I'm from Cork as well, living back here for the past couple of years having originally left in the late 90's. I was only due to stay for the duration of a master's degree in UCC but I've become trapped by the virus thingie.
Another Cork lad that I know (haven't seen him in a few years) is a Town fan, we watched the 2002 World Cup game together with a bunch of other lads at the crack of dawn, that time when Matt Holland equalised for Ireland...against Cameroon I think it was?
I also got a loan of a copy of the 1978 FA Cup Final tape from some friends of a cousin, they were/are Town fans too (never met them, but the match was brilliant to watch!).
Quite! And I learned a new word from it that I will never use.
But apart from that, you have to bear in mind that at school in Ireland, we are force-fed poetry in our long-lamented native lingo.
Fat books filled with long sentences of seemingly unrelated and barely incomprehensible words which only garner a 10% chance of accumulating any modicum of meaning once they have all been ingested and digested, spew forlornly across the page irking the eye of the disenchanted and flummoxed reader. (cough cough)
And in Irish. As Gaeilge. And so we as a people come to believe that literature is the art of phrasing something easily understood in an overly complex manner. And from thence came the baffling puzzlebooks of James Joyce, our reward to the Brits for not invading us sooner, and with larger, more convincing guns!
I'm studying genetics/genomics at the moment and I'm fairly certain that evolution is more than a very tenable idea. Any study of "recent" history of mankind (going back between 10,000 and 100,000 years) shows definite changes in phenotype (physical traits) and as DNA extraction and sequencing technology becomes more accurate and advanced, scientists (whose shoes I hope to one day polish!) will soon be able to see some remarkably consistent changes over the thousands of years across the genotype too, which could prove really insightful for the clarification and study of evolution.
Prokaryotic life forms (bacteria, mainly) reproduce and adapt (super-gonorrhoea anyone?!) at a phenomenal rate when placed next to eukaryotes. You can see evolution taking place right under a microscope.
The reason the crazies were bothering the BBC and your newsreader friend is most likely due to religious dogma? The human mind is highly suggestible (sometimes frighteningly so) and many people cannot see beyond their indoctrination. That's a whole other debate about control and fear, I guess.
Regarding the terminology - on a scientific level I agree with you, but I'd be mindful about saying that using the term "killing babies" is incorrect on the basis of the "entity" being a foetus (and before that, an embryo...and before that a zygote) rather than a baby. It's an emotive area, you're right there beyond any doubt, but when you think about how those who have suffered a miscarriage will often refer to a lost "baby" (not just late-term losses either), I think there's a nuance there that needs to be considered. Some folk have experienced both (myself included - male by the way so second-hand experience in the physical sense) and so the nuance is even more mashed-up.
Lastly, while BlueBadger may be a health professional and if so no doubt has more first-hand experience with such matters than I do, there are plenty of doctors (in Ireland for sure - here in the UK I can't vouch for anyone I know) who are against abortion and who have been allowed to be conscientious objectors and will not be required to perform abortions if it goes against their personal ethos (following the recent referendum there). I'm not sure what the story with that is in France, but that's where I was when I availed of abortion services on one of the two occasions that I did. The nurse that was looking after the cases that day was hostile about it to say the least. So even within the medical profession you'll see different opinions, but to fall down harshly either way is to miss the bigger picture in my opinion.
I definitely agree with your first point here, and your second point I think highlights what is deeply wrong about the first-past-the-post system in the UK.
Even the name "first past the post" is inaccurate - the post is basically planted at the feet of whoever gets the most votes in a constituency (after the event), so in theory you could win a seat with just two votes if all the other candidates (let's say there are 10,000 other candidates) got just one vote each. A ridiculous scenario I know, but it's a ridiculous system that lends itself to such potentially unsatisfactory scenario.
Imagine if let's say 51% of the seats are won by Tories with 30% of the vote in each of their constituencies, and a lot of those seats were won by hard-line conservatives. 30% isn't a majority in any decimal-based system of mathematics that I know, but you'd basically have 70% of the population unrepresented in government.
If the whip was applied to any abortion vote in the House of Commons, the abortion legislation as it stands could be overturned by the "will" let's say of less than 15% of the electorate (less than 15% as I assume not all Tory voters are anti-abortion, and 49% of the seats aren't Tory seats).
Of course, things like that could never happen could they (ahem)? It's Minority Rule and quite unsatisfactory.
Perhaps the only honest way to move the question forward would be via a referendum, and hopefully the importance of casting your vote to reflect your voice in a referendum has dawned on folk here?
I'm not sure where mugwump was attacking him though?
And I'm sure they must both care about the issue, to say they're both writing about it here, so that sense of frustration works both ways I think, when neither individual seems to be making progress with the other.
I definitely had that sense of frustration when I was being laughed at and misrepresented by BB a couple of weeks ago. In the end I just said what I had to say and had to leave it at that. J2Blue also got tangled up with BB in this thread, and I don't think his/her points were all that unreasonable either.
It would also be helpful if BB could cite some sources for his stats, rather than just presenting them as truths. I'm not disputing them, but if you're going to use stats in a debate, it's helpful to give a verifiable source, otherwise what you're saying may be potentially seen as shouty opinion rather than as facts.
The Conservative MP's in parliament for example...more than half voted against legalisation of gay marriage in 2013? I grew up (in Ireland but of 37.5% English stock, grandson of a staunch and life-long Labour supporter...my wonderful granny!) with a healthy mistrust (to put it mildly) for the Conservative Party so such a scenario wouldn't surprise me! Whatever can be debated about abortion = killing babies, it's utterly absurd to stand in the way of two loving, willing adults wanting to take their love to the registry and sign up to the various protective laws that marriage provides. In my (shouty if needs be!) opinion of course!
If he writes something that's actually right (or perhaps more precisely, that you agree with?) then absolutely and of course upvote the guy - who could object to that?
His nasty tone in his last post is unnecessary and that tone is encouraged when you upvote it. My opinion of course.
Actually one of BB's posts earlier in this thread did catch my eye for being quite accurate and original, I should really go and upvote it and give the guy compliments because olive branches are good for positive ambience on public forums.
He's offensive in his words here because when it comes to this particular issue, he's a shouty, mouthy brat, a bit like a monkey up a tree firing coconuts down at the passersby.
If you don't 100% agree with him on the issues here, it's because you HAVEN'T BEEN LISTENING TO WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED TO YOU OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND AS THE CENTRAL REPOSITORY OF TRUTH ON THIS MATTER...WELL...GOD...HE'S JUST SO TIRED OF HAVING TO EXPLAAAAAAAAIN TO SLOW FOLK!!
He had a right go at me a couple of weeks ago on a similar matter, basically misrepresenting what I had written even though it was as plain as day what I had written, before finally quietening down (after a couple of twitter-style petulant remarks from him) when I put him firmly in his place and also stopped feeding his voracious trolling appetite. He thought that trotting out the same sort of tired twitterazi style rants would somehow demonstrate his point (reference the silly cartoon, and mentioning men > 50 years old earlier in this same thread - not the first time those exact irrelevances have come up). They demonstrated a point alright, but not the one he was trying to demonstrate.
I was convinced he must have been a 16 year old gobby nitpick but I think I read somewhere him saying that he's married. Not sure what the legal age for marriage is here in the UK but I'm assuming he's an adult-sized adult but with the cop on of a nasty, screechy little child.
Your best bet really is to ignore him on this issue and to tell him that you're ignoring him on this issue if he can't engage in an intelligent and respectful manner (don't stick him on "ignore" though because some of his football opinions are insightful enough). It's mainly on this issue where nuance and understanding is needed in order to have an honest debate that he goes into absolute meltdown.
It is not a two-sided debate, no matter how strongly the hardliners (at each extreme) push for it to be.
I find it slightly disappointing that the likes of Spruce will give him upvotes even for his most narky answers, because Spruce comes across as an intelligent, amusing and genuinely engaging fellow (again from what I've read elsewhere on the forum, I haven't had the pleasure of buying him a pint yet) and he really shouldn't be encouraging these sort of replies in my view.
Any modern charger worth its weight in cheap Chinese plastic should be able to handle a "full" battery by reducing the voltage to a trickle once it detects that charging is complete.
I do remember in the old days (25-30 years ago) chargers tended to warm up the batteries to a sometimes worrying degree, and while such chargers are still handy for charging a completely dead rechargeable battery (which can otherwise remain undetected by an "intelligent" charger) anything more recent should "know" when to cut off the charge completely (or reduce it to a trickle voltage as mentioned).
There are probably EU norms and regulations around all of this...so you might have Nigel F. to thank if your house burns down next year when all you were trying to do is hang some shelves...yikes!