Printable View
I also find it VERY hard to believe that by 8-9 months a woman doesnt know she's pregnant. I find that damn near impossible to believe! I've heard of girls not knowing until they're like 6 months for thier first pregnancies. Between weight gain, baby movement, irritability, frequent bathroom use, and the zillions of other pregnancy symptoms its astounding that some people just do not realize.Quote:
Originally Posted by motherhubbard
... well that's because everybody is different..
Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant to the fact it is true. There have been countless situations where women have gotten very bad cramps, gone to the toilet and had their baby. Like i said, a fact like that doesn't need to be "believed" by anyone. It's a medical truth. Just because you aren't confronted with it daily does not make it any less realistic.
I saw this on my local news last night. A banker in Washington randomly saw a family of ducks on top of a building. The ducklings started jumping off the ledge and the guy ended up catching all of them, and then escorting the mother and all her ducklings through the city to the river. He's being called the "Duckman" now. :lol: So cute!
Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prRmQ-OldyE
A New Zealand couple nearly found themselves in a financial hole when their three-year-old daughter bought an earthdigger in an internet auction.
The child, Pipi Quinlan, was trying out her online skills while her parents were asleep in bed.
They only unearthed the truth when they received an email demand for NZ$20,000 (£8,000) from the seller.
Pipi's mother, Sarah, had left the computer logged on. The owner of the digger is not insisting on the sale.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/8063769.stm
An association of blonde women in Latvia says it hopes to dispel some of the Baltic state's economic gloom with a parade and ball in the capital, Riga.
It hopes to field 500 fair-haired women for a weekend of events, including a concert, a fashion show and "blonde golf", said organiser Marika Gidere.
"People are depressed, they don't have enough positive emotions," she added.
Latvia, home to 2.3 million people, is going through one of the most severe recessions in the European Union.
Unemployment is rising and public sector salaries are being cut.
"The economic situation is such that society needs these types of events," Ms Gidere, head of Latvia's Blondes' Association, told the French news agency AFP.
"And this is something very positive and fun. And we know that blondes have more fun."
Sunday's blonde parade, to be held under the motto "Make the world a brighter place," will involve an orchestra composed of fair-haired women, she told the Russian news agency Ria Novosti.
The parade will be followed by a ball and contests to find the best "blonde lawyer", "blonde journalist" and others.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8072955.stm
After 68 years of waffling, Archie Andrews has made his choice. It’s the raven-haired heiress over the girl next door, Veronica Lodge over Betty Cooper.
Just eight days after Archie Comics announced that Archie would finally choose between his two high-school hotties, the word is out: Archie gets down on bended knee to present Veronica with his proposal and a ring while poor Betty looks on and wipes away a tear. Veronica replies to the proposal with a resounding, “Yes!”
The red-haired all-American boy’s choice is likely to upset many Archie fans. Ever since news that Archie would get married broke, they have been filling the message boards at ArchieComics.com with their opinions on which girl should get the ring.
It’s not even close. A strong majority feel wholesome Betty should get the nod over snooty Veronica.
Not the people’s choice
“I hope it's Betty! I've read these comics for over 30 years and waited for the day he woke up and chose Betty,” wrote fan Rachel.
“I think he should ask Betty,” agreed reader Rob. “Veronica is too sophisticated and too richy rich for him. Betty is very laid back, sort of like the All American Girl she has always been. Betty has a big heart, she would make a great wife to Arch, and I would be disappointed if Archie chose Veronica! Good luck to Archie.”
Among the minority who felt Veronica was the obvious choice was “archielover,” who wrote: “OMG! Pick Veronica! He doesn't deserve Betty, he always makes her do all his chores and fix his car and help with his homework, while he treats Veronica like a little princess! I can't wait to see what happens :)”
But mind you, Issue 600 will deal only with the engagement. Whether Archie and Veronica actually get hitched as the story plays out over several issues remains to be seen. Given Archie’s history of indecision, would it be unreasonable to assume that there are more plot twists ahead?
morehttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30983247/
I read that a three year old girl accidentally shot her younger brother in California after finding a gun in the house . This is such horrible news and i think this will finally make the american government put in place laws to prevent the legal purchasing of fire-arms. If this doesn't, i don't know what will
In this particular case I think the parents should be charged with negligence rather than blaming the gun. It is inconceivable that anybody that had a fire-arm on their premises would not have it kept it safely out of the reach of children. I have nothing against people arming themselves in a lawless environment and, in any case, isn't the right to bear arms written into the US Constitution?Quote:
Originally Posted by breathtest
Oh boy, are they selling tickets?Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
There was another great Kiwi story a day or two before that - a country doctor without proper medical equipment borrowed a drill from the janitor to drill holes in a boy's head to save his life. The boy is recovering well.
The second coming.Quote:
Originally Posted by breathtest
Quite right. Out of reach and locked up with the ammunition locked up elsewhere. They should shoot the parents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
Certainly is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
Well yes but if the gun wasn't there in the first place then there would be nothing to be negligent about. By making guns illegal, less people will die from accidents involving guns and from deliberate shootings. You can say that people need them for protection, but i believe that less deaths would occur from people not having guns to protect themselves than psychos going round massacreing people or from accidents like this one.Quote:
In this particular case I think the parents should be charged with negligence rather than blaming the gun. It is inconceivable that anybody that had a fire-arm on their premises would not have it kept it safely out of the reach of children. I have nothing against people arming themselves in a lawless environment and, in any case, isn't the right to bear arms written into the US Constitution?
Isn't it an amendment? The irony is, that if it is an amendment, meaning it was added later, what difference would it make if it was amended over, in terms of legality. There have been enough bystanders killed in violence between gun waving nutters that even a rare tragedy like this shouldn't be a wake up call.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
As for the bit about lawless society - when last I checked, lawlessness can be attributed in many places to gun ownership. Either one has to accept that guns are necessary in maintaining order in the country, implying that the government is a failure, and the country's civil justice and enforcement is a failure, or quite simply, guns should only be in the hands of those who need them, which is very, very few people (or should be, if no body else owned guns).
Quite simply, if a case arises when a gun must be used, one can be damned sure that the person one is going to shoot will be carrying a gun too. Either way the day ends in some sort of disaster; one might as well avoid that. The myth that people need guns to protect themselves from the government is also rather silly. The US Army, with full force, could quite easily plow the entire population to the ground if it wanted to - in truth, it could probably wipe out life on this planet - I don't think some pistol-waving-tobacco-chewing-gun-nuts are going to stop them.
Quite simply, the parents should, if this were a functional system of justice, be charged with second-degree murder, and put on trial for that.
I second that!
Here is one version of the second amendment:Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Most contemporary American Constitutional scholars interpret it as the right of the state to maintain the national guard. The SCOTUS recently disagreed after never ruling on 2A directly, the majority opinion being that an individual right is implied, though restrictions are applicable. It was based on the draconian restrictions instituted by our capital banning hand guns. The majority opinion overturned these restrictions, and SCOTUS rarely overturns itself out of respect for stare decisis.Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
If you are going to argue about the morality of owning weapons like guns, maybe you should have some facts on hand.
Since the Dunblane shootings, in which 16 chidren and a teacher were killed in 1996, the UK goverment has banned all firearms from the country except for those required by the army and police. The result is that we now have what police describe as a gun culture, because prohibition has made guns more glamorous and they are easily obtained from smugglers bringing them in from abroad. There have been numerous shootings in the UK since the ban was introduced, which raises the question as to why ban something if the ban cannot be enforced?
It still cuts down on legally obtained firearms. Despite having a higher population than us here in Canada, and a more condensed population, we have far more shootings in the city of Toronto alone in a few months than you do in your entire country in a year. (That may be an exaggeration, but certainly not a gross one.)
nevermind
We are averaging about one a weekQuote:
Originally Posted by BeccaT
Shouldn't that be handguns rather than firearms?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
I'd be cautious about blaming the ban as a reason to explain the increase in handgun usage - my understanding is that there's more of a knife culture than gun culture in UK right now?
Crooks will use whatever they have handy - we had a cop killed earlier this year with a CO2-powered air rifle!
Knives are restricted too now, actually. To the point wear an under 18 ( or is it 16) year old can not buy a razor.
And don't even get me started on kitchen knives. :rolleyes:
is that one a week per city Brian, or over all?
And farmers are still allowed guns. I had this explained to me earlier in the year but I phased the main explation of the law out.
Farmers may be licenced to use shotguns for killing predators against their stock but my average gun use relates to human killings overall and not just gun related crimes which are very much higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
I knew someone whose niece was killed in the dunblane tragedy.
The handgun ban though was never likely to have too much effect on incidents involving real criminals - its job was to prevent the likes of a whackjob like Thomas Hamilton (who wouldnt have likely got hold of one by underworld means) from being able to do this. Yes there are still illegal handguns and that is a further job for government/law enforcement to deal with.
Just remembered a blog I wrote elsewhere on the 10 year anniversary of dunblane:
Quote:
Wow, it's been 10 years already. Most of you reading this (If any of you read this) will be thinking probably something like 10 years since what. I'll tell you what its 10 years since a mentally unstable man named Thomas Hamilton walked into a Primary School in Dunblane (Scotland) and proceeded to execute a classful of 5/6year old kids, together with their teacher with his legally owned Browning 9mm pistol. One of the kids killed was the niece of my highschool Latin teacher, we were in her class when the news broke & I can honestly say I have never seen someone so distraught in my life, and I pray I never will do in the future.
After the horrific events of that day handguns were banned in the UK, a decision which annoyed the hell out of those people who owned handguns for using at shooting ranges. 10 years on, a lot of these people still dont see the problem with owning a handgun. I am fed up hearing every March 13th that "people kill people, guns dont kill people" or the sickeningly inconsiderate "cars kill a lot more people, why not ban cars".
Either these people are being deliberately obtuse, or they are completely stupid. I'll deal with the "people kill people, guns dont kill people" comment first: Of course its people who kill people, however you give someone a .44 Magnum handgun and he'll kill a lot more people in a lot less time. An addition to this comment I have seen is the suggestion that Hamilton would have caused just as much trouble with an ordinary household hammer, which has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If he had been armed with a hammer, someone may have stood a chance of disarming the crazy **** (surprised I've made it this far without swearing).
Now for the "cars kill a lot more people, why not ban cars" brigade, do I really have to do with this crap? Little explanation the majority of people killed by cars are due to accidents, not someone deliberately trying to drive into people!!!The majority of people killed by handguns however are caused by someone pointing the gun at their "target" and blowing their brains out.
Now I know a lot of innocent people have been "inconvenienced" by this but if it prevents more Dunblanes I dont give a **** how inconvenienced you are. There hasn't been a Dunblane since.
Now to a more depressing subject, those kids should be turning 15/16 and getting ready to make their mark on the world. Instead they lie in graves, while inconsiderate arseholes complain about not being able to fire projectiles at sheets of paper.
A US company which monitors internet traffic predicts that the millionth new English word will be coined imminently.
Global Language Monitor searches for new words and once a word has been used 25,000 times, it recognises it.
By calculating that a new word is created in English every 98 minutes, it estimates that the millionth word will be recognised at 1022 GMT.
However, traditional dictionary makers are casting doubt on the claim and the methods behind it.
GLM, based in Texas, makes its money telling organisations how often they are mentioned in new media, such as the internet.
What they can also do is search for newly coined words.
Once a word has been used 25,000 times on social networking sites and such like, GLM declares it be a new word.
Landmark doubted
However, lexicographers - dictionary professionals - doubt the GLM claim.
Dictionaries have tighter criteria about what constitutes a new word - for example, it has to be used over a certain period of time.
Lexicographers say the exact size of the English vocabulary is impossible to quantify, but if every technical term or obscure specialist word is accepted then we are already beyond one million.
And if the inclusion of specialist slang is restricted, then there are possibly three quarters of a million words in English.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8092549.stm
So, lulz, lmao, rofl, lol, imho and other acronyms are now words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
I demand that ziggiferlt be included in the English language.
Please join me in getting the 25,000 necessary social site uses of the word.
A ziggiferlt is a person who does ziggifering.
700, 000 excluding certain technical terms seems a bit low to me Sche, especially with the internet explosion, which started roughly around 94 or so. I base this on the fact that in the early 90's, I was still working, but did not get online access myself until 97.
Email and blog entered common usage fairly quicky, though text shorthand is another issue, and not so much about new words as it is new code. I believe I heard on public radio that English passed the one million mark about a year and a half back.
Of more interest to me is the ability of English to continue to serve as a linga franca, which gained currency because of Britain and then the rise of the United States as the last two world powers. The British Empire ended, at least, de facto, in 1945, and the U.S., whether one sides with declinists or not, is showing cracks in the facade. Yet it would seem English will remain international for some time, unless someone knows something I don't.
An average speaker generally employs about 20,000 words, with the most common usage being "you know". Even very literate speakers say "You know" frequently. Some of us on Lit Net probably have a higher usage than 20k.
So "bahahahahahahaha" (35,700 hits) and "zxcvbnm" (297,000) are words, apparently. I'll try to use these in my next conversation, then.
And this just in,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
I am just the messenger!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
That is such a ziggifertish comment!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Are you one of those we have ziggifertilised or one of those we could not ziggifertilise?
*grins ziggerfeltishly*
any ideas how many times we are short to make litnet the millionth word?
24,996 after I've ziggerferlted Scheherazade!Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
From what I picked up watching ten minutes of the news the other week, there were three shootings and two stabbings in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area) in a week. Pathetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
Not in a million ziggerferlts!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
http://www.smh.com.au/national/tram-...0714-djop.html
This happened just around the corner from my sisters job.
That looks fairly painful!
very very painful...
Uhm... how the Hell does that happen to somebody, without them being A)Very, very stupid. B)Very, very accident prone or C)Having pissed somebody off very, very much.
??
Yikes. He's lucky to be alive. Becca, he's 78, and probably not as sharp as a younger person. Plus I've learned in life that any crazy situation can happen to anyone. It's the right confluence of events just coming together.
I was warned about the trams when I went to Sydney - they move quite fast, they are more or less silent, can't stop very quickly and, of course, they can't swerve out of the way. If one is coming towards you, you get out of its way, it can't avoid you. It's best to be extra specially careful (and fairly nimble) when crossing roads on tram routes - obviously that poor man wasn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeccaT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1223127/
Walter Cronkite has died. He was the good side of journalism.
Library fan nears 25,000th book
I want to be that lady!!!Quote:
An avid reader in south west Scotland is on the brink of borrowing her 25,000th book from her local libraries.
Louise Brown, 91, from Stranraer, took her first book on loan from Castle Douglas library in 1946.
Since then she has borrowed at least six books every week throughout each year and has recently increased that to about 12 volumes every seven days.
more
I heard that today Night. Fantastic. They were asking if anyone could beat it. It just shows how fantastic free libraries are doesn't it? That someone can have access to all those books, enriching their lives.
It's official, the Scots stole haggis from the English. Shameless ;)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8180791.stm