Peckris

Actually, didn't Bill Haley sing about this thing? "Snake Buckle and Roll"?

Thank you Peter - actually I haven't (yet) lost my benefits as I haven't been "migrated" to the new benefit. However, I do live in a fair amount of anxiety worrying about whether I will receive justice or be one of the many unlucky ones. Samantha?

the amount of these that turn up on ebay, there must be around 10,000 unknown examples?? ;) It sold for 590 quid Interesting fake. If you zoom your display, you can see that the second 3 is too close to the first, and has also got a slight clockwise tilt. But it's certainly not immediately obvious. £590! I still prefer mine Note from CCGB 2512 edition: "It was initially thought that only 7 or 8 1933 pennies were minted, but more were found and sold in the early 21st Century, so the current estimate is that around 795 were minted. Be aware that the position and quality of the final 3 is variable - this is normal for this strike. Don't spend more than €3,000,000,000 on a VF example."

I think that's very true. Towards the end of 1981 I was working at Philip Morris in Richmond VA. First day in the lab and doing the introductions when one person expalined where to go in the locality. Shopping mall 3 blocks down, Macdonalds or Burger King there for a meal(sic), cinema complex next door, various bars this way and that and then the church is turn right at the lights. When I explained that I didn't use them it was like being the star attraction in a freak show. "Hey, there's this guy here doesn't go to church". "That's weird". It was most bizarre and like you I find the religious norm (in the parts so inclined) quite a turn-off in a place that is otherwise nice to visit - just couldn't live there. It's not all like that though. No, I'm guessing that it is much more a phenomenon in the South and Mid-West. The West Coast is too full of weird cults, and I'm guessing the East Coast plus Seattle (based on my viewing of "Frasier" and "The Killing" LOL) are more immune. Unfortunately Peter, you, I (and I would hazard a guess everybody else on this forum) are the same, but we are the 10% minority in this country. The underclass (pondlife if you will) believe in copious amounts of alcohol, Ciggies, drugs, social handouts, free housing and a lack of soap. They believe that the god of take what you want, when you want was the creator of all things. As for getting on with people, well the only "getting on" they can manage is getting on top of the opposite sex to spawn more of the same. As opposed to the banking class who believe in copious amounts of champagne, cigars, cocaine, state bail-outs, multiple housing, and a lack of ethics. They believe that the god of take what you want, when you want was the creator of all things. Come the revolution, comrades ... If you know any bankers having a party and you can get me an invite, do send it on. If you fancy a night in some shithole in West Cumbria I can certainly pass on a couple of addresses, all you will need is a bottle of white lightening, 40 Lambert and Butler and a hep B jab before you go. I know where I'd rather be.... The trouble with "come the revolution, comrades" is that it will be the same hooded verminous scum that carried out last years looting, robbing and murdering during the "riots" that will be your Revolutionaries, but "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" Don't forget that the "riots" began with a family justifiably and peacefully confronting the police over the shooting of an unarmed man. Also don't forget that - horrible though some of the things that happened in the riots were - the bankers before 2008 looted every single one of us with impunity, by creating financial "instruments" designed to profit only a few, and built upon foundations as shaky as the mortgages that underwrote those same instruments. For a more detailed insight into exactly what their game was, you should read Sebastian Faulks' "A Week In December". When you add into the equation the misselling of pensions scandal, plus the billions now being paid back as part of the "loan insurance" scandal, It's enough to make anyone a communist. My sympathies are 100% with those who peacefully occupied the Square outside St Paul's for months, in protest. I totally agree Peck, Communism is fantastic, as long as you are a Politburo member of course. I don't think life was a bed of roses for the Russian peasant before or after their Revolution and it certainly got a lot worse under uncle Joe. There is not a single political system on the planet that creates a totally fair and just society, BUT, the UK's system is up there with the best of them "warts and all" Tell that to the disabled person being found "fit for work" and having their benefits stopped, when they are housebound and incontinent, just because of screaming tabloid headlines determining Government policy (oh, and the fact that the disabled are often too ill to stand up for themselves).

the amount of these that turn up on ebay, there must be around 10,000 unknown examples?? ;) It sold for 590 quid Interesting fake. If you zoom your display, you can see that the second 3 is too close to the first, and has also got a slight clockwise tilt. But it's certainly not immediately obvious.

I think that's very true. Towards the end of 1981 I was working at Philip Morris in Richmond VA. First day in the lab and doing the introductions when one person expalined where to go in the locality. Shopping mall 3 blocks down, Macdonalds or Burger King there for a meal(sic), cinema complex next door, various bars this way and that and then the church is turn right at the lights. When I explained that I didn't use them it was like being the star attraction in a freak show. "Hey, there's this guy here doesn't go to church". "That's weird". It was most bizarre and like you I find the religious norm (in the parts so inclined) quite a turn-off in a place that is otherwise nice to visit - just couldn't live there. It's not all like that though. No, I'm guessing that it is much more a phenomenon in the South and Mid-West. The West Coast is too full of weird cults, and I'm guessing the East Coast plus Seattle (based on my viewing of "Frasier" and "The Killing" LOL) are more immune. Unfortunately Peter, you, I (and I would hazard a guess everybody else on this forum) are the same, but we are the 10% minority in this country. The underclass (pondlife if you will) believe in copious amounts of alcohol, Ciggies, drugs, social handouts, free housing and a lack of soap. They believe that the god of take what you want, when you want was the creator of all things. As for getting on with people, well the only "getting on" they can manage is getting on top of the opposite sex to spawn more of the same. As opposed to the banking class who believe in copious amounts of champagne, cigars, cocaine, state bail-outs, multiple housing, and a lack of ethics. They believe that the god of take what you want, when you want was the creator of all things. Come the revolution, comrades ... If you know any bankers having a party and you can get me an invite, do send it on. If you fancy a night in some shithole in West Cumbria I can certainly pass on a couple of addresses, all you will need is a bottle of white lightening, 40 Lambert and Butler and a hep B jab before you go. I know where I'd rather be.... The trouble with "come the revolution, comrades" is that it will be the same hooded verminous scum that carried out last years looting, robbing and murdering during the "riots" that will be your Revolutionaries, but "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" Don't forget that the "riots" began with a family justifiably and peacefully confronting the police over the shooting of an unarmed man. Also don't forget that - horrible though some of the things that happened in the riots were - the bankers before 2008 looted every single one of us with impunity, by creating financial "instruments" designed to profit only a few, and built upon foundations as shaky as the mortgages that underwrote those same instruments. For a more detailed insight into exactly what their game was, you should read Sebastian Faulks' "A Week In December". When you add into the equation the misselling of pensions scandal, plus the billions now being paid back as part of the "loan insurance" scandal, It's enough to make anyone a communist. My sympathies are 100% with those who peacefully occupied the Square outside St Paul's for months, in protest.

(Enter crocodile, which eats the entire thread along with several members of the forum, then burps up Baby.)

Unfortunately Peter, you, I (and I would hazard a guess everybody else on this forum) are the same, but we are the 10% minority in this country. The underclass (pondlife if you will) believe in copious amounts of alcohol, Ciggies, drugs, social handouts, free housing and a lack of soap. They believe that the god of take what you want, when you want was the creator of all things. As for getting on with people, well the only "getting on" they can manage is getting on top of the opposite sex to spawn more of the same. As opposed to the banking class who believe in copious amounts of champagne, cigars, cocaine, state bail-outs, multiple housing, and a lack of ethics. They believe that the god of take what you want, when you want was the creator of all things. Come the revolution, comrades ...

But before that they were made of brass and used on military uniforms around the world. I seem to remember that my snake fastener belt consisted of two snakes that clipped together, not inside a metal ring like that one.

You could try post a picture here they've helped me with a couple of problem coins Thanks for this advice. I'm trying to post the pictures there, but am having some difficulty as I don't use a photo hosting site. Photobucket is the favourite one around here - it's free though you have to register. Also Image Shack is another free option. On both sites you can make your pictures private view only (i.e. you share the links to them only where you want, e.g. this forum.)

"OH NO IT ISN'T" (THWACK) Sausages Oh that sand flavoured candy floss. THAT'S THE WAY TO DO IT!

Assange On a forum that I frequent, religious type threads usually degenerate into slnging matches as well. The harshest invective generally stems from atheists towards believers. Wow. What do they sing? Would that they would confine themselves just to the art of song Yes, I find the same. Which is odd, I'd have thought fundamentalists would crawl out of their strait-jackets and join in, but perhaps I frequent the wrong forums! Slanging !!! Personally, I find it difficult to understand. As far as I'm concerned, religion is a matter for the individual. Just so long as they don't try and inflict their beliefs on me, they can believe in what God they like. I don't care. The expenditure of emotional energy that goes into some of these debates is unreal. I think as Brits, living in a largely secular society, we fail to understand the way atheists are marginalised in the States, which is a far more religious society than ours. Hence they get much more aggressive in forums, as they probably feel the world is against them. I've heard them tell it "like it is", and it's jaw-dropping. Much as I love Americans, I could never live in a country where Christian belief is the expected "norm".

Oh those are quite common - they also come in bright red, green, yellow and orange. They're made out of sugar so you can eat them.

"OH NO IT ISN'T" (THWACK)

Assange On a forum that I frequent, religious type threads usually degenerate into slnging matches as well. The harshest invective generally stems from atheists towards believers. Wow. What do they sing? Would that they would confine themselves just to the art of song Yes, I find the same. Which is odd, I'd have thought fundamentalists would crawl out of their strait-jackets and join in, but perhaps I frequent the wrong forums!

On the contrary, religion is the barrier to discovery and explanation of our universe (the ludicrous creationism, for example), while atheism supports science (which explains Darwinian evolution). Philosophy is little more than pontification on the future of scientific discovery. Replace 'philosophers' with 'scientists' in your final sentence and we are both (Richard Dawkins too, I would suggest) in full agreement with one another. How, why, when, what?.... atheists and scientists will never stop asking these questions while religion, through restrictive doctrine, stultifies such thought. There's so much to discuss here. ("Ludicrous creationism" indeed! No argument here). As for atheism and science, that begs two questions or rather issues : 1. atheists are not atheists because of their belief in science, indeed it has been religious believers who have contributed much to scientific discoveries; I cite Copernicus, Mendel, Newton, and people like Jocelyn Bell Burnett in our own era among many others. And it is also true that Jesuits, who had their own astronomical observatories and studied the same phenomena as Galileo, and weren't so far away from making similar claims, who were held back by a Pope who took umbrage at Galileo's personal insults of him in his book. 2. that so-called "classical" science is to be lauded at all times and in all places; if it were so, then particle physics and quantum mechanics would never have stood a chance of acceptance. It's often scientists working at the risky frontiers open to the ridicule of their peers - people who are way ahead of the lab technician mentality of small imagination, aka the public image of scientists - who make the most amazing discoveries. Then, your statement about philosophy shows that you have never studied even one of them, or you surely wouldn't have come out with such a crass statement! (Sorry, but so it seemed to me). Even modern-era giants like Bertrand Russell and Alan Turing were - in their own ways - true philosophers, as they dared to ask questions (about logic, mathematics, and the provability or otherwise of theorems and can we build a machine to resolve the dilemma, and would such a machine be intelligent in any sense of the word?) that couldn't be answered purely scientifically but required the invention of entire symbolic languages to encompass. That doesn't even scratch the surface of what philosophy concerns itself with. To hold science up as the ultimate discipline above all others, is to fetishize it, or even - dare I say - make of it something quasi-religious. I agree with much of this, except the statement "in quantum theory and suchlike the laws of the universe don't apply" - the laws of universe encompass quantum mechanics too! it's just that our limited intelligence struggles to grasp the often ungraspable. But the universe is quantum in its very nature - matter itself could apparently not have emerged were it not for the Higgs Boson they are still searching for. As for "when time began" - yes, that's a nonsense statement LOL. As for Buddhism, I find it has much to offer the human race, but I do sometimes wonder why it needs statues and temples. Or maybe it doesn't - it's religious-minded people who need them, and enlightened Buddhist abbots decided "Why not?" After all, those who have achieved enlightenment don't need them at all. And am I right in thinking that Zen doesn't feature them at all?

Ok, perhaps it's time to start a predecimal book. No, not the Peck variety, the Ladbrokes one. Now that Abramovich finally laid his greasy little oligarch mitts on the European Cup, what odds would you lay on Di Matteo still being Chelsea manager next season?

Hmm. Then why have all peoples and politicians down the ages (well, for donkeys centuries anyway) described war as a necessary 'evil' which they only engaged in a last resort? If man was so violent, war would surely be celebrated and peace decried. How do 90% of the males of the species respond to a hostile act? We are programmed with "fight or flight", most of us fight. When you argue with somebody, a heated argument, do you stay calm and peaceful? OR; Do your nostrils flare? Do your fists clench? Your blood pressure rise? We plough more into weapons than we do health, like most countries on the planet. Neolithic mans first inventions were weapons and we have continued to invent them ever since. We are, by nature, violent and if you don't agree I might just come down and stick one on you And yet there are Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Yoga, Sufism, monks and nuns of all religions, Quakers, etc, who teach and try to practice the opposite. Which may well be religion's one true gift to the human race - a peaceable alternative to fight or flight. If we were so "programmed" as you say, then none of that would have a chance of success.

If Di Matteo has any sense, he'll get out of Chelsea whilst still on a high. After all after that performance, the team isn't likely to do better next season, and the expectation will be that they should do so. Then there's the fact that football management is probably the most poisonous in the UK, with the Chelsea job up there as possibly the most toxic. Add these together and, if it was me, I'd be off to another management job in the premier league, hopefully to win something and then move again, and so on. If he stays, then I don't see him there very long, despite this last season. Good points, though now that Abramovich has got what he most wanted all along, perhaps he will be less trigger happy? (And maybe the Pope will become a Protestant ). But Di Matteo is welcome to take over at Liverpool on a temporary trial basis - maybe he'll win the league for us! With the current squad at Liverpool the only man that could win you the title was nailed to a cross nearly 2000 years ago OY!! The graffiti of old around Anfield used to read JESUS SAVES BUT DALGLISH KNOCKS IN THE REBOUND. I think City's squad and Chelsea's are pretty damn good (though Chelsea's is now ageing), as witness what they've won this season. However, I wouldn't say United's was streets ahead of ours, and Arsenal's is no better than ours, though theirs has been settled for longer. If the next manager builds on what Steve Clarke and KD began, we could do better than merely two cup finals. I look at the current crop and only see 4 players that would get into the current Newcastle team (and we are by no means title challengers). Gerrard (when fit) would probably get into any Premier League side, Johnson, Enrique (traitorous git that he is I reckon on his day there are few better in world football) and Saurez (although I think he is a poisonous little toad) who is the most gifted player you have. Other than those 4 I think they are either has beens or never will be's (the lang haired Jessie may yet prove me wrong though). City are head and shoulders above the others. Man Utd some way behind followed by Totteringham, Arsenal and Chelski. Unless there is heavy investment/retention by that group I can't see City being caught any time soon. As for Liverpool, well I think you can fight us for 6th next year The 'long haired Jessie' is finally coming good! But then,any Newcastle supporter would know that already As for Reina, though he hasn't had his best season, he is arguably one of the best two goalies in the PL over the last 6 or 7 years. Lucas had become one of the best holding midfielders before he got injured, Skrtel has been extremely good this last season, and Agger is not far short of Hansen in his pomp. Our "goals against" record bears comparison with all but City so the defence is about right. Our main problem areas have been up front (regular goal scorers) and out wide (Downing is good in spurts, but inconsistent) and that's about it. As for United, if it hadn't been for Scholes return, they wouldn't have been title contenders. Once Giggs, and more especially Fergie, retire, they will be an average Top 4 side and might have to fight even for that. Chelsea are going to need major surgery in the next two seasons. Totteringham are the great perennial unknown quantity, and Arsenal are a tribute to Wenger and Van Persie.

It appears to be a double florin. So there are people out there who don't know the difference between "half" and "double". I will definitely go to THEIR pub.

I wouldn't say ridiculous. Atheism is simply the disbelief in any supernatural deity, whether God or fairy. It is the default state of reason in the absence of any better information (or, dare I suggest, proof). To my knowledge no such counter evidence exists. It's not a religion or a belief, any more than not collecting coins is a hobby. I have no problem with esoteric hypotheses and discussions of an entirely philosophical nature. This includes Pantheism, which does not accept the existence of a personal creator but throws the net so wide as to simply state that "God is everything and everything is God'. What I do have a major problem with, are the religious doctrines such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc. which are prescriptive and specific in nature and believe in a personal God. 1. That's another atheist tactic, turning religion on its head and saying "You can't prove or disprove a negative" (actually, in mathematics, you can!). However, to declare oneself an atheist is to state a belief position, albeit the direct opposite to someone religious - they are both belief positions, as the central tenet is unprovable. The intellectually honest position would be to declare oneself an agnostic. However, that word too has been sullied by atheists who have come to the conclusion (at least in militant-atheist-America) that agnosticism is closer to "I believe" than "I don't believe". Which is scandalous as the word simply means "don't know". 2. You're talking about the monotheistic Abrahamic religions, home to nearly all the world's fundamentalists. Much of what you say about them is true, though not of the silent mystical branches of them which never make headlines and are far more tolerant to new discoveries and science. It would help if people pontificating about religion would make the distinction between West and East clear before they launch their missiles. We're doing a great job of ignoring the thread specifically created for this very discussion 1. I don't agree that I'm employing 'tactics', rather I'm simply supporting my reasoned position, which is one of non-belief in a personal god. It's not a negative that I, or to my knowledge any other atheist, feels the need to prove. Any more than they might set out to prove that fairies don't inhabit the bottom of their garden, ghosts their attic or that crop circles aren't created by aliens. On the point of atheism being a dishonest position to adopt, I will employ an admitted tactic: Virtually all fervent followers of a particular religion (be they Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindus or whatever) are themselves ardent atheists in all but the belief in their chosen God. So Christians are atheists, with the exception of a belief in Yahweh, followers of Islam are atheists, except in their belief in Allah, and so the list goes on. Those, such as myself, that you might label true atheists differ only in that they believe in one less god than all the others. There's no other difference. We're not agnostics unless you want to describe all the believers as agnostics too? I'm sure that Muslims, for example, wouldn't be agnostic about Christianity. In fact their beliefs prohibit this. 2. No doubt there are followers of mystical branches of various religions whose beliefs are so vague that they could pass as agnostics, if not indeed atheists. I'm not referring to those. I'm talking about the vast bulk of religious followers across the globe who, I contend, are seriously wrong in their belief in a personal god. I have to say I'm enjoying this exchange and, above all, accept the right of individuals to belief whatever they like. Maybe the moon is made of cheese! I suppose I'm just mistrustful of anyone who takes a 'position' of absolute certainty, be that religious or atheist. The universe we live in is so vast and so mysterious in so many ways, that to take a position based on our own tiny little rock circling a very ordinary star in one galaxy out of uncountable billions of galaxies, seems somehow perverse. Yet this vast mysterious universe contains certain constants such as the value of pi, the speed of light, the chemical elements, in fact all the laws of physics, chemistry, and quite probably biology too. Yet neither atheists or religios care to address where or how these constants arise; to Abrahamic religions it's not relevant as these are questions that apply outside this parochial little corner of the world; to atheists the answer is "Well, that's just how it is" (yes, I heard Richard Dawkins say just that). I feel I have more in common with philosophers, who aren't interested in a full stop or a 'belief', but simply to keep asking "why" until either they run out of questions (it'll never happen) or the ultimate question is answered and found not to be 42.

Hmm. Then why have all peoples and politicians down the ages (well, for donkeys centuries anyway) described war as a necessary 'evil' which they only engaged in a last resort? If man was so violent, war would surely be celebrated and peace decried.

If Di Matteo has any sense, he'll get out of Chelsea whilst still on a high. After all after that performance, the team isn't likely to do better next season, and the expectation will be that they should do so. Then there's the fact that football management is probably the most poisonous in the UK, with the Chelsea job up there as possibly the most toxic. Add these together and, if it was me, I'd be off to another management job in the premier league, hopefully to win something and then move again, and so on. If he stays, then I don't see him there very long, despite this last season. Good points, though now that Abramovich has got what he most wanted all along, perhaps he will be less trigger happy? (And maybe the Pope will become a Protestant ). But Di Matteo is welcome to take over at Liverpool on a temporary trial basis - maybe he'll win the league for us! With the current squad at Liverpool the only man that could win you the title was nailed to a cross nearly 2000 years ago OY!! The graffiti of old around Anfield used to read JESUS SAVES BUT DALGLISH KNOCKS IN THE REBOUND. I think City's squad and Chelsea's are pretty damn good (though Chelsea's is now ageing), as witness what they've won this season. However, I wouldn't say United's was streets ahead of ours, and Arsenal's is no better than ours, though theirs has been settled for longer. If the next manager builds on what Steve Clarke and KD began, we could do better than merely two cup finals.

I wouldn't say ridiculous. Atheism is simply the disbelief in any supernatural deity, whether God or fairy. It is the default state of reason in the absence of any better information (or, dare I suggest, proof). To my knowledge no such counter evidence exists. It's not a religion or a belief, any more than not collecting coins is a hobby. I have no problem with esoteric hypotheses and discussions of an entirely philosophical nature. This includes Pantheism, which does not accept the existence of a personal creator but throws the net so wide as to simply state that "God is everything and everything is God'. What I do have a major problem with, are the religious doctrines such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc. which are prescriptive and specific in nature and believe in a personal God. 1. That's another atheist tactic, turning religion on its head and saying "You can't prove or disprove a negative" (actually, in mathematics, you can!). However, to declare oneself an atheist is to state a belief position, albeit the direct opposite to someone religious - they are both belief positions, as the central tenet is unprovable. The intellectually honest position would be to declare oneself an agnostic. However, that word too has been sullied by atheists who have come to the conclusion (at least in militant-atheist-America) that agnosticism is closer to "I believe" than "I don't believe". Which is scandalous as the word simply means "don't know". 2. You're talking about the monotheistic Abrahamic religions, home to nearly all the world's fundamentalists. Much of what you say about them is true, though not of the silent mystical branches of them which never make headlines and are far more tolerant to new discoveries and science. It would help if people pontificating about religion would make the distinction between West and East clear before they launch their missiles.

Even so, I've yet to see one in my change. And I never ever found a 1951 penny in mine! But had NO difficulty at all getting one for my collection, from a dealer. When they're still in circulation, most of the fun is finding one in your change. I never had that chance with pre-decimal. This one, and the £2 coins are my only possibilities to emulate that scenario. Even then a pale imitation of what you had on offer before decimalisation True. Nothing can describe the thrill of the moment I found a 1949 3d bit, realising my first ever 1926 penny was the ME, and finding the following halfpennies - 1909 GVF, 1935 EF lustre, 1938 Unc with/good lustre. If only I'd had the capital to get bags of silver from the banks as well as five bob bags of lower denominations. Sigh.