spongebob toonpants

Vote for Chez

Are you including the SDLP? Also I think 324 is in practice enough as Sinn Fein dont take up their seats.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/20...otential_s.html Good old Nick Robinson; former President of the Oxford University Conservative Association, a member of the Bullingdon Club and chairman of the Young Conservatives. No doubt the Tories will still be bleating on about the left wing bias of the BBC.

Hove Mike Weatherley Conservative 18,294 36.7 +0.3 Celia Barlow Labour 16,426 33.0 -4.5 Paul Elgood Liberal Democrat 11,240 22.6 +4.6 The anti Tory vote not working to well - sickening.

aah fuck - the cunts look like will get in. I'm gonna get pissed

Well done Bridget Did she look like Hugo Viana or not?

same old tories

Aye its looking like tomorrow might be Pimms O'Clock. Lol - I have been rocking the Pimms lately

Isnt pointless whining the reason the internet exists?

The Clan Spongebob have voted - not feeling confident

I hate Tories http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...s-david-cameron

looked interesting for a two rounds. PBF dished out a (fairly boring) lesson 3 to 12. Sadly I dont think Pac- PBF will ever happen, mores the pity

nice to see people now saying the things I have always said. I thought you said Shepherd never did a thing wrong. you won't find anywhere where I said that..... And the above is no different to what I've ALWAYS said. Seems we both make up total bollocks about what other posters said in hindsight I don't remember you rushing to agree with me at the time, I'm sure pretty much everybody else just harped on about Shepherd being a fat cunt and had to go because everything was so embarrassing. The only person who agreed with me was howaythelads. *cough* I didn't disagree with you ,I appreciated what they did for the club, I didn't even mind that the Halls and FS took dividends and sold up for a profit(willingly or not). I don't understand why you are so obsessed with trying to prove everybody else is always wrong and you were/are always right.

Well no, you're not going to convince me of anything when you seem to have either completely ignored, or cannot answer, my perfectly reasonable question of how you select what to believe and what not to. It's perfectly possible not to have a prior agenda in science and not all science is grant funded. What do you make of the work of Newton, Einstein, and Darwin? Anyway, as I suggested to Parky, technology is really just the application of science, and it works, end of story. Science is not completely incompatible with belief in the Abrahamic God only if you decide all the particularly absurd stuff is a metaphor. Which brings us back to my question, which you won't answer........... Well you either believe in God or you don't, quite simple really. I would add that whilst I do, I also don't have much faith in organised religion, which is in essence the industrialisation of faith for profit IMO. The scientists you mention are from the era before science became a truly big business, let alone the corporate monster it is today, when the quest for knowledge was more "pure" for want of a better word. Just look at some of the BIG science subjects, they are in fact just theories, not proven in fact, Big bang, Dark matter etc. There's a lot of science done to support these theories, but where's the contra-science to disprove them??. There isn't any, because once a theory gathers pace the research grants and kudos come pouring in. Best thing any scientist could come up with is a theory that sounds fucking great, could be possible, but is unprovable in fact, becasue the striving for that fact is what makes science the money machine it is. Dark matter and Big Bang, being a cases in point. As an analogy to what I'm trying to say. I'm an IT project manager, when I get into a project test phase, I don't want my test teams to tell me it works (if everyone has done their jobs right of course it fucking works!!), I want them to tell be it doesn't, I want them to try and break every single important element of the functionality, I don't want to know what's good about it, I want to know what's bad and how bad. Because when they can't, job's a good'un. I won't hear a word against funding the research into dark matter - its paying my daughters rent this summer I would have loved to have been bright enough to become an astrophysicist, or a particle physicist, but I'm relatively shit at maths. The dark matter and dark energy story is fascinating, about a million times more interesting than theology. I'd also suggest that despite what toonpack says CERN is a good example of pure science which has little or no political bias or motivation - its pure research for the sake of it and will add knowledge to the world. Its one of my biggest regrets/annoyances that physics and the sciences were taught so badly in my youth I never realised how fascinating they could be. I've taken a strong laymans interest since, but I have to confess I'm not giving her much help with her hiomework anymore You must be dead proud, thats amazing she works there. She's not working there, still a student, but her degree has paid research placement during the summer breaks. Luckily she's got the work ehtic to go with the brains. But yes I am dead proud

Well the majority of the country backed the tories for 3 long terms, even after the miners strike. Bastard this democracy lark for the dyed in the wool socialists. People are idiots

Interesting that the bloke with the bizzarre backing of Ashley also is the one backing Cameron. The rich must know best and be obeyed eh CT?

Well no, you're not going to convince me of anything when you seem to have either completely ignored, or cannot answer, my perfectly reasonable question of how you select what to believe and what not to. It's perfectly possible not to have a prior agenda in science and not all science is grant funded. What do you make of the work of Newton, Einstein, and Darwin? Anyway, as I suggested to Parky, technology is really just the application of science, and it works, end of story. Science is not completely incompatible with belief in the Abrahamic God only if you decide all the particularly absurd stuff is a metaphor. Which brings us back to my question, which you won't answer........... Well you either believe in God or you don't, quite simple really. I would add that whilst I do, I also don't have much faith in organised religion, which is in essence the industrialisation of faith for profit IMO. The scientists you mention are from the era before science became a truly big business, let alone the corporate monster it is today, when the quest for knowledge was more "pure" for want of a better word. Just look at some of the BIG science subjects, they are in fact just theories, not proven in fact, Big bang, Dark matter etc. There's a lot of science done to support these theories, but where's the contra-science to disprove them??. There isn't any, because once a theory gathers pace the research grants and kudos come pouring in. Best thing any scientist could come up with is a theory that sounds fucking great, could be possible, but is unprovable in fact, becasue the striving for that fact is what makes science the money machine it is. Dark matter and Big Bang, being a cases in point. As an analogy to what I'm trying to say. I'm an IT project manager, when I get into a project test phase, I don't want my test teams to tell me it works (if everyone has done their jobs right of course it fucking works!!), I want them to tell be it doesn't, I want them to try and break every single important element of the functionality, I don't want to know what's good about it, I want to know what's bad and how bad. Because when they can't, job's a good'un. I won't hear a word against funding the research into dark matter - its paying my daughters rent this summer I would have loved to have been bright enough to become an astrophysicist, or a particle physicist, but I'm relatively shit at maths. The dark matter and dark energy story is fascinating, about a million times more interesting than theology. I'd also suggest that despite what toonpack says CERN is a good example of pure science which has little or no political bias or motivation - its pure research for the sake of it and will add knowledge to the world. Its one of my biggest regrets/annoyances that physics and the sciences were taught so badly in my youth I never realised how fascinating they could be. I've taken a strong laymans interest since, but I have to confess I'm not giving her much help with her hiomework anymore

Well no, you're not going to convince me of anything when you seem to have either completely ignored, or cannot answer, my perfectly reasonable question of how you select what to believe and what not to. It's perfectly possible not to have a prior agenda in science and not all science is grant funded. What do you make of the work of Newton, Einstein, and Darwin? Anyway, as I suggested to Parky, technology is really just the application of science, and it works, end of story. Science is not completely incompatible with belief in the Abrahamic God only if you decide all the particularly absurd stuff is a metaphor. Which brings us back to my question, which you won't answer........... Well you either believe in God or you don't, quite simple really. I would add that whilst I do, I also don't have much faith in organised religion, which is in essence the industrialisation of faith for profit IMO. The scientists you mention are from the era before science became a truly big business, let alone the corporate monster it is today, when the quest for knowledge was more "pure" for want of a better word. Just look at some of the BIG science subjects, they are in fact just theories, not proven in fact, Big bang, Dark matter etc. There's a lot of science done to support these theories, but where's the contra-science to disprove them??. There isn't any, because once a theory gathers pace the research grants and kudos come pouring in. Best thing any scientist could come up with is a theory that sounds fucking great, could be possible, but is unprovable in fact, becasue the striving for that fact is what makes science the money machine it is. Dark matter and Big Bang, being a cases in point. As an analogy to what I'm trying to say. I'm an IT project manager, when I get into a project test phase, I don't want my test teams to tell me it works (if everyone has done their jobs right of course it fucking works!!), I want them to tell be it doesn't, I want them to try and break every single important element of the functionality, I don't want to know what's good about it, I want to know what's bad and how bad. Because when they can't, job's a good'un. I won't hear a word against funding the research into dark matter - its paying my daughters rent this summer

I was banned from watching the debate last night due to the apocolyptic rage watching Cameron sends me into. I find the opinion poll results very depressing. My constituency is the 10th most marginal, but I cant see it staying Labour, but I will still be voting for them without any hesitation. Overall the best I can hope for is some sort of lib lab coalition to keep the beast at bay. I've agreed word for word with everything Renton has said in this thread btw

These are quite plainly trumpeted up charges

One of the things in Dogma I love is the idea that God visits anonymously to do things he likes. I love that film

In think The Inspiration is sometimes willing to debate but he's at the more sensible end of the spectrum and not a creationist. We probably need Parky to lend his unique viewpoint. People are overlooking the fact that 'God' can create as much water as he likes, whenever he likes. FACT. But can he create so much water he cannot drink it all?

full of shit

0.858 3.9x average. I rock

Worked out well last time - what could possibly go wrong?