stanmarsh

Are there any good UK autograph authenticators? I won a signed poster in a competition and want to sell it but of course I won't get anywhere without a COA so I was wondering if anyone could recommend somewhere?

Yes.

Seconded. I think his performance was good but this just seems to me like hype overtaking performance. If he were alive, I doubt he would've been nominated, and this is what annoys me. These awards are supposed to be about the performance pure and simple, not what happens in your personal life, nothing.

I am stunned. One of the greatest stand ups ever has gone, someone who was never afraid to stand up for what he believed in, we need more people like that. I'm beginning to think 2008 is a bit of a crappy year.

Street Fighter. That's right, I said it.

Ugh, don't even get me started on them remaking Suspiria.

Originals are always better, with the exception of The Thing.

I thought Into The Wild was quite possibly the most pretentious film I've ever seen. I thought Office Space was crap too. I would have to say I liked the first Godfather best though, although I do love the De Niro scenes in II. I think the Original Star Wars trilogy are the most overrated films I've ever seen. I can't really see why people are as fanatical about them as they are. They are above average at best. I think that's garnered enough hate for now.

Twilight Princess was amazing, as all Zelda games I've played have been. Love playing Wii Tennis and Baseball expecially. Recently got Super Mario Galaxy but haven't played it yet, but I'm sure I won't be diappointed.

Happy Birthday Tara.

If you look at my first post you'll see that I'm for the ban, personally I hate smoking. I was just saying that there is no conclusive proof about second hand smoke, and there isn't. If you want to believe there is, that's fine, but when the overwhelming number of studies have shown that there is no causal link between ETS and lung cancer, you have to start wondering whether the conventional wisdom is right. And if believing the majority of studies into it makes me dense, then so be it.

I would like to point you in the direction of Kanat and Estrom (2003) and their long term (40 years) epidemilogical study of second hand smoke in California and the incidences of Lung cancer and Heart disease in never-smokers compared with their exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke, which found no linkage exposure to ETS and the incidences of Lung Cancer and Heart Disease. In fact of the recent studies into the effects of second-hand smoke on never-smokers published by the BMJ the far majority (22 of 23) found no linkage between ETS and Lung Cancer or Heart Disease. And before somebody says something like "I bet it was funded by one of the big tobacco companies" it was, but only after the American Cancer Society and another group from the anti-smoking lobby withdrew their funding when the results started to go the other way. Funny that.

doesn't help though does it. No it doesn't help, but it doesn't cause it either. Tell that to Roy Castle. And there have been people who have worked for decades in smoky environments and haven't developed lung cancer. How do we know it was because of second hand smoke? It's not just smokers that get it, you can get lung cancer if you've never been within 100 miles of a cigarette, so what you said proves nothing. Cigarette smoke significantly raises the chance of developing cancer. There is way too much evidence of that for anyone (other than tobacco companies and the odd smoker in denial) to refute. It's not the physical contact with the cigarette which does that, and there's no reason why the smoke would suddenly become less dangerous to breathe in just because the cigarette is in someone else's mouth and not your own. Smoking is akin to Russian Roulette - every time you smoke, you spin the chamber and pull the trigger. You can buck the odds for a long time, if you are lucky, but equally you might be unlucky, and get shot in the head early on. I have no problem with someone who wants to shoot at themselves like that; its a free world, and you can do whatever damage you like to your own body. But smoking, especially in an enclosed space, is also pointing that gun at everyone else around you, and firing randomly at them. That is simply not true. Second hand smoke is just another instance of people believing something and not checking their facts. Certain people want to force other people who don't do things the way they want to do them to change. It's like certain groups trying to get certain TV shows off the air, if you don't like it, don't watch it, and there are places you can go with no smoking, but that doesn't justify making it mandatory. Of course actually smoking increases your chances of any number of diseases but as I said there is no conclusive proof that second hand smoke does the same for non-smokers.

Tell that to Roy Castle. And there have been people who have worked for decades in smoky environments and haven't developed lung cancer. How do we know it was because of second hand smoke? It's not just smokers that get it, you can get lung cancer if you've never been within 100 miles of a cigarette, so what you said proves nothing.

For it, but pretty sure there's no conclusive proof that second hand smoke raises your chances of getting lung cancer.