Be Excellent To Each Other

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6057734.stm



Isn't this already happening? I swear that last sentence describes Jade Goody.

We had this debate on YakYak a year or so back and everyone concluded that I was a nazi because I was pondering on how much fun it would be to have underling servants to use a footrests/ target practice etc.

Fuck me,

Maddie had less than a year to live when that was written.

Given geographical and cultural divides have failed to do so, I very much doubt that class will do so more effectively.

So just to get this straight, are we the ones that will become dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures, or the other place?

He's not going to curry favour with an opinion like that. Especially as he seems to be basing his timelines on Futurama.

Doesn't everybody? I know I do.

Mmmmm Curry.

Yes, he's not an opinion korma at all.

Still, it could be Brave New World... where everyone is on drugs, bred for a specific role in society, and lost their virginity before they were 10.

The things that pass for news these days... :/

Haha, what a dickhead. Humans will still be around in 3000. Yeah, right!

Reappears (briefly got internet connection - won't have it properly for another week).

I could make a very long post about how this article is the classic example of dick wad academics whoring themselves to advertising companies to get brands in the paper but I don't have time.*

In this case this was an advert for Dave (the TV channel) I think. And written by a historian. It's complete bull.

Generally, it works like this.

1) They email/ring round academics asking for help making a 'humorous' piece about science.
2) A douchebag replies saying yeah ok.
3) They tell him what they want to show
4) He either a) makes us a formula or b) a survey is bullshitting created.
5) He gets a bit on money.
6) The publics understanding of science dies a little.

Ben Goldacres talked about this at length, there is a whole advertising industry based around using SCIENCE TM to get them in a paper. A classic example is the Jessica Alba has the best wiggle news story (which got everywhere, as though it was proper science, at everytime mention the company that sponsered it), where Ben G pretended to be interested, and they told him they wanted him to make a formula about a ladies wiggle and that they hadn't done the survey yet but they already new what they wanted to show.

My Supervisor was asked by Lynx to make new 'rude' constellations. She told them to get to fuck.

* Ah, looks like I did anyway. And I don't have time to re-read that, so I'll leave it as is.

So... Lave. When do you get to work on the death star?

I thought this had *always* been the case. Reason being, rich people, whether ugly or not, are able to attract pretty mates due to the power of TEH MONIES. They then breed with their attractive mates and their children will be more attractive than if two uggos had bred. Poor attractive people who marry into rich will not go back to fucking ugly people, nor will their offspring, so those attractive people are then permanently in the "rich" gene pool. Rich people will have the pick of all attractive people, whether rich or poor, and so ultimately the "rich" gene pool becomes more and more full of attractive genes, so after a while you get a lot of attractive, if slightly inbred, rich sorts. Eventually the "rich" gene pool will be full of enough attractiveness that they'll never need to pick up attractive mates from outside their rarified cricles.

And everyone knows that the more attractive you are, the more clever you are. Have you ever seen an ugly lady scientist in a Bond film, eh? EH?

It's the reason why the government wish to prevent binge drinking as it ends up with people fucking mingers and getting them up the duff.

What annoys me on the reporting about "binge" drinking is that they'll always accompany their discussion of "binge" drinking with shots of falling-down-drunk people, when "binge" drinking is defined as drinking more than 6 units in an evening. That's right, if you go to the pub for four hours and drink 3 pints of ale, you're a filthy binge drinker who will cause havoc on the high street on the way home and bring about the end of civilisation as we know it.

If I call them all self-serving, brainless cunts enough will that make people believe it?

Oh. No need.

Not anymore it's not. Apparently, because everyone's reaction to alcohol is different, binge drinking is now 'drinking to get drunk'.

So Mimi's a binge drinker whenever she even so looks at a banana beer.

Oh, heavens - when did the government change that, then? They were maintaining the 6 units line at least up until a week or two ago.

I'm not sure, but I've found a funny webpage trying to find out.

Brilliant comment:


Age? 14.

Quite you! Clearly soceity is being torn apart by couples having a G&T each and then sharing a bottle of wine over dinner, or by those groups of old men who meet at the pub on Sunday afternoons and have a few drinks and play dominoes. God only knows what will happen if the current trend of a couple of blokes sharing a six-pack while watching the football on TV continues, but I imagine it will involve looting, pillage and possibly rivers of blood.

It's my new way of chronologically ordering the world's events.

Cracking, when I watch the football on a Sunday afternoon (in pub for 2 hours) I munch through a massive 9 units of booze. Acebest.

I could do with a beer.

Is that the Torygraph's definition or the guvmint's? As the guvmint (from Patsy Hewitt's day, and this was down to her) laid it down as a blanket "x units per evening", and was 6 units for men, I thought.

I just remember swearing loudly at a news article in which Hewitt was saying it was 6 units.

...and then crying, hugging it and calling it 'the best news article i've ever had'?

"Drunk in charge of a child".

Heavens. Good thing Ireland isn't part of the UK anymore, eh?

That's Mansfield for you.

It's an offence to be drunk in public (therefore including a pub). It's a breach of the license and law to serve alcohol to someone you suspect to be drunk. Naturally, the definition of drunk for this purpose isn't far off the drink-driving limit, so remembering serving them at least one pint beforehand pretty much means they're supposed to refuse.

Does that also mean that if you serve them a particularly strong drink that you could then wait until they've finished it and then have them arrested as you know it's put them over the limit?

Chavs are a seperate species already. I reject any accusation of being elitest or a class snob, but chavs are not normal people that just happen to dress differently. They're social vermin that you can identify merely by looking at them, with a level of intelligence approaching an onion. I'm not being too general here either, this doesn't apply to just anybody, but there's a particular sub-group of people that really just to be set on fire to avoid further depletion of resource.

I'm not sure it is a class thing. It's a new social phenomenon, or at least something that has developed over time and only really been apparent for about 5-10 years. It's a product of actual real dumbing down. If you tell people to be stupid enough then a group of people will actually live their lives like that.

5) Disagree strongly.

I think it's always been going on, the media just stuck a newer label on something old. Previously, we just called them 'northerners'.

You've not understood the point I was trying to make and are talking about the actual physiological state of drunkenness, not stupid-legal-definition-"drunk". It's not the driving limit, but it's not what most people would consider to be sensible either.

Edit: Not that the police will ever enforce it and arrest you for being a bit wobbly as you bimble to the kebab shop on your way home.

It's a strict liability offence, so it doesn't matter. If it were me, I'd set it to zero.

BUT THERE WERE THREE DIFFERENT FLAVOURS OF CRISPS!

I'm not talking about drink-driving. Or are you actually promoting the arrest of anyone in possession of a non-zero blood-alcohol level in public?

I was misreading it.