NJS

Ah, scouse wit - the nation's greatest comedy blessing - a cheery smile as another stanley scar is left, another wallet stolen, another addict supplied. Shouldn't you be organising a candlelight vigil for the ferry disaster at the moment?

I'd heard about this and saw this thread and saw some trailers on Sci-Fi which perked my interest. I used to download shed loads of US Tv but have gotten out of the habit in the last couple of years apart from a couple (Earl+Weeds) as I was sick of "investing" in shows which got cancelled. Now by the time they're established I can't find the time to catch up. So I thought I'd see if I could hit this one at the right time. Anyway I watched the first episode earlier and thought it was excellent - the way I'd read it was that there was one "hero" per week but now I see its a multi-character thing which I prefer. I'm now getting the next 3 or 4 eps.

Fuck me I know Shields has changed a bit since I left but a fucking scouser now thinks its posh? Whatever next? ps South Shields is two words you thick, thieving twat.

I think that is what most people are thinking. Nobody was expecting or wanting Roeder to make second rate permanent signings for the sake of it. But it really was about bringing bodies in short term to be prepared for a worst worst cast scenario. Its failing to learn the numbers lesson from the summer thats bothering me - as it stands we could lose 4 or 5 players in June which means we'll need 8 or 9 in in my view - integrating that many is hard so 1 or 2 now would have lessened the load.

Surely people of his age have an automatic DNR order?

I think Rob may have gone a bit far imo but I think he has a point to an extent - there is a saint/god complex in the medical profession which doesn't react well to certain questions (like if its that bad why don't you leave?). I actually have more of a problem with Doctors than Nurses - I've met too many who talk down to people to such a degree they should be taken to task over it - everybody appreciates help when you're at your most vulnerable but some of them use that to feed their egoes too much - that applies to some nurses I've met as well. I've also had this opinion of Doctors and consultants especially seconded first hand by my sister who's a radiographer.

Some of what they've both said makes sense but as usual they forget that not all fans are sky interview mong fodder. They forget that we haven't forgotten how bad a job they did last summer so the "chance to put it right" factor should have meant increased effort before "caution" kicked in.

We sound a bit "lucky" but I love listening to these bastards on BRMB.

BBC Story

You have to register what you find with the "receiver of wrecks" who techically owns the goods - none of the scousers on the beach did that so were breaking the law.

So a touch of temp is okay as long as its controlled and monitored? - makes sense. I always picture the Simpsons with Bart's soldiers battling an amorphous blob before the spotty youth character informs the Sargent that they've had a message from above that its a school day: "Men lay down your weapons and return to barracks"

I think if you tried that with me last night I'd have strangled you So am I wrong that the high temperature is actually a good thing to a certain extent?

I just about got through work today with a horrible cough and bad headache. Soon after getting home I had a nasty shivery fever attack which resulted in a couple of hours under the duvet (with a spare on top) until it sort of broke a little while ago. My question is this: As I understand it shivering and fever is the body's method for raising the temperature to give the immune system soldiers more of a chance to kill the virus. If this is the case why are we advised to take paracetamol etc with the intention of reducing the fever and temperature? Wouldn't it better to let it alone and let the body fight the good fight? I can see why with more serious viruses it would be important to control temperature but for the common cold? Or am I talking bollocks?

You need to be more specific - as a computer geek I opened the thread only to be confronted with comic geek bollocks.

100% sure ??? Yes corroboration ?? My eyes/memory (admittedly pissed) not good enough? I did look on the .com archive but they just have the score and not the match report.

100% sure ??? Yes

Robert Lee vs Antwerp away in 94.

I see charity as crumbs from the table to salve the consience of the well off rather than an attempt to change. I see the wefare state/socialism as a more fundamental recognition of human brotherhood and an attempt to make a real difference (though I know its idealistic and usually impractical). Yes, but even the socialistic ideas just didn't spread from the ground, but are the result of a continuous process. Of course you have at first the catholic ideas of doing good works for the benefit of your afterlife. Then you get the protestant reformation telling people that they will get salvation regardless of their actions in life on earth, which doesn't mean they dropped the idea of caritas in the form of responsibility, but it was the (absolutistic) monarch who was responsible for it. The next step is the state as form of a community taking over and getting the responsibility. When you take Marx and Engels (and especially the latter as a strong religious past) for example, they didn't just came up with something totally new but just were trying to further develop existing ideas to better the current state. It's only their whole concept as a sum of several already known ideas and concepts that is revolutionary. That makes sense but then I'd go back to questioning the motivation. If someone does "good works" with the promise of heaven that to me isn't as good as doing them just out of a sense of inherent "goodness" that I've been talking about. Thats why I mentioned the "brotherhood of humanity" as a concept. Okay the end result is desirable but the flip side to that to me is the "Mr Hyde" of dogma which as well as the promotion of the "lies" we've mentioned in this thread of bad science also takes the form of opressive ideas such as those on homosexuality and more modern times contraception. This "baggage" to the more altruistic side of religion is what I really find distateful and is why as Sam Harris says some of the more Eastern philosophies with their less dogmatic approach to life seem less "harmful" as a whole.

I see charity as crumbs from the table to salve the consience of the well off rather than an attempt to change. I see the wefare state/socialism as a more fundamental recognition of human brotherhood and an attempt to make a real difference (though I know its idealistic and usually impractical).

Socialism not christianity founded the welfare state - even if it was originally the Liberal party that laid the groundwork. That great bastion of christianity, the tory party, never lifted a begrudging finger unless it was the hypocrisy of charity. When people are scared it can give them comfort to embrace superstition even if they've rejected it in their "real life". That does not give that suprtsistion itself any merit or truth.

I accept what you say about Germany but taking the UK quite a large number of people still call themselves "christians" but only ever attend funerals and weddings etc. I think if you counted church attendees or members as Isegrim put it then a clearer picture emeges. Obviously I'm not saying that church attendance is a pre-requisite of faith but I think its a pretty fair indicator. Perhaps my "hope" that these countries are less religious than sometimes stated is overestimated but in comparison to bastions of religiosity like South America, the muslim world in general and the US I think saying those countries lean towards agnosticism isn't that much of a push. They are certainly less religious to a fair degree. I'd love the UK to have the separation of church and state as established in the US but with a lot stronger adherence especially on things like charitable status. Unfortunately a lot of our problems in this area when it comes to constitution are wrapped up in the bloody royal family as well - another thing I abhor

Scandanavia, Japan, Canada, Australia, most of Western Europe for a start. I know Japan does have a spiritual side but I don't think its the theistic one of the Abrahamic religions. It could be said by some that the decline of religion in western Europe could be attributed more do an increase in "decadence" and materialism but I'd argue that its an increase in disillusionment with religion as reflected in the the recent Guardian poll where 82% of british people questioned felt that religion was "a bad thing". More in general: League I know there are anomalies there like Vietnam and there ae some very religious people in some of those countries but I do know , though I can't find the source, that that table almost matches the top "most developed" countries as defined by the UN in terms of social benefits, health services etc, etc. Now I'm willing to accept that history has a role in all of that but I find it most interesting that the middle east which was one of the major cradles of human civilisation is now what I'd call the most backward on the planet - the reason? - not science thats for sure.

Still a bit very simplistic view in my opinion, just to condemn religion because its violent past (Leazes would say that hindsight is a wonderful thing). If it was that easy to think of an areligious peaceful society you have to wonder why never in history such a society developed. And before you spring in, it also won't develop if you cut out "religious indoctrination" for a couple of generations. Religion has always been answering those metaphysical questions natural science couldn't answer. With scientific progress these questions might get fewer, but even that trend is questionable. In fact the current trend to irrational religious fundamentalism rather shows the opposite. There will always be metaphysical questions that science will hardly find answers to but mankind will try to cope with, e.g. the sense of life. And it is also hard to believe that the concept of transcendence will ever be abolished. Even the likes of Einstein (or more recently Stephen Hawkins) don't go that far. In fact I do find it also a bit too simplictic to reduce religion/theology onto an antipode of natural science. The scope of religion is a bit broader than just that. It isn't just about describing or explaining natural phenomens by linking them to a higher being. Religion is much more also about answering questions in regard to morality and ethics. And in this regard Christianity has very much contributed to the development of our modern western society. As much as you are (probably) proud of the current western values like freedom etc., it is a historical fact that those developments are always linked to religion as well. Blanking out religion in this historical process would just be highly hypothetical. I know my frustraion at what I see as peoples irrationality causes me to to sometimes go far in hoping for easy answers but I do take some issue with what you say. I accept some of your reasoning on Christianitys place in our development but I'd argue that that reflects a broader example of what I was arguing about in terms of the bible. I believe our inherent "goodness" allows us to see the nice parts of the bible and I'd say that same "goodness" is the driving force behind most progress in terms of civilisation rather than religion per se. I have no problems with people asking the kind of questions you mention but I feel that the "easy" answers provided by organised religion are a cop out - As I said above our place in the universe leads me to emphasise the view that we are just evolved animals who though capable of many astounding feats are destined for no more than death. I'd also argue that there is a direct correlation between the development of nations as "good" places to live and their rejection of organised religion. Its no coincidence that the most agnostic countries in the world are with a few exceptiions the most "civilised". I know history has played a part in that but moving forward education and rejection of dogma suggests progress, the increase of "believers" in third world countries with higher birthrates does not mean that we are seeing a rennaisance of faith.

The problem when dealing with issues in the Middle East is that you can divide most countries into religious denominations- it's the way the country has developed. You could equally say a lot of conflict is down to ethnic divisions- Kurds in Iraq and Turkey for example. My problem is that too often every conflict is linked with religion therefore the argument follows that getting rid of religion would solve this problem- when of course it wouldn't. Right now the Sunnis and Shias are blowing seven shades out of each other in Iraq- they all beleive in the same God, Prohpet and so on- but do so in a very slightly different way. But it's not religious- it's tribal. Religions, like languages, evolve and develop their own nuances within an enclosed group of people. That is why in an increasingly globalised society those differences will be laid bare and will form the source of many conflicts for the forseeable future. The Israel question however- is fundamentally a religious one- though there is obviously also a great deal of politics involved with regards to western control over oil-rich areas. The "religion is all at fault" argument is way too simplistic, and it's implementation in policy would only serve to create even greater problems. I'm not saying that "banning" religion tomorrow would solve these conflicts but I think we should be willing to name and shame them for being a root of the problem. A lot may be "tribal" but as I said above religion can be the reasons for the tribal divide and certainly an extra "spice" in the mix to exaggerate existing tribal differences. If you look at Ireland for example there are elements of politics and tribalism involved but at the core religion stands like a beacon as a simple label to which people raise their flag. In 2007 if you took away the religion of everyon in NI you'd have people who are indistinguishable on any other basis. That conflict may be on the wane but I'd apply that same reasoning to other places like Iraq. I don't have enough knowledge of how "intermingled" Sunnis and Shias are religion aside but clinging to those labels is a core problem.

Coin toss imo - I think the Yanks can hold back Israel more than anyone can hold back Pakistan/India. Aye, but should Iran get a nuclear weapon they might be mad enough to use it first. I think we're back to Saddam and even Qadaffi territory - they many want/have wanted WMD and may spend money/time trying to build them but I think its a bit harder than is made out to succeed.