pap

Indeed. hypo has more than Seumas Milne comparisons in his locker when it comes to posting style. That's being charitable.

Ah, the old "leave it for days" approach to technical support. It's fun, but it'll get you sacked in real life if the problem doesn't "self-heal"

Unconditional surrender was achieved anyway. The blockade of German ports continued eight months after the armistice. Restrictions on food imports continued until after Versailles was signed. Farage reckons that not going for unconditional surrender in 1918 would have prevented the Second World War, when all it really would have done is bring forward the Versailles timetable. The only valid point Farage has is about Hitler's claims about Germany never losing the war on the battlefield. He would not have had that, but all other things being the same (Versailles diktat, French belligerence and demand for vengeance, forced de-militarisation, 660Bn of reparations), Hitler would still have been able to trade on the injustice of the diktat of Versailles, and would still have built his army.

I think sir really needs to watch Star Trek Continues. http://www.startrekcontinues.com/ It's a fan-made effort at continuing the TOS universe. Scotty is played by James Doohan's real life son, while a number of other Star Trek alumni have lent their support to the project. The first episode is very clever. This chap comes back, playing the same character. Got some very positive buzz from the fan community. Probably right up your street, if you can handle the inevitable re-casting of the main roles.

I've caught up on about half of Capaldi's Doctor Who series, having not watched much of the end of Smith's run (although I saw the first series). So far, so good. I was never entirely convinced at the succession of younger Doctors; it actually felt like the show had stopped being itself, especially with the Doctor being romantically tied to other characters as much as he was. Capaldi is old, horrid and Scottish, all in a wonderful way. Clara, Smith's old companion, isn't particularly sure about him - probably because he spends half his time ripping her for her humanity/appearance/whatever, but I am. The downside of using an actor like Capaldi is that there's no getting away from the actor who plays him. He's well known enough so that people are familiar with his earlier works. The upside is that any danger of typecasting (and the subsequent "I'm doing the offs") is probably less likely to emerge. I can see Capaldi staying in the role for some time. He's reportedly a huge Doctor Who nerd. Some very chunky themes for the kids to chow down on too. I'm not quite sure there is anything as clever aimed at those so young.

Farage's grasp of history doesn't augur well for the future. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/11/farage-ukip-armistice-hitler-german-surrender-first-world-war Apparently, WW2 would never have happened if we'd pushed the Germans into unconditional surrender (which effectively happened anyway with Versailles).

Fine, great employee for the club then. That point conceded, he was asked a direct question by a journalist. It's not like he's repeating his tweet, informing his people to put stories in the press or getting his wife to whine on his behalf. The professional thing to do is answer the question posed. Now what would you prefer? Badge-kissing bollócks and bullshít, or the hedged bet approach he took? Keeping your mouth shut during an interview sort of defeats the purpose.

Can't argue with any of that Steel City. I feel the same way. Tremendous servant to the club. Interesting decision for him if somehow we do make it to the CL spots, but in all likelihood, he'll be off at the end of the season. Much rather it happen then than when the "firesale" was in full swing.

That deal doesn't look quite done to me. We'll see. Looks advanced tho.

Spurs fans would argue that things have gone massively tits up for a while. The last period of stability they had was under Redknapp, there doesn't seem to be any rhyme, reason or time for incoming managers. A few pundits this week have argued that many Spurs players, especially foreigners, think they've made it once they get to WHL and don't bother trying after they've got there. The ones that do try are offski the minute a bigger club comes calling with an offer that Levy can't refuse. And that's where I'd agree with you a bit. As long as Levy has got a Modric or a Bale to flog for the highest possible price, he's got a future at Spurs. Does he?

Levy's not really doing himself any favours, is he? I'm sure Tottenham could employ any number of people, at a much lower rate of renumeration, that are able to nick all of Southampton's ideas Tosspots.

"Band Aid" is about right. It's a short-term sticking plaster on a long term wound and a shocking indictment of how the world tends prioritise profit and narrow self-interest over people. One day, a future generation is going to sort problems like world hunger and death from easily preventable disease, and it won't be some huge technological advancement that leads the way, more a case of vision, priorities and political will. They'll probably look kindly on the cohort of musicians that raised awareness about modern-day famine and disease in Africa, probably less so at all those that have turned a blind eye while scampering about acquiring belief tokens.

Italy vs Croatia on Sunday. Pelle vs Lolvren.

Saints get mentioned on both ends of the Football Weekly podcast. At first, it's revealed that Southampton have the third best back five in the world. They shut all Southampton chat down there and then, but it's only because they have a glowing tribute to the management and current success of the team. They especially spoke about Ralph Krueger's much-mocked speech about judging the board at the end of the window. They also gave a lot of credit to Les Reed. Still not really mentioned in the serious contenders chat as serious contenders, but that's alright. That's what we want them to think http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/audio/2014/nov/10/football-weekly-podcast-can-anyone-stop-chelsea

Numerous posters on this thread have weighed in with their impressions of the EU. The arguments against all have the issue of sovereignty at the base. Freedom of movement, law made by an unelected body abroad and having a border with Russia. The cast-iron guarantees for future referendum used to rest on the issue of sovereignty. "We'll have a referendum if further powers are ceded to Europe" used to be the mantra. I don't think it's reasonable to discount the issue of sovereignty. The government acknowledges it; why else make further powers the trigger point? Politicians campaign on it too - EU scepticism and in/out referendums were all the rage when the Tories and Lib Dems lacked power. UKIP are hitting the sovereignty thing outright, and they're not wrong to do so. Personally, I could live with a federal Europe if the people wanted it and if it was democratic the whole way through. Multi-racial federation of countries working together to avoid further war and achieve mutual prosperity? What's not to like, if people want it? A democratically accountable Federal Europe could be an example to the entire world, but the EU is not that. The executive is unelected and the electorate are denied any say in whether they continue to be members or not. As for the avoidance of war, check out the news coming from Ukraine and Russia. Gorbachev thinks we're on the brink of a new Cold War. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11218459/Mikhail-Gorbachev-warns-the-world-is-on-the-brink-of-a-new-Cold-War.html http://rt.com/news/203475-gorbachev-speech-berlin-wall/ I don't think he's wrong. We've created an empire on Russia's doorstep, audaciously doing stuff like plopping missile defence systems & military bases in former satellite states, even having the balls to go after Ukraine after absorbing the Baltic States, formerly part of the USSR itself. It's not usually good news when two large military blocs start eyeing each other suspiciously, and I'm not convinced that these are things that the average British voter would be interested in paying for. One has to wonder whether the new "how your cash is spent" tax system will ever have a drill-down option, and whether it'll have an EU sub-category for "needless escalation". Unlikely, given the accounts have never been signed off

This is a pretty unfair post, I reckon. I snark at the few posters that continually launch ad hominem attacks. I questioned the basis for your disagreement, and you're right, it will go around forever because we still don't have one. My opinion, shared by many that actually believe in democracy, is that the people should be the true sovereigns. This is why we vote, or at least, why we have the illusion of choice in elections. So if people are the true sovereigns, why are they denied the ability to direct EU policy or countermand EU directives? I know one could argue that we can always vote ourselves out, but in practice the electorate is never consulted. The Facebook messenger stuff is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the EU has changed our status as a sovereign nation, as is your closing comment. All I'll say is that if you want to debate in the Lounge, people will expect you to qualify what you're saying. The "I disagree"/deflection combo is not as powerful as sir may surmise when its backed with nowt.

I suggest you read the thread then. I've qualified my opinions here. You saying I haven't doesn't make it true.

Actually, it is. "Reliable" is hugely subjective. Are you asking whether the votes will be reliably counted? That you'll get the right result? Come back when you've got a fiver and a real question.

Define "reliable".

Good suggestion, and in lieu of any slang pussy, chatting with an actual cat would be a superb use of Tim's time.

I have no issue with that. Why do you contend that the two line destruction of your "is the way it is" apologism is invalid?

So it's like a democracy where people aren't allowed to vote? Fair enough then.

I think the difference between our positions is merely that I'm going to the trouble of qualifying mine. You are arguing that membership of the EU does not affect the sovereignty of its members. It is a position that is undone by the three treaties I've mentioned, the amount of EU-originated law that we pass via the undemocratic mechanism of statutory instrument and events elsewhere in the Union, such as the installation of technocratic governments in the likes of Greece and Italy that have no democratic mandate. I think those are all strong points that support my claim that the EU erodes sovereignty. What's behind your disagreement?

Sorry mate. I don't agree. Heath got us in initially, Major signed us up for more with Maastricht and New Labour did the same with the Lisbon Treaty. All of those treaties transferred powers to the EU, so you'll forgive me if I have difficulty understanding how you've turned that fact into mere opinion.

The Greek government were known to be creatively accounting since 2002. The cash was tossed anyway. Goldman Sachs helped them mask the figures through derivative swaps. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-06/goldman-secret-greece-loan-shows-two-sinners-as-client-unravels.html The EU suspected something was up as early as 2004, when Eurostat was sent there to firm things up. Money continued to be lent to the Greek government until 2010, when the reports of falsified data broke in the mainstream news. Even so, that's six years of continued lending despite strong suspicions that things weren't on the up and up.