saintfully

"Obamas coming to get you!" Your clocks ticking St George... scared much ?

Are you Badger in disguise?

Or indeed Poopey

They once hanged a monkey cause they thought it was a French spy. ****s.

Its genius isn't it - I think Dune should win £5.

C'mon George you can do better than that.... .... all the graph shows is that over the last few years there has been cooling - dosn't mean its going to continue. Science is based on accumulating evidence, not the last sample that just conveniently fits your point of view. Lets wait and see what happens in the future before we dismiss the accumulated evidence for MMCC on the back of (By the way, Im all for free speech, but your americanisms -ie. y'all/prolly -really are tedious and guaranteed to distract from your argument.)

LOL. My favourite bit is where you don't think you're a sheep but an eagle....

I think the first thing to say at this point is that Im not concerned with looking stupid... I would be worried about being stupid, but I only have to look at the arguments presented to me by others to realise thats not something I need to worry about. The second point is that unavoidable climate change is not a sum-total game. MMCC will be exacerbated by failure to reduce carbon emissions. Its not that difficult to understand is it? I think Badger explained it clearly. Lastly, George, what was the significant research? Does it explain the confusing acceptance of MMCC by a bunch of right-leaning chinese leaders who control there own media? I think your world is a very simple one, and the real world is more complicated than you are prepared to accept/understand.

Just because I havn't replied dosn't mean the 3000 don't exist - they were the attendees of an AAAS summit in 2007. And actually the number is really an irrelevance - next you'll be citing the list of 30000 'scientists' who were said to disbelieve climate change - and were then found out to consist of 650 PhDs and 29350-ish utter ****s... reminding me of ??? The point is that there is an accepted concensus in the scientific community. My question to you St George is whether it is just a happy coincidence that your climate-change beliefs (a scientific position) lie alongside your political beliefs, or are you incapable of separating the two and therefore a bit simple ? Im off to do some science now - or maybe I'll just make up a load of ****** that suits my political agenda.

If only... make my friday night even more relaxing knowing the Devil no longer walked among us

Ski Sunday Bod Grange Hill (Im old)

Crikey, touched a nerve there. Wasn't judging you, just wondering ? I have no idea who you are or how far you are going to go in golf, but was curious. I get that pro-footballers provide pleasure to millions by playing, and thats a good thing - just don't know how that relates to someone who never quite makes it? A mate of mine was a (crap) professional tennis player and he looks back with a bit of regret. By the time he had to quit it was too late to really change and do something else effectively. So... there you go. On the subject of Olly Lancs. I think he deserves another chance.

Bit pointless though isn't it - not as though you're changing anybodys world. Do you think one day you'll look back and think maybe you wasted your life playing? Thats what kids do isn't it?

Well in that case Im sorry - I thought you were being snide, petty, disingenuous and a bit of a tool

You can't help yourself can you. Earlier in the thread I asked for examples to prove a point - thanks for providing the first. Im sure it won't be the last.

My memories were of travelling around off my face (those were the days), up and down to London, on great new pills called E's!! 1989 was a mental year - the start (for me) of rave culture, the stone roses, and all the politcal stuff going off at the same time. I was 18 and couldn't believe my luck - I'd spent the best part of the 80's believing it was inevitable that one day the cold war was only going to end one way (BANG), when suddenly it all came crashing down. Magic!!!!!! Seeing with my own eyes that people could actually force change was quite inspiring - and what a contrast to Tiananmen square a few months earlier. Nowadays I go to Berlin whenever I get the chance and I love the place. (Oh, and the physical barrier was significant insofar as you were shot if you breached it - sorry to be snotty.)

OMG, 'common sense on Saintsweb' shocker!! I am a scientist (microbiology as it happens), but wouldn't claim to have any better understanding than anyone else on this matter - unlike StGeorge (Bush I presume). However, common sense along the lines you have outlined seems the rational path. Didn't anyone tell St George that oil/carbon based fuels are finite?? Alternative/ sustainable fuels are not (the clue is in the name.

Result. Connelly showing his absolute class, and Antonio showing his crazy pace (and good skill on occasion too). Hopefully Gobern will learn to calm down a bit - raw talent causing mayhem at the moment.

I think they probably would too. Whether this is because they genuinely believe he isn't a cun.t, or because they have an insatiable desire to be divisive I don't know. I reckon we need more evidence. Can anyone find me an example of someone being such a tw.at that the only possible explanation is that can only be doing it to be contentious ? I don't know... something like equating Marlon King with MLT (as if that were possible). Feel free to start a list of examples of prize knobbery.

Absolutely - I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote above, and think you raise a good, valid question. Instead I was possibly thinking of the same 'controversial' posters. Maybe its a failing of mine, but it really aggravates me that NP is dismissed in the way that he sometimes is, when he clearly successfully did the job he was paid to do. For the benefit of these controversial posters I would draw a parallel with Lowe, JP, Wotte etc who failed. Especially Lowe who, I think we all agree, is a cu.nt.

Why is it acceptable to call Pearson 'Boot Boy', and not just embarressing, petty and rude? Like it or not, he did keep us in the Championship for another season and has gone on to do well at Leicester. I would have thought that it was just plain decent to refer to him by name and not imply he's a skill-less apprentice with no achievements to his name. Those that do are sociopathic ****s apparently unable to recognise reality. IMHO.

Hmmm - who to believe ? 3000 scientists who've each spent there entire working lives on climatology etc., who are at least as intelligent as anyone on this forum and who say there is a problem after following scientific method. Or, the same bunch of ****s who elected George Bush and sell oil. Tricky.

Aside from the blatant touting for a job FF (joke), I think you raise an importnat point. There is definately a requirement for the club to be placed in a historic community-based context (one of the attractions of the club to M Leibherr I believe), and for that to happen someone needs to be given the job. Football is heritage - just like the docks, just like the city walls, just like The Dell (lest we forget)

Im directly between Wilko (Gramsci) and DSM (Trotsky). (A small collective of hard-left anarcho-syndicalists emerges, sets up camp in the Northam and claims it as a free state... The first rule of the Northam Republic is "NO SITTING" ... unless you want to, in which case thats fine... just do what you want to be honest... basically its up to you... etc etc)

"There seems to be a swell of opinion on here though that we need to fundamentally re-adress the ethical implications of capitalism and that there is a viable alternative. My contention is that in a large scale society, there simply isn't." Speaking for myself, I don't think the 'ethical implications of capitalism' need to be 'fundamentally re-addressed'. BUT, I do think that the ethical implications of capitalism need to be given more than lip-service. The crisis we've just seen hit the banks will mean (Im giving the example closest to home) huge numbers of kids will emerge from school/university with little prospect of getting a decent job for years. The effects will be devastating on great numbers of lives. To me, the important question in this instance is who should pay most for the ****-up we all, (to an extent), indulged in? I think it should be wealthier people in work, because I think it is unethical to pass the burden on to the poor who benefitted least from the boom, or on to a generation yet to start work. So, if that means a few dead rich people have to leave a few grand less to their kids, I have no problem. The Tories want to abolish inheritance tax up to 1 million, which costs us (taxpayers) 2 billion. Thats a scandal and it shows where the Tories priorities lie. I think it also shows they are just paying lip-service to the kind of ethical decisions people are talking about. (Labour arn't much better, but at least they never decided on this path). I also think that politics can change things, people just have to vote. Example - minimum wage. No Labour government in 1997 and now you'd still have people earning £3.00 an hour. Just cause change happens incrementally dosn't mean its not happening. (Don't believe the hype that politics isn't important and your vote dosn't matter).