Toonpack

OK I will Oh wait a minute ...................... 134112[/snapback] you don't like my humour ? Whats wrong with my fucking humour like 134116[/snapback] Nothing wrong with your humour, I'm banned over there for being a SICK MORON

OK I will Oh wait a minute ......................

I used to have 3 tickets, two together and one at the other end (leazes) my mate always used the spare third one but we used to renew in my name, but he would pay. Couple of years ago I just asked them to change the name and address of the ticket and it wasn't a problem. That might be because me as the ticket holder asked for the change mind.

Follow up That explains everything

I can see what you are saying. The engines suck the air over the wings. However this would create "hotspots" and not a uniform lift as the majority of the wing would not have any lift. Also its very dependent on the location of the engines. The ideal location being exactly in the middle of the wing, which is never the case as they are almost always located beneath them. This means the only air flow is under the wing and none above. Now in order to determine the pressure underneath depends on the speed of the air. Now you have to look into the compressable flow equations. Now assuming mach 0.999 airspeed through the engine this give a pressure of about 0.55atm below the wing compared to 1atm above. And hence no lift and the plane is infact forced to the ground 133333[/snapback] Actually, it's a trick question, there is no possible "yes" or "no" answer, because the question is illogical. I just thought I'd play devil's advocate Basically, for the plane to move forward the wheels must be moving faster than the conveyor, yeah? But for the plane to move from it's station-holding position on the conveyor, as the thrust is applied to the engine, the wheels must turn quicker for it to develop forward motion. And according to the initial question, the conveyor will instantly match the speed of the wheels. And that's the sticking point. As soon as the conveyor belt increases speed to match the plane's wheel speed, the plane's wheel speed will increase. It is impossible for the conveyor belt to ever be the same speed as the wheels of the plane once more-than-station-keeping thrust has been applied, and the wheels would instantaneously reach inifinite rotational velocity. Thus, it's a bogus question. The circumstances described simply can't happen. A better way to phrase the question, however, would be to replace "wheel speed" with "plane speed", as that is actually realistic... But that's for another day. 133438[/snapback] You're not entirely right, as has already been mentioned lift could theoretically be generated with no forward movement of the plane. Having thought about this situation some more with the engines going full pult and the flaps on the wings forcing air down, (and hence plane up) a large amount of lift would be generated. The stuff you are spouting about the conveyer and wheels is totally irrelevent since the question stated the conveyer would always match the wheel speed. SO if the wheels go infitiely fast the belt is too. Hence station keeping velocity is always equal to wheel velocity. I viewed is being that the wheel was trapped between two rolling metal tubes and spinning them so as engine speed increased the roller speed increased. Assuming no mechanical failures the the net plane horizontal motion would be zero. No matter how much thrust. The real argument is can the engines also suck enough air around the wings to get the lift required. Then the plane would vertically take off until it was above the belt then bomb forward and take off like normal. The other dodgy premises are the plane. Its like saying "i want a new combi boiler how much do they cost?" they are all different. 133466[/snapback] One slight flaw in that hypothesis, engines provide forward thurst to the plane as a total entity, the airflow over the wings generated by said forward motion creates lift. Plane engines do not suck air over the wings Sorry

Give the man a coconut He gave himself away with the semi's prediction, I mean we'd win it obviously

Guess who posted this: FFS

Aye that windfall from the new TV deal was passed on real quick wasn't it

I can't totally agree with that, I think he's become first choice because of the results, plan in place or not, if we'd continued to be shite I don't think he'd be in the frame now

Is it really any more of a gamble than anyone else??? After all we've seen him operate for 3 months (which you could say reduces the gamble) and there's been no fall-out that we've seen publicly and we did lose 4 on the bounce and then started winning again with a patched up team, and NO whinging about luck or injuries. 131917[/snapback] More of a gamble than a top-drawer manager, yes. What Roeder's done reminds me of what Chris Coleman did at Fulham. Would you take him here? I'm not totally against Roeder by the way. I think we could do a lot worse. What I don't want is him being in place while Shearer decides if/when he wants to take over because Shearer would be an even bigger risk due to his total lack of experience. Incidentally (I know everybody spouts this bollocks btw) I heard from a good source with insider knowledge that Shearer's involvement on the coaching side under Roeder has been non-existent (as it was while Souness was manager, despite his supposedly having a coaching role this season). So I wouldn't necessarily assume he's had much to do with the recent revival in form. 131936[/snapback] Fair do's I am not a Roeder-ite or an anti Roeder-ite I'm having a "what will be, will be" moment and maybe just maybe, we may have got better by luck rather than good judgement Then again maybe we haven't Right back to sitting on my fence I am SOOO scarred by this darn club, I think I'm punch-drunk and this post said absolutely nothing

Is it really any more of a gamble than anyone else??? After all we've seen him operate for 3 months (which you could say reduces the gamble) and there's been no fall-out that we've seen publicly and we did lose 4 on the bounce and then started winning again with a patched up team, and NO whinging about luck or injuries.

Oh I agree, this one is TOTALLY on Shepherd (as Souness should have been) and who's to say Shearer hasn't been an integral part of the "resurgence" (to strong a word admittedly). IF they are keeping the seat warm for Shearer, that's totally wrong BUT if he buggers off for 12 months and we keep performing, moving Roeder on then will be as difficult as it is now.

To be honest, to be fair, to be truthful, I am totally unmoved one way or another about who the new manager, pseudo manager, coach, Director of Football or tea lady will be. Was this an opportunity to scour the globe for the “best” man for the job, absolutely it was, BUT given what Roeder (and his team) has done in the last 3 months we’re sort of in a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario. Roeder’s brief was to stabilise the ship and for fucks sake KEEP US UP, he’s done that with interest, shit we’re in real danger of finishing 7th. And that in itself has created the problem SO what do we do, the relative success of Roeder has created a “who follows Alex Fergusontwat” in microcosm, IF someone else is appointed they’d better start bloody well because it’s not often a new manager has a reasonably successful team in form-ish to pick up, usually the only way is up. And some of us are frighteningly fickle Just supposing when Souness was sacked we’d immediately appointed O’Neill or Hitzfeld and they’d produced the same results as Roeder et al have, how would you grade them ???? I certainly don’t think we’d be looking at next season with trepidation and having all this wailing and gnashing of teeth. I do have reservations about Roeder (subbing Nobby at the smogs which was totally the wrong thing to do and second half against WBA) but non of these reservations are based upon his past record of sackings etc. Shit that experience and his illness may just have been his epiphany moment. He could be the English Sir Alex, he is good with the kids (oh er missus). On the other hand he could crash and burn big-style, but then again so could anyone else, and if he does he’ll be fired and we’ll move on. This decision is a real tricky one, you wouldn’t sack a manager with Roeder’s current record that said there are some cracking names allegedly available. Is he the best candidate?? On paper definitely not, but on current results possibly. Can he attract big name players – irrelevant IMO, £££kerching£££ attracts players and no matter who the manager is we’re picking up the crumbs from the big 4 unless we grow our own. Personally I’m past caring, I’m not convinced Jesus could work the miracle at this club, and I’ve seen a few alledged messiah’s in my time. Lets just get it sorted and see what happens on the pitch At the end of the day tbh, tbf, tbt Does it matter ????? there’ll still be an NUFC and we’ll be shit or we’ll be good, life’s like that. Shit that was a long post for me !!!!!!!

I'm thinking it was inspired by the purchase of a new box of kleenex

Does NOT count as the internet

If anyone needs a SICK MORON to post on this thread just let me know

It's all Snakey's fault Karma I tell ya Karma

OH NO they're not !!!!!

I've just wasted 30 seconds of my life!!!! 126776[/snapback] 126786[/snapback] Bet you've been waiting aaaages to use that! Maybe you should team up with AF to form songwriting duo? Toonpack and Foreskin. 126790[/snapback] That wouldn't work out, I'm jewish

I've just wasted 30 seconds of my life!!!! 126776[/snapback]

With Apologies to Mihrandina He's called Pascal Chimbonda He not from Ugonda He's from Guadaloupe He'll make ya poop on reflection apologies to anyone who wasted their breath reading this

It was a toss-up between him and Ashley Cole, allegedly. 126677[/snapback] Not winning, was a bit of a bummer for JJ alledgedly

Oh he'd pushed the boat out and put on, one whole english pound Best bit was he got a txt of a mate immediately at full time who had 3-0

I've often thought Shola would play better without Shearer, however I still don't think he's our answer. 126225[/snapback] Totally agree with that, however until we see him play without Shearer for a few games I don't think we'll really know. As for the shirt - it's only a shirt with a number on it, and some crap has worn it before