Sheaf Saint

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13184594 The most blatant violation of the terms of UN resolution 1973 yet. There will be a lot of backlash about this I reckon. While ultimately I believe that the removal of Gadaffi is morally the best option, the allies are now playing a dangerous game by openly trying to kill him using air strikes as it will only generate sympathy for him from so far neutral states. This isn't going to end quickly or easily.

I'm slowly upgrading my PC. Just bought a new ASRock N68C-S mobo and gonna get a new processor to go with it when I get paid, but ideally I need to replace my ageing Geforce 8500 graphics card as well. I don't really want to spend silly money, and I came across this one and was wondering what people think about it or if anyone has any other recommendations.

... to incur so much hatred and vitriol from the Brighton fans and manager?

Yes, they can. They are on 93 points and have 3 games left.

Does anybody know why Brighton and Hudds fans call us SCC?

???????????????????????????? How does he work this out??? Claridge has never made any secret of his hatred towards Southampton and still cannot bring himself to praise us in any way despite our current position.

Somebody mentioned earlier on this thread that there has been some bad blood between Poyet and Clarke at Hudds already in the game at the Galpharm this season so I imagine he will be treating the game exactly the same as he did with ours yesterday - making up a little rivalry where none exists.

It seems that when Bill Shankly said that football is more important than a matter of life and death, a number of people have difficulty realising that he didn't actually mean it. Whatever this is about (it seems pretty obvious that it is to do with the Irish sectarianism thing but I don't want to jump to any conclusions) people need to get some perspective. Football rivalry can be bad enough without the need to bring religious differences into it. I suppose I am lucky that I have never lived in that world where kids have a hatred of other ethnic / religious groups instilled into them from birth, but I truly cannot get my head round it sometimes.

Even so though, the headline and the thread title make out like DC has already blocked the move, where in fact he hasn't; all he has done is voice his own personal opinion about Brown's suitability for it. I agree that when push comes to shove and Cameron is given the opportunity to veto it then he would probably elect to do so, but the media and the OP are making it seem that he already has, thus sensationalising a nothing story.

Let's just get this into a little context here. I was listening to the today program on R4 when Cameron made this 'attack' yesterday, and the reality is that he was put on the spot by Evan Davies about it and, when pushed for an answer, replied that he had not spent any time thinking about it but that his own personal opinion was that he may not be the most suitable person for the job. He did NOT say specifically that he would block or veto the appointment, but hey... never let the actual facts get in the way of a good bit of over-dramatisation by the media.

I was thinking this earlier and I reckon this is our only real hope of getting anything from the game. If he plays a full-strength team, with no pressure on them as the title is already seasled, it would be hard to bet against anything other than yet another home win.

Something tells me this won't be an issue next season ;-)

So FBI documents confirm the 'nutjobs' were right all along, and yet you still classify them as nutjobs? Interesting

I live in south Sheffield and it reckons I am 168 miles from SMS (which sounds about right) and 27 miles from Huddersfield Town, but you are apparently 99 miles further from SMS than me despite only being 1.3 miles from Hudds Town. Something's not right here.

Probably because they cost so much to begin with that they are trying to extract as much life out of them as they possibly can before scrapping them.

This is precisely the way I see it. Millennia ago, people used to worship the god of the sun or the god of rain or the god of thunder because they hadn't the slightest comprehension of the nature of the earth, weather etc.. Then some Jewish tribesmen came up with the old testament as a means of justification for their continued wars with other tribes and it somehow took a hold and people accepted it as truth. It really shocks me that people still cling to this crap despite the fact that science has disproved an awful lot of the claims made in the OT. Classic example - the book of Genesis states that 'God made two great lights: one to light up the days and one to provide light at night' (not the exact words but you get the gist) obviously referring to the sun and the moon. Modern science has shown us that the sun has existed for a great deal longer than the Earth, so there was no concept of night and day before the Earth existed because they are created by the rotation of the planet. We have also proved that the moon is not actually a 'great light', rather a useless lump of rock caught in the gravitational pull of the earth, which just happens to reflect the light of the sun towards the surface area of the Earth. You have to ask: if the very first book of the bible managed to get this so catastrophically wrong, how can you possibly take any of the rest of it with any seriousness? But nooooooo, there are still plenty of people who genuinely do believe that the bible is the literal word of god. I'm afraid there is no hope for these people if they are so utterly incapable of any critical thinking. The worst one for me is the Q'uran. As I understand it, most muslims believe that this is also the literal word of Allah. This being the case, why did Allah choose to 'reveal' the Q'uran to an illiterate nomad who had no means to write it down? Muhammed allegedly kept the contents of his revelation in his head for many years before passing it on to some soldiers so it could be shared with the wider world, so unless he had a spectacularly good photographic memory, I would wager that the contents had changed an awful lot before it was committed to scroll. The other crazy thing about this is that many muslims believe that the Q'uran loses all meaning if it translated inot any language other than Arabic. So if God really does want the whole world to convert to Islam, why would he/she/it exclude the vast majority of the world's population from understanding his revealed truth?

Maybe it was badly worded. Perhaps the article should refer to theistic or organised religion.

Well yeah, and I think that's the point Nick was making. Don't you remember the hysteria and despair from some fans on here after that game?

Some little muppet did both mine and my neighbours' cars not long ago. I'm a pacifist and I don't believe that violence is ever the way to solve anything, but if I had caught the little c**t in the act then I can't honestly say that I would have been able to restrain myself.

Yeah, of course dune. Cos there's no way that the EDL - the fine bunch of upstanding citizens that they are - could ever include someone so monumentally stupid as this neanderthal is there.

But I thought you liked Gadaffi and wanted him to win dune???

Actually, in all seriousness aintforever, it might have something to do with the UK being one of the five permanent members of the UN security council. Clearly there are benefits of being part of that elite, but with it also comes responsibility that we can't just abandon as and when we decide that there is nothing to gain from it.

Ask dune; he clearly still yearns for the days of the empire and I'm sure he will be ecstatic that we are now getting another chance to prove to the rest of the world just how great Great Britain really is.

If this is truly a humanitarian mission with the sole aim of preventing a lunatic dictator from committing genocide against his own people then I think that the UN has a responsibility to carry it out in the name of protecting innocent civilians. This is one of the founding principles of the organisation. However, as much as I believe in the ideal of using the relative prosperity of the western world to stand up for the rights of people everywhere, the cynic inside me is saying that the only reason the US, UK and others would take this action is if there was some economic benefit to be gained from it, as this is historically the only reason that nations ever go into conflict unless attacked first. We shall see. It is clear that this situation is completely different from Iraq in 2003, and of course we have a different government in power now (I wonder what Phoney Blair would be planning right now if he was still PM, seeing as he has always been a close buddy of Gadaffi), but one thing that I have learned over the years is that no matter which party they may represent, politicians are all the same at the end of the day. Self-serving habitual liars the lot of them.