saintbletch

Spot on IMO Hamilton Saint.

To your point 1) yes completely agree notnowcato. They are practising Christians and as such God is in their life all the time - one is a lay-preacher. And you're right, I probably shouldn't have used the terms t*ts up when what I meant was at times of 'moral dilemma'. 2) Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that for many modern moral issues a Bishop would be the best MAN for the job. But on so many of the issues that our modern population experiences; Bishops have either no personal experience, are the wrong gender (I know this is hopefully changing) or are limited in their ability to understand and empathise with the sometimes wanton ways of modern society by being tied to texts from a bygone era. What might be simply testing the boundaries of modern society (which by the way is how a society changes and adapts), is often completely off-limits to people of faith. If we are to have a non-elected second chamber to balance the MPs, I'd rather it was more representative of modern society.

Oh, I see your argument more clearly now. But for me this falls into the "All elephants are grey therefore all grey things are elephants" school of logic. All it suggests to me is that at one point Christianity was so important to the population, so intrinsic to the way the people lived their lives, that a formal holiday and celebration came about. For many, the May bank holiday is about workers' rights and anti-capitalist thoughts. Most people I know take that as holiday but I also know that they aren't all anarchists or members of the SWP. They also aren't actively campaigning to disassociate the May bank holiday from the rights of the worker. That would be a ridiculous conclusion to draw simply because a minority consider a state holiday to mean something specific to them. Would you mind if I asked if you are a Christian? Completely understand if you don't want to answer.

You're right to call 'us' on things like this Turkish. It is hypocritical to a degree but I think you're also making the point of the non-believer. Christmas has moved so far from a religious festival that it almost single-handedly makes Dawkins point for him. Next Christmas, look around you as you walk up your High Street with a few beers inside you and try to determine the percentage of the population that you perceive has had a spiritual Christmas. One that has moved them closer to God. Perhaps it's just me but the number would be pretty low. But it is a good point you make because if, in my wildest fancies, Dawkins is able to change our state structure and leanings, would I remove the Christmas holiday from the calendar? No I wouldn't. It's a winter holiday and a great time for family bonding. Hypocrite? Yes. Christian? Still no.

Much as I would sometimes like to, I can't speak for the entire country. But, my perception is that our society, laws and state all attempt to enforce Christian values (honesty, empathy, support for you fellow man, ever repentance to a degree) but I know only a handful of what I would call practising Christians for whom God is the person they turn to when things go t*ts-up. I'd like to think of myself as living my life with many Christian values but I haven't spoken to God for many years - to be fair I've stopped answering his calls. Can you see the distinction I'm trying to make? What about your experience? Is that different? Is that because you are a practising Christian? If I'm honest I don't mind that we have Bishops in the HoL for most of the year. They will I'm sure keep some of our more rabidly anachronisc Peers in check. But there are times when, perhaps debating modern moral issues, where I don't want Bishops representing my views.

Oh pap! Good luck with that. There is an important distinction that Dawkins made and I'm not sure it's coming across completely in your post. I heard Dawkins on the radio last week going up against Baroness Farsi and her militant secularists argument and I also watched the Big Questions (it's a great programme). He outlined why he felt the question you're asking needs to be answered. As you've said above, he feels that there is a difference between someone describing themselves as Christian simply for historical or family reasons and those for whom God is central to the way they live their life. I think I'm right is saying that the question he used to determine if the 54% you mention above actively practices religion was something like "When you are faced with a moral dilemma, do you turn to God for guidance". I'm paraphrasing here but it was something to that effect. Of the 54% that identify themselves as Christian only 10% said they turned to God in those times of need. Dawkins' conclusion is that somewhere between the 54% and the 10% populations are true Christians and therefore they represent less than half of the wider population. Why is this important? Dawkins' argument was that large parts of state apparatus (Bishops in the House of Lords, faith schools, etc.) and the associated funding are routinely put in place based on the 72% argument. He feels that as he has demonstrated that there are far fewer 'practising' (my word not his) Christians, then the state structures and budgets should not be set aside for such a minority. Whilst we're on the same side of the debate, I'm not a big fan of Dawkins. But I have to say that I completely agree with his argument. To your question pap, I think we are a christian (with a small c) country, in that we broadly support Christian values but we are no longer a Christian country that actively involves God in our lives.

What you need Bearsy is a way to determine if there are worms in your doings without having to make contact. Read on. As long as you've got a nice gentle slope on the porcelain at the front of your lavatory bowl of choice, I'd suggest you look to perfect the reverse Dougan and go worm fishing. You'll need keen balance, some non-slip shoes, a length of string, a short bamboo cane, a partially digested melon rind and a strong stomach. The reverse Dougan should allow you get a better look at the 'payload' on 'dry land'. Then, assuming that our worm is domiciled chez sh*t, tie one end of the string to the melon rind and tie the other end to the cane. Then, just like an angler on the bank of a fast-flowing river trying to land a 'brown trout', cast the melon into the bowl alongside the arse-gravy. From here it is a simple matter of twitching the melon rind back and forward like an angler mimicking the movements of a fly. It shouldn't be long before the worm(s) break cover. They won't be able to resist. If after say 20 minutes you've not seen a worm then that's as good as a medical 'all clear' and you'll know that your problem is not worm related. Simply stow your rod, wash your hands and walk back to your desk. If on the other hand you've had a 'bite' then you know it's worm-related and I think you'd best consult a medical doctor. I can only help so far. A couple of caveats. I'm not actually medically trained and this plan is based on research that I've done here, here and here. So your results may vary. Also, the melon 'bait' is really aimed at earthworms, but how different can a tapeworm be? That said, during the course of my research I did read that tapeworms eat partially digested food, so if you use partially digested melon then you're pretty much loading the dice in your favour. Let us know how you get on.

It said; and you were supposed to read it with the accent of a black, American actor from Tennessee... I'm More Than Schneiderlin.

A good article but I have to copy the text of one of the comments here. If Burnsbag isn't a poster on here, he should be. He's summed up my views pretty well.

Good point pap. I've identified the cause but not the cure. Suitably admonished, I offer two options. 1) Time travel, coupled to the uncoupling of the hoselock connector prior to insertion into Bearsy's rectum. If that isn't practical/possible/cost-effective then, following significant research on my part, and as this seems to be a deep-rooted problem, I recommend approaching the issue from a different perspective. 2) I believe that the removal of Bearsy's thalamus will render him incapable of perceiving the itch. Whilst the itch will remain, his ability to 'feel' the itch will be removed. The downside would appear to be that such a procedure would almost certainly leave Bearsy as a vegetable. Which vegetable, I'm not able to say. But if other posters on this forum are anything to go by there is no reason to assume that Bearsy's posting ability/style would be altered in any way. The upside would be that we would add another philosophical thought experiment to the language. So whilst the physical itch exists the sensation would be gone. So "Does Bearsy's anus itch?" would rightly take it's place alongside other philosophical quandaries such as "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?", "Does the refrigerator light stay on when you shut the door?" and "Tommy Forecast, goalkeeper?". I could see philosophy lecturers urging students to consider Bearsy's colonic contradiction and asking them to write 2000 words on Bearsy's bumhole.

Mong. Bored? Sorry Turkish, I just couldn't resist the word pun. But why are you still posting on this "mong board"? Go on. Admit it. You've in denial. You love this place and each of us.

Sir, 1) I USED to think you had an intellect to be proud of too until you implied that I had an intellect to be proud of. 2) From day one I assumed that Deppo's, sorry Bearsy's (No 'e') anus horribilis was down to user error. Colonic irrigation irritation is a common complaint. My advice to Bearsy would be to remove the hoselock connector from the hose before you irrigate the river itching.

It depends how long you're there for but if you like your music and there's a band you fancy, try to get to the Paradiso Club. It's a wonderful old building and a truly iconic venue. There are three stages, the basement and upstairs are small and personal but the main stage is where you want to try to get.

Yep, but it's good to have 'Deppo' back though isn't it.

I won't copy it verbatim because it's sick. But it's a DRFC fan who is upset that Billy Sharp left them before the end of the season and thinks it's right to taunt Billy Sharp on Twitter about his dead son. His Twitter account appears to be closed now. Looking at the picture of the tweeter he appears to be in his early teens. Sick.

The conflation of Qatada's release and an attack on the leader of the EDL is either woefully naive or it has something of the skilled spin of a Goebbels - I'll leave the reader to decide which. I find the situation around Qatada both frustrating and a source of great pride. It's frustrating that IF we've determined through due process that he should be repatriated then surely we should just do it. But, how far has our society come that we will listen to another view of the situation and despite being able to 'get away with a small fine', we decide that we'll abide by the ruling and attempt to challenge it in the right way? Principle over patriotism. As to your post Um Pahars, personally I agree with your distinction between Islam and extremist Islam, but I also feel that Tommy Robinson has every right to dislike Islam in principle. I once heard an interview with Geert Wilders - the Dutch right-wing politician where he made a very eloquent and defensible attack on the principles at the heart of even moderate Islam. His argument centred around what he saw as the inherent mismatch between Islamic teaching and the western world. Now personally, I don't hold these views. But I can at least follow the logic. At the same time I can also see the problems that organised protest based on these views can cause our society. I can also see how such a movement can easily be hijacked by people who have more extremist views and less intellect. But I do feel these people have the right to hold these views. The organised protests based around these views are where the problems lie. Perhaps our society will be better in 50 years for the frictions that these competing groups make us address?

Just finished The Sisters Brothers by Patrick deWitt and thoroughly enjoyed it. It's set in the US at the time of the gold rush and follows two hired killer brothers (Charlie and Eli Sisters) as they track across the US to kill a man for their boss - The Commodore. The characters are wonderfully drawn and the relationship between the brothers, and in particular their squabbling and petty arguments is totally engaging and believable. They are pretty evil and the book is dark but the killing is handled with just the right amount of irreverent humour that you find yourself warming to them. A great story and a totally unexpected ending. Highly recommended.

Apologies, I hadn't heard that Dig Dig. Guilty!

I think we should try Terry on Saintsweb. Can we carry out a little experiment? I'd be interested to see what people think. Personally, I could believe Terry is saying "black", but I'm not totally sure. If in his defence, Terry was to state he said "blind", I'd struggle to be completely sure he didn't. Watch the video and then as you see Terry saying the words, tell yourself he's saying "F***ing BLIND C***" and then tell yourself he's saying "F***ing BLACK C***". Is each one plausible? For me there is something about the movement of his jaw between the B word and the C word that sows a seed of doubt. Watch it and post Black or Blind if you think he definitely says one of those words, or post Both if you concede that he could be saying either. This is the court of Saintsweb so please try to put your prejudices aside and look at the evidence.

Thanks for that! But can you answer that age-old philosophical question "When a man farts whilst doing pilates from a DVD, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?".

I was born with a larger than 28" waist! Fair play. I have to agree about the cardiovascular point. But one qualifier, I believe that your heart rate is also important. To those that do some exercise but find they don't burn fat I'd suggest you invest in a heart rate monitor and try to do 30+ minutes of exercise at >75% of your maximum heart rate (which from memory is roughly 225 beats per minute less your age). I believe the time and the stress on the heart are both important to get the body to use fat as a source of energy.

Walking. Just started to get back into exercise in the last 3 months after 18 months of doing nothing. I played football all my life and when I stopped that I took up the gym/squash. About 18 months ago I was told I had arthritis in my right knee and that I should do nothing that involves impact or creates tension in the knee. I stopped everything as I don't really enjoy swimming and got really unfit in the intervening months. Then I had to go into hospital for an op so I decided I had to get my fitness up a little so that I didn't die on the table. I started walking - just really to see if I would get a reaction from my knee. I've just increased the distance gradually. From walking a couple of miles into town until now I'm regularly doing 15-20 miles cross-country hikes. It's an amazing feeling to get my heart moving again after so many months away and so far no problems with my knee.

Was going to post that I'd read this too. But I got confused - the book I read was called Foul by Andrew Jennings. Who wrote Goal? Foul, left me feeling both very angry at FIFA/Blatter and completely impotent in equal measure.

I do agree with the OP's point on the presumption of innocence but I don't think this has much to do with the FA determining Terry's guilt or otherwise. Terry has been tried in the court of public opinion and the FA had to act. I'm assuming Terry's lawyers pushed for the trial to be held after the European Championships and as soon as they did that he gave the FA no choice. Terry's potential CB pairing in Rio Ferdinand is actively, but cryptically hostile to Terry on Twitter over the alleged treatment of his little brother. The other week, the FA had to suspend the procedures for its Respect Campaign when I assume Ferdinand junior would have snubbed the England captain's offered hand. This is not the first time this has happened to this England captain by the way. I also have to assume that had they not suspended the pre-match Respect handshake then other members of the QPR team may also have refused to take the England captain's hand. And if that had happened, the pressure for other players in other clubs to do the same would have grown. Had both Terry and Rio Ferdinand been fit for the Chelsea v Utd. game, I wonder whether the Respect Campaign procedure would again have been suspended. Or would Rio have shaken Terry's hand? I've seen the video and haven't made my mind up what Terry said. Terry could be calling Ferdinand a "F***ing Black C***" or a "F***ing Blind C***" or alternatively it could be "Funning bleak cund" or any variation thereof. Either way, I personally don't think he is openly racist. Other members of the general public and the wider football community have tried Terry in their minds and found him guilty. We therefore have the most important footballing position in English football occupied by someone that many people believe to either be racist, or at least to have made a racist remark. It's not easy for an organisation to blindly back their foremost employee/representative against such public hostility without looking like it condones the person's action. I don't think the FA had much choice.

Interesting. And how does that make you feel?