiary from the decline in support for the Lib Dems is the Greens, who have seen their support grow within the community from 3.8% in 2010 16.5% today.
Support for the Conservatives has also more than doubled from 10.4% in 2010 to 23% today, while SNP support among Scottish gay voters has grown from 18% in 2010 to 43% today.
Just 1.62% of LGBT voters say they will vote UKIP, up from 0.2% in 2010. UKIP is the only UK wide party which officially opposed equal marriage in England and Wales.
Despite a poor showing for the Conservatives as a party, when readers were asked which party leader they would prefer to be be Prime Minister after 2015, David Cameron took a lead over all his opponents.
36.7% of PinkNews readers want Cameron to remain Prime Minister, while 28.6% would rather
see Miliband in charge, 17.1% Clegg, 15.7% Bennett and 1.84% Farage.
Mr Cameron was significantly more popular than his party with gay voters – likely because 84.6% of gay voters said that they would vote against their local MP if they voted against the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/12/28/pinknews-poll-nick-clegg-named-most-gay-friendly-leader-but-party-support-collapses/
If there was some kind of group specifically for people who fancied the opposite sex and referenced the fact that they were "straight" all the time, I'd find it quite self obsessed and unappealing
0 -
Correct. But I have to stop and think about every social interaction in a way that straight people simply do not. Do I assertively out myself? Do I stay consciously in the closet? Do I reactively confirm? The answer may be different for family, friends, close work colleagues, more casual work colleagues etc.isam said:
I thought LGBT people were the same as everyone else except for their sexual preference?antifrank said:
It affects my entire life profoundly on a daily basis. It's like walking against a crowd coming out of a railway station. Everyone coming towards you is oblivious to your very different experience of the journey.isam said:
Baffles me why LGBT people want to classify themselves as such in a group. Doesn't it just promote the idea that they conform to some kind of stereotype rather than being individuals? It's not like it's a special interest or a hobby
If there was some kind of group specifically for people who fancied the opposite sex and referenced the fact that they were "straight" all the time, I'd find it quite self obsessed and unappealing
As it happens, I'm out to all of those groups. But what of conversations with taxi drivers, barbers, shop assistants? Do I out myself and brace myself for awkwardness, dance around the subject or follow other coping strategies? Every conversation is measured, every word is weighed.
In an ideal world, no one would care or I would just treat it as their problem. In the real world, sometimes it's just less tiring to walk directly into the path of oncoming pedestrians and simply weave around them.0 -
Hmmm I don't think things like that get much of a second glance nowadays whoever it is doing it to be honest... people don't seem bothered IMORichard_Tyndall said:
I don't think it is false at all. A man and woman holding hands or giving each other a quick kiss or hug would not get a second glance. Two men doing the same thing in a pub would. That is not being openly gay in terms of being provocative or doing anything a straight couple wouldn't do. But it is still likely to draw an adverse reaction in many places. Hence the reason many gay couples prefer to spend time in places where they will not suffer abuse.isam said:
HmmmRichard_Tyndall said:
In part because there are still a lot of straight people who want gays to be, at best, seen and not heard. An openly gay couple in a pub or club - especially after the alcohol has flowed and brought out some of the inner intolerances in people - are quite possibly going to suffer abuse or worse. It is wrong and it is a shame but they would probably feel more comfortable in situations where they know they are not likely going to suffer that abuse.isam said:
I don't know that follows really.
I used to live in Brighton, which is one of the most LGBT tolerant/friendly places on earth, and I had never seen as many LGBT groups/nights... Why bother if you are living in a very tolerant place?
The concern should be that our society still makes such things necessary, even in a place like Brighton.
That's another thing which I think is used as a false argument to be honest..."openly gay"
"Would you feel uncomfortable if two men were snogging in front of you?" etc
I would, but I would feel uncomfortable if a man and a woman were snogging in front of me as well..in both situations I wouldn't know where to look, and would probably wish theyd stop or get a room
In most circumstances, how would you know a couple were "openly gay" in a pub? And wouldn't the things that alerted you to them being gay be equally uncomfortable if they were straight?
The only way to make gay clubs and pubs unnecessary is to make sure gays are welcome without abuse or unwarranted inspection in all pubs and clubs.
Anyway, I am going out so cant discuss any further at the mo, but my original point still stands.. why do people feel the need to categorise themselves by one aspect of their personality, especially if they believe that it doesn't matter anyway?0 -
Mr Eagles,
"Dark and edgy? That's code for Slash Fiction!"
I worry about you sometimes.
I did apologise for assuming you were gay, and now you assume about me. Don't worry, you're forgiven, but your penance is to go to Amazon and give it a good rating (reading it is optional).
It goes into paperback if ratings are OK, so I'm depending on you.
It does have a political dimension, but from a scientific perspective.
0 -
You have to understand without the LGBT movement,isam said:
But I have been cracked onto by a gay bloke in a straight bar.. I didn't start thinking there should be "Straight only" nights.. whats the difference?TheScreamingEagles said:
The same reason The Village had to start doing LGBT nights.isam said:
I don't know that follows really.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because "straight" people generally don't have to live with intolerance that the LGBT community have to.isam said:
Baffles me why LGBT people want to classify themselves as such in a group. Doesn't it just promote the idea that they conform to some kind of stereotype rather than being individuals? It's not like it's a special interest or a hobbyTheScreamingEagles said:For those suffering from polling withdrawal
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/12/28/pinknews-poll-nick-clegg-named-most-gay-friendly-leader-but-party-support-collapses/
If there was some kind of group specifically for people who fancied the opposite sex and referenced the fact that they were "straight" all the time, I'd find it quite self obsessed and unappealing
Some people have been murdered/killed for being gay in the recent past in this country for being LGBT.
I used to live in Brighton, which is one of the most LGBT tolerant/friendly places on earth, and I had never seen as many LGBT groups/nights... Why bother if you are living in a very tolerant place?
Straight women started coming to the Village to avoid straight men hassling them in normal clubs.
The straight men soon found out, and started to visit the Village to go after the women.
The straight men then got upset when the gay men started hitting on them, so it had to be explained to them, if you go to a gay club, you should expect to be hit on.
But to avoid any confusion and stop the place being full of straight people, they had special nights purely designed for the gays (and me)
1) Homosexuality might still be illegal in some parts of the country. Hard to believe but in 1982 homosexuality was decriminalised in Scotland and Northern Ireland
2) The age of consent might not have been equalised
3) A decade a go, civil partnerships, let alone marriage wasn't available to them.
4) Whilst the UK has become more tolerant (I mean in 1998, the Sun had a front page asking if the country was being run by a Gay Mafia and some politicians today compare homosexuality to bestiality) there are some places in the world, where being gay gets you killed by the state and attacked which is effectively condoned by the state, such as Russia. We like to give them support.0 -
I understand, but still don't see the need to join a group and talk "as a..." whatever it is... I am me , I don't say "as a.. " everyone has the same emotions whoever the recipientantifrank said:
Correct. But I have to stop and think about every social interaction in a way that straight people simply do not. Do I assertively out myself? Do I stay consciously in the closet? Do I reactively confirm? The answer may be different for family, friends, close work colleagues, more casual work colleagues etc.isam said:
I thought LGBT people were the same as everyone else except for their sexual preference?antifrank said:
It affects my entire life profoundly on a daily basis. It's like walking against a crowd coming out of a railway station. Everyone coming towards you is oblivious to your very different experience of the journey.isam said:
Baffles me why LGBT people want to classify themselves as such in a group. Doesn't it just promote the idea that they conform to some kind of stereotype rather than being individuals? It's not like it's a special interest or a hobby
If there was some kind of group specifically for people who fancied the opposite sex and referenced the fact that they were "straight" all the time, I'd find it quite self obsessed and unappealing
As it happens, I'm out to all of those groups. But what of conversations with taxi drivers, barbers, shop assistants? Do I out myself and brace myself for awkwardness, dance around the subject or follow other coping strategies? Every conversation is measured, every word is weighed.
In an ideal world, no one would care or I would just treat it as their problem. In the real world, sometimes it's just less tiring to walk directly into the path of oncoming pedestrians and simply weave around them.0 -
In the mid-1970s I set up my first independent home - in Brighton. In those days the pubs shut at 14:30 so if you wanted a drinkie in the afternoon you had to go to a club. There were two sorts of clubs open in the afternoons, those owned by and run for criminals and the gay clubs. Most single straight chaps of my age that I got to know had membership of at least one gay club just for the after hours drinking facility. They were also great places to take a married lady for an evening out - the staff and the other punters always made a fuss of her, it was safe, the music, dancing and food was generally better than straight establishments (save pukka restaurants, of course) and, most importantly, sure as hell you weren't going to bump into her husband.TheScreamingEagles said:
The same reason The Village had to start doing LGBT nights.isam said:
I don't know that follows really.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because "straight" people generally don't have to live with intolerance that the LGBT community have to.isam said:
Baffles me why LGBT people want to classify themselves as such in a group. Doesn't it just promote the idea that they conform to some kind of stereotype rather than being individuals? It's not like it's a special interest or a hobbyTheScreamingEagles said:For those suffering from polling withdrawal
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/12/28/pinknews-poll-nick-clegg-named-most-gay-friendly-leader-but-party-support-collapses/
If there was some kind of group specifically for people who fancied the opposite sex and referenced the fact that they were "straight" all the time, I'd find it quite self obsessed and unappealing
Some people have been murdered/killed for being gay in the recent past in this country for being LGBT.
I used to live in Brighton, which is one of the most LGBT tolerant/friendly places on earth, and I had never seen as many LGBT groups/nights... Why bother if you are living in a very tolerant place?
Straight women started coming to the Village to avoid straight men hassling them in normal clubs.
The straight men soon found out, and started to visit the Village to go after the women.
The straight men then got upset when the gay men started hitting on them, so it had to be explained to them, if you go to a gay club, you should expect to be hit on.
But to avoid any confusion and stop the place being full of straight people, they had special nights purely designed for the gays (and me)
It could lead to misunderstandings, mind you. When the plod raided a club they always seized the membership book. Getting marched in to explain to the CO why I was a member of a "queers'" club was not an experience I'd want to repeat.0 -
I promise to do all that.CD13 said:Mr Eagles,
"Dark and edgy? That's code for Slash Fiction!"
I worry about you sometimes.
I did apologise for assuming you were gay, and now you assume about me. Don't worry, you're forgiven, but your penance is to go to Amazon and give it a good rating (reading it is optional).
It goes into paperback if ratings are OK, so I'm depending on you.
It does have a political dimension, but from a scientific perspective.
I really do enjoy PBers works, Morris Dancer's wonderful pieces make me giggle, despite SeanT traumatising me with some of his books, I still enjoyed them, although I am now scared to walk through the ape house of most zoos.0 -
Does my mini Fighting Fantasy-style adventure "Escape from the Sorcerer" count?TheScreamingEagles said:
I promise to do all that.CD13 said:Mr Eagles,
"Dark and edgy? That's code for Slash Fiction!"
I worry about you sometimes.
I did apologise for assuming you were gay, and now you assume about me. Don't worry, you're forgiven, but your penance is to go to Amazon and give it a good rating (reading it is optional).
It goes into paperback if ratings are OK, so I'm depending on you.
It does have a political dimension, but from a scientific perspective.
I really do enjoy PBers works, Morris Dancer's wonderful pieces make me giggle, despite SeanT traumatising me with some of his books, I still enjoyed them, although I am now scared to walk through the ape house of most zoos.0 -
Mr Llama, hope you had a good Christmas.HurstLlama said:
In the mid-1970s I set up my first independent home - in Brighton. In those days the pubs shut y better than straight establishments (save pukka restaurants, of course) and, most importantly, sure as hell you weren't going to bump into her husband.TheScreamingEagles said:
The same reason The Village had to start doing LGBT nights.isam said:
I don't know that follows really.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because "straight" people generally don't have to live with intolerance that the LGBT community have to.isam said:
Baffles me why LGBT people want to classify themselves as such in a group. Doesn't it just promote the idea that they conform to some kind of stereotype rather than being individuals? It's not like it's a special interest or a hobbyTheScreamingEagles said:For those suffering from polling withdrawal
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/12/28/pinknews-poll-nick-clegg-named-most-gay-friendly-leader-but-party-support-collapses/
If there was some kind of group specifically for people who fancied the opposite sex and referenced the fact that they were "straight" all the time, I'd find it quite self obsessed and unappealing
Some people have been murdered/killed for being gay in the recent past in this country for being LGBT.
I used to live in Brighton, which is one of the most LGBT tolerant/friendly places on earth, and I had never seen as many LGBT groups/nights... Why bother if you are living in a very tolerant place?
Straight women started coming to the Village to avoid straight men hassling them in normal clubs.
The straight men soon found out, and started to visit the Village to go after the women.
The straight men then got upset when the gay men started hitting on them, so it had to be explained to them, if you go to a gay club, you should expect to be hit on.
But to avoid any confusion and stop the place being full of straight people, they had special nights purely designed for the gays (and me)
It could lead to misunderstandings, mind you. When the plod raided a club they always seized the membership book. Getting marched in to explain to the CO why I was a member of a "queers'" club was not an experience I'd want to repeat.
My Brother in law turned up with some Ridgeview on the day South Ridge, have to say it was really good.0 -
I've not read it, do you have a link?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Does my mini Fighting Fantasy-style adventure "Escape from the Sorcerer" count?TheScreamingEagles said:
I promise to do all that.CD13 said:Mr Eagles,
"Dark and edgy? That's code for Slash Fiction!"
I worry about you sometimes.
I did apologise for assuming you were gay, and now you assume about me. Don't worry, you're forgiven, but your penance is to go to Amazon and give it a good rating (reading it is optional).
It goes into paperback if ratings are OK, so I'm depending on you.
It does have a political dimension, but from a scientific perspective.
I really do enjoy PBers works, Morris Dancer's wonderful pieces make me giggle, despite SeanT traumatising me with some of his books, I still enjoyed them, although I am now scared to walk through the ape house of most zoos.0 -
V
This songs words are how I imagined coming out would be to an unfriendly responseantifrank said:
Correct. But I have to stop and think about every social interaction in a way that straight people simply do not. Do I assertively out myself? Do I stay consciously in the closet? Do I reactively confirm? The answer may be different for family, friends, close work colleagues, more casual work colleagues etc.isam said:
I thought LGBT people were the same as everyone else except for their sexual preference?antifrank said:
It affects my entire life profoundly on a daily basis. It's like walking against a crowd coming out of a railway station. Everyone coming towards you is oblivious to your very different experience of the journey.isam said:
Baffles me why LGBT people want to classify themselves as such in a group. Doesn't it just promote the idea that they conform to some kind of stereotype rather than being individuals? It's not like it's a special interest or a hobby
If there was some kind of group specifically for people who fancied the opposite sex and referenced the fact that they were "straight" all the time, I'd find it quite self obsessed and unappealing
As it happens, I'm out to all of those groups. But what of conversations with taxi drivers, barbers, shop assistants? Do I out myself and brace myself for awkwardness, dance around the subject or follow other coping strategies? Every conversation is measured, every word is weighed.
In an ideal world, no one would care or I would just treat it as their problem. In the real world, sometimes it's just less tiring to walk directly into the path of oncoming pedestrians and simply weave around them.
http://youtu.be/KFE8hD1kreo0 -
Poor you.HurstLlama said:
In the mid-1970s I set up my first independent home - in Brighton. In those days the pubs shut at 14:30 so if you wanted a drinkie in the afternoon you had to go to a club. There were two sorts of clubs open in the afternoons, those owned by and run for criminals and the gay clubs. Most single straight chaps of my age that I got to know had membership of at least one gay club just for the after hours drinking facility. They were also great places to take a married lady for an evening out - the staff and the other punters always made a fuss of her, it was safe, the music, dancing and food was generally better than straight establishments (save pukka restaurants, of course) and, most importantly, sure as hell you weren't going to bump into her husband.TheScreamingEagles said:
The same reason The Village had to start doing LGBT nights.isam said:
I don't know that follows really.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because "straight" people generally don't have to live with intolerance that the LGBT community have to.isam said:
Baffles me why LGBT people want to classify themselves as such in a group. Doesn't it just promote the idea that they conform to some kind of stereotype rather than being individuals? It's not like it's a special interest or a hobbyTheScreamingEagles said:For those suffering from polling withdrawal
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/12/28/pinknews-poll-nick-clegg-named-most-gay-friendly-leader-but-party-support-collapses/
If there was some kind of group specifically for people who fancied the opposite sex and referenced the fact that they were "straight" all the time, I'd find it quite self obsessed and unappealing
Some people have been murdered/killed for being gay in the recent past in this country for being LGBT.
I used to live in Brighton, which is one of the most LGBT tolerant/friendly places on earth, and I had never seen as many LGBT groups/nights... Why bother if you are living in a very tolerant place?
Straight women started coming to the Village to avoid straight men hassling them in normal clubs.
The straight men soon found out, and started to visit the Village to go after the women.
The straight men then got upset when the gay men started hitting on them, so it had to be explained to them, if you go to a gay club, you should expect to be hit on.
But to avoid any confusion and stop the place being full of straight people, they had special nights purely designed for the gays (and me)
It could lead to misunderstandings, mind you. When the plod raided a club they always seized the membership book. Getting marched in to explain to the CO why I was a member of a "queers'" club was not an experience I'd want to repeat.0 -
It makes you part of a set of people who have common problems. To that extent, I would regard myself as part of a very loosely defined group (and I'm in my firm's LGBT group). That doesn't mean that I regard Peter Tatchell as a spokesman for me. It does mean that I have a particular interest in the set of problems faced by other gay men and lesbians.isam said:
I understand, but still don't see the need to join a group and talk "as a..." whatever it is... I am me , I don't say "as a.. " everyone has the same emotions whoever the recipientantifrank said:
Correct. But I have to stop and think about every social interaction in a way that straight people simply do not. Do I assertively out myself? Do I stay consciously in the closet? Do I reactively confirm? The answer may be different for family, friends, close work colleagues, more casual work colleagues etc.isam said:
I thought LGBT people were the same as everyone else except for their sexual preference?antifrank said:
It affects my entire life profoundly on a daily basis. It's like walking against a crowd coming out of a railway station. Everyone coming towards you is oblivious to your very different experience of the journey.isam said:
Baffles me why LGBT people want to classify themselves as such in a group. Doesn't it just promote the idea that they conform to some kind of stereotype rather than being individuals? It's not like it's a special interest or a hobby
If there was some kind of group specifically for people who fancied the opposite sex and referenced the fact that they were "straight" all the time, I'd find it quite self obsessed and unappealing
As it happens, I'm out to all of those groups. But what of conversations with taxi drivers, barbers, shop assistants? Do I out myself and brace myself for awkwardness, dance around the subject or follow other coping strategies? Every conversation is measured, every word is weighed.
In an ideal world, no one would care or I would just treat it as their problem. In the real world, sometimes it's just less tiring to walk directly into the path of oncoming pedestrians and simply weave around them.0 -
(Previous Thread)
Did someone mention something about handshakes?
Prince of Wales: very firm.
Duchess of Cornwall: very weak.0 -
Wotcha Mr. B., We in the Llama household an an excellent Christmas, thank you. I hope you and yours had the same.Alanbrooke said:
Mr Llama, hope you had a good Christmas.
My Brother in law turned up with some Ridgeview on the day South Ridge, have to say it was really good.
Glad you enjoyed the Ridgeview, I do keep telling people how good it is and must confess we do seem to have shifted quite a few bottles ourselves this year. Herself has taken a particular liking to their pink one as a standalone drinkie (there is nothing quite so decadent as drinking fizz at 11:00 simply because one wants to).0 -
Didn't the Mail in 1997 run the headline "Abortion hope as 'Gay Gene' found"? 17 years ago is a long time in some ways, but scarily recent in others.TheScreamingEagles said:
You have to understand without the LGBT movement,
1) Homosexuality might still be illegal in some parts of the country. Hard to believe but in 1982 homosexuality was decriminalised in Scotland and Northern Ireland
2) The age of consent might not have been equalised
3) A decade a go, civil partnerships, let alone marriage wasn't available to them.
4) Whilst the UK has become more tolerant (I mean in 1998, the Sun had a front page asking if the country was being run by a Gay Mafia and some politicians today compare homosexuality to bestiality) there are some places in the world, where being gay gets you killed by the state and attacked which is effectively condoned by the state, such as Russia. We like to give them support.0 -
Thing is, a large percentage of encounters you (not you Sam, of course) have include you having to make a judgement call about your response.isam said:V
This songs words are how I imagined coming out would be to an unfriendly responseantifrank said:
Correct. But I have to stop and think about every social interaction in a way that straight people simply do not. Do I assertively out myself? Do I stay consciously in the closet? Do I reactively confirm? The answer may be different for family, friends, close work colleagues, more casual work colleagues etc.isam said:
I thought LGBT people were the same as everyone else except for their sexual preference?antifrank said:
It affects my entire life profoundly on a daily basis. It's like walking against a crowd coming out of a railway station. Everyone coming towards you is oblivious to your very different experience of the journey.isam said:
Baffles me why LGBT people want to classify themselves as such in a group. Doesn't it just promote the idea that they conform to some kind of stereotype rather than being individuals? It's not like it's a special interest or a hobby
If there was some kind of group specifically for people who fancied the opposite sex and referenced the fact that they were "straight" all the time, I'd find it quite self obsessed and unappealing
As it happens, I'm out to all of those groups. But what of conversations with taxi drivers, barbers, shop assistants? Do I out myself and brace myself for awkwardness, dance around the subject or follow other coping strategies? Every conversation is measured, every word is weighed.
In an ideal world, no one would care or I would just treat it as their problem. In the real world, sometimes it's just less tiring to walk directly into the path of oncoming pedestrians and simply weave around them.
youtube snipped
Think about that - 74% of taxi-drivers, strangers on a train, friends of friends (because of course none of your friends would ever make such remarks) make a remark about "poofters" or something similar.
Would you have the strength of character or simple strength to say: "Excuse me...." and then the evening is irrevocably lost on account of it.
Would you?
(Happy Christmas all)0 -
I think it was 1993Quincel said:
Didn't the Mail in 1997 run the headline "Abortion hope as 'Gay Gene' found"? 17 years ago is a long time in some ways, but scarily recent in others.TheScreamingEagles said:
You have to understand without the LGBT movement,
1) Homosexuality might still be illegal in some parts of the country. Hard to believe but in 1982 homosexuality was decriminalised in Scotland and Northern Ireland
2) The age of consent might not have been equalised
3) A decade a go, civil partnerships, let alone marriage wasn't available to them.
4) Whilst the UK has become more tolerant (I mean in 1998, the Sun had a front page asking if the country was being run by a Gay Mafia and some politicians today compare homosexuality to bestiality) there are some places in the world, where being gay gets you killed by the state and attacked which is effectively condoned by the state, such as Russia. We like to give them support.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-gay-gene-is-back-on-the-scene-1536770.html
I must depart.
It is Homeland time.0 -
Looks intriguing, I may give it a try. I finished Sir Edric's Temple all too quickly and I discovered they want over £4 for the next Merrily Watkins and as I am starting to get diminishing returns from the books that's more than I am willing to pay (all the others are <£2, they obviously know it's The Next One In The Series for me and have bumped up the price accordingly).CD13 said:rcs1000,
"Ha! I've just discovered another pb.com poster is a published author, joining the ranks of SeanT, Morris Dancer and test."
If that's "An ever rolling stream", it's me - courtesy of Wild Wolf publications, but I suspect I'll not be rolling in riches on the royalties.
As regards the Glasgow tragedy, we'll no doubt find out the full facts soon enough. Otherwise, we'll all put our own favourite interpretation on it.
Also my new phone doesn't get through juice like the old one did, so I can rely on it a bit more for things like reading e-books.
0 -
I see your point, but some things are true or at least generally accepted as true at this moment in time. For example Evolution by Natural Selection may just be a theory, but most people accept it as true, and they are right to do so. Same goes for anthropogenic Climate Change and even the theory of relativity. They may not be the last word and are subject to amendment as scientist learn more but they are the nearest we have to the truth at the moment.rcs1000 said:
Facts? You can prove anything with 'facts'.Luckyguy1983 said:
Oh, I quite agree on the biased and selective websites. Among them are the BBC, The Telegraph, and all our best loved media outlets. The principle remains valid. More facts cannot aid a theory that they do not support.JosiasJessop said:
Nope: the web is filled with sites where people ignore evidence that goes against their pet conspiracy theory, and only use evidence that suits them. As you well know.Luckyguy1983 said:<
Your logic is self evidently tripe. More facts being in the public domain cannot but harm an inaccurate conspiracy theory. They can only add weight to an accurate one.
As an aside: would you be in favour of details of full injuries (including pictures) of all victims in such incidents to be released publicly on the 'net? After all, it might reveal something?
Let's not base everything on opinions.0 -
Well, I didn't earn any royalties - I "donated" it to the May 2011 (Issue 6) of Fighting Fantazine, the online "tribute" to the Fighting Fantasy style adventures of the 1980s.TheScreamingEagles said:
I've not read it, do you have a link?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Does my mini Fighting Fantasy-style adventure "Escape from the Sorcerer" count?TheScreamingEagles said:
I promise to do all that.CD13 said:Mr Eagles,
"Dark and edgy? That's code for Slash Fiction!"
I worry about you sometimes.
I did apologise for assuming you were gay, and now you assume about me. Don't worry, you're forgiven, but your penance is to go to Amazon and give it a good rating (reading it is optional).
It goes into paperback if ratings are OK, so I'm depending on you.
It does have a political dimension, but from a scientific perspective.
I really do enjoy PBers works, Morris Dancer's wonderful pieces make me giggle, despite SeanT traumatising me with some of his books, I still enjoyed them, although I am now scared to walk through the ape house of most zoos.
Here is the link to Issue 6 - unfortunately it's a BIG file (need a PC or laptop), but "Escape" starts on page 18. All you need are two dice a pencil and arubbereraser!
http://fightingfantazine.co.uk/pdfs/FF6.pdf.zip
(if the link doesn't work or it takes too long, please email and I'll send a copy in the originalKlingonMS Word)0 -
You are hilarious.Richard_Tyndall said:
To be fair Flightpath isn't bright enough to be a troll. Most of his arguments are so fatuous and illogical that the over-riding feeling they inspire is one of pity.rcs1000 said:There are very few genuine trolls on this site. A troll is someone who says things they don't believe in, in order to create a reaction or argument.
Socrates is not a troll. Nor is flightpath.
Both of them genuinely believe what they are arguing for.
Some people, who shall remain nameless, have occasionally done some truly inspired trolling.
Socrates and I disagree on a number of issues including his specific antipathy to islam - as opposed to my antipathy to all religions equally - but he does argue cogently and carefully so that even if you disagree with his conclusions you can see the basis for his arguments. He also has the great advantage over Flightpath of not being a party fanatic.
It's cult like fanaticism that dismays me. I do not expect any leader party or government to be perfect or without blemish. All major political parties are coalitions within themselves and its inevitable that on the one hand compromises within that will satisfy no one and firm decisions on an issue will upset at least one tendency within that party. And of course many issues faced are impossible to solve so any action will create a controversy. Very little happens that seems totally satisfactory.
Within that I'm a conservative and support conservatism. You think that is being a fanatic. Pretty stupid when in 2010 I was more than willing to give Clegg his chance. It would have led to more left wing policies than I would have liked but the broader benefit to the nation seemed to justify it. He and the LDs failed because they sought to govern but attack the government at the same time.
And of course the other reason why coalition with the LDs was worthy and why it is immensely sensible to support conservatism is that Labours economic policies have led us again to ruin and they are massively pro the EU and I very much want a referendum on the EU.
There may be people who lack logic round here but I'm not one of them.0 -
No I think you are a fanatic because you refuse to criticise your party or its leadership in any way and refuse to engage in arguments of fact, preferring to resort to petty asides and name calling instead of engaging on the issues. Not surprising since you seem to lack any coherent political philosophy beyond 'my party right or wrong'.Flightpath said:
You are hilarious.Richard_Tyndall said:
To be fair Flightpath isn't bright enough to be a troll. Most of his arguments are so fatuous and illogical that the over-riding feeling they inspire is one of pity.rcs1000 said:There are very few genuine trolls on this site. A troll is someone who says things they don't believe in, in order to create a reaction or argument.
Socrates is not a troll. Nor is flightpath.
Both of them genuinely believe what they are arguing for.
Some people, who shall remain nameless, have occasionally done some truly inspired trolling.
Socrates and I disagree on a number of issues including his specific antipathy to islam - as opposed to my antipathy to all religions equally - but he does argue cogently and carefully so that even if you disagree with his conclusions you can see the basis for his arguments. He also has the great advantage over Flightpath of not being a party fanatic.
It's cult like fanaticism that dismays me. I do not expect any leader party or government to be perfect or without blemish. All major political parties are coalitions within themselves and its inevitable that on the one hand compromises within that will satisfy no one and firm decisions on an issue will upset at least one tendency within that party. And of course many issues faced are impossible to solve so any action will create a controversy. Very little happens that seems totally satisfactory.
Within that I'm a conservative and support conservatism. You think that is being a fanatic. Pretty stupid when in 2010 I was more than willing to give Clegg his chance. It would have led to more left wing policies than I would have liked but the broader benefit to the nation seemed to justify it. He and the LDs failed because they sought to govern but attack the government at the same time.
And of course the other reason why coalition with the LDs was worthy and why it is immensely sensible to support conservatism is that Labours economic policies have led us again to ruin and they are massively pro the EU and I very much want a referendum on the EU.
There may be people who lack logic round here but I'm not one of them.0 -
A man and woman holding hands in public: if young the boy is boasting to his male friends; if middle aged the man is hiding a guilty secret; if old they are on the way to the doctors for the test results. Have a happy new year.0
-
Crikey, there was a time when the generally accepted opinion amongst the wise men was that the sun went round the earth, though no doubt some of the wisest amongst them said that this is only a theory and subject to further research. There are any number of other examples where the "scientific consensus" has subsequently been proved to be wrong including right up to modern times.LogicalSong said:
I see your point, but some things are true or at least generally accepted as true at this moment in time. For example Evolution by Natural Selection may just be a theory, but most people accept it as true, and they are right to do so. Same goes for anthropogenic Climate Change and even the theory of relativity. They may not be the last word and are subject to amendment as scientist learn more but they are the nearest we have to the truth at the moment.rcs1000 said:
Facts? You can prove anything with 'facts'.Luckyguy1983 said:
Oh, I quite agree on the biased and selective websites. Among them are the BBC, The Telegraph, and all our best loved media outlets. The principle remains valid. More facts cannot aid a theory that they do not support.JosiasJessop said:
Nope: the web is filled with sites where people ignore evidence that goes against their pet conspiracy theory, and only use evidence that suits them. As you well know.Luckyguy1983 said:<
Your logic is self evidently tripe. More facts being in the public domain cannot but harm an inaccurate conspiracy theory. They can only add weight to an accurate one.
As an aside: would you be in favour of details of full injuries (including pictures) of all victims in such incidents to be released publicly on the 'net? After all, it might reveal something?
Let's not base everything on opinions.
Surely a theory is an opinion with a fancy backing track.0 -
'Theory' is the second highest level of scientific acceptability. It is a designation correctly applied to Natural Selection and to Relativity. It is not a term that has been applied to AGW because that has never achieved the level of experimental confidence necessary. It remains a hypothesis. That is not a contentious claim nor one that either side in the debate should have any argument with as it does not denigrate the idea, merely shows that it has some way to travel to be accepted as a scientific Theory. Of course some of us who work in the field do not believe it will ever move beyond a hypothesis.LogicalSong said:
I see your point, but some things are true or at least generally accepted as true at this moment in time. For example Evolution by Natural Selection may just be a theory, but most people accept it as true, and they are right to do so. Same goes for anthropogenic Climate Change and even the theory of relativity. They may not be the last word and are subject to amendment as scientist learn more but they are the nearest we have to the truth at the moment.rcs1000 said:
Facts? You can prove anything with 'facts'.Luckyguy1983 said:
Oh, I quite agree on the biased and selective websites. Among them are the BBC, The Telegraph, and all our best loved media outlets. The principle remains valid. More facts cannot aid a theory that they do not support.JosiasJessop said:
Nope: the web is filled with sites where people ignore evidence that goes against their pet conspiracy theory, and only use evidence that suits them. As you well know.Luckyguy1983 said:<
Your logic is self evidently tripe. More facts being in the public domain cannot but harm an inaccurate conspiracy theory. They can only add weight to an accurate one.
As an aside: would you be in favour of details of full injuries (including pictures) of all victims in such incidents to be released publicly on the 'net? After all, it might reveal something?
Let's not base everything on opinions.0 -
As I found out once in the Cosmopolitan Club in Jersey - actually this is not always guaranteed to be true.HurstLlama said:and, most importantly, sure as hell you weren't going to bump into her husband.
0 -
JohnLilburne,
"Looks intriguing, I may give it a try."
An ever rolling stream (Wild Wolf) available on Amazon as an e-book currently (paperback if ratings are good enough).
It's about gene manipulation in humans in a warmed future world. Involves religion, science, politics and good old fashioned sex. Not much gay stuff as we're dealing with a world that stopped developing in 1962 cos of Castro and the Cuban crisis. Nigel would approve and I suspect Mr Eagles might also as the hero has brown skin (a consequence genetic manipulation because of of more UV).
UK link:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ever-Rolling-Stream-Colin-Davy-ebook/dp/B00OMJK3XO/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1413623113&sr=8-3&keywords=an+ever+rolling+stream
US link:
http://www.amazon.com/Ever-Rolling-Stream-Colin-Davy-ebook/dp/B00OMJK3XO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413623219&sr=8-1&keywords=an+ever+rolling+stream+colin
And it's cheap, or it was the last time I checked
0 -
I have little use for PDAs and always wondered why people engage in foreplay in public. I can understand it if you are both on your way home, but why do so on the way to work or when parting?frpenkridge said:A man and woman holding hands in public: if young the boy is boasting to his male friends; if middle aged the man is hiding a guilty secret; if old they are on the way to the doctors for the test results. Have a happy new year.
0 -
But if her husband did turn up the plan was to be a gay friend, so no threat to his marriage, and slide sideways to the door whilst he explained to his wife why he was a member. I never had to put the plan in operation, mind.GeoffM said:
As I found out once in the Cosmopolitan Club in Jersey - actually this is not always guaranteed to be true.HurstLlama said:and, most importantly, sure as hell you weren't going to bump into her husband.
0 -
If you will forgive the slighly intrusive question, Mr Antifrank ... is this a group set up by you as individuals? Funded by the company or its members? Recognised or not for the purposes of negotiations by your firm?antifrank said:(and I'm in my firm's LGBT group).
I'm curious as I'm not sure what I would do (or might be legally obligated to do!) if a group of my staff approached us wanting something similar. It would seem to have trade-unionish parallels if it had demands of management. Just wondering how these things work in practice.
0 -
Easy get-out if he was quick witted enough - he was there for the out of hours drinking!HurstLlama said:
But if her husband did turn up the plan was to be a gay friend, so no threat to his marriage, and slide sideways to the door whilst he explained to his wife why he was a member. I never had to put the plan in operation, mind.GeoffM said:
As I found out once in the Cosmopolitan Club in Jersey - actually this is not always guaranteed to be true.HurstLlama said:and, most importantly, sure as hell you weren't going to bump into her husband.
0 -
To be scientifically respectable, a theory has to have predictive power. Relativity and quantum mechanics easily achieve this. AGW has not come close yet. Because of the many possible confounding factors, it may never do so.0
-
Very good numbers for Green and Con. OKish for Lab.TheScreamingEagles said:For those suffering from polling withdrawal
While 39% of those polled said they voted Lib Dem in 2010, just 16.9% intend to vote for Clegg’s party in 2015. Labour has seen a growth in support from 24.3% in 2010 to 31.1% today – becoming the most popular party for LGBT voters.
However, the prime beneficiary from the decline in support for the Lib Dems is the Greens, who have seen their support grow within the community from 3.8% in 2010 16.5% today.
Support for the Conservatives has also more than doubled from 10.4% in 2010 to 23% today, while SNP support among Scottish gay voters has grown from 18% in 2010 to 43% today.
Just 1.62% of LGBT voters say they will vote UKIP, up from 0.2% in 2010. UKIP is the only UK wide party which officially opposed equal marriage in England and Wales.
Despite a poor showing for the Conservatives as a party, when readers were asked which party leader they would prefer to be be Prime Minister after 2015, David Cameron took a lead over all his opponents.
36.7% of PinkNews readers want Cameron to remain Prime Minister, while 28.6% would rather
see Miliband in charge, 17.1% Clegg, 15.7% Bennett and 1.84% Farage.
Mr Cameron was significantly more popular than his party with gay voters – likely because 84.6% of gay voters said that they would vote against their local MP if they voted against the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/12/28/pinknews-poll-nick-clegg-named-most-gay-friendly-leader-but-party-support-collapses/
But seems surprising that LD got 39% in 2010. Can that be right?0 -
Wasn't really meaning "you" specificallyisam said:
Hmm well I might double take, because I assume people are straight I guess, but it wouldn't bother me... PDA's aren't my thing at all to be honest whoever it is doing itCharles said:
How about a bloke having his hand on another's leg - in a couple-ly sort of way rather than as part of a move.isam said:
HmmmRichard_Tyndall said:
In part because there are still a lot of straight people who want gays to be, at best, seen and not heard. An openly gay couple in a pub or club - especially after the alcohol has flowed and brought out some of the inner intolerances in people - are quite possibly going to suffer abuse or worse. It is wrong and it is a shame but they would probably feel more comfortable in situations where they know they are not likely going to suffer that abuse.isam said:
I don't know that follows really.
I used to live in Brighton, which is one of the most LGBT tolerant/friendly places on earth, and I had never seen as many LGBT groups/nights... Why bother if you are living in a very tolerant place?
The concern should be that our society still makes such things necessary, even in a place like Brighton.
That's another thing which I think is used as a false argument to be honest..."openly gay"
"Would you feel uncomfortable if two men were snogging in front of you?" etc
I would, but I would feel uncomfortable if a man and a woman were snogging in front of me as well..in both situations I wouldn't know where to look, and would probably wish theyd stop or get a room
In most circumstances, how would you know a couple were "openly gay" in a pub? And wouldn't the things that alerted you to them being gay be equally uncomfortable if they were straight?
You wouldn't think twice if a hetero couple was sitting like that, might if it was two blokes.
More to try and identify a behaviour which would make some uncomfortable when it is homo vs hetero (making out would probably make a lot uncomfortable in both scenarios)0 -
Section 294 of the IndianJohnLilburne said:
I have little use for PDAs and always wondered why people engage in foreplay in public. I can understand it if you are both on your way home, but why do so on the way to work or when parting?frpenkridge said:A man and woman holding hands in public: if young the boy is boasting to his male friends; if middle aged the man is hiding a guilty secret; if old they are on the way to the doctors for the test results. Have a happy new year.
PenilePenal Code!0 -
That the general public's usage of the word 'theory' is weaker than that of proper scientific usage has I suspect resulted in many misunderstandings over the yearsRichard_Tyndall said:
'Theory' is the second highest level of scientific acceptability. It is a designation correctly applied to Natural Selection and to Relativity. It is not a term that has been applied to AGW because that has never achieved the level of experimental confidence necessary. It remains a hypothesis. That is not a contentious claim nor one that either side in the debate should have any argument with as it does not denigrate the idea, merely shows that it has some way to travel to be accepted as a scientific Theory. Of course some of us who work in the field do not believe it will ever move beyond a hypothesis.LogicalSong said:
I see your point, but some things are true or at least generally accepted as true at this moment in time. For example Evolution by Natural Selection may just be a theory, but most people accept it as true, and they are right to do so. Same goes for anthropogenic Climate Change and even the theory of relativity. They may not be the last word and are subject to amendment as scientist learn more but they are the nearest we have to the truth at the moment.rcs1000 said:
Facts? You can prove anything with 'facts'.Luckyguy1983 said:
Oh, I quite agree on the biased and selective websites. Among them are the BBC, The Telegraph, and all our best loved media outlets. The principle remains valid. More facts cannot aid a theory that they do not support.JosiasJessop said:
Nope: the web is filled with sites where people ignore evidence that goes against their pet conspiracy theory, and only use evidence that suits them. As you well know.Luckyguy1983 said:<
Your logic is self evidently tripe. More facts being in the public domain cannot but harm an inaccurate conspiracy theory. They can only add weight to an accurate one.
As an aside: would you be in favour of details of full injuries (including pictures) of all victims in such incidents to be released publicly on the 'net? After all, it might reveal something?
Let's not base everything on opinions.0 -
Does a patent application and a couple of papers in peer reviewed journals count to get me in the 'PB Published Authors Club"?0
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30617670
Van Gaal blamed the physical demands of the festive schedule for the stalemate.
When will managers cease to blame the festive schedules for such things? The demands presumably applied to the opposition as well, so why did their team suffer more than the other? Are they saying professional footballers cannot handle two games close together once a year, or twice a year say? No doubt it is tough, but these whinges, usually from top teams who have had a poor result, are such an irritating annual tradition.0 -
In that case, in addition to "Escape From The Sorcerer", throw in the 10 peer-reviewed papers that my name appears onSandyRentool said:Does a patent application and a couple of papers in peer reviewed journals count to get me in the 'PB Published Authors Club"?
0 -
Then your criteria are flawed.Richard_Tyndall said:
No I think you are a fanatic because you refuse to criticise your party or its leadership in any way and refuse to engage in arguments of fact, preferring to resort to petty asides and name calling instead of engaging on the issues. Not surprising since you seem to lack any coherent political philosophy beyond 'my party right or wrong'.Flightpath said:
....Richard_Tyndall said:
To be fair Flightpath isn't bright enough to be a troll. Most of his arguments are so fatuous and illogical that the over-riding feeling they inspire is one of pity.rcs1000 said:There are very few genuine trolls on this site. A troll is someone who says things they don't believe in, in order to create a reaction or argument.
Socrates is not a troll. Nor is flightpath.
Both of them genuinely believe what they are arguing for.
Some people, who shall remain nameless, have occasionally done some truly inspired trolling.
Socrates and I disagree on a number of issues including his specific antipathy to islam - as opposed to my antipathy to all religions equally - but he does argue cogently and carefully so that even if you disagree with his conclusions you can see the basis for his arguments. He also has the great advantage over Flightpath of not being a party fanatic.
'petty name calling'? like 'flightpath is a troll'?? or 'not bright enough to be a troll'?
Being in broad support of the conservative party is not being a fanatic. Recognising that an election victory by a europhile Labour party, with a proven track record of economic incompetence and paid for by trade unions, would be a disaster for the country and saying so is not being fanatical.
What is fanatical is finding no better excuse for being delayed on the M4 than 'immigrants'. Its things like that you do not like me pointing out.
0 -
Nice Homeland ending.0
-
The strange ways of British justice...
Lunatic who killed 5 people and was released after just 15 years has died.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Williams_(spree_killer)0 -
On both sides of this bet now at odds against - 7-4 for Labour is quite long right now.0
-
FPT
NAT INS NOS
FOR NPXMP
According to the FRS who are known to under record, in 2010/11 23.1 million people were in receipt of a benefit of one sort or another. One assumes?? they would have to have a NI NO to claim.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223013/IM1722_adhoc.pdf
It rather suggests that barring those working in the black economy who might not have a NI NO such as illegal immigrants, and those under the age of 18, pretty much everyone else has or should have a NI NO that is shown on their payslip, P45, P2 or any other document from the Revenue or Social Security.
So there is no reason not to be able to lay your hand on it easily.
So asking for it at a polling station isn't unreasonable, in fact its unreasonable to object IMHO.0 -
Worst episode of Homeland ever.0
-
Given that I am not anti-immigrant it seems that basic comprehension is another area in which you are sadly lacking.Flightpath said:
Then your criteria are flawed.Richard_Tyndall said:
No I think you are a fanatic because you refuse to criticise your party or its leadership in any way and refuse to engage in arguments of fact, preferring to resort to petty asides and name calling instead of engaging on the issues. Not surprising since you seem to lack any coherent political philosophy beyond 'my party right or wrong'.Flightpath said:
....Richard_Tyndall said:
To be fair Flightpath isn't bright enough to be a troll. Most of his arguments are so fatuous and illogical that the over-riding feeling they inspire is one of pity.rcs1000 said:There are very few genuine trolls on this site. A troll is someone who says things they don't believe in, in order to create a reaction or argument.
Socrates is not a troll. Nor is flightpath.
Both of them genuinely believe what they are arguing for.
Some people, who shall remain nameless, have occasionally done some truly inspired trolling.
Socrates and I disagree on a number of issues including his specific antipathy to islam - as opposed to my antipathy to all religions equally - but he does argue cogently and carefully so that even if you disagree with his conclusions you can see the basis for his arguments. He also has the great advantage over Flightpath of not being a party fanatic.
'petty name calling'? like 'flightpath is a troll'?? or 'not bright enough to be a troll'?
Being in broad support of the conservative party is not being a fanatic. Recognising that an election victory by a europhile Labour party, with a proven track record of economic incompetence and paid for by trade unions, would be a disaster for the country and saying so is not being fanatical.
What is fanatical is finding no better excuse for being delayed on the M4 than 'immigrants'. Its things like that you do not like me pointing out.0 -
Roger Penrose divides theories into SUPERB, USEFUL and TENTATIVE (Roger uses capitals).
So, quantum electrodynamics, relativity and quantum mechanics are SUPERB ("To qualify as SUPERB, I require that the range and accuracy with which it applies should, in some appropriate sense, be phenomenal")
USEFUL theories (which includes natural selection of Darwin and Wallace or QCD or the theory of the big bang) are almost certainly largely correct, but for one reason of another are messier than we might like. Maybe there is a pile of evidence in favour, but some niggling piece of stubborn data that fails to agree.
TENTATIVE theories are probably partly wrong. Even if wholly wrong, they may still play a useful role, as they can suggest tests which lead to a better picture (like the steady-state theory of Hoyle) or they may provide ingredients of a later USEFUL theory.
It is clear that AGW is TENTATIVE on Roger's definitions.
Although the underlying hypothesis is surely correct (human activity can alter the climate vi the greenhouse effect), the size of the effect is pretty much unconstrained by theoretical models at the moment.0 -
TOPPING said:
Nice Homeland ending.
Curious juxtaposition there!TheScreamingEagles said:Worst episode of Homeland ever.
0 -
It was the first episode of the season not to be based in Pakistan, another reason it was rubbish.Sunil_Prasannan said:TOPPING said:Nice Homeland ending.
Curious juxtaposition there!TheScreamingEagles said:Worst episode of Homeland ever.
0 -
It will never have predictive power in the relevant sense because it isn't a universal, it is a contingent proposition about one aspect of one complex chaotic system. Prediction in this context means when billiard ball a hits billiard ball b at angle x with force y the result will always be z. Natural selection sort of makes it as a theory because it is generalised over millions of species but it is still only a contingent account of how things happen on one particular planet. AGW is about how one particular thing might have happened and be happening, once.CD13 said:To be scientifically respectable, a theory has to have predictive power. Relativity and quantum mechanics easily achieve this. AGW has not come close yet. Because of the many possible confounding factors, it may never do so.
0 -
Leicester City won today for the first time since September. I can take the disappointment, it is the hope that is difficult!kle4 said:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30617670
Van Gaal blamed the physical demands of the festive schedule for the stalemate.
When will managers cease to blame the festive schedules for such things? The demands presumably applied to the opposition as well, so why did their team suffer more than the other? Are they saying professional footballers cannot handle two games close together once a year, or twice a year say? No doubt it is tough, but these whinges, usually from top teams who have had a poor result, are such an irritating annual tradition.
Bring on Liverpool!0 -
The same people overestimating Ed are the same that said Gordon would come alive in the 2010 GE.
Well he flocking well proved them wrong.0 -
General election campaign starts in fourteen and a half weeks.0
-
Which US President are you?
http://www.playbuzz.com/clairea11/which-u-s-president-are-you-most-like0 -
Me too. Articles, though, rather than books. And - a long time ago - I used to be an editor.Charles said:
@NickPalmer is, and I believe @CD13 is one as well (albeit self-published, I believe, although not sure the distinction is relevant in the days of e-books)rcs1000 said:Ha! I've just discovered another pb.com poster is a published author, joining the ranks of SeanT, Morris Dancer and test.
Unless they out themselves, their secret is safe with me. Unless I've had a few drinks.
0 -
You reckon? Fought the Tories to a near-draw despite a world recession and frankly an exhausted party. I remember the predictions that ameron would slaughter him in the debates - in the event, there wasn;t much in it. Overall I felt it wasn't a bad election - I think NOM was the best we could realistically have hoped for.TGOHF said:The same people overestimating Ed are the same that said Gordon would come alive in the 2010 GE.
Well he flocking well proved them wrong.
This time, Cameron is weaker, Miliband is less disliked, Labour has cheered up and the Tories are having trouble remembering what they're for. I think we'll win, though with a modest majority or just largest party, depending on Scotland.
0 -
He did, didn't he? Brown ran a rather good campaign in the dire circumstances. Down the road from me, Wirral South was saved for Labour against all expectations (they'd come 3rd in the local elections the previous year there) after Labour rather successfully rallied public-sector workers to them.TGOHF said:The same people overestimating Ed are the same that said Gordon would come alive in the 2010 GE.
Well he flocking well proved them wrong.
It wasn't a particularly positive or edifying campaign from Labour, but it was effective in that they got people to be scared about the prospect of a Tory government, where previously there was just lukewarm indifference (and the Tories are now giving Labour the space to run the same campaign again with their talk of endless austerity at a time when people are already sick of it).0 -
0
-
Whoever wins the next GE is going to have to make some pretty savage cuts. Labor voters are in for a nasty surprise if their party wins.Danny565 said:
He did, didn't he? Brown ran a rather good campaign in the dire circumstances. Down the road from me, Wirral South was saved for Labour against all expectations (they'd come 3rd in the local elections the previous year there) after Labour rather successfully rallied public-sector workers to them.TGOHF said:The same people overestimating Ed are the same that said Gordon would come alive in the 2010 GE.
Well he flocking well proved them wrong.
It wasn't a particularly positive or edifying campaign from Labour, but it was effective in that they got people to be scared about the prospect of a Tory government, where previously there was just lukewarm indifference (and the Tories are now giving Labour the space to run the same campaign again with their talk of endless austerity at a time when people are already sick of it).0 -
I read that with some puzzlement as your having an objection to Personal Data Assistants, the vanished precursor to tablet computers. :-)isam said:
Hmm well I might double take, because I assume people are straight I guess, but it wouldn't bother me... PDA's aren't my thing at all to be honest whoever it is doing it
0 -
That may be (and I would agree that if Labour get into government, and then proceed to massively cut spending, they will face a collapse of Hollande-esque proportions), but it doesn't change the fact that it is suicidal for the Tories to go into the election standing on a platform of massive spending cuts. The polls in recent weeks have been pretty crystal-clear that the public just don't accept the supposed need for them. And it gives Labour the chance to say to the Red Kippers and Greens, "no matter how shit you think Labour are, just think how much worse it's going to be if the Tories get back in".TheWatcher said:
Whoever wins the next GE is going to have to make some pretty savage cuts. Labor voters are in for a nasty surprise if their party wins.Danny565 said:
He did, didn't he? Brown ran a rather good campaign in the dire circumstances. Down the road from me, Wirral South was saved for Labour against all expectations (they'd come 3rd in the local elections the previous year there) after Labour rather successfully rallied public-sector workers to them.TGOHF said:The same people overestimating Ed are the same that said Gordon would come alive in the 2010 GE.
Well he flocking well proved them wrong.
It wasn't a particularly positive or edifying campaign from Labour, but it was effective in that they got people to be scared about the prospect of a Tory government, where previously there was just lukewarm indifference (and the Tories are now giving Labour the space to run the same campaign again with their talk of endless austerity at a time when people are already sick of it).0 -
Abraham Lincoln, apparently. I thought the mac and fries would swing it for Clinton, but no...HYUFD said:Which US President are you?
http://www.playbuzz.com/clairea11/which-u-s-president-are-you-most-like
0 -
NP A good choice, I got Reagan, apparently mac cheese was actually Reagan's favourite dish0
-
I bet in the least tolerant places there are fewer LGBT rights groups.isam said:
I don't know that follows really.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because "straight" people generally don't have to live with intolerance that the LGBT community have to.isam said:
Baffles me why LGBT people want to classify themselves as such in a group. Doesn't it just promote the idea that they conform to some kind of stereotype rather than being individuals? It's not like it's a special interest or a hobbyTheScreamingEagles said:For those suffering from polling withdrawal
While 39% of those polled said they voted Lib Dem in 2010, just 16.9% intend to vote for Clegg’s party in 2015. Labour has seen a growth in support from 24.3% in 2010 to 31.1% today – becoming the most popular party for LGBT voters.
However, the prime beneficiary from the decline in support for the Lib Dems is the Greens, who have seen their support grow within the community from 3.8% in 2010 16.5% today.
Support for the Conservatives has also more than doubled from 10.4% in 2010 to 23% today, while SNP support among Scottish gay voters has grown from 18% in 2010 to 43% today.
Just 1.62% of LGBT voters say they will vote UKIP, up from 0.2% in 2010. UKIP is the only UK wide party which officially opposed equal marriage in England and Wales.
Despite a poor showing for the Conservatives as a party, when readers were asked which party leader they would prefer to be be Prime Minister after 2015, David Cameron took a lead over all his opponents.
36.7% of PinkNews readers want Cameron to remain Prime Minister, while 28.6% would rather
see Miliband in charge, 17.1% Clegg, 15.7% Bennett and 1.84% Farage.
Mr Cameron was significantly more popular than his party with gay voters – likely because 84.6% of gay voters said that they would vote against their local MP if they voted against the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/12/28/pinknews-poll-nick-clegg-named-most-gay-friendly-leader-but-party-support-collapses/
If there was some kind of group specifically for people who fancied the opposite sex and referenced the fact that they were "straight" all the time, I'd find it quite self obsessed and unappealing
Some people have been murdered/killed for being gay in the recent past in this country for being LGBT.
I used to live in Brighton, which is one of the most LGBT tolerant/friendly places on earth, and I had never seen as many LGBT groups/nights... Why bother if you are living in a very tolerant place?0
