revolution saint

One of the main players in "Debbie does Dallas", take your pick - a pr**k or a c**t.

Thing is he's a bloke who's doing a god awful job. I'm sure he thinks he's doing the right thing but the problem is that pretty much no one agrees with him, and they're all right. the dutch experiment has been a failure. He's brought us to the point of almost relegation for the second time - is that success? No. Frankly if we had a chairman who did absolutely nothing then it would be less harmful so in that respect then yes anyone but Lowe is better. Could anyone do a worse job? I doubt it. You're forgetting relegation. You're forgetting refusing to back our best manager in years when the funds were available, you're forgetting buying a bloated average squad instead of quality, you're forgetting that the stadium would never have happened without the council, you're forgetting the many numpty managerial appointments. I think any success we had was in spite of and not because of Lowe. The only thing I will give him credit for is the rejuvenation of the academy. If that had been married to a policy of buying quality and not many average players then we'd have been OK. Unfortunately Lowe thought he knew best and guess what? He didn't. The idea that he can come back and have another go at being absolute rubbish is why people protest. If he was the manager would you support him after so many bad decisions? He's said before "this is a results based industry" and he's right. His results will see us relegated for a second time. I'm all for seeing if anyone can be as bad as Lowe. I don't think it's possible.

OK, it's time to put an end to this pro Lowe argument because frankly they don't exist. I've not spoken to one single saints fan that supports Lowe. Sure there's a few trolls on here and some who just fancy a wind up but they don't compare to the numbers that marched. Think about it, as saints fans in the stadium, at games, at work, or anywhere have you ever heard a good word about Lowe recently? I'd guess the answer is no.

All the best Ed, pleasure watching you on sky sports and knowing you're a saints fan.

It's a failure. I didn't expect much this season and I've still been disappointed. Thing is we always look to the end of the season as if surviving will mean we can start to get better next time round. If we survive then next season will be harder - we'll be further in debt, we'll lose better players than we bring in and knowing Lowe he'll probably herald the new football revolution "Hungarian total football". The close season we'll emulate those magical magyars, we may even sign the new Puskas - it won't help us when the season kicks off for real though. Next season we'll either be: a) In league 1 b) In league 1 and in administration c) In the Championship and in administration d) struggling to stave off relegation (from either division) and struggling to stave off administration. I better get that season ticket in early - I bet there'll be a queue.

I generally agree with this. I did a degree in IT though which I found endlessly dull. It was a purely vocational decision to enable me to compete in the job market which it did. However, after leaving uni and getting a job I decided to do some Open University courses in subjects I was genuinely interested in. The difference was amazing and it was a great experience. I've often said if I won the lottery then I would go back to fulltime education. I will point out that University doesn't suit a lot of people though and it's unrealistic to think that it's beneficial to everyone. Depends on the individual really. The other thing I'd say is that whilst a lot of jobs shouldn't really be demanding people have a degree to get on a shortlist unfortunately it does happen. HR departments will sift out many job applications purely on the basis that a person doesn't have a degree regardless of experience. It's not right but it happens. I also think that proper "trades" have suffered due to lack of decent apprenticeships around. When we had a lot of nationalised industries then there were many apprenticeships available - smaller private companies don't always have the resources available to offer these opportunities.

Moran for me. My first football hero and the fella we all wanted to be in the playground. It's a tough call though. Pahars was just too injury prone and Shearer wasn't prolific enough whilst he was here (not his fault though). Sadly never saw Chivers so can't really comment.

Rupert, you numpty. Does he really believe we're so gullible that we'll give the "revolutionary coaching setup Mark II" another go? This is just plain PR and I feel sorry for MS.

I'm not sure what the fuss is all about? No managerial appointment under Lowe turns out to be permanent anyway. I bet Lowe is already wracking his brain on drawing up a managerial shortlist containing the worst options since the last appointment. You have to hand it to the guy - he consistently proves that he can make things worse than anyone thought they could get.

He was indeed. God I wish I had a job where I could post at work, then again I was an unproductive type when I could so maybe it's not such a bad thing.

But the bus driver is still a **** though right?

7 letters then as you also forgot how to count.

What a great response. Well done! Who would have thought 6 letters would have formed such a coherent reply to the question of whether it's socially acceptable to question the idea of god. Your pulitzer prize is in the post, don't be frightened if it's ticking.

See the thing is I'm not knocking religion, nor have I suggested it's wrong for people to believe in it. Personally I don't agree with their views but that's their right. This isn't about whether religion is a good or bad thing (it's too big a subject for a start). What I am suggesting is it's wrong for anyone to refuse to drive a bus simply because of what's written on it. The driver is not espousing atheistic beliefs by driving it. What he is doing is saying that another person's point of view is so utterly repulsive to him that he can't do his job. That's wrong isn't it? Is saying there probably isn't a god such a vile thing? Wouldn't it be more sensible to actually try and argue why there is a god rather than stamp his feet and throw his toys out of the pram? As I said at the top of the thread it's pretty much live and let live with me, whether I agree with people or not. I wouldn't stop someone or an organisation expressing their views just because I disagreed. For the record though I'd like to point out that religion doesn't have a monopoly on kindness. Sure there are many good deeds done it's name but there are also a matching amount done by non-religious organisations and individuals. There are also a lot of bad things done in the name of religion. My own personal view is that an act of kindness performed simply because it's the right thing to do and not because God told us to, or because a reward is waiting in heaven may be more meaningful.

Yeah that goes without saying. Obviously I'm not saying all Christians are intolerant - just the ones that post on here .......aw crap, that's another generalisation.

Well try and address the point. What I find ludicrous is the failure to accept another point of view. The idea someone can disagree with the right of someone to hold a legitimate and justifiable view is ludicrous. Let's see if you can come up with an argument.

This is ridiculous and beside the point. Atheism actually isn't about believing in "nothing" anyway. It's about believing in science and what can be proved and disproved, about testing statements for validity. Why is it that we can have tolerate people believing that the world was created in seven days, that evolution doesn't exist, that jesus was risen from the dead, that he created water from wine and other miracles and yet the moment people say "actually that's a bit far fetched and I don't believe it" people get worked up? If I'm being honest then the whole idea of religion seems far fetched and ridiculous. If people choose to believe it then fine but is it so wrong to suggest an altogether more plausible assessment? Anyway, getting back to the point this is about toleration and it seems that Christians are far less tolerant than their precious bible teaches them to be.

There you go, intolerance to another point of view in a single sentence. If only it were as simple as films yet as far as I'm aware no one has justified a war or jihad in the name of "Iron Man" or "Star Wars". Not believing in a supreme creator is as equally valid as choosing to believe in one. Why should atheists be denied free speech when it comes to denying the existence of "god"?

So if I formed an advertising campaign to promote the idea that a teapot circled the earth and that teapot is the one true god, though we should call him Trevor, then that would be OK? After all I'm promoting the idea of something? But if someone promotes the idea of "No God" then that's antagonistic and argumentative? Hmmm, that makes sense.

But it's not reasonable to refuse to drive a bus just because you disagree with what's written on it. The slogan was a legitimate point of view and he's not being asked to endorse any view contrary to his beliefs. Everyone has to do things in their job they disagree with. I work for the government and don't particularly like the conservatives - can I refuse to work for them if they are elected? When I worked behind the bar I had to listen to people spout the most outrageous twaddle - could I refuse to serve them just because I disagreed with them?

I wouldn't pretend to like it but I'd still do the job. Interesting you draw a parallel with the BNP and atheism though. Is atheism as abhorrent as the BNP for Christians? Or is it a question of degree. To further your example would it be OK to not drive a bus with Conservative Party advertisements if you were a Labour Party member? Could you refuse to drive the bus if you particularly dislike a film that was being advertised on it? Thing is the bus company says it doesn't endorse any of the adverts on it's bus and neither do it's employees. In this case no one is suggesting the bus driver is supporting atheistic beliefs by driving it but by refusing to drive it (unless another isn't available) the bus driver is displaying intolerance for the atheistic point of view. To take your example of the BNP - yes, I fundamentally disagree with them but I do respect their right to hold their views and beliefs (as long as those views remain within the law). It's up to people to make compelling counter arguments and not flat out refuse to listen to those views. My point exactly.

Yes I'm aware of that, as probably most people are. I'm not sure what your point is?

No, he's not particularly reasonable at all. He'll only drive a bus with the advert on if there's no other available. Well how very gracious of him. I'm sure we could all learn a lesson off him eh? What he's displaying is religious intolerance for any view counter to his own.

No complaining except for the guy who walked out then? What's he doing if not complaining?