If I were a bed-wetting, pedantic, unskilled idiot....

[Arbustos]

People who wear turbans are called Sikhs, a sect that split from hinduism. They have nothing to do with islam and are very unlikely to be called mohammed. If anyone put a turban on you and called you mohammed they would not be racist, merely pig ignorant.

Although the point is moot, I've always been taught that Sikhism is a syncretic religion, combining elements of Hinduism and Islam.

[heavycola]

People who wear turbans are called Sikhs, a sect that split from hinduism. They have nothing to do with islam and are very unlikely to be called mohammed. If anyone put a turban on you and called you mohammed they would not be racist, merely pig ignorant.

Although the point is moot, I've always been taught that Sikhism is a syncretic religion, combining elements of Hinduism and Islam.

It's a moot point.

[Norse]

People who wear turbans are called Sikhs, a sect that split from hinduism. They have nothing to do with islam and are very unlikely to be called mohammed. If anyone put a turban on you and called you mohammed they would not be racist, merely pig ignorant.

Although the point is moot, I've always been taught that Sikhism is a syncretic religion, combining elements of Hinduism and Islam.

I believe that islam and sikhism are members of different "religious families"....islam is a part of the Abrahimic family (the same family group as judaism and christianity) whereas sikhism is a part of the "dharmic family"(as well as hinduism and jainism)

[Arbustos]

People who wear turbans are called Sikhs, a sect that split from hinduism. They have nothing to do with islam and are very unlikely to be called mohammed. If anyone put a turban on you and called you mohammed they would not be racist, merely pig ignorant.

Although the point is moot, I've always been taught that Sikhism is a syncretic religion, combining elements of Hinduism and Islam.

It's a moot point.

That's what I said...

[heavycola]

People who wear turbans are called Sikhs, a sect that split from hinduism. They have nothing to do with islam and are very unlikely to be called mohammed. If anyone put a turban on you and called you mohammed they would not be racist, merely pig ignorant.

Although the point is moot, I've always been taught that Sikhism is a syncretic religion, combining elements of Hinduism and Islam.

It's a moot point.

That's what I said...

I repeated you.

[Arbustos]

People who wear turbans are called Sikhs, a sect that split from hinduism. They have nothing to do with islam and are very unlikely to be called mohammed. If anyone put a turban on you and called you mohammed they would not be racist, merely pig ignorant.

Although the point is moot, I've always been taught that Sikhism is a syncretic religion, combining elements of Hinduism and Islam.

It's a moot point.

That's what I said...

I repeated you.

Why not tell me why I'm incorrect, like Norse did, instead of reaffirming your own argument with something I said?

[Norse]

Why not tell me why I'm incorrect, like Norse did, instead of reaffirming your own argument with something I said?

Doesn't neccassarily mean that you are incorrect...that just happens to be what the taxonomists have classified it as....

but these same taxonomists classify a duck-billed platypus as a mammal, despite having aquatic and reptilian aspects about them.

[heavycola]

People who wear turbans are called Sikhs, a sect that split from hinduism. They have nothing to do with islam and are very unlikely to be called mohammed. If anyone put a turban on you and called you mohammed they would not be racist, merely pig ignorant.

Although the point is moot, I've always been taught that Sikhism is a syncretic religion, combining elements of Hinduism and Islam.

It's a moot point.

That's what I said...

I repeated you.

Why not tell me why I'm incorrect, like Norse did, instead of reaffirming your own argument with something I said?

I didn't disagree with you (although plenty of sikhs would). I was just pointing out that it was, as you said, a moot point.

[Arbustos]

If you didn't disagree with me, it follows that you actually do agree with me, which proves your earlier point about Sikhism and Islam having nothing to do with one another wrong.

The moral of this story is: Aristotle can shove it.

[reverend_kyle]

Shit things must be alot different in the U.K.

besides the cops alot of the public services people are quite well educated and intelligent in the United States, and they don't get paid shit.

[Titanic]

People who wear turbans are called Sikhs, a sect that split from hinduism. They have nothing to do with islam and are very unlikely to be called mohammed. If anyone put a turban on you and called you mohammed they would not be racist, merely pig ignorant.

Although the point is moot, I've always been taught that Sikhism is a syncretic religion, combining elements of Hinduism and Islam.

I believe that islam and sikhism are members of different "religious families"....islam is a part of the Abrahimic family (the same family group as judaism and christianity) whereas sikhism is a part of the "dharmic family"(as well as hinduism and jainism)

Islam may be an abrahamic religion, and Sikhism a Dharmic religion, but they do have many areas which are similar. The first Sikh Guru, Guru Nanak Dev Ji actually travelled through the middle east and even went to Mecca, and many of his writings were later turned into prayers and hymns or put into the Guru Granth Sahib. I cant be bothered to explain this point in any more detail, but I know I am right because I am a Sikh and I have studied the religion since I was about 9 or 10.

Do you know the one thing I like about you tit? The fact that you are always pushing the boundaries of logic.

Crime has fallen? a sweeping statement there, care to provide any back up to your claims?

And what is this? You do not think I should be protected from the law, because of my opinions? well bugger me, if you put a fucking turban on me and called me mohammed, that would be a fucking severly racist comment.

http://www.crimeinfo.org.uk/servlet/fac ... factsheets

# The July 2004 BCS estimated total crime in the categories it measured at 11.7 million offences annually. In 1995 the BCS estimated 19.4 million offences, so today’s figures represent a fall of 39%.
# Compared with 1995, the BCS has registered a 51% fall in vehicle thefts and a 47% fall in burglary.

It may be 3 years old, the best one I could find for a 10 year period, but I'm pretty sure crime is still lower now then it was when Labour got elected.

I did not say the law should not protect you because of your opinions, I was merely stating my sorrow, and probably what some police officers feel deep down, that the police have to protect you even though you continually criticize them and give out false statements against the police and try to damage their fragile reputation. Obviously they do their best to protect you as it is their job, and they may not be perfect, but they do the job they are given extremely well.

Tit, a degree in sociology, psychology and "civil sudies" is not fit to be used as toilet roll.

The Labour party has created a boom of jobs within the public sector, they have been very clever about this, preaching the mantra that you seem to be whistling along to. Brain-washed? nah, you need a brain for that.

You, among your ilk, seem to have a fascination with the daily mail? why is this? I don't read any particular paper....let me guess, using your same assuming logic you read the guardian?

pfft

The Guardian, no. I mainly read The Times, although I read The Sun for sports reviews as I think their reviews are much better then the other papers. I think you read the Daily Mail because the crap you spurt out is almost the same crap that the Daily Mail does.

You do not think some degrees are worth anything? I take it you do not have a degree and you do not appreciate the effort and time it takes to get one. If you are at university or do have one, wtf are you doing there, surely after all you've said you should quit uni and go work in a coal mine or some hardcore British industry.

[Norse]

http://www.crimeinfo.org.uk/servlet/fac ... factsheets

# The July 2004 BCS estimated total crime in the categories it measured at 11.7 million offences annually. In 1995 the BCS estimated 19.4 million offences, so today’s figures represent a fall of 39%.
# Compared with 1995, the BCS has registered a 51% fall in vehicle thefts and a 47% fall in burglary.

It may be 3 years old, the best one I could find for a 10 year period, but I'm pretty sure crime is still lower now then it was when Labour got elected.

Yes, non-violent crime has dropped. But Violent crime has soared.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3419401.stm

Overall crime rates remained stable, with significant falls in burglaries and vehicle crimes.

Offences of violence against the person rose 17%, serious violence such as killings were up 18%, and serious wounding and sexual offences rose 8%.

Now, would you prefer your car to be stolen, or your sister to be raped?

You do not think some degrees are worth anything? I take it you do not have a degree and you do not appreciate the effort and time it takes to get one. If you are at university or do have one, wtf are you doing there, surely after all you've said you should quit uni and go work in a coal mine or some hardcore British industry.

Tit, please stop putting words into my mouth. WHAT I SAID, was that a degree in sociology, psychology and citizenship studeis is not fit to wipe one's ass with.

HOWEVER, a science, engineering, languages, academic-arts (such as history and theology) are worth something.

Yes , I went to university and dropped out, mostly because of the fact that I was in a big new city, out on the piss all the time and hiding my sausage in various places. I look back and wish I had gone to my lectures, but I had a fooking great time.

I decided instead to get my HNC (electronics), a couple of NVQ's (CNC machining, and computer-integrated-manufacture), my 16th edition (electrical) and a host of other bits and peices. I'm currently studying for my degree in physical sciences at the open university..

I thought I'd told you all of this before.....maybe you just ignored it.

[Titanic]

Yes, non-violent crime has dropped. But Violent crime has soared.

I said crime in general, I did not specify violent crime. Btw, non-violent crime is worse where I live because there is so little violent crime, but a huge amount of anti-social behavior such as smashing cars, robbings and stuff. Actual GBH, ABH and other violent crimes are very low.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3419401.stm
Now, would you prefer your car to be stolen, or your sister to be raped?

This link is from 2004, comparing it with 2003. If your going to do a 1 year comparison, make it fairly recent.

Tit, please stop putting words into my mouth. WHAT I SAID, was that a degree in sociology, psychology and citizenship studeis is not fit to wipe one's ass with.

HOWEVER, a science, engineering, languages, academic-arts (such as history and theology) are worth something.

Yes , I went to university and dropped out, mostly because of the fact that I was in a big new city, out on the piss all the time and hiding my sausage in various places. I look back and wish I had gone to my lectures, but I had a fooking great time.

I decided instead to get my HNC (electronics), a couple of NVQ's (CNC machining, and computer-integrated-manufacture), my 16th edition (electrical) and a host of other bits and peices. I'm currently studying for my degree in physical sciences at the open university..

I thought I'd told you all of this before.....maybe you just ignored it.

You've never told me that before as far as I can remember. So you dropped out of uni because you were a slacker, and now you say that anyone who takes a degree in what you see as an unworthwhile subject is getting something which is worth nothing. Talk about sour grapes.

[Norse]

You've never told me that before as far as I can remember. So you dropped out of uni because you were a slacker, and now you say that anyone who takes a degree in what you see as an unworthwhile subject is getting something which is worth nothing. Talk about sour grapes.

Tit, are you unable to launch any kind of a retort without putting words into other people's mouth's?

I'm not being funny, but when I was 18 I had a fairly cognitive approach, and a level of logic and imagination to my arguements, this seems to not be a trait that is present with yourself.

I do not begrudge anyone who has a decent degree, in fact I applaud them. But the fact of the matter, is that kids who aren't particularly bright, such as yourself, are being geared towards these poncey no-mark subjects, such as a degree in "football" a degree in "film studies" , a degree in "classical civilisation" a degree in "sociology". Why would a government gear a child towards such idiotic subjects? To mask unemployment figures among 18-23 year olds possibly?

Now, having had the experience of going to university, and mixing with other students during my 4 years in Birmingham, I know for a fact that the grand majority of the psychology students left Aston university to work in "care" for elderly/mentally unstable/prisoners. Now, I knew a few of the graduates personally (having just boned them, likely) and they were on a very, very poor wages, and most actually rued the fact that had wasted 4 years of their lives studying for a useless degree, finding themselves in a shite-paid job that they hated, that they could have done w/o any kind of formal education.

Does this sound particularly positive to you?


Sour grapes? Ha! I've forgotten more than you fucking know, and plus did you not see the part of my post about my current degree I am studying towards?

Or did you just decide to blissfully ignore that?

hehe, arguing with a fucking kid is no fun.

[Titanic]

You've never told me that before as far as I can remember. So you dropped out of uni because you were a slacker, and now you say that anyone who takes a degree in what you see as an unworthwhile subject is getting something which is worth nothing. Talk about sour grapes.

Tit, are you unable to launch any kind of a retort without putting words into other people's mouth's?

I'm not being funny, but when I was 18 I had a fairly cognitive approach, and a level of logic and imagination to my arguements, this seems to not be a trait that is present with yourself.

I do not begrudge anyone who has a decent degree, in fact I applaud them. But the fact of the matter, is that kids who aren't particularly bright, such as yourself, are being geared towards these poncey no-mark subjects, such as a degree in "football" a degree in "film studies" , a degree in "classical civilisation" a degree in "sociology". Why would a government gear a child towards such idiotic subjects? To mask unemployment figures among 18-23 year olds possibly?

Now, having had the experience of going to university, and mixing with other students during my 4 years in Birmingham, I know for a fact that the grand majority of the psychology students left Aston university to work in "care" for elderly/mentally unstable/prisoners. Now, I knew a few of the graduates personally (having just boned them, likely) and they were on a very, very poor wages, and most actually rued the fact that had wasted 4 years of their lives studying for a useless degree, finding themselves in a shite-paid job that they hated, that they could have done w/o any kind of formal education.

Does this sound particularly positive to you?


Sour grapes? Ha! I've forgotten more than you fucking know, and plus did you not see the part of my post about my current degree I am studying towards?

Or did you just decide to blissfully ignore that?

hehe, arguing with a fucking kid is no fun.

Whats wrong with film studies? They could then work for Pinewood or in USA and become a director or create a film script which can be a very well paid job.

Classic civilisation, if that is a degree, sounds interesting. Its a branch of history, and I dont see how that is an "idiotic subject".

Also, if your "friends" have a shite paid job at a caring home, thats their fault. You dont have to stay in the subject you studied, especially if you hate it. My dad got 2 degrees in maths but is now a very well paid computer manager. One of my friends was offered a job as assistant manager at the local Tesco (which is a well paid for a first job) and he did a degree in sports science.

If you have a degree then you can do a whole variety of jobs, not just the ones which are directly related to your degree. If your "friends" cannot see this and are just sticking around in dead-end jobs which they hate, then they are not too bright themselves.

Finally, you think I am going to do a "poncey no-mark degree"? Since when was Economics and International Relations at a university which was ranked by The Times University Guide in the top 20 "poncey"?

[Norse]

Finally, you think I am going to do a "poncey no-mark degree"? Since when was Economics and International Relations at a university which was ranked by The Times University Guide in the top 20 "poncey"?

Never said economics was a poncey subject, in fact it is one of the hardest subjects about.

Which uni you going to go to?

[Titanic]

Finally, you think I am going to do a "poncey no-mark degree"? Since when was Economics and International Relations at a university which was ranked by The Times University Guide in the top 20 "poncey"?

Never said economics was a poncey subject, in fact it is one of the hardest subjects about.

Which uni you going to go to?

University of Lancaster. Generally around 17th-25th in most of the university guides.

[Norse]

Well, good luck to you.


Plenty of ladies around lancashire that are worth a tapping.