saintbletch

I was just loading my car with bags of blue circle when I noticed the comma in your sentence.

Very good. Reminded me of this one from my youth... Fatima Whitbread goes to the doctor and says "Doctor, I'm a little concerned as I've got hair growing on my chest. It started off fine and downy but now it's becoming coarse and wiry." The doctor thought for a while and asked "How far down does the hair go". Fatima replied "All the way to my b0llocks".

No. 5 letters, first letter "A". LOOF ?

A great question, but one that doesn't have simple yes/no answer. Anyone looking for some simple answers to an apparently simple contradiction is a little naive. It's not, if you'll allow me, black and white. For me it's about a discrimination. Does one section of society benefit unduly over, or at the expense of, another section of society? As a white male in the UK, do I feel that my colour is discriminated against due to the existence of a black-only football award? No I don't. The fact is that 'white' footballers are more than adequately represented through other player awards. Whilst they may not be represented in any award that is exclusively for black players, there are ample other awards, and awards of arguably greater stature, that they are represented in. There is no real loss to a 'white' player by not being allowed to enter. The reason I think it's totally legitimate to ask this question, is that as we have (hopefully) become more integrated as a society, such black-only organisations do tend to look out of place and ironically can be seen to reinforce the problem that they first set out to highlight. But again, I'm mindful of my own prejudiced views. I don't look at the world through the eyes of a minority - well at least not one based on the colour of my skin. Perhaps my view that as a society we are becoming better integrated is not shared by black people. So the question was "do the black player awards help?". I'll turn that around and answer the question "Are black player awards unhelpful?". To me, no.

Fair comment notnowcato. It would be very difficult to defend such actions - if that was what happened between Suarez and Evra. And as you say he's played in Holland for a number of years. My comments were limited to trying to interpret Poyet's words. But in the same way that I know that your user name is not peddling some sort of racial stereotype of the subservient, slightly stupid, good with martial arts, man servant Chinese from the Pink Panther films; sometimes these words are used for the effect they can elicit and not with any strong conviction for the meaning behind the words. If I wanted to hurt someone using words on a football pitch and I spent my formative years in a country where racist terms where widely used, I might use the 'n*gger' term for the effect it would have rather than through any fundamental racist beliefs. Again, for the avoidance of doubt I believe that anyone that uses language like that on a football pitch should suffer some sort of sanction. But it still might be possible to use those words and not be racist.

I think the point Poyet is trying to make is subtle and that language has stopped him expressing it as well as perhaps he could have. He's not talking about the rights and wrongs of racism per se. He makes it clear that he's not a racist and would fight in a war alongside people of different colour. Yet before he came to the UK he would routinely refer to his good friend Fernando Cáceres as negro Cáceres. He's cites that newspapers and TV in other parts of the world also refer to him by that name. He said that in coming to the UK it took him some time to adjust to our country's attitude to racist terminology. Once he understood what was and wasn't acceptable, he adjusted the way he talked. He says Suarez is not a racist even though he used the term negro to refer to Evra. He is saying that you shouldn't accuse someone of BEING a racist just because they used a racist term. Especially if he comes from a culture where those terms are not seen as politically incorrect as they are here. I can see his point. I've met many older people who would tell you that they are not racist but refer to black people using language that by today's standards is toe-curlingly cringeworthy. People from my father's generation would happily share a pint with a black man but think nothing of referring to him as coloured or darkie or perhaps worse. It's wrong, but only from the perspective of 2011 UK. There is a real difference between someone BEING a racist and 'just' using terms that might be taken as racist. And just to be clear. I personally believe that we should do all we can to stamp out language that minorities legitimately find insulting or demeaning. I abhor racism and I like to think that I would confront anyone I hear using racist language as a tool of hate. But, as unenlightened as it appears from our post-politically correct perspective, it is possible to say certain words in certain situations and not be a racist.

Man wearing enormous, comic "Reclining and applauding Elvis in a Saints' shirt" hat, bends down to tie up his shoe laces.

Unlucky sadoldgit - hope you manage to fight for a lower bill. Sitting here in Lyon on business, Vodafone allows me to set up a daily limit and they text me when I'm getting near to the limit. And when I've passed the limit - like I have today, they text me every 5mb to warn me and tell me how much it's going to cost. Doesn't help you but does show that not all operators are the same. Best of luck.

Nice words alpine_saint. I just can't forget the look on his face at the JPT final at Wembley. Alternately grinning like a Cheshire cat and then taking pictures of us all celebrating. I can't help thinking that he was thinking that it was money well spent. Wonderful.

Fair point.

Then I think our inability to read must be mutual. It was me that said that it feels like with NC we have choice between the future OR the past. I also said that I thought the question you asked was framed perfectly for the debate. You were the first poster I had seen in this current NC debate to get to the heart of the matter. A weighing of the importance of our past against our future. Take that as a compliment. Try not to be so defensive.

Avoiding the obvious irony of a rallying call from alpine_saint against pointless negativity, I do think you've framed the question perfectly alpine_saint. It feels like with NC we have a choice between the future OR the past. I'd like to have both. Unlike you, I can completely understand how some can question NC. I think it is very healthy. And let's get things in perspective here. We're talking about a few negative posts on a pretty quiet Saints' Internet forum. And of the small number of negative posts I've seen, a smaller number still have called for NC's head. Most I've read say that they are broadly in support of NC but have doubts. Instead of asking how people have the temerity to question NC when we're top of the NPC, ask yourself how fans are still questioning NC EVEN THOUGH we're top of the NPC and the future has never looked so rosy. That to me is subtle but important distinction. Either everyone who has an issue with NC is a negative, doom-monger (again I'm trying to avoid the irony here), or NC has done things that make normally level-headed, devoted supporters question the man who has brought incredible success to our club. Personally, I'm a massive fan of what NC has achieved but I'm not completely enamoured with the way he's done it. I'd like to say he has my 100% support, and whilst it's close that that figure, something in the back of my mind urges caution. I can't explain it but it is there. I'm glad he's here. I'm truly grateful that he/the Liebherr's saved the club. I accept that his aggressive style gets results and I think he's the type of chairman that could get us to the Prem, stay there and thrive. But, I also think the image that the club promotes is important and I really don't like sections of the establishment and press criticising our 125+ year old club. I think the second you are prepared to give up your past and all that it stands for, you run the risk of losing your identity and that is impossible to get back. We sell our past for a better future at our peril.

In principle pap, but in practice it just sounds a non-starter. It asks more questions that it answers in my opinion. Surely the obvious implication of such a policy is that the unemployed, the less domestically-inclined and the bad neighbours amongst us would find themselves excluded from social housing. And before the jingoism starts up stating that "they've had their chance", "**** 'em" or similar; I'll ask "where would they go?" Ignoring the obvious "Who cares?", the answer would probably be that as a society we would have to find somewhere for them to live. And surely that would result in many similar 'families' being pushed into the same sink estates creating ghettos. I like the idea but moving the problem isn't solving the problem. A la Ed Balls' "We can't promise to alter the spending plans if we come into government". Isn't this just another headline-grabbing "We've learned from our mistakes, you can trust is, give us another go" exercise?

As Essruu says Jeff Le Taxi, from what you say you want - coffee on tap - then a percolator or filter machine would be ideal. But, as you drink Americano (which is water-diluted espresso) then be aware that the taste will be different in a percolator. Milder at first but then increasingly stronger (and sweeter / more bitter) the longer you leave it on the heat. To my taste-buds the McDonalds coffee you say you have is the one you'll get from a percolator. But better if you use superior beans. You'll also be able to drink more coffee in a day from a percolator/filter machine. I can only have two cups of double expresso in a day max or I'm totally wired. As for why I'd use the microwave Essruu, you're right it's a hassle to use the machine to warm a small drop of milk. But, my wife and son have cappuccino and that turns out wonderful. And to clean up you just have to push a small amount of steam through the milk frother to expel any milk residue, wipe the outer nozzle with a cloth and wash the milk container. It's more hassle then I need for warm milk. But if we're about avoiding hassle then someone should invent a way of freeze-drying the coffee so that it can be reconstituted with hot water when it's needed. Oh,..

Well how much do you want to spend Jeff Le Taxi? That determines everything. I have the equivalent of the De'Longhi Magnifica ESAM4200 but it is slightly older. It has been absolutely fantastic. I can't recommend it highly enough. I don't agree with Essruu about a percolator (that is if I understand that a percolator pumps hot water onto the coffee and allows it to drain through). Unless the water is forced through the coffee grinds under pressure you don't release the oils needed to make the crema (the rich tasting, golden brown 'foam' that sits on top of the coffee before you drink/add milk) and the coffee isn't as intense. An espresso machine is required to force the hot water through the grinds and that usually makes the coffee stronger and more distinctive. If you're used to high street coffee shops then it will likely be espresso coffee you've had in you latte, mocha, cappuccino, etc. Then the next question is whether you want to grind your own beans. If so then you can get machines with built in grinders or, as Essruu says you can get separate grinders or buy ground coffee. For me grinding the beans is the best way although depending on how quickly you use your beans and therefore how old they get, they can taste a little stale when ground. Ground coffee seems to last longer in the cupboard to me. But then again perhaps that's because the beans taste so much fresher to start with. The machine I have has a build in grinder. Then you need to decide if you like steamed milk - cappuccino, etc. You can get machines that will do that for you too. The machine I have does this. To be honest it takes me 1 minute 20 to make a cup of perfect coffee. I put the milk in the microwave, pour some beans into the holder, press the button and within 1:20 I am drinking the coffee. Oh and one final point. it's Costa Coffee for me so I buy the beans in a tin from there - not Starbucks. ;-)

Ha, I did exactly the same thing myself yesterday. Murmer - Perfect Circle, Radio Free Europe, 9-9, Talk about the Passion Reckoning - So Central Rain, Pretty Persuasion Fables - Driver 8, Can't get There From Here Document - Finest Worksong ( The One I Love, and It's the end of the World as we Know it - but they're a little obvious and started the band on a more commercial route ) R.E.M. reminds me of two distinct periods in my life. I used to rent a room from my boss who loved music. But he was one of those guys that loved to surprise people with how obscure his favourite bands were. As a result he'd declare any band that made it anywhere near a chart as "too commercial" for his tastes. He introduced me to R.E.M. but told me to avoid Green as it was "too commercial". Secondly, Out of Time was released while I was living in Australia. Out of Time instantly brings back the great memories I have for that country. By the way did you know that "It's the end of the World as we Know it" was inspired by a dream Stipe had about at a party where everyone in the room had the initials LB. Lenny Bruce, Leonard Bernstein, Leonid Breshnev, etc. Great pop song.

Well I don't want to start a conspiracy rumour here but neither of the links to the article in this thread works for me. I get a 404 error from The Sun. I guess Cortese has told The Sun to take it down in order to start another feud with them. I can't immediately see it linked from The Sun's home/sport pages either.

"What do we want?" "An end to tourettes" "When do we want it?" "f*** c*** t*** s***!"

Absolutely agree. It's a brave decision to split but they must have realised that they were going the way of all ancient 'super' groups and becoming their own tribute act. Leaving IRS was the turning point but their latter IRS releases were already going commercial. I really love their early stuff but I'd argue that Green, their first release on Warner Bros, was their best album in my opinion. It's a shame that most people will only know them for their post-IRS sell-out material. Still really good pop songs but not the genre-defining stuff of their early material.

A fascinating debate and for what it's worth I'll add my thoughts. I have to say that reading some of the posts on here has altered my view slightly. I never thought I'd say that following the OP's post. I've seen the way debates work on forums such as this and it appears to be important to qualify every post you make with caveats and full explanations because otherwise someone will jump into a specific post and accuse you of something you'd already made clear 2 pages earlier. So with that in mind. I don't believe that the 9/11 atrocity was a conspiracy from within. But I have to admit that some of the 'evidence' I've read / watched as a result of this thread has made me think 'That is odd'. I am also mindful, as I am when reading the mainstream press, that editorial agenda can make anything appear to be what it isn't. I realise that ALL of the 'evidence' I've seen has been presented with an agenda. Even knowing that, I still think some of the things I've seen with my own eyes appear 'odd'. In principle, I don't have much time for conspiracies. I look at people who believe in conspiracies with a little suspicion if I'm honest. But ironically, for a conspiracy to be covered up it would rely completely on people having the attitude of "My government wouldn't / couldn't do this therefore that bloke's a nutter". And 'odd' doesn't mean that I've changed my view. It means that I can see how people who ARE prepared to believe that their governments are capable of colluding en masse to deceive them would start to question what is going on. I guess that once you make the leap into believing that, then nothing will ever seem the same again. I came close to that with the Iran dossier and Dr. David Kelly. Some things about that still appear 'odd' to me. Pap. Kudos for having the courage of your convictions and for your debating style. The dry, bald-headed architect video was very interesting. I'd never really thought about the coincidences involved in making the twin towers fall vertically. The same for the third tower and the force that caused it to fall. Although as I've said already, whilst watching it I realised that all of the material was put together and presented by someone with an agenda. Still an interesting watch though. A question for you. Do you think it is possible to put together and cover up a conspiracy on this sort of scale with so many moving parts? If so, how and how could it stay secret once the colour of successive governments change? (ok, several questions). Verbal. Really enjoyed you sharing your thoughts so eloquently on here too. I've always admired people who can reach such firm conclusions and believe them without question. My world is full of grey and I envy anyone who can see only the black and the white. But one question. Why did you feel the need to read the book you've advocated others should read? Was there a point where you questioned this subject yourself and needed to read more? If so then I can't see how you can be so hard on people that are still at the stage of asking questions. Alternatively, did you read it to re-affirm the beliefs that you already held? If so, then I'm not sure you can put so much stay in its content as you wouldn't have read it with a particularly forensic eye.

Psst. Deano. See the steward over your right shoulder? He's doing that Eric Morecombe thing with your glasses again.

24 27 24 1a 0d 0a 0d 0a 21 2k 13 3a 2t 0w 2p 30 3b 2p 3d 37 0w 2z 32 33 3b 32 0w 2x 38 0w 2p 37 0w 37 2x 31 34 30 3d 0w 2q 2p 37 2t 0w 1f 1i 0w 2q 2p 2s 2v 2t 36 3c 1d 1i 18 0w 37 33 0w 2f 2x 2z 2x 34 2t 2s 2x 2p 0w 2v 2p 3a 2t 0w 31 2t 0w 38 2w 2p 38 0w 32 2p 31 2t 1a 0w 21 38 0w 37 39 2v 2v 2t 37 38 2t 2s 0w 2x 38 0w 3b 2p 37 0w 38 2w 2t 0w 31 33 37 38 0w 34 33 34 39 30 2p 36 0w 2q 39 38 0w 2s 2x 2s 0w 2p 30 37 33 0w 37 2p 3d 0w 2x 38 2k 13 37 0w 2z 32 33 3b 32 0w 2p 37 0w 37 2t 3c 2p 38 36 2x 2v 2t 37 2x 31 2p 30 0w 33 36 0w 2w 2t 3c 2p 38 36 2x 2v 2t 37 2x 31 2p 30 0w 2q 39 38 0w 32 33 38 0w 39 2t 3c 2p 38 36 2x 2v 2t 2r 2x 31 2p 30 18 0w 33 36 0w 37 2w 33 39 30 2s 0w 21 0w 37 2p 3d 0w 19 0w 39 2t 3c 2p 38 36 2x 2v 2t 39 2x 31 2p 30 1a 0w 1u 2t 2r 2p 39 37 2t 0w 2x 32 0w 3d 33 39 36 0w 34 33 37 38 0w 2q 2t 30 33 3b 18 0w 3d 33 39 0w 2p 34 34 2t 2p 36 0w 38 33 0w 2w 2p 3a 2t 0w 31 2x 37 37 34 2t 30 30 2t 2s 0w 2x 38 1a 0w 0d 0a 0d 0a 2h 33 39 0w 3b 36 33 38 2t 0w 0w 0d 0a 0d 0a 2b 2w 33 39 30 2s 0w 38 2w 2p 38 0w 32 33 38 0w 2q 2t 0w 39 2t 3c 2p 38 36 2x 2v 2t 39 2x 31 2p 30 0d 0a 0d 0a 2f 2w 2t 32 0w 21 0w 38 2w 2x 32 2z 0w 3d 33 39 0w 31 2t 2p 32 38 0w 0d 0a 0d 0a 2b 2w 33 39 30 2s 0w 38 2w 2p 38 0w 32 33 38 0w 2q 2t 0w 39 2t 3c 2p 38 36 2x 2v 2t 2r 2x 31 2p 30 0d 0a 0d 0a 28 2t 2s 2p 32 38 36 3d 0w 2x 37 0w 37 38 2x 30 30 0w 34 2t 2s 2p 32 38 36 3d 0w 2x 32 0w 2q 2p 37 2t 0w 1f 1i 0x 0w 1n 19 15 0d 0a 0d 0a 27 36 0w 38 33 0w 2q 2t 0w 2t 3a 2t 32 0w 31 33 36 2t 0w 34 36 2t 2r 2x 37 2t 0w 3d 33 39 0w 3b 36 33 38 2t 0w 0d 0a 0d 0a 1e 2q 0w 1e 3b 0w 1f 1f 0w 1f 1l 0w 1f 1c 0w 1e 37 0w 1c 3b 0w 1f 1k 0w 1e 3b 0w 1e 34 0w 1f 1k 0w 1c 3b 0w 1f 1e 0w 1f 1f 0w 1f 1k 0w 1c 3b 0w 1e 35 0w 1e 38 0w 1c 3b 0w 1f 1l 0w 1e 38 0w 1f 2r 0w 1e 34 0w 1f 1k 0w 1f 1i 0w 1e 3c 0w 1e 3a 0w 1e 38 0w 1f 1l 0w 1e 3c 0w 1f 1d 0w 1e 34 0w 1f 1c 0d 0a 0d 0a 2f 2w 2t 32 0w 3d 33 39 0w 37 2w 33 39 30 2s 0w 2w 2p 3a 2t 0w 3b 36 2x 38 38 2t 32 1m 0d 0a 0d 0a 1e 2q 0w 1e 3b 0w 1f 1f 0w 1f 1l 0w 1f 1c 0w 1e 37 0w 1c 3b 0w 1f 1k 0w 1e 3b 0w 1e 34 0w 1f 1k 0w 1c 3b 0w 1f 1e 0w 1f 1f 0w 1f 1k 0w 1c 3b 0w 1e 35 0w 1e 38 0w 1c 3b 0w 1f 1l 0w 1e 38 0w 1f 2r 0w 1e 34 0w 1f 1k 0w 1f 1i 0w 1e 3c 0w 1e 3a 0w 1e 38 0w 1e 36 0w 1e 3c 0w 1f 1d 0w 1e 34 0w 1f 1c 0d 0a 0d 0a 21 2k 13 31 0w 2v 33 2x 32 2v 0w 38 33 0w 37 38 33 34 0w 32 33 3b 0w 2p 37 0w 21 2k 13 3a 2t 0w 36 39 32 0w 33 39 38 0w 33 2u 0w 31 2t 2p 32 2x 32 2v 2u 39 30 0w 32 39 31 2q 2t 36 0w 2q 2p 37 2t 37 0w 38 33 0w 39 37 2t 0w 2p 32 2s 0w 21 2k 13 31 0w 2p 30 37 33 0w 2x 32 0w 2s 2p 32 2v 2t 36 0w 33 2u 0w 2r 33 31 2x 32 2v 0w 2p 2r 36 33 37 37 0w 2p 37 0w 37 33 31 2t 0w 37 33 36 38 0w 33 2u 0w 2w 2t 3c 2p 38 36 2x 2s 2t 2r 2x 31 2p 30 19 37 34 2t 30 30 2x 32 2v 19 2u 2p 37 2r 2x 37 38 19 2v 2t 2t 2z 19 2p 36 37 2t 2w 33 30 2t 1a 0w 0d 0a 0d 0a 25 3d 0w 1z 33 2s 18 0w 34 2t 36 2w 2p 34 37 0w 21 0w 2p 31 1a 0d 0a 0d 0a

2c 2w 2p 38 2k 13 37 0w 2p 37 0w 31 2p 3d 2q 2t 0w 2q 39 38 0w 2w 2t 3c 2p 38 36 2x 2s 2t 2r 2x 31 2p 30 0w 2x 37 0w 38 2w 2t 0w 2u 39 38 39 36 2t 0x

And Fermat himself of course - he just didn't have room in his book to document it. New forum features look good.

Good question. Well I'm not an expert but I believe that the act you describe is still very much illegal in England and Wales. So I wouldn't risk it if I were you. Oh, and there is only one 't' in goat. 0100100100100000011100110111010101100111011001110110010101110011011101000010000001100001011011100111100101101111011011100110010100100000011101000110100001100001011101000010000001100100011011110110010101110011011011100010011101110100001000000111010101101110011001000110010101110010011100110111010001100001011011100110010000100000011101000110100001101001011100110010000001110100011010000111001001100101011000010110010000100000011100110110100001101111011101010110110001100100001000000111011001101001011100110110100101110100001000000111010001101000011010010111001100100000011100110110100101110100011001010010111000101110001011100000110100001010011010000111010001110100011100000011101000101111001011110111011101110111011101110010111001110010011011110111010101100010011000010110100101111000011010010110111001110100011001010111001001100001011000110111010001101001011101100110010100101110011000110110111101101101001011110101000001101100011000010111100101000111011100100110111101110101011011100110010000101111010000100110100101101110011000010111001001111001010111110100001101101111011011100111011001100101011100100111001101101001011011110110111000101111010000100110100101101110011000010111001001111001010111110101010001101111010111110101010001100101011110000111010000101110011000010111001101110000 ...but...but...