Quote: chipolata @ July 21 2008, 1:46 PM BSTI just went for a job interview at a stately home and found it incredibly arousing. I found myself having lord of the manor fantasies involving me disciplining a lot of nubile chambermaids. Ellie's not up for a virtual spanking, is she?
What job? Butler? Gamekeeper?
He's a Tory, it's in his blood. Although I think I'd prefer to put a lithe young girl over my lap than Aaron.
Oh yes, that came out a bit wrong!
I meant you and Aaron should join forces. Share a stately home or something.
Quote: zooo @ July 21 2008, 1:52 PM BSTOh yes, that came out a bit wrong!
I meant you and Aaron should join forces. Share a stately home or something.
Too late for innocence now, missy.
Quote: zooo @ July 21 2008, 1:52 PM BSTOh yes, that came out a bit wrong!
I meant you and Aaron should join forces. Share a stately home or something.
That either sounds like a bad sitcom or a bad horror film. >_<
Sounds like a jolly good sex romp to me.
Quote: chipolata @ July 21 2008, 1:46 PM BSTI just went for a job interview at a stately home and found it incredibly arousing.
For some reason I read this and pictured a retirement home. Oo er!
Ew.
Quote: zooo @ July 21 2008, 1:56 PM BSTSounds like a jolly good sex romp to me.
Only if Aaron agrees to be my bitch. 
I did think that as well!
Quote: ian_w @ July 21 2008, 1:56 PM BSTFor some reason I read this and pictured a retirement home. Oo er!
There were quite a few oldies milling about, but the woman who interviewed me was a young hottie.
Quote: chipolata @ July 21 2008, 1:46 PM BSTI just went for a job interview at a stately home
Ooo, which? Doing what?
Quote: zooo @ July 21 2008, 1:49 PM BSTAaron likes that sort of thing too, I think.
Quote: zooo @ July 21 2008, 1:52 PM BSTI meant you and Aaron should join forces. Share a stately home or something.
And there's always a job reserved for zooo.
Quote: zooo @ July 21 2008, 1:56 PM BSTSounds like a jolly good sex romp to me.
Eyyyyyyyyyyy!
Quote: DaButt @ July 21 2008, 3:45 AM BSTBut are they made by a scientist? Because if they aren't I'm not inclined to believe them any more than I'd believe my barber if he started spouting off about quantum physics.
At uni me and a few of my housemates decided we were going to make a documentary on evolution because we believed there would be a lot of public interest and it would sell. We did lots of research between us both online and in the university library. We also talked to a few professors and even got an interview done with two of them. Quite honestly I took evolution for granted before we started doing this - because they told me at school it was fact. The theory is incomplete by a long way, and should not be taught as if it isn't.
Sure, we only have a small fossil record to go by. But isn't there enough physical evidence in the modern world to support the theory of evolution? Eyeless versions of various critters in dark caves, drug-resistant bacteria, peppered moths, etc?
Sure there is evidence, but there is certainly not 'enough' of it - there are still far more questions than there are answers. So is this how science should work for you? We have a bit of a theory with some speculative 'evidence' and some that seems fair enough, so let's just call it fact shall we? F**k it, might as well! Would you send a rocket into space if you had 'nearly enough evidence' to show it would be safe and practicable to do so?
I am not anti-science. I want to know the truth of how things work/happen/came to be etc, but it really shocks me how evolution is being treated as a law before it has even been remotely proven. This is totally against scientific principals and is not 'forward thinking' it is arrogance and bad practice.
And, by the way, citing eyeless creatures as evidence is as illogical and desperate as a creationist saying all you need to do is look around you for evidence of God. That of course could be 'evidence' for anything you want to dream up. No matter how much sense it might seem to make, they cannot be sure that the 'eyed' and 'eyeless' versions were once the same thing, they are just guessing. And even if they were, how exactly is losing your vision an advantage?
Evolution has many merits and you could no doubt throw lots of points at me that I would just agree with. But I will take it as nothing more than conjecture until something emerges that proves it beyond reasonable doubt and fills in the many holes which are yet to be filled.
Quote: ian_w @ July 21 2008, 2:39 PM BSTAt uni me and a few of my housemates decided we were going to make a documentary on evolution because we believed there would be a lot of public interest and it would sell. We did lots of research between us both online and in the university library. We also talked to a few professors and even got an interview done with two of them. Quite honestly I took evolution for granted before we started doing this - because they told me at school it was fact. The theory is incomplete by a long way, and should not be taught as if it isn't.
Sure there is evidence, but there is certainly not 'enough' of it - there are still far more questions than there are answers. So is this how science should work for you? We have a bit of a theory with some speculative 'evidence' and some that seems fair enough, so let's just call it fact shall we? F**k it, might as well! Would you send a rocket into space if you had 'nearly enough evidence' to show it would be safe and practicable to do so?
I am not anti-science. I want to know the truth of how things work/happen/came to be etc, but it really shocks me how evolution is being treated as a law before it has even been remotely proven. This is totally against scientific principals and is not 'forward thinking' it is arrogance and bad practice.
And, by the way, citing eyeless creatures as evidence is as illogical and desperate as a creationist saying all you need to do is look around you for evidence of God. That of course could be 'evidence' for anything you want to dream up. No matter how much sense it might seem to make, they cannot be sure that the 'eyed' and 'eyeless' versions were once the same thing, they are just guessing. And even if they were, how exactly is losing your vision an advantage?Evolution has many merits and you could no doubt throw lots of points at me that I would just agree with. But I will take it as nothing more than conjecture until something emerges that proves it beyond reasonable doubt and fills in the many holes which are yet to be filled.
Evolution isn't treated like law, it's just treated like the best explanation we have at the moment. Seems to match more of the evidence than any other theories. Which it fair enough surely?