Royston

Indeed, plus if you get a sequencing package e.g cubase (but I'd personally avoid cubase like the plague) you can add drums, bass et.c to play along to. I have an M-audio delta with 8 outs and 2 ins going into a mackie mixer, so I can just plug the guitar into the mixer, and add external and internal fx so I have a huge canvas for different sounds. If you take YT's suggestion I recommend the Ohm Boyz Predatohm for distortion, it has a nice range from fuzz to very dirty distortion and even has feedback, plus a filter. The friend who's Ibanez I play sometimes, just has a multi fx going into his stereo, and it sounds incredible...most new fx pedals have amp emulators so you can get (for instance) the classic sound of a Marshall stack for a fraction of the price. Die hard guitarists probably won't agree it sounds exactly the same, but it's a good option.

When I woke up this morning I realised I was a born again creationist, and science sucks...really, really sucks. Science is such a load of unsubstantiated twoddle I have to repeatedly stab myself in the groin with some rusty scissors whilst dunking my feet in boiling hot chip fat to redeem myself for even thinking about it. You're so arrogant you scientists, you think you know everything...empirical evidence this, logic that, show some maths to back your argument up, blar de blar de blar. That's all you talk about, and scientists are all ugly as well, just look at Ecoli...dear God man, how bad was the accident that contorted your face into that indescribable mess that we see in your avatar, do you really have to subject us all to that! All you have are theories you scientists, they're just theories...nothing more. Wait until the truth burns your tootsies, when you all burn in hell.

All these questions have already been answered...repeatedly, Paranoia you seem to have a knack of skewing perfectly legitimate points into nonsense, because you either refuse to understand, or you don't understand. Would you mind if I ask you a question. Do you ascribe the blastocyst that developed into you, as always being you ? Please think about it carefully, and then consider the difference between that statement, and the question originally raised in the OP. I'm not meaning to sound patronising, but the reason this thread has sustained for so long is that you're misinterpreting and perhaps misunderstanding key points that have been raised so far.

Thanks all for the responses, you pretty much confirmed my thoughts on the subject. I couldn't find a quote from the programme, so I clearly misheard...and on retrospect, wouldn't make any sense unless there was some physiological and psychological link when it comes to aging and time perception.

The Squier is the standard when it comes to starter guitars, but personally I'd shop around for something second hand...I started on a Marlin, (strat copy) and the action was awful (the distance of the strings from the fret board) if you get good on something that's below average, you'll play like a legend when you get something more expensive. The Squier is well built and will last, but you're paying alot for the fact they're built through Fender...if you go for a less well know make, you'll more than likely find they play and sound just as good, but are half the price. I play occasionally now on a friends Ibanez which was very reasonably priced, and is an absolute dream to play, especially if you're into manic solos et.c So shop around, if you like the look of a strat then just google 'strat copies', and see what you can find.

I guess it depends on the source of their speculation, if the individual feels they've had a revelation of sorts, they'll most probably start from that premise, and try to loosely fit other theories around their idea. Clearly this is the wrong approach, I've had plenty of crazy ideas in the past...and still do, but it's best to keep them aside as an interesting thought, and as you said, start from the basics and study hard until you're at a level to rigorously test any past assumptions. There's nothing wrong with outlandish ideas, as long as you don't take yourself too seriously and are willing to be corrected. Retaining a healthy imagination, whilst understanding the importance of logic and the fundamentals of science is more useful than just one or the other. Others just like to take a wild stab in the dark, I guess in the hope that they may just stumble across something and usually get corrected, or are just told it's completely untestable et.c True, but people asking questions is good practice for the person answering, and some questions do start off an interesting debate. I guess 'please use the search function' should be in massive bold letters on the home page, rather than shunning people away and telling them to read a book. There are people at all levels on here, and some may just come on here just to ascertain something that's been bugging them i.e a simple yes or no answer.

I went to see Dinosaur Jr last week, and had a great time...incredible guitar playing and very, very loud. I was just wondering what really memorable gigs anyone had been to, and if you can, why that particular gig was so exceptional. Was the atmosphere electric, was there nakedness et.c et.c A few I will never forget are Bjork at the Phoenix festival, David Bowie at Glastonbury, Orbital at the Alexandra Palace and Hyper at the Glade Festival. They all just blew me away, the sound quality, stage presence, and atmosphere at the time was unforgettable...there's so many more I could mention, but these stick out the most for the moment.

Just going into space would be awesome, but having the opportunity to visit another planet would be uber-awesome. I guess it probably won't be the best place to take a holiday, but clearly you'd be involved in research et.c So not only do you get the trip of a lifetime, you'll probably be involved in a significant discovery on Mars, so I'd go without hesitation.

This is pretty much what I thought to, the reason I asked was due to a programme a couple of weeks ago, that dealt with the aging process (I'll try to find a link.) The 'expert' stated that as our biological clocks slow down it seems as though time speeds up, now although this loosely correlates, it fails to explain why this is so. I may have misheard, but a friend said he remembered this mentioned in the programme to.

Exactly, and we have 'evidence' to prove a blastocyst has no hardware for perception. So I guess the question is, Paranoia do you feel you're equivalent to a rock ?

I did a search for this question so apologies if this has already been asked, but this has been bugging me recently. As many people know, as you get older, time appears to speed up. When you're young, your summer holidays appear to go on forever, but 6 weeks at my age seems no time at all. Now I know this has something to do with your biological clock slowing down, but why does the effect of that make you percieve time as speeding up ? I'm probably missing something obvious here, but can anyone explain this.

I guess you'll have to define 'everything' i.e local newspapers, fiction et.c. what do you normally read ? When it comes to a professional level of writing, and I mean professional level i.e scientific articles, medical journals et.c then the level of what is expected has gone up. Articles are highly scrutinized in certain subjects, and if you fail to convey your point concisely and coherently you simply will not be taken seriously. When I started studying just over a year ago, I had an entire module on stressing how important grammar is, so I feel language is intact, but when it comes to the use of language in the media, it basically follows the trend of language used by the public...feeding off each over if you will, so it could appear that language has taken a dip. However if you adopt similar grammar on a professional level, you simply won't be taken seriously. As an afterthought, the harm I also see if the OP became realized, is the damage on phonetics as well as the written word.

Awesome, 2 points, plus 10^19 points for Dak, for staying on topic. I'll come up with some more tonight...no pub this evening.

I fully appreciate what you mean Dak, I think my main concern as well as Gliders and YT's points is the root of SMS language. If Halliday for example had derived SMS as a plausible syntax, i.e thorough limits and use of the language, it would be more acceptable, but the root is a few abbreviations for convenience which has spread to other words due to an explosion of mobile phone text messaging...which although I have no stats backing this up (I could have a look) that much of this shorthand has come from teenagers, and younger, probably why this was considered as a viable option for use in school, just due to popularity. Remember this isn't a few words that will be introduced over time, there probably isn't any limit to what can or can't be abbreviated, so in that sense, it really isn't a viable language for educational use. If a few words seep through into everyday use (over time) like your example 'thru', then so be it, but a whole new form introduced over night just doesn't seem appropriate.

Well that wasn't actually the intention, I just ended up keeping score...but what a surprise, a thread's been derailed -1,000,000 for everyone

Eye sack Newton, would of got you 2 for innovation, 8 points for aj47, 2 for Nicole Kidneyman, 0 for George Bush...I agree that was a little poor, Danny deFeeto though, awesome ! Tsk tsk, Gutz -10 points Dak clearly rocks for mentioning Alan Titmarsh and Rolf Harris, 5 points ! Hmmm 4 points ! Good, good. Another 3 points ! A triumph, 2 points I feel. You were doing so well, but let yourself down at the end...however 9 points in total. EDIT: A contribution from a house mate...Toeknee Heart (80's kids art programme presenter) 3 points !

Well firstly I'm not writing in an exam, I'm writing on a forum. Secondly, l8r, m8, thru and wot, are not even words, they may be in Chavminster, but they are not words. Thirdly, the lazyness comes from a willing to learn proper English, as opposed to using a degraded text language, that is the lazyness I was referring to, not just missing out the odd letter or two, due to speed of writing. I do agree with you to an extent, but I think the English language should be preserved as well as improved upon, not degraded to m8, wot u up 2 l8r, that should be kept to mobile phones, not brought into education IMO.

Well this is the difference, language as already mentioned before isn't static, words become redundant and new words are introduced. I personally think that is healthy for a language, over simplifying in one foul swoop is not healthy. To express yourself properly in any exam, i.e to have the scope of vocabulary you get with English, is not possible with 'text speak.' and if you're going to use both, then just use proper English...i.e 'what' instead of 'wot' et.c. I guess when you've experienced the prepubescent mobile phone culture you get here in Britain, you may understand my concern with such a decision. I know this will probably never be accepted, which is good IMO, but there shouldn't be accommodation for students who literally can't be bothered to learn proper English, even if they struggle with spelling or grammar for whatever reason, it's better than to replace it with a simplification so it's easier...I fail to see the point in that. Kids, who can't be bothered to learn proper English, would get similar marks to somebody who is bothered, but struggling with the language. Crazy Frog giving a lecture on early Renaissance poetry makes me shudder

Ouch, poor start for Rexus, Angelina Joknee would of got you 1 point. 1 point, you could of doubled your score with Kneeonardo Kneecaprio. But hang in there, there's everything to play for. -1000 points for trying to ruin the game Ecoli, +1001 for your honesty...which leaves you at zero. Sorry Ecoli, a fat zero still, already had Kate Winsleg. 3 points !

I get your point, but individual ability and the introduction of a basic language as an 'acceptable' means to communicate in an exam paper are non-comparable. English can be worked on and improved, if you introduce a limited form of English, and there's no doubt text really is limited, you're encouraging a lazy form of communication. As Glider pointed out it just wouldn't be acceptable at a professional level, so why should it be acceptable in an exam, albeit you may lose points. A genuine spelling mistake is not the same as using an abbreviated form of language. Students should be encouraged to tackle a weakness in their English, not the schools accommodating for a weakness by loosening the standard of communication.

LOL, No, you're not getting it at all (that includes you Ecoli), you're not supposed to find celebrities with bodyparts in their name, you're supposed to modify their name to a body part, or scientific term....i.e Robin WillyArms EDIT: Kate Winsleg

For shame Ecoli, -1 Sorry, I have no idea what that means. Whoopknee Goldberg Albutt Eyestein Patrick Swazeknee Walt Disknee I guess we could extend it to science terms... Muon McGregor

I ordered a copy sometime ago, and admittedly forgot all about it. I've asked my sister to get me a copy for Christmas, only to find out there won't be any available until February !?! So I'm getting book tokens, and I'll just have to wait...booo!

Please see the Guardian article below.... http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1936635,00.html Forgive the rather ardent thread title, but I was completely stunned when I heard this. I'm also clueless as to how this can improve grammar, spelling, punctuation and vocabulary. The sheer range of the English language, makes it a wonderful tool for expression, and articulation, and this really (in my mind) seems a very bad path to take. It just seems like an incredibly lazy way of expressing one's self, hence it's used for writing quick text messages. For this to be extended to exams, of all things, just seems baffling to me. So anyone have any thoughts on this. I realise this is just an isolated example, and probably nothing to get too worried about, but it certainly raises an eyebrow, just due to the fact it was even considered. I wasn't entirely sure where to put this thread, so please move if you don't feel this is the right forum.

This started when I was chatting to some friends on msn, basically you take a body part and try and incorporate it into a celebrities or famous characters name, knee seems to be quite an easy one to start off with, and thus... Liam Kneeson Chesknee Hawkes Doknee Darko You get 1 point for each body part, if you can get two body parts into one name you get two points. Of course if your attempt is tenuous, and not worthy of even a snigger, you will receive no points and will be mocked accordingly.