Alex

You're being very evasive here. You brought up Exodus in the context of the history of Jewish persecution by Arabs / Muslims. As if to say it was even going on in on a massive scale in Biblical times. I asked you to back that up with some evidence and you obviously can't do so.

Tbf Blair's / Brown's neo-liberal economic policies were in many ways a continuation of those of Thatcher before them. I commend them for having more on public services, which the Tories may not have done, but it was against the backdrop of a booming world economy which Britain benefitted. During that time they did very little to improve on a social housing crisis. Arguably their hands were tied by the events of the previous government but the same argument is then even more applicable to the current one given they have less money to work with. That's not to say I agree with many of their other policies.

I would imagine there's plenty on both sides unhappy with the actions of their leaders too. Plenty people in this country weren't exactly chuffed when Blair took us to war in Iraq. Millions marched against it but it's still viewed as the actions of this country by many foreigners who hate us as a result of it.

You said: "I know the Exodus story is just a fable from the bible, which is a story book itself, but this is story has some basis in historical happenings." My query was in direct relation to that so I don't see how I'm taking anything out of context. I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say about this as it's not a claim that I've seen put forward within mainstream history or archaeology and it's something I have a passing interest in (although by no means am I an academic in the field or anything like that). If you're going to make claims then it's fair enough to expect to be called out on them. Can you back up what you said or not?

Nothing I didn't already know but I'm still intrigued as to your claims about the historicity of Exodus.

Mentiond this to Two Joints recently but if anyone likes atrociously bad films then you should really check out The Room. Apparently it has a cult following (I can see why) in America and it gets shown from time to time in places like the Tyneside Cinema but I only recently heard about it. One of the 'stars' co-wrote a book about it which came out recently called The Disaster Artist. It's been referred to as 'The Citizen Kane of bad movies'. Here's a scene where Johnny has just been falsely accused of hitting his girlfriend: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ4KzClb1C4 Another great one is this one where Mike tells Johnny about an incident where he broke into Johnny's apartment to have sex with his lass (Mike's that is): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHXkcZh_kqY The film has numerous subplots which are never developed and characters whose relationships to one another is never really explained.

I reckon Oswald acted alone.

Which 'historical happenings' are those btw? Also, it's a bit ironic mentioning the Holocaust (which was the most shameful espisode in a long history of Christian / European anti-semitism) in a post having a pop at Muslims for persecuting Jews, don't you think?

Yeah, you'll never get another role like that.

Napoleon Dynamite

They did betterave a la creme salade when they were in Provence.

I've got some bong if you're interested.

Tremors isn't in the top 250.

Got to admit like, I loved a bit of alt-metal / grunge from the late 80s / early 90s (not to mention a canny bit of classic metal / rock). I fucking loved Faith No More and still do (upto and including Angel Dust).

Dacourt scored one against us for Leeds not long after it was first brought in I seem to remember. It ended up being moved into the box. Home game in the league which I think we went on to win after the decision fired up the crowd. Would've been the Robson era.

One you might like, Chez:

Icke claims he's been telling anyone who would listen about Savile for years. In the wake of the Savile scandal some of the press took him at his word and suggested this meant he may have been right (or at least had a point) all along. The slight problem for Icke's credibility here is that there is no record of him having mentioned Savile in relation to this until after Savile died and the scandal emerged. Icke has mentioned several well known people who he claims were involved in ritual sex abuse in the many books he has written and he never mentioned Savile once then either. He also had a list of these people on his website and Savile wasn't on it. The list is no longer on his site (although you can still find it elsewhere) and a cynic might suggest that's because it would make Icke look like a liar. I looked into Icke's claims because I thought that, if what he was saying about Savile was true (i.e. that he'd been telling all and sundry for years about him) then he might be onto something. The fact he didn't says a lot in my mind, i.e. what sort of person uses something like and jumps on the bandwagon purely to further their own fame and to try and demonstrate their own crediblity? If he's prepared to lie about that then I don't think you can trust much that comes out his gob.

I would definitely add some chicken as well.

It's that sort of hypocrisy that makes people question your motives and sincerity iyam.

The weight issue is a slightly odd one if it's true it was only 1.5 kilos (or about 3 lbs) as it seems like an excuse. What further complicated the matter was that with the various stories going back and forth it was not clear whether it was Ben Arfa trying to make out that he was being forced out (I think it first emerged in the French press) or if it was the club making a mountain out of a molehill just to get rid of someone they didn't want (quite possibly a bit of both). I think it's worth pointing out though that you have a manager who obviously favours a strong team ethic over individuals (fair enough in itself whatever you think of Pardew the manager) and then you bring in a player who has a history of fall outs and is the archetypal individual in a footballing sense. Then when said player falls out with the manager for not being a team player the rhetoric from the club tries to make out it's all the player's fault. In hindsight it seems like he was never going to be Pardew's cup of tea and we only signed him because he was cheap and he only came here because more attractive clubs weren't prepared to take the risk. Bearing all that in mind I don't think you can just point to the player when it was clearly a signing that lacked "planning"

Why would it be for you? I thought you rated him and didn't want him to leave. I find it particularly strange in your case because you've always wanted to see flair players like Lua Lua, Shane Ferguson and Marveaux be given a chance yet you've never applied the same standard to Ben Arfa when he's clearly more talented than all of them. He's more effective too, especially when on form. I admit that isn't as often as anyone would have hoped for or wanted but, none of the other players you've wanted to see play have been consistent either and certainly in the case of Marveaux and Ferguson they've been guilty of going missing in games too.

I can understand all the arguments about where the blame lies. I can't understand the apparent glee from people at being 'proven right' in their eyes now he's been cast aside, when he's obviously such an talented player.

Still got the Grandad collar one with the broon ale beer mat on the front. Loved that kit.