St Landrew

Well the potential new stadium revelation by members here proved to be a red herring. Nicola basically didn't rule it out in the future, but there is very much more real attention being turned to making St Marys a better venue. And on that front, it was nice to hear that the railway line, running by the stadium, was mentioned, and is being looked at for the efficient bringing in of supporters and taking them away.

Post your comments here.

Post your comments here COYR.

Post your comments here. COYR.

Perhaps those who can understand and do speak Swedish, could do a summary of what Anders said, putting in a bit of nice detail where he references Saints players and managers. Cheers

My reaction is f****** hell..! Surely you're joking..? Link..? :smt119

Star Trek III - The Search for Spock Once again, I hadn't seen this Star Trek film for several years, and I've just finished watching it. For one of those less celebrated Star Trek films, it isn't bad at all. Tbh, I'd forgotten how good it was, and I quite enjoyed it. It doesn't have the excitement of the previous film, but it's fine entertainment, all the same. A pre-Back to the Future-Christopher Lloyd showed a bit of class, as the villainous Klingon Kruge, and Robin Curtis took over the role of Saavik. In all honesty, she made a much better job of it too, even though she wasn't quite as welcome in the eye-candy department. Which leads me to the bit of trivia I know about this one. Apparently, Kirstie Alley thought, after appearing in one film, that she could command a much higher salary for the next one. When she was offered less than what she thought she deserved, and turned the first offer down, the producers just re-cast the role. She may have been pretty good in the TV series, Cheers, but I always thought she was pretty wooden as Lt Saavik. Ah well, onto saving whales.

emboldened

Kirsty

Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan Ended up watching this last night, as it is a quick 110 minutes. Like the first picture, I probably haven't watched this in perhaps 10 years. If the original picture was awful, this was sublime. Agreed, Ricardo Montalbán is delightfully evil, and manages to get it just right. In fact, he's exactly like his original arrogant character in the TOS episode Space Seed, with the additional necessary bitterness thrown in. All the regular cast do their usual pleasing Star Trek stuff, and apart from the odd peculiar phrase in the script [i was watching the Director's Cut, and it's better, IMO], the film is excellent entertainment. The special effects have dated a wee bit, but it's really only noticeable when the instrument displays are shown. The outside scenes of the ships, when they are maneuvering, and firing, are perfectly watchable, and capture the excitement and grandeur of the ships and space. Of course, the Genesis scenes are always good. The story itself, is a cracker, and any Star Trek episode is enhanced when it draws on the history of the canon, and with Khan they hit the jackpot. Bits of Khan trivia: Kirstie Alley jumps when Shatner smashes the security glass on the locker. She wasn't supposed to, but they left it in. Khan never met Chekov on-screen, as the episode Space Seed was part of the 1st series of TOS. Walter Koenig [Chekov] joined the cast in the 2nd series. So Khan never even forgets a face he has never seen, it appears. It has since been explained that Khan saw Chekov during his stay on the Enterprise, but they are simply off-screen moments. I think we can forgive that little mistake. What I always have a little chuckle at is just after Khan tells all that he never forgets a face, he bodily lifts Chekov up with the full extension of his arm. Then puts him down. You don't have to be eagle-eyed to see that Khan lifts Chekov and then pulls him down. The people on the lifting wires were a tad out of sync there. Great fun though.

I never dream about football, but last night, I dreamed I was watching a game about Saints playing european opposition. It was pretty much our present side, but just behind the strikers was Marian Pahars. He whizzed all over the park, and at times went into the crowd to get the ball back, and was man of the match. He was interviewed afterwards too, and he replied to every question in his thoughtful way. Saints played in their original red sash strip. It was quite good fun.

must dash

Treat

Star Trek - The Motion Picture I thought I'd have a go through all the Star Trek films over the next week or more. Currently, I'm watching the first of them, and oh boy, is it wooden and slow. I remember being disappointed with it at the time, and the years haven't been kind to it. There's nothing wrong with the story. There's nothing wrong with the characterisation, the props, the special effects. The problem is the adventure could have been wrapped up in a two-part TV programme of around 100 minutes [original series episodes were 50 minutes long]. At around 2¼ hours it's dirge like, and without the pace and action of the original series, it has lost almost everything to attract it. I remember the second film of the series was a huge improvement.

Roger

Night of the demon

Tbf to others, Deanovski, and all joking aside, we don't know CLEARLY what you meant. You really should have a read through before you submit your posts on this subject, if you want a sympathetic response. Otherwise, you will receive a few posts that you don't want to read. Only trying to help.

Do you find you often mistake people for others..? This is the bloke the police want to speak to.

Essential ingredient in the Greek dish Spanakopita, and as such, is invaluable. Also currys well.

Indeed Agreed. I thought Liam Neeson was very good though.

Yes, I'm aware of scientific method, Ponty. I know that theories only stand up if they can withstand overwhelming knocking. I've done some research myself, so I've been through the scientific method. The problem I have with space science is that it postulates from the pulpit, almost as much as any religion. When really, the truth is, is that they very often don't really know. Interestingly, if you find a medical science book, where you can ask questions on what makes things tick in the body, very quickly, after delving through various layers, you come to the phrase... we don't know. I think that's refreshing [if a little worrying]. If we asked a group of cosmologists to be brutally honest, and tell us what they actually know to be 100% true, I think many people might be surprised by how little is actually 100%, and how much is theory. To listen to them go on sometimes, you'd think everything was mapped out and all we have to do is discover it.

Congas

Trust [me, I know what I'm doing]

Watched Horizon: Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong?, yesterday evening [Tuesday]. I know I'm not remotely qualified to express an opinion on cosmology, because I just don't have the mathematics but... ...to see the scientists twist and turn, when the Big Bang Universe doesn't conform to the old model just makes me chuckle. Like others, with fine, everyday arithmetic, but no genius level numbers, I can easily follow the concepts, but don't start writing those algebriac variables on the blackboard, because I'll foam at the mouth. So even though I'm not remotely qualified, I'll give it a go. I can see the astronomers desperately trying to keep BB on-track, and on-track it stays, a lot of the time. But when it doesn't they invent Dark Matter, which apparently makes up at least two-thirds of the [known] Universe. OK, the data, and the maths, suggest DM is there, and so they go with it. Actually, more accurately, I believe the maths don't work unless they put it in there. But then they reach another loophole where the data and maths don't fit anymore, and so Dark Energy comes along. The problem is, the expanding universe isn't slowing up, as it should. It's actually accelerating in pockets of space. So here is a way to explain it. DE makes up for 74% of the total mass and energy in the Universe; which includes that previous two-thirds amount of DM. Finally, along comes Dark Flow. By this time I almost wanted the cosmologist who proposed it, to have suggested a DF without the final W, because Dark Flo sounds like quite a girl. DF consists of data found during a study from 2008 where certain galaxies in a sector of Space were found to be all travelling in the same direction, rather than randomly heading away from the Big Bang. Ultimately, we have mass, movement and direction. I'm not knocking cosmology, and I'm not knocking scientists. I suppose what I am knocking is the attitude, and maybe the method. There is this firm belief in the scientific world that what is discovered today is the absolute truth. Once, the World was at the centre of the Universe, until Copernicus gathered ancient data and added his own, to postulate that it wasn't. That eventually became the truth then, and today's truth is the truth, for today. I sometimes have this feeling that astronomers and cosmologists are going down that world-in-centre avenue and are patching it up as much as they can. It makes you wonder if it isn't time to take a fresh look. As one of the interviewed said, perhaps we should be looking at it, face value..? Is everything we know about the Universe wrong? Could be. BTW, not a bad Horizon at all, but I do wish they would stop reiterating what they've already said 5 minutes previously. We got it first time around. We are not from the USA, so once is enough.

Oh sorry. I didn't realise they closed the loophole.