sadoldgit

You could be right about the quality, although I think that consistency is a problem for a number of teams this season (us especially). Manchester United managed to get to the top at one point despite playing poorly and it is no surprise to see them losing games now. I agree about pace. Ball retention used to be the thing but now it is more important to be able to counter attack at speed and that has been a big reason for Leicester's success. You can pass the ball around all day long but unless you get a shot off possession means nothing.

Agreed, excellent well reasoned post, but we will soon knock that out of him! We have had a great few years of but the chances of us continuing to go forward were always going to lessen the longer it went on. Without the resources and pull of the top clubs mid table is where we were bound to settle. Being the best of the rest and Europa football is no mean second best given what clubs like us are up against. Disappointed with the recent results and who isn't? But overall I am very happy with the way the club is run, very happy with the manager and the team. Just start scoring a few goals please!

Marks To Prove It - The Maccabees 5 album retro box set - Fairport Convention

Be nice if Nigel gets a result though eh?

Betting on your own team to get relegated?

Do you think that Leicester are playing particularly well, or do you think they are so high because the quality of the Premiership has dropped this year?

I know it is unlikely, but how awesome would it be if Chelsea went down?

Never happen!!!

Was anyone actually against buying a good player last January?

I didn't say you made the personal dig Whelk, in fact I do have some respect for your posts and I don't have a problem with you. This is a football internet forum. I did not study theology at Uni. Of course there are hue gaps in my understanding. Ive read a few more books than Dawkins and I have spoken to more people than one Atheist mate about Christianity in the country. I was engaged for 5 years to a girl whose parents were Jehovahs wintnesses and dated a Mormon for a year so although I am no expert I do have a level of understanding. If my posts provoke so much why is it just the Usual Suspects who respond? They do it all the time Whelk. Not just to me. There is a little gang who seem to have noting better to do than to find someone to have a pop at here. If I was being attacked by the posters I respected I would worry. But for these guys it is just sport. Yes I could withdraw but why should I? I started this thread and feel a level of ownership. I have paid my fiver and am at liberty to post what I feel. If others don't like it so be it. I don't like using the ignore button but actually with certain people its use does make this forum more bearable. If people have an issue with my posts then I wish they would put me on ignore. Do I think Fry has a point? No, not when he accuses me of being anti Christian with no evidence to back it up whatsoever. I have stated clearly that I do not have a problem with anyone. That is any race, any religion, any gender, anything. People can worship any religion they want. Good luck to them. I only have a problem when people cross the line and murder, rape, maim, attack, rob. Somehow it seems by saying the obvious, that this type of behaviour is not the domain of one religion and that people in all domains behave like this (yes even Christians) makes me anti-Christian. What do you think about this country? Do you think we are becoming less Christian? What do you think of multi-faith schools or the teaching of religion in schools in general? Just wanted to add that although I agree that there are gaps in my knowledge of faiths I did do a lot of reading about the existence of Jesus before my daughter suggested that I read Dawkins and found little of no evidence of his existence outside of the Gospels. Conversations about proof of his existence with those of the faith always end up with them referring to the Bible. All well and good but is a collection of stories written well after the event conclusive proof that he did exist? I am sure you will point me in he right direction if I am wrong. And before Fry kicks off again this has nothing to do with being anti-Christian. I was raised as a Christian and my mother was a strong believer right up to her death. It must be wonderful to have faith in whatever religion it is that you believe in. I would love to be a proper Christian but until someone can convince me that there is more evidence to support the religion other than "faith" I will continue to have an open mind. I will also continue to see myself as a "good guy moderate" because as much as it causes the usual suspects some amusement, I think it is a good thing to be.

So still avoiding the question then. Right till the end.

Thank you Lets B. you know exactly who hadn't seen this and as you have gone to so much trouble for me to see it I shall respond. There are dozens of rambles on here, many of which we could all say were pointless. Why even bother to read or respond if you think they are pointless unless you get some perverse kick out of it? 1. I think that any kind of religious education at such a tender age is a form of indoctrination if that is all that is being taught. I was fed Christianity as a child. The first lesson I had at school that taught us about other religions was at 16. The lesson about Jews started with the words "Jews have big noses" I kid you not! Although I am not a believer now I still find it hard not to think of myself as a Christian because of what I was taught in the early years of my life. Contrary to what you might like to believe, I think it is the same for all religions and not just Christianity. When you are a child you are a blank canvas and what goes onto that canvas continues to make an impression upon you as you grow. 2. Not for the first time you try and take the p*ss without actually bothering to think. That wasn't the only reason that I assumed she was a Christian as well you know. I cited the fact that she spent 13 years in a convent school and that she made a big issue of taking her daughter to the Nativity. I raised her quote about being the "new Jesus" because once again she used a strong Christian reference in one of her media moments. Someone once said if it looks like a dog and barks like a dog then it is a dog. Who know, perhaps she is a Mulsim or a Hindu but she gave me the strong impression that she is a Christian. If she isn't and holds strong views against Christianity, for someone so outspoken it would make her a hypocrite to raise her daughter in a religion that she doesn't believe in wouldn't it? 3. If you interpret it as a pointless dig that is your right. I don't understand why you feel the need to respond if it is so pointless. 4. Many senior politicians and pundits have come out in support of Islam and have said this is about psychopaths who are using Islam for their own nefarious agenda. My point, if you had bothered to try and understand it all the way through is that the vast number of people who follow Islam are not terrorists. Wow, how controversial. If they were, with 1.6billion of them in the world, the rest of us would be in big trouble don't you think? 5. Once again you try and paint a picture of someone else through your own filters and get it completely wrong. Hate filled mob more bothered by the hijab than the KKK? LOL. All I did was repeat a cartoon that came though to me on Facebook. Not sure where you get the hate filled mob from? I hope that you are not making stuff up because that is my domain. 6. Persecution complex??? I really don't feel persecuted by a couple of people on the internet who have nothing better to do than to make themselves look bigger by slagging off others. I am in good company you and your buddies do it all of the time. You have done it recently to Chapel End Charlie to no effect either. Lie about other posters? Run away? I don't agree that I lie about other posters. I do agree that I might make mistakes but guess what, I am only human unlike you it seems? If I have run away why am I still here? How about I just stop this drivel or how about I just go on expressing my own opinion and how about you ignore me if you think it is so pointless? As for your contribution Hypo. Celebrating the birth of the son of God does not make you a Christian? Okay. I expect billions of Muslims, Hindus, Jews etc will be busy sending each other cards with the baby Jesus on them and popping along to midnight mass and sing carols. Tell me again why the Americans say Happy Holidays and not Happy Christmas? And I know I have no grasp of religion but I did here a whisper that the reason we exchange presents is down to the fact that gifts were brought to the baby Jesus. But nothing we do at this time of year has anything to do with celebrating a religious event? Wasn't you yourself say that a Christian is someone who follows Christ. If you sing a song celebrating the birth of Christ why bother if you don't but into the reason behind it? Is it just something you do because that it what you do at Christmas? If so, what does that say about our religion?

Thanks for the advice Batman. Still no answer about your view on closing our borders to Muslims?

200 years dead was a tongue in cheek remark. Sorry I should have put a smiley in there for you. If he ever existed? Yep I have looked it up. I have also read Dawkins. It has not been conclusively proved that he did exist I am not slagging off Christianity. I wanted to broaden the discussion as it has been going nowhere and I am interested in the difference between religions especially as this country seems to be becoming less of a Christian country. Would you agree that is a fair point? I don't know about where you live but the churches are pretty empty here each week. No it wasn't booze fuelled. Why is it that people can have these debates on TV and radio without personal digs but come on here and try and discuss this stuff and this is the kind of reply you get. Given the number of views that the thread has had and the relatively few people who have bothered to post on here recently it would be good to try and draw in a few different views and that is what I have tried to do. Feel free to keep having a pop though Whelk but I would rather you dealt with this issues. You are in danger of turning into the others.

To be fair you did go through a phase of banging on about them all of the time.

Fair point. When some suggest that it is time for Koeman to go it is also time for a sanity check!

I am going out on a limb here and thinking no.

Having just received a letter from the CSA (and it wasn't a Christmas card) I have a lot of sympathy for this post!

Meltdowns are not unusal on here, in fact they are fairly frequent. But for me the worst came in the summer of 2014 and it seems that many who took umbrage at what happened during that close season surface again the minute there is a loss or poor performance or a perceived dodgy signing to vent their spleens once more. For some reason the club has to be perfect on every level. As I said earlier, we cant lose football matches and people cannot make mistakes. None of that would happen if Cortese and His Vision were still here no doubt.

Fair point Dalek. You are nothing if not consistant!

A grieving husband goes into a Yorkshire funeral parlour to arrange the funeral of his beloved wife. When asked what he would like on her gravestone he said I would like to keep it simple. I would like her name at the top. Her date of birth and death in the middle and at the bottom I would like "She was thine." Very good said the director, pop in next week and you can check that the headstone is as you wish. The next week he goes back to inspect the work. The name was correct as was the date of her birth and death, but the bottom line read "She was thin." The husband pointed out the mistake and that an "e" was missing. The Director apologised profusely and promised to rectify the error by the day of the funeral. The day of the funeral came but the husband was devastated to see that the headstone now said "E, she was thin,"

Following on from the is Katie Hopkins a Christian debacle ( and I must hold my hands up here and admit that I was going to amend my definitely is to I assume she is statement but by the time I had thought about it the attack hamsters were on me and it would have looked dodgy to change the post at that point) and a debate we had in the pub the other day about whether Britain is still a Christian country, I wonder what the view is here about what constitutes "Christian." Someone on here the other day said that a Christian is someone who follows Christ I think? Given that he has been dead for over 2000 years (even if he existed) it is hard to follow someone who is dead. You can though follow his published teachings and tenets and I shall come back to those later. I don't know many people nowadays who are firm believers and who go to church regularly or who pray at home. Off the top of my head I can think of 3 (and one of those is a Canon). I do know many people who celebrate Christmas though which as we know, is the celebration of the birth of the son of God. Is that enough to make them Christian? The conclusion of our boozy discussion was that although we like to think of ourselves as a Christian country were are probably now a Christian country with a small c. What does that mean? To us it was that people now probably don't believe in a bearded deity sitting on a cloud passing judgement on us underlings. We do however sign up to the way that Jesus taught us to live our lives along the lines of the Ten Commandments (those of which seem to form the basis of the social contracts in a multitude of diverse societies). Whatever we think of religion (any religion) it seems a good idea not to kill people, not to rape people, not to beat people up, not to steal from them or to **** other people wives etc etc. We are happy to pitch in with religious ceremonies like Christmas and the goodwill to all men malarkey that prevails at this time of year along with other ceremonies such as Christenings, marriages and burials which are still part and parcel of our lives as Christians. Given that we have pretty much given up on Sunday being the day of rest, going to church each week, praying daily, saying Grace before our meals, why do we still carry on with other Christian activities? Is it because we have grown up force fed with this stuff so go along with it because that is what is expected to happen in a Christian country? Is it because despite our rational minds telling us that there is no such thing as a virgin birth, that the Universe was created by the Big Bang and not by design, etc we still harbour thoughts deep down that there still might be something in it? Are we hedging our bets and playing safe? WTF is all this waffle about you may think and I am finally coming to the point. Katie Hopkins made a point about being able to take her daughter to their Nativity the other day. She said she felt fortunate that she was still able to do so. I assume her point is now with more multi faith schools, fewer of them have Nativity events at Christmas. But does this matter? If we have become a country that doesn't really believe in a God but does believe in the tenets of Christianity why make a fuss if there are fewer events where you can toddle along and celebrate a virgin birth? Is it the fact that Nativities (Christian ceremonies) are important to us still or is it the fact that we have fewer because we have more multi-faith children in our schools, and some cant handle or don't like that? One of our group is an Atheist who gave a very strong argument for stopping the teaching of faith in schools - his point being if you want your children to grow up in a certain religion, that should be done outside of the educational system. It is hard to argue against multi-faith schools doing away with the Nativity if the number of "Christian" children is in the minority. To recap then, is there a reaction against it because those opposing the decline of the Nativity do so out of the strength of their faith, or is it because the rise of other faiths in this country is making people uneasy?

I think the only room we are likely to share is a padded cell Shurlock!!

It is simple. We are not allowed to lose. We can occasionally draw but it is better if we do so by coming back from 2-0 down and equalising with the last kick. If we do lose the manager is crap. Whatever the result JWP is crap. The Board have no ambition and are just in it for the money. None of them knows anything about running a football club. If players wish to leave the club to further their career it is the fault of the Board. Cortese was a footballing genius and the Board screwed up big time by not letting him have all the money he wanted so that his dream of Championship football could have been fulfilled. If you aren't a bed wetter you are a Happy Clapper and as such your views are null and void when we lose (or sometimes draw) a football match. It is important to pint out at least every two days how poor we have been since we let Morgan go and how we haven't replaced him. Koeman is only interested in Dutch players and will play them (or any who have played football in Holland) regardless. Koeman is clueless tactically. He got lucky last year. The Leibherrs are tight fisted bastards who are holding us back by not ploughing their money into our football club. It is Les Reed's fault that Toby Alderweireld decided to sign for Spurs. I may have missed a few things out but if you stick to these guidelines you cant go far wrong on here.

Is he dead yet?