Nineteen Canteen

LE GOD DELUSION A popular debate at the moment so I thought it would be interesting to get a view on what other posters thought about this issue. I have not studied all religions in any great depth although I did attend the the now famous Holy Trinity Brompton's Alpha Course and took up their challenge of the 30 day introduction to the Bible. I have to say initially it felt enlightening and quite empowering but for many reasons after about 2 years of attending church post course I fell out with the religion thing in a big way. The reasons are many but certainly to be a Christian requires you have to take a huge leap of faith which I never quite completed and to accept some core values and beliefs without question. No doubt the church is trying to change but to slowly in my opinion to accommodate some of the more obvious hyprocrisy's such the ordination of women and same sex relationships. The trouble is if the church believe they need to change does that not prove they are making things up as they go along? During my time exploring my faith I once asked a senior clergy what would he do if he was confronted with two men who wanted to commit to the Christian faith and be married in church in the same way the relationship can be recognsed in law and an accepting society. His answer - 'I would welcome them into the church but not marry them.' Why? - 'The bible tells us two men should not lay together and I would encourage them to change their ways'. I found his answer pathetic under the premise that god made us all and we are all god creatures unless he made you a homosexual which in many cases I believe is not through choice but the way we are made by God. Some God, I'll make you like this, then tell you to change when the time comes and its too late and damn you to a life in purgatory. The end for me and Christianity came during one service where audience members were invited to come forward and share their experience of a 'weekend retreat' they had attended. One young impressionable teenage girl got up and spoke about how a teenage boy with a broken leg had hands lay upon him and he was able to take of his cast and walk right in front of them. I stood up after a quick word with my wife and took my family out and have never been back and that was about 8 years ago. Would you believe a cure like that or am I just being cynical? I think it is important in life to have some belief and so I am currently trying albeit badly to understand Existentialism. It's difficult getting to grips beyond the 'I think therefore I am' but I do agree with it's stance on religion whereby the arbitray way it acts, that a religion or society imposes its beliefs, rule and values and must be simply obeyed and not challenged. Essentially, religion prevents people from being what they would like to be and it should be the person's judgement that determines what they believe not some set of rules into which they were born. So I agree with the stance of the Existentialist as to why religion or even secular restrictions prevent freedom of judgement and development but I'm not sure it gives me anything to believe in. At first we exist and then we spend our lives taking personal responsibility for our choices and the nature of our character. We should be able to choose responsibly without being forced to religion, customs, traditions etc. We do all that then what? Where's the hope that maybe when our time comes we may go to a better place? Religion can't provide that if you all you do is question the unwritten 11th commandment 'You shall not think' as Nietzsche wrote about christianity. How can you believe if you can't challenge and if you challenge as others have and they change the rules as if its was some sort of social law then IMO it can't have been much of a religion in the first place. Nietzsche wrote that God was a crass solution as a belief system because he Nietzsche was too inquisitive, too skeptical and too arrogant to allow himself to be satisfied with such an obvious solution. It's certainly convienient and unproven and why I remain an agnostic but not arrogant enough to be atheist. At least being an agnostic I can play my get of jail card when the time comes along the lines of ' ah, so the gates are true and now you tell me'. I like what Existentialism tells us as a blueprint for a way of living a life unshackled by religous rules but it seems very cold and perhaps even fearful instead of embracing death when your time comes. That said I am no expert on the subject and have only started looking into the subject so prepared to be educated. It would be good to hear what other posters felt about religion and why are we here and what happens in the end? Is this just a rehearsal for better things or do we change now and live by our own rules and responsible choices because this is it - one shot? For the time being I remain agnostic and understanding of peoples' need to believe but unable to make that leap of faith myself until it can be proven, which I have been told by the those ordained that it can't - how do they know? Speaking in tongues?

Never will in Economy unless your idea of sex is similar to a belief that golf is a sport. First Class is where you'll get the room and the blind eye to do what you like but in Economy you only have the room and the queues to fly solo.

In my experience moody, uncommunicative (other than grunts) teenagers with ipod's blaring, taking up room for 4 and phone key tapping are a million times worse than little tots. At least the little ones are just trying to let you know something is wrong the only way they know how. However, the teenagers are trying to make sense of growing up and increasing need for independence and decide the best approach is to alienate their family whilst not admitting they don't want to let go either of their ties, so for this angst they reward you by seemingly becoming hell bent on shaming you in public. The worse people to sit next to on a long haul fight though is grown men in football shirts who've had a few beers before boarding and on holiday with a few family groups together. We had that particular hell going to Florida this year and I would have preferred it if we had only been the family on a plane full of Year 11s on a school trip from hell. BTW the shirts were West Ham and the humorous interaction with the Air Stewardesses would have made Jim Davidson uncomfortable. Under two's always before teenagers and men in football shirts acting like teenagers. Alternatively just turn left on long haul flights, failing that self medicate before boarding and wear a football shirt!

Taxi for Colin?

Forgot to mention but can I just say these are not the classiest of insults to use on a thread discussing a charity fund raising event for people living with autisim.

Daren, the King vs MLT debate is relevant as I was merely asking at what point does a crime become severe enough to turn on your heroes. Things have come to light about MLT recently that has made me question his integrity and role of sporting hero but I am in the minority so I thought it would be interesting to ask hypothetically what crime would have to be committed for the majority to turn against MLT or any other sporting hero. BWP and Dyer were accused of much lesser charges but I think it's fair to say many wanted them kicked out of the club but if it had been MLT would they have dismissed it as a moment of stupidity? King obviously, doesn't have any strong ties with a particular fanbase and argubly neither did Dyer and BWP but should loyalty and reverence overlook misdemeanours and if so up to what level of seriousness? You don't debate my points Daren you merely spit back your incredulous 'disgusted from Southampton' replies. The King case raises questions about what can and can be forgiven and we take our recent but lesser examples of slipped halos - MLT, Dyer and BWP into account don't you think it's interesting how posters on the forum have dealt with those situations? What god forbid would happen had they committed very serious crimes that required sentencing and public revulsion such as King's? I think I know what would happen to BWP and Dyer but MLT? Phil, worrying use of the smiley but I've never heard of Survivor. Amazing coincidence you never hearing of Big Brother as well and 'the house' what with all that jetting around you do. View From The Top - as usual deeply offensive remarks not just to me but others who may use any sort of 'care in the community' from drop in centres to hospices. Offensive remarks as always from you couched as fact, designed to hurt but only serving to deflect your own shortcomings and inability to communicate your own opinion. Have you ever had to care for a parent with early on set Alzheimers for example? Keep the insults at Daren's level they are a little more generic and acceptable instead of trying to give a more personal dig that probably insults more people on here indirectly than just myself. VFTT, Crouch was just as culpable for the demise of this club as the rest IMO so please try and deal with it as I am not the only one who has that opinion. We must discuss your views on the disabled people in our society be they mentally or physically handicapped in some way, as serious illness seems fair game be it directed at me or indirectly at others who use the help available in the community and through the NHS. Regards all Just another sad attention seeking little freak, oddball, loon and the libellous insults designed to offend and bully from View From The Top as usual.

JB you'll be more than welcome provided you park your car round the back. Better still bring your bike we can compare folding mechanisms and get all enthused about things, James May style. DP - the Big Brother house sounds like a great thread (your idea so do the honours if you wish). Which, 16 housemates from this forum or whatever the number is these days would you like to spend a few weeks with? 4 for come dine with me would be hard but 16 still isn't easy although I couldn't live with posters who steal others witty one liners about sour grapes. View From The Top would be an ideal person to take on in a friendly game of cards and every BB house needs a resident mug. Daren Wheeler would need to be kept out though as I couldn't stand the alleged humiliation of being 'trounced' in a public debate with him regarding some old issues. Still it would be interesting to see how he could shout someone's arguments down on live TV whilst ignoring some reasonable points and questions.

Wes, those 4 are mere bagatelle in the general scheme of things and it has left me seriously considering your bid for an invitation. The hard part is keeping it down to 4 perhaps I should just spend a week grilling at the table as well and invite those 4 with the most to answer and share my findings at the end of what would be a gruelling but no doubt very interesting week.

Not quite the same context maximising the raising of funds through wider audience appeal and a football match. Mind you if you have ever attended American sporting events you may be on to something. Wes, lighten up there must be 100 irrevent and satirical posts on here that are meant with a large dose of irony. I thought I was being funny by putting up Leicester as having the type of manager to take on Marlon King and you never know if something happens to Fryatt and Mandric has got £35k pw burning a hole in his pocket. Lets face it he signed Pericard on loan for us and that was criminal IMO. I look forward to you challenging every 'off the cuff' comment made by everyone else. What did we do before smileys, eh? Lighten up Wes we're on the same side more and more and you'll soon be in consideration for my Saints forum 'Come Dine With Me' experience. Though you'll need to knock out Daren Wheeler somehow.

I don't see why I should. There is a difference between support and blind support and whilst I am and always will be a Saints fan and funds permitting a ST holder I will always question and try to reason/understand what I can see.

You really need to be careful what you post. I have no issue with general insults and banter but posting alleged private details about a poster of which you have no knowledge and state it as if it was fact, is slanderous at best (from your perspective). Am I currently on medication? Am I currently seeing a psychiatrist? If so perhaps you would like to share details of the medication and the doctor and/or treatment centre or hospital I attend. If you knew I was suffering from Cancer would you ask me to change my chemo or radiotherapy? Bottom line is you don't know so don't make up stories about posters that may have a damaging affect on them personally. And no it's not the same as me questioning the behaviour of some of our 'Saints' past and present as I am not making up stories about their private life but offering an opinion on what is already in the public domain and / or asking questions.

Oh yes, it's taken over my life and I cannot think of anything else but Nigel Pearson. In any event it doesn't wrankle as bad as it wrankles you that I post opinions and questions that you don't agree with. You don't even understand irony and the occassional tongue in cheek comment. Even caught Wes out which is a rare beast.

Alpine I was not comparing or suggesting that MLT's activities were the same as King but discussing the issue of context and in the context of our club and the level of adoration he received his alleged crime was not justifiable IMHO. Dyer and BWP were rounded on for being arrested for petty theft and yet MLT's activities can be overlooked? I was simply asking if you read my post before the one you refer to, how bad a crime hypothetically speaking would MLT have to be convicted of before he received comments being rightly reserved for King? Or could we forgive him anything? If so some clubs for whatever reason may be able to do the same for King no matter how distasteful that may seem, am I right or wrong? I don't agree with the argument put forward on here that if the likes of Merson, Gazza and Adams can be forgiven so those who commit crimes can. However those with alcohol issues, for example, are likely to have their problems stemmed from an addiction, an illness, and as such people who have lost the ability to think rationally prior to treatment. IMO I don't think MLT, Dyer, BWP, Lundekvam or worse of all King can blame their 'mistakes' on mental illness but that is just my IMO.

But we are happy to champion an alleged fraudster and/or liar as someone to be proud of and their connection with our club? I don't condone what King did and in terms of severity it's one down from rape IMO but where do you draw the line? I appreciate the fact King was convicted of his crime whereas the CPS did not pursue MLT's case as it was not deemed in the public interest but the CPS's decision was hardly a ringing endorsement with regard to MLT's innocence IMO.

It does I agree but if we put everything into context like that we would eradicate any 'frivoulous' activity. For example we could say that witnessing our returning war heroes who are either seriously injured for life or killed in action puts football into context. It does make you wonder though what level of crime MLT could be found guilty of hypothetically before he to would be subject to the kind of comments being reserved on this thread for King. Within the context of Saints I still find MLT's actions heinous and so dismissive of his adoring fans. The fact he has as far as I'm aware remained silent only adds to the whole sorry affair IMO.

Leicester?

I heard another version at a Welsh wedding I went to years ago. Can't remember how it went exactly but the Best man said in his speech that the groom wanted to show how much he loved his new bride by tattoing her birth place on his manhood. When he found out she was from -llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch - he settled on where they first set up home together - Rhyl! It was old joke even back then and the punchline was almost delivered by postcard.

Exactly. His comedy is acerbic and observational and everyone is fair game including his native Scots on whom he is the harshest. Adlington has put herself out there as Baj as pointed out and therefore becomes fair game IMO. If he think's she has that look that is his opinion and fair play for him to be tackling those who for some reason think they are untouchable. The innuendo is no different than when we see a really good looking woman with someone who makes Lundekvam look a catch. In this world of equality why not reverse the joke? What about the stick Lesley Ash got over her trout pout? Was it his decision to leave or was he asked to by the BBC? Real shame but in any event I doubt he has much to worry about provided he avoids the Billy Connolly stereotype and doesn't resort to relying on the F word to shock and amuse. The heckles placed on him by the BBC in this regard were to his advantage and he was all the funnier for it IMO.

Thats why i said it and hence the smiley winkey thing. It was supposed to be complimentary and I wasn't responding to your post directly merely picking up a theme from the thread which your post eptiomised. Whereas Majestic Shannon didn't even register the self-deprecation of my post and came across as a bit of a sad act tbh. 50/50 I may have misread your post!

I don't condone the actions of Collymoe but they are very different to the actions of King for reasons that i hope don't need explaining.

No. It does depend on the type of offence IMO but in this instance unprovoked violent crime against a woman then it's going to be a very desperate club who sign him upon his release.

Yep, and it wasn't very good that's why I called it Rudi.

Oh dear, I think you'll find I had already made that joke on my own behalf. But FWIW I wouldn't have been so bold as to suggest the full stops. You need to get sense of humour or at least some originality.

2nd? 4th and thanks to Reading not taking advantage of them at home despite outplaying them and the QPR goalkeeper gift wrapping an extra 2 points. Time will tell but I am pleased we have Pardew over Pearson as it's clear from their press interviews who the more astute manager is. Lowe cannot be held responsible for Wilde's false promises and Crouch's IMO misguided actions. Lowe was in charge during our first relegation and perhaps his biggest mistake was trying to rescue the club second time around. IMO we wouldn't have made Christmas 2008 whilst talk and false hope of investment would have hindered any effort to address the real issues. The problem many fans have is that they choose to be selective in their review of historical events and belief that the small provincial club McMenemy took into the top flight could compete with the money of the big clubs and those with wealthy owners in the new Premier league. It could be argued that Lowe did well to keep us up for as long as he did on the budget we had and that he adopted the correct prudent approach post relegation. Am I pleased we have got rid of Lowe, Crouch and Wilde? Absolutely, but that does not stop me assessing the past a little more objectively than selecting convienient scapegoats. MOG it is my understanding and in my opinion your view of the finances at the time is simply wrong. I don't know for certain but I have read the accounts of some well connected posts on this forum that I have decided to accept as a close account to the reality as we are ever likely going to get against the more inflammatory and ill-considered version of events. The problem is if you are selective in what you read you miss these important nuggets as they go against what you and others would like to fit your scapegoat ideal.

I went to a parlour to have 'Southampton FC' tattoed on my manhood. It looked good back then now it just appears to be a rhetorical question. So? Still I'm kind of attached to it.