Posts by brian murray

Israelis' invulnerable, 60-tonne robot bulldozer force to double

Yes, Matt, do let's get back to the article

Yes, Matt, do let's get back to the article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7987317.stm

I do not condone the actions of the Palestinian behind the original attack, but the IDF pulling down his house about a year later as (in their own words) a 'deterrent' surely gives the lie to the notion that the IDF only ever bulldoze (Sorry, 'rock gently') arms caches, tunnels etc. Or are you calling the IDF liars? Shame on you for even thinking such a thing!

Calm down Matt..

..It's an observation, not a diagnosis. You've had more space than anyone else on this forum so you need to take some responsibility for how you have chosen to depict yourself.

Anon coward 1 - thanks for proving my point. If you have read the Balen report I'd love to see the link. My understanding is that no one outside the BBC has seen it yet.

Anon coward 2- I assume this is a spoof?

Enough said, Matt Bryant

Dear Matt - I have never seen anyone bend over so far to swallow the Israeli 'defence' force version. Erh Matt 'shaking houses to make the bombs go off' - yup, thats called bulldozing. To be honest we could sit here swapping facts all night long - the way you blame the media for not endorsing your position demonstrates what I call 'conspiracy theory logic' (I'm a psychiatrist). You'll never admit you're wrong because if you are - it's the media's fault for telling the wrong story!

I think your tasteless disregard for a human life tells us all we need to know about you and people like you, and your stories will be interpreted with that in mind.

Other examples of humour which Matt might enjoy are the IDF's habit of commissioning T-shirts glorifying the deaths of Palestinian women and children. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7960071.stm

I'm not angry, I just feel sorry for you.

Brits 'a bunch of yellow bastards', says irate Yank

Why do Americans have guns?

Can someone remind me why Americans have guns? According to the Constitution it should be purely for the purpose of defending their country from enemies both domestic and foreign (or some such) but I see no evidence of that: unless a deer running away from you presents a clear and immediate threat. Is it to protect their families? Apparently not - when someone in USA chooses to 'go postal' (incidents like Columbine are so common in America they have a phrase for it) you never see a plucky US citizen with their precious gun rushing to defend the community do you?

Study clears cannabis of schizophrenia rap

Unconvinced

How many people read the article itself ? 'The consensus is pretty much you should not use cannabis if you want to avoid an increased risk of schizophrenia' - that is from the paper's author. Talking of 'one bad trip causing schizophrenia' makes me wonder if the Reg author understands this debate at all. The idea of using how many relatives with / without schizophrenia to 'prove' cannabis is harmless seems a bit disingenuous, after all, schizophrenia's hereditability is not well understood. I am always suspicious of research papers which use a roundabout way of proving a point when there are much easier ways to make the point, no? I.e follow up a cohort of cannabis smokers and see what happens. This has been done: a study of Scandinavian army conscripts found heavy use definitely predisposes towards schizophrenia. A meta- analysis (a summary of several best quality papers) in this month's British journal of psychiatry showed that, although the quality of the evidence is not as great as we previously thought, there is still a clear consensus that cannabis use increase paranoid symptoms generally, precipitates schizophrenia in those predisposed (not quite the same as simply bringing forward its onset) and creates schizophrenia in a small percentage who would not have got it otherwise. Funny how this research got missed in the Reg's reporting. In comparison to the numbers who use cannabis the percentage suffering may seem low, but it is not as if we are discussing the side effects of something that cures cancer or world poverty. I have seen people with schizophrenia and I do not see why people would risk that for the sake of a herb that makes you giggle. It just ain't worth it. No, I am not a govt agent and I do not care if your gran smoked it until she was 96 blah bah blah - If you think those arguments make sense then you've been at too much already.

500,000 oppose Red Arrows Olympic ban

Stand by for the headline..

Knowing the arrogance of papers like the Sun, it seems to me highly likely that instead of running an apology they'll have a headline saying 'Sun readers get our flyboys reinstated at Olympics'. I am told the Sport ran an article claiming there was a London bus on the moon, then responded to criticism with another front page article 'London bus disappears from moon'.

I used to follow Richard's policy of sending a correction / clarification to everyone's address for every asinine chain email scam that came to my inbox but unlike him, I never got an apology, just shirty comments from the embarassed plonkers who had forwarded this rubbish. This once included a hoax email about women being attacked by men with fake perfume which turned out to have been passed on by work's health and safety bod! Funny how people like that have no problem with polluting everyone else's inbox, but get tetchy when someone does the same thing to try to correct the damage they cause. Someone once said 'The public, the public, how mnay fools does it take to make a public?'

Physics GCSE: 'insultingly easy, non scientific, and vague'

Melanin?

I quote: 'Acceptable answers are "more UV absorbed by dark skin (more melanin)"'. Er...surely this should be 'melatonin'? I daresay a replacement door for a kitchen cupboard might provide some protection from UV but really, is that what the exam board are looking for?

Who else spotted this? No? Back of the class everyone - now!