acrossthepond

Pretty much the lineup most predicted on here, except the Zog over Enrique which is surely a mistake imo. Enrique may have looked a fool against Man U last time but N'Zogbia is clearly not a left back and is just a defensive liability. Getting that sinking feeling... nevertheless

What was the source on this? It sounds a little, I don't know, made up? Nice to see quotes about the Mallorca striker but the Ruud bit seems entirely invented to me.

I'll agree he has been more prominent but his contributions have been virtually nil. He's something of a "public face" of the EU at the moment but if you notice they sent him to Georgia to talk about a cease-fire, and the Russians had already declared one before he even got off the plane. Just further proving how little influence the EU has in Russian affairs. As regards the missile defence base, surely an aggressive act if not one of outright aggression, if Russia decided to sign a "missile defence treaty" with Dominican Republic or Honduras or some such, I doubt it would be received with such placidity from the West. About little Fopinho, as soon as I saw this "circumcised" crap from him I knew I'd never see any sense out of the moron again so I just put him on ignore. It's hard being found out I suppose but there's no need to rave.

Bit like Anal with the 'I understand' bit. We missed this little nugget the first time around. "Carr can play anywhere along the back line"

That was a canny game too, real excitement. Warnock played well too.

I agree with this. We look a side transformed when Viduka plays. If he could keep fit, his influence on the side would be massive. Big if, though.

Alreet lad I've got you figured. Any argument you can't answer is "rhetoric." Any fact you can't answer is outright ignored. Instead you fill up your posts with bold, italics, smilies, caps, backtracking, and all kinds of other abject bollocks designed to disguise how you have nothing to say except inflammatory nonsense. Carry on then.

You are so dumb it beggars belief. I used to think you were playing a persona and trying to be the devil's advocate or whatever you like to call it, but it has become clear that you really believe what you say. You're every bit as fanatical as any Bible-thumper. You need the real world and you need it badly. I left you alone after your little stunt about "ohhh religious is all about us vs. them, symbols just reinforce it" because I thought your last post was dumb enough to speak as its own refutation. Symbols are about "us vs. them?" No kidding! When you look at the UK flag flying above the courthouse on your way to work, do you think about how it's a symbol of "us vs. them" too? What about the black and white stripes on your Toon top? Those aren't symbols of us vs. them too? Or does this abhorrence of symbols only apply to religion? But you wouldn't let the facts get in the way of your agenda, would you Fop? In addition, my point had nothing to do with religion. It had to do with personal freedom, including the right of people to wear religious symbols, and how they in no way contributed to so-called "brainwashing" in education. Straw man attack #1. Your own argument is that China is only using Africa to further its own aims, which are the acquisition of raw materials. Did you notice that this in no way answers anything I said about China's relationship with Africa? In fact, I made that exact point myself: What my point was - you appear to have missed it - is that China's involvement will in fact have a net beneficial effect in Africa, notwithstanding such obvious rhetorical appeals to fear as you made by mentioning Mugabe and Darfur. This is your composition fallacy problem again. You and others would argue that propping up the Mugabe and Khartoum regimes is a bad thing, although as I brought up in my post and you summarily ignored, the alternative might well be worse as we have seen in other cases. I never said that China was going to be all roses for Africa. There's straw man #2. But some negative action taken by China does not dull the benefits of their DFI, bringing sorely needed capital into countries that are literally dying for investment. Your tendency to see only black and white sets you up for the fall here again as it did with Iran. You were also unable to respond to how I pointed out how China's involvement in Africa is totally and completely not comparable to the Iraq or Georgia wars. So I guess the Flying Spaghetti Monster did help me to prove you wrong after all. Religion proves the victor over scepticism. Praise God. As regards the bit in bold: well, it's not like you at all to set up straw men, is it? Two in your last post alone.

Probably, you can't really compared Saddam's regiem (or the 3-4 way civil war that was suppressed by it) to Georgia's government. Iraq is vastly publicised though, unlike say China's advances all over Africa. Two wars vs. China investing in Africa? How do you even bring them up in the same post and keep a straight face? I never said China was fighting direct wars in Africa. I said their advances weren't publicised, unlike Iraq which still gets massive headlines whenever a chicken farts. But indirect wars and other imperialist advance? Yup, all over the place there. Not that it is well publicised so the clueless of the world tend to be 'd by it. Or (probably not surprisingly) do you not know about China's involvement all over Africa (from Sudan/Darfur to Zimbabwe), fuelling conflict, propping up tyrants/corrupt regimes, giving "aid" (military and otherwise) to secure crippling resources deals (for the populations if not their rulers anyway). And if you're into direct death-tolls just look at Tibet and Xinjiang and for threat of conflict Taiwan. Just because China aren't attacking a currently separate state at the moment doesn't mean they aren't directly or indirect killing a lot of people for their own ends as we speak. You are to the political discussions of this board as LM is to the football side. I can hardly hear you over the noise of that axe you're grinding. Your arguments follow no rules of logic. Actually, they do follow one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_(logical_fallacy) You reckon that because some of the following - choose your own topping, selected from recent memory - (religious people/Chinese inter-state actions/Iranian inter-state actions) are bad, that all are bad. Few religious fanatics out there with bombs and Bibles? Fop's here to paint all religious people and beliefs with the same brush! Some Chinese influences are clearly not kosher, point conceded. So, therefore, the Chinese involvement in Africa must also be of the same nature! Q-E-not at all-D. China is a positive force in Africa. They've got plenty of money going into poor states that desperately need foreign investment. So what if they're supporting corrupt rulers? Perhaps they should stop supporting them, allow the country to plunge into civil war, and then see what will come out of that. It worked really well in Iraq, after all. As for "crippling resource deals," I have news for you: this is nothing new either. The West has been exploiting the periphery of the world for raw materials since time immemorial. But as soon as an Eastern power starts doing it, it's neo-imperialism, an "indirect war" as serious as () Iraq or Georgia. Trying to lump those three in the same category as you did is not only fallacious but downright offensive. I doubt the Africans are saying no to Chinese direct foreign investment, no matter what strings are attached. Not so with Iraqi/Georgian reactions to USA/Russian involvement. Get off those nihilistic pseudo-political blogs you're reading and go learn about the real world. Not everything is so black and white. I'm afraid the days of WEST = GOOD and EAST = BAD are long over.

He desperately wants to have a word. FFS even the subtitles were far more eloquent than he was. What a nob

Probably, you can't really compared Saddam's regiem (or the 3-4 way civil war that was suppressed by it) to Georgia's government. Iraq is vastly publicised though, unlike say China's advances all over Africa. Two wars vs. China investing in Africa? How do you even bring them up in the same post and keep a straight face?

I can't bear that name any longer. You have no idea what kind of media wankfest is going on over him over here. American commentary is always cringeworthy, not to mention that they don't even bother showing events Americans aren't in, but this Phelps furore has almost sent me over the edge, I was seriously considering hoying a marble coaster at the TV yesterday.

I'd have him surely. Enrique has yet to really impress me but he's still young and has a bright future (we hope.) So, getting Warnock in might well do the trick although I hope we don't end up paying through the nose for him. Me ektisimi, ATP

I'm not sure he'd be able to cope with the modern game. I'll have another 10 years of Shearer though if the Doctor's doing requests. ^^ I'll have some of that too while you're at it, Doctor.

We'll get badly hammered, but anything will be an improvement on 6-0. It's an ugly feeling to have to write off your season opener, but we must look past it imo.

Someone will mention him eventually: Kuqi, celebration at 1:05

You're not forbidden (unlike being gay for example ), just you're not allowed to in some places, and rightly so. Religion has no place in education for example (although religion will always try to get into education as it's a prime place to brainwash your population and spread), Turkey (like France) is quite right in their beliefs about that. You're having a laugh. Religion has no place in education because religion will brainwash the students and thus spread? So a piece of cloth wrapped around some brown bird's head in front of you in Physics 101 at Northumbria University is going to emit gamma rays that will slowly cause you to shun pork, get circumcised, and give you a strange guilty feeling five times a day? And if that's true, then what about the cross around the neck of the white bird behind you? Christmas trees? Pastrami sandwiches? Cows? Are these all dangerous religious iconography that should be banned from education for fear of brainwashing? They're symbols. Nothing more. And people in free countries should be allowed to wear whatever symbols they should so want, whenever they should so want. Bringing a headscarf into university isn't bringing religion into the schools, end of.

FYP Back to Smith, as I have said before there are occasions when booing is warranted. I know many do not agree with this but there are times when the fans must make their feelings very accessible and a recent example is Fat Sam's awful management, poor substitutions, wacky selections, etc. I don't think a player who has not committed some grave offense (Owen openly talking about how he wants to join Man U, for example, or one of our players abusing Geordies, etc.) should be booed, and Smith falls into this category. He's not done much right in his time here, but he hasn't done owt really wrong and he doesn't deserve that treatment.

Admitting to no specialty in Caucuses affairs, my take on it: South Ossetia is part of Georgia, which is a sovereign nation. This entire incident is therefore a flagrant violation of Georgia's territorial integrity by Russia (whether or not S. Ossetians actually do want to be part of Russia, they are officially Georgians and if they want to secede there are other ways to go about it) which should be condemned. Sadly, these days "territorial integrity" doesn't appear to count for too much. I think this is just a test case for Russia. If there is no major outcry and South Ossetia is absorbed into Russia in the end, I think we'll be finding out about many more "oppressed Russian minorities" who need to be "protected" in places like Latvia, Estonia, Azerbaijan, etc. What precedent does this set? Next we might have Iran invading Iraq to "protect" the "oppressed Shi'a population." As for Turkey, any country where you're actually forbidden to wear the headscarf is no Muslim country. How is forbidding it any better than forcing people to wear it? But one is roundly condemned while the other violation of personal freedom is considered "progressive." I have no time for Turkey.

Er, hang about there. It's only given the world, you know, civilisation. Can't argue with the "won't win medals" though.

Says it all really. Bunch of friends of mine are engineering nerds and they'd probably be in absolute stitches at that joke. How do you like Boston? Freezing cold, shite banter, terrible accent...worst place in the NE states imo

oh, it's that that makes him look a wally. Shh, can't you see I'm trying to not be snobby and perpetual?

Drop the signature lad. Just put it in your real sig like. The best part is when you forget it and edit your post to put it in. Makes you look a right wally.

They have used it: "War Kev." Hilarious stuff. I'm more interested in the McMahon quotes there, liking the sound of that.

Please hurry up, Keegan/Ashley/Wise/whoever and sell sell sell before they change their minds. This might be our one chance to shift him.