Isegrim

I'd expect people to be shouting Roeder and Shepherd's names from the rooftops for the genius-like pragmatism of offering him an extra year rather than two. Definitely would be the perfect reason for a Roeder-Wonderland song... (Leazes will do the Shepherd part)

That's the main reason why he would never get a contract extension from me. Leazes may rightfully insist on defending starting up front with keeping possession. But at the same time does attacking start from the back, but Bramble's clownesque hoofing does put us directly put us on the back foot again. It's horrible when a crap centre half is arguably dictating our style of play...

I don't recall anyone saying that, I remember saying the benefits of a DOF would be to take pressure off the manager and would allow someone to concentrate on Scouting, youth development and all the other stuff like that full time rather than having to expect Roeder to do all this as well as sort the first team. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...pur/4224278.stm what makes you say that Newcastle United have never had scouts and coaching staff LOL Great laugh that ....... I've never said we haven't got scouts or coaching staff, I said we have shit scouts and coaching staff. Duh. You're telling lies. You said this : "I don't recall anyone saying that, I remember saying the benefits of a DOF would be to take pressure off the manager and would allow someone to concentrate on Scouting, youth development and all the other stuff like that full time rather than having to expect Roeder to do all this as well as sort the first team. " Roeder - and no other NUFC manager - has had to do all of that on his own at all. You've clearly misinterpreted what I've said, a DOF would take the pressure off the manager in that he would be able to concentrate on the first team and nothing more, It would also be someone who had control over every other aspect of the club in youth development, scouting etc. I've never suggested Roeder does it all however he is responsible for the scouts, youth academy staff etc as they all answer to him. The manager of Newcastle United has always had a youth team coach, scouts etc and enabled him to concentrate on the first team. Your are making things up and talking bollocks. Who had to spend time looking for and employing our scouts and youth team coach when they could have been concentrating on the first team squad? I'll tell you what Leazes, Sir John has already said they're discussing employing a DOF at board room level so we'll wait and see what your opinion is if they do and if you're so dead against it then. A good manager is a good manager whether he has a DOF or not. We will wait and see what your opinion is if it makes no difference, meaning it would be a waste of money, because in my opinion it is nothing other than a fancy title for a glorified coach/scout, with the manager still the number 1 with the final decisions to make. Nobody is denying that the manager is arguably the most important part of the set up. But the whole football industry is becoming more and more complex and that is why most (really successful clubs) feel the need of directors of football and/or chief executives while at Newcastle these positions are either filled by Shepherd himself or a certain Mr. Vacant... http://nufc.com/2006-07html/geninfo.html

Losing in the 5th minute of injury time... Mwahahahaha

My major concern is more the general shape of game. We were again totally unconvincing in our overall approach. We can't find a working central midfield pairing and there seems to be a total lack of understanding between all parts of the team. That is something that cannot solely blamed on injuries in my opinion.

Yes, the most important bit is the letter of St. Paul to Philemon (which is about the freeing of a slave). There are other examples of anti-slavery stances in the bible (and the personal freedom of men), but as well in works of Augustine and even some of the popes were actually condemning slavery throughout the centuries. The political-practical approach though (in the name of religion) in reference to Roman law and the predominant opinion became that you were allowed to take non-christians (which applies to muslims and later to indians) as slaves in the state of war. But there have always been critics to this which finally became predominant (by people like Wilberforce) in the early 19th century. Again blinding out religious influences in the development of reason (the practical approach was pretty reasonable) would be totally non-historic. That was really my last contribution.

Not from the churches which you say "set the tone" or are you saying the fact that "good" people like Wilberforce were christians means that the religion gets the credit and not the courageous man. No, by Christians with Christians believes and influenced by others with Christians believes who are forming the institutional body of the "church", especially in the protestant meaning. As I said blinding out religion out of the historical process of the development of our society is purely hypothetical and just contradicts historical facts. And imho the discussion starts to get ridiculous when you chose to blame the crimes of an self-proclaimed atheist like Stalin on religion and the orthodox church, but chose to see Wilberforce, a devout Christian, as the actions of a reasonable man where religion and its believes weren't envolved. And it's at this point where I chose to opt out of the discussion before it gets even more absurd.

Do you think the "liberal" morals which most people support ie the general law plus things like the gradual acceptance of homsexuality and women's rights derive in any way from the Abrahamic religions or from "natural" moral development? By natural moral development I mean how it was pefectly acceptable under your wonderful christian utopia for homosexuals to be persecuted, women to be "kept in their place", slaves to exist and the abhorrent racism of the british and others empires to be excused. In fact more than excused - encouraged. It was not one iota of the establish religions that changed those "crimes" (Wilberforce was an individual christian) it was the moral progession of civilised people as a whole - the same way comparing morals of the middle ages or the older times compared to today shows a vast difference. I don't see any point in this kind of discussion. As I said it are certain a priori morals (a practical reason) which are interpreted by humans and therefore also misinterpreted by humans. I don't believe in a faultless human race. Do you think oppression of critics in the GDR, the restricition of free movement in the GDR, the enslavement of cetain ethnic groups in the USSR have anything to do with the original idea of marxism? Or are they just happening in the name of it? But of course your example of Stalin demonstrates that you rather chose the easy option and blame religion for it as well... For the abolition of slavery etc. and having nothing to with religion. I am fully aware what are the foundations e.g. in Prussia for anti-slavery legislation or the liberation of farmers in the early 19th century. There was far more than a iota of religious believes involved and the same applies to other countries. When you chose to blend out religious influences (due to the interpretation of religious text like the bible, texts of Augustine etc.) out of the progression of civilised people then fair enough, I think to believe that it is utter ahistoric nonsense.

Because there was an evolved natural advantage to building communities. Which is more sensible - that or your "spiritual intervention"? Where did I say it was a spiritual intervention (like god at some point deciding to alter the human code of conduct)? All I said was that imho there is a priori force (i.e. also a practical reason) determining special causes of events, meaning things not being totally random. Will (darwinistic) killing become acceptable?

Is Duff injured again? Not that he is really to be missed, but...

Without wishing to sound patronising Isegrim, in that sentence you appear to be revealing that you do not really understand how evolution operates, Don't worry though, seemingly not many people do from what I can make out. Well, making it a bit simplistic was meant to be sarcastic. But ok, where are the "natural" morals coming from? Why did humans decide killing each other is immoral, e.g. when it firstly was a strategy to survive does it mean it is becoming acceptable with space on earth and resources getting rare... (being sarcastic again btw.) I do believe that there is a penultimate (a priori existing) force having an effect on everything, the natural laws and the "creation" as well as "evolution", i.e. development of the universe, morals etc. I don't care if you have to personalize it or not. I do believe there are historical persons who have been inspired/influenced by the natural (God given, i.e. the a priori force) ethic code in a special way, i.e. certain persons named in the Old Testament and the historical person with morals on a exceptional high level, which is called Jesus who you could call a (spirital) son of this god/force (but wasn't born by a vigin or any kind of this rubbish) and who formed a society around him and how became victim of his believes and moral teachings. I do believe that on this basement a "church" (splitters from another religion) was founded which became popular in the western world and displaced other religions. I do know that in a historical process, this religion was mainly responsible for the development of our current society by the spiritual influence of the interpretation (i.e. "cherry picking") of an historical transcript (i.e. the bible) where present and metaphysical answers were sought from. I do accept that major as well as lesser crimes were committed in the name of religion, which have nothing to do with religion in itself though, but are rather political, economical reasons. In that regard there isn't any difference between religion and other (in itself peaceful) ideologies as marxism, which is nothing else than a replacement for religion in my eyes anyway. Oh yes, and I to believe in Vulcans (with having their own idea of a god) coming to visit us some day...

They are probably as interested as Bayern are in Emre...

I'd like to, but it is looking unlikely at the moment. I am waiting for the confirmation of the date of an interview that is coming along this month, so I can't make any arrangements, i.e. bookingf flights etc.

? anti-static wrist-strap? explain a) what that is and b ) what it's for... It's an elastic wristband with a bit of metal on it. When you wear it and clip it to your case (plugged in as mentioned) you are electrically earthed so you wont have built up any static electricity- that is you and the stuff you're working will have the same electrical potential. If you touch a processor and you get a static shock, you could have knacked your CPU as static can be at levels like 3,000V. It's not always disaster but not worth risking for a few quid. I have this one http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/58199 Normally just touching a heating and not scuffling on the carpet does the trick of getting earthed as well...

Wear some trousers as well ffs or you'll get arrested. Sorry man. Didn't really get chance to have a craic on with Mr Renton like at the last one but I look forward too today if the opportunity arises. Just wear some bling with a cross and you will get him started...

Well, you might call it wishful thinking, I would describe it as a historical fact. Like it or not, but the development of what we call the modern western cultures stems to a large degree from medieval and modern scholars dealing with the subjects on the foundation of their religious believes. Everything else would us again lead us the dog taking a shit and not catching the rabbit, i.e. being just hypothetical (and therefore something especially a scientist shouldn't accept). Yes, and of course this is interpretation or "cherry picking", but again I fail to see the problem with it. Religion in this aspect isn't empiric, but part of a historical cultural process. It's rather ridiculous in this aspect that it seem to be religious scholars who see the bible as a historical transcript with flaws than scientists (and religious fundamentalistic nutters) who seem to need an unquestionable a priori document that you either accept in it's actual form or leave it. And yes, there seem to be a core of an ethical code among the vast majority of civilisations. This didn't stop them to develop differently though. And if there is nothing of real worth in the bible, why do we see our modern (christian based) western culture as more advanced to its predominant alternatives of Islam or Hinduism (who weren't suffering from Christian oppression in this regard). And for the record, I wouldn't accept an atheistic, religion-oppressing alternative of Marxism or Leninism tbh. Taking the highly intolerant socialist/communist regimes into consideration like the former GDR or todays PR China as they are as bad as any blood-thirsty political regime of violating rules in the name of religion. So if there is a core of fundamental ethical rules, where do they come from? There are interesting pyschological studies about them being in the genes on the base of Chomsky's linguistic studies. But then again how did they come into the genes. Are morals just a product of a chemical reaction by accident? Well, this might of course be, although I do find it a bit unsatisfying to believe this. There we would again be confronted with the question if god does play dice... Anyway, we are going in circles and I don't think this will go any further at all. For all those who need their bible-bashing believes confirmed, I recommend them to rather read Thomas Paine's "Age of reason", which is delightful to read and in contrast to Dawkins actually inventive.

Is it for sure that those players don't really know what they heard or is this just an allegation based on second hand reports? However I really can't see any reason why such a in itself "simple" incident couldn't be dealt with in less than two weeks. There is hardly much evidence to be collected and difficult proceedings to be set up. As I said earlier the whole disciplinary proceedings from the FA look very unprofessional to me.

Thanks, especially when it comes directly after a post where I wrote let's instead of lets...

Yep, I know my grammar let's me down from time to time. It's a variation from my favourite German proverb to describe historical events which had ended differently without a certain cause. Well, that's a methodical problem. As I said the standard today is the historical critical method which acknowledges that the bible is just a historical transcript influenced by a lot of things like oral tradition, personal believes and other uncertainties and where you first have to try to recover a "pure" version. And of course there is a lot of subjectivity involved, especially in the protestant approach without someone having the primacy of interpretation. So it is all about what is made out of these texts. A text like the bible can't be handled like a scientific formula where you get your heureka and that is it. But if you set up the premise that the book is of no worth anyway then there is of course no need of interpretation...

Did you really think it would stay on topic for more than three posts? Well, that is called interpretation and text analysis. Is this that much of a difficult concept for a scientist? If the dog won't take a shit it might catch the big rabbit. I don't dispute their might be a hypothetical scenario that leaves no ground for religion and metaphysical questions as everything will be scientifically explained . But as long as that isn't the case I have no problem with religion as an institution (or churches for that matter) although I have a somewhat deistic even agnostic approach to certain things myself. But I grant everybody the right to believe what he wants, be it a personal god, a 12 ft lizard or none whatsoever as long as it isn't conflicting with human rights of others.

If I haven't answered any question it is because I didn't bother reading this thread at first and only started reading the latter parts today and then entered the debate. Some of the points raised by the atheists on this board are as repetitive as LeazesMag's stance on Shepherd. Some of them are valid, some are a bit blinkered imho. As I said I think certain people nutters when it comes to the questions raised in this thread (as much as I have read of it) when it comes to the modern relationship between science and religion and differ from the view points of the main Christian churches. I have never questioned that they don't have a big influence especially in the US. And something that especially differs are the methods of the interpretation of the bible. It is funny that it are rather the scientists (along the religious nutters) who still feel the need to take the bible literally, while the modern approach from the main Christian churches seems far more enlightened by the predominant historical critical text method since the late 15th century. As for how much I think about these things: As I am a legal historian mainly working on the relationship between church law and civil law and the foundations of modern civil law I think that I am thinking and knowing about a lot of things concerning this matter. But don't worry, you don't have to bring your "qualifications" up as well.

Yes, and those who believe this and want it taught in America are splitters and nutters, mostly evangelical fundamentalists. This doesn't mean that the main christian churches have a different view point. When it comes to Islam there is a huge diversity in viewpoints regarding creation & evolution and how to fit in Darwin in the Qur'an. But especially western academics have no problem and so have a lot of muslims being brought up in the western world. As for Armageddon, with the latest UN climate report and the human impact on the "creation" they might have a point... Exactly, you're talking from the viewpoint of a western academic. The reality of the situation in the US though is that about half of the population believe in the Bible literally though, a viewpoint that not only contradicts almost every aspect of modern science, but lends itself to horrendous bigotry. Armageddon is becoming a self fulfilling prophecy, there is no motive for people to change their actions on this planet when they are secure in the knowledge that they are promised eternal bliss through salvation, is there? This could be religion's most damaging legacy yet. You don't even have to look at the American population...Dubya himself is well gone on these matters..THAT is frightening. Yes, he is a believer in the Rapture, it should scare everyone. Isegrim talks as if religious fundamentalism isn't a problem, but it is a huge one in the only true super power the world has. I might add that atheists in the US are discriminated against more than any other minority group - it is virtually impossible to hold public office there without being demonstrably Christian. And yet its the churches that think they are being persecuted by science! I have never said that religious fundamentalism isn't a problem. I think you are in danger of starting to do a Leazes as in putting words in other people's mouths. I have said several times that I see those people as religious nutters. But I think I have quite a good inside view of the main believes and doctrines of the major christian churches (which are not the far right American Evangelicals, even if they are becoming more and more important there with nutters like Bush or formerly Ashcroft). But you are tarring all religions with the same (fundamentalistic) brush of being anti-scientific nowadays, e.g. ignoring evolution etc. I really question who it is who is forcing his viewpoint on others here...

Yes, and those who believe this and want it taught in America are splitters and nutters, mostly evangelical fundamentalists. This doesn't mean that the main christian churches have a different view point. When it comes to Islam there is a huge diversity in viewpoints regarding creation & evolution and how to fit in Darwin in the Qur'an. But especially western academics have no problem and so have a lot of muslims being brought up in the western world. As for Armageddon, with the latest UN climate report and the human impact on the "creation" they might have a point...

See there is one of the problems. I don't really care if there is a personal god or not. And who says it was for the benefit? It is just that all we know so far, we are the only species of our kind (well except of those who got abducted by aliens or believing in 12 ft lizards). And as long as we don't know otherwise I don't see a problem in having a humancentric approach to certain things as I think tackling the issues of a peaceful living together and human ethics is more important than on concentrating on the existence of other species somewhere in the universe. We can still easily shift the goal post when the Vulcans come to visit us. Live long and prosper. Well that's an answer of sorts, you're not really interested or bothered, fair enough. However I am interested and bothered by this type of stuff, to me the truth is probably the most important aspect of my existence, and I will do my best to uncover it as much as possible. The question of rather being aware and miserable or happy but ignorant often bothers me for instance, personally I am "wired" to prefer the former. In the same manner, if religion is a pack of lies manufactured by humanity (which I strongly suspect it is), I would want shot of it regardless of the consequences for society. Mind, personally I don't think that the gradual extinction of religion need have any negative impact on soceity, quite the reverse in fact. Note I say "extinction", not abolition. I don't want to force my views on anyone, although I am happy to talk about them and want the unimpeded freedom to do just that. Here we go again, who says I am not really interested in the "truth"? I am all for scientific progress and want things to get explained. This doesn't contradict the need of actual metaphysical and ethical answers. As much as you want your freedom in your scientific beliefs I am advocating to let people have their religious believes as long as they need them. As for the forcing of views on anyone. Isn't science becoming somewhat "religious" in that aspect. The antagonism of evolution/creation being one perfect example. Not that most religious people nowadays in fact believe in evolution, tackling creation with evolution theories that are far from perfect and scientifically proven in every aspect is as much forcing a view on others in my opinion. In my eyes there is a common ground for both thesis (what's the plural in English?) and I don't need any scientist in lecturing me that when you do believe in religion that you are necessarily contradicting science.

It is a big spoof by the FBI anyway - just like the fake moon landing.