NJS

Second attempt Jimbo? - I'm sure your score went up from when I went off to do it 385486 (first go)

I've been saying we've played nobody before yesterday - Pompey were half decent but mainly profited from the good goals so close together that fucked us so badly but having said that I'm beginning to be worried: Lack of consistent team selection - smacks of fling names into a hat to see what gels. Stupid formations. Stupid statements (0-0 at Derby or Reading would have been good results) Picking Barton when he is miles off the pace - I realise he has to play to get said pace but his current sharpness is shocking. Failure to realise that as we have some decent footballers we should play football not hoofball. These are the things that worry me. Even if we sign two good midfielders in January I think the gelling will still be a work in progress. A lot of people - probably including me - have said that they are willing to see this season as a write-off as long as progress is made - lack of progress so far aside, I'm beginning to realise what that write-off actually means - lots of frustration and disappointment. I fear for next week.

The first in a series including Rotterdam, Singapore and Harwich? Vancouver looks nice - was on a list of possibilities of holidays I was looking at for this or next year - bet its bastard freezing in winter though.

Don't understand some of the nastiness - ultimately he failed but I have nothing against him and liked him as a player. I never wish other teams well - basically I hate everybody - but hope he does okay.

I'm hoping its more to do with the players being a bit unfamiliar with each other - I didn't think the centre-halves were bad, but Beye and Enrique were probably the biggest culprits (though the first goal came from one). I hope a bit of gelling will mean a more measured approach.

He's the epitome of a horrible scouse twat - if I was ref I'd have him searched at the start of every game to check for his stanley.

Live? (As in the band - Singer used to be bald then grew hair and looked a bit like Marc Hottiger)

I've said a few times that I think its a very human trait to want to believe in something "more" however you want to put it and thats why I have no quarrel with any personal belief. What I do argue against is the way organised religion forms gangs which then demand things which affect other people including me. I've also said that I find the indoctrination of children to be particularly loathsome, though again I accept its also very human. I'm a great believer in asking questions - I think an up front teaching of "facts" in a school even in the face of ingrained points of view like creationism can only lead to more questions being asked which is why I would go against your inference that its not worth bothering with too much as they'll only be brainwashed at home anyway. Recent surveys suggest that religion as a whole is more and more being rejected by younger generations. I'm not naive enough to realise that has an element of general laziness as well as some enlightenment but its progress nevertheless.

Willing to speak to anyone who listens apart from when a word was actually needed imo to clarify his position. I've said before I treat Owen's "over-loyalty" to England in the same way I treated Shearer's - with contempt. I'm also of the opinion that if he hadn't deliberately eased himself back in at the end of the season prior to the world cup then he would have been fitter and aharper and probably wouldn't have been injured. I don't care if he plays for England - I do care how much he wants to play for us. You held Shearer in contempt? You must be the only one then And fitness had nothing to do with that injury, I'm fed up of pointing out these basic facts to you Owen bashers. For the fact that he always put England before us (pre-retirement for England which I admire him for) - yes - thats why he isn't a "god" to me - a hero yes but not as much as others. One thing I've noticed over the past few years - players who aren't match fit/sharp are more prone to injuries than those who are - thats why Souness' "bring 'em back asap" policy was so costly. I think its naive top think the fact that he'd played an hour or so in 7 months wasn't a factor.

Willing to speak to anyone who listens apart from when a word was actually needed imo to clarify his position. I've said before I treat Owen's "over-loyalty" to England in the same way I treated Shearer's - with contempt. I'm also of the opinion that if he hadn't deliberately eased himself back in at the end of the season prior to the world cup then he would have been fitter and aharper and probably wouldn't have been injured. I don't care if he plays for England - I do care how much he wants to play for us.

TV - Ketsbaia in Zagreb Live - Liam O

Perhaps we are picking over his words a bit finely but I think thats his "fault" as it were. I still think the "and nobody else" deserves comment though - if for example he'd said "first and foremost" then thats fine - the former though does suggest a dig at Allarydyce to some degree which I think is what has boosted the story.

Great but how many winners could there have been? Sorry, too cryptic. More games = more chance of winners.

Great but how many winners could there have been?

Its not so much that he's played little - I'm just sick of the obvious statements that show that he cares at least as much (if not more) about playing for England than playing for us. I fully admit to being someone who doesn't care about England but this does affect us. Even if he is right about the recent England games not being a factor (which I doubt) they have been a factor in other injuries he's had. I know people who do care about England want to see him play for both - fair enough and I wouldn't stop him but I think a sense of priorities without necessarily playing the "who pays his wages" card would be nice. Its not just about Owen either - Shearer was the same before he packed England in - a fact people forget but one which stops him being the God to me he is to others.

I don't care if I am a divvie but I find that statement fucking disgusting.

With sponsorship which equates to pay dependent on results I think you could reasonably call it fraud.

I know Smith hasn't been as good as I would have liked being an advocate of his signing so I think the best thing that could happen is that he is considered our 4th (if not 3rd ahead of Martins) striker and is best forgotten as a midfielder. The latter probably dependent on reinforcements in that area in January. Don't really care what happens to Shola in that context.

The problem is, as Jimbo was stating and as I keep pointing out, the whole basis of christianity is that book. I think the book in question is easy to poke large holes in with pretty simple questions which always seem to end with believers saying "I've no clue about these stories" or "they are all metaphorical apart from the ones I like" or "nobody takes it literally". If you want to follow the example of Buddhism and base your beliefs on the teachings of someone who spoke good sense without invoking the divine then fine. If you want to extend that to teaching kids lies as scientific facts then I think I have a right to object.

Don't quote the great man at him - you'll only confuse him

I'm not sure whether its worse if she lied through her teeth for years or that as she said she took something her coach gave her which he told he was okay. A lot of other "cheats" have used the same excuse which if true says a lot about either how bright they are or how dodgy the relationship with their coach is where a "take this" is trusted without question.

There's no "physical evidence whatsoever" because it's not right in front of your eyes to see - if you didn't find it so absurd, would you be forced to accept the evidence? Plenty of writings support the Bible, from both Christian and non-Christian sources. This includes eye-witness testimony from the Gospels. 24,000 manuscripts support the New Testament, and showing it hasn't been edited as is a common belief. Compare this to less than 20 for the writings of Plato et al. There are plenty of paintings and inscriptions. Archaelogical remains, such as the empty tomb have thrown up a lot of problems - even the most sceptical scholars in those days didn't deny Jesus' existence and that he died. Then we have inferential evidence, such as the transformed disciples, and how quite quickly Jesus made a pretty big religion to be fair. Now, are they not the sort of methods people uncover any historical events? Paintings and inscriptions from hundreds of years later? A convenient cave which proves it all? Manuscripts written later which support a new movement? The so called "eye witness" gospels were written at the very earliest 60 years after the supposed events. Its also indisputable that the four gospels were the work of an editorial committee which added and left bits out for political reasons. I've said before I think the bloke did exist - the existence of the religion is evidence for that but that of course says nothing about what he is supposed to have said and done which is taken as "gospel" - supernatural events aside. You seem to rise at Jimbo's use of "fairy tales" - can I ask what you think of the following?: The human race being descended from 2 people wished into existence. A world created in 6 days. A worldwide flood. A man being swallowed by a giant fish and living. 10 plagues being visited on a country. A woman being turned into a pillar of salt. All of the "miracles" of christ including the resurrection. The graveyards of Jerusalem opening up and the dead walking on JC's death. If these stories were intended to be metaphorical to teach morality (twisted in most cases) then the use of phrase "fairy tales" isn't that far off. If they were intended to be taken as fact (which I believe) then I think its fair to poke the obvious holes in them and condemn the book in that context. BTW that last one about the "zombies" provides an illustration about the way theists minds work. In Hitchens book he recounts how he asked someone whether they believed specifically in that event. The reply was that "Historically" he could not believe it but as a Christian he did believe it - try and tell me thats the work of a rational mind.

There is no physical evidence whatsoever for anything mentioned in the entire bible. The history is questionable in the extreme, the science is laughable, the morality in both the old and new testament is contemptible. Yes I have read about who wrote the bible, when, how and why. The more you do so, the more you recognise that basing a life on it as a whole and not using your inherent morality to cherry pick it would lead to people being irrational, jealous, bigoted, arrogant and murderous - oh hang on.... TI I don't agree that parents, especially in the US, are simply passing on their own beliefs to their kids. A lot of them realise that YEC is a lie but their political agenda of being anti-science requires them to propagate the lies. This is a lot more unforgivable than just believing in a supernatural Sky daddy in my view.

There is no difference between "believing" the earth is 6000 years old and stating that 2+2 = 5. Faith has nothing to do with it. You and I can debate whether an unproveable being exists but when it comes to "facts" that are indisputable I think "fuck-witted moron" covers it. I despise the concept of lying to children. (not you btw - I realise you're semi-rational)

You can't teach Biology without evolution - unless you reduce it to naming things - even then classification without relationships from common descent is senseless. Belief in a young earth also complete negates geology, astronomy, physics and chemistry.