Wurzel

That's the one that fits the "weirdest" criteria in the title for me. You do it an injustice though. I went for a dump as he "cleared" it, it went so high I was back again before the ball dropped over the line.

Not first time that sort of thing has happened down there. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/may/13/transport.world

Christ do you STILL not get it. Example 2. Man can NOT get 3 tickets, 1 for him, 2 for his mates. He can get ONE, each of his 2 sons can get ONE each. If those two sons want to go then there are no tickets for his mates. If they don't want them then yes they can pass them on after they've been purchased and there's not much the club can do about that. Example 1 . Under the ridiculously contrived scenario any decent Dad would give the returning son his ST for the game But an equally plausible and much more likely scenario for example 1 is ST holder has a ManU fan who discretely asks him to get him a ticket. Under your example the club would be equally obliged to sell him the ticket (assuming he didn't say it was for an away fan at time of purchase). Fair? Anticipated answer from you, ManU fan could get ticket by attending one for a previous home game. No he couldn't guarantee one it depends on the take up, same as Dad+2 in example 2 can guarantee any.

That's the one memory playing tricks, was thinking it was one of ours but it was indeed that Millwall fan, think the original thread must have got linked to on every teams forum. That post was a transcript up to where he realised his mistake, think there was much **** taking and apologising after that as well.. Unintentional comedy classic

You are looking at it from the wrong angle. It's not who is buying the ticket it's who is attending. Mr 42 already has his his seat via ST . Mr Someone (x) and Mr Someone's Mate (Y) have been before, so they are entitled to buy a ticket. Note they are entitled to 1 each, not X can buy 2 although he can of course purchase Y's on his behalf, what Y chooses to do with it is not our concern. Then we have your friend, let's call him The Chosen One. He hasn't been before, but for no other reason than he knows you (a ST holder) he should be allowed to jump the queue? Explain to us again, this time in a way that makes sense, how that can be fair. Of course if TCO had been to a game previously, either with you or alone, he would be in the same position as X & Y. If this whole thread raises any point actually worthy of discussion it's why did they do away with the membership scheme?

Yes of course ST holders count. But they've already got their own ticket. He wants to be able to buy one for someone else. The "fans who have actually attended games" want to buy their own ticket. They aren't looking to buy one for someone else as well. Of course they should get priority. Why should someone who hasn't been to a game all season get priority of someone who has (whether it's 1 or 18) just because they happen to know a ST holder? 42's whole argument seems to be confusing the issue with buying tickets for cup ties. Then, of course ST holders should get priority, but still only for their own seat. This reminds of a a poster who started a thread a few years ago, can't remember who but I'm sure someone can remind us, who had a ST but had been working abroad, and got really upset on here complaining that when he came home the ticket office wouldn't sell him his own seat (not an extra one) for a normal league game. It took several people pointing out he'd already paid for his own seat, why was he trying to buy it again when the penny finally dropped. At least he had the good grace to admit he'd been a total plonker.

Genius if we were playing them in a cup tie. But they're so far below us they're just not relevant any more. And we try and say they're obsessed? Embarrassing

There's a simple foolproof and fair way for any ST holder to guarantee a ticket for friend or family for any game whoever the opposition is. Buy 2 Season tickets.

Only the same in premium seats. Concessions apply everywhere else .

So pleased to discover this thread. All my concerns re marital bliss (lack of) are vanquished, seems we are quite normal after all. Your views would be appreciated - are washing up and drying up* separate jobs or should they be done by same person at the same time? Talking old school hands in the bowl, not dishwasher here. *Whilst we are at it what's most hygienic way of drying up. Her method, drying it all whilst wet by wiping it with an ever increasingly damp tea towel spreading germs from one item to the next, or a quick pour boiled water from kettle over it on draining board, let it air dry, put away.

As Buctootin says, the video clearly states it was the impact with the coral that caused the break up, not the landing per se. Also this was an out of fuel landing attempt, we don't know if that was the case with MH370, they might have still been under full control. Interesting in that video to see the hijackers hijacked an Ethipia-Kenya flight but wanted to go to ...... Australia.

My question was based on assumption the crew were still in full control. Obviously a drop from the sky from 35000 ft would be catastrophic. But if they descended down from 35000ft whilst under full control would that last 3000ft of descent have been much different than the Hudson River landing? Either with or without power? To be fair I don't think it's a likely scenario either but in the absence of any wreckage to date it sounds plausible.

US1549 landed safely on the Hudson River. Different aircraft admittedly but would the characteristics been that different?

OMG I could see the smoke from here ... if I'd gone outside... and looked in that direction. Such a close shave has made me reassess my life. There, but for the grace of god etc etc ....

Apart from the total ambulance-chasing seediness of the whole thing, a Malaysian companies aircraft carrying mainly but not exclusively Asian passengers crashes (probably) through as yet unknown causes somewhere in the world but definitely not in USA, so what the **** does this have to do with an American law firm in Illinois? Admittedly Boeing are American but as yet there's no viable suggestion of any fault with the aircraft. When did this crazy compensation culture become the norm? Were lawyers crawling all over Harland & Wolfe and White Star Line as soon as the Carpathia started picking up Titanic survivors?

No humanitarian reason regarding those on board but surely some compassion is owed to the bereaved families (if that turns out to be the case). I'm sure confidential info could be leaked by attributing it to reports received from some "untraceable" fishing boat or such like. I've been following this with interest and still none the wiser, reckon I've changed my favourite theory almost daily. The possible wreckage SW of Perth means I now favour the Payne Stewart theory, although no idea on why the original change of course. Sent from my Hudl HT7S3 using Tapatalk

Easter could be better than Xmas this year Northampton v Portsmouth 3pm Monday April 21st

Add me to the bugged by that list. I read it that it was programmed in before the final contact to turn at a certain later time/distance into the flight . No idea how they would know that from the ground but if they do why don't they know about any subsequent manoeuvres? Would programmed ones be detectable but not manual ones? Alternatively should we be reading it to mean it actually made the manoeuvre 12 minutes before last contact?

I'd be very interested to hear our resident pilots' opinions on this theory. In short, MH370 tailed another commercial flight close enough to appear as a single blip on radar, then turning off once in "friendly" territory. Is that possible? He seems to cover any objection to it that I can think of, even to why the collision warning wouldn't be activated in the tailed plane? How close would they need to be to achieve this? http://keithledgerwood.tumblr.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68-sq68

I didn't think Sturridge dived. He jumped the challenge, which didn't touch him, but he had to adjust to land. Without adjustment he would have landed on Vidic's outstretched leg, stumbled, penalty. With adjustment he managed to avoid him but foot landed inside of Vidic's and behind his own centre of balance leaving him no way of keeping his balance. No actual contact by an inch or so but he had no way of staying upright. Definitely should have had a 4th pen as well. Can't believe *any* team can have gone so long without conceding a home penalty. Begs the question were referees genuinely afraid of the Fergy factor and how many points did it earn them over the years?

WTF ?!?! Getting harder to tell the fantasy from the facts http://cangurel82.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/russia-says-it-is-being-kept-in-diego.html

So if I have this right primary radar simply detects there's something up there in that direction. Secondary radar , satellites and any other "receiver" can spot where something is but relies on information transmitted from the plane to identify which actual plane it is as opposed to an unidentified lump of metal up in the sky. Is that correct? If it is, next question, can those signals be duplicated and/or can the units transmitting those signals still transmit if not still attached to the plane.? Thinking along the lines of typical hollywood spy thriller when the tracking device is found and attached to a different vehicle, deliberately sending the searchers off in the wrong direction.

Can't help with the screen but I can do you some non-slip gloves

Cheers. Comprehensive answer . I did say it sounded plausible to a layman lol. Cross that one off the list of possibilities then.

But if I understood it correctly in this scenario it has lost the ability for the transponder and everything else to transmit and crew and passengers are unconscious.