NJS

We asked for home games mid week to be on a Wednesday. Hmmm, why was that ? As far as I know we always have done - not sure if theres a logical reason. I remember a few years ago when the Mackems switched to a Tuesday as their preference - at that time (and probably now) all the "big" teams played on a Wednesday and I remember a bit of piss taking on that note.

On a personal note I think was in my top 5 drunkest days ever for no apparent reason - fell all the way down the escaltors at Central and just got up and continued as if nothing had happened.

That's what I posted there - I think its about time Liam Liam O was charged with blasphemy for using a saints name and burnt at the stake.

It was absolutely clear in 2005 that the election was fought on the basis of Blair handing over to Brown - I can't understand how anybody could have not known that (stupidity aside). Taxes have risen since 97 but they went to pay for policies that were re-elected on twice - you can't say they weren't pretty honest about things - especially in 2001/2005. I'm deeply disappointed with a lot of things they've done and a lot they haven't but I still see Brown as a victim of outside shit (that he admittedly didn't address). As I've said before, minor complaints aside, things weren't too bad for the UK in the summer of 2007.

This is going to sound bad but I think a lot of people in this country need to be reminded again what a bunch of proper cunts Tories are. - That doesn't mean I welcome that "lesson" - it just means I accept it as inevitible.

I honestly thought Brown seemed a decent bloke compared to Blair and would do some good but unfortunately he's just as much a Tory. (Of course the timing of the shit hitting the fan didn't help)

It's a strange one in that he did a plea bargain but then the judge backed out - the yanks have said that they admit the judge was dodgy but that doesn't excuse the runner. I think if she'd been 16 or 17 (same law applies) I might have had some sympathy with him but 13 is beyond the pale. I'm also finding all the luvvy outrage at his arrest to be nauseating.

I have to say I found the worm stuff in Filth pretty disturbing in a "WTF" kind of way. I was just thinking of his work last week when I was sitting opposite a bit of a charver on the train (which is unusual on the route) and noticed he was wearing a complete "Schemie" Hilfiger outfit.

Welsh is one of those authors I find a bit patchy but always worth the risk as they are usually to a decent standard even if not top notch. Of the ones I have read I probably would say Glue was my favourite. Sometimes he does go overboard with the genuine dialect stuff which makes it a bit too much like hard work. I haven't finished one of the novellas in his last one for that reason. Dan Simmons crosses many genres - he is repsonsible for my two favourite Sci-Fi series (Hyperion and Olympos) but has also written some excellent horror, historical and detective stuff.

Strangely I've read all of his books except Trainspotting (seen the film). There's a Dan Simmons book (one of my favourite authors) where a small number of people have the ability to coerce people to do their will without realising it which does go as far as "suicide".

We had a 30 page thread on this once. Can't find it now (I lack HF's searching skills) but basically the answer was yes, you're retarded. Spelling arse as ass is way more retarded than wiping stance. (Willing to accept poster could be a Yank) On murder I often think it would be good to be able to have a "special power" which I'm sure I've read in some fiction to be able to just glance at a person and give them a time of death via a brain anyuerism or something. So if someone annoys you on the tran you just think "two hours" and at that time they drop down dead. Is this normal?

Don't fuck with your heart casually would be my opinion.

I read that either party can still go to court if they don't like the outcome - I guess there would then be an extra burden of saying why the finding was wrong.

Aside from being used against the wrong people (eg Keith Barratt when they were meant to be for orgainsed firm members) I still don't get how banning orders are legal. If you commit almost any other crime, once you have been punished or even served a sentence you are then free to pursue anything (obviously as long as its legal). As for getting banned for being a "bit dodgy", I can't help thinking that rather than being a panic measure introduced in haste, they were intended to test the water for other shite like control orders.

Yeah simple - make going away so pointless nobody bothers anymore. Chuck in short notice time changes and we'll be laughing.

If you're going to argue religion is rational beacuse of typically human "irrational" emotions like a sense of belonging to a group then exactly the same argument applies to racism. My view is that most if not all "base" human emotions can and should be conquered by intelligence combined with empathy.

Exactly - it's the old "treat them like animals" scenario. Controlling coaches may make sense when we play the Mackems or Boro but the simple fact that whoever makes these decisions can't see why Plymouth deserve a special case illustrates for me what utter cretins they are. I think the "sanitisation" of Football which I've argued before has some elements I don't like, SHOULD have meant a change in attitude from the authorities leading to more flexibility. Theres another article in the Guardian today (as well as one about the Mackem CS debacle) about Stoke fans being mistreated bady in Manchester again (payback for the compen I'd guess) and once again featuring fans being forced to get trains back to the club town no matter where they've come from - something I've had to argue my way out of in the past. I think it's the case that the police are feeling cocky at the moment with the anti-terror laws imbuing them (they think) with extra powers and convenient targets new or old are feeling the brunt of things. I'm not naive enough to think daftness has been eradicated from Football but a lack of recognition of how things have changed is nothing short of criminal imo.

They are and have been building a country for years where they won't get any respect and will have to "rule" by intimidation and fear. From the 70s onwards, Blacks, Gays, Irish, football fans, Miners, various "hippy" protestors and probably most recently Muslims have joined the list of people who are assumed to be criminals because of the actions of a few. I honestly think they will pay for it years to come. As that list of "scum" increases, they will find fewer and fewer people willing to excuse them and their excesses which will be reflected in people not wanting to join them all the way through to people looking the other way when they are in trouble. I will have absolutely no sympathy for them when those days arrive.

Possibly - though sounding a bit un-PC I think implying that it was going to be so much of a danger for the vast majority of heteros may have been a bit much (although I concede that it was a lot of guesswork). I suppose its more of a criticism of people rather than the campaign in that even if they had deliberately exagerrated straight infection rates with the intention of scaring people into safer lifestyles I'm not convinced it worked. I think STD infection rates prove that.

Anyone to the left of LM which covers 90% of the known and unknown universe.

I think the point that the scenario first raised in the 80 when it arose and the ad campaign that went with it in the UK has proved to be greatly exaggerated is a fair one which can be made even knowing the wider worldwide picture. Having said that the number of people including some I know who still don't have safe sex (for a multitude of other reasons than AIDS) is still terrifying - if it had been as "easy" to catch as suggested, the death toll would have been immense.

I'm a huge House fan and can't help thinking that there are so many pathogens out there just waiting for their chance (I know it's dramatic licence and the cases are one in a million but still....) I also think it's well within the stupidity boundary of the human race to release viruses (either deliberately or accidentally) which could seriously threaten the species - as I've said before maybe not a bad thing from a quality of life for the surviving humans but still a pisser for most of us. As you say really good stuff is probably too late for us but I would that that illustrates the ethical side of these advances - I wouldn't mind a life that lasted longer but progressed at a slower rate but wouldn't want to live another 60 years as a 60 year old if you see what I mean.

Renton you seem to be both over and under-estimating the proportion of deaths due to cancer. What I was getting at is that a fair proportion (not sure of exact figures) of deaths are down to cancer of some form. Some will probably be due to "modern" life but I still think its a "natural" killer of all animal life that to some extent we weren't supposed to conquer from an evolutionary pov. I also think cancer is now getting more people who have just survived to a decent age and aren't that unhealthy - my Mam died of lung cancer but my view was that as she was 82 it wasn't the absolute tragedy it would have been if she had been 42 (not diminishing the personal loss of course). However there are atill many other killers out there which would still be around if the magic cancer pill was found. Obviously you and Chez no more than I do but I don't see how "fixing" DNA so it never allowed cells to become cancerous wouldn't help in the defence of viruses or bacteria so "immortality" to me would have to involve some use of a super-efficient immune system (probably via nanobots) to be possible.

Obviously only as interested reader/human, I never assumed there would be a "cure all" for cancer - I assumed the accumulation of all of the different stratagies for all the different types would eventually be "almost certain" to cover everything. I think its also the case that pissers where non-old people get cancers aside, its probably true that our species are "supposed" to succumb to some form of death pretty much before modern medicine now allows.

I don't know what Chez and Renton's take on this is but I've always suspected the limiting factor in the fight against cancer or indeed AIDS is finance - I remember arguing that the £25bn the government wanted to spend on Trident at the time would just about do the trick for cancer. Bollocks or not?