in eternum+

I agree with you; I think people are, to a very great degree, a product of their environment, and I can easily see myself arguing your point of view. However, even as I type this I don't think it's that simple. There has got to be at least some modicum of agency/rationality involved. People (of all ages) can and do think for themselves, make their own decisions, weigh up pros and cons, etc. I think that environment comes into it there: it influences how those decisions are made, but it doesn't change the fact that it's rational individuals who make them. Thompson and Venables had a choice, and elected to do what they did. However, it's environment that provided them with the tools to assess the pros and cons of that decision. Geez... whoever thought I'd be arguing rational action theory

Maybe. I do agree that upbringing (parents/friends/socialisation/etc) plays a big role. Absolutely. I just think it's a bit dangerous to say that it's the end-all-and-be-all of what controls our behaviour. After all, I don't think that anyone has a "perfect" upbringing, though unquestionably some have it worse - much worse - than others. I wonder if they didn't do what they did precisely because they DID know that it was wrong.

I like Lou Rawls. I heard one of his Christmas songs on the radio the other day and it was pretty good. I think he'd be a great addition to the list.

This kid was.... [snip!] I think some kids are fair game on the death list. Just to throw my two cents into this... I don't think children are without agency. Kids aren't stupid. They may be highly impressionable, but to imply that society is entirely to blame whenever a child does something we (as society) can't believe that 'innocent' children could ever do, is too simplistic. Those two boys may well have grown up in really horrible circumstances, and their parents may well be shite, but that doesn't mean they couldn't tell right from wrong; they knew what they were doing and chose to do it. (Rather cleverly) leading on from my earlier point, I find it somewhat staggering that the West awards children a status bordering on Holy, yet continues to believe that they are incapable of independent thought.

Absolutely fair enough. And besides, if a child is only famous for being ill then they wouldn't qualify anyway. But let's say if... oh... one of those adorable Olsen twins became terminal, surely they would be fair game (though maybe they're not famous enough?? They might also be of age now, so perhaps not the best example)? Whoops - am I a sikko for suggestion that [gasp] a child [/gasp] be 'fair game'? How would I like it if people were betting on one of my children to die? I must be a sick m*therf*cker.

Could you please not imply that everyone shares your own PC hypocritical bullsh*t beliefs. If you don't think children should be included fine, but don't suggest that it's such a given that it shouldn't even be discussed. I think your forum name is wrong, out of order, and tasteless, but would not go so far as to suggest that others share this opinion; nor do I think it's reason enough for you to be banned. I don't, based on your reasoning. As far as I'm concerned, if a child who is famous is in a position to be considered a legitimate DL candidate, then they should be included just as all other candidates are. So far, the only reasonable argument against including children is the one made by notapotato and Windsor about the ranters but even that's a bit weak, given how much fun can be had when battling with grazing ranters as they appear and post nonsensically. Perhaps that's the problem: is it possible to take the piss/post sarcastic comments about dying children? If not, why not? Why is that considered 'wrong/tasteless', when posting the same comments about often well-respected members of society is okay?

Dearest lovely Admins and/or Moderators - Is it possible to add Mr Clapping Guy to the 'clickable smilies' menu? I like him almost as much as I like Mr Referee Guy , who is my favourite. Please? I think he would add depth of meaning to many a post.

It was just something I heard that's all. Our Captain Oates is a woman. That much I know. Oatsy's a woman?????? I don't know about male or female, but I thought Cpt Oates named him/herself after Seth's best friend in the OC. Who woulda thought there was a real Cpt Oates? Hm... what does this say about me...?

I have asked for a super-stripey tuque and scarf set. I have also asked for maple sugar (which I'm currently addicted too - yum!). I will fairly certainly receive grooming products from my little sister, and I will inevitably receive at least one death-related item. Bring on the prezzies!

And for us, as long as it's not too long - January 1st would be just fine.

Newcastle Midfielder Kieron Dyer?

You have your wish! I always find making these decicions very difficult, being a *Libra-type, so you helped me make up my mind. * And I don't care what Hones has to say about that. Well, being an *Aries-type, I'd like to thank you for allowing me to guide you to the correct choice. (<-- the only smiley guy with ram-like horns) *Bossy and pretty much always right

I wasn't so much contradicting your point as your implication that only Halibuts (and now also Jews) don't celebrate Christmas. It is possible to be a run-of-the-mill Anglo-Saxon Brit and not want to celebrate Christmas. I don't know how I feel about the whole turning-Christmas-into-'The-Holidays' issue. I am currently in the States and on the radio a few weeks ago they were discussing how one parent at one school complained about the fact that their child was being taught a Christmas carol, and the teachers were then told they weren't allowed to teach Christmas carols anymore. On the one hand I think: well, if you're going to have a system where religion and school are separate, you have to stick by it, in which case Christmas carols should not be taught in schools. On the other hand, I think it's sad - not only becuase I love Christmas carols ( ) but because I think that this is leading to the religious intolerance which is currently wreaking so much havoc in the world. What I think should be done is that everyone in school should have to learn about the different religious festivals as they occur - songs, the history behind them, what they mean, etc. Then every religion is on equal ground. I mean, I'm not Jewish but I grew up listening to Raffi and it didn't do me any harm. Why does learning about a religion that isn't yours have to be a terrible thing? Why can't we just all get along?!?

Ah, the most poignant eulogy thus far. Bye bye Mr Pryor, you were a very funny man

But don't you think it's better to die whilst still active and making contributions to the world, rather than as a dried up old has been that nobody except bored Deathlisters knows is still alive?

I bollocksed up my vote! I wanted to vote for the Professor , but instead of hitting Vote! I hit the other option and my vote was nullified! And I was so looking forward to a poll where young Claude had more than just one vote against his name.

Perhaps not a racist, but your implications that 1) all people who don't 'accept Christmas' are Halibut, and 2) that anyone who doesn't 'accept Christmas' should f*ck off elsewhere, suggest ignorance.

Can you not continue to celebrate him once he's dead?

I voted no, because I don't. I bet if they started pumping the Crazy Frog song into prisons 24/7, that would be enough to put anyone off commiting further crimes.

I'd like to wish the 12th DL graduate of the year a very HAPPY BIRTHDAY ! May it be celebrated in a truly raucous and exhausting way.

I saw this! All I remember is at the end, the 'therapist' helping them get over their fears forced the woman terrified of glitter to pretty much douse herself and her house in it. The woman, in a euphoria of success, did so. Couldn't help wondering if she would SERIOUSLY regret it the next day. My favourite of these C4 programmes is the one which looked at people obsessed with different things. The best one was the guy obsessed with cats, who was slowly physically transforming himself into one. He got his cheekbones reshaped, his upper lip clefted, his ears surgically reshaped, and hollow studs pierced through his upper lip so that he could insert long whiskers when he so chose.

Just had another look at the deathclock (which says, for future DL info, that I'm going to die June 27th, 2055. I'll start working on the getting famous pronto). I was amused to find that it is now trying to legitimate itself with such options as learning about your BMI (which, as everyone knows, is bollocks, but that's not the point), cholestorol levels, etc. It's like something that was obviously started as some sort of piss-take is now trying to be taken seriously by the addition of science. Kind of like Intelligent Design...

Perhaps we should consider Jean Chrietien for next year's list. He'll be 72 in January; I know nothing of his state of health, but given the fact that the party he spent so long leading and running Canada with appears to be going down the toilet and is facing a vote of no confidence, who needs bad health? Elections predicted to take place in January just might push him over the edge. That, and all the marijuana he said he was going to start smoking upon leaving government.

Aw... you sweet-talker, you! And may I offer you a pyramid of fireworks in modest celebration of your own 500: (Well, a quasi-pyramid, at any rate.)

Congratulations to you Millwall, and belated congrats to Bruno. Oh man, now I'm even being shown up on fireworks. I just can't win...