badgerx16

I'm POSITIVE that's our worst home display this season

Well, bottom 4 for at least another week :confused:

Is that now 3 at the back ?

We are building our whole season on a combination of pace and experience - trouble is it looks like it's the the pace of Jaidi and the experience of Trotman.

"Secured against future television revenues" - smoke and mirrors then ?

That'll do for starters, now a b0ll0king at half time and all over them like a rash for 45 minutes. COME ON!!!!!

So do Harding, and Morgan, and...

We are poo this evening :mad:

Got away with that penalty claim...

1) How many client PCs, and what O/S ? 2) Are any of these articles of use ?..... http://searchwindowsserver.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid68_gci1065698,00.html http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Using-Restricted-Groups.html http://community.scriptingprovip.com/forums/146958/ShowThread.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/heyscriptingguy/archive/2004/10/08/how-can-i-add-a-domain-user-to-a-local-administrators-group.aspx

It is not a good idea EVER to give a user 'Domain Admin' membership, it is a grouping intended only for fixing things when the network / domain really screws itself up. One problem is that no domain management or security policy / profile can ever apply to a D-A member. Also, some systems, such as CITRIX servers, can get really upset when trying to apply their own profiles to a D-A user. Always work on the 'rule of least privilege', give them only sufficient to do what they need to do; there are, I think, about 20,000 combinations of privilege setting in a W2K domain, so you are sure to find something appropriate.

Try to understand, the theory behind the Carnegie work is not new; http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1286972.html ( A paper by one of the authors of your favourite scientific work of the moment, look for the mention of Nikolai A. Kudryavtsev's work in 1951 ). The following extract from the 2005 Alberta paper puts the BIOGENIC theory in the context of being MORE MODERN than the Abiotic ; " The abiogenic origin of petroleum thrived over a period in which scientific knowledge in biology, geology, and chemistry was in the dark ages. Mendeleyev, Kudryavtsev and Porfirev's abiotic evidences was well accepted at the beginning and in the mid-20th century because it offered an explanation for the presence of petroleum deposits in metamorphic rocks of the basement. With the advances of analytical chemistry, around the fifties, geochemical evidence start to suggest, and latter proved that oils are related to biological precursors (Forsman and Hunt, 1958; Eglinton and Calvin, 1967 and Tissot, 1969). In the late seventies Albrecht, Seifert, Moldowan and Maxwell performed numbered studies that definitively proved the relationship between hydrocarbons and their putative biological precursor, burying the abiogenic hypothesis forever. Unfortunately, Thomas Gold convinced the Swedish Government and some neophyte people, in the nineties, that oil could be found everywhere in the planet, but more specific in an ancient meteorite crater, into fractured granite under the Siljan Ring, in Sweden. For this, two deep wells were drilled and millions of dollars were thrown in the deep earth granite (Gravberg-1 in 1986-1990 and Stenberg-1 in 1991-1992). In such adventure, no hydrocarbon was found and again the abiogenic hypothesis was put in its proper place (Kerr, 1990)." Try to get things in the correct chronological order, it always helps with perspective.

But how many others would be understood by their target readership ?

May I suggest you actually go back and read my post again ? The YAHOO answer I quoted was debunking an 'experiment' from 1986, which involved some experimental drilling in Sweden under the guidance of Thomas Gold, who had plagiarised some earlier Russian theories from the 1950s. I did not claim the 1986 experiment was counter to the one you quoted, it is, in fact, based on the same theoretical ideas. And if you would prefer a 'named' retort to the theory of Deep Earth Hydrocarbons, Gold's 'masterpiece' and the basis of the Russian experiments, try this http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102104_no_free_pt1.shtml, and part 2 :- http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011205_no_free_pt2.shtml And if you can manage it, try this abstract from a 2005 conference in Alberta http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/abstracts/2005research_calgary/abstracts/extended/mello/mello.htm BIOGENESIS, you KNOW it makes sense

The point I was trying to make is that trolling can be a two-way street, ( as that is, I believe, all you are in fact doing ).

This being TMS, I'm sure there's a very distasteful retort somewhere waiting to be added to the thread.

Did anybody see this ? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6875376.ece Basically the Italians were patrolling a 'quiet' area, which they handed over to the French, who promptly got stamped on and had 10 soldiers killed in an ambush. Turns out, the reason it was quiet for the eyeties was that they were paying the Talebannies to not shoot at them. So much for allies !

But in 3 years time, when we are back in the promised land, the officials will be professional, and they will still get it wrong !

It's the whole 'interfering/not interfering with play' malarky the 'first' and 'second' phase ball ( which I thought was Rugby ), and whether the player is 'live', ( doubtful for some - at least they are probably brain dead ), or not at the time the ball is played. I think Bill Shankly's "Any player of mine who isn't interfering with play doesn't deserve to be on the pitch" sets the right tone. Go back to the basic if you have only 1 opponent between you and the goal when the ball is played forward, you are offside. Simples. And if there is any doubt about the buildup when a goal is scored, go to a TV replay, they do it in Rugby.

Indeed ! At various times they have given aid, sometimes clandestine sometimes overt, to Ho Chi Minh, Saddam Hussein, and General Manuel Noriega, as well as Osama BinBag Laden.

Sorry ESB, Muslim is not a nationality; chances are the scalded bloke IS English.

Evening chaps, only able to dip in and out 'cos I'm busy, but notice Bart is playing. How's he doing ?

The counter argument, ( the one that link tries to poo-poo ) ; http://survivingpeakoil.blogspot.com/2009/07/peak-oil-myth-or-reality-list-of.html Plus see this : http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080625004821AAarTwn ( which is a 'debunk of this 'experiment' http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf047/sf047p12.htm ) and this http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x39111 And a brief explanation of the true science behind the production of oil ; http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Formation-of-Oil-in-the-Earths-Surface&id=813883 ( See St G, you are not the only one who knows how to trawl GOOGLE ) :cool:

St G, this is, I am afraid, complete hokum of the highest order, such that I am suprised that even you would quote it ( And I am another microbiologist, ( at least by training ), BSc from Swansea Uni; Hello Saintfully )

Well hopefully they can revoke that decision should Garside's stupid plan come close to fruition.