richard f

I'm currently reading Sam Harris "The End of Faith", where he points out that almost all "holy" books contain instructions to physically assault unbelievers, adulteresses, homosexuals etc.

Could I therefore make a citizen's arrest the next time someone recommends such a "holy" book to me?

If two equal shareholders wish to change the distribution of dividends so that one gets (e.g.) 75% and the other 25% for a period, is it legally possible to effect this without changing the shareholdings?

I have a young friend who is three and a half years old. Is that too early?

I've recently gone from 17 stone 4 (110 kg) down to 14 stone 5(91kg) over a year, and seem to have stabilized it OK. But I'm left with suits and jackets, originally made to measure, that are far too big. Shoulders are fine but everything else looks enormous. Is it practical to get them altered or would I be better off throwing them away and starting again?

Now it might be 'confit de canard' but perhaps not because the thigh bones are left behind. Is it dog food? Where do the wings, tail and drumsicks end up? Anybody know?

This is a genuine query for fundamental Christians, please (not the knee-jerk atheists out there!)

OK, so homosexuality is an abomination according to the Bible, Leviticus 18:22, but surely more important is working on the Sabbath, which is obviously more abominated as it should be punishable by death (Exodus 35:2)

Eating prawns and lobster are also abominations, as is pork, yet Christians seem to eat them with impunity (Leviticus 11:10 and 11:6-8). And Leviticus 19:27 says that men must not shave their temples, yet it seems to be only orthodox Jews who observe this.

Some people think that the whole point is that Jesus replaced all that Old Testament schtick with the simple command to love one another (John 13:31-35). If that is true then surely there is now residual commandment against homosexuality. If it isn't true, then why does everybody ignore 99% of the instructions in Leviticus and elsewhere?

If it was as a personification of a notional employer it would presumably on the first syllable of 'Company'. Alternatively, if 'John' was a convenient replacement for "The Honourable East India", then presumably the accent would be on 'John'. Does anybody actually know?

I presume it's 19th century but I'm interested to see how much I can narrow it down. I'm sure there's an expert out there who can tell from the clothes? Other information - British, maybe living in India?

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/lh/photo/T_LDiVUUI0e...

I presume it's 19th century but I'm interested to see how much I can narrow it down. I'm sure there's an expert out there who can tell from the clothes? Other information - British, maybe living in India?

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/lh/photo/T_LDiVUUI0e...

This is an oil painting of a man wearing an unfastened single breasted black jacket with wide lapels and brass buttons (can't see how many, I'd guess 3 or 4) over a single breasted cream waistcoat with lapels and with 5 brass buttons all fastened. He has 2 strands of a watch? chain from the centre button leading to his right under the jacket. A white shirt shows 3 studs down the front, visible above the waistcoat, linked with a thin chain. There could be a gem of some kind in each stud.

The bow tie is unusual, tied from black cloth running twice? right round the upturned shirt collar, about 7 cm deep, but the 2 ends seem narrower and are tied in a bow in front (i.e. so that the black bow is against a wider black background). On (his) left side the bow resembles a standard modern bow tie (but a bit wider) but to (his) right, sticking out of the centre knot is a single end coming to a point. His hair is long-ish, half covering his ears, parted on his right, and his face is clean-shaven. He is British, but there is a chance that he was a resident of India at the time.

I'll be really impressed if anyone can help me!

I hold the IP of a software program. A company has sold a license to use it to a 3rd party and has paid me for the right to sell it to them. Can it be considered as capital gains, so I can take advantage of the tax-free capital gains allowance? (UK law preferably, though any answers may be relevant)

It does actually slide but occasionally needs a good thump to get it started. I think its probably overdue for repainting, and the weather is a bit damp. Its the top pane, and it seems to be sticking not because the beads are too tight but (maybe?) because the lining is swollen. Would WD40 help? or would it just make it swell more? What else might give a quick fix as its impractical to do a proper overhaul till the spring?

Please help settle an argument.

One protagonist says that when the NHS was founded the politicians must have taken advice from the eminent medical men of the day in making the decision to include homepathy.

The other says that because the late Queen Mother was a keen proponent of homeopathy, her influence on the chattering classes was transmitted via them to the politicians.

I'm not interested in whether it's a good or bad thing, or whether t works or not: I'm just curious about where the decision to include it came from, when many other alternative therapies were excluded..

My daughter was offered a well-paid job with a prestige company, so she gave in her notice at her current place of work. Now, having burnt her boats, she has been sent a questionnaire which asks among other things:

a) has she ever used drugs

b) has she had mental health problems

c) has she had time out for sickness.

Last Christmas she had a brief psychotic episode brought on by 12 hour days, Red Bull, cannabis, insomnia and stress. She responded quickly to prompt treatment and was back at work after just 2 weeks. She is now med-free, stable and 100% OK. (She has also given up cannabis and Red Bull and is sleeping OK as a result). This was her first and (I hope) last such episode.

She is worried that if she declares it they might change their mind about the job - so she will then have no job. If she doesn't, they might ask the same question of her current employers, who, while supportive and sympathetic, are unlikely to lie for her.

What should she do?

Just before Christmas, stress at work, long hours and ?vodka and Red Bull, and cannabis gave her a short psychotic breakdown (muddled thinking, delusional ideas etc.), during which she conceived a passionate love for a man she met at her local pub. He has 2 children by a former wife, lives with his parents, has been in jail twice, is shorter than her, is (according to my other daughter) remarkably unattractive, and has an IQ approximately equal to his shoe size. But to be fair he seems amiable enough.

She seems now mentally OK again, and is off her medication (too early say her doctors). Her infatuation survives - possibly because he was 'there for her' during her recent episode. Living alone maybe she's lonely? She has low self-esteem.

All her friends say he is not the sort of guy she normally goes for. Most have remarked that they feel uncomfortable around him, as do I. I believe the attachment is a remnant of the psychosis, and that she is storing trouble for the future.

I guess this is one for the atheist fundamentalists out there. Isn't any religious certainty, for or against, stupid? Surely anything might be true from Islam to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can't logically prove a negative, surely. The truth might, just might, be a lot wierder than we can imagine. What makes people so die-hard certain that Bertrand Russell's teapot is not out there? Its unlikely but not actually impossible. Why are atheists as certain as religious extremists? Surely both positions are logically absurd.

Stephen H Roberts said "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours".

To you convinced theists (Christians, Muslims, Jews etc) out there, can you understand the essential truth contained in this statement? And if you do, and you hate other faiths (and/or atheism) please can you explain why?

With the possible exception of those who believe that all gods and religions are manifestations of the same one god and religion, doesn't this neatly sum up the logical absurdity of convinced supporters of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and all other theistic beliefs? If not, why not?