Posts by matthew

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

    Quote from Darkflame

    I was pretty pissed off at all the fuss when she died... I would have been crying with fury if I had known that they would still be going on about it now... jeez...

    It is pretty miserable seing her face in the Express every single day [it seems].. No doubt overkill.. but she was much loved all over the world. I suspect it is because she was one of the first 'normal' members of the royal family... as messed up as she was She did connect on a completly differing level.. that is for sure.

    Quote from Anusha

    and most of us are past caring... but tonight i'm bored shitless so even a Dianna thread is worthy of post...:rolleyes:


    It was the same with me.. hence this thread... :sleep: :wiggle: :harhar: .

    It is nice to know peoples opinions on this though.

    Quote from Coyote

    I like :rolleyes: the way Diana gets a tribute concert 9 years on but how many folks who did more get the same; same old same old for the rich and powerful I guess - are william and harry more special than any kid who's lost a parent? Was she a more special mum? :rolleyes:

    Wass it not her kids choice to do this ?... i think it is all for her charities. Fair enough it might be OTT.. but it is all for charity , mate... :harhar:

    Quote from Coyote

    9 years for a report is sus in its own right....and thats before we get to "this is the govt that gave us 'dr kelly killed himself', 'sadam has nukes' and lets bow to saudi pressure and not track corruption'.

    It seems i am in a losing battle here....

    The investigation into the death of Princess Diana, led by former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord Stevens, continues to confirm previously known facts and unearth new evidence proving that the August 31st 1997 crash was no accident.
    As previously exhaustively documented by this website, the evidence pointing to murder is conclusive.
    From the mid 1990's, Diana released a series of audio, videotapes and letters voicing her fears that she would be killed in a car crash made to look like an accident. In one letter, Diana stated, "My husband is planning ‘an accident’ in my car, brake failure and serious head injury in order to make the path clear for Charles to marry”.…2006/270206dianadeath.htm



    You'd have to be a right nutter to actually take the word of such folks regardless of whether she was murdered or not.

    The real question is "do you trust the folks who are making the statements?"

    I do as simple as i am.... :o

    I know you are not working yet.. but i do not think Al fayed is looking for new employees at the moment... :harhar:

    Quote from Sthenno

    Didn’t know her.

    Neither did i thank the lord...:) but i had a fair sense of who she was. I thought she was a drama queen[ well princess].


    Personally I’m not as quick to dismiss them as lunatics either. Just because they go against the status quo doesn’t make them mentally unstable.

    Come on... it is this type of none recognition of the truth/facts that drive these loonys to the point of ecstasy. I'm quick to suggest that we may not know the precise curcumstances to the enth degree... but i do think this report...points to the most logical conclusion. It seems i'm almost alone in this ?. :p


    Next you’ll be trying to convince us all it really was Oswald in the book depository…

    I know what part of the forum we are you are free to have your doubts.. It may come as a shock to you, but imho only one person was there on that fateful day, in Dallas.. He was imho the only person in the book depositry [with a gun]. Do you not think enough lunatics have gathered enough cash from this by now ?.. books .. silly movies etc etc etc. :eek: :whistle:

    Quote from Sthenno

    Some people will yeah, but you’ll find they’re the sort who make vague references to how ‘they’ control everything but in reality know no more than what they’ve picked up from the X-Files.

    The real conspiracy nuts, however, will read and study that report word by word, hundreds of times over. You can count on that.


    That is true i guess.. The real lunatics will know the intricacies .. that is what makes them scarey.

    Did you like Di ?.

    Quote from Aunty Al

    It'll just fuel accusations of a further cover-up and increase the conspiracy theory I reckon. There can't really be any proof one way or another, just oppinion based on available evidence so there's always going to be room for other theories

    I think there can be proof .. but that tends to take a back seat sometimes..

    I think those that perpetuate the conspiracys will not bother reading the 800+ page report. They will just reorganise there silly little conspiracies from outdated and misinformed information.. So yeah i guess you are right in a way.

    There was no conspiracy to murder Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed.
    The car crash was a tragic accident.
    The Mercedes was travelling at an excessive speed.
    Any theories concerning flashing lights can be discounted as a cause of the crash.
    There was contact between the Mercedes carrying the princess and a white Fiat Uno shortly before the crash.
    It is unlikely the Fiat will ever be traced.
    None of the occupants of the Mercedes was wearing seatbelts at the time of the crash.
    Princess Diana, Dodi Al Fayed and Henri Paul might have survived had they been wearing seatbelts.

    Princess Diana was not pregnant.
    Princess Diana was not engaged and did not plan to get engaged.

    • Further inquiry with members of the Royal Family would be unjustified.
    • The Duke of Edinburgh was spoken to as part of the inquiries.
    • There was no evidence of any link between the Duke of Edinburgh and the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6).

    Well i'm so glad all that is over with... :whistle:

    For about 3 days. What will the Daily Express have to print about now ?.

    Quote from mooka

    wow. i freaking love the internet.

    It has it's ups and its downs... :whistle: :)

    I think i'll read more tomorrow. I can't get my head around it tonight.. Thanks for the link.. it looks like a good place to start. :)

    Quote from starpoi

    if a glass is half a pint then it would be 16 litres which would cost about £1.40 at ASDA (although there is also the added cost to the environment when you buy bottled water)


    Quote from magicmonkey

    I worked as a water quality scientist for Wessex Water for 2 years, things have probably changed a lot on the business and sewerage side of things but not on the supply side as it works and it's reliable. Chlorine is the ONLY thing added to the water (with the exception of a few companies doing the flouridation thing already but that's after my time).

    Well i appreciate the info. I can chill out a bit now. :) *phew*.


    If you want to know what's in your water then call your supplier and they are legally obliged to send you the chem fact sheet which is a lot better than anything you can find online as it'll list everything other than water in PPM

    I did look at what 'my' water is comprised of. It was online though [i posted it in the flouri.. thread about the last but one page i think ?]. I think if 'my' water was doing anything to me.. it is a little to late in the day now.. :wiggle: . I've drank gallons of the stuff *glug*. Some may say that is why i am erm .. well :insane: *cough* never mind.

    Quote from Cookie Monster

    Yeah I often get nightmares when sleeping on my back. It's the same with a few other people I know. Good job I prefer to sleep on my side!

    I like to sleep on my side also. I do like the extra bonus of having a good dream...when i sleep on my back. Even if it sometimes frightens the life out of me. I'm sure it goes back to the cavemen [sorry cavepersons] ???.

    Quote from Twister

    That's what I do :) My dreams mostly make no sense, but they're fun to look back on and remember :D

    I wonder if the place you have dreams effects your dreams..mmmmmm . I know if i sleep looking straight up to the ceiling i get more vivid dreams..somethiong about the amount of blood collecting in certain parts of the brain i imagine.

    I'm not planning on trying to go to sleep in my garden. So would apprciate if you have found sleeping outside of 4 walls makes a difference.

    Quote from Hydroxic Acid Boy

    Yeah, I remember them at the time but the details get blurry and by the end the day it's forgotten. Shame coz there often really funny.

    I remember the 'sense' of them.. some are funny others tragic more often scarey as f***. When i'm telling somebody about one i may remember.. it does all seem a bit blurry.. even though it maybe more clearer up in my head.

    I don't have very good sleep patterns.. so i don't always remember.
    Infact i hardly do. I do have lucid dreaming though.. that is either fun or scarey. As i never can 'plan' what i'm dreaming about. The last one involved me digging my way out of a snow drift only never actually getting anywhere. I'm sure there is a hidden meaning in that somewhere. Anyhoo i've tried to do a 'drfeam log'.. but literaly the moment i lift my head of my pillow.. it has all gone [for the most part].

    I think you must have a very settled mind.. maybe your mind is not in a constant upheavel.. and does not need to be 'sorted out' ?.

    Quote from Atomik

    OK Matthew. I've removed your further provocative comment. I've already explained the issue to which you referred, so you can either drop it or have your subsequent posts deleted or get booted from the thread. I'm not putting up with you constantly sniping at me. This is not a point for discussion.

    That is how good my memory is.. i can't see what you have removed :p . Oh well if it was ''provocative'' fair enough.

    Quote from Atomik

    Except that we've been eating them for thousands of years, so it's reasonably unlikely.


    I disagree. But then my definition of those "in the know" probably differs from yours.

    No..i think you are being unfair to me. I'd read anybody apart from 'rense'.


    Again, I disagree. But also again, good for you! I don't care what you consume. It's your choice. But I don't believe your choice should be forced on others.

    I don't think it is being forced upon us. maybe my previous post will make my thoughts clearer. I'd had to assume you knew how and when [and who was responsible and if you had the right to disagree as a community] flouride is added to water.


    Nope, I've said I disagree with you.

    So it seems.


    There's a difference.

    And please drop this whole badgering for information as I simply don't have the time or inclination to go hunting round the internet for the information you require.

    I'm not ... i just hoped from time to time you could provide some source of information.. ''The point is i never see any of your sources.. i atleast try and share mine.
    Oh well i've got used to it.. ''. It is not 'badgering' i just want to sometimes see your info in context.


    If you want it, it's out there. But you're not gonna believe it anyway, so I wouldn't waste your time either if I was you.

    I have looked at it and noted the info that is opposition to my thoughts it is safe. I guess the point is where do others get there info from.


    Please try and get your head round this one last time before you really, really piss me off. My time is limited. Every moment I spend on here is a moment I could be doing something else more constructive. My understanding of issues such as these is based on years and years of reading. I do not have the time nor the inclination to waste hours of my life further researching and sourcing documents on the internet with which to educate you - especially when you'll be very likely to dismiss them since they don't conform to the accepted establishment view. Get over it. I'm not your personal research assistant.

    Ho hum... don't then.


    I think you just proved my point. Any substance can be said to be safe if you sufficiently lower your criteria for according it that status. So if that's your measure, calling something "safe" in that context is effectively meaningless.

    Why is it meaningless...?. In safe doses flouride can be deemed safe. It is not my criteria it is from science led criteria. If you believe it is not safe in the quanties applied now.. then how come ?. Everything that is used is measured for it's toxity and the correct quantity to be used. They don't just do it by eye do they and say ''oh that will be ok.. mm maybe a dash more''.


    I'd argue that the motivation is financial rather than public health, but that would be a tangent. I don't really care all that much about the reasons - I care about being allowed a choice.

    What would be a financial gain.. ?.

    Quote from mooka

    ok matthew, you are also making my head spin here...... i'm going to write this is your spaced out style though so maybe yours will stop spinning




    i keep thinking maybe i just dont understand what you are trying to say?



    you are aggreing with atomik and i: that the issue of having choice should be considered seperately from the specific issue of fluroid.



    and that this is because there are contradictory reports about whether fluroid is safe or not.

    No, as a dicision has been made based on reviewed and published data.


    so (and this is what i was trying to say when i made your head spin):

    since we cannot reach a consensis based on scientific data (since it is contradictory depending on the source)

    We can not [here] that being that being the reason i thought trying to come to a consensus HERE would be a waste of time. I'M SAYING PEOPLE DO HAVE A CHOICE, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
    In the outside world [NOT THESE FORUMS], health profesionals and academia used for 'public health'. It has already been deemed safe for use for the general public. It has been deemed safe so now it is only if we have a right of a choice. I say we should have a right to choose, but we have a choice in not drinking water from the tap if we so wish, OR TAKING A CASE TO COURT.. If it is such a big issue with a unrepresentative group of people, then they can and i fully back the idea of those minority of people taking there case to court. The 'human rights' issue is a good place to start and has been used by others already.
    Before it is added to drinking water the health authority have to consult the water company and any representation of the general public. So on the whole a community does have a 'choice' in that respect. Post this agreement it is a individuals responsibilty to action a case, that they as a individual do not wish for it to be present in their tap water.


    we should simply consider the more abstract question of whether a "nanny state" is a justifyable policy for a government to have.

    The goverment have approved flouride as a 'safe' substance to use in specific quantities, and for it to be used in drinking water. It is upto the individual health authorities and water companys to decide if they wish to use it. Some do, others do not [obviously] depending on if they think they will not get any legal opposition.


    am i right? is this what we are all agreeing on so far?



    you keep justifying your argument about CHOICE based on the SPECIFIC CASE OF FLUROID!

    even though you've agreed that the two should be seperate!

    I'm saying '' i don't think we [on this forum] all will come to a consensus on if it is a 'poison' or not.'' As has been shown , people say here that it is somewhat of a 'poison' and it is not 'safe'.
    I'm being specific about this as we are talking about 'flouride in drinking water'. I'm not making the bigger point about 'choice' in general.


    so you see i just dont see what you are saying........

    Any the wiser now ?.


    because, science is fallible. even if they (the "experts") now tell us a substance is safe, in 30 yrs time it could be found out that in fact it promots the growth of cancerous cells. or not. the point is it doesnt matter because science has been wrong many times over in the past. so if we cant relly on scientific data to be 100%trustworthy, then we have the option of addressing the issue from a philisophical point of view, thus chosing to focus on the issue, more abstractly, regardless of the "evidence" on the particular substance, of the notion of choice.

    You made my head spin.. I think i may have answered some if not all these point in Atomics reply ?.


    is it right for "officials" and "experts" to make choices for us?

    Sometimes.. it might seem 'nanny state'.. but it seems only when we don't aprove of it.


    which is effectively what they are doing by adding something to the public water source, leaving only money as the other way to opt out, but as we all know, public services are necessary because some people are dirt poor/ would like to spend their funds on things other than the necessecities that should be provided for the public good.

    I think the gov' would argue it is for the public gov'. Anyhoo it is the water companys that make the choice.

    Quote from Atomik

    Because it's impossible to know for certain that fluoride is safe, ergo you can't state it as a fact.

    Well that is true.. i suppose eating/drinking many things could be eventualy found to be 'bad' for you. Brussel sprouts / carrots etc etc etc ... Ok i'll stick with

    ''Ofcourse there is not going to a 'universal truth' n this matter . I certainly do not think i am a god. I think a consensus of those in the know.. have concluded it is safe to use. I appreciate that other things have been taken out of use because they are bad.. but at the moment it swings towards it being safe to use. I'm pretty confident it will remain that way. ''


    I really can't be arsed. I've been doing that for about three years with the Iraq war and you're still not convinced. We'll both choose which sources and evidence to believe, so I don't feel that arguing these issues with you achieves anything.

    Well. erm i think you have just said i'm wrong with out pointing to anything more than your word. I can have my own opinion, just like yours.. neither of us i do not think will shake our core beliefs that much.. on certain issues..That is a different matter though . i get your point though. The point is i never see any of your sources.. i atleast try and share mine.
    Oh well i've got used to it..


    LOL!!!! That's like saying that arsenic is safe if you don't swallow it. :rolleyes:

    No.. Lots of thing done wrong or with out due care to 'health and safety' are terrible for your health. Done correctly in a sensible and responsible manner and within limits are perfectly 'safe'.

    Arsenic in small doses does you no harm, just don't take to much.


    'People' don't care about that specific point, or they wouldn't force others to consume chemicals in their drinking water.

    You have said [or agreed] they do not do this for the hell of it..

    'Chemical' not 'Chemicals' a minute trace element of a that is found in water anyway. Is it the somewhat artificiality of it that concerns you [the added flouride]

    Other things in 'my' water 'scare' me more..…WaterQualitySubmit=Search


    Which was exactly my point. :rolleyes:

    I think that was MY point from the get go.. idunno .

    Quote from Atomik

    You're not being arrogant - just factually inaccurate.

    Why am i ?.. it is comments like that that make me want you to show me why. Make the case, for it. Like you say ''Seeing as you're not god, I think we can reasonably assume that you're not privy to the objective universal truth of the matter. '' . Obviously it seems the knowledge i'm going with is not correct.. show me. All you ever say is 'go find it yourself'.. gee whiz help a dude out from time to time.


    It's crap if you believe it's anything other than a subjective opinion. Seeing as you're not god, I think we can reasonably assume that you're not privy to the objective universal truth of the matter.

    Ofcourse there is not going to a 'universal truth' n this matter . I certainly do not think i am a god. I think a consensus of those in the know.. have concluded it is safe to use. I appreciate that other things have been taken out of use because they are bad.. but at the moment it swings towards it being safe to use. I'm pretty confident it will remain that way.


    Pedantry. All forms of asbestos were originally considered safe by scientists.

    Asbestos is still 'safe' it is it's application and over exposure that is harmful. I'll be humble and say imho the use of asbestos was not being regulated.. it may have been shown to be a danger..but there were no legislation to restrict it's use.


    I don't know how many times I have to tell you this, I do not engage in link-exchanging bonanzas. It doesn't get us anywhere.

    I'm not talking about a ''link-exchanging bonanzas''. I'm just talking about some information. Ofcourse i can go find some data that shows that it will turn us all green or that it will make us all mad.


    Do your own research and reach your own conclusion.

    I have and i'm sharing it.. people can share information other than what than what they type can't they ?.


    I don't really care what you believe.






    safe doses.

    In your humble opinion ofcourse.


    It's the best way if you don't give a shit about people's right to choose what chemicals are pumped into their bodies, that's for sure.

    The point is.. people do care , that is why this occurs. In your humble opinion it is a 'poison' and we should have a choice. That being why i think it is the only debate we can have.. 'choice'.


    Quote from Atomik

    I'm sorry matthew, that's a load of crap. You may say it's safe in your opinion, but that does not make it so. It makes it an opinion. It was widely agreed at one time that asbestos was safe.

    I knew i was going to be deemed arrogant making such a statement. I just felt i needed to say it. I did leave it upto others to post some scientific evidence to highlight recent reports into it's hazardous effects and to show that it is a 'poison' in the doses that are applied to drinking water.. I'm sticking with 'the flouride that is in use today is safe'. I'm sorry that you think that is 'crap'. Certain types of asbestos are not safe 'asbestos' is all around and manafactured 'asbestos' products properly managed is of no health risk.


    I don't think it's safe and I don't want it in the water. Either way, the issue comes down to choice. I don't believe we should be forcibly fed chemicals in something as basic as water.

    Share some resources with us all then. Enlighten me and those who think it is safe. Be arrogant just like me.


    Put it in Coca Cola. That'd be more of a choice and targeted more squarely at those who allegedly need it.

    Maybe so, but too much is not good for you. People who drink fizzy drinks.. drink far to much.. The average amount of water drank has been deemed the best way to give people the safe dosages of flouride.

    Quote from Atomik

    You've just illustrated that for yourself. Given that people are unlikely to agree on the benefits or dangers of fluoride, then the issue of choice can't be decided on that basis.

    People are unlikely.. that is the key. Health authorities agree that it is safe and beneficial. Individual water companys can take the choice to add it or not. It is safe . Imho it is like mmr .. it is proven it is safe.. but people still want a choice.
    You can think it is safe.. but still do not wish to have it in the water.

    Quote from mooka

    yes ok, i was being a bit sarcatsic.... :whistle:

    because you still seemed to be stuck on the choice issue as a question that be resolved based on whether fluroid was bad for you or not.

    i think the two should be seperated.

    I don't think i am . I personally i have read recent information that says that flouride in the water supply is not going to do you any harm. Other people will say it is not good for you 'almost a poison'. I don't think any consensus will come about on that issue [here]. If it is either good or bad for you, people are argueing that a choice is needed.

    Why do you think the two should be seperated ?.

    Quote from Atomik

    I assumed that would be self-evident and didn't realise you were going to be so pedantic.

    I was not attempting to be pedantic, and obviously it was not self-evident to me. Not many people post like that as far as i'm aware, though obviously sometimes to me it is not self-evident, if they are.


    That's 56 glasses a week based on the recommened daily intake - and that's before you even get into cooking water or water for other consumption purposes.

    How many litres would that be [on average]?.


    Yes, let's agree to differ.



    That's not "necessary" - that's a choice. People aren't sufficiently reducing their calory intake. Is it "necessary" to force them to do so?

    Lets agree to differ.

    Quote from mooka

    and yes, you should, because the amount of plastic to cover each liter is truly ridiculous when the other option come free of packaging

    The amount of people that buy bottled water, because they feel flouride is not for them. is ????. I agree in principle bottled water is a silly idea.

    Quote from mooka

    once again, is the issue whether fluroid is good or bad, or is it the concept of having a choice???

    ''That is the only arguement i can see... i don't think we all will come to a consensus on if it is a 'poison' or not.''

    Quote from willowphoenix

    If you don't want to drink fluoridated buy a filter jug.Simple.

    I agree with you... buying bottled water was just a option.

    ''Ofcourse some people that can not afford to or do not wish to drink bottled water, after noting all the evidence [i'm not suggesting poor people are ill informed]. Then i think they would have a very good claim for a filtration system in their house.. from there local authority. ''

    Judging by the ''Human rights'' issue in the initial post [edited in]. I think people would have a good case.

    Quote from Atomik

    Speak for yourself.

    Yeah i noticed your point about organic food.


    I'm not sure I follow that sentence.

    On reflection:
    I was not aware you were not talking about your own POV. You were just talking in principle. I noticed not much ''I think....'' ''In realation to myself and me as a individual'' ''My own point of view is''.


    Ah, I see. So you're seriously suggesting that purchasing bottled water represents a realistic choice. I disagree.

    Yeah i do, some people add bottles of fizzy pop to there shopping baskets. a few cheap bottles of water won't do much to there purse or space in there bags.


    It's a personal opinion based on my understanding of the scientific evidence. I'm not about to engage in the usual futile round of exchanging links and sources, as I'm certain you can prove either position depending on who you choose to believe. Let's agree to differ.

    I can't remember you posting links to be honest [on anything apart from a story to start a thread]. You always do say ''It's a personal opinion based on my understanding of the scientific evidence.''. Yes, lets agree to differ.


    No. Fluoride in water is unecessary. I'm not sure how you could argue anything contrary?

    I thought it was put in, because certain areas were not maintaining good dental health on there own accord. It was decided it was necessary in certain areas. lets agree to differ.

    Quote from mooka

    what about people who dont want to/ cant afford to spend money on bottled water?

    do they also have a "choice" then?

    If [and i think it has] it is shown the overall effect of flouride in the water , is a good thing [I can only find positive recent conclusions that is a health benefit] .
    I think people accept that it is ok , and drink it. If they are bombarded with information that is out of date and unfounded, then they will question it [e.g mmr]. I don't think many poor people will have a ethical proplem, and would appreciate that it is a benefit to them. Ofcourse some people that can not afford to or do not wish to drink bottled water, after noting all the evidence [i'm not suggesting poor people are ill informed]. then i think they would have a very good claim for a filtration system in their house.. from there local authority.
    I don't think the concerns of a few should outweigh, the benefits for the many.
    History has shown on this, it is not mandatory. I think there was many cases of individuals [not all poor] who took action against flouride being added. I think they had every right to do that. Anything new will always bring opposition. I just think that if the science proves it is safe, the individuals should be compensated for there opposition, and the correct procedures should be put in place so there individual choice is maintained.


    It is NOT that simple!!

    Bottled water is expensive and not good for the environment

    I can appreciate that, i'm not talking about 'trendy' bottled water. I'm talking about cheap [own brand] bottles of water. ..25p for a litre or more [i think i've seen 3 litres].
    I can't be oblivious to the enviromental impact.. that is for sure. Maybe i need to look into that more.