Discussion:
tHHGttG
(too old to reply)
Ricardo
2006-01-19 10:14:18 UTC
Permalink
How the hell did I miss an extra 3 series of the radio play without even
getting a ripple that they existed.

Did I have my head in the sand? I guess it was realeased at about the time I
was fending off children with a retort stand. (I had the stand, they had
knives)

Ricardo
Guy Garrud
2006-01-19 10:26:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricardo
How the hell did I miss an extra 3 series of the radio play without even
getting a ripple that they existed.
Did I have my head in the sand? I guess it was realeased at about the time I
was fending off children with a retort stand. (I had the stand, they had
knives)
Ricardo
what kind of knives, remember butter knives aren't classed as a
dangerous weapon
m***@Privacy.Net
2006-01-19 10:36:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricardo
How the hell did I miss an extra 3 series of the radio play without even
getting a ripple that they existed.
Did I have my head in the sand? I guess it was realeased at about the time I
was fending off children with a retort stand. (I had the stand, they had
knives)
They were on early 90s late 80s.
--
Timothy
Ricardo
2006-01-19 12:05:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@Privacy.Net
They were on early 90s late 80s.
Unlikely as they were made in 2004 2004. Perhaps the BBC Radio 4 shack is
actually a cover for some tacyon experiments for sending signals BACK IN
TIME!! *queue twighlight zone music*
m***@Privacy.Net
2006-01-19 14:15:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricardo
Post by m***@Privacy.Net
They were on early 90s late 80s.
Unlikely as they were made in 2004 2004. Perhaps the BBC Radio 4 shack is
actually a cover for some tacyon experiments for sending signals BACK IN
TIME!! *queue twighlight zone music*
I thought you were referring to the ones in between those of last
year/year before and the original six esipodes/fits.
--
Timothy
gandalf
2006-01-19 22:45:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricardo
How the hell did I miss an extra 3 series of the radio play without even
getting a ripple that they existed.
Did I have my head in the sand? I guess it was realeased at about the time I
was fending off children with a retort stand. (I had the stand, they had
knives)
Damnit man, you should have used a bunsen burner!
--
# There's no smoke without Moyo #
Guy Garrud
2006-01-20 12:06:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by gandalf
Post by Ricardo
How the hell did I miss an extra 3 series of the radio play without even
getting a ripple that they existed.
Did I have my head in the sand? I guess it was realeased at about the time I
was fending off children with a retort stand. (I had the stand, they had
knives)
Damnit man, you should have used a bunsen burner!
nice idea but bunsen burners don't have much range, though they can sear
flesh a treat!
Neil McMillan
2006-01-20 16:49:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Garrud
Post by gandalf
Post by Ricardo
How the hell did I miss an extra 3 series of the radio play without
even getting a ripple that they existed.
Did I have my head in the sand? I guess it was realeased at about the
time I was fending off children with a retort stand. (I had the
stand, they had knives)
Damnit man, you should have used a bunsen burner!
nice idea but bunsen burners don't have much range, though they can sear
flesh a treat!
Ah, but you could use the bunsen burner to melt the rubber from one of
the clamps no doubt attached to the retort stand and fling boiling
rubber at the kids. I'm sure it would be nearly as good as napalm.

-Neil
Barney
2006-01-20 18:56:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil McMillan
Ah, but you could use the bunsen burner to melt the rubber from one of
the clamps no doubt attached to the retort stand and fling boiling
rubber at the kids. I'm sure it would be nearly as good as napalm.
-Neil
And as an added bonus, you can even sell the rubber moulds afterwords
for contemporary art, so it would be entirely self funding!
--
If bunnies could play go, we'd *really* be doomed!!!
Guy Garrud
2006-01-21 12:39:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barney
Post by Neil McMillan
Ah, but you could use the bunsen burner to melt the rubber from one of
the clamps no doubt attached to the retort stand and fling boiling
rubber at the kids. I'm sure it would be nearly as good as napalm.
-Neil
And as an added bonus, you can even sell the rubber moulds afterwords
for contemporary art, so it would be entirely self funding!
hmmm, human disfigurement as modern art, wonder if that would stand up
in court?
r p prediger
2006-01-22 15:25:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Garrud
Post by Barney
Post by Neil McMillan
Ah, but you could use the bunsen burner to melt the rubber from one of
the clamps no doubt attached to the retort stand and fling boiling
rubber at the kids. I'm sure it would be nearly as good as napalm.
-Neil
And as an added bonus, you can even sell the rubber moulds afterwords
for contemporary art, so it would be entirely self funding!
hmmm, human disfigurement as modern art, wonder if that would stand up
in court?
No. Sounds disgusting if you ask me.

Ricky
David Nutter
2006-01-23 21:09:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by r p prediger
No. Sounds disgusting if you ask me.
Plenty of tattoo fanatics would disagree with you there. As would the
charming Prof. Von Hagens.

He really should discard his hat as he has a disturbing resemblance to
Freddy Krueger when wearing it.

Regards,

-david
Guy Garrud
2006-01-24 12:05:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by r p prediger
Post by Guy Garrud
Post by Neil McMillan
Post by Neil McMillan
Ah, but you could use the bunsen burner to melt the rubber from
one of
Post by Neil McMillan
the clamps no doubt attached to the retort stand and fling boiling
rubber at the kids. I'm sure it would be nearly as good as napalm.
-Neil
And as an added bonus, you can even sell the rubber moulds afterwords
for contemporary art, so it would be entirely self funding!
hmmm, human disfigurement as modern art, wonder if that would stand up
in court?
No. Sounds disgusting if you ask me.
Ricky
have you ever tried reading "Bizzare" magazine... it's fun for all the
family!
r p prediger
2006-01-22 15:24:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricardo
How the hell did I miss an extra 3 series of the radio play without even
getting a ripple that they existed.
Did I have my head in the sand? I guess it was realeased at about the time I
was fending off children with a retort stand. (I had the stand, they had
knives)
Ricardo
A useful hint would have been to get a Radio Times. Scrutinise it
thouroughly. The Radio Times is perhaps the best programme guide out
there for telling one what is on the radio. Alas for Hitchhiker, 'twould
seem it is too late. Buy the CDs (maybe try www.bbcshop.com)

Ricky
Ricardo
2006-01-22 20:42:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by r p prediger
A useful hint would have been to get a Radio Times. Scrutinise it
thouroughly. The Radio Times is perhaps the best programme guide out there
for telling one what is on the radio. Alas for Hitchhiker, 'twould seem it
is too late. Buy the CDs (maybe try www.bbcshop.com)
I'll get get out my RETROSPECTROSCOPE and have a look shall i?

this is almost as useful as the guy at B&Q saying no we don't stock those,
we used to but we don't anymore.
Well do you sell time machines, then I can go back in fucking time and buy
some then!

Hold on I'll go check

Ricardo Dee
Guy Garrud
2006-01-23 11:02:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricardo
Post by r p prediger
A useful hint would have been to get a Radio Times. Scrutinise it
thouroughly. The Radio Times is perhaps the best programme guide out there
for telling one what is on the radio. Alas for Hitchhiker, 'twould seem it
is too late. Buy the CDs (maybe try www.bbcshop.com)
I'll get get out my RETROSPECTROSCOPE and have a look shall i?
this is almost as useful as the guy at B&Q saying no we don't stock those,
we used to but we don't anymore.
Well do you sell time machines, then I can go back in fucking time and buy
some then!
Hold on I'll go check
Ricardo Dee
you'd be amazeds how many time machines have been accidentally sold to
the public, this is why lotus abandonned the delorian, it was just too
problematic, every time someone drove above 88mph they'd suddenly be
sent through time
m***@Privacy.Net
2006-01-23 12:15:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Garrud
you'd be amazeds how many time machines have been accidentally sold to
the public, this is why lotus abandonned the delorian, it was just too
problematic, every time someone drove above 88mph they'd suddenly be
sent through time
Surely that was quite convenient as it proved they had broken the speed
limit. Much more efficient than a policeman hiding in a hedge.
--
Timothy
Guy Garrud
2006-01-23 12:30:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@Privacy.Net
Post by Guy Garrud
you'd be amazeds how many time machines have been accidentally sold to
the public, this is why lotus abandonned the delorian, it was just too
problematic, every time someone drove above 88mph they'd suddenly be
sent through time
Surely that was quite convenient as it proved they had broken the speed
limit. Much more efficient than a policeman hiding in a hedge.
I think the greatest piece of fantasy in back to the future was the idea
of a delorian being capable of reaching 88 mph

also, if you get sent back to before you commited the crime then could
you have been said to havedone it as the event hasn't happened yet, and
when it does, you'll be nowhere near it
m***@Privacy.Net
2006-01-23 13:18:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Garrud
I think the greatest piece of fantasy in back to the future was the
idea of a delorian being capable of reaching 88 mph
also, if you get sent back to before you commited the crime then could
you have been said to havedone it as the event hasn't happened yet, and
when it does, you'll be nowhere near it
There used to be one round here - belonged to one of the chaps from
Stainless Software - I believe they were involved in Carmaggedon or
Grand Theft Auto or something along those lines.
--
Timothy
Guy Garrud
2006-01-23 13:54:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@Privacy.Net
Post by Guy Garrud
I think the greatest piece of fantasy in back to the future was the
idea of a delorian being capable of reaching 88 mph
also, if you get sent back to before you commited the crime then could
you have been said to havedone it as the event hasn't happened yet,
and when it does, you'll be nowhere near it
There used to be one round here - belonged to one of the chaps from
Stainless Software - I believe they were involved in Carmaggedon or
Grand Theft Auto or something along those lines.
and where is he now? trapped in the fifties, like the fool that he is,
bwahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

(the programming doesn't go well)
r p prediger
2006-01-23 14:38:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Garrud
Post by m***@Privacy.Net
Post by Guy Garrud
you'd be amazeds how many time machines have been accidentally sold
to the public, this is why lotus abandonned the delorian, it was just
too problematic, every time someone drove above 88mph they'd suddenly
be sent through time
Surely that was quite convenient as it proved they had broken the
speed limit. Much more efficient than a policeman hiding in a hedge.
I think the greatest piece of fantasy in back to the future was the idea
of a delorian being capable of reaching 88 mph
also, if you get sent back to before you commited the crime then could
you have been said to havedone it as the event hasn't happened yet, and
when it does, you'll be nowhere near it
I guess so, I presume if you went back in time, there would be two of
you. I guess it would give one an alibi though, and would confuse the
courts somewhat (unless said courts were OK with the idea of time travel...)

Ricky (who does not endorse crime in any way)
Guy Garrud
2006-01-23 14:42:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by r p prediger
Post by Guy Garrud
Post by m***@Privacy.Net
Post by Guy Garrud
you'd be amazeds how many time machines have been accidentally sold
to the public, this is why lotus abandonned the delorian, it was
just too problematic, every time someone drove above 88mph they'd
suddenly be sent through time
Surely that was quite convenient as it proved they had broken the
speed limit. Much more efficient than a policeman hiding in a hedge.
I think the greatest piece of fantasy in back to the future was the
idea of a delorian being capable of reaching 88 mph
also, if you get sent back to before you commited the crime then could
you have been said to havedone it as the event hasn't happened yet,
and when it does, you'll be nowhere near it
I guess so, I presume if you went back in time, there would be two of
you. I guess it would give one an alibi though, and would confuse the
courts somewhat (unless said courts were OK with the idea of time travel...)
Ricky (who does not endorse crime in any way)
but in your personal time-line you would still be guilty but of a crime
which hasn't happened yet, is this comparable to intending to commit a
crime?

(Guy who only endorses crime if done in an amusing fashion)
Ricardo
2006-01-23 15:22:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Garrud
but in your personal time-line you would still be guilty but of a crime
which hasn't happened yet, is this comparable to intending to commit a
crime?
(Guy who only endorses crime if done in an amusing fashion)
I endorse all violent crime, especially when visited upon retards.
r p prediger
2006-01-23 16:33:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricardo
Post by Guy Garrud
but in your personal time-line you would still be guilty but of a crime
which hasn't happened yet, is this comparable to intending to commit a
crime?
(Guy who only endorses crime if done in an amusing fashion)
I endorse all violent crime, especially when visited upon retards.
Ever considered seeing a phychiatrist then? (Preferably one which
specialises in inappropriate humour syndrome.)

Ricky
r p prediger
2006-01-23 16:37:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by r p prediger
Post by Ricardo
Post by Guy Garrud
but in your personal time-line you would still be guilty but of a crime
which hasn't happened yet, is this comparable to intending to commit
a crime?
(Guy who only endorses crime if done in an amusing fashion)
I endorse all violent crime, especially when visited upon retards.
Ever considered seeing a phychiatrist then? (Preferably one which
specialises in inappropriate humour syndrome.)
Ricky
Don't take me too seriously on that one, BTW. (Except for the
inappropriate humour bit- it might offend some...)

Ricky
Ricardo
2006-01-23 17:35:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by r p prediger
Post by r p prediger
Ever considered seeing a phychiatrist then? (Preferably one which
specialises in inappropriate humour syndrome.)
Ricky
Don't take me too seriously on that one, BTW. (Except for the
inappropriate humour bit- it might offend some...)
Ever considered removing yourself from the - violent crime is acceptable
when visited upon you - bracket?
r p prediger
2006-01-24 16:02:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricardo
Post by r p prediger
Post by r p prediger
Ever considered seeing a phychiatrist then? (Preferably one which
specialises in inappropriate humour syndrome.)
Ricky
Don't take me too seriously on that one, BTW. (Except for the
inappropriate humour bit- it might offend some...)
Ever considered removing yourself from the - violent crime is acceptable
when visited upon you - bracket?
Not sure what you mean. If you mean, would I accept violent crime if
someone did it to me, I wouldn't know. But Jesus did say, 'turn the
other cheek', and talked of forgiveness...

Ricky
m***@Privacy.Net
2006-01-25 09:10:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by r p prediger
Not sure what you mean. If you mean, would I accept violent crime if
someone did it to me, I wouldn't know. But Jesus did say, 'turn the
other cheek', and talked of forgiveness...
Remember the other interpretation of the turn the other cheek:
Is that all you can come up with? That's pathetic, go on give me a good
laugh and try again on the other cheek, anyway your puny fists cannot
harm me for me cheeks are like a shield of steel.
--
Timothy
Guy Garrud
2006-01-25 10:15:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@Privacy.Net
Post by r p prediger
Not sure what you mean. If you mean, would I accept violent crime if
someone did it to me, I wouldn't know. But Jesus did say, 'turn the
other cheek', and talked of forgiveness...
Is that all you can come up with? That's pathetic, go on give me a good
laugh and try again on the other cheek, anyway your puny fists cannot
harm me for me cheeks are like a shield of steel.
all well and good, but if you want to do some damage you're probably
better off attacking something other than the cheeks (the temple,
abdomen, groin etc are all good targets)

also a good kick in the shins can be very effective (Beth will testify
to this I'm sure)

regards

Guy (is trying to avoid his write up)
r p prediger
2006-01-25 12:31:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@Privacy.Net
Post by r p prediger
Not sure what you mean. If you mean, would I accept violent crime if
someone did it to me, I wouldn't know. But Jesus did say, 'turn the
other cheek', and talked of forgiveness...
Is that all you can come up with? That's pathetic, go on give me a good
laugh and try again on the other cheek, anyway your puny fists cannot
harm me for me cheeks are like a shield of steel.
Perhaps, almost there, tho' perhaps not quite in the way you are
intending it I don't know. Jesus again speaks, I seem to remember, of
giving to your enemy what he needs, and by doing so, one will 'heap
burning coals on his head'. I guess it's not acceptance as such, but
maybe saying 'your violence is accomplishing nothing, and has no power
over me'. I wouldn't like it of course, but sometimes one might have to
put up with abuse, for a greater cause (for Christians, the gospel) and
in a sense, to deal with it violently or with retribution is to be as
bad as your enemy is. The love which is rooted in God is more powerful
than hate.

ricky
Ricardo
2006-01-25 12:40:18 UTC
Permalink
Perhaps, almost there, tho' perhaps not quite in the way you are intending
it I don't know. Jesus again speaks, I seem to remember, of giving to your
enemy what he needs, and by doing so, one will 'heap burning coals on his
head'. I guess it's not acceptance as such, but maybe saying 'your
violence is accomplishing nothing, and has no power over me'. I wouldn't
like it of course, but sometimes one might have to put up with abuse, for
a greater cause (for Christians, the gospel) and in a sense, to deal with
it violently or with retribution is to be as bad as your enemy is. The
love which is rooted in God is more powerful than hate.
Yet the greatest single dispenser of violence is clearly God. Slaying the
Egyptian army, and visiting 10 plagues upon Egypt. The Great flood. the
destruction of the civilisations occupying caanan, the promised destruction
at the end of the world, the fall of jericho, and counless more examples.

So it seems a bit Hypocrytical to come to use a few years later and say
"turn the other cheek boys"
"But I thought it was eye for eye stuff?"
"Do what I say not what I do!"

If God can't lead by example, who the hell can?

As someone who thinks the bible (OT) is a bundle of Babylonian stories
written down with some name changes this is easy for me to rationalise. If
god exists he DIDN'T do these things, and you have merely attributed them
unto him, unfairly indeed. But for you that must be a BITCH.
Guy Garrud
2006-01-23 16:48:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricardo
Post by Guy Garrud
but in your personal time-line you would still be guilty but of a crime
which hasn't happened yet, is this comparable to intending to commit a
crime?
(Guy who only endorses crime if done in an amusing fashion)
I endorse all violent crime, especially when visited upon retards.
I endorse all varieties of hob-nobs, espescially chocolatey ones
r p prediger
2006-01-23 16:14:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Garrud
Post by r p prediger
Post by Guy Garrud
Post by m***@Privacy.Net
Post by Guy Garrud
you'd be amazeds how many time machines have been accidentally sold
to the public, this is why lotus abandonned the delorian, it was
just too problematic, every time someone drove above 88mph they'd
suddenly be sent through time
Surely that was quite convenient as it proved they had broken the
speed limit. Much more efficient than a policeman hiding in a hedge.
I think the greatest piece of fantasy in back to the future was the
idea of a delorian being capable of reaching 88 mph
also, if you get sent back to before you commited the crime then
could you have been said to havedone it as the event hasn't happened
yet, and when it does, you'll be nowhere near it
I guess so, I presume if you went back in time, there would be two of
you. I guess it would give one an alibi though, and would confuse the
courts somewhat (unless said courts were OK with the idea of time travel...)
Ricky (who does not endorse crime in any way)
but in your personal time-line you would still be guilty but of a crime
which hasn't happened yet, is this comparable to intending to commit a
crime?
(Guy who only endorses crime if done in an amusing fashion)
No- if you assume your time-line is non-linear with respect to the
normal flow of time. Or something like that. You have still, with
respect to the sum of your experiences, committed that crime. The Time
Police are out to get you (maybe).

Ricky (who wonders how far Guy will go before he stops finding crime
amusing)
Guy Garrud
2006-01-23 16:51:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by r p prediger
Post by Guy Garrud
Post by r p prediger
Post by Guy Garrud
Post by m***@Privacy.Net
Post by Guy Garrud
you'd be amazeds how many time machines have been accidentally
sold to the public, this is why lotus abandonned the delorian, it
was just too problematic, every time someone drove above 88mph
they'd suddenly be sent through time
Surely that was quite convenient as it proved they had broken the
speed limit. Much more efficient than a policeman hiding in a hedge.
I think the greatest piece of fantasy in back to the future was the
idea of a delorian being capable of reaching 88 mph
also, if you get sent back to before you commited the crime then
could you have been said to havedone it as the event hasn't happened
yet, and when it does, you'll be nowhere near it
I guess so, I presume if you went back in time, there would be two of
you. I guess it would give one an alibi though, and would confuse the
courts somewhat (unless said courts were OK with the idea of time travel...)
Ricky (who does not endorse crime in any way)
but in your personal time-line you would still be guilty but of a
crime which hasn't happened yet, is this comparable to intending to
commit a crime?
(Guy who only endorses crime if done in an amusing fashion)
No- if you assume your time-line is non-linear with respect to the
normal flow of time. Or something like that. You have still, with
respect to the sum of your experiences, committed that crime. The Time
Police are out to get you (maybe).
Ricky (who wonders how far Guy will go before he stops finding crime
amusing)
but the law does not respect your personal perception of time. Say (for
example) you took some mind altering drug (drugs not being the issue
here) and were driving above the speed limit, your perception of how
long it took you to cover the distance would not be accepted in court,
only the rest of the worlds perception of how fast you were travelling.
In the time travel problem, the courts could not prosecute you for an
event which has yet to happen to them. (i.e., you would be giulty in
your own perception, but not be able to be found guilty in a court of law)
Jez
2006-01-23 18:01:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Garrud
Post by r p prediger
Post by Guy Garrud
but in your personal time-line you would still be guilty but of a
crime which hasn't happened yet, is this comparable to intending to
commit a crime?
(Guy who only endorses crime if done in an amusing fashion)
No- if you assume your time-line is non-linear with respect to the
normal flow of time. Or something like that. You have still, with
respect to the sum of your experiences, committed that crime. The Time
Police are out to get you (maybe).
Ricky (who wonders how far Guy will go before he stops finding crime
amusing)
but the law does not respect your personal perception of time. Say (for
example) you took some mind altering drug (drugs not being the issue
here) and were driving above the speed limit, your perception of how
long it took you to cover the distance would not be accepted in court,
only the rest of the worlds perception of how fast you were travelling.
In the time travel problem, the courts could not prosecute you for an
event which has yet to happen to them. (i.e., you would be giulty in
your own perception, but not be able to be found guilty in a court of law)
The courts are highly unlikely to convict anyone for "Intent to drive
above the speed limit", especially when their evidence is based on time
travel!

However should should there be policemen and courts capable of dealing
with the effects of time travel, they ought to arrest you for already
having done it, because in your time line it has already happened.
Jez
2006-01-23 18:02:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jez
Post by Guy Garrud
Post by r p prediger
Post by Guy Garrud
but in your personal time-line you would still be guilty but of a
crime which hasn't happened yet, is this comparable to intending to
commit a crime?
(Guy who only endorses crime if done in an amusing fashion)
No- if you assume your time-line is non-linear with respect to the
normal flow of time. Or something like that. You have still, with
respect to the sum of your experiences, committed that crime. The
Time Police are out to get you (maybe).
Ricky (who wonders how far Guy will go before he stops finding crime
amusing)
but the law does not respect your personal perception of time. Say
(for example) you took some mind altering drug (drugs not being the
issue here) and were driving above the speed limit, your perception of
how long it took you to cover the distance would not be accepted in
court, only the rest of the worlds perception of how fast you were
travelling. In the time travel problem, the courts could not prosecute
you for an event which has yet to happen to them. (i.e., you would be
giulty in your own perception, but not be able to be found guilty in a
court of law)
The courts are highly unlikely to convict anyone for "Intent to drive
above the speed limit", especially when their evidence is based on time
travel!
However should should there be policemen and courts capable of dealing
with the effects of time travel, they ought to arrest you for already
having done it, because in your time line it has already happened.
Is it just me or has this turned into "Minority Report"?
Matt Horsley
2006-01-23 18:15:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jez
Is it just me or has this turned into "Minority Report"?
Depends - are you carrying your eyes around in a little bag?
Guy Garrud
2006-01-24 12:03:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Horsley
Post by Jez
Is it just me or has this turned into "Minority Report"?
Depends - are you carrying your eyes around in a little bag?
yes, but that's just a force of habbit
Johnny
2006-01-24 10:07:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jez
Post by Jez
Post by Guy Garrud
Post by r p prediger
Post by Guy Garrud
but in your personal time-line you would still be guilty but of a
crime which hasn't happened yet, is this comparable to intending to
commit a crime?
(Guy who only endorses crime if done in an amusing fashion)
No- if you assume your time-line is non-linear with respect to the
normal flow of time. Or something like that. You have still, with
respect to the sum of your experiences, committed that crime. The
Time Police are out to get you (maybe).
Ricky (who wonders how far Guy will go before he stops finding crime
amusing)
but the law does not respect your personal perception of time. Say
(for example) you took some mind altering drug (drugs not being the
issue here) and were driving above the speed limit, your perception
of how long it took you to cover the distance would not be accepted
in court, only the rest of the worlds perception of how fast you were
travelling. In the time travel problem, the courts could not
prosecute you for an event which has yet to happen to them. (i.e.,
you would be giulty in your own perception, but not be able to be
found guilty in a court of law)
The courts are highly unlikely to convict anyone for "Intent to drive
above the speed limit", especially when their evidence is based on
time travel!
However should should there be policemen and courts capable of dealing
with the effects of time travel, they ought to arrest you for already
having done it, because in your time line it has already happened.
Is it just me or has this turned into "Minority Report"?
I'm afraid so.
m***@Privacy.Net
2006-01-24 10:28:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny
Post by Jez
Is it just me or has this turned into "Minority Report"?
I'm afraid so.
But only because last night I dug out a spare time machine, went back in
time to see the fillum at the cinema, then went forward in time to
fiddle with the thread, then returned to now.

Unfortunately the machine has now broken.
--
Timothy
James Claydon
2006-01-24 00:52:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jez
The courts are highly unlikely to convict anyone for "Intent to drive
above the speed limit", especially when their evidence is based on time
travel!
However should should there be policemen and courts capable of dealing
with the effects of time travel, they ought to arrest you for already
having done it, because in your time line it has already happened.
Well, no, because if you had arrived back in the past that means you must at
some point in the general future (your personal past) break the speed limit
in order to travel back in time in the first place. The job of the courts
and forensics is therefore simply to prove that you are indeed from the
future, presumably by such means as measuring the number of tachyons in your
body and/or checking your temporal lobe.


~James~
~Is waiting for future self to hand present self winning Lottery ticket~
Jez
2006-01-24 08:58:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Claydon
Post by Jez
The courts are highly unlikely to convict anyone for "Intent to drive
above the speed limit", especially when their evidence is based on time
travel!
However should should there be policemen and courts capable of dealing
with the effects of time travel, they ought to arrest you for already
having done it, because in your time line it has already happened.
Well, no, because if you had arrived back in the past that means you must at
some point in the general future (your personal past) break the speed limit
in order to travel back in time in the first place. The job of the courts
and forensics is therefore simply to prove that you are indeed from the
future, presumably by such means as measuring the number of tachyons in your
body and/or checking your temporal lobe.
~James~
~Is waiting for future self to hand present self winning Lottery ticket~
You could have been travelling at 88mph on personal property, in which
case you would not be breakignt he law.
n***@loowis.durge.org
2006-01-24 23:39:05 UTC
Permalink
James Claydon wrote in alt.dur.sf+f:
[snip]
Post by James Claydon
~James~
~Is waiting for future self to hand present self winning Lottery ticket~
Except after you win the lottery, you'll be filthy rich, so won't have
any motivation to build a time machine, so you won't be able to go back
in time to give yourself the winning lottery ticket, so you won't be
rich, so you'll build a time machine, so... so your grandfather will
shoot you! :-)

Andy Scheller

<can't be bothered with a sig>
James Claydon
2006-01-25 08:30:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@loowis.durge.org
[snip]
Post by James Claydon
~James~
~Is waiting for future self to hand present self winning Lottery ticket~
Except after you win the lottery, you'll be filthy rich, so won't have
any motivation to build a time machine, so you won't be able to go back
in time to give yourself the winning lottery ticket, so you won't be
rich, so you'll build a time machine, so... so your grandfather will
shoot you! :-)
Andy Scheller
<can't be bothered with a sig>
I'd have thought winning the Lottery would be the perfect incentive to make
a little trip back in time.


~James~
~Can be bothered with a sig~
Guy Garrud
2006-01-25 10:17:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@loowis.durge.org
[snip]
Post by James Claydon
~James~
~Is waiting for future self to hand present self winning Lottery ticket~
Except after you win the lottery, you'll be filthy rich, so won't have
any motivation to build a time machine, so you won't be able to go back
in time to give yourself the winning lottery ticket, so you won't be
rich, so you'll build a time machine, so... so your grandfather will
shoot you! :-)
Andy Scheller
<can't be bothered with a sig>
the number of times my grandad's shot me

"Grampa died last week
and now he's buried in the rocks
but everybodsy still talks about
how badly they were shocked
but me, I expected it to happen
I knew he'd lost control
when he built a fire on main street
and shot it full of holes"

a shiny fresh bar of chocolate to the first person to identify that quote
Barney
2006-01-25 15:48:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Garrud
the number of times my grandad's shot me
"Grampa died last week
and now he's buried in the rocks
but everybodsy still talks about
how badly they were shocked
but me, I expected it to happen
I knew he'd lost control
when he built a fire on main street
and shot it full of holes"
a shiny fresh bar of chocolate to the first person to identify that quote
Ooh, ooh! I want chocolate! It's that Bob Dylan song thingy, please
give me chocolate please!
--
Sacrificing dignity for chocolate
Guy Garrud
2006-01-24 12:02:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jez
Post by Guy Garrud
Post by r p prediger
Post by Guy Garrud
but in your personal time-line you would still be guilty but of a
crime which hasn't happened yet, is this comparable to intending to
commit a crime?
(Guy who only endorses crime if done in an amusing fashion)
No- if you assume your time-line is non-linear with respect to the
normal flow of time. Or something like that. You have still, with
respect to the sum of your experiences, committed that crime. The
Time Police are out to get you (maybe).
Ricky (who wonders how far Guy will go before he stops finding crime
amusing)
but the law does not respect your personal perception of time. Say
(for example) you took some mind altering drug (drugs not being the
issue here) and were driving above the speed limit, your perception of
how long it took you to cover the distance would not be accepted in
court, only the rest of the worlds perception of how fast you were
travelling. In the time travel problem, the courts could not prosecute
you for an event which has yet to happen to them. (i.e., you would be
giulty in your own perception, but not be able to be found guilty in a
court of law)
The courts are highly unlikely to convict anyone for "Intent to drive
above the speed limit", especially when their evidence is based on time
travel!
However should should there be policemen and courts capable of dealing
with the effects of time travel, they ought to arrest you for already
having done it, because in your time line it has already happened.
but they couldn't because there would be absolutely no evidence to back
it up
Barney
2006-01-23 18:31:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Garrud
but the law does not respect your personal perception of time. Say (for
example) you took some mind altering drug (drugs not being the issue
here) and were driving above the speed limit, your perception of how
long it took you to cover the distance would not be accepted in court,
only the rest of the worlds perception of how fast you were travelling.
In the time travel problem, the courts could not prosecute you for an
event which has yet to happen to them. (i.e., you would be giulty in
your own perception, but not be able to be found guilty in a court of law)
Also, If you were travelling fast enough, traffic lights would appear
green instated of red. But the law wouldn't care oh no, they would
still prosecute your corpse when they removed it from the 3 mile crater
in the cliff.
--
If bunnies could play go, we'd *really* be doomed!!!
Guy Garrud
2006-01-24 12:04:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barney
Post by Guy Garrud
but the law does not respect your personal perception of time. Say
(for example) you took some mind altering drug (drugs not being the
issue here) and were driving above the speed limit, your perception of
how long it took you to cover the distance would not be accepted in
court, only the rest of the worlds perception of how fast you were
travelling. In the time travel problem, the courts could not prosecute
you for an event which has yet to happen to them. (i.e., you would be
giulty in your own perception, but not be able to be found guilty in a
court of law)
Also, If you were travelling fast enough, traffic lights would appear
green instated of red. But the law wouldn't care oh no, they would
still prosecute your corpse when they removed it from the 3 mile crater
in the cliff.
an extremely valid point
r p prediger
2006-01-24 16:16:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barney
Post by Guy Garrud
but the law does not respect your personal perception of time. Say
(for example) you took some mind altering drug (drugs not being the
issue here) and were driving above the speed limit, your perception of
how long it took you to cover the distance would not be accepted in
court, only the rest of the worlds perception of how fast you were
travelling. In the time travel problem, the courts could not prosecute
you for an event which has yet to happen to them. (i.e., you would be
giulty in your own perception, but not be able to be found guilty in a
court of law)
Also, If you were travelling fast enough, traffic lights would appear
green instated of red. But the law wouldn't care oh no, they would
still prosecute your corpse when they removed it from the 3 mile crater
in the cliff.
How can anyone prosecute the dead? (except God at the final judgement,
perhaps?)

Ricky
James Claydon
2006-01-24 19:46:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by r p prediger
Post by Barney
Post by Guy Garrud
but the law does not respect your personal perception of time. Say (for
example) you took some mind altering drug (drugs not being the issue
here) and were driving above the speed limit, your perception of how
long it took you to cover the distance would not be accepted in court,
only the rest of the worlds perception of how fast you were travelling.
In the time travel problem, the courts could not prosecute you for an
event which has yet to happen to them. (i.e., you would be giulty in
your own perception, but not be able to be found guilty in a court of law)
Also, If you were travelling fast enough, traffic lights would appear
green instated of red. But the law wouldn't care oh no, they would still
prosecute your corpse when they removed it from the 3 mile crater in the
cliff.
How can anyone prosecute the dead? (except God at the final judgement,
perhaps?)
Ricky
Watch me.


~James~
m***@Privacy.Net
2006-01-25 09:14:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by r p prediger
How can anyone prosecute the dead? (except God at the final judgement,
perhaps?)
Actually, this has happened, at least in a civil case. Some pregnant
woman tried to sue a bloke because she saw his destroyed body spilling
blood and entrails all over the road after he was run over, and she
reckoned the distress caused her to miscarry. I don't have my law book
to hand otherwise I would tell you the case name, but its a blue law
book and its at the top of a left hand page.
--
Timothy
Guy Garrud
2006-01-25 10:18:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@Privacy.Net
Post by r p prediger
How can anyone prosecute the dead? (except God at the final judgement,
perhaps?)
Actually, this has happened, at least in a civil case. Some pregnant
woman tried to sue a bloke because she saw his destroyed body spilling
blood and entrails all over the road after he was run over, and she
reckoned the distress caused her to miscarry. I don't have my law book
to hand otherwise I would tell you the case name, but its a blue law
book and its at the top of a left hand page.
Am I the only one to think "I'd be dead, so I really don't care!"
Jez
2006-01-25 11:10:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Garrud
Post by m***@Privacy.Net
Post by r p prediger
How can anyone prosecute the dead? (except God at the final
judgement, perhaps?)
Actually, this has happened, at least in a civil case. Some pregnant
woman tried to sue a bloke because she saw his destroyed body spilling
blood and entrails all over the road after he was run over, and she
reckoned the distress caused her to miscarry. I don't have my law
book to hand otherwise I would tell you the case name, but its a blue
law book and its at the top of a left hand page.
Am I the only one to think "I'd be dead, so I really don't care!"
Presumably his next of kin would have to defend the case so they didn't
lose money from his will?

Or perhaps the police were liable for not mopping him up quickly enough.
Guy Garrud
2006-01-25 11:28:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jez
Post by Guy Garrud
Post by m***@Privacy.Net
Post by r p prediger
How can anyone prosecute the dead? (except God at the final
judgement, perhaps?)
Actually, this has happened, at least in a civil case. Some pregnant
woman tried to sue a bloke because she saw his destroyed body
spilling blood and entrails all over the road after he was run over,
and she reckoned the distress caused her to miscarry. I don't have
my law book to hand otherwise I would tell you the case name, but its
a blue law book and its at the top of a left hand page.
Am I the only one to think "I'd be dead, so I really don't care!"
Presumably his next of kin would have to defend the case so they didn't
lose money from his will?
Or perhaps the police were liable for not mopping him up quickly enough.
mopping?!? bloody hell that's a bad accident!
Barney
2006-01-25 15:29:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Garrud
Post by Jez
Or perhaps the police were liable for not mopping him up quickly enough.
mopping?!? bloody hell that's a bad accident!
Ah, obviously you haven't heard of the mop-o-matic 2647! It both mops
up the blood *and* does the washing up, hoovering and amateur
detectoring, all in the voice of Basil Rathbone! With just 20 minutes
mopping of the crimes scene, the mop will display (in HDTV) the
criminals name, age, favourite band and person on the force they would
be most likely to sleep with! They should be using this on every crime!

Err, I haven't just dreamt this have I?
--
If bunnies could play go, we'd *really* be doomed!!!
Jez
2006-01-25 18:20:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barney
Post by Guy Garrud
Post by Jez
Or perhaps the police were liable for not mopping him up quickly enough.
mopping?!? bloody hell that's a bad accident!
Ah, obviously you haven't heard of the mop-o-matic 2647! It both mops
up the blood *and* does the washing up, hoovering and amateur
detectoring, all in the voice of Basil Rathbone! With just 20 minutes
mopping of the crimes scene, the mop will display (in HDTV) the
criminals name, age, favourite band and person on the force they would
be most likely to sleep with! They should be using this on every crime!
Err, I haven't just dreamt this have I?
Patent it! Quickly!
r p prediger
2006-01-25 21:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barney
Post by Guy Garrud
Post by Jez
Or perhaps the police were liable for not mopping him up quickly enough.
mopping?!? bloody hell that's a bad accident!
Ah, obviously you haven't heard of the mop-o-matic 2647! It both mops
up the blood *and* does the washing up, hoovering and amateur
detectoring, all in the voice of Basil Rathbone! With just 20 minutes
mopping of the crimes scene, the mop will display (in HDTV) the
criminals name, age, favourite band and person on the force they would
be most likely to sleep with! They should be using this on every crime!
Err, I haven't just dreamt this have I?
I'm not so sure you haven't- at least, how can anyone guess the last 2
bits? It's hardly the sort of info likely to be available on police
force databases. (But then...)

Ricky (who desn't approve of the last category of information being held
on any database, partly for moral reasons and partly due to the
emabarrassment it would no doubt cause!)

Jez
2006-01-25 11:09:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@Privacy.Net
Post by r p prediger
How can anyone prosecute the dead? (except God at the final judgement,
perhaps?)
Actually, this has happened, at least in a civil case. Some pregnant
woman tried to sue a bloke because she saw his destroyed body spilling
blood and entrails all over the road after he was run over, and she
reckoned the distress caused her to miscarry. I don't have my law book
to hand otherwise I would tell you the case name, but its a blue law
book and its at the top of a left hand page.
If only I could get away with that kind of footnoting in my dissertation...
Ricardo
2006-01-25 10:40:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by r p prediger
How can anyone prosecute the dead? (except God at the final judgement,
perhaps?)
Ever tried to write a post that doesn't mention your God?
r p prediger
2006-01-24 15:56:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Garrud
Post by r p prediger
Post by Guy Garrud
Post by r p prediger
Post by Guy Garrud
Post by m***@Privacy.Net
Post by Guy Garrud
you'd be amazeds how many time machines have been accidentally
sold to the public, this is why lotus abandonned the delorian, it
was just too problematic, every time someone drove above 88mph
they'd suddenly be sent through time
Surely that was quite convenient as it proved they had broken the
speed limit. Much more efficient than a policeman hiding in a hedge.
I think the greatest piece of fantasy in back to the future was the
idea of a delorian being capable of reaching 88 mph
also, if you get sent back to before you commited the crime then
could you have been said to havedone it as the event hasn't
happened yet, and when it does, you'll be nowhere near it
I guess so, I presume if you went back in time, there would be two
of you. I guess it would give one an alibi though, and would confuse
the courts somewhat (unless said courts were OK with the idea of
time travel...)
Ricky (who does not endorse crime in any way)
but in your personal time-line you would still be guilty but of a
crime which hasn't happened yet, is this comparable to intending to
commit a crime?
(Guy who only endorses crime if done in an amusing fashion)
No- if you assume your time-line is non-linear with respect to the
normal flow of time. Or something like that. You have still, with
respect to the sum of your experiences, committed that crime. The Time
Police are out to get you (maybe).
Ricky (who wonders how far Guy will go before he stops finding crime
amusing)
but the law does not respect your personal perception of time. Say (for
example) you took some mind altering drug (drugs not being the issue
here) and were driving above the speed limit, your perception of how
long it took you to cover the distance would not be accepted in court,
only the rest of the worlds perception of how fast you were travelling.
In the time travel problem, the courts could not prosecute you for an
event which has yet to happen to them. (i.e., you would be giulty in
your own perception, but not be able to be found guilty in a court of law)
But time would catch up with you, and then what? Besides, by the time
time travel gets invented, maybe someone will start coming up with
legislation to circumvent such a thing.

Ricky
Guy Garrud
2006-01-24 20:33:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by r p prediger
Post by Guy Garrud
Post by r p prediger
Post by Guy Garrud
Post by r p prediger
Post by Guy Garrud
Post by m***@Privacy.Net
Post by Guy Garrud
you'd be amazeds how many time machines have been accidentally
sold to the public, this is why lotus abandonned the delorian,
it was just too problematic, every time someone drove above
88mph they'd suddenly be sent through time
Surely that was quite convenient as it proved they had broken the
speed limit. Much more efficient than a policeman hiding in a hedge.
I think the greatest piece of fantasy in back to the future was
the idea of a delorian being capable of reaching 88 mph
also, if you get sent back to before you commited the crime then
could you have been said to havedone it as the event hasn't
happened yet, and when it does, you'll be nowhere near it
I guess so, I presume if you went back in time, there would be two
of you. I guess it would give one an alibi though, and would
confuse the courts somewhat (unless said courts were OK with the
idea of time travel...)
Ricky (who does not endorse crime in any way)
but in your personal time-line you would still be guilty but of a
crime which hasn't happened yet, is this comparable to intending to
commit a crime?
(Guy who only endorses crime if done in an amusing fashion)
No- if you assume your time-line is non-linear with respect to the
normal flow of time. Or something like that. You have still, with
respect to the sum of your experiences, committed that crime. The
Time Police are out to get you (maybe).
Ricky (who wonders how far Guy will go before he stops finding crime
amusing)
but the law does not respect your personal perception of time. Say
(for example) you took some mind altering drug (drugs not being the
issue here) and were driving above the speed limit, your perception of
how long it took you to cover the distance would not be accepted in
court, only the rest of the worlds perception of how fast you were
travelling. In the time travel problem, the courts could not prosecute
you for an event which has yet to happen to them. (i.e., you would be
giulty in your own perception, but not be able to be found guilty in a
court of law)
But time would catch up with you, and then what? Besides, by the time
time travel gets invented, maybe someone will start coming up with
legislation to circumvent such a thing.
Ricky
it seems rather dopubtful that the legislation will come into place
before it becomes a practical problem (unless someone sends a copy of it
back in time
James Claydon
2006-01-24 20:42:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by r p prediger
But time would catch up with you, and then what? Besides, by the time
time travel gets invented, maybe someone will start coming up with
legislation to circumvent such a thing.
Ricky
it seems rather dopubtful that the legislation will come into place before
it becomes a practical problem (unless someone sends a copy of it back in
time
Time travel's bad for you anyway. Didn't you know that? Causes cancer, it
does. It'd be banned as soon as the proof for it left the printer, for
health reasons. Shame they don't do the same with smoking, really. Then
again, time travel wouldn't be nearly as addictive, profitable and moronic,
which is probably why it'd get the axe.


~James~
~Non-smoking area~
Guy Garrud
2006-01-25 10:19:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Claydon
Post by r p prediger
But time would catch up with you, and then what? Besides, by the time
time travel gets invented, maybe someone will start coming up with
legislation to circumvent such a thing.
Ricky
it seems rather dopubtful that the legislation will come into place before
it becomes a practical problem (unless someone sends a copy of it back in
time
Time travel's bad for you anyway. Didn't you know that? Causes cancer, it
does. It'd be banned as soon as the proof for it left the printer, for
health reasons. Shame they don't do the same with smoking, really. Then
again, time travel wouldn't be nearly as addictive, profitable and moronic,
which is probably why it'd get the axe.
~James~
~Non-smoking area~
hmm, that's an aspect I really should have put in my essay
m***@Privacy.Net
2006-01-25 09:15:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by r p prediger
But time would catch up with you, and then what? Besides, by the time
time travel gets invented, maybe someone will start coming up with
legislation to circumvent such a thing.
But once time travel is discovered it must surely have been
simultaneously invented in all time frames.
--
Timothy
Ricardo
2006-01-25 10:42:39 UTC
Permalink
But time would catch up with you, and then what? Besides, by the time time
travel gets invented, maybe someone will start coming up with legislation
to circumvent such a thing.
But once time travel is discovered it must surely have been simultaneously
invented in all time frames.
Yes, and remarkably similar to the content of the original thread i.e.
tHHGttG.

and as Exoskeleton Scienteis guy said "if time travel were possible why are
we not inundated with tourists from the future?"
Guy Garrud
2006-01-25 10:46:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricardo
But time would catch up with you, and then what? Besides, by the time time
travel gets invented, maybe someone will start coming up with legislation
to circumvent such a thing.
But once time travel is discovered it must surely have been simultaneously
invented in all time frames.
Yes, and remarkably similar to the content of the original thread i.e.
tHHGttG.
and as Exoskeleton Scienteis guy said "if time travel were possible why are
we not inundated with tourists from the future?"
there's various answers tyo this, I'l see if I can put a full answer up
later
Ricardo
2006-01-25 10:50:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Garrud
there's various answers tyo this, I'l see if I can put a full answer up
later
No there isn't don't be stupid. You are sounding like Prediger now.

there might be a GUESS as to why this is the case, but there is no answer.
Guy Garrud
2006-01-25 10:56:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricardo
Post by Guy Garrud
there's various answers tyo this, I'l see if I can put a full answer up
later
No there isn't don't be stupid. You are sounding like Prediger now.
there might be a GUESS as to why this is the case, but there is no answer.
apologies, I phrased that poorly, there are several ideas which could
explain this without necessarily forbidding time travel, I've done a ot
of thinking about it lately (and written a 5,000 word essay on it), so
hopefully might be able to put up a reasonably coherent set of ideas-
Jez
2006-01-25 11:12:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Garrud
Post by Ricardo
Post by Guy Garrud
there's various answers tyo this, I'l see if I can put a full answer up
later
No there isn't don't be stupid. You are sounding like Prediger now.
there might be a GUESS as to why this is the case, but there is no answer.
apologies, I phrased that poorly, there are several ideas which could
explain this without necessarily forbidding time travel, I've done a ot
of thinking about it lately (and written a 5,000 word essay on it), so
hopefully might be able to put up a reasonably coherent set of ideas-
Is one of the answers "They invent the invisibility machine before they
invent the time machine"?
Guy Garrud
2006-01-25 11:29:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jez
Post by Guy Garrud
Post by Ricardo
Post by Guy Garrud
there's various answers tyo this, I'l see if I can put a full answer up
later
No there isn't don't be stupid. You are sounding like Prediger now.
there might be a GUESS as to why this is the case, but there is no answer.
apologies, I phrased that poorly, there are several ideas which could
explain this without necessarily forbidding time travel, I've done a
ot of thinking about it lately (and written a 5,000 word essay on it),
so hopefully might be able to put up a reasonably coherent set of ideas-
Is one of the answers "They invent the invisibility machine before they
invent the time machine"?
but if you invent the invisibility machine who wants the time machine,
just imaginew the fun you could have (in a non pervy way of course)
m***@Privacy.Net
2006-01-25 17:04:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Garrud
but if you invent the invisibility machine who wants the time machine,
just imaginew the fun you could have (in a non pervy way of course)
I watched the invisible buffy episode yesterday and she has fun in the
pervy way.

That reminds me, at the end of the first episode of the current Channel
4/E4 series of Smallville, Spike congealed like the bloke in Terminator
II from/out of the space ship, but he has yet to make a full appearance,
do we know when he will turn up?

I do have fun winding up a friend about all the cross over of actors.
eg: One of the Master's sidekicks in Buffet turns up as a Titan in
Charmed. Cordelia turns up in Charmed as well and seems to play exactly
the same part - especially when you consider that in Angel they gave her
premonition/seer powers. Perhaps the weirdest one has to be Harry from
3rd Rock from the Sun being a genie. Just remembered another, Darryl the
police man in charmed is an extra policeman in something else, I should
probably stop now.
--
Timothy
n***@loowis.durge.org
2006-01-25 18:23:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@Privacy.Net
I do have fun winding up a friend about all the cross over of actors.
eg: One of the Master's sidekicks in Buffet turns up as a Titan in
Charmed. Cordelia turns up in Charmed as well and seems to play exactly
the same part - especially when you consider that in Angel they gave her
premonition/seer powers. Perhaps the weirdest one has to be Harry from
3rd Rock from the Sun being a genie. Just remembered another, Darryl the
police man in charmed is an extra policeman in something else, I should
probably stop now.
The woman (Airon?) out of Farscape turned up in Stargate the other week,
and she seemed to be playing the same character.

Andy Scheller

<can't be bothered with a sig>
m***@Privacy.Net
2006-01-25 10:58:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricardo
But time would catch up with you, and then what? Besides, by the time time
travel gets invented, maybe someone will start coming up with legislation
to circumvent such a thing.
But once time travel is discovered it must surely have been simultaneously
invented in all time frames.
Yes, and remarkably similar to the content of the original thread i.e.
tHHGttG.
Ah, I knew I heard that somewhere.
--
Timothy
James Claydon
2006-01-25 11:14:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricardo
and as Exoskeleton Scienteis guy said "if time travel were possible why
are we not inundated with tourists from the future?"
Because we're not.

I'm of the belief that there is only a single timeline, that it has already
been affected by any and all bits of time travel, and there's nothing you
can do to change it. No Trousers of Time either. Okay, possibly a naive
though, but I'm sticking to it. And don't bring up the Grandfather paradox
either; perhaps the owners of the time machine check for homicidal
tendencies in chrononaut applicants. And really, would you want to try
making yourself not exist?

Nah, things sort themselves out somehow. I'd like to believe chrononauts are
more sensible than to try to do something that never happens (save JFK,
deliver a pizza to Captain Oates, etc.). Or if they must do something like
that (even if by accident), perhaps there's a specialised team of people
from far into the future that sort out paradoxes caused by previous fools.
You could make a series out of it. "Quantum Jump".

Nah. Silly title.


~James~
~Chrononut~
Guy Garrud
2006-01-25 11:31:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Claydon
Post by Ricardo
and as Exoskeleton Scienteis guy said "if time travel were possible why
are we not inundated with tourists from the future?"
Because we're not.
I'm of the belief that there is only a single timeline, that it has already
been affected by any and all bits of time travel, and there's nothing you
can do to change it. No Trousers of Time either. Okay, possibly a naive
though, but I'm sticking to it. And don't bring up the Grandfather paradox
either; perhaps the owners of the time machine check for homicidal
tendencies in chrononaut applicants. And really, would you want to try
making yourself not exist?
Nah, things sort themselves out somehow. I'd like to believe chrononauts are
more sensible than to try to do something that never happens (save JFK,
deliver a pizza to Captain Oates, etc.). Or if they must do something like
that (even if by accident), perhaps there's a specialised team of people
from far into the future that sort out paradoxes caused by previous fools.
You could make a series out of it. "Quantum Jump".
Nah. Silly title.
~James~
~Chrononut~
yes, self-consistent time travel is one of the things I was going to
mention, though it get's a lot more complicated than that, trust me!
Ricardo
2006-01-25 11:53:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Claydon
Post by Ricardo
and as Exoskeleton Scienteis guy said "if time travel were possible why
are we not inundated with tourists from the future?"
Because we're not.
And that was the point. It was his case that it could never be possible to
travel back in time because if it were we would have seen and measured the
effects by now.

The other thing I find hard to fathom about time travel theories is the fact
that if you DID travel back in time are you not likely to still have to
travel through it. Not jumping back and forth, but actually travelling in
it. so if someone did build a time machine to travel back in time it could
crash into things that were in its path.

Anyway I am simply procrastinating. Back to work.
Guy Garrud
2006-01-25 12:05:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricardo
Post by James Claydon
Post by Ricardo
and as Exoskeleton Scienteis guy said "if time travel were possible why
are we not inundated with tourists from the future?"
Because we're not.
And that was the point. It was his case that it could never be possible to
travel back in time because if it were we would have seen and measured the
effects by now.
The other thing I find hard to fathom about time travel theories is the fact
that if you DID travel back in time are you not likely to still have to
travel through it. Not jumping back and forth, but actually travelling in
it. so if someone did build a time machine to travel back in time it could
crash into things that were in its path.
Anyway I am simply procrastinating. Back to work.
the most plausible design for a time machine I've come across is using
time-dilate wormholes, in which case you wouldn't travel back "through"
time, but along your own little bridge of space time between two points
Ricardo
2006-01-25 12:21:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Garrud
the most plausible design for a time machine I've come across is using
time-dilate wormholes, in which case you wouldn't travel back "through"
time, but along your own little bridge of space time between two points
Yeah, I think I have heard that theory too. But lets face it they are all
bollocks. People guessing about stuff they have no fucking clue about.
Barney
2006-01-25 15:38:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricardo
Post by Guy Garrud
the most plausible design for a time machine I've come across is using
time-dilate wormholes, in which case you wouldn't travel back "through"
time, but along your own little bridge of space time between two points
Yeah, I think I have heard that theory too. But lets face it they are all
bollocks. People guessing about stuff they have no fucking clue about.
Well they theorise, safe in the knowledge that they will never be called
on the experiment on the predictions of the theories (due to
cost/technology/terrorism/haven't-slept-with-director-of-CERN) so they
we free to express their more mathematical hypotheses ('right, lets
start by assuming all humans are spherical...')
--
If bunnies could play go, we'd *really* be doomed!!!
m***@Privacy.Net
2006-01-25 17:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barney
Well they theorise, safe in the knowledge that they will never be
called on the experiment on the predictions of the theories (due to
cost/technology/terrorism/haven't-slept-with-director-of-CERN) so they
we free to express their more mathematical hypotheses ('right, lets
start by assuming all humans are spherical...')
We tried a third dimension of numbers at school, but we couldn't quite
get it to work.
--
Timothy
Ricardo
2006-01-25 17:36:38 UTC
Permalink
We tried a third dimension of numbers at school, but we couldn't quite get
it to work.
I have a unique ability that allows me to make sculptures that project into
the THIRD DIMENSION (queue twighlight zone music)

How freaky is that?
James Claydon
2006-01-25 17:43:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricardo
Post by m***@Privacy.Net
We tried a third dimension of numbers at school, but we couldn't quite
get it to work.
I have a unique ability that allows me to make sculptures that project
into the THIRD DIMENSION (queue twighlight zone music)
How freaky is that?
Woah, woah, wait up just one moment.

There's a third dimension now?


~James~
~Frinkahedrons!~
m***@Privacy.Net
2006-01-25 17:09:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Claydon
Because we're not.
I'm of the belief that there is only a single timeline, that it has already
been affected by any and all bits of time travel, and there's nothing you
can do to change it. No Trousers of Time either. Okay, possibly a naive
though, but I'm sticking to it. And don't bring up the Grandfather paradox
either; perhaps the owners of the time machine check for homicidal
tendencies in chrononaut applicants. And really, would you want to try
making yourself not exist?
Nah, things sort themselves out somehow. I'd like to believe chrononauts are
more sensible than to try to do something that never happens (save JFK,
deliver a pizza to Captain Oates, etc.). Or if they must do something like
that (even if by accident), perhaps there's a specialised team of people
from far into the future that sort out paradoxes caused by previous fools.
You could make a series out of it. "Quantum Jump".
Nah. Silly title.
But to make it work you need an infinite number of probable universes
and the convoluted time lines just shift you from one version to
another, you could probably make a series out of that and call it
'Sliders'
--
Timothy
r p prediger
2006-01-23 14:42:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricardo
Post by r p prediger
A useful hint would have been to get a Radio Times. Scrutinise it
thouroughly. The Radio Times is perhaps the best programme guide out there
for telling one what is on the radio. Alas for Hitchhiker, 'twould seem it
is too late. Buy the CDs (maybe try www.bbcshop.com)
I'll get get out my RETROSPECTROSCOPE and have a look shall i?
this is almost as useful as the guy at B&Q saying no we don't stock those,
we used to but we don't anymore.
Well do you sell time machines, then I can go back in fucking time and buy
some then!
Hold on I'll go check
Ricardo Dee
I guess there are still some radio signals bouncing around through
space, where one can pick up old Radio 4, if the signals got reflected
off something. One would need a good arial tho', and I don't think my
lousy radio is up to the job. Failing that, you could check the RT for
repeats. Or buy a time machine. (I don't sell those, nor does the BBC)

Ricky
Guy Garrud
2006-01-23 14:44:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by r p prediger
Post by Ricardo
Post by r p prediger
A useful hint would have been to get a Radio Times. Scrutinise it
thouroughly. The Radio Times is perhaps the best programme guide out
there for telling one what is on the radio. Alas for Hitchhiker,
'twould seem it is too late. Buy the CDs (maybe try www.bbcshop.com)
I'll get get out my RETROSPECTROSCOPE and have a look shall i?
this is almost as useful as the guy at B&Q saying no we don't stock
those, we used to but we don't anymore.
Well do you sell time machines, then I can go back in fucking time and
buy some then!
Hold on I'll go check
Ricardo Dee
I guess there are still some radio signals bouncing around through
space, where one can pick up old Radio 4, if the signals got reflected
off something. One would need a good arial tho', and I don't think my
lousy radio is up to the job. Failing that, you could check the RT for
repeats. Or buy a time machine. (I don't sell those, nor does the BBC)
Ricky
but you'd have to adjust your frequency to that of radio 4 but
redshifted by the equivalent of however long it's been since the broadcasts
r p prediger
2006-01-23 16:16:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Garrud
Post by r p prediger
Post by Ricardo
Post by r p prediger
A useful hint would have been to get a Radio Times. Scrutinise it
thouroughly. The Radio Times is perhaps the best programme guide out
there for telling one what is on the radio. Alas for Hitchhiker,
'twould seem it is too late. Buy the CDs (maybe try www.bbcshop.com)
I'll get get out my RETROSPECTROSCOPE and have a look shall i?
this is almost as useful as the guy at B&Q saying no we don't stock
those, we used to but we don't anymore.
Well do you sell time machines, then I can go back in fucking time
and buy some then!
Hold on I'll go check
Ricardo Dee
I guess there are still some radio signals bouncing around through
space, where one can pick up old Radio 4, if the signals got reflected
off something. One would need a good arial tho', and I don't think my
lousy radio is up to the job. Failing that, you could check the RT for
repeats. Or buy a time machine. (I don't sell those, nor does the BBC)
Ricky
but you'd have to adjust your frequency to that of radio 4 but
redshifted by the equivalent of however long it's been since the broadcasts
Presumably it won't do that, unless it leaves the galaxy, and thus
expreinces the expansion of the universe. Of course, whatever it
reflects off will give a redshift.

ricky
Guy Garrud
2006-01-23 16:51:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by r p prediger
Post by Guy Garrud
Post by r p prediger
Post by Ricardo
Post by r p prediger
A useful hint would have been to get a Radio Times. Scrutinise it
thouroughly. The Radio Times is perhaps the best programme guide
out there for telling one what is on the radio. Alas for
Hitchhiker, 'twould seem it is too late. Buy the CDs (maybe try
www.bbcshop.com)
I'll get get out my RETROSPECTROSCOPE and have a look shall i?
this is almost as useful as the guy at B&Q saying no we don't stock
those, we used to but we don't anymore.
Well do you sell time machines, then I can go back in fucking time
and buy some then!
Hold on I'll go check
Ricardo Dee
I guess there are still some radio signals bouncing around through
space, where one can pick up old Radio 4, if the signals got
reflected off something. One would need a good arial tho', and I
don't think my lousy radio is up to the job. Failing that, you could
check the RT for repeats. Or buy a time machine. (I don't sell those,
nor does the BBC)
Ricky
but you'd have to adjust your frequency to that of radio 4 but
redshifted by the equivalent of however long it's been since the broadcasts
Presumably it won't do that, unless it leaves the galaxy, and thus
expreinces the expansion of the universe. Of course, whatever it
reflects off will give a redshift.
ricky
because of course redshift only occurs outside our galaxy...
Ricardo
2006-01-25 10:44:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Garrud
because of course redshift only occurs outside our galaxy...
SHIT, no wonder I failed "lame physics 101". And there I was thinking the
universe was expanding.
Guy Garrud
2006-01-25 10:46:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricardo
Post by Guy Garrud
because of course redshift only occurs outside our galaxy...
SHIT, no wonder I failed "lame physics 101". And there I was thinking the
universe was expanding.
sheer follishness ;-)
m***@Privacy.Net
2006-01-25 10:58:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricardo
Post by Guy Garrud
because of course redshift only occurs outside our galaxy...
SHIT, no wonder I failed "lame physics 101". And there I was thinking the
universe was expanding.
No, the universe is a static size but everything in it is shrinking.
--
Timothy
Guy Garrud
2006-01-25 11:09:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@Privacy.Net
Post by Ricardo
Post by Guy Garrud
because of course redshift only occurs outside our galaxy...
SHIT, no wonder I failed "lame physics 101". And there I was thinking the
universe was expanding.
No, the universe is a static size but everything in it is shrinking.
now there's a theory I can believe in
James Claydon
2006-01-25 11:20:11 UTC
Permalink
And there I was thinking the universe was expanding.
You have to think: "Expanding into what?". The Universe? But that's what's
expanding in the first place. There is nothing outside the Universe, which
is defined as everything. The Universe cannot expand into nothing. Therefore
the Universe doesn't exist, and any bits of Universe you actually see are
anomalies.

Enjoy.


~James~
~Wrote the leaflet on oral hygeine~
Ricardo
2006-01-25 11:45:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Claydon
And there I was thinking the universe was expanding.
You have to think: "Expanding into what?". The Universe? But that's what's
expanding in the first place. There is nothing outside the Universe, which
is defined as everything. The Universe cannot expand into nothing.
Therefore the Universe doesn't exist, and any bits of Universe you
actually see are anomalies.
logically flawed, but everyone is entitled to ramble on newsgroups.
Nat Jones
2006-01-25 11:07:17 UTC
Permalink
or wait till it goes out on BBC7 as it should inevitably do
m***@Privacy.Net
2006-01-23 15:05:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by r p prediger
Post by Ricardo
Post by r p prediger
A useful hint would have been to get a Radio Times. Scrutinise it
thouroughly. The Radio Times is perhaps the best programme guide out
there for telling one what is on the radio. Alas for Hitchhiker,
'twould seem it is too late. Buy the CDs (maybe try www.bbcshop.com)
I'll get get out my RETROSPECTROSCOPE and have a look shall i?
this is almost as useful as the guy at B&Q saying no we don't stock
those, we used to but we don't anymore.
Well do you sell time machines, then I can go back in fucking time
and buy some then!
Hold on I'll go check
Ricardo Dee
I guess there are still some radio signals bouncing around through
space, where one can pick up old Radio 4, if the signals got reflected
off something. One would need a good arial tho', and I don't think my
lousy radio is up to the job. Failing that, you could check the RT for
repeats. Or buy a time machine. (I don't sell those, nor does the BBC)
I just checked ebay and there don't seem to be any on there, although it
did suggest I try searching for flux capacitor.
--
Timothy
r p prediger
2006-01-23 16:32:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@Privacy.Net
Post by r p prediger
Post by Ricardo
Post by r p prediger
A useful hint would have been to get a Radio Times. Scrutinise it
thouroughly. The Radio Times is perhaps the best programme guide out
there for telling one what is on the radio. Alas for Hitchhiker,
'twould seem it is too late. Buy the CDs (maybe try www.bbcshop.com)
I'll get get out my RETROSPECTROSCOPE and have a look shall i?
this is almost as useful as the guy at B&Q saying no we don't stock
those, we used to but we don't anymore.
Well do you sell time machines, then I can go back in fucking time
and buy some then!
Hold on I'll go check
Ricardo Dee
I guess there are still some radio signals bouncing around through
space, where one can pick up old Radio 4, if the signals got reflected
off something. One would need a good arial tho', and I don't think my
lousy radio is up to the job. Failing that, you could check the RT for
repeats. Or buy a time machine. (I don't sell those, nor does the BBC)
I just checked ebay and there don't seem to be any on there, although it
did suggest I try searching for flux capacitor.
Curious.

Ricky
Guy Garrud
2006-01-23 16:52:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@Privacy.Net
Post by r p prediger
Post by Ricardo
Post by r p prediger
A useful hint would have been to get a Radio Times. Scrutinise it
thouroughly. The Radio Times is perhaps the best programme guide out
there for telling one what is on the radio. Alas for Hitchhiker,
'twould seem it is too late. Buy the CDs (maybe try www.bbcshop.com)
I'll get get out my RETROSPECTROSCOPE and have a look shall i?
this is almost as useful as the guy at B&Q saying no we don't stock
those, we used to but we don't anymore.
Well do you sell time machines, then I can go back in fucking time
and buy some then!
Hold on I'll go check
Ricardo Dee
I guess there are still some radio signals bouncing around through
space, where one can pick up old Radio 4, if the signals got reflected
off something. One would need a good arial tho', and I don't think my
lousy radio is up to the job. Failing that, you could check the RT for
repeats. Or buy a time machine. (I don't sell those, nor does the BBC)
I just checked ebay and there don't seem to be any on there, although it
did suggest I try searching for flux capacitor.
I just went on ebay andit recomended I search for chocolate hob-nobs
David Nutter
2006-01-23 21:07:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricardo
How the hell did I miss an extra 3 series of the radio play without even
getting a ripple that they existed.
I'm sure I mentioned them to you at some point when they were on in '04.
Anyway, if you are feeling flush the BBC has the episodes for sale:

http://www.bbcshop.com/icat/101&source=921

Alternatively, I'm sure you can acquire MP3 versions by Naughty Means.

Regards,

-david
Ricardo
2006-01-25 10:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Nutter
I'm sure I mentioned them to you at some point when they were on in '04.
I really have no recolection, and I think that is something I would have
remembered.
I have already bought, mp3 ed and listened to the whole lot.
Loading...