Hamilton Saint

And why would they fake the moon landings six times? Wasn't once enough?

No. The camera is not as sensitive as the human eye, and it is unable to register such a dim light.

And don't forget those non-stick frying pans. One of the great side-benefits of the space programme!

Same old evidence that is brought up again and again, despite its being discredited scientifically. Just to mention one thing: go outside on a clear night when there is no moon. Do it out in the country where the stars are very visible. Now, take some photographs of the sky. It's guaranteed that there will be no stars appearing in any of those photographs. Now, think about why that is. It's not a conspiracy - science can easily explain it for you.

I think you'll find that there are some despicable things recommended and sanctioned in The Bible, which many people believe is the word of God. Unless you're a fundamentalist, this means interpretation and exegesis is required.

1) Millions of Catholics disagree with the Church's teaching on contraception. That doesn't mean that they ought to leave the Church. 2) It's not the "religion" that is not approving of a way of life - it's the opinion of some of that religion's leaders. Opinions and principles do change. 3) Because you disagree with one particular aspect of your Church's doctrine does not mean you are not following it "correctly". Nor does it mean that you cannot be devout. Last time I checked there were three main divisions in Judaism, two main branches of Islam, two main traditions of Catholicism, and hundreds of different sects of Protestantism. The struggle really is between the notion of a narrow, orthodox view of the faith (whatever it is) and a liberal, compassionate view that embraces everyone. Sometimes the faithful are ahead of their leaders.

Wake up Maggie, I think I got something to say to you ...

One of the first jazz musicians I ever listened to. Loved Take Five, Blue Rondo a la Turk, It's a Raggy Waltz, etc. More formally presented, perhaps, and with less improvisation, but it really did swing!

The error here is mistaking the association of events with a necessary causal connection. Because B often follows A, doesn't mean that A causes B.

My understanding of the term "gateway drug" is that it is used to mean that one's acceptance and pleasure with the drug itself will lead to experiences with other drugs. Rather than the scenario you presented.

That's OK then? Our culture? Not my culture - I don't accept that sort of thing at all.

We? Speak for yourself.

Straw man fallacy. Respond to what I actually said; don't mis-characterize what I said. Did I say anything remotely similar to "publically kissing the arse of the bloke trying to f*ck our boys over"?

"It's all about winning games of football."

To the OP. You make a lot of good points, but I don't agree that cannabis is a "gateway drug". That's like saying coffee (one drug) leads to scotch (another), because most drinkers of scotch drank coffee before they discovered the harder stuff. The war on drugs (a complete failure) has been focused primarily on cannabis, which is a relatively harmless drug. This all goes back to the 1930s (or thereabouts), when marijuana was not properly understood and categorised incorrectly. I see the war on drugs, during the last 40 years, as a highly reactionary response to the 60s counter-culture. Prohibition (against alcohol) didn't work. The war on drugs hasn't worked.

Many refs would have started their career because they were asked to ref games - because without a ref, there is no game. Then they realised they could get remunerated for participating in a game they love. Your attitude is so cynical - but shared, unfortunately, by too many people.

What a silly comment! It is the exact opposite. When someone applauds (very occasionally) a spectacular display of skill by an opponent, they are really showing respect and love for the game itself. It is the person who is unable to ever feel this magnanimous and unguarded response to competitive sport who is really "dead inside".

Abusing the ref (at the professional level) is predictable and ritualistic. Generally speaking, if your team gets the three points, the ref's OK, if you don't, the ref is inadequate. One of the unfortunate side-effects of being and avid supporter is that it often creates an irrational, tribal response - an unhealthy amount of hate and ridicule. Part of the football culture, I know, but still often OTT.

I was NOT there physically for the FA Cup Final in 1976, but there was one radio station in the Toronto area that used to broadcast the Cup Finals every year. So I listened to the game via radio and recorded the commentary on my reel-to-reel tape recorder. That 7" tape reel is in a box somewhere down in the basement.

Just remember, Nigel, that it's all about winning games of football.

What an assinine idea for a competition.

"Budweiser F.A. Cup" - have they no shame! "Barclays Premier League" - just as annoying. And then there are those public buildings (theatres, sports stadia, etc.) that are renamed after mega-corporations. F**k that!

Thanks for that interesting article. I remember getting into The Dell for 1/- back then. And the Hythe ferry cost 6d. I made the trip by myself (started going when I was about 11) - my father was not interested.

What was surprising in this latest incident was the size of the wall - only three players. There was a large amount of space on the left-side of the wall (from the kicker's perspective) for the kicker to aim around the wall. Who decides on the size of the wall, anyway? Surely, free-kicks that close to goal, from that angle, require a bigger wall?

Maybe it got delivered to that call centre in Mumbai?