NJS

Not a huge fantasy fan but I know a couple of people who take this series a bit too seriously and my nasty side finds it funny that after all the years of waiting the bloke has died before finishing it.

Zeus or Thor? Moving the posts to some kind of wider Deistic universal creator is one thing but equating that with tribal Gods from a small part of the world is for me where it all falls down. Religions are very much about a personal relationship with a defined entity (as well as power and money but that's a sideline) - imagining that relationship in the context of the universe as we know it now is where it goes a bit mental.

Intellectual masturbation aside, as I said for the vast majority their God is very defineable - and demonstrably ridiculous. I don't see how rationality can be dismissed as trendy or populist.

They're as diametrically opposed as any two things can be - no amount of apologist twisting can change that. Wrong. The problem, at rock bottom, is this: If nothing happens without a cause, then something must have caused the universe to appear. But then we are faced with the inevitable question of what caused that something. And so on in an infinite regress. Some people simply proclaim that God created the universe, but children always want to know who created God, and that line of questioning gets uncomfortably difficult. One evasive tactic is to claim that the universe didn't have a beginning, that it has existed for all eternity. Unfortunately, there are many scientific reasons why this obvious idea is unsound. For starters, given an infinite amount of time, anything that can happen will already have happened, for if a physical process is likely to occur with a certain nonzero probability-however small-then given an infinite amount of time the process must occur, with probability one. By now, the universe should have reached some sort of final state in which all possible physical processes have run their course. Furthermore, you don't explain the existence of the universe by asserting that it has always existed. That is rather like saying that nobody wrote the Bible: it was. just copied from earlier versions. Quite apart from all this, there is very good evidence that the universe did come into existence in a big bang, about fifteen billion years ago. The effects of that primeval explosion are clearly detectable today-in the fact that the universe is still expanding, and is filled with an afterglow of radiant heat. So if nothing happens without a cause, what caused the beginning of the universe? Surely as it defies the laws of physics, it is by definition something devine, wouldnt you say? Goal post moving shite as usual. The vast majority of Theists don't know, understand or believe in a 14bn year old universe. Everything they do actually believe in has been proven to be wrong beyond ny kind of doubt. It's only since the big bang has been theorised that philosophical bullshit like that has been invented. I actually admire the honesty of Creationists more than the twisting insanity of people like you.

They're as diametrically opposed as any two things can be - no amount of apologist twisting can change that.

As Christoper Hitchens points out - one of the stupidest concepts of the Abrahamic faiths is the idea that their God (whoever/whatever that may be) would only talk to tribes in the Middle East when other civilisations like the Chinese were just as "civilised" at the time.

I agree with that and the idea he knows he's on a hiding to nothing - given that he hasn't done too badly but as I said, not addressing the strikers regardless of Carrol is an extremely bad sign for me.

Heights in general but specifically walking across high bridges over water.

How did it go? Quite well - I'm a perfectionist so obsessed on one question I struggled on but otherwise it was fine. Finshed just in time for kick-off as well - the bastards.

My concern is that it was obvious to the world that we had 4 inadequate strikers aside from Carrol and he should have been working to replace at least two of those regardless of any will he/won't he stay shite. Now we're left with 3 inadequate strikers.... Piss poor management.

Working hard but basically dross.

Nervous as well - I've got a phone interview at 19:30 for a fuck off job.

Huddersfield in 84 when we got promoted - asked Kenny Wharton for his shirt but he just shook my hand instead. Cambridge 93 - we were in the seats down the side and the car was parked behind the terrace which meant walking around the ground so we walked across the pitch (there had been a mini-invasion). One of my mates did something to the top his hamstring climbing over the fence so it became "the day Paul lost his arse at Cambridge".

And vice versa.

I spoke to one who was honest enough to say pretty early on in the conversation "If I do get you a job what's the name of the person I need to speak to about getting them a replacement". Well that's not on, but never lose sight of the fact we're in it for the money, I take it you think we should just be some sort of charity service? Didn't have a problem with that one Stevie or as I said an honest approach that knows that money is the bottom line - its the ones who dig for info without providing any signs of available roles that I don't like.

I spoke to one who was honest enough to say pretty early on in the conversation "If I do get you a job what's the name of the person I need to speak to about getting them a replacement".

I think there's an undercurrent of hypocrisy on both sides on those occasions - they must know a lot of people don't

I don't mind playing the game with an "all cards on the table" approach which recognises they're in it for the money and as I said some have been great.

I wouldn't have minded naming the ones I've been rejeceted from but not the ones in progress. If you assume as I did that he was fishing then getting 3 or 4 companies names that are recruiting makes sense - again not realising that a lot of the big firms have preferred agencies as suppliers. Don't know how you do things Stevie but my biggest complaint is the ones who butter you up then put your CV in for something then you never hear from them again. If its been rejected then fair enough - just send me a standard email which will take ten seconds.

Oh dear. Just oh dear. Without doubt he was ringing you to help you, perhaps do a canvass on you based on your skills, if you had've spoken to me in a snooty manner, I would've told you to fuck off. They are there to help you. To be fair Stevie, some of them are just salesmen arseholes. I've spoken to plenty in my time, and had them try to tell me I should take jobs I didn't want cos "I don't think you're really in a position to be choosy". All cos the prick wanted his commission. There's bad uns as well as good uns. Well that's not how I operate, I have candidates from three years ago ring me up just for a chat about life/football or whatever. It's shit that mugs get us a bad name. You have to build rapport. I've got one candidate in the toon who I meet for a pint and would class him as a mate now, even though he's a heed the baal, shags 50 different women a year - was last shaggin a mackem who he dumped in Gran Canaria. You meet some quality candidates in this game, it also strengthens the generic idea of what people are like from different areas, and the stereotypes are very often true. I've spoken to quite a few over the last couple of months and think I've got a feel for the lay of the land - some of them have been a different class when it comes to professionalism and genuine interest in helping you but this bloke blatantly had nowt. He started by saying he had lots of opportunities in Essex (probably based on my address) - one look at my CV would tell anyone that are a miniscule number of companies outside of the City or London that would satisfy my experience and skillset and expected salary. He then started asking if he could contact my references - in banking references are asked for after the contract has been signed as a formality and would never be even considered at the CV submission stage - what he was after was names. He then asked me who I'd interviewed with and I said that was confidential. He said he didn't want to put me forward for stuff I'd already applied for which I said was fair enough but if he could send me some specs even without mentioning the clients names I'd be able to tell him if I'd seen them before. That's when he hung up. Do you think I was fair in my assessment?

Just realised I've snapped at 3 people in the past 3 or 4 days - some kind of male menopause I think: 1. Saturday - finally snapped at a poor assistant in the co-op with the classic "Would you like a bag?" Me: "I'm standing here in a t-shirt and tracksuit bottoms, I've just bought about 10 things - what do you think I'm going to do with them - balance them on my head? - had to apologise which I hate. 2. Yesterday - somehow misunderstood the dentist into thinking he was asking me to make another appointment just to get x-rays so told him that after taking a half day off he was doing them there and then - had to apologise which I hate. 3. Today - took a call from a recruitment agent who it became obvious didn't have anything and was just looking for leads - asking me who I'd interviewed with etc - told him to either start talking roles or get off the line - he hung up - very satisfying.

Who seriously expects "I'm really pissed off to be here and will sulk about if for the next 5 years". Whatever the ins and outs are, now its done he has to move on and brown nose his new club/fans.

Just about before my time so probably true.

Peter Withe was great. Shoulder wasn't bad at that level - the problem that season was Mick Martin getting fucked. McGhee was abysmal first time around and fantastic second.

Reilly and Cunnigham (though we did have PB/CW for some of the period) Rafferty and Shinton Doesn't excuse the current crime.