acrossthepond

Been a good performance. We could've been in a much better position if not for that early mix-up between Krul and the juggernaut known as Campbell, fat bastard that he is. We've got depth on the bench and Chelsea don't really, so let's hope we can keep this game tight and go for the win. More of the same please!

That's a strong side from them.

Well, this thread got de-railed fast and neither Kevin nor Leazes/ASM has posted. I predict the Mackems will turn on Titus (since they didn't want him anyway and he's an ex-Mag) but their vitriol will not even come close to Barton levels, and the press will hardly cover this story.

Maybe I have Parkyitis but I feel strangely optimistic about this one. We'll probably lose but I feel that I can expect something marginally better than the usual NUFC gutless performance against a top three/four club.

I know you all have been DYING to hear the exciting conclusion to this international football thriller, so here it is! http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/africa/9023028.stm

I'd send a strong team to this. If they'll be playing their kids/fringe players I see no reason not to have a go.

Oh and by the way you dopey blue dipper scruff, didn't I (and everyone else) tell you how gash Beckford is? 4-0 to you, you're having a a laugh.

Brilliant game. I think if Tiote had been playing instead of Smith v. Blackpool we would've beaten them. He looks the business and as for Ben Arfa - what else is there to say? Let's not get too carried away but we've been crying out for a skillful player and it looks like we've got one. We've certainly got the graft as hard-working performances against Villa, Wolves and now Everton have shown and now it seems we've got the craft as well. Song suggestion for HBA: I've Ben through the desert on a horse with no name... Ar-fa-a, aa, aa-aa-aa aa-aa-aa, Ar-fa (repeat)

Also classic WUM fare to withdraw right away on your ridiculous attacks when questioned on them. If it was a joke, it certainly wasn't an obvious one. I don't think HF thought you were joking. You're such an expert on the 'actual strategic situation' in Afghanistan, are you? Been over there recently? Do you know something 'the public' doesn't?

Unbelievable! Or rather, all too believable.

Look how fast the Silleekunt has dropped his veneer of calm and collected dialogue and turned to raving in his latest posts. He can't answer actual points that involve evidence and quotes so he just turns to trying to call his opponents 'terrorist sympathisers.' Complete WUM as I said from the start and nuttier than a fruitcake as well.

I'd say that as soon as the dildo twins took over West Ham they were doomed. Grant did a credible job with Portsmouth under the circumstances, I think. It wasn't a 'good' job but it wasn't a washout either. I think he was good value for the job, but once you had Sullivan and Gold babbling about Henry and Beckham and signing Winston Reid and a washed-up Hitzlsperger, it was obvious that they were a pair of frauds and the club was in serious trouble. That said, signing players who weren't good enough for Pompey (Ben Haim and Piquionne - does he just bring Ben Haim with him wherever he goes? The guy hasn't been good anywhere except for a little while at Bolton) wasn't likely to be a strategy for success either.

You just know names. When was the last time you seen Yakubu play? He's finished IMO. Infact I'm not even going to bother arguing with a Newcastle fan in New York about Everton. He didn't look too finished playing for Nigeria at the WC. And I have seen Beckford play any number of times, most recently against Villa earlier this season where he offered absolutely nothing for 45 minutes. He might've touched the ball once or twice. He looks exactly what he is - someone who has nothing but a bit of pace which let him score bucketloads in lower leagues but who will never be anything more than a one-trick pony at a higher level. 'In fact' is two words, by the way. 1. Yakubu was awful in the world cup and has come back from it carrying a few extra pounds. 2. All of our strikers were poor against Villa, I'd fancy him to run your centre halves ragged on Saturday and bring the energy that we are missing in the final third of the pitch. 3. Don't try and tell me this and that about Everton, I watch them every week and know infinitely more than you about the qualities of our players. Nobody's saying that you don't. Just don't forget that sometimes you need someone on the outside looking in. Rewind to us selling Milner to Villa and all nodding our heads and going "well that makes sense, he wasn't really that great anyway..." and look what he's done since leaving us. Don't think there's many who'd say we didn't get that one wrong. I think that Beckford is another less-footballer-than-athlete player (see Agbonlahor) and that he will get incredibly short shift off our defence. I hope he does play. I would be considerably more afraid of the physicality of Yakubu when coming up against Colo for example. We'll find out for certain on Saturday.

You just know names. When was the last time you seen Yakubu play? He's finished IMO. Infact I'm not even going to bother arguing with a Newcastle fan in New York about Everton. He didn't look too finished playing for Nigeria at the WC. And I have seen Beckford play any number of times, most recently against Villa earlier this season where he offered absolutely nothing for 45 minutes. He might've touched the ball once or twice. He looks exactly what he is - someone who has nothing but a bit of pace which let him score bucketloads in lower leagues but who will never be anything more than a one-trick pony at a higher level. 'In fact' is two words, by the way.

There a lot of secular Jews in Walker nowadays? Being a little facetious - I know exactly what you mean.

You'd play Beckford over Yakubu and you think Cahill is shite? I wonder what that says about your assessment of Gosling. Watch this space.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11304208 Sounds like a whole team full of Ali Daeis. You mean to tell me the Bahrainis couldn't tell that the chumps they were playing weren't professionals? Something dodgy going on here.

Then yeah, I think I'm on the right track. My point is that there may be many different religions but that at their core they all have the same idea, which is the 'right' one. Me mam was much like you. The church delayed her confirmation for years because she asked too many difficult questions. Pretty much turned her off of organised religion for life, although she still has her own personal faith.

Owning an apartment in this city, even if it's like a sardine tin. Sometimes I seriously think about moving to Iowa or somewhere bucolic where they won't be wanting half a million for a pair of closets stuck together.

I'm not even sure I fully understand the question. It seems you're asking that since it was by chance that I myself am a Muslim in the first place - I'm not a convert, no, so the point is that I could've just as easily been born to Jewish parents, for example, or that I could've been raised in my mother's religion (Church of England) rather than my father's - doesn't that make me wonder as to whether or not Islam is the 'right' religion, and wouldn't I think that Judaism is the 'right' religion if I had been born into that tradition? But I thought I just showed you that it doesn't matter. Religious traditions share common elements, foremost among them belief in the God who created the universe and an injunction to live in an upright matter and show respect for yourself, your fellow man, and God. Adherence to those values is what I believe God is looking for, not your ability to memorize one holy book's teachings or another or what language you speak in when you pray, for example. I'd like to think that had I been raised in a different religion, I would still be able to recognise that good works and devotion to your fellow man are things that transcend religious tradition (and indeed are routinely practised by people who don't consider themselves religious). Is anything I'm saying making sense or am I missing the point entirely?

Oh, I don't know. I get quite volatile when infidels like you start questioning Allah. You might say I have an explosive personality.

Well, if it comes down to atheism vs. belief, there isn't much that any of us can offer to that debate. I don't understand how some people decide they can conclude that God doesn't exist. If we define 'God' as 'a higher being who created, at the least, this world', then how can anyone disprove his existence? He would exist on a higher level to us, would possibly be incomprehensible to us. How can you interact with something that is infinitely more complex and advanced than you? How can you even perceive it? On the other hand, how can we prove that he does exist? He's never spoken to me, I've never seen him, nor have I ever seen any concrete proof of his presence in the world. So at the most basic level, none of us can be sure whether or not he's there. Some, like me, believe he exists. Some, like you, believe he doesn't. And some just aren't sure. I respect the other two positions, although I think they're wrong. But I think it's a load of patronising nonsense when people say, "how can anyone of intelligence believe in this fairy tale" etc etc. I'd answer, "how can anyone of intelligence be ready to write off something greater than himself as a fairy tale?"

Interesting quote that, although rather selective I bet and open to interpretation, of course. Do you interpret that as meaning 'good' people go to heaven regardless of their creed? That's obviously not what christian salvationists believe or I suspect what many muslims believe. At the end of the day, the 'great' religions all have fundamental contradictions and they can't all be right. It's glaringly obvious, your quote doesn't answer that for me. It certainly is open to interpretation. As for your question, there's no doubt that that's what it means, whether or not 'many Muslims' believe it: "Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, and whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall receive their reward from their Lord - they shall not fear neither shall they grieve." (2:62) I guess some mullahs can hem and haw over that one, but it looks pretty plain to me that it says that anyone who believes in God and does good work will go to heaven. Which is my belief. But again, it's quite certain that people of a less inclusive bent than myself can gin up other Qur'anic quotes that 'prove' that non-Muslims are idolaters and the only way to heaven is through Islam. I certainly agree that there are contradictions in Islam and the other Abrahamic religions, and probably in the Eastern traditions as well. That's why we have free will. We have to decide which path to follow of our own free will - and I agree with trophyshy when he says that we should choose the right path because we love our fellow man rather than because we want to be rewarded in the next life.

Easily enough done. I actually had that one covered in my earlier write-up before I deleted it. "For every community has a direction of its own, therefore vie with one another in good works. Wheresoever you may be, God will bring you all together, for God has power over all things." (2:148) I take that line to mean that the other religions of the world have their own traditions but that we are unified in doing good works, and that the measure of piety and worthiness to God is not the manner in which you worship him, but the value of the good you do in his service, whatever you call him and whichever rituals you follow in doing so.

I had a massive post prepared here, but what's the point? This is an essentially unwinnable one. Those who think religion is bunk and God doesn't exist will never accept any argument to the contrary and vice versa. I'll just give you one quote, which is one of my all-time favourites: "...then unto Me you shall return, and I will tell you the truth about that which you differed in." (3:55) In other words, don't bother differing over this topic while you're alive, because you're going to know the truth one way or the other when you die. I think religion is useful to give people a moral code and to imbue them with certain values that are important to society. That doesn't mean that those things can't be done without involving an omnipotent creator of the world, but I'd say there's a reason that religion has endured for, in some cases, thousands of years and is still going strong in many parts of the world, and that is that it's easier and works better when you use God.