Pretty cool Nicki Minaj metal remix: [video=youtube;mF1EepS2ZW8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF1EepS2ZW8&feature=plcp[/video]
Funnily enough, and unlike St-Bendy, I can understand the benefits that Facebook can have if used right. When our son was in Australia, he used it to keep in touch with his friends. However, just to show how stupid it can be, he recently posted a picture of a pie he was about to eat for dinner. Go figure, as they say. Mind you as someone who used to do a lot of recruiting I will say that many of todays Facebook users are setting themselves up for a whole lot of trouble when they try to get a job. Stuff on Facebook has a way of getting to the people you don't want it to so be careful. However, Twitter I will never understand. As far as I can tell its just like public texting.
There's not enough inane drivel in the world, nor enough vapid egotists. That's why twitter had to be invented, to satisfy the human need to spout guff.
As has been pointed out, nothing inherently evil about twitter and facebook...idiots are idiots whatever method of communication they use. It does, however, hold potential for bullying and the spreading of lies. I think a few highly publicised prosecutions to remind people they are not outside the law can only be a good thing. Same for hackers who are 'only having fun' when they cost individuals or companies money. People need to be reminded that things like Facebook are more public than they think...someone at my work was in trouble for slagging off the company on Facebook.
Facebook is great. I totally embrace it. Easy to ignore people you want to on it. Twitter I signed up to but never really got into it. Couldn't see the point to it really. I think footballers and other celebrities will inevitably get a number of posts from people trying to wind them up. If they can't ignore such comments then they shouldn't really be using it. As for the people who make such comments - they need to get a life and ignoring them is how to handle them.
Oh, I could write for hours about why it shouldn't be illegal, so why don't you have a head-start and tell me why you think it should be illegal. Even though you say "it should obviously be the person who is to blame, not the tool which he uses" and "I very rarely support the notion of banning anything"
What you call inane drivel, other people call conversing. It's what people do. Oh and guys, please stop with the gun stuff. You're never going to agree and it's off-topic.
People could easily label this forum as a medium where people posting meaningless comments, it is not so different from other forms of social media.
Not talking about rifles and pistols used for target practice or for those held legally by farmers for protecting life stock, but I am glad I live in a society where guns are not freely held. Out and out criminals can get them now, but if freely available there is another stratum of society who would have them if it was easy...let's call them the pitbull fraternity for the sake of argument. Most of us live in gun free, peaceful areas and that's how it should stay.
Those things that I said before do not contradict my stance on this. If your argument is that ownership of firearms acts as a deterrent and serves as a means of protecting yourself and your family, which is an attitude they seem to have in America, I'd point you to the worrying crime rates over there. Their homicide rate is almost four times as high as ours and six times as high as Germany's. In fact, it's far higher than any European country bar Russia. 14,748 murders in the US in 2010. And when people are using guns to protect themselves, they're not doing it right. They shoot people who try to burgle them or just enter their land. That's not the right way to deal with those sorts of crimes. Go spend a week in a dodgy part of Los Angeles then tell me that you support the rights of these people to own guns. It's mad.
Good point. You're not allowed in this country to keep guns as protection or to use (or threaten to use) against any other person. They're not to be used as a threat or deterrent, even if your life/property is at risk. Besides, if you're keeping firearms correctly in accordance with UK firearms laws, then it would take you too long to shoot anyone - guns, bolts and ammo all have to be stored correctly and away from each other in locked cabinets so it would take about 3 minutes to put together a weapon with a view to shooting/threatening to shoot an intruder, by which time they've looted your house. (Much quicker to grab a kitchen knife, but that's a topic for another thread!) So yes, anyone using a gun to shoot someone in their house is definitely doing something wrong. Ownership of firearms is primarily for sport, target shooting, clay shooting, or hunting and licence holders are questioned by police quite well as to why they want any particular firearm and each person has to prove why they need evry single weapon and that there's no reason they would be considered a risk to other people. But that goes back to the original point of the person doing the act, not the object used during the act.
Easy access to weapons can make you do things you regret. If you are not carrying a knife, you are less likely to fight or less likely to get into anything more serious than a punch up. It's easy to think that the inner city thugs shoot or stab someone without compunction, but I bet quite a few regret it and not solely from a selfish point of view. Youngsters go in for posturing...given time they grow up. Whenever I hear of a youngster killed, I think of 2 lives wasted...the victims and the perpetrator.
I went to see the Avengers movie a couple of days ago, and although it was just as mediocre as I thought it would be, it did have one good scene which debated the merits of owning weapons as deterrents. This particular debate was regarding nuclear deterrents, but the same principle applies: it works to a degree, but you don't want everyone living in fear of each other, and it only takes one madman to ignite a ****storm.
I disagree with that, my mate was attacked 2 months before his 19th birthday (October 08) and died 5 months later in hospital. The lad who done it got out 30th April just gone, has his life been wasted?
Anyone heard the Richard Chaplow interview on saints player? he goes " im sure adam will be wanting to go on holiday, he is a lonely guy and needs a friend?" ...???
On the subject of twitter it's a fantastic resource to get news and mostly a source of entertainment. I use it at college for a quick update between lectures on any breaking football stories etc.. people who use it to tweet to footballers piss me off. You're not freinds with them so why are you pretending you are e.g "chaplow what you and the lads doing in vegas?! :L" very sad, bet the players hate it. Anyway, i'd recomend twitter if you are out for prolonged periods and want to know the news, you can't get any more up to date. Just don't follow c-list celebs or Joey Barton.
If you haven't noticed, all these interviews were done on the Saturday after the final game....and it was said in a lads banter type of way!
Nothing wrong with following famous people if you're interested in what they have to say, but trying to talk with them is a bit sad. I enjoy the tweets of Ricky Gervais, Charlie Brooker, Prof. Brian Cox, and various others, but I'm not trying to be their friend. Mainly though, it is just handy for having all of my news sources in one place.
Even worse than the attempted "lad banter" with people you don't know, is the "Lalana u r class mate can i get a rt?" as if Adam Lallana clicking one button to "retweet" them will somehow validate their existence
