Renton

Dis anyone see that program, "After the tsunami". I missed it, but did see the trailer. Basically the makers were questioning how anyone could believe in God after such a catastrophe. The people interviewed (all devout muslims/christians I think) were saying stuff like "He's doing it to test us", or "He's doing it because we are evil", or most scary of all "He did it because he loves us".

At least he knows if he's threatened with the wrath of God (and not one of his minions) then he's okay On your question I re-read A Brief History of Time recently and it made more sense second time around. Also my "annoyance" at his overuse of the word "God" last time was dampened a lot and I found myself finding the suggestion that the universe deliberately "lends" itself towards intelligent life (in our case) quite intriuging. I obvious still think Mount Olympos/Grey haired old men who actually control this world concepts are nonsense and I'm not joining the priesthood tomorrow but I think the concept of a universal creator is not one I'd dismiss so readily. 77078[/snapback] Are you mixing up Dawkins with Hawkins here NJS? Dawkin's books include the Selfish Gene, the Blind Watch Maker, and Climbing Mount Improbable.

So you don't watch any documentaries because they might be biased? Odd. I guess you could argue this was biased in favour of science and atheism, but if you are intelligent enough to have your own point of view, where's the problem? In contrast, I saw about 5 minutes of celebrity BB, which is no doubt getting millions of viewers. *sigh* 77056[/snapback] Odd???? No. I watch stacks of documentaries which inform us of interesting subjects without giving a quite obvious slant on the maker's perspective. I thought, rightly or wrongly, that this was just going to be someone who has decided that religion 'IS the route of all evils and will prove it'. That is the reason I didn't watch it. And, contrary to popular belief, I do have enough intelligence to form my own opinion on a subject. EDIT: and I can say in all truthfulness that I have not watched one minute of this Big Brother stuff. 77065[/snapback] Touchy. Dawkin's is a man of strong views so if you know anything about him you will know what you're getting. Having said that though, if people want to disagree with him, I'd like them to argue rationally why he is wrong. This was kind of what I was hoping for when I started this thread. Come on then. Who here believes in God (and I mean in an orthodox creator sense, not some kind of wooly spiritual force sense)? Justify your beliefs!

So you don't watch any documentaries because they might be biased? Odd. I guess you could argue this was biased in favour of science and atheism, but if you are intelligent enough to have your own point of view, where's the problem? In contrast, I saw about 5 minutes of celebrity BB, which is no doubt getting millions of viewers. *sigh*

A superb documentary on Channel 4, where Richard Dawkins bravely and squarely suggested that virtually all the world's problems are brought about by religion, or more importantly in people having Faith rather than using their critical faculties. He was preaching to the converted in my case, as I have believed this now for nearly 20 years after I finally rejected the concept of God, after having been bought up a catholic. Anyway, it was a very interesting program, with some scary interviews and facts. For instance, in the USA, supposedly one of the most highly developed countries on the planet, some 45% of people are creationists and believe, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. In some states in the US you are now descriminated against for being an atheist, with severely limited job prospects for instance. On the flip side, there are obviously some very extreme islamic states. However, I agree with Dawkins when he says that the fight between christianity and islam (which is now real in a literal sense) is not a fight of good versus evil, but rather evil versus evil. Also he points out that Religion is fundamentally incompatible with Science, as one triumphs Faith, whereas the other requires skepticism. To pretend the two can live side by side is naive at best - another point I agree with. Looking forward to next weeks episode.

My advice is that if you want to play games (other than solitaire), don't even think about using a laptop. It will cost you two to three times as much, and you won't be able to upgrade easily. Plus if you want to play top of the range games, the lap top will have to be pretty bulky too, with a short battery life, so what's the point?

For me only one was completely predictable, with one being likely (Gullit). I do think though that Shepherd seems to have very little knowledge about the game of football (although he is OK on the financial side), and his PR gaffs are the stuff of legends. I was reading in the back of the program how Shepherd likes to help small teams like Mansfield out - right, if you say so Freddie. 76446[/snapback] Predictable or not, he's appointed 4 managers with only SBR being any good. If Souness bought four players and 3 were shit, quite rightly, he'd be getting stick. I've got time for Shepherd as he backs his managers but to suggest that he's only made one mistake, i.e. appoint Souness, is a bit wide of the mark. 76452[/snapback] Even more worryingly, of the ones he has appointed, all of them have won trophies at other clubs and have a successful track record in management. Until they get here. Not saying thats proof conclusive that that's Fat Fred's fault, but I think it's indicative. Personally I think the reason for our underachievement since Shepherd (who it has to be conceded has made (our) cash available to managers) is to do with lack of professionalism. The lack of professionalism at the club starts at the very top with the chairman and permeates down from there. 76472[/snapback] But Souness's track record in management is very poor overall, and anyone who had done any background research into Gullit would have known he was a grade A twat. I think the problems have resulted because of the poor choice in managers. Personally I think Dalglish wasn't given long enough (panic sacked by Shepherd, admittedly), and Robson did have some success (without winning anything), but was ultimately too long in the tooth. Just because Shepherd is a constant in this, does not make him a cause. I have heard the same argument being used against Shearer - which imo is bullshit! 76480[/snapback] It might be oversimplifying things somewhat, but I would characterise pre-Shepherd failure as the result of under-investment and post Shepherd failure as the result of a lack of professionalism. The Hall/Keegan era I discount from that tiemline as I think it was so exceptional and our failure to land the big one then was due to a lack of experience/naivety etc etc. The fans (rightfully) moan about the players attitudes/off field behaviour, but why are we surprised when we see the man at the very top of the pile setting the example he does. When he's not in brothels he's slagging the fans. When he's not coming out with outlandish/disrespectful idiotic PR soundbites he's undermining the manager and buying players himself.....it's just a farce tbh. I watched Liverpool the other night in the FA Cup-one of the best ties I've seen, a brilliant advert for football and a credit to both teams involved. Amazing stuff yet a part of me was gutted because I knew you never see that from our lot. Basically I believe that comeback (and the one in Istanbul last May) all owed to the attitude of the players and the respect/reverence they have for that club. It's not like they have better/more fans or are paid any more than our lot, they just KNOW the standards that apply and that certain performances are unacceptable. I think it's in the fabric of that club-the same applies to Man Ure and Arse. It certainly isnt in ours and as long as the likes of FF are at the apex I cant honestly see why we should expect that to change. 76489[/snapback] That's a pretty reasonable viewpoint to be fair; I hope you're wrong but I fear you might not be. Still, I hope that the employment of a truely great manager might one day be our salvation - like Shankly at Liverpool, but I'm not overly optimistic. Not being nasty about this, but looking at Shepherd, it's difficult to imagine he can last much longer health-wise. But that would still leave the most detestable character in all this - Douglas Hall.

They're the same person though aren't they? 76486[/snapback] So am I.

For me only one was completely predictable, with one being likely (Gullit). I do think though that Shepherd seems to have very little knowledge about the game of football (although he is OK on the financial side), and his PR gaffs are the stuff of legends. I was reading in the back of the program how Shepherd likes to help small teams like Mansfield out - right, if you say so Freddie. 76446[/snapback] Predictable or not, he's appointed 4 managers with only SBR being any good. If Souness bought four players and 3 were shit, quite rightly, he'd be getting stick. I've got time for Shepherd as he backs his managers but to suggest that he's only made one mistake, i.e. appoint Souness, is a bit wide of the mark. 76452[/snapback] Even more worryingly, of the ones he has appointed, all of them have won trophies at other clubs and have a successful track record in management. Until they get here. Not saying thats proof conclusive that that's Fat Fred's fault, but I think it's indicative. Personally I think the reason for our underachievement since Shepherd (who it has to be conceded has made (our) cash available to managers) is to do with lack of professionalism. The lack of professionalism at the club starts at the very top with the chairman and permeates down from there. 76472[/snapback] But Souness's track record in management is very poor overall, and anyone who had done any background research into Gullit would have known he was a grade A twat. I think the problems have resulted because of the poor choice in managers. Personally I think Dalglish wasn't given long enough (panic sacked by Shepherd, admittedly), and Robson did have some success (without winning anything), but was ultimately too long in the tooth. Just because Shepherd is a constant in this, does not make him a cause. I have heard the same argument being used against Shearer - which imo is bullshit!

Never go back, we need to go forward - somehow. I'd be amazed if SBR came back, and not very happy about it.

For me only one was completely predictable, with one being likely (Gullit). I do think though that Shepherd seems to have very little knowledge about the game of football (although he is OK on the financial side), and his PR gaffs are the stuff of legends. I was reading in the back of the program how Shepherd likes to help small teams like Mansfield out - right, if you say so Freddie. 76446[/snapback] Predictable or not, he's appointed 4 managers with only SBR being any good. If Souness bought four players and 3 were shit, quite rightly, he'd be getting stick. I've got time for Shepherd as he backs his managers but to suggest that he's only made one mistake, i.e. appoint Souness, is a bit wide of the mark. 76452[/snapback] True, I was just pre-empting LM. Anyway, for me the appointment of Souness, and the whole way the sorry affair was handled, was such gross incompetence that his position at the club is rightly questionable now.

For me only one was completely predictable, with one being likely (Gullit). I do think though that Shepherd seems to have very little knowledge about the game of football (although he is OK on the financial side), and his PR gaffs are the stuff of legends. I was reading in the back of the program how Shepherd likes to help small teams like Mansfield out - right, if you say so Freddie.

Brassed off was on More 4 yesterday and watched it again. A truely great film imo, with outstanding performances from Poselthwaite and Tomkinson in particular. I remember when this was released 10 years ago (!) the Southern media hated it, claiming it was Northern sentimental rubbish. Yet they loved the cliched, stereotyping in the full Monty and especially Billy Elliot, which were vastly inferior films imo.

OK, I'll clear up a few things here. Firstly, yes I was referring to HTL. HTL, at no point did I say or believe that your PMs were abusive, threatening or that you were stalking me - come on man I'm not daft. But they were unwanted, and I thought I'd made that plain. What pissed me off though was that the last two came out of the blue some 6 weeks after I thought we'd agreed to forget about this arguement, for no reason whatsoever. That strikes me as pretty weird tbh. Now if you don't have a problem with me, let's have a cyberhandshake about it and start with a clean slate would my suggestion. But honestly, I just think grievances are better settled in the open. It's strange enough "talking" to people I don't know let alone doing it in private, so if you want to discuss issues, I'm more than happy to start a thread about it. But I'm sure you'll agree that in this case that would be a bit sad, so let's forget about it? Lastly, I was just asking if there was any way that already exists where I could block PMs; if this functionality doesn't exist then fair enough, I wouldn't want anyone to waste anyone's time actually making a mod for it. Again, nothing to do with HTL, but on a previous forum I had some PMs which made me feel very uneasy, from someone who didn't post in public at all. Iirc there I solved the problem by blocking their specific PMs, which was the best solution at the time. Can we all be friends now then?

No cheers mate, I can just delete them as soon as I see them. One for the future maybe though.

I was thinking of someone else tbh, but you might be right 75240[/snapback] I know you know who I refer too. Despite claims to the contrary, both Gemmill and myself know what banter is and don't PM each other.

I'm probably being thick, but is there any way I can block PMs from a specific poster, preferably so the said poster would know they were being blocked? I would imagine the PM function is primarily there for people who know each other to meet up, or for willing parties to bicker in private. For me, the point of a public message board is very much for your messages to be transparent and available to everyone, including lurkers, whilst still retaining anonymity. Some people obviously disagree though. So anyway, any tips how I can avoid getting that pink screen when logging on or getting those e-mails sent to my work telling me I've another PM would be appreciated!

And no doubt some other suckers will employ him. Teflon Souness, destroyer of clubs, always has an excuse up his sleeve.

For the umpteenth time: I said that Souness needed time to prove himself one way or the other. He's used that time to prove that he isn't good enough. Which doesn't make me wrong because he still needed that time to prove his inadequacy in his role as manager of Newcastle United (not Liverpool, Blackburn, or any other club he may have been at in the past). It was simply the true, 100% correct statement that "A new manager needs time to prove himself" that makes me RIGHT and not WRONG. FACTARAMA. 73891[/snapback] Gemmill, you were wrong because you thought he was the man for the job when he came here. That is all I am saying, just admit you were wrong on that aspect and I will never bring it up again. 73902[/snapback] I didn't think that you knobber! When I first saw his appointment I remember it vividly: I was abroad and I saw it on the BBC website and was as underwhelmed as anyone else. But after the initial disappointment I just thought "Ah well, he's here now. Let's see how the bloke does." Meanwhile, in Newcastle Airport's departure lounge........CARNAGE!!! 73910[/snapback] The first post I read after coming back from Barcelona (nearly 2 weeks after his appointment) was you saying something like "The more I think about it, the more I think Souness will be good for our club.....". Followed by "Anyone who doesn't think he should get AT LEAST 2 years in the job is a f*****g idiot". Anyway, this is getting beyond pointless now, and I can't prove it, so we may as well drop it. 73914[/snapback] Well Souness became manager when we were all camped out over at the backup forum at http://s7.invisionfree.com/toonchat/ so you can go over there and have a sift through the threads and find the comment you reckon Gemmill made. I'm pretty confident he didn't say that like, but it's for you to prove he did... 74142[/snapback] I'm certain he did, in fact I think it was in a thread he started. Is there anyway of checking threads Gemmill started between early and mid September, 2005? I actually haven't a clue how to do this, and can't even remember by log in..... We can't all be geeks.... 74151[/snapback] This the thread you're talking about? It wasn't by Gemmill - it was by the Turd! http://s7.invisionfree.com/toonchat/index.php?showtopic=1072 74162[/snapback] Don't know who he is tbh. 74165[/snapback] That's the one like. I'm don't want to go into those old threads any more than this as I know I came up with some real shit on that board, but I have to give one more quote from the Turd first (comparing Souness with Robson):

For the umpteenth time: I said that Souness needed time to prove himself one way or the other. He's used that time to prove that he isn't good enough. Which doesn't make me wrong because he still needed that time to prove his inadequacy in his role as manager of Newcastle United (not Liverpool, Blackburn, or any other club he may have been at in the past). It was simply the true, 100% correct statement that "A new manager needs time to prove himself" that makes me RIGHT and not WRONG. FACTARAMA. 73891[/snapback] Gemmill, you were wrong because you thought he was the man for the job when he came here. That is all I am saying, just admit you were wrong on that aspect and I will never bring it up again. 73902[/snapback] I didn't think that you knobber! When I first saw his appointment I remember it vividly: I was abroad and I saw it on the BBC website and was as underwhelmed as anyone else. But after the initial disappointment I just thought "Ah well, he's here now. Let's see how the bloke does." Meanwhile, in Newcastle Airport's departure lounge........CARNAGE!!! 73910[/snapback] The first post I read after coming back from Barcelona (nearly 2 weeks after his appointment) was you saying something like "The more I think about it, the more I think Souness will be good for our club.....". Followed by "Anyone who doesn't think he should get AT LEAST 2 years in the job is a f*****g idiot". Anyway, this is getting beyond pointless now, and I can't prove it, so we may as well drop it. 73914[/snapback] Well Souness became manager when we were all camped out over at the backup forum at http://s7.invisionfree.com/toonchat/ so you can go over there and have a sift through the threads and find the comment you reckon Gemmill made. I'm pretty confident he didn't say that like, but it's for you to prove he did... 74142[/snapback] I'm pretty sure I once said that I thought he might break our duck and win something like the Carling Cup, because at one time I really did believe that. I'm not the only one though, and even some of his detractors thought that he might just spawn a trophy - the difference being they saw this as a bad thing because it would mean him staying at the club for longer. 74150[/snapback] I honestly thought you also went on about Souness sorting out the trouble makers and instilling discipline, but if you didn't, then fair enough....

For the umpteenth time: I said that Souness needed time to prove himself one way or the other. He's used that time to prove that he isn't good enough. Which doesn't make me wrong because he still needed that time to prove his inadequacy in his role as manager of Newcastle United (not Liverpool, Blackburn, or any other club he may have been at in the past). It was simply the true, 100% correct statement that "A new manager needs time to prove himself" that makes me RIGHT and not WRONG. FACTARAMA. 73891[/snapback] Gemmill, you were wrong because you thought he was the man for the job when he came here. That is all I am saying, just admit you were wrong on that aspect and I will never bring it up again. 73902[/snapback] I didn't think that you knobber! When I first saw his appointment I remember it vividly: I was abroad and I saw it on the BBC website and was as underwhelmed as anyone else. But after the initial disappointment I just thought "Ah well, he's here now. Let's see how the bloke does." Meanwhile, in Newcastle Airport's departure lounge........CARNAGE!!! 73910[/snapback] The first post I read after coming back from Barcelona (nearly 2 weeks after his appointment) was you saying something like "The more I think about it, the more I think Souness will be good for our club.....". Followed by "Anyone who doesn't think he should get AT LEAST 2 years in the job is a f*****g idiot". Anyway, this is getting beyond pointless now, and I can't prove it, so we may as well drop it. 73914[/snapback] Well Souness became manager when we were all camped out over at the backup forum at http://s7.invisionfree.com/toonchat/ so you can go over there and have a sift through the threads and find the comment you reckon Gemmill made. I'm pretty confident he didn't say that like, but it's for you to prove he did... 74142[/snapback] I'm certain he did, in fact I think it was in a thread he started. Is there anyway of checking threads Gemmill started between early and mid September, 2005? I actually haven't a clue how to do this, and can't even remember by log in..... We can't all be geeks....

Give him a "I was wrong" one. 73932[/snapback] Should I do one saying " I was right" for Renton and Leazes? 73939[/snapback] Yes please!

I thought he'd done well at Blackburn given the club and thought that given a better squad and more money he'd succeed here. I have no problem saying that or saying now that I think bad luck notwithstanding he's failed. 73934[/snapback] But look where Blackburn were when he was appointed - one of the few clubs lower than us after having nearly been relegated the year before! It was the maddest appointment ever imo.

For the umpteenth time: I said that Souness needed time to prove himself one way or the other. He's used that time to prove that he isn't good enough. Which doesn't make me wrong because he still needed that time to prove his inadequacy in his role as manager of Newcastle United (not Liverpool, Blackburn, or any other club he may have been at in the past). It was simply the true, 100% correct statement that "A new manager needs time to prove himself" that makes me RIGHT and not WRONG. FACTARAMA. 73891[/snapback] Gemmill, you were wrong because you thought he was the man for the job when he came here. That is all I am saying, just admit you were wrong on that aspect and I will never bring it up again. 73902[/snapback] I didn't think that you knobber! When I first saw his appointment I remember it vividly: I was abroad and I saw it on the BBC website and was as underwhelmed as anyone else. But after the initial disappointment I just thought "Ah well, he's here now. Let's see how the bloke does." Meanwhile, in Newcastle Airport's departure lounge........CARNAGE!!! 73910[/snapback] The first post I read after coming back from Barcelona (nearly 2 weeks after his appointment) was you saying something like "The more I think about it, the more I think Souness will be good for our club.....". Followed by "Anyone who doesn't think he should get AT LEAST 2 years in the job is a f*****g idiot". Anyway, this is getting beyond pointless now, and I can't prove it, so we may as well drop it. 73914[/snapback] Making stuff uuuuuup. I did say the thing about giving him 2 years like. And you were fucking idiot numero uno at the time IIRC. I've revised that time period downwards now btw, but don't worry, your "fucking idiot" status remains unaffected. 73916[/snapback] Cheers for that like. How was I, or am I, a fucking idiot, when most things I predicted under Souness came to pass?

For the umpteenth time: I said that Souness needed time to prove himself one way or the other. He's used that time to prove that he isn't good enough. Which doesn't make me wrong because he still needed that time to prove his inadequacy in his role as manager of Newcastle United (not Liverpool, Blackburn, or any other club he may have been at in the past). It was simply the true, 100% correct statement that "A new manager needs time to prove himself" that makes me RIGHT and not WRONG. FACTARAMA. 73891[/snapback] Gemmill, you were wrong because you thought he was the man for the job when he came here. That is all I am saying, just admit you were wrong on that aspect and I will never bring it up again. 73902[/snapback] I didn't think that you knobber! When I first saw his appointment I remember it vividly: I was abroad and I saw it on the BBC website and was as underwhelmed as anyone else. But after the initial disappointment I just thought "Ah well, he's here now. Let's see how the bloke does." Meanwhile, in Newcastle Airport's departure lounge........CARNAGE!!! 73910[/snapback] The first post I read after coming back from Barcelona (nearly 2 weeks after his appointment) was you saying something like "The more I think about it, the more I think Souness will be good for our club.....". Followed by "Anyone who doesn't think he should get AT LEAST 2 years in the job is a f*****g idiot". Anyway, this is getting beyond pointless now, and I can't prove it, so we may as well drop it.