indeed I am.

yeah!

nop

just sick

today I'm not pissed off ahahahah :D

i'm not pissed off but it's a bit depressing coming home from work in the dark now and it's so cold

visualise a unicorn!

ahh, thanks that helped :rolleyes:

yes, with myself.

"some people are shits, darling" William Burroughs

Four Australian teenagers were charged Thursday with attacking an almost blind greater flamingo that is believed to be the oldest bird of its kind in the world, police and zoo officials said. The flamingo's head and beak were injured and it was bleeding from an eye after the attack at Adelaide Zoo that left it in a critical condition, zoo staff said.
"The bird arrived at the zoo in 1933 and was a mature bird at that stage," a spokeswoman for the zoo told AFP. "So although we don't know it's exact age it is at least 75 years old -- much older than they grow in the wild."
The zoo's website describes the bird as "undoubtedly the oldest flamingo in the world," adding that despite its great age its quality of life was very good.

Police said four men aged between 17 and 19 were charged with aggravated ill-treatment of an animal and released on bail to appear in court at a later date.
Several people at the zoo at the time of the attack had spoken about the incident with staff and officers wanted to interview them, a spokesman said.
The elderly bird, described as unafraid of humans, had a habit of coming close to the edge of his enclosure.
Known only as Flamingo One, he was sedated after the attack and was taken to the animal hospital where his condition was reported to be improving.
"He's just an icon, he's the oldest resident of the zoo, he's just a symbol of the beauty of nature," said the zoo's chief executive Chris West.
Zoo officials said the shocking attack had left them concerned for the wellbeing of a second flamingo -- the older bird's only companion for more than 50 years.
Adelaide Zoo

ALBANY — The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy is hoping to convince local school districts and educators to randomly drug test students.
It's a movement that is sweeping the country and gaining support in many states, and advocates say it provides students a "credible reason to say no to drug use."
David Murray, chief scientist for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, said at a summit today at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in downtown Albany that random drug testing achieves a healthier and more productive school environment. He also said it's a powerful prevention and intervention tool for schools.
Murray said it is a misconception is that it's a way to punish students who use drugs.
"This is non-punitive. We are doing it to identify students who need help,' said Murray.
In fact, Murray said, it's a way to prevent adolescents from using drugs in the first place. He said substance abuse leads to violence, school failure, sexually abusive behavior, disrupts classrooms and is self-destructive.
"It's crucial to address drug use among adolescents between the ages of 12 and 18," said Murray. "The earlier drug use starts, the deeper the dependence on the drug later in life."
About 100 people attended the summit, including representatives from several local school districts, including Albany and North Colonie, as well as educators from the Albany Roman Catholic Diocese.
Opponents, including the Drug Policy Alliance, voiced concern and said studies have shown that drug testing is ineffective in deterring drug use.
"Drug testing breaks down relationships of trust," said Jennifer Kern, youth policy manager for the Drug Policy Alliance.
Kern said all credible research on substance abuse prevention points to eliminating sources of alienation and conflict between young people, their parents and schools, not creating them.
Other opponents say random drug testing is a violation of an individual's personal rights. Murray said the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that drug testing is not a violation but must be done confidentially.
More than 4,000 schools in the country have already begun their own random testing program.
Murray said the outcome of the presidential election will not have much affect on the push for student drug testing.
"My impression is that this is a movement that has lifted above partisanship," he said.

i am pissed off today

AUSTRALIA will join China in implementing mandatory censoring of the internet under plans put forward by the Federal Government.
The revelations emerge as US tech giants Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, and a coalition of human rights and other groups unveiled a code of conduct aimed at safeguarding online freedom of speech and privacy.

The government has declared it will not let internet users opt out of the proposed national internet filter.

The plan was first created as a way to combat child pronography and adult content, but could be extended to include controversial websites on euthanasia or anorexia.

Communications minister Stephen Conroy revealed the mandatory censorship to the Senate estimates committee as the Global Network Initiative, bringing together leading companies, human rights organisations, academics and investors, committed the technology firms to "protect the freedom of expression and privacy rights of their users".

Mr Conroy said trials were yet to be carried out, but "we are talking about mandatory blocking, where possible, of illegal material."

The net nanny proposal was originally going to allow Australians who wanted uncensored access to the web the option of contacting their internet service provider to be excluded from the service.

Human Rights Watch has condemned internet censorship, and argued to the US Senate "there is a real danger of a Virtual Curtain dividing the internet, much as the Iron Curtain did during the Cold War, because some governments fear the potential of the internet, (and) want to control it"
Groups including the System Administrators Guild of Australia and Electronic Frontiers Australia have attacked the proposal, saying it would unfairly restrict Australians' access to the web, slow internet speeds and raise the price of internet access.
EFA board member Colin Jacobs said it would have little effect on illegal internet content, including child pornography, as it would not cover file-sharing networks.

there are lots of petitions around at the moment for this. It is total bollox, though its been trying to get up for over two years. First it was an opt out filter, now they're tryingn to make it mandatory. I mean wtf. If I want to watch the midget porn I should be alllowed.

a little

Not pissed off, just feeling that 'I do so much for you and you can't even do this for me' kind of anger.

I know that feeling, phoenix. Been through it a bit recently meself.