Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you
Comments
-
It could be a ruse, like Operation Mincemeat.rick_chasey said:Nowhere else to put this but this is some investigation https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/8iaz6xit26/the-lost-tablet-and-the-secret-documents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mincemeat
Or not.0 -
I'm intrigued that this guy is apparently a major force in the world of private military contractors
0 -
Are there any other occupations, other than playing a musical instrument, which people feel they have to mime when they find out you're a musician (though they don't do it with singers)? Even professional musicians do this to each other.0
-
I have a mime I use for taxi drivers.briantrumpet said:Are there any other occupations, other than playing a musical instrument, which people feel they have to mime when they find out you're a musician (though they don't do it with singers)? Even professional musicians do this to each other.
1 -
Wrist spin in cricket. Impossible for a commentator to talk about it without miming. I'd get it if they were retired spinners, but mostly they aren't.briantrumpet said:Are there any other occupations, other than playing a musical instrument, which people feel they have to mime when they find out you're a musician (though they don't do it with singers)? Even professional musicians do this to each other.
0 -
Why does nearly every thread on Cake Stop end up discussing people's work / jobs.0
-
Don't know. Might help if we knew what you did for a living?womack said:Why does nearly every thread on Cake Stop end up discussing people's work / jobs.
0 -
Not a fair competition.briantrumpet said:
I would need to mime a toilet, a golf club and a perpetual motion machine. (The holy trinity of "inventions" disclosed to any patent attorney).
Okay I'm still waiting for a perpetual motion machine, but I've had a Newton's Law of conservation of energy busting "invention". Two, in fact.1 -
Has their existence been suppressed by ‘the powers that be’?First.Aspect said:
Not a fair competition.briantrumpet said:
I would need to mime a toilet, a golf club and a perpetual motion machine. (The holy trinity of "inventions" disclosed to any patent attorney).
Okay I'm still waiting for a perpetual motion machine, but I've had a Newton's Law of conservation of energy busting "invention". Two, in fact.0 -
I've been miming for 10 minutes.briantrumpet said:
Can you guess what it is yet? 😉The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I've though of a way to mime a perpetual motion machine, but it takes forever.0
-
Boom boom.First.Aspect said:I've though of a way to mime a perpetual motion machine, but it takes forever.
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
I didn't know 'Plonker' was a vocation.pblakeney said:
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Money to be made from the most unusual activities.pinno said:
I didn't know 'Plonker' was a vocation.pblakeney said:
10 minutes is pretty good going. 😉
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Are you on OnlyFans.com? 😀pblakeney said:
Money to be made from the most unusual activities.pinno said:
I didn't know 'Plonker' was a vocation.pblakeney said:
10 minutes is pretty good going. 😉
Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS0 -
No. I am on OnlyKidding.com.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Clear cut map of who controls what in Afghanistan. Sad to see the Wakhan Corridor has fallen.
0 -
Will anyone be surprised if it ends up being 100% Taliban?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
It would breach the golden rule that no one conquers Afghanistan. Even in 2001, the Taliban didn't control the Wakhan corridor. China could just annex it now if they see any merit in the idea.pblakeney said:Will anyone be surprised if it ends up being 100% Taliban?
Pretty part of the world
0 -
Not if it is Afghani Taliban, surely?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Worth reading this thread to understand that the idea that Afghanistan is unconquerable is nonsense and requires you to ignore 2,000 years of history.TheBigBean said:
It would breach the golden rule that no one conquers Afghanistan. Even in 2001, the Taliban didn't control the Wakhan corridor. China could just annex it now if they see any merit in the idea.pblakeney said:Will anyone be surprised if it ends up being 100% Taliban?
Pretty part of the world
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
So nothing in the past 600 years then.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
A bit of a tedious thread that serves little purpose. No one is claiming that what happened a 1,000 years ago has an impact on the politics of today, but ignoring the last 100 odd years seems to be a bit foolish.rjsterry said:
Worth reading this thread to understand that the idea that Afghanistan is unconquerable is nonsense and requires you to ignore 2,000 years of history.TheBigBean said:
It would breach the golden rule that no one conquers Afghanistan. Even in 2001, the Taliban didn't control the Wakhan corridor. China could just annex it now if they see any merit in the idea.pblakeney said:Will anyone be surprised if it ends up being 100% Taliban?
Pretty part of the world
Here's a bit from the BBCBut the economics means that it is impossible to get Afghanistan to pay for its own occupation - it is, as the the then Emir said as he surrendered to the British in 1839, "a land of only stones and men".
Any occupying army here will haemorrage money and blood to little gain, and in the end most throw in the towel, as the British did in 1842, as the Russians did in 1988 and as Nato will do later this year.0 -
The issue is that there are many groups with different war lords. One ruling over the other isn't going to be popular.pblakeney said:Not if it is Afghani Taliban, surely?
0 -
That's true but for the meantime the western world has washed it's hand.TheBigBean said:
The issue is that there are many groups with different war lords. One ruling over the other isn't going to be popular.pblakeney said:Not if it is Afghani Taliban, surely?
I think they (ie America) will have to be invited back.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
It's not much of a Golden Rule if it's based on just the British attempt 180 years ago and a proxy war between the US and USSR, which the USSR gave up because it was about to collapse itself. I agree, expecting the enterprise to 'break even' is ludicrous. What military campaign ever does? I just don't think fatalistically ascribing some mythical unconquerability is useful either. The other point that thread illustrates is that the area is not doomed to grinding poverty forever more.TheBigBean said:
A bit of a tedious thread that serves little purpose. No one is claiming that what happened a 1,000 years ago has an impact on the politics of today, but ignoring the last 100 odd years seems to be a bit foolish.rjsterry said:
Worth reading this thread to understand that the idea that Afghanistan is unconquerable is nonsense and requires you to ignore 2,000 years of history.TheBigBean said:
It would breach the golden rule that no one conquers Afghanistan. Even in 2001, the Taliban didn't control the Wakhan corridor. China could just annex it now if they see any merit in the idea.pblakeney said:Will anyone be surprised if it ends up being 100% Taliban?
Pretty part of the world
Here's a bit from the BBCBut the economics means that it is impossible to get Afghanistan to pay for its own occupation - it is, as the the then Emir said as he surrendered to the British in 1839, "a land of only stones and men".
Any occupying army here will haemorrage money and blood to little gain, and in the end most throw in the towel, as the British did in 1842, as the Russians did in 1988 and as Nato will do later this year.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Who do you think would invite them back and why would they return.pblakeney said:
That's true but for the meantime the western world has washed it's hand.TheBigBean said:
The issue is that there are many groups with different war lords. One ruling over the other isn't going to be popular.pblakeney said:Not if it is Afghani Taliban, surely?
I think they (ie America) will have to be invited back.
It will be back to fighting a proxy war0 -
If it helps, I exaggerated a bit by stating it was a golden rule.rjsterry said:
It's not much of a Golden Rule if it's based on just the British attempt 180 years ago and a proxy war between the US and USSR, which the USSR gave up because it was about to collapse itself. I agree, expecting the enterprise to 'break even' is ludicrous. What military campaign ever does? I just don't think fatalistically ascribing some mythical unconquerability is useful either. The other point that thread illustrates is that the area is not doomed to grinding poverty forever more.TheBigBean said:
A bit of a tedious thread that serves little purpose. No one is claiming that what happened a 1,000 years ago has an impact on the politics of today, but ignoring the last 100 odd years seems to be a bit foolish.rjsterry said:
Worth reading this thread to understand that the idea that Afghanistan is unconquerable is nonsense and requires you to ignore 2,000 years of history.TheBigBean said:
It would breach the golden rule that no one conquers Afghanistan. Even in 2001, the Taliban didn't control the Wakhan corridor. China could just annex it now if they see any merit in the idea.pblakeney said:Will anyone be surprised if it ends up being 100% Taliban?
Pretty part of the world
Here's a bit from the BBCBut the economics means that it is impossible to get Afghanistan to pay for its own occupation - it is, as the the then Emir said as he surrendered to the British in 1839, "a land of only stones and men".
Any occupying army here will haemorrage money and blood to little gain, and in the end most throw in the towel, as the British did in 1842, as the Russians did in 1988 and as Nato will do later this year.
Not doomed to poverty because there were once empires?
I just find it really lazy which is something the author is accusing others of being. It amounts to " there must be a solution, because of something irrelevant." No attempt to understand any of the issues.0 -
TheBigBean said:
The issue is that there are many groups with different war lords. One ruling over the other isn't going to be popular.pblakeney said:Not if it is Afghani Taliban, surely?
That is my understanding, you are not over running a country you are fighting a series of fiefdoms who will never stop fighting.0
