As Aliens pointed out - he said <b>seems </b> - my post originally started out to reassure that not everyone read his post your way and got excited about his generalisations... others may not take his generalisations as fact or literally either. In other words, I disagreed with you Wilde - is is that simple. Why you are having such trouble, and having to hammer your point home is beyond me though; however, I am willing to bet more people read it like me, than like yourself. Maybe we are not all as sensitive to such things as yourself, or maybe we don´t quite see what the big deal is if we say "some". How saying "some" is so wrong escapes me - as <i>some </i> parents <i>are </i> incapable of bringing up their children. I am not generalising - I am stating a fact that some cannot! Turning to statistics and news items offers up information from which I make such sweepingly "incorrect" generalisations - just as governments, agencies, papers, broadcasters and others do as well. If you find myself so wrong in how I have made those dastardly generalisations - then I am affraid its tough. Exactly how it is so bad also eludes me as well... I would be interested in exactly what is terrible about saying "some". Don´t get sidetracked with a generalisation such as "all parents are bad" - because that is not in contention here... and it never was. Just stick with the "some" part. As for condescending - I stated what I thought once based upon how you responded to others... nothing more. If that and the autism reference (It wasn´t an insult, your actions in your post could almost be symptomatic- I was just wondering as you can clearly see) are affecting you - then I am sorry. Maybe its my past - where my parents divorced, and I found my dead grandfather that cause me to sometimes be like this - who knows.
Posts by Spanner Monkey
-
-
The whole idea of a jury is whether the evidence collected is deemed good enough by impartial members of the society to convict isn´t it? Therefore they could only be liable where/if they biased against one or the other party upon their personal prejudice. If evidence is flawed, then its the investigators responsiblity I would imagine... so surely the method of presenting/arguing a case to conclusion would have significant impact upon whether the jury deems them guilty of the crime they are charged with, which would enable a certain leeway to press for a stiffer sentence than perhaps they should obtain when equally skilled/balanced lawyers? I have to admit, I have no real knowledge of proceedings - so I am just basing this on a presumption, and most recent cases are flawed through third party evidence - for which they are being punished it appears... so perhaps my natural dislike for lawyers is seeping through <img src=smilies/icon_smile_big.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> <img src=smilies/icon_smile_tongue.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> Hang them all!!! Edited by - Spanner Monkey on 7/21/2005 4:37:34 AM
-
<font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Oh! Look at that. A gross, flawed generalization. Please tell me how I was wrong in pointing that out. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> I almost wonder whether you are slightly autistic at times Wilde; generalisations are often interpreted by an informed public for what they are... conveying a perspective. He is conveying something - a feeling, a despair or a view - at society gradually declining without any sign of redemption. He is not informing us (which is where such a generalisation <b>would </b> need correction in my opinion), just conveying his present viewpoint - at which point I found myself reading his post, and instead of thinking "yes all parents are bad", simply thinking "parental skills do appear to be on the decline in general terms". You always seem to find it necessary to find fault/pick upon any slight issue you can in peoples posts; why you find it so necessary to enforce a "Wilde approved" perspective of anything is beyond me. He could have written a huge paragraph to clarify his statements somewhat - but it was un-necessary; we are more than capable of reading it, agreeing to a point (see above) and sympathising with his standing. In general, society also seems to accept the lower standards, or turn a blind eye. We don´t appear to have any action in reversing the trend as of yet... Imagine he had said "Three 8yr old children stole from my shop today; obviously their parents are incapable of bringing up their children". I feel fairly confident that you would have started with "You don´t know their situations, or their circumstances" etc - which you have done in other threads. Did anyone except Wilde interpret what J Dawg said completely literally - as in ALL parents everywhere cannot raise children? Or, Did you do as I did; read his post and agree with him that "in general good parenting is on the decline"? I see you in a career with the PC brigade "Wilde" - with the way you post in these threads, you´d fit right in. Edited by - Spanner Monkey on 7/21/2005 4:17:23 AM
-
How about the prosecution lawyers are charged with manslaughter if an innocent is put to death? I think that would more than help to reduce any possibility of an innocent being put to death; make them accountable for flawed or incorrect evidence used. Edited by - Spanner Monkey on 7/20/2005 9:45:18 AM
-
<font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>After what I saw today, I´m not sure that there is any hope for mankind. This afternoon, three little eight year old girls on bink and white bicycles came into the store where I work, and started stealing keys from the clocks! This is rather disturbing. It seems that either parents can´t raise their kids well anymore, or that kids have nothing better to do these days than just steal. How sad. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> <font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Frankly, generalizations about the mental state of children or the average modern family´s functionality are and have always been disgustingly off-centre. The reason? Each family is different. Each child is different. Even if all or the grand majority of children stole, though similarities would arise in each case, each would have stolen for vastly different reasons and have vastly different characters and backgrounds contributing to that. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> I failed to see the part about mental states, and in some circumstances generalisations <i>are </i> used/useful. People often post with the assumption that the reader is up to date on the modern news items - therefore understanding the current issue in hand... and of reasonable intelligence to discern the limitations of the generalisation, picking out the essence of what they are talking about! It would, quite frankly, make tedious topics if we said "there were three young criminals in my shop - which coupled with the two girls named jennifer and rachel last week makes it apparent that crime rates are soaring in the youth! oh, except for the other two kids I know - John and Jill... they aren´t - or billy, or ricky! However, their parents are of sound financial position, with good support - and i guess Jennifer and Rachel´s parents deserted them when they were babies, so they can be excused of criminal wrong doings - its not their fault! Therefore, its only those three whom are real criminals, the social degredation in the area of residence of Jen and Rachel account for them, and I know across the road had problems with the abused boys whom often plunder his store too - so its possible to say that 5 in 10 are criminals... oh, hang on - forgot that the nice area uptown has hundreds of well behaved children -after all, they are furnished with the means to bring them up right - you need money to teach your children fundamentals of what is right/wrong after all!! So that makes the statistics only 5 in 100!" Irrespective of the <i>families </i> issues, the law should be obeyed - and it is the <b>parents </b> responsiblity to teach their children the fundamentals of "right and wrong". If their circumstances are extreme, then surely they should be using the social services... after all, that is what they are there for, and what part of our tax funds are being utilised for as well. If they cannot undertake a basic responsiblity - and cannot provide adequate means for supporting their children, ensuring they have the best possible start in life... then why did they undertake such a massive task as raising children? Plenty of fodder in there for both sides once again <img src=smilies/icon_smile_tongue.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> Edited by - Spanner Monkey on 7/20/2005 9:39:49 AM
-
Oops - I missed the word "Ideal" when reading your post... <img src=smilies/icon_smile_blush.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>
-
You suck cock for breakfast? A bit young aren´t you <img src=smilies/icon_smile_shock.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> Subtlety is my forté Edited by - Spanner Monkey on 7/17/2005 4:31:06 PM
-
Is it more important to score points off of each other and nit pick, or to discuss things with a mind open to changing opinion? Does consitency matter when it could simply be a change of heart based upon your viewpoints offered so far? Rather than just say "Your flip flopping here, play it straight only - pick one side and stick to it forever" - shouldn´t you be asking if you have persuaded him to change his opinion instead?
-
Excuse me! Not all are saying they should be killed - a minority call for death. Although castration would suffice for some - although research has proved that castration doesn´t remove sexual desires after a certain age at all... Why do we have a justice system? Is it to really deal justice out - or does it actually give an opportunity to rehabilitate and integrate wrong-doers back into society - acting as a deterrent to other criminals, whilst removing the threat from the law abiding citizens whilst serving their sentence. An interesting thought though... should being mentally ill mean that you are spared execution? What type of mental illness should actually excuse someone from a death penalty (should one exist for crimes in the UK) - especially if they are to be incarcerated without any hope of a "cure" for their condition. Does this also fit in the idea of a criminal "justice" system (which sounds biased for the criminals), or catering for the criminals needs whilst neglecting those whom have been wronged? Is society supposed to be one which "forgives and forgets" immediately, coping with the trauma they have undergone - or should they be able to feel a certain "justice" has been carried out? Since humans will put to death any animal that attacks (with or without provocation by a child) and mauls them (inspite of it possibly being their natural "instinct" though straying on their territory, and being incapable of reasoning), and hunts down any wild animal to be destroyed that attacks as a food source (tigers, lions, sharks) - how exactly can we suddenly get on a high horse when it comes to humans? We respond to everything as else "destroy the threats" - why so lenient against proven threats between humans though? If you consider the fact that this lad may actually be treated for a mental illness, and released in ten years time... by simple fact that he has been treated/served his time for his crime - then if he moved next door to your family - would you be "okay" with this? After all, he has been treated and deemed safe... would you be happy with your children living next door to him? If he is not mentally ill at all (like most rapists or paedophiles are not deemed to be), then will a lengthy prison sentence really quash his desires upon release? Are we protecting society against them if this is the case? Are we addressing the issue, or just putting a layer of cosmetics over it instead (jail time) to satisfy. Whom does the criminal justice system actually serve? Is it societies needs - to protect citizens from criminals and dangerous people... or is it the criminals themselves? It is supposed to serve both, but with a very high rate of re-offense and increasing crime rates - one could easily argue that it fails both equally badly. The post deviates away from the mental illness issue, but that is simply because at what level of mental illness should a line be drawn about sentencing as normal humans would be? Alot of the "mental illness" mentions here seem to be simply attributed to his age only - after all, there are plenty of paedophiles out there whom no-one says are mentally ill at all... maybe this one just acted early like the rest of the current teenage generation. I ask again; if this was an adult - would you still be questioning his mental state? Plenty of fodder in this post for both sides to have a poke at, remember that none of this necessarily represents my viewpoint at all. *edit* Jamie Bulgers killers got 8 years, raised to 10 by the Lord Chief Justice - and then to 15 by the then Home Secretary (Michael Howard). It was deemed that politicians shouldn´t interfere with sentences in the interest of public pressure (by the EU courts)... and the sentence was reduced by the Lord Chief Justice Woolf and Jack Straw in Labours first term in office. The two boys being let out after serving just 8 years, although they apparently showed alot of remorse, and didn´t want to be released due to fears for their safety. They will probabily spend the rest of their lives living in fear - which should be more than enough extra punishment. Edited by - Spanner Monkey on 7/17/2005 5:50:45 AM
-
I am pretty sure that if you ask a rapist whether at the time of the attack they thought "This will ruin their lives" - they will say no. At 14 years of age, ANY "child" should know the difference between right and wrong, be able to evaluate their actions and potential reactions... if not, why the heck would they lie when they do something bad? They know the consequences of lying, but they try to cover up what they know gets them into trouble. Some will actually tell the truth because they evaluate the possible outcome OF lying, and deem it a worse response than lying. If he were 11 or younger I may believe your statements, if he was 12 - then I would have some leeway - if he were 13, I would start being sceptical. At 14 I dam well knew what I was up to, I was in year 10 at school - hormones running wild, and getting involved with the ladies my own age. I did not look at young girls, and I knew the consequences in getting involved with girls sexually my own age as well - so these comments I read do not wash with regards to his age. I cannot (and nor can 14 year olds I have recently spoken to) believe this as an excuse. Either the lad has some mental issues, or he damned well knew his actions and the hurt they would cause. He may not have bothered to consider it, but neither do murders or rapists, child molesters or other criminals when commiting their crimes as well... they would if they bothered to think about it, but they simply do not. They only think of themselves... Crying is a natural distress mechanism which is supposed to bring out compassion and help from other humans - he would have ingored their crying, their pleas and potentially their screams. Even if he were unsure of his actions, that combination would have made him stop in any normal human. So anything saying "he is only 14" just does not wash in my books I am affraid. At what age do we become responsible for our actions? Otherwise, I may hire myself a couple of 14 yr old hitmen, safe in the knowledge that as long as I am not discovered. Jamie Bulgers killers got stiff sentences, as they were deemed to have known what their actions were wrong/would result in... They were younger than 14 at the time too - speaks volumes in my opinion.
-
<font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade> If YOU mess up, commit an immoral action, act like a general asshole etc. you whine that your situation led you to act in the way that you did <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> You are basing your reasoning on the supposition of how he would react, when in truth - you simply cannot know?? Interesting. Whilst you bash on about how no-one knows any further details with regards to the case - in particular, the young man at the centre... (citing this as a reason why they should not castigate sd extraneous circumstances may be to blame/impact upon the blame) - then how can you argue that his circumstances could have been responsible for this as well? How do you know? You base your whole discussion to date upon an idea that he must have something wrong to explain his behaviour. Your posts so far have been based on speculation - so instead of acting like an authorative figure - try reading up on the case instead... I always find it interesting that if someone behaves "out of the norm" - then we can find a condition to explain their behaviour, and put our minds to rest. They suffered something. Whilst this may be true for this lad, until you know more - you shouldn´t treat your speculations with such authorative force over everyone elses perspectives. Interestingly enough, if this were an adult - what would peoples thoughts be then I wonder? Unfortunately we will never know, because just by mentioning this line of thought, it would affect your response simply due to the discussion to date. Edited by - Spanner Monkey on 7/14/2005 3:59:28 PM
-
<font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>ocial standing among other men that the male recieves for such actions <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> That is what I imply when referring to things like sun cream use with skin cancer - although I realise I didn´t actually make it clear. Its not because of the ladies impressions necessarily - but more in keeping with the perception of other men. The same can be said for most actions... its not to impress women as much as impress other men. Wilde - women to men are exceptions. Gene Simmons claims to have slept with thousands upon thousands of women... importance of status is a stronger attractor for women, much more than just being rugged good looks. If there is some infamy, then the woman is far more likely to find them attractive. Its not quite the same in reverse - with men definately being more interested in looks than the womans stature. The poet, without being a poet, would have undoubtedly have had little success - his conquests would have laid in his "poet" stature, and a romanticism that it implies. Much the same for why women will all sit and squeal at the site of Firemen; Its nothing to do with how good looking they are, or how adept at conversing/romanticising the woman - but simply the fact that women deem firemen to be attractive. Much in the same way that men are almost "rivaling" others in macho stakes (comparison to Peacocks and displays of plumage), women literally affect each other upon whom is attractive. Granted, not one on one - but en masse. Many women proclaiming that a man is attractive... or that a certain status is attractive, will lead to that person/status actually being attractive to other women. That is the simple reason for uniforms to be attractive for women... because if it appeals to a large range of women, then it is in itself (by defition) a sign of power or authority. The uniform is neither here nor there - it is an authoritive signal that will actually interest the lady, and increase her "status" amongst the other ladies. Men do not seem to have this affliction - it is purely based upon looks. The power a woman holds is irrelevant... its the beauty that matters. Is it because we compliment each other in our search for genetic "perfection"? Women search for the successful and powerful genetics, men search for the perfect build/looking genetics - with a resultant of all round perfection? I haven´t really read up on this area, thoughts just pop into my head whilst I type <img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> Edited by - Spanner Monkey on 6/10/2005 3:54:20 PM
-
<font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>I must agree, male testicular cancer imo is a MUCH larger threat than female testicular cancer <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> You do know that when a woman has a pair of love spuds swinging between their legs and talks with a deep gravel like voice, that its time to give in to your urges for interior design and ruffled cuffs don´t you?
-
Being a Starwars fan (aren´t we all?), and with Starwars pretty much dominating my young childhood imagination... I was looking forward to this film, just like I did with the others. Sad to say, I was disappointed. The technology was available to realise his dream of making these three films - and he took it; however, the script was ignored. He made mention during the making of the movie that he was writing the script as he went along; That was the problem. Usually you would have a completed script - and re-write it as necessary... but in this instance it appears that as he found out exactly the capabilties of the CGI to recognise his dream, he would apply the script to the film instead. He should have stuck with his visual masterpiece - which he is very good at, and let someone else write the scripting. With a decent script for everyone to work with, I am sure his directorial ability would have picked up as well, although this may have been mired by his love for the CGI. Instead of focusing upon how to direct it, he was just ensuring people said their lines in the right space for the CGI backgrounds he envisaged to be applied... which is what he was concentrating upon. *edit* As an addition, Lucas had a terrific plot - the fall of Anakin, as the chosen one, to the dark side. He instead tried to incorporate far too much... He should have concentrated upon Anakin, his relation with Padme, Palpatine and the Jedi Council in much greated depth - given it some real substance. There was no need to follow Obi Wan on his jaunt after General Grievous, nor Yoda on his Wookie tour; it should have focused soley upon Anakin/Vader. Edited by - Spanner Monkey on 5/30/2005 12:26:10 PM
-
<A href=´http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/etc/slaughter.html´ Target=_Blank>link</a> The inaction of the UN, US, France and Belgium in fact... International relations are always minefields and dances, around whom has leadership - the political implications of said country taking leadership, coupled with the typical "who pays the bill of life and money?" Were it a single country, I am sure things would have occured sooner - but because many countries were invovled, each were spending time negotiating over responsiblity... basically Rwanda occured because everyone spent too much time pointing fingers at the others, and waiting for them to say/do something instead. No-one wanted to take responsiblity. Rwanda was startling in the sheer number of killings, in such a short space of time. 3/4 of a million in 100 days... alot faster than was imagined I assume. The book your reading makes the point - <font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Disagreement continues about whether there is a right of intervention, how and when it should be exercised, and under whose authority. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> International Law, coupled with international inaction - such wonderful tools for the modern world... but at the same time; necessary to prevent a country going to war over incorrect reasoning. Oh wait, hang on a second... <img src=smilies/icon_smile_big.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> Edited by - Spanner Monkey on 5/29/2005 4:01:28 PM
-
Industrial accident compared to <i>genocide </i>?? Hmm... There is an interesting debate about your reference to "mistake" with regards to the genocides around the world... Is the person in charge of the genocide making a mistake, or is it the rest of the world standing by? I assume its the world... It would make an interesting discussion about at what exact point the world intervenes, as well as how far should it go? If the people support their leader (even though its a murdering psycho), should you still invade, killing the people who defend him (the people you are trying to save...) or not? What about if they hate the invading "freedom" nation who invades instead, or resent you invading their country? What methods should you try first, and when exactly do you abandon all hope, crank out the tanks, and destroy a country?
-
<font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Did you know that M$ marketed the XBox on the assumption that it would take 10 years of sales tp penetrate 25% of the PS2 market share? They did rather better than they expected.. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> I think that is because people are now more likely to spend their money, instead of saving it. Therefore, they think nothing of buying the PS2, and then 6 months later getting an X-Box. People these days seem to no longer consider their finances, and be more careful with their spending. Gone are the days when a loan was a huge deal, it would take a long time to get your application approved, and the stimga of needing one was that of a poor person. These days, people are taking out loans to pay for holidays, cars - and even to bolster the christmas shopping (which really gets me going) - and spending months of wages on credit. Therefore it is so much easier to just buy what you want, as its all on a ´pay later´ deal. This is fuelled by the low interst rates on credit cards. Some will attribute that to the government, but interest rates are going up at present. The truth is that Banks are no longer the institutions that they used to be. Gone are the days when you used to have to almost beg for an account, and justify everything many times to them. These days, they are a business place, a sales market - and happy to offer you anything you want (within reason) to secure another sale. Competition to get the market share means that they drive each others interest rates down. So people do not consider the idea of saving money, and a couple of hundred quid on a new toy is fine with them. Therefore, they think nothing of owning both a PS2 and an Xbox. I think the recent economic slowdown in the UK is going to show that the relentless rate of spending and borrowing WILL slow down, and come to an end. Maybe by the time the PS3 and Xbox 360 are out, people really will only buy one or the other - which would show just how well M$ has really done against Sony. I must admit, I think that they will have done remarkably well to be honest <img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> Damned spelling. Edited by - Spanner Monkey on 5/29/2005 4:47:26 AM
-
<font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>panner - I find that the best way to become a part of the community is act as though you´ve been there forever. I may get the odd "...and who the hell are you?" comment but, more often than not, I simply insinuate myself into the community quite easily <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> Good idea Solar needs large areas to work well, but then again, there <i>are </i> large areas - like rooftops. Also - they don´t just need to generate power, it can be used to heat water as well (I think they do this in Scandanavian countries?!). The only problem is that solar panels are expensive, and fragile and in areas where light isn´t as intense as the desert - their output will be very low (they work fine in normal light, but it just won´t generate much). Wind power is excellent on the coasts, just due to the temp difference between the land and the sea... natural air currents being created, but it proves a problem when it comes down to inner land - as its not as consistent. Geo Thermal is another great way to generate electricity. A really great way, its consistent, very cheap and very reliable. Hydro electric is also a very good method of generating power... especially if you can combine it with reservoirs and areas of good rainfall. Tidal power just doesn´t seem to have been researched enough quite yet, although who knows in the future... another one that should be great. The problem is that you hear governments talking about one type alone, or it being between two types. The truth is that it should be a combination of types. Okay, in the UK it would probabily cost a fortune to do geothermal... whereas in Iceland it would be fairly easy (I believe this is how they generate alot of their electricity actually), but they always seems to only talk about Wind power! Another thing that irks me about energy waste. Why do we light up thousands of miles of motorways... when we have lights on our cars, or no-one is on them? It seems barmy. Get onto a B-Road and you can go nearly as fast down smaller lanes - but without any street lighting. Why do motorways need it? Whats the point? Never really got that one...
-
<font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>And, as we all know, I´m a lazy, uncreative bastar <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> You´ve been here less time than me, and yet you say it like everyone knows you! Are you like Tawakalna, previous account that you no longer use? (Tawakalna, was that by choice, or did you forget your login?) As for the Cisco link... unfortunately, it was on the Channel 4 news... and claimed by the CISCO chief exec? (not sure if she was the chief exec). It was part of the businesses piling pressure on Tony Blair by handing him a document with their wishes for "regulation" of their trade. Apparently HSBC already buys "green electricity" (meaning from renewable sources) - and this was Cisco´s proof that they are indeed committed to improving the world pollution problem. Since there was no reason for the chief exec to lie as to whether they have achieved it, as it could only bring disrepute on the company - I took it as fact at her say so. Unfortunately, I had a quick glance at the Channel 4 website, and have been unable to find a ´report´ of it there (yet). They do manage to keep copies of most news items on there, so it must be about somewhere <img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>
-
<font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Oh, and I do have to apologize to Spanner for my disturbing lack of creativity. I was going more for the whole "imitation is the sincerest..." feel, but I guess some people get used to insults so they just can´t help but post a comeback. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> I noticed... As for energy, cars just need to be reigned in. American gas guzzlers have always been an issue, even though they often have 4 times the capacity, but half the horse power of their UK counterparts. If public transport was actually clean, efficient and timely - then maybe people would use that instead. Although I think making more efficient and cleaner cars is an important development... it shouldn´t be the only solution looked at. The problem is that the western world rely far too heavily upon cars. Many wouldn´t even dream of walking a few miles to the shops; the car has become the only method of moving for far too many people, for the most mundane of tasks... This topic is so fascinating - because it encompasses areas that people would not usually consider... not just power production, heavy industry - right down to your computers. Cisco have developed computers that use 1/3rd of the energy of a normal computer - which given the amount of PC´s in the world... (Okay, the cost is likely to be high, but setting a precident is always a good way to make change - as rivals hate to be outdone!) could make a significant impact! The one I like, is that waste dumps usually have a ´burning beacon´ - which is simply burning off the Methane produced during the rotting of waste etc. That flame could be used to power mini turbines... just like old waterhouses are being transformed into mini powerstations as well. Ideas and progress - although on a very minor scale, it all helps/contributes.