Oh yeah, another thing I discovered.



69% (lol) of our active community joined within the first 6 days of Sep7agon's existence. Let that sink in for a moment.

We're so immature it's incorporated into our consciousness.

Wouldn't have it any other way.

The mods are paranoid about being overthrown.

(Though really they should be doing ^_^/v_v)

Dunno.

If someone counters my point with some fancy research paper, I can't exactly argue that a proven fact is false. Then again as Psy said, if I haven't any knowledge on a subject or an interest, I'll stay out of it.

But after a few lectures recently I've been asked to question data, because it could be easily manipulated to show/prove something that isn't true, or appear to have a link when it doesn't.

I've had to do this before as part of my Welsh Bacc. thing, and it's quite interesting if you get a good topic going.

Me and a mate were able to sway opinions about the use of military intervention in foreign conflicts when both of us ourselves disagreed with it, but got put on the side to support it.

How I remember the debate going was along these lines...

-One team had about 5 minutes to argue their point (e.g. "We believe military intervention is bad because...")
-While they argue their point, the opposing team can (politely) interrupt to either question a point (e.g. regarding the validity of a data source) or refute a point because they have opposing data that says otherwise. This stops the 5 minute timer until the interruption is either answered or there is no counter-argument to defend the point.
-After the 5 minutes are up, the audience is allowed to ask a few questions about things discussed.
-After questioning time, the roles are reversed and the other team argues their point for 5 minutes ("We support military intervention because...")
-After repeating the steps for the other team, the audience vote on what they think has a stronger standing (In favor of.../Against.../Abstention).

I'm sure there's other ways of doing this, but obviously we'd have a problem as there is isn't really an interactive "audience". You could find out the results of the debate through a judge (though that has the problem of bias within one individual), or... god forbid...use the Youtube comments to find out the "winner".

I say they can, but it should take up a lot of the allocated "food points" given.

Be king for a day if they wish, but endure weeks of canned beans and rain water afterwards.

DAMMIT PEOPLE

I see you as Pvt. Joker.

You might as well have not posted 'em then.

But on a lighter note, break a leg...except don't don't break that one on the night.

The UK Polling Report shows that back in 2006, 78pc of British Muslims polled believed that Kurt Westegaard--the Danish guy who drew pictures of Mohammed--should've been prosecuted, with 68pc thinking those who insult Islam should be prosecuted.

CBS News, also back in 2006, reported that 25pc of British Muslims supported the 7/7 bombers. And Pew has weighed in on the issue, showing that 24pc of British Muslims think suicide bombing is justified, with a further 15pc saying it is sometimes justified. Worryingly, this rises to 35pc and 19pc for Muslims aged 18-29. That's 54pc of 18-29yo Muslims who feel that suicide bombing is at least sometimes justified.

Civitas tell us that 33pc of Muslims believe apostates should be killed, and 28pc want Britain to be an Islamic state. And a different Pew study showed that just 7pc of Muslims in Britain think of themselves as British first, with 81pc explicitly thinking of themselves as Muslim first.

I'm not liking those percentages, but I want to it a tad clearer. How many were polled?

Try not to think about it.

Thinking further about sad events or how it could be changed because you think you could've done something else to help can spiral into worse.

Now that I think of it, yes.

That said, it doesn't mean I'd act on it. It's just a harmless thought.

Also, it kinda has to fit my internal "ranking system", so some people I know will never be considered regardless of whether I know them very well or barely at all.

To an extent, agreed.

In rural places it seems the cyclists are far more safe road-wise with all the hand indications and all that, but in places like Cardiff, the cyclists are fucking mental. Now that could be down to being a largely student city, making most of the cyclists clueless and/or drunk students, but with that said it doesn't excuse the dozens of shit drivers too.

Then again, drivers have to pass tests and have all this paperwork and insurance forms filled out to drive, while I can just hop on a bike with little to no road safety knowledge and just weave amongst the traffic with little care in the world.

Good!

So long as you maintain transparency by telling the audience this, you'll do well. It's better to be honest about it than getting caught in the last EA-reviewer scandal last year...

Country boy here.

Since moving to a "City" (As many wouldn't see Cardiff as a true one with only ~300,000 people) I find it odd how people can live with a constant din of traffic in the background, back gardens being tiny with little (if any) greenery, and the closest sign of wildlife being pigeons and seagulls pecking through dustbins for food.

But on the otherhand, I love the internet connection speeds above 10Mb/s, the proximity of any major restaurant/coffee/junkfood chain (the nearest one for me in the middle of nowhere is...oh, an hour away...) and the availability of public transport, as well as the cheaper and better nightclubs and alcohol in a city.

Lol Ed Milliband, that nasal bastard.

With a face like Wallace and his demeanor, I'd be surprised if Labour won. For reference:

I see the week has started off well then.

Maybe the world will endeavor to finish it as it started - ridiculously.