Prince Myshkin

:confused:

I'm going to watch the England match.

Because they are more popular than Muse off the internet.

I dunno. I don't really talk about music I like with people. I prefer talking about music I don't like.

It's a shame it's not published in UK. It is in 21 countries, including in India in English, but not in UK. Strange one that.

It is funny if you read this thread as penis instead of pen. Changing every post. I was gonna type this instead of my last post, but now Twisted mind said that I've no choice but to say it.

It's all just people not knowing what to do and trying to be tough without getting into a situation where the other guy might get hurt enough to tell a teacher, or scared enough to lash out and hurt you back more seriously than they could if they were putting thought into retaliating.

I wouldn't normally. I was at work and we have to have a pen handy.

Last one I read was interesting. Had an article in it on the importance of guns and how they changed our society. It was something I'd never considered as I'm very anti-guns in terms of regular people having access to them in their homes. Basically it was saying that when weapons started being used it changed us from alpha male dominated societies which were controlled by the strongest, to a set-up where the more intelligent prospered. Everybody had the potential to inflict pain with these weapons so it became more about people who could convince others to do things, or people who got the best results. edit: but it was far more in depth. I'm just trying to remember and it was about a year ago now.

National Geographic is a good read with some awesome pics, though I went off it a little when it dithered on religion. It would have some religious articles in it sometimes and it seemed really out of place. I remember it talking about archaeology and certain religious institutions paying for archaeology to take place in order to prove the bible but then leaving it open as though they may well find proof. Seemed a bit stupid. They could have put it forward to explain what they were doing and then looking at the positive effects of having the extra money spent on the digging, combined with the limitations of simply digging for something specific and not having an interest if it didn't fit the criteria of what they were looking for, plus the issues of digging up certain areas when it is already being used. But they didn't. I think about two or three issues in a row had articles that pandered to religion (in the sense of not wanting to offend so pretending there's an equal chance of it being correct compared to it not being correct) and I just got out of the loop of reading it because I started wondering what other sacrifices were being made and what else they weren't reporting on/spending time reporting on/angles they were ignoring/angles they were giving unfair precedent to. New Scientist is just a huge orgasm. Weekly magazine so it's pricey for a subscription. I'm gonna kick of with a 3 month subscription for about £35 and then maybe continue.

I'd rather it this way and have some of the less mainstream stuff get more coverage but I see your point. I think legends just aren't as universal anymore and the ones who do achieve it are either incredible or watered down so as to appeal to large numbers. You get more cult followings these days I think. That's probably better, I guess. Sigur Ros is a great shout. Too early to say I reckon, but if they were to stop now they won't be remembered along with the big names unless they end due to the main guy dying. Two albums in, the first one not even spotted by the mainstream. Psychedelica has been done before, too, so maybe they will have to evolve a little to become proper legends in the future. I'm not saying I hope they will change though as they are my favourite band of the moment. I just think they will be highly regarded by some, and rightly so. Just not legends of music in their current incarnation.

He will like foreigners; just not the ones who don't work, nor the ones who take all our jobs.

Good question that. That takes it up to 25 questions for her. I had a message from her about 10 hours back saying she was doing the video then, but it's not definite she actually did it so hopefully that message can be included. If not maybe a follow up video can be done as I'd be interested in hearing her response to that. There's some good questions in this one. Might be a long video if she takes as long as me to answer. Hopefully will be a long one given the intriguing nature of the interviewee and some of the questions she will be answering.

Your point still stood though. Especially the extremes part with xfactor for all consumers and reading for the enlightened minimalists.

Wasn't that person saying they were getting rid of van loads of their pointless possessions at the charity shop, rather than buying them from there? But anyway, anyone who has four van fulls of stuff that they don't need are ****s who have not spend sensibly in the past and have a vulgar streak.

Any further thoughts on this?

We should do this but with New Scientist.

Coming up to 18 months since we had a reintroduction...

I concur with Mike's thread though. The majority are far too caught up in matters that only serve others past a basic level. And when you think of what you could do for people who really need help, it kind of makes the whole thing disgusting. That combined with your own emotional well-being makes it really difficult to feel anything but disdain towards the money motivated.

It's how you use the things around you. Whether you really need them. There are plenty of things out there that aren't necessary but as long as you are using them in a certain manner then there is no problem. There's plenty of things people get worked up about (myself included) that aren't worth it in the grand scheme of things and it's useful to take a step back sometimes and realise who you are and where you are. One thing that annoys me is people moaning about Facebook. It is more than fair enough to complain about their evolving privacy settings and where that leaves us all (it's a very interesting topic) but when people delete it taking some form of moral high ground I can't help but think they are simply using it incorrectly. You are in control of what you put on there and who you are friends with. It's an incredibly useful tool to catch up with people and sharing things, particularly within private messages. If you are finding that you waste too much time on there scrolling and doing nothing then it is you who has the issue. Delete some people on there, remove some people from your feed in order to control how much you see. It's the same with many other technologies. The Internet can be a phenomenal tool, as can television. As Reilly said above, it's how you use it that matters. There is a certain responsibility given there is so much out there we can consume, the further we go. It shouldn't be a case of losing loads of your possessions and not buying other things otherwise you are part of the delusion, it should simply be a case of buying what you need, and then if you have extra money then you can do as you wish with it. One would hope you would make purchases from a healthy state of mind, being aware that these objects will not bring you ultimately happiness. It is that state of mind to get to that is the important part, if it's the way you want to go. When it becomes a competition in terms of how little you can have, and how pure you are, then it becomes just as problematic. You are behaving in a way to fit into a system rather than simply experiencing your life without envying those with, or in turn those without. I mean ideally, the spare money would go to charity but that doesn't happen to any decent extent for the vast vast majority of people, myself included.

The pic of my bare thigh is unfortunately too pornographic to go on here. Went too high up the leg.

Another badge/crest thing. This time Everton: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-22696130

https://audioboo.fm/boos/1418428-what-do-the-edl-stand-for Radio phone in with somebody who went to protest with EDL and identifies with them. Cringeworthy but superbly handled by the host.

I'd have finished 328th in that Cping league table. How poor.

I kneed a guy in the balls at primary school. He had been bullying me for months though and my parents had even been into school to try and sort it out. The teacher had said he had bullied others in the past and the parents don't care so there wasn't much they could do but he said if I retaliated then I wouldn't be punished. So that was my retaliation and he pretty much stopped bullying me after that. I'm not putting this down as relevant to the thread topic, more as a follow up to primary school fights being mentioned. I have no regrets. And having immunity from primary school law was awesome.