Jump to content

trousers

Subscribed Users
  • Posts

    61,099
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by trousers

  1. What sort of warped logic is that Farmery? Surely you try harder to escape relegation if you're starting with a psychological -10, not try less because of it? I've heard it all now...
  2. Wigan lose West Ham draw
  3. Surely any team losing within catching distance of us is a good result? They call it risk mitigation in business circles...
  4. Chelsea 3rd - Brings Fulham's goal difference down to same as ours
  5. Come on Man Ure!
  6. Yes! Tevez!!
  7. Wigan hit the bar! (but offside anyway)
  8. Utd equalise
  9. Now City go close
  10. Wigan go close again
  11. I can't see Wigan losing this
  12. Wigan all over City at the moment
  13. Ffs Utd
  14. Anyone got a karaoke machine? That needs to be recorded and uploaded to YouTube pronto! Genius
  15. Yay...2nd for Chelsea
  16. Chelsea score
  17. Wigan free kick in dangerous position edit: straight to Hart
  18. Jeeez.....Man City very close there
  19. That's better
  20. Great
  21. But my problem is, how do I decide whether you're right or whether pap is right? Or maybe you're both right depending on how the situation is interpreted? This is what I'm trying to get to the bottom of. Is this a matter of opinion or unquestionable fact?
  22. Ok, thanks - that looks like a good starting point. All I need now are the transcripts from the time that Thatcher ordered the closure of the mines so I can see why she thought otherwise.
  23. Of course not. As long as your opinion is based on researched fact rather than jumping on a bandwagon. I've no idea how terrible the Mayans were (or were not) ergo I can't comment on them. I guess what some people are suggesting is that some young people aren't basing their opinion on researched facts but are simply echoing the opinion that makes them fit in with their peers.
  24. Pap - genuine question - when you say that with such certainty, are you making a personal judgement based on what you re read/seen/heard etc or is this something that Thatcher explicitly admitted doing later in life? I don't doubt for one moment that ONE of Thatcher's primary motivations was to 'smash the unions' but what is the actual evidence that shows that she needed to close economically viable mines to meet that end? What I'd really like to do is a case study on one of the mines in question and trace it from the date it opened through to the date of closure, analysing the financial accounts throughout that period. I think people on both sides of the debate trot out their largely anecdotal evidence to back up their views but I'd really like to fine tooth comb one example to illustrate the point you make. If it could be proved that Thatcher closed down a mine SOLELY to inflict damage on a union (i.e. it wasn't part of a package of reasons on a case by case basis) then I'd be open to changing my view of Thatcher in this area. Are there any archives I can trawl through that would give me the independent info I'm after?
×
×
  • Create New...