We seem to have forgot about the personalities of these two legend's.

Yes I can see why some people may think Noel is better for his solo and grouped addition to recent music compared with John Lennon's ancient (in music terms) rock and roll and Beatles rock (Don't want to call it pop.)

However Lennon's quick wit and charismatic personalities dwarf's Noels slow/boring replies to interviewers whilst chewing gum as if he is on a life support machine.

Examples of both Noel's and Johns interviews and personalities can be seen on youtube, make your decision on who's the funny guy from them.

In conclusion both are seen by many as making great music and so I will have to use this as the basis to decide who is better.

Noel is reported to have said to NME magazine when questioned about his relation to John Lennon, that, I quote.

"That scouser t* copied us all the way from Cigarettes and Alcohol to the Green Album. He's copied our sound so many times he may as well be in our band instead of being "supposedly" in a totally different band called the 'Bugs' or 'Beetles' or something stupid and related to animals..."

Noel isn't dead yet. so he cannot be a true legend.

More points are awarded if they are killed unwillingly. (As in Johns case, other examples are Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison,George Harrison, Davy Jones,Keith Moon, Freddie Mercury and Brian Jones. To name a few... )

Deduct points if they committed suicide (Examples Ian Curtis, Kurt Cobain and some other losers)

Exemptions to this system of legends are: Bob Dylan.

Explanation:

Bob Dylan will never die and so he is automatically a legend.

Evidence:

This can be proved by his survival ability to the amount of drugs and cigarettes he has taken over the years what have had no effect, what so ever.

Yes.

I tried putting that in and it read this... (The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible)

Of course its going to be a major positive towards Londons economy and Englands on a whole

You have new facilities being built what should be avaliable for use after the olympics. The obvious first positive is the coverage of the events and the amount of tourists it will bring to London, this will increase business in hotels,resteraunts, shops.

It will also bring alot of profit it to the wise people who have rented their house out for spectators.

Then your going to get the tourists who think "oh I like London, its a really nice place, I think I will come back here in a few years and see if that wierd fellow is still Mayor" so thats going to bring sustained profit into London particularly but also tourists might want to explore the rest of England (Not sure if they are hosting any events outside of London)

Its late and I have probably missed things out (Like I always do)

I will add to this tomorrow, maybe.

Iron was just an example to get my point towards you.

Can you first explain to me why "valuable" minerals need older rocks? as I can not see why it is important.

My point is that minerals originate from plate margins and so your going to find minerals there.

Ive done some reading into your side-arguement of the iron ore and the "anomyl" of Germany's iron mines

Germany got most of its iron ore from Sweden in WW2 which is bordered with a divergent (constructive) plate divide also a covergent (deconstructive) plate can be found in the Mediterranean, I will post a link up to prove this, please in your counter dispute put a link as evidence for these "larger iron mines"

This arguement is nothing to do with you Anthony and my "childish" comments are to add humour. also take a look at the link to prove you wrong.

I meant mineral mines, there are still going to be new minerals such as iron in "new rock" as there is in "old rock" and also you get rocks from quarries not mines.

What Claude and James Experience?

Your addition of the volcanic ash making the land fertile is good and i am annoyed i forgot to include it.

Yours Sincerely

Roger the Shrubber

To get away from you.

I think its all down to what kind of person you are and what job you have, if you work in industry/labour your going to go to a town with things such as mines and other industries based around this, mines being my example as minerals are usually found at plate margins.

So if you move to a city/town for that reason your going to have work but your also going to be faced with the threat of earthquakes and volcanoes.

Some nature lovers might move to a place where natural disasters occur as the tectonic plates create mountain ranges etc at destructive plate margins.

Obviously climatic hazards are exempt from this unless you are a storm-chaser...

Please dispute if i have missed anything out.

Private medical businesses wont help out at freewill in a natural hazard, if they do they will surely have a big cheque from the government backing them and I doubt that private medical businesses will be attending the clean-up of a natural hazard its a government job.

And politicians dont always think about the people,they think about how much money they have left.

Yes the healthcare system is already present in MEDCs, however all medical equipment used must be replaced such as drugs and antibiotics, surgical equipment isnt a issue as it can be sterilized, this will all go onto a bill at the end of the day and the government has to pay.

I also agree that saving the people comes first but money is also a issue with countries especially LEDCs.