revolution saint

People who believe in absurdities

I did read that line, and I also read the "Or not". Which is it? The Joss Stone was a bit confusing to be honest....you played a record and then found out there was an article online about her. Wow.

TBH both these accounts are signs of mental illness or trauma. I realise that sounds a bit harsh and I'm sorry but it's true - there are no ghosts, there is no paranormal activity.

Kind of hard but basically anything you mental people can come up with.

Good video. All supernatural beliefs are unfounded and wrong and I'm not going to say IMO because it's not just me, it's everyone. Think you've seen a ghost? You're either wrong or mistaken because there's no such thing.

Sunday Supplement is typical of the over analysis of football, and inflating what are probably fairly bland statements into earth shattering ones. I'm no great fan of Fergie but one week if he criticises someone then it's so and so gets the hair dryer treatment, and if he praises a team then it's mind games. Goals on Sunday isn't much better when Kamara goes on about referees - one moment he's asking for consistency and the next he wants common sense. He doesn't seem to realise that consistency and common sense aren't always mutually compatible.

And Groves never threw a really hard punch so you still can't say DeGale chin has been tested......FWIW I had DeGale nicking two of the first six rounds - there were quite a few rounds that didn't have much action so it depends upon interpretation. I wanted Groves to win so perversely probably marked him down a bit if that makes sense. I agree with the other poster who says that this will be good for DeGale, in the same way it was for Khan. I also agree that Groves shouldn't go anywhere near a rematch - he doesn't have anything to gain by it (other than a shed load of money I guess).

I agree. The article about the European scout suggested as much and it makes sense - European players are cheaper and it's an easier sell to get them to come here. I think we'll get a "marquee", probably British, signing to show how ambitious we are but the rest will be from overseas.

No, not really it's about body language, attractiveness and all those little behavioural quirks that make up what we call charisma. There's nothing supernatural about it at all. The reason shows like Most Haunted turn it into a circus is because the idea of the supernatural in the first place is ridiculous.

Funnily enough I was explaining the theory of what goes around, comes around to my pet lizard yesterday, I said, 'That's Karma, Chameleon'. Trouble is he disappeared after that - he's like that though; he comes and goes.

My Auntie is a medium, well she says that but she's actually a bit bigger and likes girls. She's bi and large......

To be honest although I'm glad that Groves won I actually did think DeGale won it. It was unbelievably close though and neither boxer can really argue if it had gone against them. What it did demonstrate though is how good a coach Adam Booth is - he seems to be like an English Freddie Roach in that he comes up with an effective plan against any fighter his boxers come up against.

Not sure fate can be an agent of revenge given that by design it's already predetermined....and anyway R did it with the best of intensions...

Post 'em here, oh and count of monte cristo is a given

To be honest I was going to post that it was stupid to put the photos up on fb but on reflection I don't actually think they've done anything wrong, or to be ashamed of.

Agreed - it's harmless and totally irrelevant to their job.

I agree although I've gone for a DeGale win in rounds 4-6, which has been a lucky bet for me recently. I think DeGale is the better prospect and boxer but would be good to see Groves win.

I took quite a few photos of the game today, mainly because I'm just getting into this photography lark and a mate was playing. Some of them came out OK and some didn't but if anyone was playing and would like them then pm me. Anyway, seemed like a decent day and everyone enjoyed it.

I'm in the same situation - the girl I worked with took Voluntary Severance in March, and isn't being replaced. The majority of her work has been passed onto me and I was busy enough as it was. When I asked what the plans were to cope with her absence I was told "We need to find ways of working smarter" - obviously this answer was delivered by a senior manager with no comprehension of the job I do (or desire to learn about it), or it's workload. It's a tricky situation as I like the job I do but it's a situation that hasn't been handled well.

DeGale Vs Groves stands out tonight and should be a good fight - personally think that DeGale will win and is rightly favourite. However, Groves has a good camp with David Haye and his trainer has a good record. Can't help thinking this will go the same way as when Maccaranelli met Haye and came out comprehensively second best though. Not holding out much hope on the Cleverly fight being that good - 3rd opponent in a week and 10 years younger and a better record suggests Cleverly should take this one comfortably. There's some good bets around though - Paddy Power are offering 5/1 on a KO for NC in rounds 1-3, and 3/1 in rounds 4-6. I really can't see it going beyond 6 rounds either.

This is me entirely. I don't want to mock, belittle or offend people with faith but I would like to know why they choose that faith (or as I suspect for the majority it was chosen for them). There's been a lot on this thread about people not liking the tone of the atheists agrument and maybe it is a bit belligerant but I haven't heard any defence so far of an organised religion belief system and why you would choose to believe that other than it makes you feel good (which like a drug is an effect of the belief and not the reason for choosing it). I don't think it's wrong to ask that question but I think I'll have a long wait for an answer.

No, it's not really naive to trust what can be proved and is constantly tested by peers. I could call your religious belief naive because it is based not on logic but on faith and your only validation of that is that I can't disprove it. Of course I'm willing to believe there are other alternative explanations but until you can come up with some evidence that they might be true then you can call me a non-believer. Anyway, serious question, why do you believe in God? Honestly. I can answer why I don't with quite logical reasons and, as I say, even then with compelling argument I could change my mind but I'm interested to know why people choose to believe in God (in a religious sense).

No there isn't a god. Now on a side issue do you believe in creationism and the resurrection?

Of course those are good points and there's no reason why they should be belittled but equally they should also be prepared to have those views questioned. I don't have any belief that I wouldn't be prepared to rationally defend.

Of course he's old fashioned - he's bloody ancient apparently. If you believe in the Christian version though why wouldn't you defend Creationism and resurrection - it's the word of god isn't it?