I sometimes have sex with myself for as little as a packet of crisps. It's degrading but I can't resist the taste.

I don't get how anyone can tell this is big from this video?
I mean I don't doubt that it's big, but really it's just some arbitrary distance away from the camera. Maybe if there were a cow flying along side it so I can get a sense of perspective then I'd know, but until I see that I can't be amazed by this video.
At the moment it could be almost immediately above the camera and hence not that big, or it could be two miles in the air in which case I cannot even begin to imagine how big it would be.
Either way we need livestock in the air before I'll be surprised

>> ^budzos:
Oh yeah I can't wait to have my fuckin ankles crushed by this thing.


Patience my friend, patience

Oh god. That actually made my skin crawl a bit. I'm not sure it's going to be able to get back in synch with my skeleton.
You should see me now, my ears are towards the front of my face and I'm finding it difficult to get food into my mouth.
It's ok for now, but I'm concerned about my anus being on the side of my leg.

Probably taking an unpopular stance here, but I don't really think marijuana should be legal. Maybe the stuff you used to get could be safely legalised but seriously the skunk that is around now is genuinely linked to extreme paranoia and schizophrenia. I hear it's something like 60 times the strength of the average 1960s joint.
Besides people do get cancer from mixing it with tobacco and smoking without a filter. I think it's daft to make out that there is zero risk to smoking weed.
And the idea that it would boost the economy?!!
OK so who's going to go to work for the first few days or so of easily available legalised weed? That's going to introduce a lot of people to long stretches on sofas with Doritos and pizza.
Maybe it's not as bad as alcohol, and it's certainly not as bad as loads of drugs.
Besides I've never personally known of anyone who smokes weed getting busted for it. People that suffer the most from it's illegality are large scale importers or growers, and they take the risk and make the profit, so I don't see that it's so bad that it's illegal. Why not just keep it as an underground interesting activity that has it's risks?
Who wants their prim and proper Auntie Janice facebooking them about coming round for a few spliffs with your Grandma and the bible group?
OK I take that back, maybe that would be funny.

kittens, puppies, children, old people, tuna, asparagus and blue whales.
Sorry I'll take back asparagus, that's just cruel

>> ^asakatali:
I don't see why if evangelicals can keep banging their drums, Dawkins can't.


He can. I'm not saying he can't I just don't see the point. If someone told me there was a magical elephant that ruled the Universe and controls all the laws of physics (and a large number of people also believed this) and I were a talented biologist I wouldn't take that as a challenge to convince everyone that the magical elephant doesn't exist. I feel he's made his point and responded to everything he can respond to and expressed his viewpoints in as clear and rational way as possible, if the rest of the world keep banging on about magical elephants then just ignore it and carry on with important work that can only help strengthen your position in the long run. Don't give credibility to the stories by constantly answering to them and rebutting them. My second point was that he's not got the same charisma that would give him the edge in convincing people and winning them over.

>> ^Psychologic:
Dawkins is "preaching" to the convertable... people who will listen but who may not have been exposed to the right information. He knows that there are people who will never change their mind, but there are plenty of others who really are looking for answers.
I'm glad that Dawkins exists. Perhaps more people will invest in reason rather than custom in the future. It will be a gradual change, but it will only happen because more and more people like Dawkins exist in the public domain.


If that's the case then I suppose it's fair enough, maybe it's useful to have someone winning these people over. I personally don't know any. I only ever meet atheists/agnostics, and very occasionally Christians. The Christians I've met are not open to questioning their beliefs so I wouldn't spend a great deal of my time trying to win them over, and besides they've heard it all before, and they all have very good answers (as far as they are concerned) to anything you may raise to doubt Christianity. Admittedly none of it follows real logic and is filled with lots of slightly clever logical fallacies that win over those who don't notice it, but still you can see when a Christian smugly answers one of your questions about anything which doubts God/Christianity/religion in general that you're not going to change their mind.
Anyway, as I mentioned before I just don't think Dawkins himself should be doing this. I'm not saying there shouldn't be someone out there fighting this socio-political PR battle on behalf of science, just that why Dawkins?
Why are we sending one of our most talented scientists to fight a battle for hearts and minds when he isn't talented in this area? It just seems such a waste. I'm sure there are much less talented scientists who are charming, knowledgeable and charismatic who would be better suited to this kind of role.

>> ^dag:
haha, I see what you did there ^ (but I think he knew what he was doing too)


Ah yes. And so did I. And I know that you know that I know that. And we all know that everyone knows that I know you know that I know that. And I'm sure he knows that too. Just confirming really that we all know what was going on there. And anyone and everyone who doesn't is probably just a small-minded idiot anyway.

See I don't understand why Richard Dawkins keeps banging this drum. Maybe because of how vocal he is, he keeps getting confronted by Christian and creationist viewpoints and so he feels he needs to fight back, but really he's never going to win anyone over with that method of communication. He is highly respected by people in the scientific community and is pretty much preaching to the converted. Anyone who's ever been won over by the logic of science and the evidence, and evolution is pretty unlikely to be swung over to the dark side, and anyone strongly swayed by promises of eternal hell, and punishment for lack of faith or doubt, and promise of heavenly eternal reward and who truly believes these things is pretty damn unlikely to change their mind. So both sides will be pretty stubborn and he's only likely to appeal by connecting with the more emotional and primal side and dare I say it religious side of someone's nature before he could even have a hope in hell's chance of swaying their view. Besides this he just doesn't have the charisma. He's logical, respected by scientists, quite arrogant (perhaps rightly so), and in short he has none of the qualities required to change someone's mind who thinks in completely different terms and operates on such a completely different wavelength to him. I do feel he'd be better expending his energy on being a great scientist and furthering the cause of science and not wasting his effort fighting against religion.

>> ^Haldaug:
OK, English is not my first language. I simply had to do a follow-through on that one and check out http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=follow+through
At first I thought westy's comment was just a typical westy-comment, bereft of meaning, spelling, syntax and punctuation, but he actually followed through on that one.
Kudos to mrk871 for spilling the beans to me and making me see what I really meant to say.


I think it's OK to say "follow through with x" to express what you intended, but just "follow through" seems to sound more like the other meaning, although other people may differ in how they interpret it. Btw, by no means was my post a sarcastic dig at your language skills or a simple "Ha ha, you made a mistake". I just found the 2nd meaning amusing.

I once met someone who lived either on Abbey Road or just round the corner from there. They said it's really annoying when you have to drive along that road everyday, but I guess that's pretty obvious watching this video.

Yep OK I agree. I do hope he follows through. I mean I've absolutely nothing against the guy at all. He's intelligent, clearly understands his game, very successful and inspiring. The whole world seems to be a better place just for his being in office, but maybe this is what we need now. We need the comedy. We need him to come down a peg or two. This lack of foolish behaviour maybe makes him seem too elitist.
A president trying to ease out a sly one whilst touching cloth and the inevitable embarrassment and clean up might be just enough to make him seem less like a superhero and more flawed and human.
Got to hand it to you Haldaug that's some serious thinking outside the box there, but you've won me over to this idea.
Let's hope he cracks open the beans and sails too close to the wind.

^ ^
"Let's hope he follows through."

Why would anyone want the president of the USA to shit himself?
What does that have to do with this video?

Mind you I'm posting this just before watching the video, so my mind may be changed later. Will report back in a minute...

Upvote for the old man in the photograph

>> ^boksinx:
how about acting like you're dropping atomic bomb or something?


cough sorry. gomen ne.


Yeah maybe that would freak people out. But how the hell would you act that one out? I think it would be more freaky that someone was capable of miming such an expression and making it clearly understandable. daijoubu.