Park Life

Would you take an umbrella if you were meeting your boy/girl friend? Yes and im sure he would be very happy to see how lovely I have kept my hair. Case closed your honour. Bentastic I assure you. I used to accesorise with a muffler or oacassionally with a boa constrictor wrapped aroung the leg.

Would you take an umbrella if you were meeting your boy/girl friend? Yes and im sure he would be very happy to see how lovely I have kept my hair. Case closed your honour. Bentastic I assure you.

Would you take an umbrella if you were meeting your boy/girl friend?

Totally agree. Yeap. Almost wish we only had 11 match fit players then at least Roeder would have hardly no decision making. It comes to something when we don't want the manager to have to make too many descisions.

Withough Emre or Dyer rotating in the middle there is nothing going on apart from hopeful punts and the odd cross.

Totally agree.

My major concern is more the general shape of game. We were again totally unconvincing in our overall approach. We can't find a working central midfield pairing and there seems to be a total lack of understanding between all parts of the team. That is something that cannot solely blamed on injuries in my opinion. Roeder is very average at this managing lark.

Not to mention wearing a long sleeved shirt. ...or any kind of underwear...

A feather based hat can also be quite worrying.

Quite frrankly you are a red herring in this debate. Well it means different things to different people hardly a point of referance for a pseudo-debate of this calibre..Grow up. I still like this thread mind. Just think the bible is getting in the way here cause it's meaning is so reletavised depending on who is quoting it, as you yourself recognise vis a vie the Christian right wing in America. For me this debate has always been about belief and more to do with a sense of mysticism and spritituality and of course aspects of which can be found in the beauty and wondrment of science. Once we slip into the realms of morals and meaning we have to be clear that these meanings are fluid and measures of morality have to be colonised within a cultural framework.

Quite frrankly you are a red herring in this debate. Well it means different things to different people hardly a point of referance for a pseudo-debate of this calibre..Grow up.

....in a different language..? The FA are muppets end of.

Quite frankly the bible is a red herring in this debate.

Of course it is, the accountants wouldn't allow it otherwise.

It will be like opening a Terry's choc orange and finding a real orange inside.

That sign in the Trent But that's basically true, people have an innate sense of right and wrong which has diddly squat to do with religion. There are many theories on why humans have evolved to be altruistic, and it's not unique to us - there are examples in other animals too. Religion might have initially codified it but now it is entrenched in secular law do we really need religion? Why is i that the most secular nations are the most "civilised"? Why is it that the most religious states in America tend to have the worst crime levels? NJS has argued this point successfully many times as I'm sure you are aware. Hang on!!!! If people have an 'innate sense of right and wrong' then where the fuck did that come from then? There a morality gene that requires no socialisation or parenting that would kick in to create a moral code in a, for want of a better phrase, 'social vaccuum'? Surely your innate sense of right and wrong is the strongest argument for god so far in this thread? Chez with one light swoop of his pork sword has them by the balls!11 .....enter stage left Descartes.. How to polarise a debate by Parky. You any relation to Leazesmag? "I love the sound of breaking glass"...Do do do de do de do do DAO.....

Alex blatantly taking out insurance.

That sign in the Trent But that's basically true, people have an innate sense of right and wrong which has diddly squat to do with religion. There are many theories on why humans have evolved to be altruistic, and it's not unique to us - there are examples in other animals too. Religion might have initially codified it but now it is entrenched in secular law do we really need religion? Why is i that the most secular nations are the most "civilised"? Why is it that the most religious states in America tend to have the worst crime levels? NJS has argued this point successfully many times as I'm sure you are aware. Hang on!!!! If people have an 'innate sense of right and wrong' then where the fuck did that come from then? There a morality gene that requires no socialisation or parenting that would kick in to create a moral code in a, for want of a better phrase, 'social vaccuum'? Surely your innate sense of right and wrong is the strongest argument for god so far in this thread? Chez with one light swoop of his pork sword has them by the balls!11 .....enter stage left Descartes..

Now were gonna get somewhere.

Yes, and those who believe this and want it taught in America are splitters and nutters, mostly evangelical fundamentalists. This doesn't mean that the main christian churches have a different view point. When it comes to Islam there is a huge diversity in viewpoints regarding creation & evolution and how to fit in Darwin in the Qur'an. But especially western academics have no problem and so have a lot of muslims being brought up in the western world. As for Armageddon, with the latest UN climate report and the human impact on the "creation" they might have a point... Exactly, you're talking from the viewpoint of a western academic. The reality of the situation in the US though is that about half of the population believe in the Bible literally though, a viewpoint that not only contradicts almost every aspect of modern science, but lends itself to horrendous bigotry. Armageddon is becoming a self fulfilling prophecy, there is no motive for people to change their actions on this planet when they are secure in the knowledge that they are promised eternal bliss through salvation, is there? This could be religion's most damaging legacy yet. You don't even have to look at the American population...Dubya himself is well gone on these matters..THAT is frightening. Yes, he is a believer in the Rapture, it should scare everyone. Isegrim talks as if religious fundamentalism isn't a problem, but it is a huge one in the only true super power the world has. I might add that atheists in the US are discriminated against more than any other minority group - it is virtually impossible to hold public office there without being demonstrably Christian. And yet its the churches that think they are being persecuted by science! I've noticed this especially in the last 4/5 years. Ridiculous in the extreme. Of course now they have discovered that OABAMA went to a Muslim school as a boy....Fox are frothing at the mouth..

Yes, and those who believe this and want it taught in America are splitters and nutters, mostly evangelical fundamentalists. This doesn't mean that the main christian churches have a different view point. When it comes to Islam there is a huge diversity in viewpoints regarding creation & evolution and how to fit in Darwin in the Qur'an. But especially western academics have no problem and so have a lot of muslims being brought up in the western world. As for Armageddon, with the latest UN climate report and the human impact on the "creation" they might have a point... Exactly, you're talking from the viewpoint of a western academic. The reality of the situation in the US though is that about half of the population believe in the Bible literally though, a viewpoint that not only contradicts almost every aspect of modern science, but lends itself to horrendous bigotry. Armageddon is becoming a self fulfilling prophecy, there is no motive for people to change their actions on this planet when they are secure in the knowledge that they are promised eternal bliss through salvation, is there? This could be religion's most damaging legacy yet. You don't even have to look at the American population...Dubya himself is well gone on these matters..THAT is frightening.

Actually, it's a bit surprising the media have focussed solely on nursing staff for this one (well, not surprising, more annoying). After AfC this will affect ALL NHS staff, except clinicians, including me. Rat's cocks! The worst discreprancy I think is seen in primary care, where GPs have been awarded HUGE pay rises with reduced hours (most are now on over 100K with no mandatory call out), whereas the rest of the staff have to make do with less than inflationary rises. The whole thing fucking stinks tbh. I'm one of those evil agency staff that are looked upon like scum, particularly around the nurses. I do this because my wage as a permanent NHS employee would be absolutely pitiful. When you get right down to it, agency money isn't all that fantastic. I only make a fraction of what my agency charges the hospital for my time. I make about half of the hourly rate, and I know this because I've seen the invoices that my agency sends out. The thing is though, it is harder to stay employed as agency staff. I have ZERO job security, and can be let go of over night. Technically they're supposed to give a week's notice but I have friends that were told just not to come back the next day because the job was done. Where I work now there is no permanent staff, we are all employed through and agency and the department prefers it that way. Why? Because we have to work to keep our jobs. If we are shit, they simply let us go and get someone else. It's probably the best department I've ever worked in because of that, we all have to work to the absolute highest standard because if not we're gone. Just out of interest if someting goes wrong are you/the agency insured? Does it matter? Under vicarious liability we would sue NHS, not him or his agency? That's the point surely if the agencies move in to take off the cream, they should also be burdened with some of the responsability. I take your point however.

You love it!

Yes, and those who believe this and want it taught in America are splitters and nutters, mostly evangelical fundamentalists. This doesn't mean that the main christian churches have a different view point. When it comes to Islam there is a huge diversity in viewpoints regarding creation & evolution and how to fit in Darwin in the Qur'an. But especially western academics have no problem and so have a lot of muslims being brought up in the western world. As for Armageddon, with the latest UN climate report and the human impact on the "creation" they might have a point... I agree I think we are wasting our time if we talk about the nutters in both camps..

See there is one of the problems. I don't really care if there is a personal god or not. And who says it was for the benefit? It is just that all we know so far, we are the only species of our kind (well except of those who got abducted by aliens or believing in 12 ft lizards). And as long as we don't know otherwise I don't see a problem in having a humancentric approach to certain things as I think tackling the issues of a peaceful living together and human ethics is more important than on concentrating on the existence of other species somewhere in the universe. We can still easily shift the goal post when the Vulcans come to visit us. Live long and prosper. Well that's an answer of sorts, you're not really interested or bothered, fair enough. However I am interested and bothered by this type of stuff, to me the truth is probably the most important aspect of my existence, and I will do my best to uncover it as much as possible. The question of rather being aware and miserable or happy but ignorant often bothers me for instance, personally I am "wired" to prefer the former. In the same manner, if religion is a pack of lies manufactured by humanity (which I strongly suspect it is), I would want shot of it regardless of the consequences for society. Mind, personally I don't think that the gradual extinction of religion need have any negative impact on soceity, quite the reverse in fact. Note I say "extinction", not abolition. I don't want to force my views on anyone, although I am happy to talk about them and want the unimpeded freedom to do just that. Here we go again, who says I am not really interested in the "truth"? I am all for scientific progress and want things to get explained. This doesn't contradict the need of actual metaphysical and ethical answers. As much as you want your freedom in your scientific beliefs I am advocating to let people have their religious believes as long as they need them. As for the forcing of views on anyone. Isn't science becoming somewhat "religious" in that aspect. The antagonism of evolution/creation being one perfect example. Not that most religious people nowadays in fact believe in evolution, tackling creation with evolution theories that are far from perfect and scientifically proven in every aspect is as much forcing a view on others in my opinion. In my eyes there is a common ground for both thesis (what's the plural in English?) and I don't need any scientist in lecturing me that when you do believe in religion that you are necessarily contradicting science. I'm waiting for science to disprove the existence of God.