wolfy

Bearing in mind that you say you'll be worse off under labour, what is the major reason as to why you refuse to vote conservative?

That sounds like excellent reasoning. I hope that's what entails from it all, should labour get in.

Ok, good for you.

I'm not after picking at anything. I'm merely asking people what they believe they will benefit from. If you don't want to answer it then no problem.

How do you think you personally will be better off under labour and what do you think is GENUINELY in it for the low/working class?

How many of you are voting tory and how many are voting labour, or an alternate party? Also, those who are voting for whatever party, what are your main reasons for doing so that you feel will be beneficial to yourself and the future of this country.

Mitro's an intelligent player but he lacks pace. He's the type of player that can look extremely potent or extremely ineffective depending on how a team is set out. A top striker will adapt to all kinds of tactics and Mitro could potentially do that but would need to up his game considerably. There's nothing wrong with his enthusiasm but plenty wrong with how he's worked on and bullied, in terms of his reactions to it all, which kills his game off in many aspects. I still like him though and would be happy if Rafa could spend the time honing him.

I wonder what's to become of Mitrovic?

They said that about Iceland but it was never proved. Moremums go to Iceland. But do they?

It will in time.

When I'm asked about religion; usually by canvassing mormons or Jehova's witness, usually, I basically tell them that, for the sake of having to play one against the other, I just have an agnostic stance. I think it's the best way to be when faced with the amount of belief's in a kind of super entity. I'm more or less telling anyone that proof is not physically forthcoming, nor has it ever been shown to be in the past that can be physically verified as a proof, today. However, going back to my earlier post about the little old house. It also does not mean that a belief in something by mass opinion has to be incorrect. It could turn out to be correct in one way or the other in terms of a right religious belief. It comes down to logical thought and the need to verify something which can either be verified but is shrouded in secrecy or security, or accepting that direct physical proof is suppressed or literally unavailable in any physical way. It all comes down to mass peer pressure as to how each and every thought process is evaluated. The man/woman in the suit can pray in a large building and be thought of as pillars of society, as I mentioned before. The same man and woman would look out of place kneeling before a statue in the middle of a town centre. The people in the robe will look more at home to passers by. As long as there is something KNOWN to pray to, then all of these people are accepted by masses. Place an unkempt person in the middle of a park, praying as he/she is facing a large tree and the police will be called or passers by will shout, WEIRDO or words to that effect. Upon being accosted and interrogated, the person can tell all and sundry that he/she was praying to the god of the roots of the Earth. That should about get the person a severe warning or sectioned for their and the public's safety. This is how it works and it's how it works in all walks of life with anything that is not deemed a mass acceptance.

Science and religion need to be clarified, because there's a few parts to what religion is and only one exactness to what science is. If we are talking about religion being the belief/faith/worship of a super being/entity, then we can all agree that it is, for all intents and purposes, exactly based on faith, unless a person can directly prove otherwise, which has never been done to my knowledge. People can argue that answered prayers are definitive proof of their religious belief's. I could argue that praying to a ham sandwich gets some of my prayers answered. It's all about the odds. Science is the Earth. It is everything we are and are part of in the physical knowing terms. Science is how we explore and use all resources from studying a leaf to seeing what makes up a grain of sand, etc. Basically science is natural. It's a reality of everything that we can verify physically. Anything other than that would be classed as guesswork. It's fine to see an old house with a home sweet home knitted love heart on the door and guess that a little old lady lives there; maybe with a little old husband and possibly a small pet. Until you physically prove this, then all you're going on is guesswork. How true that becomes is solely down to how the story can be told about the occupiers of that little old house. Mass opinion can take a foothold and can render any other person who questions that guesswork, as irrelevant. If you cannot physically verify something then it's not natural science. If you have faith in something that cannot be physically verified, then it's a religion. Real natural science is something that is indisputable.

Maybe Chelsea are just biding their time in offloading Abraham and waiting to see if his value can rise a bit higher before allowing him to leave. Like a lot of potentials at money bag clubs like Chelsea, 99% of them tend to get loaned out, with a very good proportion of them actually making huge progress during their loan spells, only for Chelsea to bring them back and plant them on the bench or into the background once again. This is when players get frustrated and demand moves. It's like a cattle market.

Sniper one is a very good read. Sgt Dan Mills.

There's his full name. Tammy is just a nickname and it's a good job because his football shirt would have to be made as big as hot air balloon material to get his full name on it. Kevin Oghenetega Tamaraebi Bakumo Abraham.

I would imagine Chelsea will want guarantees on game time for Abraham. I wonder if Rafa intends playing a little and large strike force in Gayle and Abraham. It's a head scratcher this one. You would have thought we'd be going in for a top striker on a permanent move rather than an untested striker on loan that is so young, unless Chelsea haven't put any stipulations on how we utilise him. I'm not saying he would be a bad signing mind. He would be a good loan signing if he's used as part of a rotation, as and when required. It'll be interesting to see how all this will pan out when we add more to the ranks as well as trimming the surplus.

I didn't realise I've been part of this forum for very close on 5 years.

How many people get told that you can watch a sun set twice by standing on the ground and wtahcing the sun go down, then getting into the lift of a tower and viewing the sun setting again? Think about this. Imagine having a telescope absolutely level at sea level and also another telescope at the top of your tower that is perfectly level and aimed at where the sun will be setting. Ok, now imagine looking through your scope and seeing the sun disappear from your view. You now rush to the top of the tower and look through your higher levelled scoped and you see the sun setting again. Proof of a globe or proof that a globe cannot exist? Remember that your scopes are level. Your top scope would be moving away from the sun just as your bottom scope would be if there was a globe, because the globe is rotating away from it as we are told. It means that your scope has to be rising higher than the sun as you move away. So running up a tower to get a second view of the supposed sun would only render you leaned back quite a bit more with your scope well above the sun. The mere fact that we can actually see two sun sets as we are told is because the height allows us to see further through the atmosphere. This would be impossible on a globe. Absolutely impossible.

For those that are interested in whether Earth is a globe, Brian Cox does a good job of destroying the globe model with his jet shenanigans. From 4:30 in this video you will hear Brian Cox mention about the Earth's supposed rotation. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4k8e89?GK_FACEBOOK_OG_HTML5=1 At 5:00 we hear the pilot mention about them trying to beat the Earth's rotation. This is the same rotation that I get told time and time again off people who mention that the Earth carries everything with it. At around 7:40 we get told that the sun is starting to set. 7:58 Cox tells us that they are turning towards the setting sun and accelerating. Around 8:15 Cox tells us that a rock is spinning below him at 650 mph. Keep watching from this point and cox mentions catching up with the Earth's spin, then the pilot tells us that by keeping this speed they are effectively stopping the sun from setting. Can anyone see how this contradicts what we get told? At around 8:55 Cox tells us that if they travel faster than the Earth's rotation then the passage of the day is reversed. Basically he's telling us that the sun is now rising due to them beating that rotation and moving over the Earth to see more sun. What's really happening is far different than the clear nonsense that's being spouted here. The light of the Earth sun is moving away from the jet on the ground. Basically it appears to be setting as people are told. The further the light moves away, the more the eyes lose the bottom of it as the atmosphere becomes too thick over distance from below the eye and a little less above the eye which is why we see the illusion of a setting sun. Going up in the jet would start to bring that sun back a little more as height is gained, because you regain your light due to seeing over the thicker atmosphere at sea level. The key issue is when they supposedly hit 650 mph going against the supposed rotation of Earth and managing to stop that Earth motion carrying them backwards and down and away from the sun as they drop down the curve. To make this plainer. It's like they're telling us that a person is stuck on a huge ball looking at the sun and someone pushes the ball so that the person starts to lean away from the sun until it eventually disappears from view but then deciding to run against that rotation to keep up with the ball falling so he can see the sun appear to just stay put, given the fact we are told that the sun is sat in the middle as Earth spins around it. Just for those who are interested in finding out what's what in this world we live in.

I don't think any team's going to be desperate enough to pay way over the odds for a keeper that's plying his trade in the championship next season.

You can share my rep points out if it helps. I don't require any.

There's no racism from my side and you know this. If there is then show me. Also show me the anti science. Don't show me the anti pseudo science.

If you can give me a genuine explanation as to why you want this then I'll happily oblige.

Yep. It's called moderating with the power to force it. Feel free to exercise that if that's what you want.

I wonder how many people would choose a religion if they were allowed to reach the age of 18 before they had to even contemplate any of it by peer pressure or parental pushing of a religion. One thing for sure. It's an excellent control measure, throughout. I was brought up to fear the wrath of god. If I was naughty then god would strike me down. If I was good then god would remember it all and reward me in heaven. Imagine the choices as a kid. It's a bit like the Santa carry on. If you're a good boy this year then Santa will bring you some presents but if you're bad you may get none, or a lump of burned coal. With Santa, all we lose is presents. With god, we could be struck down and not go to heaven but be taken to hell. So what we have is, a dilemma as a kid or even an adult that is easily manipulated. On the one hand we can choose to follow a god all of our lives with the end result being a place in heaven. For this we simply follow gods words (whichever words of whichever gods they are) and do not veer off that course, whilst being mindful to spread that word, as well as meeting at a building to worship en masse as well as part of a small family group, or singular, at home. Follow Satan/Devil or whatever bad names as regards hell and we get to live an evil life with all the trappings and protected from the wrath of the god that would strike us down, until we finally succumb to the end of life, only for the Devil to punish us for the bad deeds that this Devil forced upon us and now find ourselves shovelling coal into the fires of hell or burning in it, depending on how it's interpreted. All those dilemmas and all those various religions to choose from and just one Devil for those that choose not to fear/worship/idolise one such god. Or we can take our chances in life as it is until we expire and believing in only whatever we wish to believe in as part of a reality that we can literally be part of and deal with and just hope that when we do die, we either switch off the lights and that's that, or whatever comes is out of our hands from that point on. Basically the choice is this: The goodies are all in the middle of that table. Food and drink of all people's liking for as long as you want to keep devouring it. The problem is, you are only allowed to feast on it under certain conditions. 1. You tuck right in until you expire from your physical life with the understanding, after being told that you go directly to hell. 2. You stare at the food and imagine eating whatever you want to but will not physically touch any of it until you expire and enjoy it all in a comfortable after-life. I pick number 1. What about anyone else?