Sean John Puff P. Diddy Daddy Combs

[j2k4]

...with the youngsters in the effort to "Get Out The Vote".

His slogan is VOTE OR DIE

I guess that's how he sees it; personally, I must say it sounds a little stressful.

[clocker]

Given his target demographic, the slogan seems rather apt to me.

[BigBank_Hank]

I guess all that we are missing now is the reality show he’s probably going to make about it.

[clocker]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@25 July 2004 - 11:23
I guess all that we are missing now is the reality show he’s probably going to make about it.
You'd best hope not.
The last thing that the Republicans want is for an increase in black voter turn out.

[SuperJude™]

I can't remember if it was Russel Simmons who said this but it is true: The Ghetto is long on opinion and short on fact. It was something said concerning education reform I think, but it apllies here.

Unfortunatly clocker is right, those may be precisely the type of words needed to motivate the lower income demographic. Note I didn't say black cause honestly those words get to just as many if not more white kids in U.S. these days.

Puffy/P.Diddy/Sean Combs seems to be aiming at a future political office.

-SJ™

[Sprocket]

Originally posted by SuperJude™@25 July 2004 - 12:43


Puffy/P.Diddy/Sean Combs seems to be aiming at a future political office.

-SJ™
Oh, I think not.

More likely a position closely modeled after Jesse Jackson.
All the fun of having one's opinions automatically granted gravitas without the pesky day-to-day obligations of a real political office.

[SuperJude™]

Originally posted by Sprocket@25 July 2004 - 20:17

Oh, I think not.

More likely a position closely modeled after Jesse Jackson.
All the fun of having one's opinions automatically granted gravitas without the pesky day-to-day obligations of a real political office.
Ahh I see, interesting point there. All the glory none of the responsibility, kind of like Ex Presidents :)

-SJ™

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Sprocket+25 July 2004 - 14:17--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sprocket @ 25 July 2004 - 14:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-SuperJude™@25 July 2004 - 12:43


Puffy/P.Diddy/Sean Combs seems to be aiming at a future political office.

-SJ™
Oh, I think not.

More likely a position closely modeled after Jesse Jackson.
All the fun of having one&#39;s opinions automatically granted gravitas without the pesky day-to-day obligations of a real political office. [/b][/quote]
Hmmm.

Something familiar here. ;)

[ZaZu]

Could just be a concerned citizen trying to assist the democratic process with an unfortunately crappy slogan... <_<

[Biggles]

Could I just say I don&#39;t really understand this thread. :blink:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles@26 July 2004 - 17:25
Could I just say I don&#39;t really understand this thread.&nbsp; :blink:
You certainly may. :huh:

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by Biggles@26 July 2004 - 22:25
Could I just say I don&#39;t really understand this thread. :blink:
Sure; but we get to laugh and call you names... :smilie4:

Actually, I don&#39;t think I get the thread either; so P. Diddy is gonna run for president? Good Lord.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@27 July 2004 - 05:50
Actually, I don&#39;t think I get the thread either; so P. Diddy is gonna run for president? Good Lord.
It would seem he regards a political career as an eventuality; I think we should regard it as a threat.

His aim (he says) at this point is to urge young people to vote, and assumes his prodding will have it&#39;s effect (and it probably will), due to his prestigious standing with our youth.

I have to say, I heard his spiel, and it was, uh....rather without any depth of understanding; somewhat like his sloganeering.

"Vote or DIE"

What rubbish. <_<

[clocker]

J2, you seem to regard his efforts to enfranchise the, erm....urban yoot...as a bad thing.
How come?

[manker]

Although Mr Diddy&#39;s slogan is lamentable, I consider his sentiment to be admirable.

Well done P.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@27 July 2004 - 18:21
J2, you seem to regard his efforts to enfranchise the, erm....urban yoot...as a bad thing.
How come?
Why endeavor to do something so useful in such a shallow manner?

As I said, if the yoots listen, and are persuaded to vote thereby, what good is done without coincidentally persuading said yoot to educate him/herself as to the issue(s), rather than "vote your feelings" as Mr.S.J.P.P.P.P.D.C. importunes?

I make here the drastic assumption you agree that it is not as simple as deciding to vote, then proceeding merrily to the polling place to pull levers willy-nilly?

P. Doody said not one word about voting in any sort of informed fashion, and, given his idiotic slogan, I find his sentiment akin to handing out firearms without proper instruction.

[manker]

Originally posted by j2k4+28 July 2004 - 03:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 28 July 2004 - 03:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker@27 July 2004 - 18:21
J2, you seem to regard his efforts to enfranchise the, erm....urban yoot...as a bad thing.
How come?
Why endeavor to do something so useful in such a shallow manner?

As I said, if the yoots listen, and are persuaded to vote thereby, what good is done without coincidentally persuading said yoot to educate him/herself as to the issue(s), rather than "vote your feelings" as Mr.S.J.P.P.P.P.D.C. importunes?

I make here the drastic assumption you agree that it is not as simple as deciding to vote, then proceeding merrily to the polling place to pull levers willy-nilly?

P. Doody said not one word about voting in any sort of informed fashion, and, given his idiotic slogan, I find his sentiment akin to handing out firearms without proper instruction. [/b][/quote]
I don&#39;t know, at least Mr Diddy is getting the younger element to the polling stations. That alone will engender political interest in at least some of those that wouldn&#39;t have voted otherwise. Granted a majority may vote blindly or without finesse but that experience could stand them in good stead for many elections to come where some will use their vote more carefully.

Once they have voted they are more likely to look out for the results coming in at least. I suspect there will be many - not the majority, but many - of these so called yoots who were cajouled into voting by P. Diddy&#39;s crass statement, that will use this experience as a catalyst to cast many an informed vote in the future.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by manker@27 July 2004 - 21:45
Granted a majority may vote blindly or without finesse...

You find this preferrable?

Let me put this even more simply, then:

For want of a very few more well-chosen words, the "visionary" Mr P. could have gotten the relevant point across.

Does the fact of his having "missed the chance" mitigate in any way your kudos for his effort?

[manker]

Originally posted by j2k4+28 July 2004 - 03:53--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 28 July 2004 - 03:53)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-manker@27 July 2004 - 21:45
Granted a majority may vote blindly or without finesse...

You find this preferrable?

Let me put this even more simply, then:

For want of a very few more well-chosen words, the "visionary" Mr P. could have gotten the relevant point across.

Does the fact of his having "missed the chance" mitigate in any way your kudos for his effort? [/b][/quote]
It is a necessary evil.

I don&#39;t condone voting without due consideration of the implications but neither do I advocate discouraging people who may not be aware of said implications.

What was P. Diddy supposed to do, how else was he to reach his target audience?

Certainly not by canvassing in the traditional manner. If he had included any words which you consider to be &#39;well chosen&#39;, if he had tried to educate his target audience in any way then I suspect that he would have come over as condescending, then he would have been an easy target for ridicule because, after all, he is just a rapper - also those he was speaking to would have been turned off by this sudden personality alteration. The people he wants to speak to havent got a large attention span for politics. No, his message has to be short and sharp. He wouldn&#39;t have appealed to even a quarter of the people who have been touched by this simplistic and penetrating message had he gone down a different road.

Indeed, far from my kudos for his effort being muted by his missing the chance to politically educate folk, given that it really isn&#39;t his field, I think he made an astute decision not to attempt it.

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@27 July 2004 - 20:24


As I said, if the yoots listen, and are persuaded to vote thereby, what good is done without coincidentally persuading said yoot to educate him/herself as to the issue(s), rather than "vote your feelings" as Mr.S.J.P.P.P.P.D.C. importunes?


I assume that your disdain for the "willy-nilly" voter extends to those would would vote for Bush without the proper education?
Certainly, I have heard enough harebrained reasons for doing so to incur your wrath.

[j2k4]

This is a particular sore point with me, as many here are aware.

Voter apathy is a problem.

Uninformed voting is likewise a problem.

This "rapper" would not have turned off any prospective voters merely by uttering the words "learn the issues and vote your mind".

Voting in ignorance is a right in the land of the free, alas.

There was a day when rigorous thought was normal; now, no one can even be asked to think for fear of a headache.

Clocker-

We have matching philosophies as to how one goes about building or improving any variety of things.

Do you not disdain those who build PCs "willy-nilly"?

[clocker]

I have seen orators for both sides exhort the masses to vote for their candidate based on flimsier reasoning than Mr Coombs.

Yet he draws your ire and they do not.

I simply found that striking.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@28 July 2004 - 17:36
I have seen orators for both sides exhort the masses to vote for their candidate based on flimsier reasoning than Mr Coombs.

Yet he draws your ire and they do not.

I simply found that striking.
To which Conservative rap artist do you refer? :huh:

I&#39;ll point my ire at anyone who solicits voters thus.

Ironically, I discussed Poo Duffy&#39;s comments with my daughter&#39;s boyfriend this evening.

I can report a successful conversion; it took about 5 minutes. :D

[MagicNakor]

Originally posted by manker@28 July 2004 - 03:45
....granted a majority [of youths] may vote blindly or without finesse...
And this is different from the majority of middle-aged or elderly voters how, exactly? The well-informed voter is a rare animal.

There should be basic knowledge tests you have to pass before you can vote. Even something as simple as "What are the top three issues for each party, and what are their stances?"

Sure. That&#39;ll happen.

:ninja:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@28 July 2004 - 22:52
There should be basic knowledge tests you have to pass before you can vote. Even something as simple as "What are the top three issues for each party, and what are their stances?"

Sure. That&#39;ll happen.

:ninja:
It&#39;s called "means testing", and it&#39;s a good idea; problem is implementation.

Who writes the test?

In any case, MN, I treasure our agreements, however rare they may be. :D

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by j2k4@27 July 2004 - 18:24
Why endeavor to do something so useful in such a shallow manner?

As I said, if the yoots listen, and are persuaded to vote thereby, what good is done without coincidentally persuading said yoot to educate him/herself as to the issue(s), rather than "vote your feelings" as Mr.S.J.P.P.P.P.D.C. importunes?

I make here the drastic assumption you agree that it is not as simple as deciding to vote, then proceeding merrily to the polling place to pull levers willy-nilly?

P. Doody said not one word about voting in any sort of informed fashion, and, given his idiotic slogan, I find his sentiment akin to handing out firearms without proper instruction.
in contrast, may i offer up Chuck D.? (http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:ni8m96ho3epc~T1) prolly not the sort of person whose politics you&#39;d agree with, but most certainly an example of a famous rapper who has for many years advocated to young people both awareness of the issues and voting.

just sayin&#39;... there are other prominent voices in rap besides the ones that go on about bling and guns.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+29 July 2004 - 15:12--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC &#064; 29 July 2004 - 15:12)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@27 July 2004 - 18:24
Why endeavor to do something so useful in such a shallow manner?

As I said, if the yoots listen, and are persuaded to vote thereby, what good is done without coincidentally persuading said yoot to educate him/herself as to the issue(s), rather than "vote your feelings" as Mr.S.J.P.P.P.P.D.C. importunes?

I make here the drastic assumption you agree that it is not as simple as deciding to vote, then proceeding merrily to the polling place to pull levers willy-nilly?

P. Doody said not one word about voting in any sort of informed fashion, and, given his idiotic slogan, I find his sentiment akin to handing out firearms without proper instruction.
in contrast, may i offer up Chuck D.? (http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:ni8m96ho3epc~T1) prolly not the sort of person whose politics you&#39;d agree with, but most certainly an example of a famous rapper who has for many years advocated to young people both awareness of the issues and voting.

just sayin&#39;... there are other prominent voices in rap besides the ones that go on about bling and guns.[/b][/quote]
I can&#39;t lay claim to any knowledge about rappers except as they intrude upon the major media, and, as such, would judge Paff Dingy as having much greater sway than Chuck D., who, although I have heard the name, doesn&#39;t seem to be within sniffing distance of Pudd Daffy&#39;s stature.

I will take your word on Chuck D.; pity that Pith Durky hasn&#39;t a greater sense of responsibility.

[Biggles]

The gentleman in question is a "rapper"? This explains much as it is a musical genre that I find difficult to listen to for more than 30 seconds before chronic boredom sets in.

Interestingly (or perhaps not) Diddy is a Scottish colloquial word for a stupid person who has the appearance of a mammary gland.

I would agree with Clocker though, there are many of all age groups who vote out of custom and prejudice rather than on the basis of policy and ability.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles@29 July 2004 - 16:33
I would agree with Clocker though, there are many of all age groups who vote out of custom and prejudice rather than on the basis of policy and ability.
Truer words were never spoken.

Clocker is, after all, a genius.

(Don&#39;t tell him I said that) ;)





So a "Diddy" is similar to a "chesticle", yes? :D

[Biggles]

Originally posted by j2k4@29 July 2004 - 21:53






So a "Diddy" is similar to a "chesticle", yes? :D
I think this would be a fair assumption. :)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles+29 July 2004 - 17:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles @ 29 July 2004 - 17:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@29 July 2004 - 21:53






So a "Diddy" is similar to a "chesticle", yes? :D
I think this would be a fair assumption. :) [/b][/quote]
Ah-good, then.

My daily breakthrough. :D

[manker]

Originally posted by j2k4+29 July 2004 - 20:35--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 29 July 2004 - 20:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MagicNakor@28 July 2004 - 22:52
There should be basic knowledge tests you have to pass before you can vote. Even something as simple as "What are the top three issues for each party, and what are their stances?"

Sure. That&#39;ll happen.

:ninja:
It&#39;s called "means testing", and it&#39;s a good idea; problem is implementation.

Who writes the test?

In any case, MN, I treasure our agreements, however rare they may be. :D [/b][/quote]
Who indeed would write the test.

What a terrible idea. I see democracy isn&#39;t as appealing as it once was.

What administration the world over would have the arrogance to tell any adult born in that country that they have no right to choose who they would like to see run their country. An administration in control of a dictatorship, that&#39;s who.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@28 July 2004 - 19:52
There should be basic knowledge tests you have to pass before you can vote.
it&#39;s been done before. http://kpearson.project.tcnj.edu/interacti...files/test.html (http://kpearson.project.tcnj.edu/interactive/imm_files/test.html)

but the feds somehow decided that it had something to do with racism (http://www.crmvet.org/info/lithome.htm) and nixed it.

[manker]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+30 July 2004 - 01:22--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC @ 30 July 2004 - 01:22)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MagicNakor@28 July 2004 - 19:52
There should be basic knowledge tests you have to pass before you can vote.
it&#39;s been done before. http://kpearson.project.tcnj.edu/interacti...files/test.html (http://kpearson.project.tcnj.edu/interactive/imm_files/test.html)

but the feds somehow decided that it had something to do with racism (http://www.crmvet.org/info/lithome.htm) and nixed it. [/b][/quote]
Only black folk needed to take that test.

It was implemented because the white man did not want the black man to have too much of a say in the running of &#39;his&#39; country.

Kinda proves my point. &#39;Means Testing&#39; - sorry to keep coining your phrase J2, I simply have no idea what else to call it - is a way of oppression.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by manker@29 July 2004 - 19:34
Kinda proves my point. &#39;Means Testing&#39; - sorry to keep coining your phrase J2, I simply have no idea what else to call it - is a way of oppression.
Actually, I meant it to prove my point.

Once upon a time, it would not have occurred to a potential voter to exercise such an important right in a less-than-rigorously-responsible manner.

These days the simple exercise of the right supercedes any felt need to exercise it conscientiously.

Believe it or not, people used to have a bit more personal discipline, and one wouldn&#39;t have had to worry quite so much about whether the person pulling the lever had the slightest inclination to make him/herself aware of the possible consequences of doing so.

I really don&#39;t think such an attitude warrants being termed "oppression".

For those who are tempted to jump to conclusions, I am in no way advocating means testing in the voting booth.

EDIT:missing word no longer missing+ending caveat.

[manker]

&#39;Oppression - People of being kept down by unjust use of force or authority&#39;

The 1965 example of means testing is certainly oppression.

Why? because it is depriving a section of the populus the basic right to vote.

Now consider applying the same situation today, where everyone had to take a means test. What about the single mother who is bringing up a disabled child, she won&#39;t have any time to pore over manifestos. No, she will look for each party&#39;s policy on disability and choose the party which gives her child the best deal because that is the most important thing to her, she cares little of economic policy or military posturing.

And who is to say her method of choosing a political party to support is worse than yours?

Yet your proposed means testing will preclude her from voting because of her lack of knowledge in other areas. She has been oppressed.

There are literally hundreds of examples I could give similar to that one.

By the way, I think you look at the past with rose-tinted spectacles. Back in the day the average voter would have been less informed than those today because of the blanket media coverage we get nowadays.

But let us not detract from the point. The mere notion of means testing a voter is absurd. It would propagate elitism and engender resentment of those oppressed.

[Sprocket]

Manker, you have missed j2&#39;s point entirely.
By definition, anyone who didn&#39;t want to vote for Bush would be presumed to be a sloppy thinker and not worthy of enfranchisement.

[manker]

Originally posted by Sprocket@30 July 2004 - 06:25
Manker, you have missed j2&#39;s point entirely.
By definition, anyone who didn&#39;t want to vote for Bush would be presumed to be a sloppy thinker and not worthy of enfranchisement.
:lol:

[Busyman]

Originally posted by manker@29 July 2004 - 22:39
&#39;Oppression - People of being kept down by unjust use of force or authority&#39;

The 1965 example of means testing is certainly oppression.

Why? because it is depriving a section of the populus the basic right to vote.

Now consider applying the same situation today, where everyone had to take a means test. What about the single mother who is bringing up a disabled child, she won&#39;t have any time to pore over manifestos. No, she will look for each party&#39;s policy on disability and choose the party which gives her child the best deal because that is the most important thing to her, she cares little of economic policy or military posturing.

And who is to say her method of choosing a political party to support is worse than yours?

Yet your proposed means testing will preclude her from voting because of her lack of knowledge in other areas. She has been oppressed.

There are literally hundreds of examples I could give similar to that one.

By the way, I think you look at the past with rose-tinted spectacles. Back in the day the average voter would have been less informed than those today because of the blanket media coverage we get nowadays.

But let us not detract from the point. The mere notion of means testing a voter is absurd. It would propagate elitism and engender resentment of those oppressed.
Excellent post&#33;&#33; The best I&#39;ve seen in awhile. ;)

There was a thread about this awhile back.

[j2k4]

You&#39;ve ALL missed my point, which was contained very neatly in my last post.

Buncha Libs :D

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@29 July 2004 - 19:49


Once upon a time, it would not have occurred to a potential voter to exercise such an important right in a less-than-rigorously-responsible manner.

These days the simple exercise of the right supercedes any felt need to exercise it conscientiously.

Believe it or not, people used to have a bit more personal discipline, and one wouldn&#39;t have had to worry quite so much about whether the person pulling the lever had the slightest inclination to make him/herself aware of the possible consequences of doing so.



You&#39;ve ALL missed my point, which was contained very neatly in my last post.
I think you overly romanticise the past and the presumed "responsibility" of the voters of old.

Today&#39;s campaign seems to me somewhat reminiscent of the 1968 race.
Were we more responsible then?

[3RA1N1AC]

this thread has gotten rather serious. let&#39;s get back to riffing on the guy&#39;s name. THE ARTIST FORMERLY KNOWN AS P DOODLE DANDY COMBS PIFF-PUFF-A-RONI... or whatever his name is.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+30 July 2004 - 21:52--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 30 July 2004 - 21:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@29 July 2004 - 19:49


Once upon a time, it would not have occurred to a potential voter to exercise such an important right in a less-than-rigorously-responsible manner.

These days the simple exercise of the right supercedes any felt need to exercise it&nbsp; conscientiously.

Believe it or not, people used to have a bit more personal discipline, and one wouldn&#39;t have had to worry quite so much about whether the person pulling the lever had the slightest inclination to make him/herself aware of the possible consequences of doing so.



You&#39;ve ALL missed my point, which was contained very neatly in my last post.
I think you overly romanticise the past and the presumed "responsibility" of the voters of old.

Today&#39;s campaign seems to me somewhat reminiscent of the 1968 race.
Were we more responsible then? [/b][/quote]
I was harking back a bit further than 1968.

Were I of voting age at that point in time, I might have been striding the college quad with a joint in one hand and a protest sign in the other, and my buddy Clocker alongside me.

At this point in my life, I might remember those days with a good measure of guilty fondness.

Things change, though.

It might be a good idea to take a time-out, as I&#39;ve a mind to gather some kindling and matches.

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@31 July 2004 - 07:13


Were I of voting age at that point in time, I might have been striding the college quad with a joint in one hand and a protest sign in the other, and my buddy Clocker alongside me.

At this point in my life, I might remember those days with a good measure of guilty fondness.


Entirely possible, j2.

"Cept I never actually carried a sign.

And don&#39;t feel the guilt.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by clocker+31 July 2004 - 17:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 31 July 2004 - 17:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@31 July 2004 - 07:13


Were I of voting age at that point in time, I might have been striding the college quad with a joint in one hand and a protest sign in the other, and my buddy Clocker alongside me.

At this point in my life, I might remember those days with a good measure of guilty fondness.


Entirely possible, j2.

"Cept I never actually carried a sign.

And don&#39;t feel the guilt. [/b][/quote]
:lol:

I did go on a march or two - and I confess to having a somewhat impaired guilt gland too.

If my employers are reading this I have not been stoned since the Pink Floyd concert of 1987 (honest :ph34r: )

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles@31 July 2004 - 15:00
If my employers are reading this I have not been stoned since the Pink Floyd concert of 1987 (honest :ph34r: )
It doesn&#39;t matter; you are suspended pending review, which will be a mere formality.

You are toast. ;)

[Biggles]

Originally posted by j2k4@1 August 2004 - 14:09

It doesn&#39;t matter; you are suspended pending review,


What&#33;

A whole year off on gardening leave? - only to find they have lost the paperwork and ask me to fill in some forms confirming my identity and to explain where I have been for the last year

The inhumanity&#33;&#33; have you no compassion?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles+1 August 2004 - 09:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles @ 1 August 2004 - 09:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@1 August 2004 - 14:09

It doesn&#39;t matter; you are suspended pending review,


What&#33;

A whole year off on gardening leave? - only to find they have lost the paperwork and ask me to fill in some forms confirming my identity and to explain where I have been for the last year

The inhumanity&#33;&#33; have you no compassion? [/b][/quote]
No, I do not.

I suggest you use the time off to grow a nice crop of ganja, and install speakers in your garden by which you might re-acquaint yourself with Pink Floyd.

Now, that doesn&#39;t sound so bad, does it? :)