andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker ([personal profile] andrewducker) wrote2012-07-20 12:00 pm

Interesting Links for 20-07-2012

[identity profile] artkouros.livejournal.com 2012-07-20 11:25 am (UTC)(link)
Well, there goes my plan for selling chocolate eggs with weed inside.

[identity profile] fub.livejournal.com 2012-07-20 11:32 am (UTC)(link)
If you can demonstrate that the weed has nutritional value, I think you'd be in the clear. ;)

[identity profile] artkouros.livejournal.com 2012-07-20 12:45 pm (UTC)(link)
Maybe if I left off the rolling paper.

[identity profile] fub.livejournal.com 2012-07-20 12:47 pm (UTC)(link)
One word: ricepaper.

[identity profile] marrog.livejournal.com 2012-07-20 11:44 am (UTC)(link)
Oh Mr Darcy! Pride and Prejudice among classic novels to receive erotic makeover

I want to not give a shit about this.

I want to be as philosophical as I was about the Keira Knightly Pride & Prejudice, or the Guy Ritchie Holmes, and say let people enjoy them for what they are, have fun, and hey, maybe they'll end up reading the books and if they don't, why shouldn't they enjoy the films.

But I actually can't count the number of ways in which this latest step pisses me off.

[identity profile] marrog.livejournal.com 2012-07-20 11:50 am (UTC)(link)
Yeah, P&P&Z didn't annoy me at all, because it was ridiculous. This pisses me off because people will read it instead of the actual texts - it's not a route to excellent literature, it's a circumvention of it, and it'll dismantle an awful lot of the points of the novels. Austen and the Brontes' works were packed with unresolved sexual tension - the plots are basically fuelled by them. This will give readers a version that by adding the shagging in, resolving that tension, will effectively castrate the book.

[identity profile] marrog.livejournal.com 2012-07-20 12:14 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, quite. If people are too stupid to see the sexy in Pride and Prejudice, maybe they should just stick to 50 Shades, that's all I'm sayin'.

Also it's lazy as hell on the part of the writers and that pisses me off as a person who gets irritated by people profiting from others' work.

[identity profile] snarlish.livejournal.com 2012-07-20 06:48 pm (UTC)(link)
so i see where this is going: Petrified Purple-Prose Pride And Prejudice!

[identity profile] marrog.livejournal.com 2012-07-20 11:46 am (UTC)(link)
People who are drunk will also be prevented from travelling on trains

What the actual fuck?

[identity profile] marrog.livejournal.com 2012-07-20 11:51 am (UTC)(link)
Let's hope they apply it in the way that pubs do - in that it's technically illegal to be 'drunk' in a pub but you'll only be kicked out if you've clearly 'had enough' or have fallen asleep...

Although that would be dangerous too of course, since then sober people wouldn't be able to sleep on the train. I used to love sleeping on the train.

[identity profile] ashfae.livejournal.com 2012-07-20 02:38 pm (UTC)(link)
They usually don't, though.

[identity profile] rhythmaning.livejournal.com 2012-07-20 09:56 pm (UTC)(link)
I keep looking for the "like" button on comments... Doh!

[identity profile] rhythmaning.livejournal.com 2012-07-20 09:55 pm (UTC)(link)
According to BBC news, rail unions have said their members won't be enforcing the rule.

Also, I couldn't help wondering how they would know. Does ScotRailintend to breathalyse everyone? Or us it really a ban on the "obviously drunk"?! Which I guess would be covered by existing bye-laws...

[identity profile] gonzo21.livejournal.com 2012-07-20 11:47 am (UTC)(link)
I imagine dope would be so cheap because it's so easy to grow and process, if it was legal, basically anybody that wanted it would just be able to grow their own supply on their window ledge?

[identity profile] gonzo21.livejournal.com 2012-07-20 11:51 am (UTC)(link)
That's an interesting thought. Has easy access cannabis in Holland significantly reduced their consumption of alcohol?

[identity profile] randomchris.livejournal.com 2012-07-20 12:14 pm (UTC)(link)
I am at least somewhat in favour of extremely drunk people not being allowed to travel: there are several occasions when a late-night trip home has been made really horrible by someone vomiting up their alcohol in the same carriage. Equally horrible if they get to the toilet first, because my bike's usually next to it so I can't avoid the stench.

[identity profile] fub.livejournal.com 2012-07-20 12:50 pm (UTC)(link)
The text specifically says "drunk", not "people who had a pint". I think there's no reason to fear breathaliser tests before being able to board the train.

[identity profile] octopoid-horror.livejournal.com 2012-07-20 04:53 pm (UTC)(link)
What, precisely, do they expect to happen with drunk people who want to get home?

If pubs are happy to serve drunk people, but trains aren't happy to carry them, doesn't this just mean that if the rule is enforced on trains, there will be a bunch of drunk people with no way home stuck outside a closed station until morning?

Or do they assume that everyone out drinking will either moderate themselves accordingly, or else happen to have the money for a sudden taxi journey at midnight between Edinburgh and Glasgow or hotel room?

[identity profile] bohemiancoast.livejournal.com 2012-07-20 12:58 pm (UTC)(link)
They don't. Pubs *aren't allowed* to serve anyone drunk. It's got a clear state in law, which is 'drunk and incapable', not 'a bit merry'.

[identity profile] channelpenguin.livejournal.com 2012-07-20 06:57 pm (UTC)(link)
Whereas I NEVER failed to get served, even though I was, on many an occasion quite, quite, hopelessly drunk.