revolution saint

Wasn't that the beautiful south?

Just out of interest how do RL and LJ compare stats wise when RL was at the same stage of his career?

I remember a similar thread on a Middlesborough site years ago comparing clubs to the kind of characters you went to school with. We came out as "Decent enough, doesn't say much but you know you wouldn't want to mess with him" which was pretty good I thought. Back to topic though and I'd imagine most other supporters put us in the same bracket as Norwich which is fairly rural, nice bunch but easy to ignore and not much to find offensive.

Stats can be confusing though - you talk about 4M candidates but no one is willing to pay that for the ones you've mentioned (or certainly not us anyway). Sharp has a 3.25M exit clause and Maynard is out of contract in the summer so neither will go for much more than 3M which is what we're talking about with LJ (although that's probably paper talk). Maynard also plays for a team that is 22nd so the ratio is fairly similar but he does have a better goals to games ratio in previous seasons than LJ.

Personally don't see this as a goer at all. LJ would be a decent squad player and probably would improve as well but that kind of money for what effectively would be RL backup is a bit mental. 1M then maybe it's not bad but still really only a stopgap measure and still a squad signing. NA talked all summer long about only bringing in players that would improve the first team and, on the face of it, this signing wouldn't do that. Seems like this is more of an attractive deal for Cov and/or the players agent TBH.

I got lower than average on everything and was defined by a low desire to avoid. Interestingly I didn't take the genocide question as being about the holocaust - if it was though I would have been a bit harsher. In most if not all the questions though I got frustrated that there wasn't really any background information so you were left judging deeds and actions without knowing what led to them. Tellingly the most punishment I gave out was for the person committing non consensual sex which is obviously wrong - most of the other scenarios were grey areas.

I love that quote about at least you knew where you stood with Thatch. Yes, as Alexi Sayle said, "You were f*cked".

Stephen King's latest brick of a book, 11.22.63, and about halfway through. I always look forward to his books even though some can be a bit disappointing. This one is about a school teacher who finds a way to go back in time, and decides to stop Lee Harvey Oswald. Thing is he can only go back to 1959 so he needs to spend at least four years in the past. At times it's a bit of a homage to 50's smalltown America which I suspect is a bit exaggerated but I enjoy reading about that period and King is nearly always readable anyway. Oh and if you're one of King's "constant readers" then you'll be interested to know he goes back to Derry and "IT" at one stage.

I know he quit/was pulled in the thrilla but I still reckon he won that fight. Great fighter.

I said to mate at the time it was probably more spectacular than a goal.

Well speaking as someone who has managed to fund a S/T through gambling this year I shouldn't really complain. Thing is I really don't find it addictive - I open an account and only bet the money I win. Once that gets to a signficant amount I withdraw it and spend it on something I want. Once I've done that I go months and months without betting so I guess I'm a bookies nightmare - at a guess for a £30 outlay I'm up about 1K. Thing to remember is that anything you win is free money but only if you use it. I can see why people would want it banned though.

Shame is I've stood up for hypo before but he's being a judgemental little prat on this thread, let's hope he gets back to form.

What abuse? I merely used your own language.

Funny how you fail to address my point that you're an arrogant poster unable to see another's point of view, imo you're a bit dim which is no more than you've accused others of. I can fully see why you get the abuse you do.

Of course it's not arrogant to hold that opinion, it's arrogant to suggest that people who hold a different one know nothing.

You stated that people who vote Lib Dem know nothing about politics. Pretty damning wouldn't you say? It indicates you know more (or think you do) that's not only massively condescending but also wrong.

Have to say I think you're being pretty unfair on Lib Dem supporters - I actually think in the last 20 years or so their supporters have been the ones that vote on policy not presentation and at times the party has suffered for not pandering to the court of public opinion. You mention that at least Labour and the Tories stand for something, well so do the Lib Dems and it's disingenous and wrong to suggest otherwise. I remember them mainly as a party that actually cost their manifesto instead of promising the world on the back of reducing red tape and beaurocracy - remember the 1p hike in tax to pay for education or the proposal to make local government taxation proportionate to the ability to pay, indeed the proposal to raise money through a higher tax bracket? All of these were sensible costed budget proposals whether you agreed with them or not. Of course there was also the opposition to the Iraq war. People who voted or have voted Lib Dem are not naive and have a valid opinion and actually because they don't have to appeal to any extreme I frequently find them far more credible in their opinion than either of the other two parties. That said, the Lib Dems have made mistakes in this parliment, namely going into a coaltion when an agreement to vote with the Tories on most issues would have sufficed and the inability to get proper PR (which would have been worth a coalition). Oh and for the record I didn't vote for the LibDems last election but I do have a problem with people like you who think they know everything and can gratuitously dismiss what for many would have been a well thought out decision.

So it's a popularity contest? Surely the whole point is not whether they are well liked or not but because they are there by divine right?

Well said and I agree with you. Money is a distraction to the argument.

At last and finally: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15492607 Great news and such a relief. Perhaps now they're on a bit of a roll they'll start to realise the whole institution of monarchy and heriditary rule is based on inequality. Makes me laugh.

This is quite a decent thread, stop spoiling it by being, frankly, more than a bit dumb.

Fair play reading two books at a time - it's something I've never managed to do. Where the power lies sounds pretty good but "One flew...." is a great book and definitely worth reading.

He's a good player but he's not exceptional. Why do we need to have extremes of opinion? FWIW I'd be playing him alongside Lambert at the moment as DC needs a rest.

Agreed - it frustrated the hell out of me on Newsnight that the question was never even asked. It's got to be the most obvious of questions.

Just finished this and it's really very, very good. Maybe a bit slow to start with but once it gets going utterly gripping. An intelligent and exciting book and I didn't guess the end either.