Dr Gloom

I will, as soon as the odds on first manager to get the sack in Premier League are made available. i would agree that he'll be the favourite for the chop but what else can you do as a supporter but get behind him? i think it's an unplayable situation. what do you do? sack the manager that takes us up or give him a chance and get behind him even though you don't fancy him to do a decent job? given that he will almost certainly still be in charge if we are promoted and ashley still our owner i don't see what we can do other than get behind him. you could equally apply that logic to proven trophy winners who had just got you to the FA Cup Final. Lets hope the "timing" of a change is spot on, whatever that means. eh?

I will, as soon as the odds on first manager to get the sack in Premier League are made available. i would agree that he'll be the favourite for the chop but what else can you do as a supporter but get behind him? i think it's an unplayable situation. what do you do? sack the manager that takes us up or give him a chance and get behind him even though you don't fancy him to do a decent job? given that he will almost certainly still be in charge if we are promoted and ashley still our owner i don't see what we can do other than get behind him. It was tongue-in-cheek tbh. yeah, i got that.

I will, as soon as the odds on first manager to get the sack in Premier League are made available. i would agree that he'll be the favourite for the chop but what else can you do as a supporter but get behind him? i think it's an unplayable situation. what do you do? sack the manager that takes us up or give him a chance and get behind him even though you don't fancy him to do a decent job? given that he will almost certainly still be in charge if we are promoted and ashley still our owner i don't see what we can do other than get behind him.

hughton will be our manager next season. we may as well back him

shame, i was lookign forward to seeing him at an all time low at the end of the season

gutted for beckham. that's a horrible injury. doubt he'll come back from it at his age

it's all range rovers too where i live. like you need to take your kid to a school in a 4x4 when you live in dulwich

i've got a feeling we might lose this one. we're due a defeat after a pretty good recent run of results and although boro have been mostly crap this season, our away form isn't the mae west

i think a lot of us hoped boumsong would be the defensive rock to help coax some consistency out of bramble. he turned out to be too similar to bramble to form a partnership with him - both prone to far too many howlers. alex - i get what you're saying about him needing a big strong central defensive partner to get the best out of him. that's why i'm surprised lyon defeated real last night because that cris looked anything but that when we played bayer leverkusen a few years ago. he was chasing shola and lua lau's shadows all night iirc.

hopes - a barnstorming return to the top flight echoing the last time we were promoted, free flowing attacking football, gate crashing the top 4, full houses and becoming everyone's second team again expectations - hughton to get the sack before christmas, ashley to put the club on and off the market at least once, more pr gaffes from llambias, a season long flirtation with relegation concluding with squeaky bum spring time

cris looked awful against us for bayer leverkusen in the champions league. iirc wasn't it shola running rings around him? I was on about Boumsong. Haven't seen enough of Cris really to comment. I've said similar before but Boumsong would rather face someone like Henry, who he played well against a couple of times for us iirc, when Henry was at or near his peak as well than some big lump like Geoff Horsfield or even Shearer when he was effectively past it. I don't think Boumsong is a great defender but he's pretty decent as far as continental football goes. yeah i got that. just thought i'd throw in a comment on cris too. boumsong looked dire at all levels for us tbf.

cris looked awful against us for bayer leverkusen in the champions league. iirc wasn't it shola running rings around him?

to be fair to both players, they arrived with big reputations. i was surprised as annyone to see boumsong and cris at the heart of the lyone defence yesterday. how can two donkeys like that hold out real madrid in the champions league. bizarre

surprised this one isn't on sky

pennant and barton? may as well have dyer and bowyer back, the attitudes on those two

they only owed about 20 odd thousand too. disgrace when you think a club over 100 years old is going out of business for less than a quarter of what robinho takes home from man city every week

isn't it about time they got rid of those duff and martins shirts

Really? From what I've seen it's always Israel is a monster, Israel is the biggest threat to world peace etc and the new channels seem biased towards that view. There's always two sides to these war debates. People should feel sorry for the Jews as well given the persecution they have had to put up with for centuries/milleniums. Erm.. I think a nation armed to the teeth bombing civilian districts with no air defense doesn't bear one iota of sympathy. It's barbaric and totally unwarranted and disproportionate. If America had any balls they would stop all aid to Israel immediately. the bombing might have been an over-reaction and i agree it was heavy handed but it was a reaction to relentelss rockets being fired into israel. Shall we examine civilian death counts on either sde? i'm aware of it, and i agree that israel's reaction was too heavy handed but there had to be a reaction. what's the alternative? ignore the rockets that are fired into your territory? it's israel's right as a soverign state to protext itself from terrorist attacks. i doubt many countries across the world would ignore it. Look at the maps mate. You think those rockets being fired aren't themselves a tiny proportional response to that travesty that's been ongoing for 65 years? EDIT: Also, "terrorist attacks" isn't the description, it's legitimate resistance. legitimacy is moot - depends on which side you're on. the jewish people have lived in israel/palestine/call it what you will since biblical times. to them it has always been their home, even before the war of 1948 and declaration of independence. from the israeli standpoint, it's tempting to question whether the last 65 years could have been avoided if the arab nations had accepted the UN plan for a palestinian and jewish state side by side. but israel as we now know it IS a democratic sovereign state and because of that has the right to defend its borders from attacks. from the arab pov, they have been displaced and are now fighting for their freedom against a much more powerful force. in their eyes, israel is the terrorist and their cause is legitimate. personally, i feel sorry for the innocent people caught up in it on both sides. it seems like the conflict is going to go on and on, despite large numbers on both sides who crave a peaceful resolution. it's the fundamentalists on both sides that are to blame. the brain-washed suicide bombers on the arb side and the far right in the israeli government plus the orthodox jews who refuse to withdraw from the settlements. but though israel's retaliation was heavy-handed , they had to do something. it seems excessive to us as outsiders but if you lived as an israeli with the threat of suicide bombers and rockets being fired into your homeland you would demand that something was done. That statement is patently untrue. The lands were inhabited my a mix of hitites, Palestinians (Philistines), Some Romans, Arabs of various backgrounds as well as Jews. "Nor can Israel’s right to the land be demonstrated by reference to the Balfour Declaration (1917), for Palestine belonged to its inhabitants, not to the British Foreign Minister. Freedom from British colonial rule was certainly more of a right of the Palestinians in 1917 than of the British citizens of America in 1776. Assuming the right of peoples to self-determination, Arab Palestine was not for the British to give to the Zionists. Finally, justice does not presuppose that if A oppresses B, then B may oppress C; thus, the genocidal policies against Jews by German Nazis would not justify Jewish Zionist punishment of Palestinian Arabs. Victims of the Holocaust have claims for compensation and territory against former supporters of Nazism, not against guiltless Palestinian peasants." of course it isn't. the jews have lived in israel since the birth of christ Historically of course there is a big questionmark against the land that has been given to make the Israeli state. The Jews in any significant numbers themselves never actually lived in that area and it is biblical hocum that has engendered this myth. The true Jewish homeland would have been more accurately sited in Egypt and there are traces in Iraq. The homeland of the Jews in the area we now know as Israel is pretty much made up. Ther original Jews were semetic tribes with a wide diaspora incorporating ancient Mesapotamia, parts of what is now Egypt, Iraq and Jordan. Their faith was pretty much 'mysticism' and they had trading links to Asia minor. They were often caravan bound and had strong trading and tribal traditons. They 'arrived' in Jerusalem 14thC B.C. (inhabted at the time by the Canannites, Hittities and Philistines)and were given a beating by the Philistines. Palestine is actually a Roman corruption of the word Phillistine iirc. Gloom, If you come into this thread and start shooting your mouth off it might be wise to have some scant understanding of the topic first. shooting my mouth off? you're the one with the anti-israel agenda. if you make the effort to re-read my post you'll see that i am saying that i can see both sides of argument. i have a lot of sympathy for the innocent people in gaza that killed by the idf. the number of casualties was sickening. equally i feel sorry for my family that live in israel. some of them have lost friends to terrorist attacks. for years they have had to hget on with their life never knowing when the next terrorist suicide bomber will strike a city centre target, hitting as many innocent civilians as possible. lets be clear, suicide bombers do not attack military targets. family of mine had to leave their home in haifa when the hizbollah were shelling israeli territory a few years back. i have little sympathy for the brain washed wackos that think that by blowing themselves up they will enter the afterlife with a harim of virgins waiting for them. israel's response to the hamas rocket attacks was over the top and a lot of the global condemnation that followed was justified. but i repeat, israel HAD to respond. as any other sovereign state would. and despite the fact that you are a supporter of the arab cause you must accept that israel is a sovereign state, recognised by the un and the international community, apart from a few backward islamist states like iran, libya and syria put yourself in the shoes of an innocent non-fundamentalist in israel. if you're an innocent civilian living in israel, you're going to want your government and army to defend your country too.

Really? From what I've seen it's always Israel is a monster, Israel is the biggest threat to world peace etc and the new channels seem biased towards that view. There's always two sides to these war debates. People should feel sorry for the Jews as well given the persecution they have had to put up with for centuries/milleniums. Erm.. I think a nation armed to the teeth bombing civilian districts with no air defense doesn't bear one iota of sympathy. It's barbaric and totally unwarranted and disproportionate. If America had any balls they would stop all aid to Israel immediately. the bombing might have been an over-reaction and i agree it was heavy handed but it was a reaction to relentelss rockets being fired into israel. Shall we examine civilian death counts on either sde? i'm aware of it, and i agree that israel's reaction was too heavy handed but there had to be a reaction. what's the alternative? ignore the rockets that are fired into your territory? it's israel's right as a soverign state to protext itself from terrorist attacks. i doubt many countries across the world would ignore it. Look at the maps mate. You think those rockets being fired aren't themselves a tiny proportional response to that travesty that's been ongoing for 65 years? EDIT: Also, "terrorist attacks" isn't the description, it's legitimate resistance. legitimacy is moot - depends on which side you're on. the jewish people have lived in israel/palestine/call it what you will since biblical times. to them it has always been their home, even before the war of 1948 and declaration of independence. from the israeli standpoint, it's tempting to question whether the last 65 years could have been avoided if the arab nations had accepted the UN plan for a palestinian and jewish state side by side. but israel as we now know it IS a democratic sovereign state and because of that has the right to defend its borders from attacks. from the arab pov, they have been displaced and are now fighting for their freedom against a much more powerful force. in their eyes, israel is the terrorist and their cause is legitimate. personally, i feel sorry for the innocent people caught up in it on both sides. it seems like the conflict is going to go on and on, despite large numbers on both sides who crave a peaceful resolution. it's the fundamentalists on both sides that are to blame. the brain-washed suicide bombers on the arb side and the far right in the israeli government plus the orthodox jews who refuse to withdraw from the settlements. but though israel's retaliation was heavy-handed , they had to do something. it seems excessive to us as outsiders but if you lived as an israeli with the threat of suicide bombers and rockets being fired into your homeland you would demand that something was done. That statement is patently untrue. The lands were inhabited my a mix of hitites, Palestinians (Philistines), Some Romans, Arabs of various backgrounds as well as Jews. "Nor can Israel’s right to the land be demonstrated by reference to the Balfour Declaration (1917), for Palestine belonged to its inhabitants, not to the British Foreign Minister. Freedom from British colonial rule was certainly more of a right of the Palestinians in 1917 than of the British citizens of America in 1776. Assuming the right of peoples to self-determination, Arab Palestine was not for the British to give to the Zionists. Finally, justice does not presuppose that if A oppresses B, then B may oppress C; thus, the genocidal policies against Jews by German Nazis would not justify Jewish Zionist punishment of Palestinian Arabs. Victims of the Holocaust have claims for compensation and territory against former supporters of Nazism, not against guiltless Palestinian peasants." of course it isn't. the jews have lived in israel since the birth of christ

Really? From what I've seen it's always Israel is a monster, Israel is the biggest threat to world peace etc and the new channels seem biased towards that view. There's always two sides to these war debates. People should feel sorry for the Jews as well given the persecution they have had to put up with for centuries/milleniums. Erm.. I think a nation armed to the teeth bombing civilian districts with no air defense doesn't bear one iota of sympathy. It's barbaric and totally unwarranted and disproportionate. If America had any balls they would stop all aid to Israel immediately. the bombing might have been an over-reaction and i agree it was heavy handed but it was a reaction to relentelss rockets being fired into israel. Shall we examine civilian death counts on either sde? i'm aware of it, and i agree that israel's reaction was too heavy handed but there had to be a reaction. what's the alternative? ignore the rockets that are fired into your territory? it's israel's right as a soverign state to protext itself from terrorist attacks. i doubt many countries across the world would ignore it. Look at the maps mate. You think those rockets being fired aren't themselves a tiny proportional response to that travesty that's been ongoing for 65 years? EDIT: Also, "terrorist attacks" isn't the description, it's legitimate resistance. legitimacy is moot - depends on which side you're on. the jewish people have lived in israel/palestine/call it what you will since biblical times. to them it has always been their home, even before the war of 1948 and declaration of independence. from the israeli standpoint, it's tempting to question whether the last 65 years could have been avoided if the arab nations had accepted the UN plan for a palestinian and jewish state side by side. but israel as we now know it IS a democratic sovereign state and because of that has the right to defend its borders from attacks. from the arab pov, they have been displaced and are now fighting for their freedom against a much more powerful force. in their eyes, israel is the terrorist and their cause is legitimate. personally, i feel sorry for the innocent people caught up in it on both sides. it seems like the conflict is going to go on and on, despite large numbers on both sides who crave a peaceful resolution. it's the fundamentalists on both sides that are to blame. the brain-washed suicide bombers on the arb side and the far right in the israeli government plus the orthodox jews who refuse to withdraw from the settlements. but though israel's retaliation was heavy-handed , they had to do something. it seems excessive to us as outsiders but if you lived as an israeli with the threat of suicide bombers and rockets being fired into your homeland you would demand that something was done.

Really? From what I've seen it's always Israel is a monster, Israel is the biggest threat to world peace etc and the new channels seem biased towards that view. There's always two sides to these war debates. People should feel sorry for the Jews as well given the persecution they have had to put up with for centuries/milleniums. Erm.. I think a nation armed to the teeth bombing civilian districts with no air defense doesn't bear one iota of sympathy. It's barbaric and totally unwarranted and disproportionate. If America had any balls they would stop all aid to Israel immediately. the bombing might have been an over-reaction and i agree it was heavy handed but it was a reaction to relentelss rockets being fired into israel. Shall we examine civilian death counts on either sde? i'm aware of it, and i agree that israel's reaction was too heavy handed but there had to be a reaction. what's the alternative? ignore the rockets that are fired into your territory? it's israel's right as a soverign state to protext itself from terrorist attacks. i doubt many countries across the world would ignore it.

Really? From what I've seen it's always Israel is a monster, Israel is the biggest threat to world peace etc and the new channels seem biased towards that view. There's always two sides to these war debates. People should feel sorry for the Jews as well given the persecution they have had to put up with for centuries/milleniums. Erm.. I think a nation armed to the teeth bombing civilian districts with no air defense doesn't bear one iota of sympathy. It's barbaric and totally unwarranted and disproportionate. If America had any balls they would stop all aid to Israel immediately. the bombing might have been an over-reaction and i agree it was heavy handed but it was a reaction to relentelss rockets being fired into israel.

the single man - depressing as hell but nice cinematography i am legend - mindless action fun the king of kong: a fistful of quarters - really entertaining documentary about geeky donkey kong gamers

just because fat fred was better than the crap that preceded and followed him doesn't make him a good chairman. a million times better than what we have now, i agree but we were all right to criticise him at the time as he had some real shockers. i'm not convinced we wouldn't have gone down under shepherd's stewardship but we'll never know now

add range of passing to that list Covered by ability. I didn't want to go into too much detail as I like Guthrie. It was tongue-in-cheek anyway though because he could play a similar role, albeit not as well. Carrick's absolutely class though so it's not like there's any shame in being a lesser player. And I never said he could be as good as him And I never said you did. That's the trouble with the internet like, you have to explain things about three times then people still don't get it. And you're never allowed to change your mind because someone like Baggio will have bookmarked everything you ever wrote. what happned to baggio? does he post as someone else now? there's a few old names from back in the day that have vanished, not sure if for good or as changed user names