Minty

One thing that puzzled me about last nights 'goal' was that it appeared that the fifth (or sixth?) official appeared to be looking directly down the goal line, and therefore directly at the post. If this was the case then the post might have partially obstructed his view of a tiny part of the ball, and it would not have looked like the whole ball had gone over the whole line. His position should have been to look down the line of the rear of the posts... i.e. along the outer edge of the line. Admittedly, the difference is a matter of cms, so it's probably impossible for me to tell and I'm talking bo!!ocks but that was my impression. A diagram would probably help here but I don't have one. Anyway, agree with previous poster that you either introduce technology or you don't, but don't mess about with half-arsed measures involving extra officials who don't work anyway. (Ignoring the fact that a Ukrainian player was offside in the build up anyway...)

Interesting that this should appear in the Daily Mail of all places: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2161992/We-need-slash-meat-consumption-expect-feed-population-9-3bn-2050.html#ixzz1yL2V6uio I don't actually agree with all of it, it is a bit too general and vague IMO, and avoids the question of population growth, which is a whole different and arguably equally/more important subject, but that's what happens when you try to condense a comprehensive report down into one media article. The comments underneath it are quite funny IMO, and bit more typical of the Mail!

You, me, Bexy, and 98% of the population all start from the same point in this debate. We are not experts, we have little or no specific knowledge, and so we rely on external sources to form our opinions. You can do that different ways, and to different extents. You can read just the media reports, which will undoubtedly be tainted by the particular persuasions of that publication (which is why I always read different accounts of the same thing, and not just the Guardian, despite it being my paper of choice, because I am well aware of the potential for bias). You can read the reports themselves if you have enough knowledge to interpret them (few do), you can read one of the many books on the subject, by a host of scientists and other people, presenting different sides of the debate. You can watch videos and debates online, and so on and so on. Now, your assertion that science is dishonest probably needs seperate discussion. If it is then we would have to change a lot of our thinking, after all, we trust science with a LOT in our lives. Personally, knowing quite a few people who work in the science arena, I am impressed by their desire to learn, both for themselves and for the strand of science they work in, and am pretty sure that they are not all dishonest. So, unless we want to unpick every scientific discovery since we started making them, I have to put some faith in what 'science' comes up with. And of course, the important thing to remember here is that science is informing BOTH sides of the debate. Well, actually, science is not interested in choosing sides, it is only interested in discovering the truth, but that's not something the media and politicians are happy with... they need sides to support, which doesn't help. But if science is dishonest, then there is an equal case to say that those who provide science to disprove the AGW theory are just as dishonest as those they disagree with. Alps, to make this dead simple, I am quite happy to accept that I may be wrong, and that the 'overwhelming consensus' might be wrong... all i ask if why you hold such a strong opinion as fact. I have always stated on this site, that I believe in the precautionary principle... the belief that if there is a chance we might be causing harm, we should do our utmost to investigate this and minimise any impact that is discovered, for the sake of future generations who will have to live with the consequences. I believe it is potentially reckless to do anything else. I don't drive round a blind bend at 60, assuming that there is nothing in my way... That is quite possibly correct, depending on the technologies used, the infrastructure of the house, your energy usage, etc, etc. But that's not the same for everyone, and it also doesn't mean we should stop looking into new technologies completely, and not try to improve them. Look at any early version of a technology, and compare it with something new. It is guaranteed to have cost a lot more and done a lot less. Yes, many do. There are plenty of studies into it and it is absolutely a valid question to be asking... we need to make things as cost effective as possible, that goes without saying. The overriding theme here, be it the theory and science behind it, or the technology and adaptation to help us deal with it (if we believe that 'it' needs addressing), is that we continue to learn and improve. Putting up brick walls won't help us move forward, be it with the climate, medical research, exploration of the solar system... these things need curious minds who want to challenge what we currently know. We wouldn't have half the things we do now if it weren't for scientists working on these things in the past. Well clearly you've made up your mind, and no one is going to change that. That's up to you and I respect your opinion, even if I don't agree with it, or how you've seemingly come to it.

Whereas, actually, I've done my own independent research and come to my own conclusions based on a wide range of information. Your completely incorrect assumptions and subsequent allegations don't do your argument any favours. I'll happily discuss articles or new information, and regularly do, but you've not really offered much to debate yet...

Ba dum tish! I completely agree about being lectured however... whatever the subject, it only serves to turn people away quicker, or make them more defensive, in my experience.

I am sure if there was a way they could do so, they would have done so by now. The only person who knows the truth is Assange, but my gut feeling is that the US want him because of his website as DSM alludes, and this is indeed a conspiracy.

Indeed it does, but that doesn't mean it has a greater environmental impact. It might require more land (that's a bit of a no brainer when you consider some of the places intensively farmed meat is produced at), but the combination of eating less meat (no more than twice a month for us, often less) means the Organic meat is entirely sustainable for my eating habits. The other good thing about organic production is that it produces what it produces, and is not under any pressure to produce more to meet demand. Just like seasonal fruit and veg, you eat what is available, in season, and no more. That's how I view it anyway... Agreed, although for the unaware it is still not quite that straightforward... British tomatoes for example, often require far more energy to produce in artificial environments, than those grown and shipped in from Spain. Personally, I buy organic Isle of Wight tomatoes which taste amazing and are probably the best combination of being produced locally and naturally. It's not an easy subject to unpick. If someone asks me I tend to say that loacl AND organic is first choice, local is second best, IF it is seasonal and native to this country, and organic for everything else. There is no clear cut answer though.

Just for future reference, apart from Saints (or am I wrong there too?) what is significant to trousers?

I guess everything is at some level.

I actually agree that to simply whack a tax on people does nothing to really help... what is needed is for people to see exactly where that money is going, what it is contributing to, and to help show people why it is necessary. Taking money off someone doesn't achieve anything unless you show them what it goes towards. Taxes in general are like this... with most of them there is a disconnection from how and where the money is obtained, to where it is then used, and a clear explanation of what it is used for. Well, maybe to you, but not to the consensus of scientists who are studying the issue. As I said previously, I have no issue with anyone who disagrees having looked into it, but to blindly disregard it as 'laughable' without any premise for such an opinion, is sadly rather blinkered IMO.

This is the main reason I eat very little meat. I do eat meat, but tend to only that which is locally or sustainably sourced, which usually means Organic, but sometimes local farm shop produce. So I'm not a vegetarian, but I do sometimes refer to myself as one because it is easier to do so than having to explain the above. But the same also goes for some other products... milk production is also massively unsustainable in its current guise and as a result I usually only drink organic milk and also use rice milk for certain things. I see health and cost mentioned above also, and these are also concerns. My diet nowadays is mostly vegetarian and this is far, far cheaper than eating meat as much as I used to, there is no doubt about that. The health issues are debatable and there is lots of ongoing research, but nothing conclusive. I personally prefer to eat as naturally as possible and minimise exposure to chemicals and other man-made influences (antibiotic use is huge in meat production for example). Few people actually question what is in their food, and what is good for them or not. Each to their own, it's not my place to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't do, but it does interest me just how much people are willing to take for granted or accept from manufacturers, without doing any research themselves. There are some who take it to extremes and who are a bit fanatical about it... but then some people probably think I take it too far and am a bit of a nutter... it's all relative. As long as you're happy with what you're putting in your body, that's all that matters.

BTW, the wonders of the NHS mean I am currently getting 1.18Mb down and 0.16Mb up...!

Best thing to do is plug any router directly in to the master socket. BT master sockets are identified by the lower half being removable, with two small screws, to reveal a few wires to the front plate, and another socket (the test socket) behind the front plate. If possible, connect your router directly to that test socket, using the cable that came with the router, and not any other telephone extension lead. If you take the face plate off and still have a ring wire (wire 3) connected, then remove that, because it is not used in modern phones and may introduce interference. An i-plate may also help if you have other extension sockets in the house. http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/3859-top-10-tips-on-how-to-improve-your-broadband-speeds.html http://www.thinkbroadband.com/videos/iplate-installation.html Plenty of other tips out there on how to improve your connection, but these are arguably the main ones.

Sorry to be pedantic, but the Earth will be just fine. It's the Human Race who need to consider their actions. Some of the new posts on this thread today nicely highlight some of the problems that surround this issue. Lovelock's recent comments are to be welcomed... honest opinions, a willingness to review previously held theories, and robust discussion of the science surrounding Climate Change are all needed. What is not needed is people to then try and project what he says as some kind of watershed moment to prove or disprove the entire premise of Climate Change itself, or to say that everything needs to change because of one persons opinion. The work is ongoing. As Lovelock says, there are aspects of this that we will probably never fully understand, but any good scientist would recognise this... the consensus remains that the climate is changing, that human activity has/can/will significantly influence it, and that we should act to minimise the effect on the human race. Making any kind of final judgement about it being right/wrong, true/false, is just silly, when all we can do is continue to learn.I have friends and family who have a different opinion to me about climate change, which i fully respect, but we all accept that this is a significant issue that science needs to be allowed to look into without being judged by every Tom, ****, newspaper, politician, wannabe climate scientist and Harry around. alpine's point about scale is flawed. Whilst our direct emissions are indeed much lower than many other countries, our indirect emissions, arising through things like consumer demand for goods made abroad, or technologies invented and created in the UK but then exported for use elsewhere, make our contribution to the global situation far more significant. This is a global issue, hence why IMO it needs a co-ordinated, global response, and for politics to be put to one side. Governments, whose sphere of influence and concern rarely stretches beyond a term or two of government, are making (or failing to make) decisions that will affect me and my children and their children for decades and decades to come. There are a host of smaller countries, who are feeling the effects far more than us right now, who are leading by example, because they recognise the importance of doing so. 'Do as I say, not as I do' might work for some parents, but for global issues like this, leading by example is paramount, not least to help persuade the larger countries and major contributors to also start to act. By not doing so, we are helping to provide other countries with even more excuses to do nothing.

Car Hire is one of those things that depends a LOT on the local staff in the local office. Abroad is a different kettle of fish altogether. As I don't have a car, I use Enterprise in Winchester a lot and know all of the staff there pretty well. They also use a damage gauge, which means a scratch has to be longer than a certain amount before they consider it damage, same with a chip on the windscreen. All round I find them to be excellent. Now, contrast this with Enterprise staff who used to meet passengers at Southampton Airport when I worked there... they were crap. I know things have improved a lot since they got a dedicated Car Hire building in the car park, but it does go to show that the reputations of companies you hire from depend a lot on how the individual branches look after you.

Oh, and seeing as North Baddesley got a mention, how come South Baddesley is so frickin' far away from it?

Whisper it quietly but we're NOT, actually, the greatest team the world has ever seen.

Only on SaintsWeb can a thread about a new signing, turn into a discussion about whether the photo was photoshopped... I can't be the only one who thinks dune is a fake WUM account sometimes. Anyway, welcome to Saints Jay... I genuinely haven't seen enough of him to really know what he'll bring but look forward to seeing what he can do.

Good work Dr Who?, I shall sponsor too shortly. As for advice, looks like you've got plenty of it already which covers most of the things I would say, so I won't bore you with too much myself. Make sure all your training rides are done with as much of the same kit/clothing as you'l wear on the day, and if you're planning on changing anything about your bike, do it as soon as possible. I made the big mistake of adding toe clips not long before the ride and it completely changed my riding style so much that I got a major knee injury and it nearly killed the whole thing. That was probably more of an issue over a longer period but is still valid. If you start to struggle on sections, set short, visual targets... challenge yourself to get to the church in the distance, or the traffic lights, or whatever you can see. Forget about the total distance, just focus on the next bit. With hills (or any time that you find it challenging) try and get into a smooth rhythm. Sounds obvious but so many riders are inefficient because they are moving around the road or have their whole upper body moving around, wasting energy. Find your comfortable position (aerobars may help) and focus on only moving your legs... keep your head, arms and upper body still. Don't try and accelerate on a hill... you're not doing a time trial. Find a comfortable gear and speed and stick to it. If you need to go at a different speed to Mrs DW? then do so... it is better for her too... if she's anything like Mrs Minty, she might feel added pressure of needing to keep up with you, or feel like she's holding you back. There are times it's good to ride together, but sometimes you may need to split for a bit. Someone else already mentioned food and stopping. Just eat little and often, doesn't have to be gel packs or 'pro' stuff... Hobnob flapjacks did the job for us quite well for many days! But don't wait until you can feel it... it's too late. Eat little and often throughout your training rides as well as on the day, so your body is used to it. The only thing I would probably add is: Don't forget to enjoy it! Yes it may well be tough, but training will take care of most of that. The positive attitude will get you through the rest.

Well if it's CityLink, they may never arrive.

Nice to see your cut-and-paste skills are alive and well dune: http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070317112122AATO9XB lol

You can thank the influence of American English for the -ed endings... but both are indeed perfectly acceptable in modern day Britain.

Speak for yourself. It's things like this that contribute to the state the country is in... I accept that human nature means there are plenty of people who *would* do it, which wouldn't be such a problem if many of the same people weren't so quick to try and nab freebies, get stuff for nothing and moan about money saving measures, pay freezes, redundancies etc, etc. Just a question of personal morals I guess.

I thought it was Matt Elliott's wife who effectively stopped him coming here?

How close did Matt Elliott get? I know his wife didn't want to move down here, but thought he got pretty close...?