NJS

I hope I'm not as cynical as you in my 40's. I don't know how many times he has to say he only wants to play at NUFC before people will believe him. He has a long contract and can't be forced out if he doesn't want to be. I do believe him and think he wants to stay - its the FCB I don't trust. (Sadly I was just as big a cynic in my 20s though probably more optimistic along with it).

Smokescreen for his transfer - it'll stretch to Stevenage so no FA cup tie - gone before the Mackem game.

Context is the key - I think going for a "chinky" or even in the vast majority of cases referring to a "paki" shop is harmless and almost a term of affection but obviously both can be used very badly. I always assumed chinky was a generally ignorant term for oriental just as paki seems to be used by some for anyone from the entire sub-continent. I do think Boyle was using the terms satirically but at the same time deliberately courting controversy. Of course comedians from Lenny Bruce through Bill Hicks and Jerry Sadovich have all done the same.

Might sound like a stuck record but this is exactly the kind of performance which was put in 2 years ago - some early promise involving coping ok with opposition only for it to end with no points because of complete lack of goal threat combined with iffy defending. I honestly don't see why people are so confident that we'll be okay.

One win in 8 games - relegation form lads.

I'd question Krul on the goal like. "Team full of wankers" - most ironic chant ever.

It epitomises the Spurs "style" - diving, whinging mincers to a man.

I think it was complacency I was arguing against - as it stands I think we'll be okay, if he sells Carroll I'd dial 11 on the ometer.

I have absolutely no idea what the fuck you would actually keep in it - anyone want to clue me in? Almost defines gay.

From the .com City report: If the fat cunt does what he did 2 years ago and sells a player who would have made the difference (Given/Carroll) then I think we're in deep shit. All of those who are saying "no chance" are dreaming imo.

No - they sell a cover which has an inbuilt light which according to a couple of the reviews is a little bit iffy.

I think they were a little lucky but apart from that you're spot on. Almost 100% of the time I'm in the "play your own game and let the opposition worry" school of tacticians but for teams who rely so much on one individual, a bit of special planning is a good thing and I certainly think Tevez meets that criteria. I remember saying the same about Gerrard in that game they beat us 5-1 where he was given the freedom of the park. Of course choosing one of our players to do such a task is another matter - I wouldn't waste Tiote on that and Smith would either fail or get sent off. Maybe we should sign Aaron Hughes or Andy Griffin back - about the only man to man markers I can think of who've ever worked for us. I think its also about time we woke up to fact of what a waste of space Guttierez is.

I agree with you up to a point over Blair but there's an extra factor regarding this conflict which leaves him open to more criticism - his religosity and to an extent that of Bush. You can't start off by having a go at Saddam for being more of a Muslim than his defenders (however far they go in that defence) would like, without mentioning people who admit to praying for guidance over decisions and who hold the view that there is a higher authority than man who will judge their actions. I don't hold that the UK has no moral high ground over evil regimes - just that that morality is not as untainted as is claimed.

I took that to mean you were suggesting that the factions arose during his reign which I then argued against - re-reading it I can see you meant that they were expanded/increased which is fair enough but I would argue that the divisions were nothing compared to post-invasion. I guess people mention his regime as being secular (as I said opposed to discussing him personally) to compare and contrast that with the surrounding theocracies. I'm not saying a regime ran by terror is necessarily better as a whole but elements of it like having Christians in the government is something which would be a good idea to take out of the rest of it. I'm not defending Saddam per se or just being anti-west for the sake of it - both "sides" have no moral high ground imo. You mentioned gassing Kurds in 87 - the west were perfectly happy to supply him with arms to fight Iran and the pre-cursors for the gas - as usual happy to deal with cunts for political expediancy. Of course you can argue that's the way of the world but as I've said before don't then try and bring morality into it. I would enjoy arguing with you more if you didn't reach for the stupid insults as quickly.

This week's shows were pretty vicious (and the usual patchy quality) but the "racist" jokes were pretty good satire imo. Having said that one of them was a slight rip-off of a Not the nine 'o' clock news line where they used the line "assorted fuzzy-wuzzies" whereas Boyle just used " a load of pakis" - obviously playing to the Daily Heil gallery.

That ignores the long history of the factionism in Iraq - as usual borders drawn for a country in London took no heed of local "tribalism" for want of a better word - again my understanding is that Iraq is really 3 countries - Sunni, Shia and Kurd with broad geographical attachments. Of course a convenient division in say 1919 wouldn't have prevented later conflict but I think attributing the divisions to Saddam is a bit much. I know all about Hitler's relationship with Catholicism which is why Ratzinger's remarks on his visit alluding to the Nazis rise being the result of secularism were particularly offensive imo.

My understanding was that even though he might have been a Muslim, his regime was notionally secular and he did a pretty good job (through violence and terror obviously) of keeping the factions in line. It's like arguing over whether Hitler was an Atheist or a Catholic - point scoring aside - they were both cunts whose personal religion wasn't the issue. I'd also say they were both politicians who knew how to play the religious game to suit.

The only non-NUFC player I think I've ever admired is Giggs. There are many I obviously recognise as good but can't bring myself to say they are a favourite as such.

Just beyond this year but I should have started looking for a job at the end of last year after my boss left - or I should have applied for redundancy before the quota ran out.

Got a Desire Z last month - happy with it though the only downer is it's a bit bulky - might get something smaller like an Xperia X10 mini for the summer when I'm not wearing a coat.

I finished on Tuesday - was supposed to be going out tonight to meet up with some ex-colleagues but a couple have cried off due to illness which means the whole things postponed until the new year. Don't go back to the 4th.

Two less than we sell.

If you can provide evidence of that, I'll gladly concede the point....a cursory check of existing (labour) budgets of 2 of the councils being cut shows otherwise.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/uk...ity_funding.xls Labour - South Tyneside Spending Power 10/11 = £188.7m (Population 153,000 = £1233 per person) Tory - Windsor spending power 10/11 £99.3m (population 28,300 = £3508 per person) Windsor have also just announced the largest cut in council tax in history..... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...ouncil-tax.html So you can't even argue that the inhabitants are contributing more to local serrvices in Windsor than they are in South Tyneside. Do you just believe whatever you're told rather than actually check the factoids you come out with? Excellent news tbh and long overdue. Most councils, particularly Labour just keep on taking and taking and taking. They will always find some new service to justify a rise, but just because they can find new ways to spend money, doesnt mean they should. Councils have long since become little empires for local fools to waste money. Nice to see the Tories once again leading the way. So what do you imagine Windsor spends its money on that in some way is better than how ST does it? Do you honestly think they have a greater need for social services or do you think the money goes to councillors cronies on things like consultancy?

You do get that theres a link between average wealth (or however you want to put it) and council expenditure don't you? "Trimming back" = somone loses out - better to be people in ST or those in Windsor?

I'm surprised they didn't mention her article (which might have been last year to be fair) about South Africa which suggested vast tracts of world cup fans would be raped and murdered.