eFestivals

Admin
  • Content count

    75,179
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

eFestivals last won the day on June 12 2010

eFestivals had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About eFestivals

  • Rank
    the value of your god may go down as well as up
  • Birthday 02/01/1998

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.efestivals.co.uk

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    in a field

Recent Profile Visitors

146,350 profile views
  1. so i didn't imagine the skate ramp
  2. less convinced now. Tho I do reckon it'll have ended by around 8pm - 9pm at worst. Looking forwards to it all the same. At least there's no chance of mud.
  3. I'm wondering why it's only ever Gate D that has these problems, when the sunshine is the same at all gates and the queues are much the same at all gates. Which means that the only real difference is the punters queuing at that gate.
  4. if something factually wrong like that is able to survive people continually saying it even tho it's factually wrong, then I reckon it's well on the way to becoming a widely believed myth. I do think there's some bad echo chamber stuff going on at the moment, and perhaps your Gerrard thing is another example of something wider in society than just football (which has it's own different abilities to create myths)
  5. True, tho it's not (necessarily) really about smart or not, it's about where any person's areas of knowledge are. That one should really class as 'common knowledge' - but even then it doesn't mean that every smart person will know it. Anyway, it's not the worst crime even if she does think she's living. It's not useful information for anyone in govt (perhaps not knowing that leaves space for something more useful? ) But i do think it's most likely that she wanted to give a 'great' tribute, and then slipped into the cliqued 'greatest living author' thing. As there isn't really anything similar for the dead - apart from 'greatest ever', which with all due respect isn't Austen - I can see how it might happen.
  6. But surely just a mis-speak, rather than what she really thinks is true?
  7. Hmmm. Choices can be lucky, sure. If you flip a coin, where you are ignorant of everything of what the result might be (except for it being one or the other), it's purely the luck of your choice if you get it right. But ... knowledge is power. If you acquire knowledge of how things might turn out you can make better choices where luck plays a lesser part. Like it or not, lots of people are *choosing* to make bad choices. One of mine might be that I smoke, and that might cause me to die early. Does that mean I should get to retire earlier than a non-smoker? And if we follow that thru, that also changes the burdens on the pensions system, and makes them even more unsustainable than things might be currently, cos the pensions system is already coming under an ever-greater load via greater life expectancy. We can choose to make different choices about the pensions system but all of those choices have consequences. In today's imperfect world or in tomorrow's utopia addressing those consequences is identical; if the pensions system - which means 'pensioners' as a group - needs greater resources, then other parts of society *has* to have less access to the finite resources of the country. And so we might keep the pension age unchanged; but that means the numbers of pensioners will grow (due to longer life expectancy), which means more of society's resources would need to go towards those oldies to the detriment of other ages groups within society. There's good choices and bad choices. It's not just luck.
  8. It's all about where you take the measure from. If you take a starting point as the worst point of the crash, then 'the rich' are starting from a low price, giving a greater amount to rise from until now. If you take a starting point as a while later when prices had bounced back to a large degree, then 'the rich' are starting from a higher price, giving a lesser amount to rise from until now. Over the long-term the gap has widened - but how much does that really mean, when 'the poor' are still getting wealthier? Blair's angle was that, along with the idea that if you don't allow 'the rich' the sorts of freedoms that they have now, then the poorest in society don't get richer. Me, i'd say Blair was right to an extent, at least. Societies with a much greater amount of state control don't have the best economic records even tho there's much less of a wealth gap.
  9. You can buy greater control, by greater personal efforts to get yourself greater access to resources. Fact is you're choosing to trade one for the other (like we all do to some degree). a social society limits free choices. Social schemes are about compulsion, not choice. And i'm laughing my tits off, both at you and the thought of all those young Corbynistas suddenly waking up to the same thing.
  10. The wealth gap is not related to any fixed level of wealth - and so it's quite possible for 'the poor' to be getting richer while the wealth gap grows. And in fact exactly that's what happened over the last 35 years. You're surely aware that even the poorest in today's society have more than they did in the 70s?
  11. You had enough for a trip to France. You've mentioned nights out. You might not be rich, but you clearly have surplus. You (and others) pretending otherwise is a big part of the problem. It's not just the rich who might tell porkies about what they have. And yet there's millions all around the country living on a state pension - and if you ask them they'll tell you that today they're doing better on it than any time they can remember. (that's not me saying they're living it up, but they're not desperate either). So how come you won't be able to? Particularly when you'll have extra on top. You forgot to mention that you don't have to work to 86 to be getting some extra (and oh, the current contributions to that extra is some more of your current surplus).
  12. So am I, but not particularly because of just what you mention. You say they have no idea of poverty. I'd say there's just as big a problem with those who don't understand wealth. Because the only resources - wealth - that can be redistributed is the wealth that we have. There's no magic that can create extra.
  13. It's mutual. Hypocrisy is always hilarious. The tax system could be utterly perfect, and the same resource problems would still exist. Go on, give me the solution. You've not done yet.
  14. Yeah, i know. Me-me-me. As i keep on saying, if you want extra back you have to give extra in. (I'm not playing your game. You supported the postcode lottery and the fuck-up of your NHS that you're now condemning).
  15. With support from the party you vote for, who LOVE postcode lotteries. Especially if they get gifted money, as they do now and then. All you can hear is spend spend spend, and not a mutter about how Wales has got extra but England or Scotland or NI hasn't. It's a bit different today. A demand for money for wales, a demand for money for Scotland ... but fuck England, eh? You want equal greed with the DUP, but fuck the people who'll send it to you.