atinymonkey

If you can't be bothered to read the descriptive links, at least put your demands in the homework section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffer_solution

On Deadly Ground. Directed, starring, produced and ruined by Steven Segal. Not a great film to pick up information from.

Right. That clears it all up. I'll let Police know that they can pack it up and go home, because your five minutes thought on the matter proves beyond dispute that it's impossible for a Policeman to make a decision.

It's not incompatable, it's only that some people don't understand either Christianity or Biology. Information on Evolution and Creationism:- http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=13059 Information on types of Creationism:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

Thomas: Just because you don't know the situation is not a reason to make shit up. Almost everything you have stated is not substanciated in any of the reports, short of a man being shot. It is pure fantasy.

What is your point, skuinders?

You'll be needing this forum for debates: - http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=85

- Well Tarquin, I found that Bollinger rather flat. I say, shall we enslave humanity this afternoon, or stroll down to Grouchos?

Funny. I was just going to suggest you leave the thread. You don't seem to appreciate an English point of view on this English problem.

The Police are not instruments of Justice, and there is no death penalty in the British legal system. This makes the obvious answer 'no'. Including the victims name also swings the bias in the Jean Charles favour. I'm not sure how I'd phrase it, each time I try it's not balanced.

Christianity includes the belief that god created everything. That's fine. I personally don't call that creationism. The creationism I'm talking about is the belief that the first chapter of the Bible, in the King James Edition, is a literal account of the start of time and the universe. That's just super crazy. Mmmm. The idea that Gods hand in creation = Creationism is a quite limiting concept. I feel it's degrading to Christians to be associated Creationism, or Progressive Creationism as it's labled. Well, it is in a way. We know he didn't create the keyboard you are using, for instance. But he could well have guided the work that led it to be created.

Interesting that you can be so cavalier with the law. Perhaps arrogant road use somehow bypasses the need to protect others from your incompetent driving. If the other driver had stopped the car, and reversed back down the road, you should have still followed the rules of the road. Using a indicator light is not a promise that the driver will move, and if anything it indicate to the drivers behind that should use more caution, not less. It may be that you expained the event in a way that casts a poor light on yourself, by mistake. However, it still doesn't justify your sexist commentry on female drivers.

That's not really a martial arts maxim. It's a borrowed teaching from Buddhism. That's probably why you are having trouble. No, it really isn't.

Indeed. If we cannot discuss this rationally, we should not discuss it at all. Even with limited information, the smartest thing to do at this point is to wait for the inquest to finish. The world is not black and white, it has wide stripes of grey. The difference between good and bad actions change, according to your perspective. Right now, none of us have the perspective.

Well, it would indicate that: - 1) You were not anticipating the other drivers 2) You did not leave a sufficient stopping distance between yourself and the car in front 3) You did not have sufficient control of your vehicle 4) You incorrectly assumed a signal indicated commitment to turn None of which substanciates your curcumstancial claim that women drivers 'tend to cause accidents by not thinking'. Indeed, the opposite appears to be true.

Thats a loaded question, and rather unfair.

Most girls learn to drive in their fathers car, and are statistically more likely to drive there partners car when they leave home. Men tend to buy and drive their own car, and not borrow their partners/parents. Girls are also more likely to ask said father or partner to pay for any damage they cause while driving, so males lose more no claims bonuses than girls. On top of that, boys tend to drive faster than girls. So although they have fewer accidents, they cause larger damage when they occur. All in all, it's just more sensible to give males a higher premium.

Actually, he fully understood the Police. He knew who they were, and what they were asking. He ran anyway, for one of two reasons that we are aware of: - 1) He had jumped the turnstile. It's possible he thought that they were chasing him for not buying a ticket, all 40 armed police , in which case he was being monumentally stupid. 2)His visa to work in England had run out. He could have thought that they were immigration officers who were chasing him, in which case it was monumentally bad luck. Either way, it was a tragic mistake. It was no mysterious arctic adventurer, it was just a confused and scared man who did the wrong thing at the wrong time. It's not the first time an innocent has been killed by the police, it won't be the last. I suppose we just wait for the inquest to finish to find out the full story: - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm I'm not sure what you know about London Met, but they are renowned for being no nonsense police. Real hard cases. Jean Charles would have known that, living in London. He knew about the bombs, and the security, but still ran. They are not 'what's all this then' bobbys, they mean business.

ROFL.