Frank's cousin

You need more than 2 people because that way no one can tell who is pushing the darn thing - seriously, You answered your quetsion yourself. I take it your GG was close to your GA and as susch was quite emotionally driven as a result of her death? Would it be wrong to suggest there was an emotional irrationality followinga bereavement than ment he might have wanted to believe in spiritualism? I am not qualified to administer chemotherapy, but having woked with opinion leading oncologists and clinical data for over 15 years, I could tell you the first line treatmnet regimen for treating Hepatocellular carcinoma, which drug combinations, the protocol, side effect management etc - and the odds on a prognoisis depending on the patient type and when they presented eg. I know how it works so I would and frequently have these conversations with those that do treat patients - and my opinion is not any less valid because it is absed on knowledge - as in this case I have read about the whole spiritualism issue in detail and just knowing the factual historyu of how it came about is enough to tell you its all bunkum - the methodology is simply teh same tricks as any good magician would use - preparation and planning + misdirection and often slight of hand - what makes it bad is that they ALL con people, often at emotional times out of money - it is in effect Fraud.

aye you crap your pants and cant explain why? Seriously you are having me on right? ALL of spiritualism WAS INVENTED to make money The history is well documented. This is a FACT that is lost on those determined to hear form the dead and ignored by those who exploit the gullable for cash. The 'creepy' feeling is a normal biological repsonse to the conditions and 'warm up' before these sessions. Sergei, please you sound like a rational bloke, but this is truely nonsense.... if nothing else it is a brilliant demonstration of easily it is to get people to believe in garbage if you market it correctly - Scientology is another one - only invented by Hubbard in the 50s, now a billion dollar business. If you want to read up on the bunkum of spiritulism I can get you some references, seriously I see it as my 'calling' if you like to disseminate the truth on this

Always remember the old Mike Reid (Frank Butcher) joke ..... ''took th car to a Jewish Garage and asked tehm to Simoniz it......they took 2 inches off the exhaust'' boom boom

Not sure about betweeting but that made me p i s s myself laughing - top post:lol:

I think in part it all depends on what we classify as 'indoctrination' - Which sounds heavy but the earlier video of Dawkins look at labelling is perhaps indicative what/why VFTT is so against it - It is typical to assign labels to young kids when in reality they are just kids, but label stick and so does the parental teaching - I think its clear that there is a huge scale here - from downright fundementalism to simple 'christian values' - For me its more about whether whatever is taught has any impact no matter how small on an individual to make a clear choice when rational enough to do so - and how much of a legacy is left from early childhood teachings with respect to belief... If we are advocating a free choice, then IMHO, teaching a child a single belief system is wrong as the good values that most belief systems do advocate can be taught without any association to the belief system. The scale of this eg numbers impacted on obviously varies and in the UK its probably quite limited, but when you think of all those who are brought up in countries that are very stricht on these things or where its ingrained in culture, the numbers are pretty frightening.

yes...and a small no... it would be hypocritical and perhaps a lie to say I do not struggle with it - repsect wise - because it becomes such a paradox IMHO, how intelligent, well informed folk with obvious intelect believe in 'mumbo Jumbo' - lets say I strive to respect their views, but it sure is tricky. I can respect people though - even Tories , because only when you respect the opposition, can you demand respect for your opinion. As I say these are nice ideals but as I am only human, there are times when ideals and reality dont quite align. But I try..

... would add it there are some instances where discussion is perhaps halted early because beliefs transgress or influence their opinion on other subjects - negating the need for evidence... but I tend to avoid those folk

No issue on other matters all down to their rational, opinion on whatever subject they are talking about - as alluded to in the post, some of the folk I have spoken with can '**** on my intellect' and have been the source of much knowledge and learning - on a variety of subjects with the exception of the divine () - This for me is logical as I base my opinion on evidence - therefore if those who have faith have knowledge backed by evidence on any subject, their opinion on this must be taken as credible and informative - the only issue is the lack of evidence when they talk of the divine

The problem is Hypo, as alluded to before, that those like me who do not believe, base this on the complete lack of evidence and the irrational nature of belief in general - the fact that there is just as much evidence or rationality in believing in santa as there is in a devine being - so it is very difficult to present our stance without believing those of faith are bonkers, even if we agree that they have a right to hold such a view. Folk can be extremely intelligent and still hold irrational views, whether fear of house spiders or a belief in a devine being - I have met and discussed these things with devout folk who are far more intelligent than I am, far better and more eloquent at debate and have a deep philosophical insight into their own faith than I ever will... but even so they are still unable to present a case for the rational belief in a devine being against all the evidence for why they should not - its their need, which is fair enough - but they have still to explain why they have this need to fulfill them as a person. I do struggle not to show disrespect to those of faith - because as I said when you have no faith, its because you can not see any rational reason for it - thus its a 'crazy' concept.

Its a simple concept Budget - play within its limitations - survive and build - moral etc Budget - ignore it and believe you have a right to 20 players of higher quality than you can realy afford (especially when oweing shed loads) - immoral and cheating

...sadly since it was posted on here, I cant help but think of Ramirez. Mexico and Mike basset when thinking about this transfer - '3 cheers for Ramierez' everybody!

moaning about ticket sales for wigan is one thing - fair enough - but using it to rehash an old debate that decended into name claing and playground girly sn iggering seems churlish - specially when only desinged to wind up and score a few cheap points

Think about it rationally for a moment - in what environment have you experienced this - was it indoors at night with low light, maybe a bit of wind noise from outs side - everyone already 'excited' by the prospect, hairs standing up on back of neck in anticipation? or Outdoors mid day in the sunshine in the park? Humans are very suseptible to fear - adrenalin and the flight or fight response may not be necessary for running away from dangers of wild beast any more but its still very much a behavioural response to teh environment - we still feel on edge when its dark and lonely - even if there is no reason to do so - its hormonal nthing more.

Stars and galaxies.... We dont know for sure what is out there - but the difference between Science and Religion is Science accepts it does not have all the answers, creates hypotheses to test and eventually theories which stack up until new evidence comes along to change that paradigm - Whereas Religion says it KNOWS as a fact that God is 'out there' - omnipotent and all seeing - the 'celestial spy' as Dawkins puts it - based on no evidence whatsoever. Ouija boards/spiritualism - is a 19th century invention - 2 small girls play a game on guests by tapping on the ground, 2 knocks for yes, 1 for know and within weeks they are making money from it and within a generation spiritulism is a big business - a billion dollor business (as they say its always about the money).... sorry Sergei, you will ahve to do better than ouija boards Hypo, true that is a definition of faith and but what is it that compells folk to believe in the first place, what convinces them that there is any truth in the devine, other than what they have been told? - and a perceived 'need' to believe as a 'hope' system - Again Dawkins argues very well that what right do we have to 'hope' - why is it necessary and it seems a strange basis on which to establish a belief.

BUt Hypo, we are not talking about your personal experience, but the philosophical issue here - I would like Sergei to explain if possible what he understands with respect to evidence and whether he feels confident that there is any for the existance of God?

No have not done a ouija board which you do know started as a palour game dont you?

I doubt we are expecte dto be the guarrantor of a bologna loan - will never happen if that is the case - more that bolognas bank want to see evidence that Saints will be pating bologna and not defaulting so Bologna do not default... if it really is a case that bolgna want us to guarrantee tehir loan eg become liable - then this is dead - and rightly so

With all due respect, I am not sure your definition of 'evidence' would match mine.

I can see why you might have that imporession, but I do think there is a big difference between in effect disounting to fill seats - a negative and quite rightly flawed commercial model, and looking at the type of pricing models they have in Germany etc a greater scale that ensure a broader access bit to kids or thsoe on tighetr budgets. Say we did extend the stadium now and invested say 40mil to achieve a 42k capacity - base on the finances say in meant that we needed to ensure we not only met our existing comittments, + the loans for the cap ex but also wanted to ensure teh value was in INCREASED overall revenues. If the per game break even average was for arguments sake 900k that is 30000 at £30 average ticket price - now if we expanded and the break even figure was 1.2 mil a game we now need 40000 at £30 - my question to you would be if that 1.2 mil was achievd by offereing a wider range of ticket prices especially for kids and teh like or certain sections available at cheper rates to attract say younger les affluent fans - and there WAS demand for that meant we could average 40,000, would you say it was worth doing - given that the advantage is primarily greter access and building the fan base? I know what you and others have said in that the only justificatio should be whether an increase in capacity means increase in revenues to helps us develop as a club etc - and that's a fair point, but its should surely also be about growing the profile and status of the club an if that could be achieved without making a loss then is this so wrong a concept. Yes discounting is wrong, but a bigger price range is not discounting, its still a fixed model but one that is flexible enough to be accessable to a larger demographiccof potential fan - I say this as I do not believe we will ever be in a position where we can sell out 45k at £40-50 a ticket... or more in future. Yes the German model includes cheaper standing sections - but it works and means crowds are flourishing and tehir clubs are doing pretty well considering teh TV revenues are no where near as high as we get.

Fair point - but the if we take the Dawkins approach (which I have to say does make a lot of sense to me) is that you DO need to ensure that when teaching say the issues GOd and Evolution that you assign the correct level of credibilty to each - based on the evidence that supports the 'theory'. there is a huge amount of evidence that supports evilution, but none that supports the existence of God and that should be explained - because what we are in effct teaching is that its Ok to believe in something that has no eveidence to support it and its its equal to something that has huge amounts of evidence to support it. One leads to opinion , the other INFORMED opinion.

That is indeed fine if they are all treted as equally 'valid' - but should also I guess include the concept that there might be no god for balance? This is kind of a philosophical issue rarher than a practical one - There are some that 'brainwash for sure' but small numbers - the point I am trying to make is that even wher the teachings are balanced and fair with a normal say 'Christian' environment - does the fact that the early influence of subtle religeous values mean it makes later choices less 'free' - is there a legacy form that teaching/environment that will always be around?

... surely the real issue is if we have 60k on the database what needs to be done to get more of these to attend more regularly - is it price, success, quality of performance, catering, half time entertainment, quality of seat, change in economic climate, atmosphere, perception you need to wear nice strides and branded shirts, concern that we are overrun with right propa nawty types, free bJs at half time from nubile ladies? All about value proposition - currently appeals to 30k ish on average... how do we create one that appeals to 40k on average. Get that right and we can dream of expansion and world domination but its the million dollar question. The whole argument and ****take was simply about opinions on what was necessary to get to a 40k average - it was hypothetical and varied ideas on solutions - but there are a few thought police for whom the concept of discussing ideas no matter how off the wall is too difficult, so s ******ing and sarcasm took over. A bit sad - in saying its sad, I will now be accused of taking the 'mongboard' (sic) far too seriously...

Agree with the sentiments VFTT, but this is a clasiic case of a sensitive issue and it goes straight to the fundementals of parents rights as well in bringing their kids up as they see fit so there is aneed to express it all in a more subtle way? It is a paradox for sure - either we believe in the freedom of choice and apply it kids so thay they can make up their minds whne they are able to rationalise it all, or we apply it to parents and assume its their right to bring up their kids within the cultural and religious boundaries that they set for themselves? Can you satisfy both?

Dont think its a question of being stobborn. If we are to believe all teh conflicting tweets - how the feck do we make sense of thhose rumours? - then it appears quite simple rather than complx 1. saints and ramirez have agreed a package - tick 2. saints and bologna have agreed a fee - tick 3. saints have agreed a fee to teh 3rd party - tick 4. What appeared to be a stumbling block over the payement schedule has been agreed somehow - tick 5. BUT Bologna want to boorow against the deffered payments so as to use the 'total' now in replacing players or simply just surviving.... and THEIR bank wants some guarrantee from saints that the deferred payments will be happen ... cortese not being stubborn, but perhaps it is tricky to rovide such a guarrantee as the additinal payments will come form next seasons revenue and we dont know what that will be - or if its form the Liebherr trust etc, then its likely to be difficult given the confidential nature of these things... so suspect its less about being stubborn and more about practical challenges NB. the above asumes that there is actually anything factual in any of the tweets etc....

Part of me doe believe that FIFA should in effect make it a rule of transfers that full fee paid up front - if you cant afford it or need loans to fund it - you cant have the player end of - woyuld see fees come down to more realistic levels and less clubs over extending themselves or setting up a debt legacy if relegated. Also transfer window shoudl close before season starts etc.....