atinymonkey

In the UK, we still have organized fox hunts. These involve a great many traditions, bring all sorts of revenue and benefits to rural communities, but basically boil down to a fox being chased down and killed by dogs. The government has made three attempts in the past decade to ban hunting, but seems to be adamant this time that the ban will be applied: - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4020453.stm Keeping in mind that a fox is not a particularly nice creature, a vicious diseased dog really, what is the right or the wrong position to take? Is it correct to ban something when there are two major opposing viewpoints surrounding the activity? Should tradition be valued over the sensibilities of a few hippies? Is the hunt just a bunch of bloodthirsty idiots? Should the Government be allowed to overrule the House of Lords on this (or indeed any) issue?

In the UK, we still have organized fox hunts. These involve a great many traditions, bring all sorts of revenue and benefits to rural communities, but basically boil down to a fox being chased down and killed by dogs. The government has made three attempts in the past decade to ban hunting, but seems to be adamant this time that the ban will be applied: - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4020453.stm Keeping in mind that a fox is not a particularly nice creature, a vicious diseased dog really, what is the right or the wrong position to take? Is it correct to ban something when there are two major opposing viewpoints surrounding the activity? Should tradition be valued over the sensibilities of a few hippies? Is the hunt just a bunch of bloodthirsty idiots? Should the Government be allowed to overrule the House of Lords on this (or indeed any) issue?

Yes. It's all in your head, next to the information about boiling rice.

Yes. It's all in your head, next to the information about boiling rice.

The lab is here: - http://www.roslin.ac.uk/ Check it out. I'm sure they will answer questions more fully than we can.

The lab is here: - http://www.roslin.ac.uk/ Check it out. I'm sure they will answer questions more fully than we can.

When any group is set to work, they face new problems and new challenges. Unfortunately, people also tend to seek comfort zones from which to approach new problems from. In this case, it seems that the British contingent have created a British community for a comfort zone. This is quite understandable, as the American culture is distinctly unsettling to most British people, and vica versa. The problem is that on the surface the cultures are the same, but the subtle differences are enough to throw you off balance. Subconsciously, the British are probably minimizing the disruption to there normal processes and retreating to a 'safer' environment. It's something you see all over businesses, if groups of people move from department to department they tend to stick together in isolated units. I wouldn't take the animosity too seriously, it sounds as though the British are setting up a bastion of Britain to retreat too in the overwhelming American environment they have landed in. In a sense, they are just hiding. It would be interesting to know what the company does, as some British companies have employees with specific degrees in the buisness that have no American equivalent (or the equivalent is too local to be of use in an international community). But I think all companies exhibit cultural nepotism, people who the management get on with are promoted rather than those skilled for the role. I realize the reply is a bit of a glib reply, but the specifics are not really tangible enough to comment on.

When any group is set to work, they face new problems and new challenges. Unfortunately, people also tend to seek comfort zones from which to approach new problems from. In this case, it seems that the British contingent have created a British community for a comfort zone. This is quite understandable, as the American culture is distinctly unsettling to most British people, and vica versa. The problem is that on the surface the cultures are the same, but the subtle differences are enough to throw you off balance. Subconsciously, the British are probably minimizing the disruption to there normal processes and retreating to a 'safer' environment. It's something you see all over businesses, if groups of people move from department to department they tend to stick together in isolated units. I wouldn't take the animosity too seriously, it sounds as though the British are setting up a bastion of Britain to retreat too in the overwhelming American environment they have landed in. In a sense, they are just hiding. It would be interesting to know what the company does, as some British companies have employees with specific degrees in the buisness that have no American equivalent (or the equivalent is too local to be of use in an international community). But I think all companies exhibit cultural nepotism, people who the management get on with are promoted rather than those skilled for the role. I realize the reply is a bit of a glib reply, but the specifics are not really tangible enough to comment on.

Air con unit.

Part of an oil heater.

*sigh* My reference was to innocents killed in foreign lands by each country. It was not in reference to unsubstantiated rumors of famine in either of the states. North Korea has attacked no other country but South Korea during the civil war. They are insular and have provoked no actions that could make them as either insurgents or a rogue state. The US has no sovereign, and so they are not a sovereign state. They are, in actual fact, a democratic republic. This is not irrelevant, but quite important. Unless your making a reference to corporations controlling the ruling majority, which is a contrivance for another discussion. No, I don't see it that way. The illegal practivce of hostile occupation in direct opposition to the international ruling council make them a rouge state. The govement acts of it's own violition, beholden to no country or law but it's own. It may be harsh to label it rogue, but that's how it acts in reality and that moniker fits. It is nothing of the sort, I am not being in the least insincere about my opinions nor do I need to be. Having Korea labeled as rogue implies that it performs rouge actions. Korea, of course, does not perform any actions whatsoever outside it's own borders. It is in essence controlled by China, and in that respect the nearest thing it could be called is a puppet state. I appreciate that the whole fear of Johnny Communist has resulted in Korea being put into the axis of evil, but it's only aspect of none conformity is it's communist system of government. You can't even claim that the refusal to allow weapon inspectors is the action of a rogue state, as the US has never allowed inspectors access either. Nope. As I pointed out earlier I drew no comparison between the US and Korea, you drew the comparison in a rather blase strawman (post 30). All I did was point out the dichotomy of a country willing to attack 'rogue states' while at the same time refusing to yeald to any international group or countries opinion.

The US is not a sovereign state. Unless the US is finally deferring to King George's rule. Hence the word rogue, as in under nobodys control!! I never did. But, since you want to do comparison, in the past week alone the US has killed more innocent civilians than North Korea has managed since the 1960's. Which country has the peaceful isolated existence and which one kills the most innocents in foreign lands?

Arafat is dead.

The only thing interesting about this plan will be China's response, if they even take it seriously. It's a very archaic attitude to have, that space can be laid claim to. Especially as the commercial use of space is outstripping the military. Virgin Galactic in 5 years time will have more active spaceships than NASA. It just sounds like the blustering of a military establishment that probably thought it would be in spacefighters by 1999. Unless the Stargate actually does exist, all that report shows is a wish list. Nope. But you may have to explain why you don't think the US is a rogue state, because that's how the international community and the UN view it. We have no control over it, nether does the UN, therfore it is rogue in our perception.

It doesn't really matter if my humour doesn't suit. There is no function on the forum to inform user they have misconstrued a post. If you can dream one up, please do let us know. And, like most people who are literate, I don't use 1337 jk ;0) in every sentence where I intend to display humor. No, obviously you will not. It was not a flame, and repeated accusations and deformations don't amount to much more than you completly misinterpreting one simple sentence. You can't be bothered rereading what I say but I must pay rapt attention to you? I'm sorry, but I'll only take seriously what I want to. You know full well if I wanted to flame you, I'd have done a better job than that.

But to answer the question, nobody knows. If a hardliner (like Bush) takes power then the middle east peace process will fail. It's a bit disturbing, as nobody is quite sure who will end up in power. Hopefully, it will be someone who is open to the peace process and will limit the armys free rein.

Look, I've been playing it a week and I personally have not felt any ill effects. If anything I find the game elucidating and informative, a superb tension release and jolly good fun. Now back you punk bitch ass off, before I smoke your fool ass mutherfu%*er. You'd better show me some damned respect, baller, or you ain't gonna see the sunrise. I'm gangsta.

Being aware of Tai Chi is a world away from claiming that a Tai Chi Grandmaster is the most effective fighter. While I'm not dismissing Tai Chi as a martial art, I am dismissing it as an effective martial art. I've cited before that it does not hold up well when pitted against practintioners of other schools, and I think you would be hard pressed to find a Tai Chi exponant who could best an opponant at the same level from any other school. 11 years ago, aged 16, I was training army officers in unarmed combat techniques. Today, I proud to say, I have still never been in a street fight. Because I know how to fight, I don't need to fight. The only time I have used my abilitys has been in private tournaments, never in public. I'm not quite following you here. I'm not sure what your reading into my post, but when I said 'I was told from the start' I meant from the start of my training in the discipline. It was the pure form on Ninjitsu, which is broadly speaking about movement and evasion. This direct fighting style named Ninjitsu seems to be a relatively recent invention, but in the original form a practitioner of Ninjitsu was not taught to stand toe to toe and fight. If you have fought someone claiming to be using Ninjitsu, the style would appear to be circular movements (much like the higher levels of jujitsu without the locks), if it did not appear fluid circles it was not Ninjitsu. Tai Chi Chuan means grand ultimate fist which I suspect is why they dropped the Chuan. However, the energy gate is indeed a key ideal, something that I was taught to increase focus. You are right, despite sounding weird it does work. Helps with meditation quite a bit too, as I recall. Which was, really, my original point. there are over 500 million practitioners of the Taoist Tai chi who do it for health. In comparison, there are only a few thousand exponents of the martial Tai Chi method. The vast majority of Tai Chi masters have never used the art for fighting, and would not know how to. What is all this about a blue box?

You think that my post was a flame job? Jesus, grow up.

Agreed, the age limit should be enforced. In the UK they used to send kids into shops with a policeman outside, the kid would ask for cigarettes and if served the police would fine the shopkeeper. It only took half a day to do a decent sized city, and it sure stopped underaged sales. I suspect a similar plan is underway for the games industry.

Less than 700 people live in Ohio? That explains the drop in US GNP I guess.

Yeah, it's translation is 'the supreme ultimate fist'. But tbh, every martial art claims to be the best (except, strangely, ninjitsu which I was told from the start was a poor direct fighting method). One of the core beliefs of all martial arts is that if you can convince people you are the ultimate fighter, you will win the fight because the opponent loses all heart. Most of this Grandmaster stuff is just hot air, as Miyamoto Musashi adeptly demonstrated and then detailed in 'The Book of the Five Rings'. The best physical demonstration of the fighting forms is in these ultimate fighting championships, where they actually pit the forms together. You just don't get wrinkled old men in it, as they get crushed quickly. Wushu itself does hold it's own against martial arts, but Tai Chi is not by any means an effective style. It's superb at keeping you fit and mentally healthy though. I saw that, the presenter guy is really odd! It's got some good bits, but some of it is just silly. I saw a sword master disarming his student with his bare hands, which was supposed to be lethally dangerous, the student came in really slow then stopped to allow the sword to be taken of him. Apart from being staged, it's a move I'd seen done hundreds of times before by much lower skilled exponents. No, there are hundreds of martial arts that come under the description 'Tai Chi'. Some of the more common ones are Chen, Wu Shi, Hu Lei, Taoist, Sun, Wu, Yang and Zhao Bao. If you don't know the difference between Taoist and Wushu Tai Chi, you can't really make a comment on how effective the styles are in combat.

I see. You seem to be confusing Tai Chi and Tai Chi Chuan. Ones for fighting and ones for health and harmony.

The old 'spiders web is stronger than steel' idea was falsified a while back. As it turns out, it's not the materal that's strong but the structure.