Hamilton Saint

Reminds me of the words of Robert Fripp's guru, J. G. Bennett (given as the Inaugural Address for the International Academy for Contininuous Education at Sherborne House) in 1971: "From the scientist's study it seems likely that we should soon begin to have a discreet change in the earth's climate so people will not be able to live where they have, and the oceans will rise, and many cities will be flooded, like London, and Calcutta, and so on. These things, they say, will happen, according to scientific theories, in about forty years at the most, but maybe even quicker." On Fripp's superb solo LP Exposure we hear this excerpt from the taped lecture at the beginning of the track that segues into "Here Comes the Flood". "Lord, here comes the flood We'll say goodbye to flesh and blood If again the seas are silent in any still alive It'll be those who gave their island to survive Drink up, dreamers, you're running dry." The song is by Peter Gabriel and he provides the vocal on Fripp's album.

Were you educated by Jesuits? You've got the hair-splitting down to perfection. Calling someone "lazy" is not a FACT, it's an insulting opinion. Calling someone a "fat arse" is not a FACT, it's an insulting opinion. Calling someone a "know it all ... barely being out of nappies" is not a FACT, it's an insulting opinion. Opinions are not FACTS.

What I offered to the thread was this - an opportunity for you to be just a tad self-critical. I wasn't having a go at you. I didn't insult you, like you did the three posters you specifically mentioned. I was just stating the FACT (as you put it in another post) of what you did - throwing a grenade into the discussion that knocks the discussion off-topic.

This thread was going fine for the first seven posts, and then you - typically - dropped a grenade into the discussion (post #8 ).

Agreed. Their motto ought to be "less is more". What's needed is commentary about tactics and once-in-a-while summarizing. As the game proceeds, and viewers get used to recognizing palyers on the field, the repetitive identification of players is not needed. Non-stop commentary during sports games is a north-American disease, but it seems to be spreading! I always remember watching the Wimbledon tournament many years ago on the American network NBC. They had a "colour commentator" on there called Bud Collins. He's one of those broadcasters who just won't shut up. At the beginning of one game, the American network switched to the BBC commentary. The commentator was the legendary Dan Maskell. Maskell was a terse, laconic commentator, who didn't always feel the need to say anything, if the proceedings unfolding in front of your eyes were obvious. In this quick game, the server wrapped it up with four quick points. Maskell did not say a single word. At the end, when NBC switched back to their own commentators, they laughed uproariously - and then proceeding to jabber away non-stop for the rest of their broadcast.

I'm not dismissing anything. I don't hold to any particular theory on this.

Phil Jones says critics are desperate to see Man U fail this season. No, it's not that; people would like to see other teams succeed for a change. Our Sunday and Monday papers here often carry summaries of the weekend games which come from the Reuters and Associated Press news agencies. For the last few weeks they still have not even mentioned Southampton's emergence as a contender. Not a murmur about us sitting in third place. Their summaries invariably focus on Man U, Man City, and Chelsea. Oh, and Arsenal - since they've started to win consistently again.

If you sprinkle paprika and chopped up parsley over the surface, you create an aesthetically pleasing effect (plus add a little extra to the taste)!

I have a monopoly on rumour? I don't get your point. You asked; I passed on what the common theory has been for many years.

Stupid people explained - by John Cleese.

No problem. That's all do-able!

The person who raised that flag didn't notice?!

Well, the theory is that he was a troubled, confused loner, who was enticed into assassinating JFK, so that the Mob could avoid any connection to the plot. The theory also has it that Ruby was "told" or "manipulated" into killing Oswald in order to ensure that he wouldn't reveal any connection to the people who hired him. Ruby said that he killed Oswald because he was very upset by the grief Jacqueline Kennedy was going through.

It's great. I make my own. Easy recipe, very nutritious. Made from garbanzo beans (aka chick peas). Even better is baba ganouge. Made from eggplant (aubergine).

Ruby was involved with the Mob. Oswald was assassinated to cover up his relationship with the Mob.

In my line of work, it's called "Eduspeak" (as in education). Some more recent examples: diversity, inclusivity, 21st century thinking, co-creation. Our Educational authority ("Board of Education") has recently discovered the wonders of Twitter. OMG! This is one path to the future I'm not taking, thank you very much.

No, not just based on Sgt. Pepper's. A lot more. For example: In the choreography that goes with "You Mother Should More" on Magical Mystery Tour, Paul is wearing a black flower (the other three are wearing a red one); on "Come Together" (Abbey Road), Lennon sings "One and one and one is three"; in "Glass Onion" (White Album), Lennon sings "Here's another clue for you all, the Walrus was Paul" - the Walrus, it was claimed at the time, being a symbol of death; in the Magical Mystery Tour film there is a scene with Paul dressed in an army uniform and in front of him there is a psychedelic sign that reads "I was"; on the Abbey Road front cover the license plate for the VW Beetle reads, in part, 28IF - McCartney would have been 28 on the release of the album if he wasn't dead (well, he would have been 27, actually); and here's a really obscure one - on the back of the Abbey Road cover, if you turn it upside down and look closely at the woman's leg (just below the hem of the blue dress) you can see the letter P (P for Paul!). OK, now Sgt. Pepper. If you look at Paul on the front cover, the figure behind him is holding an outstretched hand over his head - this is supposed to signify death or doom, or whatever! The yellow flowers underneath the red flowers that spell Beatles are rather indistinct - but they spell Paul, perhaps? His grave? On the back cover of Sgt. Pepper, Paul has his back turned. One of the lines from "Within You Without You" printed across his back reads "If they only knew". And so it goes on. A lot of fun, really. But nonsense. My favourite clue, because it has a local Ontario angle, is the photograph on the inner sleeve of the Sgt. Pepper gatefold cover. On "Paul's" left shoulder there is a large insignia made of fabric which reads, so the conspiracy theory had it, O.P.D. (for Ontario Police Department) - which was supposed to mean Officially Pronounced Dead. And the person who was supposed to be replacing Paul was an imposter from Ontario. Unfortunately, the insignia is actually O.P.P., for Ontario Provincial Police. I guess that stands for Officially Pronounced Preposterous.

As opposed to fielding a weaker team in order to rest players or avoid injury to first-team regulars.

All forms of cheating - including diving in football - are antithetical to the essence of sport. To win a game by cheating is disgraceful. It takes away any joy you might feel in success. The essence of sport is to agree to play by the rules, to respect the spirit of fair play, and to strive to win by playing better than your opponent. Cheating undermines the entire enterprise. To see your own team cheating in this way feels even worse that watching your opponents do it.

As if ... One lives in never-ending anticipation, and one is forever disappointed.

You deliberately riddled that post with errors, eh? I'm not going to bite, pal.

Speaking of arrogance and condescension ...

Do you not see the contradiction here? You say the League Cup has been devalued because teams put out weakened sides. And then you call for Saints to put out a team of reserves.

Intimate in Knave in geek Banal all The snot peril

To be liberal is to be ample, open-minded, magnanimous, generous and non-bigoted. A stauch conservative in policy can still be liberal-minded. You, I would say, based on the things you post on here, are not liberal.