maggiespaws

no streams working now. I lost that fox sports right before kick off. anyone found anything that works?

Antivirus 2009 is a trojan/spyware program IIRC. You will need to download a couple of programs to clean your system. There are loads people will recommend, but I use Ad-aware and Spybot Chances are, you'll need to download these using a different PC, because those sites will be blocked by Antivirus 2009 (becase they can remove it). When you download Spybot, also download the separate updates file. Chances are, AV2009 wont let you update Spybot either. My sister in law's PC got hit by the same thing I think and that was what I had to do to sort it. Took an age too, mind you; her PC is a proper relic (the CPU in my sons Leapfrog toy is probably faster, and he's only 1). With a bit of time and perseverance you'll be ok. Oh, and buy a decent antivirus they aren't mega bucks. I use NOD32 by Eset because it has the smallest memory footprint (read: doesn't really slow your PC down) and is really highly rated. It only costs £20-£25/year (less if you pay for 2 or 3 years).

Stay at home, invite your folks over and cook for everyone you lazy bastid

You are kidding aren't you? The protest didn't make Ashley sell, the impending credit crunch and MA's need to put his money somewhere safe did man! Same goes for your comments to Pud earlier about the NUSC being able to force MA to sell the club. He doesn't give much of a shit about the NUSC, he's shown as much by not responding to any of the requests for dialogue. The NUSC can't influence his decision to sell or who he should sell too. He's not going to accept some offer just cos we all think he should. He'll sell to whoever meets his price. I don't even believe his comments about only selling to someone who'll look after the club. EDIT: I should point out that I do think the NUSC can have an impact on the club and I'm all in favour of it. The pragmatist in me just thinks MA will continue to dismiss the NUSC as some after-school club rather than using it as an opportunity to re-connect with the fans.

Hat-tastic <------------------

Got my card and the card for the bairn. Made me smile when the letter arrived addressed to him and it was his card.

Ditto. I couldn't wait to get away from them. Managed to fight my way out of my 12month contract without penalty. 8mbps speeds down to 0.1mbps - 0.3mbps most times. Truly awful. Took me months to get them to admit that they had network problems and couldn't service their customers.

Took me a couple of seconds to suss that one - Sarah Jessica Parker in the snow :

I was at pompey on Sunday and it was fuckin embarrassing in a funny sort of way....virtually everyone got their name bellowed out by our lot, even fuckin Enrique, which to be fair was warranted as he played as well as I've seen him....but poor Michael got barely a fuckin mention....Oba was having a bit of a mare, was carrying an injury for 15mins before he scored, and because of this he wasnt attempting to get the ball back when he invairiably lost the ball, and still he name was being sung from the rafters.......all after Owen had scored a goal using huge bravery (the meat in a James/Campbell sandwich?..no thanks!) and finishing superbly under immense pressure...if he does leave and turns round and says "I never felt truly accepted by the fans" it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. Agree totally

His substitutions worry me, alot. I'm sure the voices in his head are telling him: Voices: "Take off Oba and bring on Harper as a centre mid" JFK: "What? That's fucking mental" Voices: "We know, but it's the last thing the opposition will suspect. Harps can kick it a long way, imagine what he could do from 30yards out!" JFK: "That's a crazy idea....... hmmm.... A plan that crazy just has to work! I'll do it!"

The Mido chanter should've used that in his defence. ".....to see the blatant racists"

Was it last seasons game when that troupe of our fans conga'd out of the pub singing 'Mohammed is a Geordie' with their scarves wrapped around their heads? Brought a smile to my face that did

and the fact they monitor your web usage and collect the data as they are part of the Phorm Advertising thing.

Haha - too true. I have to say, since I can no longer be bothered with SoccerAM, I've started to like Sat Kitchen, even if James whats-his-face tends to get right on my tits.

I swear, you couldn't make this up. The Geordie dancer looks like a fat Simon Cowell with long hair. His pants are so far up his chest you could stitch a bra to the belt loops to hold his tits in. There is enough material in his flappy trouser legs to re-sail the Cutty Sark. I'm sure him and his mackem counterpart see this as a bit of fun for their 5mins of fame, but it makes the rest of us look like a bunch of tw@ts. SSN had them dancing in the street in front of the public who had to give them marks out of ten. Apparently they've both been having dancing lessons in preparation for tomorrows contest.

Working from home today and I have SSN on in the background. They've just done a piece on something which will be on SoccerAM tomorrow. The Geordie Dancer vs the Mackem Mover in a dance off. FFS - yet another reason I won't be able to go into my local without enduring more abuse about something NUFC related. Seriously, can any of you who are in the right area not encourage an 'accident' to befall these fools?

Thought about the Blind Faith album when this was first brought up as it happens. As an aside, I can remember being in America about 1991-ish and being amazed to see the cover of 'Ritual de lo Habitual' being replaced with a blank brown card cover with just the name of the album / group on. I shit you not. I'd forgotten all about that. I would imagine it was the record shop making the decision (it was a chain btw) rather than some state-wide censorship or whatever. I had to look that one up as well - naked girls engaging in lesbian activity (albeit cartoon stylee) could be deemed offensive. The thing is, in that case, the record shop covered the image up from general display (which could be seen by all) but didn't ban the sale of the record. FWIW, I can understand the need for internet censorship (not on the scale of China like) given that it is a widely available medium now - accessibly by people of all ages. Don't jazz mags on the top shelf come in black bags or something now (shows how often I look at the mag rack of my local newsagent)? I just think the body who controls this needs to be setup, run and accountable in the same manner as the BBFC. I still don't personally see the massive difference between the BBFC (set up and paid for by the film industry to self regulate) and the IWF (set up and paid for by the ISPs to self regulate). Taken form the BBFC site: So I've learned something new today - I thought the BBFC was linked in part to the UK Govt - but it would appear that is not the case. So in one respect there is little difference. They do say that statutory powers lie with the local councils who may overrule the boards decisions. In this case, this is completely different to a charity organisation with no formal powers threatening legal action against some people but not others. The BBFC appear to advise but can be overruled (it seems commonplace that this doesn't happen) and were setup by the government in 84. The IWF dont look like they have any more powers/abilities than BBFC yet wake up one day threatening legal action on a smaller fish, whilst leaving the bigger fish? That doesn't seem right to me. As far as I see it, the IWF have a list of what they recommend be blocked so that ISPs aren't left open to prosecution. The IWF don't threaten legal action against anyone not conforming to their list. No ISP is forced to use the list but most choose to. The IWF react to what they receive. A Wiki page was added to the list after being reported. Amazon wasn't reported. The IWF realised it was an image widely in the public domain and quickly removed it from the list with no need for court intervention. Well, if that's the case - then that's not exactly how it's been reported. However, if this is the case, then perhaps the IWF aren't quite as mickey mouse as I first thought. My original point still stands, it just might not apply to the IWF in this case

Thought about the Blind Faith album when this was first brought up as it happens. As an aside, I can remember being in America about 1991-ish and being amazed to see the cover of 'Ritual de lo Habitual' being replaced with a blank brown card cover with just the name of the album / group on. I shit you not. I'd forgotten all about that. I would imagine it was the record shop making the decision (it was a chain btw) rather than some state-wide censorship or whatever. I had to look that one up as well - naked girls engaging in lesbian activity (albeit cartoon stylee) could be deemed offensive. The thing is, in that case, the record shop covered the image up from general display (which could be seen by all) but didn't ban the sale of the record. FWIW, I can understand the need for internet censorship (not on the scale of China like) given that it is a widely available medium now - accessibly by people of all ages. Don't jazz mags on the top shelf come in black bags or something now (shows how often I look at the mag rack of my local newsagent)? I just think the body who controls this needs to be setup, run and accountable in the same manner as the BBFC. I still don't personally see the massive difference between the BBFC (set up and paid for by the film industry to self regulate) and the IWF (set up and paid for by the ISPs to self regulate). Taken form the BBFC site: So I've learned something new today - I thought the BBFC was linked in part to the UK Govt - but it would appear that is not the case. So in one respect there is little difference. They do say that statutory powers lie with the local councils who may overrule the boards decisions. In this case, this is completely different to a charity organisation with no formal powers threatening legal action against some people but not others. The BBFC appear to advise but can be overruled (it seems commonplace that this doesn't happen) and were setup by the government in 84. The IWF dont look like they have any more powers/abilities than BBFC yet wake up one day threatening legal action on a smaller fish, whilst leaving the bigger fish? That doesn't seem right to me.

Thought about the Blind Faith album when this was first brought up as it happens. As an aside, I can remember being in America about 1991-ish and being amazed to see the cover of 'Ritual de lo Habitual' being replaced with a blank brown card cover with just the name of the album / group on. I shit you not. I'd forgotten all about that. I would imagine it was the record shop making the decision (it was a chain btw) rather than some state-wide censorship or whatever. I had to look that one up as well - naked girls engaging in lesbian activity (albeit cartoon stylee) could be deemed offensive. The thing is, in that case, the record shop covered the image up from general display (which could be seen by all) but didn't ban the sale of the record. FWIW, I can understand the need for internet censorship (not on the scale of China like) given that it is a widely available medium now - accessibly by people of all ages. Don't jazz mags on the top shelf come in black bags or something now (shows how often I look at the mag rack of my local newsagent)? I just think the body who controls this needs to be setup, run and accountable in the same manner as the BBFC.

So, next up is Nirvana - Nevermind, Led Zep - Houses of the Holy and Blind Faith - Blind Faith then eh? What about the original cover for Appetite for Destruction by GnR? I'm honestly curious to see if they do continue. Is this just a first stab to see what they can get away with? Go for an album cover which is obviously not in line with current views on decency and then use it as a yardstick for future actions? I'm 32 in a couple of weeks and I'd never seen the album cover. I think it's unlikely I ever would have given that I don't like the Scorpions. First thing I did when I read the article though was search for the image to see what all the fuss was about. I'd bet my house I'm not the only one who did/will. Censorship by an approved, arbitrated and nationally recognised body is one thing, but censorship under threat from a group of people who woke up one day and decided they didn't like something is a different matter. Tell you what, shall we put together some kind of legal case against MA? After all, I find the current state of NUFC offensive, the method in which he treats the club and it's fans nothing sort of indecent and the torture we're now being forced to endure - inhumane? Stupid example I know, but then the fact the IWF have been able to get away with this is equally as stupid. The album cover is not something I'd have put up on my wall, the album is not one I would have bought or even obtained through other means and I'll not lose any sleep if I never see it again. I can see Fop's point though - it's the principle of what they are trying to/actually getting away with.

Here's a 'what if' (which is really all we have to go on). What if KK had been trying to sort it out. I don't agree he should have gone to the press and cried about it - that's not what a grown man should do. We know there had been issues between KK and MA et for a few months before he left. What if, in those few months he was actually trying to come to some kind of agreement (after all, it's clear he loved the club - so why wouldn't he). What if, after spending 3 months or whatever trying to come to an agreement, MA was just sitting there saying "No, No, No? My way or fuck off." At that point does he have much choice? Carry on being part of something you do not agree with, have no say in or any control over or walk away and let someone else who is happy to work under that structure come in and do a better job. If you don't agree with the plan, how can you do the best job of implementing it?

Classic.Where did you pull that from? Agree btw. Can't really blame Keegan for walking,or the current state of affairs. I don't see how any blame can lay at Keegan's feet. Ashley was the man who brought him in, Ashley was the man who let him go. It was all in Ashley's power to make good but he didn't and now we're in the state we're in, as far as I'm concerned one man is to blame, Mike Ashley - he didn't need to keep Wise, he didn't need to keep Llambias, he chose to back them over the one man who would have united the fans and brought the feel-good factor back to the club. The thing that annoys me is even now he could correct it all but he chooses not to. Because it was him who decided to walk rather than stay and find a way of working within the structure. I don't understand how people are so in awe of Keegan that he can do no wrong. We ALL have b/s to deal with in life, but it seems to me that Keegan's first resort is to walk away rather than stay and compromise or work to find a solution. Either way, we're fucked now and neither party has had the courtesy to talk to the fans who ultimately are the ones suffering. Keegan will get a few million quid, the good players will move on to pastures new with a hefty signing on fee, Kinnear gets another shot at the big tim, Ashley still owns the club and we get to follow a team fighting a relegation battle. Yay. Rather than saying KK can do no wrong I'm laying the vast majority of the blame at a regime which has continually lied, moved the goalposts and no manager worth his salt would work under (the support from Wenger and Ferguson suggests as much). That's the crux of it for me. There is a lot of truth in the fact that it's unlikely we'd be in this position if KK hadn't walked. I can see the point some people are making on this and it's difficult to prove otherwise. The fact remains though, he was undermined and he was the one who had to face the music for actions which were not his own. MA had the opportunity to sort this and if he had, we would have been better off. He backed the wrong horse and now we all have to suffer.

I nearly bought the R4 for Mrs Paws, but I found out the developers had basically mothballed the project. The DSTT supports the high capacity mem cards too - although I only bought a 2gb. Loads of people I know have the R4 though. I seemed to be the one to have too.

For me, the Zog needs to play ahead of Duff unless he's injured. Bastard, in typing this we've just conceeded

I've just bought a couple of the DSTT with 2gb cards. Already have one for Mrs Paws DS Lite and it works mint. Leaves me to play Gears 2 on my Xbox now