Hamilton Saint

I feel honoured, I reckon, to be associated with such an impressive specimen!

I am as bad as he is? Really? What a strange transvaluation of values there is on social media. If he is evidently a troll, then presumably—given the comprehensive list of rules laid out by the administrators of this forum—he should have been removed from this forum long ago. I come on here virtually every day (what fool me?) looking for information and intelligent opinion about my favourite football team, and I have to wade through the BS of the same smallish group who seem to infect, and dominate, every thread. Not surprising that I lose it occasionally. So, if I do break down once in a blue moon and respond to one of these fellows, you ought to sympathize, rather than criticize.

This is so typical of your style—full of hyperbole, misrepresentation of what people are saying, and mis-characterization of their motives. I did not "threaten" Kermit with defamation; I suggested that he provide evidence for a statement that appeared defamatory without it. I have not been "hounding" him for retractions: I stated once that he consider retracting his accusation, if he was unable to provide evidence. And I did not state that LR was "whiter than white". I don't live in the hyper-negative, black-and-white, mud-slinging, blame-apportioning, knee-jerk, attention-grabbing world you seem to inhabit. As you state correctly, "we don't know all the ins and outs". I would go further and say we know virtually nothing of what goes on behind the scenes. And even if we did know a lot, it would still be difficult—even presumptuous—to make snap judgments. As a supporter of SFC (one whom you like to characterize as a "happy-clappy"), I don't see the point—or wisdom—of constantly insulting and demeaning the manager, ridiculing the chairman, abusing the owner, and scapegoating out-of-form players. Especially when it is based mostly on rumour and specualtion. If you do feel the need to criticize, then that's fine, but it can be done without misrepresentation, insult and invective.

My, my, my. Of course there is freedom of speech in North America, but it is not an absolute right—it is restricted by laws dealing with treason, sedition, blasphemous and defamatory libel, disruption of religious worship, hate propaganda, spreading false news, public mischief, obscenity, indecency and other forms. In Canadian law defamatory libel is a "matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published." I consider it likely that there are similar laws in the UK dealing with defamatory libel. To write on a public internet forum that a prominent figure in a widely-followed organization is "well known for lying through his teeth", and then to try to defend that statement by saying it is merely an opinion, with no apparent basis in fact, is defamation. Pure and simple. If you can't see that, well that's your problem. HTH

Jeez. If it is "well known", as you said, then you are claiming it is an established fact. In which case, it is not your "opinion". It is one thing, or the other, but not both. So—again—what is your evidence? Or do you think it is OK to call someone a bare-faced liar just because you present it as your "opinion"? If you don't have any evidence, you should retract your "opinion".

This is defamatory. I challenge you to give a few examples. And what do you mean by beginning that sentence with "personally". It doesn't make sense.

Amen, again! It's all about the big picture.

Amen!

Perhaps it's not just the money. Some people are happy to stick with the same position, the same employer, throughout their career. You might call that a lack of ambition, or a sign of loyalty. Some people want to move on, after a long period in the same job; they want to experience a new challenge, or work in a new environment. You might that call that a natural thing, or condemn it as a lack of loyalty. People have different feelings and different motives. If they've done a good job and generally behaved decently, they deserve our respect. N'est-ce pas?

Well, I don't know about you, but I am not privy to anything happening behind the scenes. Neither are most of us fans. It's all speculation and rumour. So, it's hardly fair to make judgments about matters we know virtually nothing about. What I have seen from Fonte in the last seven years, on and off the pitch, has impressed me.

Really? This is unbelievable. Fonte has been with the club for seven years. He joined us when we were in League One. He is the only player still with us who was in the team in that 2009-2010 season, when he joined. He has made over 250 appearances with Saints. He has been a regular on the team sheet, because of his excellent and reliable performances on the pitch. He has served as captain. But you won't wish him well? Really?

complements

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you all!

To quote Groucho Marx: “Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well I have others.”

Nice. Thanks for that.

The incredible shot of the kingfisher—the "blue trail".

In every sunny sky there are bound to be some dark clouds lurking.

No, it was an act of desperation ... remember.

Nice, except Kierkegaard was Danish.

Come on, Saints!!

A truly great, and humble, artist. Superb career as both poet and songwriter (he also wrote two novels). He spent much of the 60s on Hydra, in Greece. Probably why I first visited Greece in 1973. [video=youtube;DU-RuR-qO4Y]

I enjoy throwing about the term "w*n*e*" with great abandon; not too many here have any idea what it means. Calling male friends "mate", however, can lead to a few raised eyebrows.

Thanks for this. A good read!

It starts four minutes before KO. WTF!!

No Merrington and Blackmore yet. What the hell ...