cotch dot net

christopher warr

62.171.194.40

hampshire

it is fun place to go

Posted at 2008-07-21 12:22:42 - [Ban] - [Del]

julie martin

martinjs@iprimus.com.au

58.179.107.137

somerset

beautiful photos! i have just learnt that some of my relatives come from somerset, so i googled it!

Posted at 2008-07-13 10:19:50 - [Ban] - [Del]

steppen wolf

skeptalchemist.blogspot.com

steppenw@gmail.com

70.79.136.134

20080518_1731

The Carnival has been announced over at the skeptical alchemist and on the main page of MCB Carnival. Good job!

Posted at 2008-05-18 21:42:50 - [Ban] - [Del]

Trackback from Cotch dot net

20080509_1412

The Molecular and Cell Biology Carnival #2

Welcome to the second Carnival of Molecular and Cell Biology!

Posted at 2008-05-18 17:53:10 by 64.130.10.13 - [Ban] - [Del]

steppen wolf

skeptalchemist.blogspot.com

steppenw@gmail.com

70.79.136.134

20080509_1412

Hi Joe, I sent you all the posts we have received until now, they should be in your inbox. Anything else will get to my own inbox, and I will forward it manually (that should do it).

Also, I am moving the Carnival to May 18 - that should give you enough time, and we can close submissions now if you wish. Just let me know, and I will update the Carnival edition manually, as well as post a reminder on my blog.

Thanks!

Posted at 2008-05-14 19:34:23 - [Ban] - [Del]

AlisonS

astreight@hotmail.com

24.231.105.192

20080321_1659

These science-loathing numbskulls should never be admitted to a hospital or given any sort of modern medical care. They might inadvertently receive treatment which was the result of experiments of which their god does approve. How could they live with themselves? We can/t allow that to happen.

Posted at 2008-04-13 20:16:45 - [Ban] - [Del]

steppen wolf

http://skeptalchemist.blogspot.com/2008/04/cancer-research-blog-carnival-8.html

steppenw@gmail.com

70.79.136.134

20080401_1848

Your post is up at the Cancer Research Blog Carnival - make sure you link back! Simply follow the link to my website to read the current carnival's edition. Thanks for submitting your post!

Posted at 2008-04-05 17:43:03 - [Ban] - [Del]

Dean Morrison

deanmorrison@onetel.net

84.43.29.110

20080321_1659

Loved the bit about 'God loves zygotes' Steinsky!

Deano

Posted at 2008-03-25 00:34:17 - [Ban] - [Del]

jdc

http://jdc325.wordpress.com/

internet_gubbins@yahoo.co.uk

91.84.15.190

20080204_0150

Enjoyed reading that. The Vitamin C / HIV example was a good one.

Posted at 2008-02-05 10:04:22 - [Ban] - [Del]

Farah El-Jarad

78.150.117.28

bristol

ahhhhh!! BRISTOLL i lived here since i was born and love it so muchh

Posted at 2008-01-16 20:30:33 - [Ban] - [Del]

JBoyd

82.26.218.132

20071231_1204

I wouldn't disagree with you on any of that, really. There comes a point where 'faith' takes a leap in a direction that takes it away from 'science' completely (you may remember the 'Babel Fish' in the 'Hitchhiker's Guide'... though it seemed to get diluted in the film version). However, I don't think that science and religion need inevitably be in conflict.

Posted at 2008-01-08 22:15:00 - [Ban] - [Del]

Joe D

Bristol, England

20071231_1204

For me I can accept all the scientific explanations as fact, but want really interests me is why when you go back to absolute basics, things obey consistent and universal laws. The purely scientific explanation of how we got here requires an 'ordered' universe, and the question 'why is it ordered?' seems to me to be the crucial one.

The anthropic principle? Yes, I am somewhat interested in this, but:

1. I'm not convinced it is a why question, rather than just another how question. Several answers have been proposed to answer it as a how question, involving multiverses, singularities, and other such things that are way beyond my field. I expect you would only see such a how answer as pushing the why-question back another stage. But I can't help thinking of the god-of-the-gaps: for a long time, a why-question filled the gap in our knowledge regarding where complex life came from, but when that was answered with a how-question, a new gap in our knowledge was jumped on. At the moment, the big gaps in our knowledge cited as evidence for a creator are in cosmogony and consciousness, and those gaps are steadily being filled in. Meanwhile, the "Intelligent Design" movement is desperately trying to find gaps which aren't there, in which to place their interventionist god.

2. Even if there is a why-question that needs answering, I am not satisfied with the answer offered by religion. God did it? What is god, why does god exist, why did god do it, and what evidence supports this hypothesis above others? The god "answer" claims to be solving a gap in our knowledge, but is actually asking us to be satisfied with an even greater one. It's an especially great leap from a gap in our understanding of the universe to a specific religion.

Posted at 2008-01-05 00:24:01 - [Del]

JBoyd

82.26.218.132

20071231_1204

Is it? Really?

Literally, no, but I was reading you rhetorically.

Yes, evolution has an element of chance. Actually, it has several: the neutral genetic mechanisms, plus the contingency in historic events. I know that shit. But having an element of chance is not the same thing as being random. Galloway did not say "evolution has an element of chance," and I am not convinced that your interpretation is what Galloway intended. If you're right though, then what Galloway is saying is that we have survived lots of chance events to be in the incredibly improbable position that we are now in. But improbable events like that aren't very interesting: any other combination of chance events would be equally improbable, but one of them had to happen. It's hugely improbable that right now I am sitting in Dorset having done all the things that I've done, rather than in one of the many other locations this world has to offer, and having done one of the vast number of other potential combinations of things that I could have done. Had somebody predicted my biography several decades ago, ending with me sitting here in Dorset at 6pm on the 4th of January 2007, that would be interesting. Had they predicted that at 6pm on the 4th of January 2007 I would be somewhere doing something, having done some other things, that would not be interesting. To get here, we have won a lottery in which there were lots of players, many of which would have speculated on the improbability of their existence, had their existed.

Well obviously Galloway's words are open to various interpretations, and I'm not sure which is correct. Where we differ, is probably that I do think that 'improbable events' are very interesting.

Why? Why what? I guess that's the problem: I'm not convinced that's even a question, let alone one that has been answered

Again, I think that's a difference of personal interest or intellectual type (born scientists versus born arts/humanities/philosophy people). For me I can accept all the scientific explanations as fact, but want really interests me is why when you go back to absolute basics, things obey consistent and universal laws. The purely scientific explanation of how we got here requires an 'ordered' universe, and the question 'why is it ordered?' seems to me to be the crucial one.

Posted at 2008-01-04 19:08:09 - [Ban] - [Del]

Joe D

Bristol, England

20071231_1204

Describing someone as incapable of doing something is not, I accept, saying that they should be barred from doing it, but it's only a couple of steps away.

Is it? Really? In that case there an awful lot of people in this country who are a couple of steps away from thinking that half of parliament should be barred. Perhaps that's why democracy is the worst possible system of government (apart from all the others): the tyranny of the majority is only a couple of steps away from intolerance.

I'm not sure that 'wilful ignorance' is accurate, actually; in either philosophical or 'commonsense' terms evolution can reasonably be said to involve an element of 'chance'. To take a current example, if the Red Squirrel becomes extinct in this country, it will be because the introduction of the Grey Squirrel; the fact that there is a clear causal chain of events, doesn't mean that something that looks very much like 'luck' is involved.

Yes, evolution has an element of chance. Actually, it has several: the neutral genetic mechanisms, plus the contingency in historic events. I know that shit. But having an element of chance is not the same thing as being random. Galloway did not say "evolution has an element of chance," and I am not convinced that your interpretation is what Galloway intended. If you're right though, then what Galloway is saying is that we have survived lots of chance events to be in the incredibly improbable position that we are now in. But improbable events like that aren't very interesting: any other combination of chance events would be equally improbable, but one of them had to happen. It's hugely improbable that right now I am sitting in Dorset having done all the things that I've done, rather than in one of the many other locations this world has to offer, and having done one of the vast number of other potential combinations of things that I could have done. Had somebody predicted my biography several decades ago, ending with me sitting here in Dorset at 6pm on the 4th of January 2007, that would be interesting. Had they predicted that at 6pm on the 4th of January 2008 I would be somewhere doing something, having done some other things, that would not be interesting. To get here, we have won a lottery in which there were lots of players, many of which would have speculated on the improbability of their existence, had their existed.

Moreover, most people who agree with Galloway (and I'm one) regardless of their religious affiliation, would accept that evolution explains 'how' but not 'why'.

Why? Why what? I guess that's the problem: I'm not convinced that's even a question, let alone one that has been answered.

Posted at 2008-01-04 18:27:34 - [Del]

JBoyd

82.26.218.132

20071231_1204

Oh, and by the way: "disbarred"? I hope we're not misunderstanding each other. To clarify, I'm not talking about banning anybody from standing, merely stating the terms under which I'd be prepared to give somebody my vote. You may be incompetent, you may argue that the holocaust is a fiction, you may campaign for sharia law, you may be convinced that the world is run by a secret reptilian conspiracy, you may stand as a candidate for the legalise rape party or drown kittens in your party political broadcast. Go ahead and ask for my vote. Just don't accuse me of intolerance when you don't get it.

I was going on the basis of:

Such ignorance of science is itself sufficient reason to question a member's ability to make decisions in parliament, considering the sort of issues that parliament is asked to consider.

Describing someone as incapable of doing something is not, I accept, saying that they should be barred from doing it, but it's only a couple of steps away, which, whilst I agree with your description of democracy seems to me to be the start of a slippery slope.

Finally, how relevant is any individual's religious belief to the process of political decision-making?

Who mentioned religious belief?

I think you refer to debates about whether Galloway is a 'creationist' and/or 'verging on the religious fundamentalist'

If you're referring to Galloway's willful ignorance of science

I'm not sure that 'wilful ignorance' is accurate, actually; in either philosophical or 'commonsense' terms evolution can reasonably be said to involve an element of 'chance'. To take a current example, if the Red Squirrel becomes extinct in this country, it will be because the introduction of the Grey Squirrel; the fact that there is a clear causal chain of events, doesn't mean that something that looks very much like 'luck' is not involved.

Moreover, most people who agree with Galloway (and I'm one) regardless of their religious affiliation, would accept that evolution explains 'how' but not 'why'. Most modern Christians would accept that the 'Creationist' stuff about the Earth being 6000 years old is nonsense and read Genesis metaphorically rather than literally. This is why the cosmologists' metaphor of the 'Mind of God' is so significant.

If you want to see where atheistic humanism can take you in relation to climate change, have a look at what the 'Spiked!' crowd have to say about it.

Oh? And what do Spiked have to say on the connection between atheistic humanism and climate change? I searched, but couldn't find any relevant articles.

Have a look at this

and this

I disagree entirely with the 'Spiked' view on environmentalism (and I'd imagine, from things you've said previously that you would too); my point is that neither atheistic humanism or christianity preclude or dictate any particular position on this question.

Posted at 2008-01-04 17:22:45 - [Ban] - [Del]

Joe D

Bristol, England

20071231_1204

Firstly, it's inevitably elitist: whether you define 'basic educational standards' as five GCSEs, or a Ph.D., or the ability to speak English with a degree of grammatical correctness, the fact is that a substantial proportion of the population will be disbarred from political office as a result - and given that educational attainment is determined primarily bysocio -economic status, that would effectively be a step backwards to the days when political power was the preserve of the upper and middle classes.

Well, if it's elitist to expect the people who make decisions on my behalf to know the things that they themselves are saying twelve-year-olds should know, then count me in. I'm not expecting politicians to know everything, and I don't care whether they did well at school (I happen to believe that adults, regardless of class, are not incapable of picking up knowledge). At the very least, it would be nice if they were able to admit when they were incapable of making an informed decision and read up on the issue, rather than making a fool of themselves on the radio.

Oh, and by the way: "disbarred"? I hope we're not misunderstanding each other. To clarify, I'm not talking about banning anybody from standing, merely stating the terms under which I'd be prepared to give somebody my vote. You may be incompetent, you may argue that the holocaust is a fiction, you may campaign for sharia law, you may be convinced that the world is run by a secret reptilian conspiracy, you may stand as a candidate for the legalise rape party or drown kittens in your party political broadcast. Go ahead and ask for my vote. Just don't accuse me of intolerance when you don't get it.

Second, because any definition of 'basic educational standards' is necessarily subjective, because definitions of knowledge also involve subjectivity: you might argue that Galloway's stated views on evolution should disbar him; I could argue that anyone who accepts RichardDawkins ' view of history is equally ignorant of 'fact' and should be prohibited from positions of political power. Others would claim with equal conviction that it is a 'fact' that capitalism is the only effective model of economic activity and that anyone who thinks otherwise should be excluded from office. Which of those positions is strongest isn't the issue: it's the fact that they all turn on individual judgement, and, to a degree, conscience.

So what? We vote for the people whose ideas we decide most resemble reality on the issues that we personally consider important. That's what democracy is all about. It's not perfect, but it's the best we have. Because none of us are capable of being experts in everything we occasionally have to judge candidates on the stupid things that they say on those topics that we are knowledgeable on. That, apparently, makes democracy intolerant?

Finally, how relevant is any individual's religious belief to the process of political decision-making?

Who mentioned religious belief? If you're referring to Galloway's willful ignorance of science (and now you mention it, I am sure that you are right in concluding that religious belief is the cause), then that sort of religious belief is very relevant when there are negative consequences of its conflict with reality. Religion does not have a monopoly on this, of course: other reality-conflicting beliefs of consequence, from homeopathy to racial supremacy, would also worry me. Religious beliefs of the Tony Benn or Lord Winston variety, meanwhile, are of minimal consequence, and do not especially worry me.

If you want to see where atheistic humanism can take you in relation to climate change, have a look at what the 'Spiked!' crowd have to say about it.

Oh? And what do Spiked have to say on the connection between atheistic humanism and climate change? I searched, but couldn't find any relevant articles.

And it's arguable that without religion, we wouldn't have any education......

I can see you're dying to give it a go.

Posted at 2008-01-03 21:26:32 - [Del]

JBoyd

82.26.218.132

20071231_1204

Really? Is a knowledge of cricket essential for making informed decisions making on everything from health through education to climate change? Why do you think that demanding basic educational standards from our politicians is intollerant?

Firstly, it's inevitably elitist: whether you define 'basic educational standards' as five GCSEs, or a Ph.D., or the ability to speak English with a degree of grammatical correctness, the fact is that a substantial proportion of the population will be disbarred from political office as a result - and given that educational attainment is determined primarily by socio-economic status, that would effectively be a step backwards to the days when political power was the preserve of the upper and middle classes.

Second, because any definition of 'basic educational standards' is necessarily subjective, because definitions of knowledge also involve subjectivity: you might argue that Galloway's stated views on evolution should disbar him; I could argue that anyone who accepts Richard Dawkins' view of history is equally ignorant of 'fact' and should be prohibited from positions of political power. Others would claim with equal conviction that it is a 'fact' that capitalism is the only effective model of economic activity and that anyone who thinks otherwise should be excluded from office. Which of those positions is strongest isn't the issue: it's the fact that they all turn on individual judgement, and, to a degree, conscience.

Finally, how relevant is any individual's religious belief to the process of political decision-making? If you want to see where atheistic humanism can take you in relation to climate change, have a look at what the 'Spiked!' crowd have to say about it. And it's arguable that without religion, we wouldn't have any education......

Posted at 2008-01-02 22:26:01 - [Ban] - [Del]

Joe D

Bristol, England

20071231_1204

Really? Is a knowledge of cricket essential for making informed decisions making on everything from health through education to climate change? Why do you think that demanding basic educational standards from our politicians is intollerant?

I think a far better analogy for my decision is the biologist John Maynard Smith's decision that the Soviet Union were up to no good in the 1950s. For a long time JMS couldn't quite believe it -- after all, the Western media would say that the Soviet Union were up to no good, wouldn't they? He was only convinced of the fact that they were up to no good when they imposed censorship of genetics in favour of a pseudoscience backed by a Soviet politician called Lysenko (and a huge crop failure and famine followed). On this matter JMS knew that it was not a Western media fabrication, and he knew it was a very bad thing and would lead to disaster.

Posted at 2008-01-02 06:18:21 - [Del]

JBoyd

82.26.218.132

20071231_1204

Crikey, I thought that those of us on the God-bothering side of the fence were supposed to have a monopoly on intolerance!

And deciding George Galloway is beyond the pale on the basis of this comment is a bit like saying that you weren't sure about John Major until you read his book about cricket and disagreed with it......

Posted at 2008-01-01 21:15:30 - [Ban] - [Del]

mvanes

michaelvanes.com

michaelvanes01@hotmail.com

86.157.105.57

bristol

Hey wakemeup, I'm hopefully going to Bristol in September (2008) for study as well, what do you think of the city so far? From a newbie's perspective.

Posted at 2007-12-21 20:41:50 - [Ban] - [Del]

Rosemary Reavell

angels3@aapt.net.au

59.100.211.228

hampshire

Lovely photographs of a wonderful county. I spent my childhood in the village of Hartley Wintney, and some of these pictures just reinforce my memories.

Posted at 2007-11-08 15:15:05 - [Ban] - [Del]

Joe D

Bristol, England

20071105_1316

Thanks. "Increase wealth" is indeed the desired result. "Free market" is often the simple surrogate though!

Posted at 2007-11-05 13:39:56 - [Del]

Martin

www.badscience.net

81.139.80.114

20071105_1316

Good stuff there about needing to define the ethics rather than surrogate metrics.

Not that I'm an Economist fan or anything, but their argument is that the fair trade and/or organic foods fail [i]by their own metrics[/i], because they haven't thought through the consequences.

And you may have just been paraphrasing, but the Economist's mantra is "increase wealth" rather than just 'free markets'. Whether wealth is more or less important than, say, wit or courage is as you say an empircal (or arbitrary?) matter.

Posted at 2007-11-05 13:34:58 - [Ban] - [Del]

jdc

http://jdc325.wordpress.com/

internet_gubbins@yahoo.co.uk

91.84.15.190

20071019_0025

Good stuff Joe!

Posted at 2007-10-19 09:10:59 - [Ban] - [Del]

Joe D

Bristol, England

20070926_1723

Oh wow! I hit "Save" on this item, and went to make more tea, only to hear Eddie on BBC Radio 4's PM programme faithfully reproducing this press release!

Posted at 2007-09-26 17:44:25 - [Del]

Lapsus Kalamari

the.mercian@virgin.net

86.31.250.156

20070719_1607

Joe Dunckley:

You are right: The "Moral Maze" argument in favor of sweatshops is very similar to those that were used to condone slavery

Posted at 2007-08-08 16:18:33 - [Ban] - [Del]

Geoff

http://www.bristolrowing.co.uk

gtvlusso@hotmail.co.uk

193.36.79.207

bristol

Lovely pics, really makes you appreciate the place you live in - puts a new dimension on the places I cycle past everyday. Fancy photographing the rowing club in the floating harbour, regatta is on the 26th Aug 2007....

Posted at 2007-08-07 13:54:54 - [Ban] - [Del]

wakemeup

124.79.181.25

bristol

The site is lovely. i will go to bristol for study this sept. Cheers

Posted at 2007-07-08 08:15:13 - [Ban] - [Del]

Doodle

84.48.86.58

20070514_1748

OT:

There's something wrong with the EvoWiki. When I try to search for something, I get this error:

Database error

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

(SQL query hidden)

from within function "". MySQL returned error "1016: Can't open file: 'searchindex.MYI' (errno: 145) (localhost)".

Posted at 2007-06-26 11:12:23 - [Ban] - [Del]

Hana

doOb-pB@hotmail.com

125.24.23.233

bristol

Yeah!! this site is great!

Posted at 2007-06-08 15:01:55 - [Ban] - [Del]

David Bradley

http://www.sciencebase.com

science999@lineone.net

81.98.247.32

20070514_1748

Science in the movies isn't all bad. I interviewed several scientists who consult for Hollywood about the demands and the results. You can read the archived feature on Sciencebase - http://www.sciencebase.com/movie_physics.html

Posted at 2007-06-07 15:20:13 - [Ban] - [Del]

Trackback from digitaltoast

130

Marcus Brigstocke from The Now Show on Fox Hunting

So, the hunt ban took more parliamentary time than ANYTHING since the war.

Here’s Marcus Brigstocke from The Now Show giving a view which comes across as surprising for a lefty comedian, but in fact he presents a nicely balance case. Click below ...

Posted at 2007-06-07 13:20:50 by 216.118.97.153 - [Ban] - [Del]

Joe D

Bristol, England

162

Oops, I accidently deteled this reply when cleaning up spam. Originally posted in October 2006:

First: a quick disclaimer: I am not "the editor" of EvoWiki, I host it, and wrote a few (mostly genetics) articles several years ago. The majority of content is written by other editors. Also, this is probably not the best of places to discuss this topic, but I'll give one reply -- any further discussion should probably be taken somewhere like talk.origins.

The reason EvoWiki is "biased" towards evolution is because the evidence is strongly "biased" towards evolution. Science is not something that gets decided by debates, trials or democracy, it is something that gets decided by observations and experiments tested and re-tested and published in journals, and it is EvoWiki's goal to present the issue from the point of view of the published work and the scientists that actually work in the relevant fields.

Genetics is a fascinating field that very enjoyable to study. If you choose to get into it you will find that evolution is central to genetics and the two reinforce each other. You will likely not even find intelligent design mentioned, let alone taken seriously. It will not be mentioned in journal articles or casually dropped into lectures. Within biology there is no other "viewpoint".

It's great that you're getting involved in this topic and reading about it. I remember taking a similar view myself when I was about 15. I was thoroughly sceptical about creationism but believed there was a genuine controversy there, and classified it along with ethics controversies as something where it's only fair to present "both sides".

I've been intending to write a post on the topic of the legitimacy of creationism for a long time, so when I have a little more time I'll try to elaborate on this.

Posted at 2007-04-09 16:33:48 - [Del]

Ann Harrison

staffies@xtra.co.nz

125.237.229.126

avon_gorge

I came to New Zealand 31yrs ago, I am still living here , it was good to look at your site and see how things have altered.I have never been able to return (lack of funds), so what I found on your excellent web site was great,it brought back lots of memories.I was born in Totterdown.

Thankyou.

Posted at 2007-04-04 05:52:37 - [Ban] - [Del]

talitha

humpt008@wsgfl.org.uk

88.111.110.253

dorset

Lovely pictures and I have used this site lots of times now

once again the pictures are butiful

best regards

talitha

Posted at 2007-02-05 19:06:38 - [Ban] - [Del]

Len Strong

leonastro@btinternet.com

213.40.67.66

hampshire

Brought back many memories. great stuff

Posted at 2007-01-25 21:12:40 - [Ban] - [Del]

Hampshire Hog in Kiwiland

franki-mo@paradise.net.nz

210.246.12.247

hampshire

Terrific, but you've made me homesick, darn it! ;-)

Posted at 2007-01-25 00:43:17 - [Ban] - [Del]

marieness

{{{location}}}

cincinnati

(Marie from Moo)---Wow, Joey! Some of your shots are amazing. The most mundane visuals are somehow transformed into something quite grand and majestic. Teach me! ^_~

Posted at 2007-01-14 17:47:23 - [Del]

Koste

213.158.19.16

bristol

Very beautiful!

Posted at 2007-01-02 19:09:57 - [Ban] - [Del]

Stuart Morris

chesil1@yahoo.co.uk

84.67.211.52

{{{name}}}

This shows possibly Dorset's biggest Planning mistake of the last 20 years. A beautiful spot, this clifftop site arguably the best vantage point for the eastern part of Dorset's Jurassic Coast. The stone stack is Nicodemus Knob, a historic landmark feature - much photographed. The hideous dump is on a former RN playing field, and it was GRANTED PLANNING PERMISSION!

Believe it or not it is a SSSI</B>. Where else would Planners allow such mess? Sometime common sense will prevail; it MUST be cleared away and this priceless landscape restored to Nature. Just look at the view beyond.

See book Portland; a Portrait in Colour andhttp://www.dovecotepress.com/erol.html#1X0

Posted at 2006-11-27 21:43:08 - [Ban] - [Del]

Rachel (student)

88.105.187.162

photos

fantastic realy beautiful

Posted at 2006-11-26 13:54:27 - [Ban] - [Del]

Meg Redman

alienredhead1@hotmail.com

84.67.207.41

{{{name}}}

i used to live on this farm, its lovely - shame i had to move away :(

Posted at 2006-11-23 16:44:02 - [Ban] - [Del]

Joe

www.cotch.net

82.33.115.192

{{{name}}}

Really? I just realised I haven't been down that way since this shot was taken a year and a half ago...

Posted at 2006-11-14 20:44:16 - [Ban] - [Del]

tony

tony@bbsltd.f9.co.uk

87.112.77.192

{{{name}}}

now a beautiful trio of holiday cottages.

Posted at 2006-11-12 12:53:59 - [Ban] - [Del]

{{{nick}}}

195.224.207.61

blackmore_vale

i do love stalbridge

Posted at 2006-11-07 20:20:25 - [Ban] - [Del]

Joshua Spivak

115971@trinity.vic.edu.au

202.7.176.132

125

Where is the location of the graveyard?

Posted at 2006-11-07 09:39:41 - [Ban] - [Del]

Joe

www.cotch.net

spam@cotch.net

82.33.115.192

{{{name}}}

It's somewhere off to the left. Don't worry, it's not inside the almshouses!

Posted at 2006-10-21 20:27:45 - [Ban] - [Del]

Ilona Clear

brilonaclear@tele2.fr

212.96.66.225

{{{name}}}

where is the fish and chip restaurant?

Posted at 2006-10-21 14:48:28 - [Ban] - [Del]

May

Klichtbrann@yahoo.com

209.232.116.100

162

I think that you have made the evowiki completely biased on pro-evolution. I wasn't sure to to tell this to, but since you're the 'editor' of the website, i thik that you really shoud fix that error.

I am not against evolution, in fact, I completely support is and plan to go into genetics myself, but I don't think its right that you're writing about the topic of evolution and intelligent design and being biased about it. You should try giving the viewpoint from both prespective.

Posted at 2006-10-19 16:19:27 - [Ban] - [Del]

Jeff Vinter

http://www.railwayramblers.org.uk

webmaster@railwayramblers.org.uk

84.43.20.95

blackmore_vale

It would be worth returning to Fiddleford for a new photograph. The piers have been restored and a new span installed as part of the North Dorset Trailway, which is being developed along the old Somerset & Dorset Railway's trackbed by Dorset County, North Dorset District and East Dorset District Councils. The new span was planned to be in place by 30 September 2006.

Posted at 2006-10-06 07:53:56 - [Ban] - [Del]

Best Viewed With Any Browser!

All text on this site is � Joe D 2001-08, except where stated, see this page for conditions of use.

0.35070300102234 secs