Sayonara

lol, just checking.

Was that "if you don't understand my 65-word unstructured sentence, it's not my fault"? I agree with you about smilies - I tend to filter them out (especially where they are overused).

Blasmamous is what you call it when someone starts to blasmame.

Any answer we give will probably be useless to you if we don't understand fully what the question is.

That one challenges even me for verbosity and comma-confusion

If by 'fixed' you mean 'changed', then no. It should be fairly simple to let the script know if the user came from the front page, or from a thread.

It assumes you've come from the front page poll (always the newest posted poll in the polls forum) and sends you back to the front page to view the results.

I was referring to "why do we even have bones?" really. You can of course extend the "head?" question to cover bones, kidneys - whatever you like.

There are probably links on that article to the reasoning behind it all, full regulations etc.

Let's not go off topic again. This might be 'General Discussions' but the OP asked a serious question. This would be the place for discussing the purpose of bones: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=44

My post was from that second BBC article Demosthenes; it lists the main regulations that came into force in the UK.

To get back on topic, you can no more "prove" you have a head than you can prove anything else (EG: that you exist at all). But all evidence points towards you having one insofar as we understand what heads are and where they come from. There are some more discussions of this nature in the Philosophy & Religion forum, and the Pseudoscience & Metaphysics forum - they might be helpful.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrgh!

Not all guns: *Columbine

Yes. Yes it was. This resulted: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/16/newsid_3110000/3110949.stm

The Dunblane Massacre: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/13/newsid_2543000/2543277.stm

If some people are deliberately run over, should driving be banned?

Keep in mind that the thread is about "should the private citizen be allowed to own a gun?" Reacting to intruders is not the only reason to own one.

This is o/t. Seems to be quite a trend at the minute.

That's drifting o/t a bit. This is about guns and gun control, not staving intruders heads in.

I'm sure Euripides did not intend to suggest that anyone who calls someone a fool, is foolish.

Iirc Ref and I were the only ones online at the time.

The original discussion of this topic was in another engineering thread. Then Ref started this new thread on the same subject, and I split the post from the other thread across. No thread titles changed. This all happened a while ago.

A better solution would be making bullets cost $30,000 each.