Hamilton Saint

What?! You mean that "Old Fogey" values, like reasoned debate and respect for others' opinions, have to be segregated into some quaint, "out-of-touch" ghetto? I have a better idea - let's restrict all the running-off-at-the-mouth trolls, wums, and rude ars*holes to the Muppet Show, where they obviously belong. If they can't follow the forum's basic rules of on-line etiquette, stick them in a sub-forum for sub-humans. Then we can open up the main board and the Lounge to intelligent, respectful conversation. Problem solved.

I've just been looking at my collection of Saints match programmes from the 60s. Of the nine programmes I have from the 1967-68 season, six of them feature a photo of Ron Davies on the cover scoring a goal with a header. He scored 28 goals in Division One that season, joint top-scorer with George Best.

Well ... there is an aura on here that this is a private club for a clique of about 20 people who dominate most of the threads. They just go on and on and on and on, in a kind of closed conversation, and just don't know when to shut up. A thread gets introduced and then is hijacked by the same small group who want to dominate the proceedings. Shut up already! Make your point and then let other people in on the conversation.

Bob Marley and the Wailers: e.g., Waiting In Vain Ian Dury and the Blockheads: Sex and Drugs and Rock & Roll and Wake Up and Make Love to Me Marvin Gaye: Let's Get It On and I Heard it Through the Grapevine The Rolling Stones: Miss You and Honky Tonk Women Talking Heads: Crosseyed and Painless and Once in a Lifetime James Brown: so many to choose from! Sam and Dave: lots to choose from, too! UB40: Please Don't Make Me Cry, 1 in 10, Many Rivers to Cross

That was Tijuana Tim.

In case you missed this, I want to draw attention to something lifeintheslowlane posted above (post #53). His second video clip "Big Match Interview" features Jimmy Hill interviewing Ron Davies about the Game in 1969 (August 16th.) when he scored 4 -or was it 3? [see the clip] - against Manchester United.

Indeed. A perfect example of that is seen in this video of Saints beating Man Utd 4-1. Check it out!

edit

Sad news. My favourite Saints player - he was my football hero when I was a young boy. R.I.P.

Well - put it this way - how many neutral fans are there who remember we have won the FA Cup, versus the number who know that we were runners up in Division One in the 1983-84 season? Surely the FA Cup win is of more significance (if not as difficult to achieve)?

Like the tabloid press, you mean - provocative, but misleading.

You asked me a question; I gave you my honest response. Is everything black-and-white, right-and-"far-left" to you? I gave you my reasoned view, but you want bluster and points scoring. Unlike you, I don't pretend to have all the answers. Sometimes it's important to frame the correct questions and not rush to an ill-considered action. Think about the disaster unleashed by the Iraq "intervention". How do you weigh those consequences?

. As I said, I don't have a position. I don't advocate intervention, not primarily because of "the evidence of previous failures", but because I don't fully understand the nuances of the political situation there and I don't trust that we're getting the full story. The Middle East is a quagmire. And much of the news we get is misinformation or propaganda.

Agreed. Total abomination.

I don't have a position on that. It's very complicated. It's almost impossible to know what's really happening there. But the place is a key geo-political area: all the major powers will be busy behind the scenes trying to influence the outcome in one direction or another. And the fate of the civilian population may not be uppermost in their considerations. For certain there are governments of all types surreptitiously arming different factions within the country. Undoubtedly, it's a brutal regime in power there, but how to ensure that the toppling of one despotic regime does not lead to the imposition of something just as bad - or a state of extended chaos? Look what happened in Iran, after the Shah was toppled. Look what happened in Iraq. It's a quandary. Military intervention seldom achieves the stated end, and often only makes things worse for the civilian population. I have no confidence in recommending any action there.

How much are 600,000 lives worth?

Perhaps the mellifluous malevolence of their vocal delivery? All that Shakespearean training!

You didn't read that bit where he said: "we would seem to be well outside the top 6"?

A fantastic album - a great leap forward, after an OK debut. Full of gems.

So, which is it? They are going to be banned - which is what the title of your thread says, and your first sentence says - or this is what feminist groups want. Make up your mind.

Could be a build up of ear wax that has hardened enough to put pressure on the inner ear. That can be relieved by putting drops of mineral oil in the ear - this will soften the wax and relieve the pressure. But you need to check this out with your doctor.

Precisely. And using "political correctness gone mad" as their prime rationale.

Silly comment. The soldier wasn't attacked because he was white - it wasn't a random, racist attack - he was attacked because he was a soldier. The killers made political comments and references to conflicts overseas. The evidence strongly suggests it was an act of terror. Nothing to do with racism.

I've made my point several times, in several ways. You don't seem to be willing to accept what I've said. No point in my repeating myself endlessly,eh?

As I mentioned in post #28, you're not familiar (I'm assuming) with the historical context of how offense has been given and received with the use of this reference to fried chicken. To adapt your own explanation above "reference to fried chicken is offensive because it has often been used in strong and aggressive abuse of people of afro-American origin".