TheInspiration

Also his goal ratio slightly off one every two games is considered excellent for a "goal poacher", but he was definitley more than that. He could pass, cross and hold the ball up well, was superb in the air and scored from all over the pitch. Admittedly, plenty of his goals were penalties, but to take that many penalties and only miss about five (?) in his career is insanely good. I think what was more disappointing was probably his England contribution after Euro 1996.

I think we all realise Shearer was nowhere near as prolific for us than he was for Blackurn, where his goals to game ration was ridiculously good. However he played in a weaker team, had a couple of bad injuries, and spent half his time here the wrong side of 30, so it's no surprise. But let's not allow these facts to get in the way of clueless journalism.

True. It's not like he scored a goal in that match that helped us beat our arch-rivals 4-1.

I wanted Les Reed personally. I don't know why people are complaining though. I mean, would you honestly want Kevin Keegan over Joe Kinnear?

Nothing wrong with that. If people don't want to splash out £20 on an awful Carling Cup match then I don't blame them. I would have gone personally if I'd realised in time that Newcastle Uni were giving free tickets to anyone who bought the fresher's week wristband, but I was too disorganised. (On that note I apologise for most of us students. I'm far more civilised than most them you see)

I don't rate Taylor, but if you're going to slag off our defenders, slag them all off because they've all been shit recently. It's not like Taylor deserves extra special criticism.

One of the top four managers in the world I'll have you know.

So why does Ashley claim he absolutely hates Spurs if someone who knows him "quite well" claims he supports them?

In RE/Philosophy yes - in science no. Of course.

Firstly you underestimate teenagers - theres nothing stopping someone by the age of 13 or 14 having read up and researched for themselves anything of interest - of course that may mean a rejection of parental dogma but natural rebellion should provide impetus. The reason I care about the teaching of nonsense is a regard for the truth. I don't see any difference between teaching Young Earth Creationism and holocaust denial. If people want to fit personal beliefs around the truth then fair enough but flat out denial is wrong imo. On your other point that religion and evolution aren't exclusive, you're right up to a point but that gives rise to more questions. Christianity is fundamentally based on the concept of a soul and the "fall" of man when sin started. In that light I'd ask when the first homonid was ensouled by the Christian God - was it Homo Erectus? did the dead ends who dies out like the Neanderthals have souls? If God decided to kick off the soul thing in the middle east as per the bible did humans before that all go to heaven as they were without sin? or did they all go to hell as they were soulless? The bible "makes sense" if the account in Genesis is true, the fact that we know its bollocks raises a lot of questions which I'm afraid theologians can't answer as they have no evidence to back up any conclusions. Nothing stops most 13/14 year-olds reading it but chances are they won't seeing as they won't start learning about natural selection until GCSE level. I don't think it was me who made the point about religion and evolution not being exclusive, however I do think it's fair for schools to teach creationism/intelligent design (in fact I'm not bothered whether or not they do tbh) not as an alternative to evolution, but as possible explanations for why we are here as opposed to how, as they questions they try to answer aren't quite the same. As for the soul business, there would be humans around before Jesus existed if one takes a YEC view, so while I haven't a clue what happened to them I think it's believed they were judged on how they acted as a person. Though back to your point I'll be honest and admit (while I'm not a theologian) I can't provide evidence either to back up any conclusions.

While I accept your approach, firstly teenagers aren't going to know better, and secondly why so angry? It's like militant atheists seem so threatened by creationist beliefs - I'd have thought if you were so sure it's nonsense you'd just laugh it off no? I find that amusing. You haven't crossed swords with Haswell on N-O by any chance have you? Never met the guy. What am I missing out on then?

Each to his own and all that, but firstly teenagers aren't going to know better, and secondly why so angry? It's like militant atheists seem so threatened by creationist beliefs - I'd have thought if you were so sure it's nonsense you'd just laugh it off no?

Rampant. That's how it works, that's the only way it can work. There's nothing to "teach" about creationism other then literal acceptance, the rest is just smoke and mirrors (such as ID). Unfortunately, atheist teachers will be biased and will teach things as fact. In fact at the school I went to, my headteacher rejected applicants for teaching jobs purely on the basis they were Christian, no matter how bad the teacher they choose instead may be. Having a majority of atheist teachers teaching a majority of atheist students won't favour the Christians. Evolution isn't mutually exclusive to religion, just literal creationism is, as it is to physics, geology etc. (unless the Earth does go around the sun and is at the centre of the universe and is only 6000 years old) Aye, but I'm incoluding other subjects like philosophy and religious studies. The philosophy of religion teachers as a rule have to be atheists and it's pretty clear the headmaster wouldn't appoint Christian teachers otherwise. This is discrimination and the atheist teachers happen to be biased.

That's how it works, that's the only way it can work. There's nothing to "teach" about creationism other then literal acceptance, the rest is just smoke and mirrors (such as ID). Unfortunately, atheist teachers will be biased and will teach things as fact. In fact at the school I went to, my headteacher rejected applicants for teaching jobs purely on the basis they were Christian, no matter how bad the teacher they choose instead may be. Having a majority of atheist teachers teaching a majority of atheist students won't favour the Christians.

It's an idea that shouldn't pose a problem taught in religious studies classes. School students don't have the right to be taught alternative views instead of science, but I don't see the problem of it being taught as an idea alongside evolution. Is it because people are worried it will be taught as fact in Christian schools and evolution as a lie?

is The Inspiration on the prowl? Just being a nice person. I didn't ask her to get her tits out after all.

Ahhh come on, that's harsh. She was being harmless, whether she has good grammar or not.

It's a shame that the Tories winning it would mean David Cameron becomes prime minister, but the country needs a change. The Tories must really shoot themselves in the foot if they don't win the next election.

Lacuna Coil - Angel's Punishment

Emo.

That was the attitude when Allerdyce took over. Ok, we weren't winning often but when we did we weren't happy. Do you really want us to repeat the 6 months before Keegan took over? 'Cause I don't Generally it wasn't Allardyce's "winning" tactics that won us those matches - it wade either luck or the opposition being rubbish.

Kazenga LuaLua for right-wing.

The "high foot" was dangerous but certainly from the camera angle I saw no contact. Then again he gets away with murder far too often.

Anthrax - I Am The Law.

The best thing what they did. Indeed.