Super_Steve_Howey

Not to be a pedant but its could have people, HAVE! boring game?

Representative of a Chelsea match

Aye he should of smashed it into the five players standing ahead of the near post. Could of gone anywhere and i think i would rather having the chance of it going through their legs into the net then getting dealt with but a side footed clearance. Would never have made a difference. By doing it slowly he nearly placed it under Sibierski who was intelligently jumping to make a path, which would achieve your desired result Slo-mo replay is gr8

Aye he should of smashed it into the five players standing ahead of the near post.

Carr could get MOTM here

We haven't conceded for 20 minutes - changes people's pre-perceptions

Emre offers nothing in the attacking role, useless at set-pieces.

Who do you leave out? Dyer or Milner?

I hate cricket But he deserves an honourary 'meh'

Really?

Roeder: Owen had a slight problem Aye, those house viewing appointments are a bitch!

Roeder WILL be manager injuries majority believe Roeder deserves a chance the other bloke was talking bollocks as well mind Freddy backs his managers No geordie Abramovic

subs NZog Srnicek Ramage Baba Carrol

its: Solano Bramble Taylor Carr Dyer Butt Emre Milner Martins Sibierski

A Minneapolis couple deceded to go to Florida to thaw our during a particularly icy winter. They planned to stay at the same hotel where they spent their honeymoon 20 years earlier. Because of the hectic schedules, the husband flew to Florida on Thursday, with his wife flying down the following day. The husband checked into the hotel. There was a computer in his room, so he decided to send an e-mail to his wife. However, he accidentally left out one letter in her e-mail address, and, without realising his error, sent the e-mail. Meanwhile, somewhere in Houston, a widow had just returned home from her husband's funeral. He was a minister who had a heart attack and died. The widow decided to check her e-mail, expecting messages from relatives and friends. After reading the first message, she sceamed and fainted. The widow's son rushed into the room and saw the computer screen which read: TO: My Loving Wife Subject: I've Arrived Date: October 16, 2004 I know you're surprised to hear from me. They have computers here now and you are allowed to send e-mails to our loved ones. I've just arrived and have been checked in. I see that everything is prepared for your arrival tomorrow. Looking forward to seeing you then! Hope your journey is as uneventful as mine was. P.S. sure is freaking hot down here !!

.ezoob eht ffo yatS

Been looking at the manc breakaway club, basically they're 4 or 5 years off league 2 if they stay united. Basically, it's one member one vote, all profits re-invested. 12 man board, voted by members yearly. Twice yearly votes on motions with 5 member's support. So, what with the dissaffection with NUFC's management, and the basic fact that this club will never be run with the supporters at heart, would you defect? Specifically, if a start-up group was formed, would you pledge any money to the cause? (thereby gaining 1 vote, irrespective of contribution). Would you start attending matches? Would you buy the merchandise? Would you make a voluntary contribution to the cause? say, 5 hours a week Down the line, should the club make it to the league, would you hand on heart be able to cancel your season ticket to support the new club? If so, at what point?

She needs to start smoking.

Wrong pitch? tone? of voice, can't hear her over the crowd or when she gets excited . Pretty boring too, didn't hold my interest.

I'd rather test on criminals, who deserve it, than animals, who clearly don't. And what about criminals who have been wrongly convicted? Good point. Never going to happen anyway so Animals it is. If the shoe was on the other foot they would do it to us, look at poor Steve Irwin 1) I was referring to criminals as in those who commit crime. I wasn't suggesting implementing a system by which those convicted are tested upon. Just saying, in terms of justification. 2) It's a completely different thing. Man is the single most monstrous, calculating species on the planet today. We're intelligent, etc, and all that is claimed to elevate us above animals; and yet we inflict pain and death upon others on a whim- not to eat, not from instinct, not from necessity. There are people who will kill a spider because they don't like spiders. I don't see how that's civilized, which is what we're supposed to be. We're monsters. Pharmaceutical testing on animals is to determine potential toxicity, i.e. if it will kill or irreversibly damage you. If it doesn't, the testing transfers to humans, so what you're basically advocating is random death of convicted criminals. All I say to that is have a look at how many U.S. states currently have a moratorium on the death penalty, as the number of innocent deaths has become 'unnacceptable' Alright. Playing Devil's Advocate: On the assumption that some lives are worth more than others, then, why don't we test on the severely mentally handicapped? When you think about it, they actually serve less purpose than, say, a bee, and- in fact- cause a drain on national resources. Devil's Advocate or total sick bastard? Devil's Advocate. Why are animal lives worthless? If we're going to be completely detached and clinical about this, why not really stupid people? Or suffers from severe brain damage? I fully endorse your application for the program.

I'd rather test on criminals, who deserve it, than animals, who clearly don't. And what about criminals who have been wrongly convicted? Good point. Never going to happen anyway so Animals it is. If the shoe was on the other foot they would do it to us, look at poor Steve Irwin 1) I was referring to criminals as in those who commit crime. I wasn't suggesting implementing a system by which those convicted are tested upon. Just saying, in terms of justification. 2) It's a completely different thing. Man is the single most monstrous, calculating species on the planet today. We're intelligent, etc, and all that is claimed to elevate us above animals; and yet we inflict pain and death upon others on a whim- not to eat, not from instinct, not from necessity. There are people who will kill a spider because they don't like spiders. I don't see how that's civilized, which is what we're supposed to be. We're monsters. Pharmaceutical testing on animals is to determine potential toxicity, i.e. if it will kill or irreversibly damage you. If it doesn't, the testing transfers to humans, so what you're basically advocating is random death of convicted criminals. All I say to that is have a look at how many U.S. states currently have a moratorium on the death penalty, as the number of innocent deaths has become 'unnacceptable' Alright. Playing Devil's Advocate: On the assumption that some lives are worth more than others, then, why don't we test on the severely mentally handicapped? When you think about it, they actually serve less purpose than, say, a bee, and- in fact- cause a drain on national resources. Devil's Advocate or total sick bastard?

I'd rather test on criminals, who deserve it, than animals, who clearly don't. And what about criminals who have been wrongly convicted? Good point. Never going to happen anyway so Animals it is. If the shoe was on the other foot they would do it to us, look at poor Steve Irwin 1) I was referring to criminals as in those who commit crime. I wasn't suggesting implementing a system by which those convicted are tested upon. Just saying, in terms of justification. 2) It's a completely different thing. Man is the single most monstrous, calculating species on the planet today. We're intelligent, etc, and all that is claimed to elevate us above animals; and yet we inflict pain and death upon others on a whim- not to eat, not from instinct, not from necessity. There are people who will kill a spider because they don't like spiders. I don't see how that's civilized, which is what we're supposed to be. We're monsters. Pharmaceutical testing on animals is to determine potential toxicity, i.e. if it will kill or irreversibly damage you. If it doesn't, the testing transfers to humans, so what you're basically advocating is random death of convicted criminals. All I say to that is have a look at how many U.S. states currently have a moratorium on the death penalty, as the number of innocent deaths has become 'unnacceptable'

Martins, Butt, Solano. Should be shortened to "Given, Martins" tbh. It's funny how you just forget about him, what with him having been in the team since year dot, well I do anyway. I guess it's just a given....