Sheaf Saint

What kind of f***ed up world are we living in where people are legally able to buy cocktails containing liquid nitrogen!? What are the people who buy it thinking? It's liquid nitrogen FFS... not lemonade!

And if he had stayed on and we had lost, what then? Would you now be complaining that Nigel didn't make any changes that might have won it for us? It's all ifs, buts and maybes.

Regards your first point about not knowing his best 11, I really don't see how you can judge that when he hasn't at any point so far this season had a fully fit squad to choose from. Secondly, it's all very well claiming his subs are costing us games but the only one I can think of where this can be the case is Man U. I didn't see many people complaining about his changes in the Villa game. You and others are complaining about him taking off our best player, but SRL was far from that yesterday - he was having a poor game by his standards and Adkins decided that a change was necessary, and although I have been a critic of his in the past I thought Guly was very effective when he came on and I actually agree with NA's decision there. With regards Puncheon... Again, he was lively but he was going nowhere. He showed a bit of pace at times but his control and first touch were poor and he was constantly giving away possession and leaving Yoshida exposed at RB. Again, I totally agree with NA's decision to replace him with Chappers who was more effective both in getting forward and in tracking back. Nigel's hand was forced with the early loss of Fraser and the need to put his 1st choice CB to a position he clearly isn't comfortable in, and replacing him at CB with his 3rd choice. Had that not happened it would have been a different game, so I really cannot see how people can state with such authority that it was Adkins' tactics that cost us the win. If I had to choose just one aspect of yesterday's game that was the primary reason for us not winning it was the failure to take our chances in the 1st half whgen we were in command of the match.

Yeah but Pardew's sacking wasn't a knee-jerk response to a bad run of results.

Yeah cos panicking and sacking the manager is a policy that has always worked out well for us in the past isn't it. Oh, hang on....

Pickings are very slim round my way this year. Went out foraging this morning and found loads of Blackthorn but very few actual berries. The two trees I normally go to, which have yielded far more berries than I need in recent years, are practically bare. And it's not because somebody has already had them either. Must be a result of the crap summer we had. Still, it's a good thing I found a bumper load of damsons a month or so ago. I tried a little of the 2 litres I made the other day and it's great stuff already.

Why the hell did we wait until we were 2-1 down before we started playing!? So infuriating. Fulham were poor and there for the taking, and we nearly gave it to them on a plate.

They've all been a bit harsh IMO - especially Hooiveld's.

And again given away so so cheaply by Jose

So far Fonte has managed to find a Fulham player with just about every clearing header today - even when under no pressure. It's like he's deliberately trying to give the ball away. It's only a matter of time before we concede IMO. Better pray we score another one or two because 1-0 won't do it.

This ever-sensitive issue has provoked some thoughtful responses regarding the overall rights and wrongs of abortion. Not being a parent myself it is difficult for me to hold any real strong view about the legality of it, but I do believe the current legal limit of 24 weeks does need to be addressed. The reason being that a few years ago some friends of mine had a premature baby at 23 weeks - he was no bigger than my mate's hand at birth - and legally the medical team could have chosen not to resuscitate him at less than 24 weeks. It was touch and go for a long time and he needed an oxygen ventilator for the first couple of years because of his under-developed lungs, but he has grown to be a perfectly healthy boy. Going back a few years, this would not have been possible. The hospital would not have had the skills or the resources to care for him and keep him alive following such a premature birth and he would have been simply allowed to die, but his case is not unique by any means. More and more babies born at this term are surviving now thanks to advances in medical technology and understanding. So this is why I believe that the law allowing a mother to terminate a pregnancy at a stage where the baby could be born, survive and go on to lead a perfectly normal, healthy life needs to be urgently reviewed.

You think? I've been to both and I thought Chill Factor was better.

Or perhaps the brilliant Chill Factor next to the Trafford Centre in Manchester.

Yes, As things stand teenage boys who are just discovering their sexuality will take any opportunity to gawp at a bit of flesh on display (I know, I was a teenage boy myself once) but if those boys had become accustomed to seeing people naked since birth then none of that would be an issue. I know it's a pipe-dream to expect we will ever reach such a stage as a society but I genuinely believe that it all comes down to social conditioning.

But that's the point. If we as a society were generally more open about it then it wouldn't happen all the time, because the sight of a naked woman would no longer be a taboo. This might also go some way towards eliminating the objectification of women amongst young men (and vice versa).

What the hell has that got to do with it?

No, and if you re-read my post you will see the caveat attached "As long as that person is just going about their business and not actually harming anyone else". The idea that nudity is offensive/perverse or whatever exists solely because of our social conditioning. Watch documentaries about tribespeople in Africa or South America and see if you can spot any hint of 'modesty' as we call it. There's just no taboo about nudity in their culture as they are brought up to accept is as the norm. So why is it different here?

Can he though? It's not as easy as that is it. If somebody wants to exercise the basic freedom to walk about with no clothes on because he feels more comfortable like that then he should be allowed to. As long as that person is just going about their business and not actually harming anyone else then I don't see a problem. If other people are offended by his choice then that is their sh*t to deal with, not his. Yeah this is what I mean. Society dictates what's normal and what's not. Just because somebody disagrees with the majority view, does that make them mentally ill?

Provided he isn't trying to rape them, what exactly is wrong with it?

Why should he? He has just made a choice that he doesn't want to conform to what society considers 'normal'. I find it sad that when somebody comes along who chooses not to be a sheep and just go with the flow for the sake of fitting in, society generally assumes they must be a fruitcake.

A definite improvement on Back To Earth, with the return to the original live-audience format, but it still felt a little too contrived and over-executed compared to the heyday.

Doh!

Surprised nobody has mentioned Band of Brothers yet. Utterly absorbing TV, and one of the few American dramas I have ever fully appreciated.

That would be my conclusion as well, which is why I'm not going to get too worried about this 'revelation' as yet.

Do we know if this 'future revenue' refers to next season or just further payments for this season that are still outstanding? I think that makes a big difference. If we have borrowed against next season's TV money, on the assumption we will stay up, then that might be quite concerning. It could, of course, relate to parachute payments that we will be entitled to if we are relegated this season.