acrossthepond

Just as well you work in the city and are privy to this insider info or we would be completely in the dark about it. TBF I dont think your average geordie spends more time pouring over the business media rather than some grot site. I don't think you read any newspapers/sites if you think that's where it's restricted to. I'm sure you didnt always used to be this boring. But you were always this dumb.

Think it's Sammy's time of the month. I fully anticipate and expect a nasty reply but get creative this time, just "stfu yank arsehole" doesn't do it any longer for me. Getting back on topic, I've said for a while that this "deadline" business and all the other claptrap about selling the club is a smokescreen. Soon as we win a game Ashley will probably think we're pacified (and maybe some of us will be by then) and will announce his asking price couldn't be met and give a long-term contract for Kinnear.

Thought so. More I like it my way, but no one else's. You're completely missing the point of freedom. Deserve has nothing to do with it. Politeness is nice, but you can have polite oppression, tranny and murder. I get it. You don't like limitations on what you can and can't do, what you can and can't say - and you view religion as one of the major restrictions on your so-called freedom. No problem. It's your life. I just don't see why you insist on trying to impose this view on everyone else. Can't you see that it's self-contradictory? Doesn't freedom mean the ability to choose one's own way? So how can you force someone to be free? If everyone's free, going back to an example you attempted in an earlier argument, shouldn't that mean people should be "free" to wear religious symbols in university? I mean, it's their choice. It doesn't affect you (unless, of course, it offends you. But that's a debate for another time.) But you've already stated it should be banned. So here you are, ready to demand the protection of what you consider to be your freedom but equally ready to say what others can and can't do. It's ironic that you of all people would accuse me of trying to have my cake and eat it too. So it's ok for us Westerners to criticise others' practices, but when they start doing it, it's hate speech and terrorism. It's free speech when radicals here attack such things as FGM, child marriage, honor killing (which, disgusting and out-dated as they may seem to you, have been part of their culture for centuries. And who cares if it's disgusting to you? They're supposed to be free as well - or does that freedom only extend to white people?) but when the radicals on the other side of the world attack things in the West that they consider to be equally disgusting, it's not allowed. When your morals are offended, it's an outrage. But when their morals are offended - like those who found the Satanic Verses offensive - you don't care. Why? Are their morals, or their outrage, somehow less important than yours? Who decides that? You're another one who wants it both ways. Freedom without boundaries is meaningless. And who sets those boundaries again?

Thought so. More I like it my way, but no one else's. You're completely missing the point of freedom. Deserve has nothing to do with it. Politeness is nice, but you can have polite oppression, tranny and murder. I get it. You don't like limitations on what you can and can't do, what you can and can't say - and you view religion as one of the major restrictions on your so-called freedom. No problem. It's your life. I just don't see why you insist on trying to impose this view on everyone else. Can't you see that it's self-contradictory? Doesn't freedom mean the ability to choose one's own way? So how can you force someone to be free? If everyone's free, going back to an example you attempted in an earlier argument, shouldn't that mean people should be "free" to wear religious symbols in university? I mean, it's their choice. It doesn't affect you (unless, of course, it offends you. But that's a debate for another time.) But you've already stated it should be banned. So here you are, ready to demand the protection of what you consider to be your freedom but equally ready to say what others can and can't do. It's ironic that you of all people would accuse me of trying to have my cake and eat it too. Except all that is not true. Lets take your religion, for example; women aren't equal, dogs are Evil, homosexuals are abominations, and free speech shouldn't exist (just speech that in no way "offends" you)..... oh and your religion can and does lampoon other religions deities freely in cartoons (notably Jews, but others too), but no one can dare do it back (well they can, but riots and murders will ensue). Quite a few "limitations" there don't you think? (and plenty more if you wish to become obtuse ) You can twist and turn all you like, but denying freedom of speech is NOT increasing freedom (nor is firebombing anyone), although I personally support your right to falsely claim it is. So it's ok for us Westerners to criticise others' practices, but when they start doing it, it's hate speech and terrorism. It's free speech when radicals here attack such things as FGM, child marriage, honor killing (which, disgusting and out-dated as they may seem to you, have been part of their culture for centuries. And who cares if it's disgusting to you? They're supposed to be free as well - or does that freedom only extend to white people?) but when the radicals on the other side of the world attack things in the West that they consider to be equally disgusting, it's not allowed. When your morals are offended, it's an outrage. But when their morals are offended - like those who found the Satanic Verses offensive - you don't care. Why? Are their morals, or their outrage, somehow less important than yours? Who decides that? You're another one who wants it both ways. Freedom does not include breaking the law. It's pretty interesting (although not unexpected) that you are PRO child marriage and honour killing though. Are you up for stoning some Homosexuals this weekend? You should fit right in with your local KKK (it's funny how fascists are all the same). But you're still missing the point, you can be offended, that's your right. You just have no right to control what others say, just because it offends you. You have once again failed to answer even one point in what I addressed to you. You fire off a one-liner "all of that isn't true, I said so, nya nya" and then you launch into yet another baseless attack on Islam. Do you have any other frustrations you want to get out? Why don't you just make a thread dedicated to how much you hate Islam and its practices so every discussion doesn't have to degenerate into the same? But wait...that's every thread you post. The bolded bit is probably the most egregious straw man I have ever seen in my entire life. All who make fallacious arguments, regardless of color, class, religion, and creed, should bow down to you and call you king. I'd tell you a few things about me, like how my own brother is gay but in his 20 years of life I've managed not to get out the stones and "do God's will" on him, but I know I'd be wasting my breath. Your clear and unashamed racism disgusts me. You are such a complete tosser that it's no longer worth writing even one more word to you. EDIT: Unashamed racism, not unpretentious.

Thought so. More I like it my way, but no one else's. You're completely missing the point of freedom. Deserve has nothing to do with it. Politeness is nice, but you can have polite oppression, tranny and murder. I get it. You don't like limitations on what you can and can't do, what you can and can't say - and you view religion as one of the major restrictions on your so-called freedom. No problem. It's your life. I just don't see why you insist on trying to impose this view on everyone else. Can't you see that it's self-contradictory? Doesn't freedom mean the ability to choose one's own way? So how can you force someone to be free? If everyone's free, going back to an example you attempted in an earlier argument, shouldn't that mean people should be "free" to wear religious symbols in university? I mean, it's their choice. It doesn't affect you (unless, of course, it offends you. But that's a debate for another time.) But you've already stated it should be banned. So here you are, ready to demand the protection of what you consider to be your freedom but equally ready to say what others can and can't do. It's ironic that you of all people would accuse me of trying to have my cake and eat it too. So it's ok for us Westerners to criticise others' practices, but when they start doing it, it's hate speech and terrorism. It's free speech when radicals here attack such things as FGM, child marriage, honor killing (which, disgusting and out-dated as they may seem to you, have been part of their culture for centuries. And who cares if it's disgusting to you? They're supposed to be free as well - or does that freedom only extend to white people?) but when the radicals on the other side of the world attack things in the West that they consider to be equally disgusting, it's not allowed. When your morals are offended, it's an outrage. But when their morals are offended - like those who found the Satanic Verses offensive - you don't care. Why? Are their morals, or their outrage, somehow less important than yours? Who decides that? You're another one who wants it both ways.

Too right. But that's what Fopinho asked me about. Can't disappoint.

I'm not quite clear. Do you think it is wrong or right for someone to firebomb a publishers house because they are "offended" by a fictional book they've never read? And do you believe in freedom of speech? Or just freedom of your own speech but not anyone's you don't agree with? Fairly tame by your standards. The tone of your questions suggests you've already made up your mind about my views, so I'll just have to try to prove you wrong. There's no reason to use violence. See the bolded bit above where I said that. The book isn't fictional, though, but rather it is a work of fiction. Do I believe that so-called "freedom of speech" is some shining and immutable rule that should be guaranteed to everyone? Not at all. I have a much better golden rule, one that you probably learned from your mam: if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. Here's some people who don't deserve this vaunted freedom of speech: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church (You probably know who these people are by now but I gave you a link anyway. Anyone who doesn't know about them should click and read. There you will learn who really doesn't deserve free speech.) KKK Enoch Powell Louis Farrakhan and other nutters of this type who incite people to violence and hatred through this "free speech."

Now you're just taking the piss surely? We've been through this.

Nothing boils my piss like having yanks say and spell it like it's two words. "New Castle. Oh I love me some New Castle." Makes me want to lean over and slap them. Rant over.

1. Anorthosis to get past the group stage. 2. That odious scum Ferguson to win nowt. 3. Fat Sam to take a job in the Championship/League One. 4. Leeds to miss out on promotion. 5. Benitez to resign/get sacked.

The mighty Leeds, who lost to Doncaster Rovers in the play-off from League One. The mighty Leeds, who are now a byword for implosion in international football. The mighty Leeds, who gave us Dennis Wise.

I'll bite. What bothers me most about this and other books of its nature is that it's meant to be a fictionalized account of events and people that over a billion people hold to be sacred and inviolate. If the author had done research into the historical truths and was coming out with a new account based on what she had researched in an attempt to shed new light on the facts, that would be one thing. But that's not the case here. This is a work of fiction. It will portray central figures in the world's fastest growing religion in a different light, and that'd be fine if it were only supported by the facts. I do think this author's intentions are better than those of someone else mentioned in this thread. I read the Satanic Verses and to be frank I will tell you that it's a load of self-satisfied, inflammatory shite with no basis in fact that was only designed to enrage people and prove how clever Rushdie was. Obviously people print crap every day and that's no reason to threaten their lives or even stop their books from seeing print, but Rushdie knew exactly what he was doing and he can't be surprised at the results. But I don't think this Aisha book is the same and I'll read it when it comes out.

Just finished watching, was on a delay here. Heart in mouth stuff and that block from Baines on the line was fantastic. We deserved the win but I'm happy with the point. Most important as has been said was that we didn't give up. Of course Taylor's late goal helped that cause along but I'm sure Kinnear will have had a few choice words at halftime. at him popping up in the tunnel and getting ushered off by the police. Kind of sad to see people turning on Coloccini in this thread. To say he's another Bramble/Boumsong is unwarranted. I think he's been dependable so far even if his aerial ability is a little lacking.

Made up. "Retoon" - whoever came up with this should be shot.

Tbh I think you're understating the reaction to the Taylor and Keane incidents. I'm not sure about Taylor. Wenger reacted angrily after the incident but I don't think there was much more in it. Certainly none of this paper crusading.

Martin Taylor absolutely levels Eduardo and it's an accident. Guthrie loses his cool and breaks Fagan's leg and it's a travesty and a disgrace to the game of football. Keane goes out with intent to break a man's leg and does so deliberately. He gets a long suspension and that's the last we hear of it. Barton's involved with two off-pitch attacks and he gets a long suspension too, but it's not enough, because thugs like him should be drummed out of the game. Of course I want Barton to return from suspension. Nobody with a brain would keep picking Cacapa in midfield if he had Barton available. But it's just another "Krazy Kinnear" -- Wimbledon -- Violence -- Barton chain of twisted logic that only this shit papers could come up with.

Good times to play NUFC include: If you have a new manager. If you just sacked your manager. If you're on a winning run. If you're on a losing run. If you haven't beaten us in X number of years. If you beat us every year. If you haven't scored in a while. If you've been scoring bucketfuls. Everton are bound for a win here. Easy to say they've been having a shite start to the season but no better time to play us then!

He has? Have you seen where we are now? And did you see where we were with Keegan? I think we could do with out being saved like this, and I'd really hate to see him actively try to destroy a club. At least you have got a rubbish club to watch. You may have had no club, or at the very least, one with -10 points. Why? The club was in a position of having overextended a bit, not about to go bankrupt, a bit of belt tightening would have done the same job, just taken longer. Ashley coming in seemed like a saviour, without a doubt, but he's managed to do as much or more damage to the club in a season as FFS, Feckless Hall and a totally not interested John Hall did in a decade. Even now I don't fully understand how he's managed it. By putting you in a position that someone with real money was willing to spend real money on you? Sounds like you are sitting pretty to me. Can you tell me where the "real" money that was spent on us was? You're so big on net spending - how about our 0 net spend this summer. Or do you mean clearing the debts. Well to be honest I'd rather still be in debt with a better squad that had seen some investment rather than this shower, which offer us the very "real" possibility of "real" relegation which will lose us a lot of "real" money and bring that Leeds scenario you discussed that Ashley saved us from much closer to "reality."

Saved us so well that we're 19th, propped up only by your even sadder excuse for a club, and we've lost the best manager we've had since Robson, confidence is shot, we're stuck with a poison dwarf, a smirking rat bastard of a chairman, cronyism is rampant, we made shit signings and the squad arguably went backwards since last year. Saved us. Poor wind-up attempt. 3/10.

Swap Keegan for Venables or Ince? Surely not. And Martin O'Neill wouldn't come. ...You can all guess who my preference for next manager is.

This is the worrying bit. The interview is hilarious but I very much doubt Joe will be having the last laugh. If they didn't have their knives out for him already (and of course they did) they certainly will be sharpening them now. He's still stuck in the 90s, I think.

This is exactly it. Brilliant Republican political move. Of course the downside is that we will actually be stuck with her if the unmentionable happens to McCain.

Both full of shit in their own different ways. Danny's just a poor WUM and Baggio has some absurd axe to grind which makes him spew forth the most embarassing nonsense. Football banter, my arse. If it was our lot abusing one of your players like that you'd want the riot police called on us "Geordie knuckledraggers."

Which I wasn't either, thank you. Do you ever have anything positive to say or are you just a contrary whining sack of shit? I'm being contrary for pointing out the hypocrisy of football fans? Campbell loves cock - Sickening Mido's got a bomb - Banter So you're going with option B.

Which I wasn't either, thank you. Do you ever have anything positive to say or are you just a contrary whining sack of shit?