Happy Face

It's making me angry.

Everton's Billy Balmer. At the turn of the 20th century he netted eight goals during open play; all, unfortunately, at the wrong end of the pitch. In more than 300 appearances for the Toffees his only goal at the right end was a single penalty in 1899. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/no...wngoals-records Go on Carra, you can beat him easy.

Another Carragher og today I see Who holds the record?

Florence and the Machine - Kiss with a Fist Despicable. Hateful. Vile stuff. I'm really tiring of pop chicks with attitood. How many more can there be?

Do you ever crack a smile? Couldn't get away with Beach House, but Marling, Glass, Buttons and paavoharju are all good so I'll take a gander at the others I've not heard of. Already enjoyed Ashes is White video by Pocohaunted on youtube while typing this.

Glasvegas - Daddy's Gone What you'd get if The Proclaimers picked up electric guitars.

Confident that Harper, Butt, Viduka, Ameobi, Edgar and Cacapa will sign new contracts and it's turned into a negative because he's still not sure with Owen but will be trying. We all knew Owen was doubtful so this is only good news.

This is the sort of thing MOTD2 cover. Is it Simon Day who always does a segment from a game? contact them to spend the day with sir berb. ....actually, best not ruin it for him.

Crush all opposition and tactically buy out all land competitors might set up upon and mothball it? The Microsoft of the groceries world. Survival of the fittest and all that.... Or do you suggest they should all say "no, after you..."? As much as many on board seems to favour massive companies doing dodgy or even outright illegal things for their own benefit, they have been reprimanded over their block buying policies. Or do you think "might is right/survival of the biggest" and that's the end of it? No i think you should passivley let your competitors fuck you over just like Woolies did. Oh hang on, that one didnt work out very well for their employees..... Yes we all know your philosophy; get to the top by any means necessary then do everything and anything you can to stay there. That's a good corporate plan, but it's why Governments need to put some limits corporate greed. I'm sure you'd justify slavery economically if it gave a big enough dividend, but that's not really the point..... No, i meant that Woolies did not act like Tesco, thats why people have lost their jobs. Tesco needs to act within the regulations but it also has to strive to be as competitive as it can or it too will go the same way. My philosophy? Dont be daft lad, i wouldnt bore people with my philosophical ramblings on here. If you're interested, i fall between Rawls and Sen and use this framework to express it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_welfare_function TESCO has acted outside of regulations (repeatedly), so clearly that's how you think Woolworth's should have gone. Personally I can't see how Woolworth's could have saved itself as is, short of Slavery. No, i think (stop saying what i think man, its really childish) that Tesco have done some bad things but also represent firstly the preferences of the UK population who are too lazy to shop at independent small retailers and secondly a company competitive enough to penetrate international markets (helping the currency and balance of payments). When you compete in a fierce market like food retail then being aggressive is a way of life. Obviously there are drawbacks, i quite agree but i'd rather have a slightly over-aggressive Tesco than a dead Woolies. Dont you agree on balance that sounds about fair? Again you're still saying that Woolies should have acted like Tescos and broke rules (I don't understand why you think you aren't saying that when you are)...... but I still don't think that would have saved them as is. Well not unless they had become massively dominant first, in which case Tescos would have been destroyed years ago. You can act like Michael Jackson by putting on a glittery glove and doing the moon walk. You don't have to be a nonce.

The Neo-Conlabourists weren't in power then. I've no doubt whatsoever the Conservatives would be towing the same line if they were in power when "nine eleven changed everything". With your Christian Neo-Con leanings you would say that. But I didn't. That's why I put it in quotes, see. It was other people that said it. So you think 9/11 didn't change anything? I think 9/11 didn't change everything. Ah but with your Christian Neo-Con beliefs you would say that. I would say it did or I would say it didn't? You're contradicting yourself in your desparation for attention. I'm happpy to waste a Friday afternoon debating with you, if you have a coherent point of view. Otherwise I'll just go back to ignoring your weak 'jokes'.

The Neo-Conlabourists weren't in power then. I've no doubt whatsoever the Conservatives would be towing the same line if they were in power when "nine eleven changed everything". With your Christian Neo-Con leanings you would say that. But I didn't. That's why I put it in quotes, see. It was other people that said it. So you think 9/11 didn't change anything? I think 9/11 didn't change everything.

The Neo-Conlabourists weren't in power then. I've no doubt whatsoever the Conservatives would be towing the same line if they were in power when "nine eleven changed everything". With your Christian Neo-Con leanings you would say that. But I didn't. That's why I put it in quotes, see. It was other people that said it.

The Neo-Conlabourists weren't in power then. I've no doubt whatsoever the Conservatives would be towing the same line if they were in power when "nine eleven changed everything".

Anyone see question time where they started saying it's the terrorists to blame for the Stanstead palava during the week. Boiled my piss. Given that it's already illegal to protest within a mile of the houses of parliment, now they're trying to stop other means of protest on the grounds of a terrorist threat. How come mainland Britain went 30 years under terrorist attacks without an effect on liberty?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7779442.stm Former chairman of the Nasdaq stock market. And they insist crooks like this don't need regulation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7764882.stm

Two of my favourites mentioned there. I'd recommend Exit by Shugo Tokumaru too then, if you haven't heard it already.

For Agent 13 is a bit lovely. Not too fussed otherwise.

Maybe it's a perception problem on my part then. I was always told to ask questions in class though, because if I was confused, others probably were too. I've got no place to say anything about how it's run, I've not paid my subs or turned up to a single meeting, let alone put in countless hours of my own time to at least TRY and do something positive which is clearly a thankless task given that whatever direction you take it's going to be unpopular with a faction of supporters (the moderates will slate you for being too negative, the extremists will slate you for letting the board off lightly). I've nothing but respect for anyone involved and the personal commitment they're making for change. The last I'd heard was that the NUSC were attempting to build bridges with Mike Ashley for the good of the club. It's my perception that this sort of thing on the NUSC site is an acceptance that this ain't gonna happen (despite the best efforts of the NUSC) so it's a new direction of pressure/abuse rather than dialogue.

Maybe me and Jimbo and Skol and Asprilla are overreacting and it's not really too tacky for the supporters club to have on their official site. I think the fact that we all sprung to that conclusion suggests it's going to be the view of a large number of fans seeing it though. Again, it's not really the poem itself that concerns me, it's the apparent weekly change in direction from the NUSC.

You'd hardly get Cameron on Question Time calling Gordon Brown a fat bastard. His chances would go through the floor if he did. Of course, there'd be plenty of juniour ministers doing it on Have I Got News For You, but that's the point. Nowt wrong with the poem and it's sentiment is spot on, but it's place is somewhere like here or on .com or N-O or as has been said True Faith or The Mag. The fee taking organisation that's promoted an open dialogue with Ashley after demanding he sells the club on pain of extension of the boycott to sponsors now going on to call him a fat bastard smells to me like an organisation whose aims are constantly shifting and in which all the parts are not pulling in the same direction as a unit. It's this complete lack of coherence that puts me off sending in money to join the cause, I still don't know the cause.

Never considered it, but that's true. Always been a warm place to kill 15 minutes for me. They needed to find a niche but Pic n Mix has a limited appeal so prospects for year on year growth was restricted. I've done loads of my christmas shopping there this year though. I think the dafties complaining haven't worked out that the prices are dropped and then there's a further discount at the till from the mark down price. I've been getting £10 and £15 photo frames for £2 or £3. the perfect generic gift for forgettable great aunties.

RIP Canny film... http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/1026317//Pr...html?P36=BENTBL

And where does it say that? It doesn't, and it's a cracking little poem. It's not exactly an olive branch though. Given the snub to the NUSCs proposal of working together, I don't necessarily have a problem with it if it is the new company line by the way.