pap

http://www.vipbox.tv/watch/27980/1/nottingham-forest-fc-vs-southampton-fc-live-stream-online.html Annoying pop-up when in windowed mode, but fine in full-screen.

Just read this week's Guardian's Secret Footballer Blog. It's an interesting take on the state of the tackle in the English Premier League, written in light of Vincent Kompany's recent dismissal. Found this bit particularly interesting:- He also argues that with more players looking for fouls and trying to get other players sent off, the tackle is going out of the English game, concluding that it's probably not a bad thing, with more players having to rely on technique than crunching two-footers. Is that realistic though? Will the end of the tackle see a Renaissance in the technique of English players?

Yep, that's the quote

Nice jugs, Bexy.

I disagree generally, but I'll admit that its ropey in places. Perhaps its no coincidence that this was the only one of the original trilogy written and directed entirely by George Lucas. I recall that Harrison Ford moaned about the amount of dialogue they were trying to get into a single scene. The movie is redeemed by amazing visuals, a beautiful soundtrack, some great performances and the fact that it sets up the sequels, both superior to the original. Lucas was pulled from directorial duties, and also pulled in Lawrence Kasdan to do the screenplays. Incidentally, Lucas had complete creative control of the prequels due to the spunkwad of cash he made from the originals. Whatever problems the first Star Wars had, it's an infinitely better film than any of the prequels.

While it's fun to have a cross-channel chuckle at our croissant-chomping friends, the lower end of the credit spectrum is interesting too. Portugal were downgraded to junk. Guessing that's not good.

This week, I finished up the latest Saints Row game. Thus far, have played and completed all three games. Have to admit, while I really enjoyed the first one, I constantly had it in the back of my mind that it was simply the first GTA-style game to appear on the (then)new consoles, and the awesome San Andreas was still fresh in the memory. Bought the second one cheap while in Ireland, and played the crap out of that. Like I said, just finished the third. Yeah, yeah, yeah - pap - what's your point? Well, I now have a better time with Saints Row games than the GTA games. First, they are absolutely barmy. This third game contains so many "did they just do that?" moments that you quickly lose count. It is gloriously silly. Next, you get to create your own character, male or female, with a choice of three voices for each gender. Customisation extends past appearance to cover cars, gangs, etc. Making your own custom cars is a crapload of fun. The controls are a ton better than GTA. Sod all this switching targets bolox - it largely controls like an FPS. Two sticks, reticule and you're done. The driving in the third game probably has the best handling out of any open worlder I've played. Small mention for the fact that Saints Row 2 + 3 have planes, much missed after GTA's San Andreas. And finally, if you're not yet convinced, every game sees you as the leader of a gang called "The 3rd Street Saints", or simply "The Saints" for short. The second one is available for buttons atm, but I'd recommend it and the 3rd game without hesitation. Get on it, if you haven't already.

Hmm. According to that, Celtic want 6M so they can splash out on Rhodes. Is Hooper better than Rhodes?

Mate, it's a quid! I have both, and I prefer the stuff on Netflix. I think it's a pretty good selection, plus it has TV series, which I don't think Lovefilm has.

And from Fox News, reports that Iran is to host UN nuclear inspectors. Might cool things down some. Good.

What form do you think this trouble will take? I think we can both agree that the West has recently gone to some lengths to isolate Iran, either through the depiction in the media or putting pressure on individual nations to stop trading with Iran. I understand that the Japanese are amongst the latest that have been leaned on in furtherance of this aim. I can appreciate that there is a lot at stake here, but at the same time I have to ask what the end-game is. It doesn't appear as if the US or Israel wants to negotiate with Iran. Without negotiations, it could be argued that the only resolution on the table is war. Israel is key, in my opinion. While we continue to give unwavering support to the Israel, we achieve two things. We remain an enemy by association in addition to tacitly validating Israeli behaviour. We say we believe in one set of values, yet are wilfully ignorant of those values being violated. We will invade countries that defy UN Resolutions, except for Israel. We cried foul about apartheid in South Africa, yet allow something very similar to happen in Gaza. Israel getting to do what it wants with the full backing of the West is at the heart of the problem, treated almost as if its an immutable political truth. I can understand why we've backed them to the hilt historically, but ultimately, they need to be treated as we would treat any other ally. e.g. If they do something bad, our only involvement in the event should be the appropriate level of condemnation.

It really isn't though. It would be fair, if that's what was said. Suppose is just goes to show. True or not, soundbites really work.

Mate, how you spend your time is up to you. I just think that there are more productive things you could be doing during your refractory periods.

I have sadly come to the conclusion that Alps is on a wind-up.

Clear enough for you?

I happen to think that war with Iran is on the cards, Phil - and have thought so for some time. The only potential Presidential nominee that is anti-war is Ron Paul, and I'm sorry to say that I use the word potential in its broadest possible sense. He's pulling impressive numbers for a Republican, but by time the media machine is done with him, I doubt he'll secure the nomination.

Wikipedia is at least sourced and cited. Anyway, here's a Huff Post article covering the same ground, cited on the Wikipedia article. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-weisbrot-and-robert-naiman/arash-norouzi-explains-th_b_39069.html

You seem to be equating criticism of past and present policy with the notion that detractors hate the US and/or Israel. Nice. And you wonder why your responses are characterised as cartoonish.

Not even remotely the same, which I think you know. I don't think so, although I am pretty sure that this line of argument has been used to great effect in the past. Wasn't true then, isn't true now. And what is 'your own culture' anyway? You suggest that everyone on this island is supposed to believe the same things, yet one of the things we cherish the most is our ability to express opinions on a matter without being labelled a traitor, which is effectively what you're inching towards in your unimpressive reply. The simple fact is, the hawks on this thread have failed to demonstrate any reason why Iran is a clear and present threat. When pulled up on their claims, they wheel out the old "against your own country" bolox.

Which is the problem in microcosm, really. Too many people believe the soundbites they hear on the news, and don't really bother to do any fact-checking, so they inevitably end up navel-gazing from a false starting point. What's especially depressing is that the information is all out there.

....and if you're interested in more cartoonish depictions, be sure to check out the work of Disney or Hanna Barbera.

If this is truly what you think, then you haven't thought it through. Hardly seems worth the bother explaining what would happen if Iran decided to attack or even nuke somewhere. This has already been expanded upon and clearly hasn't made an impression so far.

Liking this a lot so far, but mainly because there are quite a few things on there that I've never gotten around to watching and quite fancied, such as Weeds or Arrested Development.

That's actually pretty funny. Fake Tales of San Francisco, a song on their first album, is all about people who pretend to be from somewhere else.

The problem is, they will. If what you say is true (thus far I have no reason to dispute it), they are the original Mac lovers. They hail from a world with no corners where every surface is brushed aluminium. I fear that they would sooner take oblivion over choosing another OS.