Renton

As Alex starting a post on the NUFC forum is as rare as rocking horse shit, I have to answer this. Answer is I'm not sure. Sorry, I thought about it, honestly.

That's just the sort of thing I would expect from a naive, Guardian reading thicko like yourself. 145501[/snapback] Actually my fancy dan paper of choice is the Times. Hardly the Morning Star like.

Can you fit long video clips on phones? Mine only lasts about 20 seconds (story of my life tbh). Also, how would you set it up so it was in picture and focussed? I'm a bit skeptical like.

Is calling Leazes thick an insult or a fair description though? Personally I regard every insult he hurls as a compliment, given who's saying it.

Good point, there are fundamentalists on both sides. Bush believes in the rapture so isn't too concerned by little things like the environment or world war 3. However, I'm hopeful that the real powers behind the Bush dynasty aren't quite so insane. Having said that a nuclear Iran would be a disaster and a real cause for concern. But I'm confident that that scenario can be avoided without the use of ground troops, which would be a catastrophe. 145159[/snapback] And the president of Iran is really concerned by little things like the environment or world war 3. Still, I'm sure that the President of Iran might be voted out at the next elections. Or maybe he will show some responsibility if, or when, they do develop nukes 145185[/snapback] Once again you attribute words to me I have never said and refuse to answer yourself. This despite me saying that I personally think the prospect of Iraq is a terrifying one. For once will you answer a straight forward question, one that I have already answered, do you think we (the allies) should invade Iraq. Simple yes or no will suffice. Can you actually answer this, or yet again are you going to prove yourself too thick to read a post? Incidentally, I was reading an interesting commentary in one of my fancy dan papers yesterday which more or less said Bush isn't so much a lame duck president but a dead duck president. Apparently there is no way there will be any military conflict with Iran, either on the ground or by air. The main reason for this is money - the US can't afford to open up a new front. Also, experts reckon to do so the price of a barrel of oil would automatically double over night. Perhaps Leazes knows better and they should have asked him first though. 145237[/snapback] tut tut..a man of your intelligence sinking so low as to hurl insults....I hope luckyluke has noticed who is abusing who here... My reply has been stated. Read it. Shame you read, or say you do, but don't understand what is read unless its in your little book your fancy dan lecturer told you to read. Your bias in your reply is amazing. The first paragraph is about Iran, and the madman running the country, yet you totally miss it out and only make a comment about Bush ? You really think the west ought to appease these people at every turn don't you ? I liked your pompous comment about being "confident it wouldn't resort to sending troops in" BTW ? Is this "confidence" from first hand info, or just a wild hope ? Do you have the same "confidence" that your methods of appeasement, an open immigration door, and allowing the bombers to hide behind their "rights" will prevent the escalation of terrorism and bombing of innocent civilians in the UK ? Ref your comments about oil. Did you read my comment about the 2nd Iraq war being inevitable due to the fact that it wasn't finished the first time, or do you think we should have allowed Saddam to continue flouting the ceasefire agreement and taking the piss out of the whole world and the ceasefire agreement - the simple fact is what they should have done is just gone back in and finished it without needing an excuse, whether that be the growing suspicion of having weapons or the oil. But you would have jibbered on whenever they went in to finish it. Did you agree with the first war BTW ? Or do you think invading another country can be solved by diplomacy ? At what point do you think Iran is going to say to itself "we have enough weapons now" and behave responsibly without turning its head to look at Israel ? 145327[/snapback] Apologies if I have missed it. Do you think we should invade Iraq, yes or no. Please answer one or the other, and we can discuss it. If you have already said what you would do, please link to it. This post is completely irrelevant to the present day situation, I haven't got the time to get side tracked by the confused ramblings of your mind. 145381[/snapback] Wierd, but I haven't got time for the appeasing nature of your mind. I have said, like GF, invading Iran is a pretty scary thing, so probably not. On the other hand, I don't think it will go away. At some time in the future we may regret not taking firmer action while we can, but I hope this doesn't happen. As for "confused ramblings" it is very strange that on one hand, you say you have "confidence the situation can be resolved without the use of ground troops" then imply you have no faith in the American President to resolve the situation ! Then you further imply that he is more dangerous than the completely mad Iranian President, despite the fact that the Americans can vote him out and Iranians don't have this freedom ... if something happens and a conflict starts, you would blame Bush wouldn't you ? If anything starts in the middle east, it will be started by the middle east. 145403[/snapback] First of all, aplogies for getting my four lettered countries beginning with I mixed up, I was referring to Iran as you amazingly have sussed. You won't give an answer on whether we should invade Iran though I see, instead you say you will employ hindsight at a later date depending on what happens. A bit ironic coming from you, no? I have not passed comment on the Iranian president (who is elected btw), personally I think he is mad and a danger. Shame you haven't twigged onto this by reading my posts and make assumptions on what I think, as usual. I also think Bush is a dangerous man, there is no contradiction in this. America cannot afford to fight Iran, this I am certain of, and yes, I am reasonably confident the dispute can be resolved through that thing you hate, negotiation, backed by embargoes. The republican party are very unlikely to be re-elected in the US, btw, because the states that got Bush in last time (the Southern states) are the ones that are most affected by this war, as they provide most the soldiers. They are now turning against him, and without these states he cannot win. Under a new democrat regime, I would expect some of the tensions of the middle east to be eased, although as I have said I cannot see wjat the long term solution for Iraq or Iran is. But neither can you.

Fuck. I meant Iran. I'm actually pretty busy today so haven't had time to read or check things properly.

Good point, there are fundamentalists on both sides. Bush believes in the rapture so isn't too concerned by little things like the environment or world war 3. However, I'm hopeful that the real powers behind the Bush dynasty aren't quite so insane. Having said that a nuclear Iran would be a disaster and a real cause for concern. But I'm confident that that scenario can be avoided without the use of ground troops, which would be a catastrophe. 145159[/snapback] And the president of Iran is really concerned by little things like the environment or world war 3. Still, I'm sure that the President of Iran might be voted out at the next elections. Or maybe he will show some responsibility if, or when, they do develop nukes 145185[/snapback] Once again you attribute words to me I have never said and refuse to answer yourself. This despite me saying that I personally think the prospect of Iraq is a terrifying one. For once will you answer a straight forward question, one that I have already answered, do you think we (the allies) should invade Iraq. Simple yes or no will suffice. Can you actually answer this, or yet again are you going to prove yourself too thick to read a post? Incidentally, I was reading an interesting commentary in one of my fancy dan papers yesterday which more or less said Bush isn't so much a lame duck president but a dead duck president. Apparently there is no way there will be any military conflict with Iran, either on the ground or by air. The main reason for this is money - the US can't afford to open up a new front. Also, experts reckon to do so the price of a barrel of oil would automatically double over night. Perhaps Leazes knows better and they should have asked him first though. 145237[/snapback] tut tut..a man of your intelligence sinking so low as to hurl insults....I hope luckyluke has noticed who is abusing who here... My reply has been stated. Read it. Shame you read, or say you do, but don't understand what is read unless its in your little book your fancy dan lecturer told you to read. Your bias in your reply is amazing. The first paragraph is about Iran, and the madman running the country, yet you totally miss it out and only make a comment about Bush ? You really think the west ought to appease these people at every turn don't you ? I liked your pompous comment about being "confident it wouldn't resort to sending troops in" BTW ? Is this "confidence" from first hand info, or just a wild hope ? Do you have the same "confidence" that your methods of appeasement, an open immigration door, and allowing the bombers to hide behind their "rights" will prevent the escalation of terrorism and bombing of innocent civilians in the UK ? Ref your comments about oil. Did you read my comment about the 2nd Iraq war being inevitable due to the fact that it wasn't finished the first time, or do you think we should have allowed Saddam to continue flouting the ceasefire agreement and taking the piss out of the whole world and the ceasefire agreement - the simple fact is what they should have done is just gone back in and finished it without needing an excuse, whether that be the growing suspicion of having weapons or the oil. But you would have jibbered on whenever they went in to finish it. Did you agree with the first war BTW ? Or do you think invading another country can be solved by diplomacy ? At what point do you think Iran is going to say to itself "we have enough weapons now" and behave responsibly without turning its head to look at Israel ? 145327[/snapback] Apologies if I have missed it. Do you think we should invade Iraq, yes or no. Please answer one or the other, and we can discuss it. If you have already said what you would do, please link to it. This post is completely irrelevant to the present day situation, I haven't got the time to get side tracked by the confused ramblings of your mind.

Good point, there are fundamentalists on both sides. Bush believes in the rapture so isn't too concerned by little things like the environment or world war 3. However, I'm hopeful that the real powers behind the Bush dynasty aren't quite so insane. Having said that a nuclear Iran would be a disaster and a real cause for concern. But I'm confident that that scenario can be avoided without the use of ground troops, which would be a catastrophe. 145159[/snapback] And the president of Iran is really concerned by little things like the environment or world war 3. Still, I'm sure that the President of Iran might be voted out at the next elections. Or maybe he will show some responsibility if, or when, they do develop nukes 145185[/snapback] Once again you attribute words to me I have never said and refuse to answer yourself. This despite me saying that I personally think the prospect of Iraq is a terrifying one. For once will you answer a straight forward question, one that I have already answered, do you think we (the allies) should invade Iraq. Simple yes or no will suffice. Can you actually answer this, or yet again are you going to prove yourself too thick to read a post? Incidentally, I was reading an interesting commentary in one of my fancy dan papers yesterday which more or less said Bush isn't so much a lame duck president but a dead duck president. Apparently there is no way there will be any military conflict with Iran, either on the ground or by air. The main reason for this is money - the US can't afford to open up a new front. Also, experts reckon to do so the price of a barrel of oil would automatically double over night. Perhaps Leazes knows better and they should have asked him first though.

The Mayfair was the king of venues, sadly missed. What do the hot and heavy brigade do now after Trillians shuts? 145064[/snapback] Isn't the Academy now the late night home of rock? 145066[/snapback] Fridat night at the academy and friday + saturday at legends for rock nights. Or at least it was friday and saturday, i assume its still both nights. As for heavy metal, if you look into it it can be split into about a hundred different sub genres, but people who hate it are invariably referring to thrash/death/black metal and sub genres that have the most indecipherable growling and really fast and/or heavy guitars. Whereas alot of metal is nothing like that, and even within those sub genres there will be massive variety should you listen to enough of it. And i saw it mentioned earlier in the thread about the look, but who gives a toss what people look like? The music is all that matters because the sort of people who judge music on appearance rather than techinical ability etc. are like girls who base their musical taste on which boybands they fancy and that has never been a reason to like or dislike a band! 145107[/snapback] Why have a "look" then if it's not important? Why do people feel the need to conform to a stereotype? Come on man. Leggings, long hair and makeup on a man! It's not right!

Good point, there are fundamentalists on both sides. Bush believes in the rapture so isn't too concerned by little things like the environment or world war 3. However, I'm hopeful that the real powers behind the Bush dynasty aren't quite so insane. Having said that a nuclear Iran would be a disaster and a real cause for concern. But I'm confident that that scenario can be avoided without the use of ground troops, which would be a catastrophe.

The Mayfair was the king of venues, sadly missed. What do the hot and heavy brigade do now after Trillians shuts? 145064[/snapback] Isn't the Academy now the late night home of rock? 145066[/snapback] Lazarus will know.

Not by Geordies though you soft southern puff.

The Mayfair was the king of venues, sadly missed. What do the hot and heavy brigade do now after Trillians shuts?

Alan Robson's "Hot and Heavy" Jesus wept. For those old enough there was a heavy metal nightclub in Whitley Bay "Mingles". The smell of hippy juice still haunts me.

That's who I was listening to in the pub when I came to my stunning conclusion. 145029[/snapback] Bring your daughter to the slaughter. Jesus H Metaller. 145037[/snapback] That's the very song I was thinking of!

Wide of the mark. That's Renton the goth you're thinking of. Alex was in Trillians at the time.

That's who I was listening to in the pub when I came to my stunning conclusion.

Aye well, like I said before, whatever floats your boat. Mind, I would add that anything which encourages fully grown men to wear leggings and makeup is just wrong.

Can someone who likes stuff like Def Leppard please explain to me why? Now I know music is a personal thing, but there are limits to my comprehension. My main problems are: Lyrics. I have never heard a decent heavy metal lyric, ever. If you love the written word and all it subtle complexity then you should hate HM. Music. I love guitars. But I also like melody. Screeching away at guitar with the volume turned to 11 does not constitute music in my ears. The look. Jesus wept - it was naff 20 years ago and hasn't changed a bit since. The cliches. This kind of ties in with my other points. Every thing in heavy metal is a cliche. Even the band names ffs - Slayer, Poison, Iron Maiden etc. Is there ever anything original in that genre, ever? Basically you know you've got problems when a spoof documentary like "This is Spinal Tap" may as well be the real thing. Any ideas anyone?

Jesus wept! That's obsessive. Funnily enough I was just thinking how shit heavy metal is yesterday, but whatever floats your boat I suppose.

I love the indignation that EVEN THE FRENCH have them! Funny too how Leazes makes a fool out of himself with every single post, but can't see it. Mind, the joke is wearing a bit thin.

I've already said I don't have the answers to the problem in Iraq GF. If I did I would hardly be at my job writing on an internet messageboard, would I? I don't think there are any answers now. I suspect that what will happen is the Allies will be forced to move out the country, perhaps leaving a strategice force to protect the oil fields. Then there will be a civil war, with thousands or even hundreds of thousands dying. Ultimately the country will disintegrate and three new countries will be formed, but there will be no stability in our life times. I could be wrong of course.

I'm going. Looking forward to it.

Can someone be me? I need a break from these threads..... If this is another police cock up it'll be interesting to hear what Leazes has to say. Actually, no, it won't.