saintbletch

No bear man, it's the start of the Japanese Haka. Everyone that isn't a bear knows that.

He has to sign for the caption competition alone.

What's the big deal? It's a warning sign from the Tokyo metro system. It tells passengers not to have the volume too loud if they're going to watch a movie on an iPad in their laps. Have I missed something?

Thanks for uploading - appreciate that.

A bit strapped for cash myself at the moment Tokyo-Saint so this is the best I could do. メイクピース

Gotcha. I think people may have assumed that you believed in Ouija boards - I did. Whereas, I THINK, you're saying that when more than 2 of you use it, you can't definitively explain the results and that some form of non-physical, non-conscious communication happens between the participants that none of them on his own can explain. I'd add to that the fact that when we sat down to use the Ouija board I did I have a slight tingle of anticipation which increased when we lowered the lights. Something that a biologist could certainly explain, but it felt like it came from somewhere else.

You have no idea how proud I am to be able to offer a correction to one of your posts Matthew Le God. But I think you'll find that that is one Gaston sign. If there were two or more, then you could have written Gaston signs. Your post was inaccurate and misleading. My work here is complete. EDIT: Well, there's a strange thing. In another life I thought I'd made a typo in the above arrogant correction of Mr Accuracy himself. This was embarrassing and was mercilessly seized upon by others pointing out that I'd made an error. People were laughing at my expense. But due to my influence and respect on this forum, the mods saw fit to remove all of their arrogant corrections of my arrogant correction and instead leave me free to edit the offending typo so nobody is any the wiser.

Fair enough Sergei Gotsmanov. Shame, and I hope you will see that if you re-read my posts, I attempted a number of times to get to the point of your Ouija board argument, but each time you appeared to be being evasive or flippant. So instead I decided to regale you with Ouija board evening anecdote #1 from my past. Actually, I've remembered another one from about that time, also involving toothless Trev and spiritualism. True story. Trev used to rent a room in a pretty rough part of Gosport - and that's saying something. His landlady was called Babs; she was 55+, a big girl, not a looker and not someone who valued personal hygene or who saw the merit in keeping a house tidy - or the s**t off the floor that would drop out of the arses of her four dogs for that matter. But a happier more kind-hearted woman you couldn't imagine. Babs was a member of the Spiritualist Church (I think that was the proper name of the institution) and she was sleeping with a 20 year old lad called Ronnie who incidentally used to live at the bottom of my road when I was growing up. Ronnie was known in our area as not being completely "there". Nice enough lad but he had a turned-in foot which meant that he couldn't join in playing football in the back alley which left him ostracised and brutally bullied. He also had a bit of a speech impediment that, now on reflection, made him sound Jewish or Belgian too my adult ear. Amongst a host of other words he had trouble with, he couldn't pronounce the word "quid". He'd say "clid". Which made it easy to refuse his request to lend him "a couple of clid". "Haven't got any clids" would be the response that would be chucked back at him time and time again. Anyway, many years later Ronnie was shacked up with Babs; they had met at the Spiritualist Church. It turned out the Ronnie was a minor "celebrity" in the church because he could speak in tongues and could channel spirits from beyond the grave. A number of times when I was round there, people would come to meet with Ronnie and he'd try to tell them about their loved ones from beyond the grave. I wasn't wise enough at the time to understand cold reading techniques, and if I'm honest I'm not sure Ronnie had the sort of intellect or the sort of exploitative personality to do that. The people that came to see him always seemed delighted with the results. I have no doubt in my mind that Ronnie believed what he was doing. We'd often ask Ronnie to speak in tongues and he'd refuse saying that he couldn't do it for various reasons, too light/dark, too noisy/quiet, not stoned enough, too exhausting, etc. I was quite sceptical and then one night Ronnie had had a few herbal helpers and he went into one in the back garden and launched into a trance-like state and the noises and sounds that came from his mouth/throat had to be heard/experienced to be believed. It was one of the strangest things I've ever seen. The evening then descended into farce as the Irish next door neighbour (Jim I think) came out with a massive, but massively blunt, bread knife. He'd been on the whisky all day as it was "pay day" and was attempting to get at Ronnie calling him the Devil and much worse. Trev and the neighbour then got into a fight, I grabbed the knife, police came, took one look at Ronnie who was still "elsewhere" and couldn't believe the scene before them. I will never forget sitting in the front room with the two policemen with Babs playing the perfect hostess; fussing round them, offering them tea and coffee and studiously ignoring the 2 large dog turds on the carpet in front of the officers. Ronnie, was really bad after that. Whatever had happened to him really drained him. Growing up with Ronnie, I think I'd lean toward a physical explanation for Ronnie's "abilities" but it was still a really odd thing to have witnessed.

Four of us used it that night, in ones, twos, threes and a four. But as the spirits were determined to gang up on Trev - he wouldn't do it any more. So as we were bored I then knocked Trev out using a hyperventilation technique (oxygen narcosis) and he fell on his face and broke his 4 front teeth clean off. We did suggest it was some kind of message from beyond the grave - spiritual karma if you will. It was quite a night. Nowadays I think the spirits use Twitter anyway and Trev has false teeth. I'm really not sure you furthered the credibility of your argument, or the debate for that matter by introducing the Ouija board Sergei Gotsmanov. Am I missing something?

Right, I'm not sure if I'm missing something here Sergei Gotsmanov or if you're playing dumb. So I'll interpret your question literally. The protagonists move the pointer. I know this for a fact. Because when I did it with my mate Trev, the spirit world chose to communicate the following to us. TREVSATW*T

I've just got a Tweet from him Tokyo-Saint and as we speak he's logging on to paydayloans.com. That's the good news, the bad news is that it's 2974% APR. But I've just texted him a discount code from the advert on Sky so the deal should still go through.

Just to be clear here Segei Gotsmanov, you're referring to the fact that the parties involve move the pointer but that they feel they are not? i.e. some subconscious 'force' makes them do this. Or are you suggesting that the parties involved apply no force and that the movement comes from the 'unknown'. Because if it's the latter then I'd suggest science could certainly provide evidence. If it's the former then I take your point. But I wouldn't immediately leap to the spiritual to explain it.

Odd that Turkish. Especially coming from a man who famously called Twitter uses sad during this summer. He must have had a volte face on tweeting. Either that or....

A few further qualifications for you tpbury. Dawkins is an excellent communicator. He conveys complex concepts really thoroughly and really clearly. But he also carries out a lot of research and background and he wants to tell you all of it to support his conclusion. It's not for the faint of heart. It's a bit like reading a Frank's cousin post actually! (rich coming from me, I know). But seriously, The Selfish Gene focuses more on the biological level of evolution than it does on the societal. Still a good read though. Also, if you haven't read The God Delusion then I'd start there. The only issue I had with it is that I found that Dawkins came across as almost fanatical in his pursuit of putting down religion. But as that was the main point of the book, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Per Frank's cousin's post, you could take a look at Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene". In it he introduced the concept of a meme and memetics (amongst a lot of other ground-breaking theories on evolutionary biology). Dawkins contends that In the same way that genes are passed down family lines; memes are the cultural concepts, practices and rituals that get passed from generation to generation. A meme is a unit of cultural information in the same way a gene is a unit of genetic information. These memes are the learned behaviours that individuals would adopt to feel part of a wider family grouping, extended family grouping and society. En mass societies adopted these social concepts to be safe, share food, work together, not kill each other, etc. Dawkins contends that these are not necessarily passed consciously but are often subconsciously passed contagiously. Societies that embraced cooperative rituals survived whereas groups of individuals that were in it for themselves might survive and thrive in their life time, but being on their own made getting their genes into the wider gene pool instead of into pre-historic Kleenex, much more difficult. Their attitudes and behaviours died with them. Dawkins, somewhat contentiously, says that such social memes that we now see as religious morals came about not through divine message but rather through the subconscious/conscious realisation that such rules help a society as a whole to survive, resist its enemies and importantly reproduce. These 'memes' passed by rote and religious worship rituals gave societies the sort of cooperative structures that Frank's cousin describes. Societies, or lose groupings of individuals that did not have these cooperative morals (we might now call religious beliefs) weren't able to colonise and breed across other societies and their genes and behaviours died with them. Memes talk to our need to belong. We see behaviours in others we would like to be like and we adopt them - either consciously or subconsciously. A modern-day example of a meme is the use of the term "mong" and "mongboard" on this message board. Those that use it see some value and advantage in using it. Look at the match day threads on here and you will find a group of people who have come together and use their own, almost impenetrable memes - woots, pictures of nuns, predictions of goals being scored on a specific page. Look at the Pompey Takeover Sage thread, the same is true. Try to join those threads and try to resist joining in on the in-jokes and concepts used and you'd have a hard time. Adopt the meme or look and feel out of place. Many of us are uncomfortable with that, so we coalesce. Fascinating.

It'll be fine as long as you bigoted haven't-got-a-clueists don't start to dominate it with your open-mindedness and tolerance of other people's values and beliefs.

Wouldn't disagree with any of that hypochondriac, and good to have you expand on your thoughts. Glad you took the time. One question though, as it seems to be a theme in a number of your posts. Do you think people without faith often seek to belittle others with faith? I haven't seen it often - if at all, but I'd readily concede that I might not be attuned to notice it.

I hope you don't mind me saying hypochondriac but you have a very unusual debating style.

That's the problem with you haven't-got-a-clueists, you're all the same. Coming over here, trying to not convert us all to your non-beliefs and confused certainty. I'd say I'm an atheist in that I'm not able to support any of the belief systems that I've looked at. I'm an agnostic in that I can't discount the possibility that my atheism could be misplaced. I'm a christian with a small c in that I like to live my life by values coincidentally similar to those held by many Christians.

Excellent post. Enjoyed reading that.

Would you describe yourself as an agnostic then? I wouldn't disagree with any of the above scotty. It was the atheism as a belief system part that I couldn't quite stretch to. A belief system to me suggests a complex set of self-enforcing beliefs and rituals. Science is the closest I can get to those beliefs and rituals in an atheist context. But I'm not sure I'd describe science as a belief system. Where do you stand?

What a fascinating debate, and one for which I feel the answer lies in semantics and the observer's perspective. I'd always seen agnostics as different from atheists to be honest but you appear to be conflating them here. To me, you either BELIEVE that there is no God/are no god/s (atheist) or you BELIEVE that we can't know whether there is a God/are gods (agnostic). Which is it for you niceandfriendly because I'm not sure you can hold both positions. Or do I have my definitions wrong? Or have I misinterpreted you? Well anothersaintinsouthsea, if equating atheism and religion is lazy, what is the use of the suggestion that unless someone advocates stoning or execution they can't be fanatical? I think Dawkins is as close to a fanatical atheist as you are going to get. And I think that atheism is the absence of belief in a God/god not necessarily the absence of belief itself. It is a stance on deism - a belief in a position on deism perhaps. You're standing on interesting semantic ground their scotty mate. It's an interesting perspective. If anything defines atheism, it surely is the lack of a belief in God/gods. If one were to take the stance that we don't know whether God or gods exist (agnostic), then from that perspective an atheist is exhibiting "belief"; I might even go so far as to say "faith". I guess that is true of someone of faith looking at an atheist too. From their perspective the atheist is exhibiting a belief - one that they presumably feel is misguided and incorrect. A belief system though? Hmm, not sure I'd go that far. That is unless we see science, which to my understanding is the bible for many/most atheists, as their religion and scientific rigour as their god. But then I think we're probably going a little far there.

Neither of them will get my respect until they close the Pompey Takeover Saga thread in the lounge for going off-topic or for regularly defaming a certain Mr. John Portsmouth Football Club Westwood. Rules is rules.

Same again, not sure if this has been posted - can't see it doing a quick "find" on this page. ESPN/Soccernet saying it will take €20m to sign him. http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story/_/id/1136060?&cc=5739 Bologna president Albano Guaraldi insists that midfielder Gaston Ramirez is still far from close to a switch to Southampton and criticised the Uruguayan's recent behaviour. Ramirez, 21, had insisted that he was keen on a move to the South Coast and that an agreement had been reached in principal with the Italian side for his signature. The claims, which came as a shock on Friday morning, have since been denied by Bologna's president, who dismissed reports that he would sell Ramirez for the €15 million fee quoted. "Ramirez is contracted to Bologna and the club will decide upon his future, not the player himself," Guaraldi said. "Ramirez's behaviour is totally unacceptable, giving open interviews like that without consulting us. Gaston cannot force my hand with two interviews. I am a serious person and I've already said it will take €20m to sell him. And I also told his agent." Southampton manager Nigel Adkins had earlier refused to comment on the validity of the reports in Italy, but was visibly excited by the prospect of working with the youngster. Adkins told a press conference: "It looks exciting, doesn't it? I think he has come out in Italy and said it is already sorted, but I think you'll find the policy of the football club is until the player has signed on the dotted line and we announce it then really we try to do everything privately. We have been consistent with that over the years and we'll probably stay that way. "If it is true, then it obviously shows the ambition of the football club. I know the chairman, Nicola Cortese, is very ambitious here and it is great." Ramirez scored eight goals in 28 apperances in Serie A last season before taking part in this summer's Olympic Games in London, as Uruguay crashed out at the Group Stage.

Apologies if this has been posted already as I've just got in, but this from the BBC Sportsday Live feed - @17:54. Bologna president Albano Guaraldi, meanwhile, says the deal for Ramirez is a long way off: "The conditions proposed by the British (Southampton) did not satisfy me: they must either change or Ramirez will remain a Bologna player." More of the same from their president it seems - describing it as a long way off.