Windsor

The difference is that if executed my candidate would be DEAD, whereas yours would still be ALIVE. Thus I should get points because my candidate was DEAD, and you shouldn't because yours are still ALIVE. I agree that your candidate will be dead, but, if he's executed, he will have died by circumstance not entitling you to any points, so, harsh as it may be, you shouldn't have any points. Under the circumstances I should have my points because when I chose him back in December there was no hint of an execution. Everybody knows why the no execution rule was brought into play, and everybody knows that it doesn't apply to Mubarak's circumstances due to the timeline. I'm sure it wouldn't be an issue if 'one of the gang' had chosen him. Deep down I'm sure that you all understand why I'd be entitled to the points. It really depends on how long you all plan on acting like a bunch of arse licking plebs, desperate to stay on the good side of the DDP organiser. I understand perfectly why you think you should be entitled to the points. Do you understand why I think you shouldn't? As for being an 'arse licking pleb desperate to stay on the good side of the DDP organiser', why would you even think this? I don't know, or even care, if I'm on his good side or not (if I am, its not helped me thus far), and I'm not even sure anyone has demonstrated any arse-licking (except maybe DDT, and I'm sure that was meant tongue in cheek (oo-er!)). You don't think I should get the points because you evidently don't understand the nature of the 'no executions' rule - the same problem which afflicts the current organiser. Having read his latest update, it doesn't look like he is going to alter the until the 2012 competition. As for my earlier rant, I was trying to deflect the votes against me by suggesting there is a conspiracy against me. It's not working.

The difference is that if executed my candidate would be DEAD, whereas yours would still be ALIVE. Thus I should get points because my candidate was DEAD, and you shouldn't because yours are still ALIVE. I agree that your candidate will be dead, but, if he's executed, he will have died by circumstance not entitling you to any points, so, harsh as it may be, you shouldn't have any points. Under the circumstances I should have my points because when I chose him back in December there was no hint of an execution. Everybody knows why the no execution rule was brought into play, and everybody knows that it doesn't apply to Mubarak's circumstances due to the timeline. I'm sure it wouldn't be an issue if 'one of the gang' had chosen him. Deep down I'm sure that you all understand why I'd be entitled to the points. It really depends on how long you all plan on acting like a bunch of arse licking plebs, desperate to stay on the good side of the DDP organiser.

Does he have enough cognitive abilities for it to affect him and maybe even kill him off do you think? Probably not, Sargent Shriver was oblivious to his wife's death. He did only last just over a year after she died though so maybe he missed her on som elevel.She visited him every day after all.Then again maybe Shamirs wife hated him Or maybe he was 95 years old.

The difference is that if executed my candidate would be DEAD, whereas yours would still be ALIVE. Thus I should get points because my candidate was DEAD, and you shouldn't because yours are still ALIVE.

The Health Minister has deemed Mubarak fit to face trial next Wednesday. So it's not looking good for either Mubarak or my points at the moment. I'm away to the garden to console myself with a spot of comfort eating...

apparantely he was killed today, but i pre-announced his death on monday .Is this the first time a member has posted the death of someone 3 days before it actually happened? No. Unfortunately wrong information is posted too frequently by some members.

Where did he go on holiday? The spare room?

I think you are being unreasonable. I am very well aware that Mubarak is not yet dead. I am merely making the argument that if he is executed in 2011, points should still be awarded to those who chose him. My point is clear. He was chosen in the spirit of the game. He wasn't chosen because it was believed he would be executed and therefore a guaranteed hit. The fact that he is in the position he is now is down to a twist of fate which we couldn't have seen coming in December 2010. You know full well what the non-execution rule is for, and you know full well that Hosni Mubarak is exempt from that rule under the circumstances. It's not rule bending - it's keeping to the spirit of the game. Not the predictability of death, but the unpredictability of death.

Exactly. That's why if Mubarak does hang, we should get the points and, furthermore, we should get the unnatural death bonus. That is a fairly weak argument. Are you suggesting that we should shy away from dictators because there is always a possibility they might be overthrown? I think you know that argument is bullshit. We all know that the "no execution" rule was brought in specifically to prevent participants from choosing candidates who they knew were likely to be executed in the near future. This does not apply to Mubarak who was sitting safe in December 2010. The fact that he had managed to hold on to power for 30 year, more or less with the backing of the West, showed that he knew what he was doing. Furthermore, had his actions not led to the deaths of protesters - something which happened in February 2011 - the likelihood is that he wouldn't be facing execution today.

Well if I was facing the prospect of a kangaroo court and swift execution I guess I wouldn't be hungry either If he does hang we don't get points...which is a bit unfair considering he was still President at the beginning of the year. Had he been deposed or sentenced to death back in December I could understand why points wouldn't be awarded. For example, Tariq Aziz is also on my list because he is said to be in poor health. If he got hanged, however, I would accept that no points could be awarded because I knew there was the possibility he may be executed when I chose him. In my opinion, there is a world of difference between the two scenarios. Osama bin Laden was executed...points were awarded for that. An execution is administered by the state. Osama bin Laden was murdered by US special forces, therefore scoring points... Perhaps. But you should take in to account the fact that when Mubarak was chosen by deadpoolers back in December, they were not to know that his entire regime was going to collapse and that he could potentially be executed in the space of 12 months. He was chosen in the spirit of the game - he was an ailing leader who was apparently dying of cancer. We did not choose him because we knew he was likely to be executed - or even that there was a possibility he could be executed. This is different to Saddam Hussein in 2006 - where execution was likely at the beginning of the year - and entirely different to Barzan Ibrahim al-Hasan al-Tikriti and Awad Hamad al-Bandar who we knew would be executed in 2007. Shit happens mate, that's the way of the game. A lot of people weren't 100% sure that Osama bin Laden was alive, but they still picked him. If Mubarak gets the noose before the end of the year then tough tits Is he not on your list like? With regards bin Laden, that was a calculated pick for those deadpoolers. They were aware of the risks when they picked him. Those of us who picked Mubarak didn't have that luxury - mainly because we aren't psychic.

Well if I was facing the prospect of a kangaroo court and swift execution I guess I wouldn't be hungry either If he does hang we don't get points...which is a bit unfair considering he was still President at the beginning of the year. Had he been deposed or sentenced to death back in December I could understand why points wouldn't be awarded. For example, Tariq Aziz is also on my list because he is said to be in poor health. If he got hanged, however, I would accept that no points could be awarded because I knew there was the possibility he may be executed when I chose him. In my opinion, there is a world of difference between the two scenarios. Osama bin Laden was executed...points were awarded for that. An execution is administered by the state. Osama bin Laden was murdered by US special forces, therefore scoring points... Perhaps. But you should take in to account the fact that when Mubarak was chosen by deadpoolers back in December, they were not to know that his entire regime was going to collapse and that he could potentially be executed in the space of 12 months. He was chosen in the spirit of the game - he was an ailing leader who was apparently dying of cancer. We did not choose him because we knew he was likely to be executed - or even that there was a possibility he could be executed. This is different to Saddam Hussein in 2006 - where execution was likely at the beginning of the year - and entirely different to Barzan Ibrahim al-Hasan al-Tikriti and Awad Hamad al-Bandar who we knew would be executed in 2007.

Well if I was facing the prospect of a kangaroo court and swift execution I guess I wouldn't be hungry either If he does hang we don't get points...which is a bit unfair considering he was still President at the beginning of the year. Had he been deposed or sentenced to death back in December I could understand why points wouldn't be awarded. For example, Tariq Aziz is also on my list because he is said to be in poor health. If he got hanged, however, I would accept that no points could be awarded because I knew there was the possibility he may be executed when I chose him. In my opinion, there is a world of difference between the two scenarios. Osama bin Laden was executed...points were awarded for that.

It's other people that do it, though, isn't it? I mean, if I'm ignoring someone I can't quote them. But someone else will. For example MH, if toast was on your ignore list, you would still be able to read his post in my quote bubble. Unless I'm already on your ignore list?

Awww. It's like a junkie version of Romeo and Juliet...

I'm not sure if he should be banned. I just think he is over enthusiastic which, I do admit, is more than a bit annoying. He just needs to calm down a bit.

I'd imagine they didn't delete it because I was stating a fact and posting it in a calm way. Your thread was entirely speculative, you were exaggerating claims, you were over excitable and generally quite annoying. I'm sure you're a very nice person in the real world, but on this forum you are too excitable which tends to annoy people. Perhaps you are just too enthusiastic.

As those of you who are my facebook friends will know, I've just had a look for Amy Winehouse autographs etc on ebay. The bids and prices increased dramatically almost immediately after her death was announced.

Already mentioned here. Actually if you look at the times the posts were made you'll find this is the first record of her death on this website. I then posted in the 'Amy Winehouse' thread about 2 minutes later... Well you shouldn't have posted in this thread at all, wee Windsor. It was intentional. I thought it best to cover both bases to prevent an over excitable, over emotional, caps lock dominated 'announcement'.

Already mentioned here. Actually if you look at the times the posts were made you'll find this is the first record of her death on this website. I then posted in the 'Amy Winehouse' thread about 2 minutes later...

Nobody cares what you think. Stop babbling a lot of shite.

Amy Winehouse has been found dead in her North London flat. She was 27. Sky News reporting now - it has not been reported online yet.

Amy Winehouse has died.

Of course he was a miserable bugger. He was supposed to be an artist but couldn't paint to save his life...

I'm glad I'm not on Twitter. Mebby it's because I'm not a twit. More to the point: I'd have used a pie with an anvil in it. regards, Hein That would have to be quite some pie, and anyway don't they have metal detectors in these places? Incidentally, does anyone know if Rupert owns a yacht?? Two seconds on Google reveals that he does indeed and, what's more, you can hire it: http://www.theage.com.au/executive-style/l...90817-emuo.html http://www.businessinsider.com/for-rent-ru...hs-yacht-2009-8 Indeed - his yacht is called Rosehearty which is a village about 2-3 miles away from Fraserburgh. If I'm not mistaken Ruperts Great Great Grandfather was a Church of Scotland minister there... I think the villages support for Murdoch has been somewhat exaggerated in this article.

Fortunately for Cameron the scandal erupted just before MPs summer holidays.Nothing will stop them spending the next few weeks in their luxury villas in the south of France so the crisis is suspended till september! Perhaps you should take a recess until September too. Go on. You deserve it!