pap

We've been here before, Phil. Remember the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq definitely had and turned out not to? The Iranians would be missing a trick if they weren't developing nuclear weapons at the same time, so I'm not going to pretend otherwise. I am amazed how they have attracted a reputation for being the world's international bad guys. This post-Revolution regime has never invaded another country, and has only been involved in one war. This was against its neighbours Iraq, who were egged on into invading Iran and facilitated by Western powers, notably the US. Then you look at the record of Iran's chief accuser, coincidentally enough, the US. They have started two wars without provocation, making the British government a willing accomplice in the justification for the second. Estimates for deaths caused as a result of the Iraq War hover at around 1.3Million people. Saddam Hussein managed (at most) 200,000 during his tenure as dictator. Which actions of the current Iranian regime justify the tag of international menace? Support for terrorist groups? They are hardly alone on that front. This has been on the cards since the Western-friendly Shah was ousted in 1979. However much we may dislike the principles upon which the country is run, there's no evidence to support the notion that this regime is an international aggressor.

It is William Shatner shouting at Ricardo Montalban in Star Trek II. KHAAAAAN!

If we're counting novelty songs, I'll see your Joe Dolce and raise you a Mr Blobby.

The gauntlet is well and truly thrown down.

Assuming there are no last-minute hiccups, this is an exciting signing. I have to confess to knowing bugger all about the bloke save what I've seen on here, but this guy has the potential to be a great signing on tons of levels. I really hope he adapts and does well. Would be very nice to have a settled strike-force if and when we get to the Prem.

Do you include Israel in your assessment of the West's assets? This may be one they get involved in.

Cool story bro. What modern bands do you like?

The other two albums are great. Probably worth listening to them in the order of release. Personally, I'm still giving the Suburbs the benefit of the doubt. I think that there are a few weak tracks on it. Right now though, don't feel as good about it as I do the other two. Funeral has returned to being my favourite.

Ah, quiet. You're doing what you normally do, sniping from the sidelines, and when pressed to express an opinion of your own, plump for possibly the safest musical artist in history from a "not getting mocked" point of view. What modern bands do you like?

Well, no-one has a bad word to say about Hendrix. You should listen to Arcade Fire.

Ah, my gateway rock band. Still think Slippery When Wet is a great album.

Who is your favourite band of all time?

Arcade Fire

True. The US has scant moral authority after the last 10 years of foreign and domestic policy.

I remember reading that Iran, demographically speaking, is a very young country. There are a lot ( higher percentage than usual ) of people in their 30s and 40s.

Bump. Another attack on Iranian nuclear personnel. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16501669 Heard from one of my tinfoil hat sources that war is nailed on for October.

You're right, of course. But we have a comparatively small amount of literature in Middle English compared to the vast swathes written in something close to contemporary English ( ok, it gets less contemporary the further you go back, but Dickens etc is still eminently understandable ). Language will always evolve, but the nice thing about evolution is that its a gradual process - giving us all a chance to assimilate new words and phrases as they occur. And like yourself, I love our language too, foibles and all. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to be a foreigner trying to learn it, but I'm thankful it exists in the form it does - wonderfully expressive and living history at the same time.

And continuing the point of the thread, Alex Salmond has announced his own timetable for the referendum. Autumn 2014.

At this stage, I'm not sure that it is actually practical to try and simplify. First, we have a massive body of literature that is written in our idiosyncratic idiom. We'd either need to convert all of that to simplified English, or retain a body of knowledge on how to read older stuff. Second, our phonetic alphabet is much larger than our written one. Finally, English is no longer just our language. Any home-grown attempt at standardisation would ultimately be a deviation from the wider language.

Good enough for me.

It works for the airlines because much of the time, there simply isn't an alternative. Trains have competition all over the shop. Speaking from my own experience, whenever I've needed to get somewhere else in the country at short notice, I've almost always plumped for the car, with cost being the biggest factor. I suspect many others make the same decision, so it could ultimately be counter-productive.

In total agreement on your last point. I'm not saying all train operating companies are the same. Liverpool and the Wirral have an excellent local rail service. It's cheap, frequent, and in many, is faster than the same journey made by car - as it should be. That said, InterCity and commuting really does take the biscuit, and I do feel for commuters. I commuted by train from Southampton to London myself for 3 months. Ended up coming to an arrangement with the boss whereby I could arrive at 10.30am and bugger off at around 7:30pm. The other thing I don't get is why train tickets are so much more expensive when buying them at short notice. If the train is going anyway and there is capacity, seems crazy to deter a potential passenger by charging them through the nose. I would be quite interested to know what it actually costs to get someone from Liverpool to London.

To be fair, the 30 minute saving is between London and Brum. You save a lot more time as you travel further away.

The government has given the green light to a 32.7Bn project to introduce high-speed rail between London and Birmingham, and onto other cities in later phases. Journey times between the two cities will be reduced by as much as 30 minutes. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/10/hs2-rail-project-green-light I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand, it's good to see infrastructure creation, especially with the jobs that it'll bring throughout the supply chain during construction. On the other hand, it's almost 33 billion quid. That's today's "happy path" estimate, although if history is anything to go by, we'll end up paying a lot more. I am unlikely to get much use out of the new facilities. Despite petrol prices being a complete p*ss-take, the railways are actually even worse. Thoughts?

I'd like to add the Leeds game to my highlights. Wasn't the win, rather the manner of the win that got me so excited. Put down a £25 bet for us to win the Championship after that game. Oh, and Jonathan Forte against MK. Remember that day clearly - was in work on a priority project. Remember jumping around alone in an office when Forte got his second goal. The turning point of our L1 season - we never looked back after that.