Verbal

I am that.

You're not a professor of logic as well as a top, fit-as-a-fiddle golfer, by any chance?

Well bless your cotton socks.

He said it was the FA's fault that we are in L1. You said it was the FL's fault. Neither is true, obviously. QED.

Oh dear God. We are in L1 because we got relegated from the CCC - you know, that league hovering above us.

He said (in his infinite, never to be underestimated wisdom): Those of us ho are not over-handicapped golfers are persnickety lawyers. HTH.

Yes, but it's not the football league's fault that we are in L1.

Really?

New technologies can and surely will make a substantial difference, as you say Benjii - but then I don't understand your conclusion - that nothing can be done. It seems to me that your conclusion is the flip side of the argument that something as vast as the planet couldn't possibly be affected by the behaviour of people. As I've said before, I wish that was true. But where is the evidence? Johann Hari takes a similar line in The Independent today. This bit is pretty telling: "A study for the journal Science randomly sampled 928 published peer-reviewed scientific papers that used the words "climate change". It found that 100 per cent – every single one – agreed it is being fuelled by human activity. There is no debate among climate scientists. There are a few scientists who don't conduct research into the climate who disagree, but going to them to find out how global warming works is a bit like going to a chiropodist and asking her to look at your ears." http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-i-wish-that-the-global-warming-deniers-were-right-1833728.html Now you could go along St George's and Dune's view that science is a global Masonic-like cult that is trying to deceive us all to its own unstated ends. You have to admit, a global conspiracy of those evil-doing clever clogs makes a great deal of sense (in a parallel universe somewhere). Or you could accept that, on the balance of probabilities, it's more likely than not, regrettably, that we have a bit of a problem. As someone who really wants the science to be wrong, there's another problem with the deniers' argument. and that, quite simply, is how intellectually feeble they are, as St George has so clearly demonstrated (I'm not sure that was his intention - but if ever I want to ignominiously lose an argument, I know who to PM!) And usually - to make matters far worse - it seems that all of the noisiest deniers among the scientific community and among politicians are recipients of large wads of cash from the oil industry. As for whether it matters to our generation, who knows? The five great rivers of Asia, including the Yangtze and the Ganges are fed by Himalayan glaciers that are fast disappearing. The knock-on effects of any disruption in those river systems will be global, immediate and catastrophic. Better to do what we can. But even on a selfish level, there's a really persuasive reason to act. Green technologies that cut energy use and develop renewable resources, in the end, cut costs - to all of us. The green energy business sector hasn't emerged out of money-down-the-drain altruism. It exists on a large and growing scale because there are huge rewards in it. Using less energy, or greener energy creates a virtuous circle. Burning oil - and genuflecting before the waning might of the global oil industry - does not.

We're still flying Comets?

Quite right. But what we're now seeing is the long, agonising death of a football club, whose fate was sealed when the football authorities themselves lacked the courage to apply their own rules regarding the 'fit and proper person' test. From the moment Gaydamak got his hooks into the club, it was inevitable that he would play with it for a few years, then discard it like an expensive, unwanted and basically useless child's toy. The FA got very narrowly lucky with Man City, after declaring an epically corrupt Thai fraudster 'fit and proper'. This time, it's blown up in their face.

You've forgotten the toughest work-out of all - ordering your caddy to give you the right stick.

That's true. I now believe you.

Handicap? (And the answer's not 'yes'.)

That Gordon Taylor is a smart fellow. Never misses a trick.

I can only assume that Wotte is addicted to the frisson of wondering if he's going to get paid at the end of the month. First us, now them.

Thanks, Phil Faraj.

Dead fish walking.

Yes. I bet she's thinking he's quite a catch though.

But he only stopped posting after Roman told all. Fishier still.

Plant.

He was outed by Roman.

Muppet, n'est-ce pas?

Well, we'll never know, will we. There was an interesting book about Eichmann written a couple of years ago by David Cesarani, called 'Becoming Eichmann', which substantially revised the received view that senior Nazis were in essence evil, and from disturbed backgrounds. Nazis like Eichmann were actually disturbingly ordinary - rather like the disturbingly ordinary people who offer their sheeplike support and votes to neo-Nazi parties like the BNP and the many, similarly violent far-Right parties across Europe. Eichmann is a hero to the more vociferous of these idiots. He would be less so if he had renounced his savage past. But as I say, we'll never know...

As someone who's against the death penalty, I'd have to say that not even his crimes (if he's found guilty) should lead to a death sentence. I'd also have wanted Eichmann not to have been executed by the Israelis, nor Goering and the others by the Nuremburg Trials. In my opinion, they would have had far greater deterrent value alive than dead, and could have reflected on their crimes in ways that would really have had impact outside of their prison walls. Demjanjuk is shamming. He's done it before.