JawD

Im not trying to grow it like, purely accidental. Not arsed about growing it these days, aint touched the stuff for knocking on 6 years now. Just didnt expect to see it unplanned in my back garden!

Would need a bit of spice as well imo.

Cheers, been messing around with them a while, bit better when the dodgy weather comes along!

Pretty much agree with that. Yes, SJH done wonders for this club. As LM points out, we were sinking fast before SJH took over. But, its also correct that we were again sinking at the end of Shepherds reign. Each year it felt we were slowly dropping to hit relegation. I doubt Ashley will ever hit the heights that the previous bunch did, but then the league is a very different place now. when we were promoted with KK at the helm, the league was nowhere near the quality it is now. I dont think Ashley is a patch on SJH, but lets not think SJH done it for the love either. He could see what Ashley cannot. that by making a successful club he could get back his investment several fold. It is a gamble though as you are not the only club trying that. I think our gamble failed when we were put out of the Champions League by Partizan. I don't think it's a case of that mind, it's more of a case that it'd have took a hell of a lot more to get us back to europe when Ashley took over than what it cost Hall to do it. Remember there wasn't competition for the top 4 spots back then because the whole top 4 champions league incentive was introduced whilst we were already up there. complete myth. Clubs have ALWAYS wanted to finish as high as possible, play in europe, etc etc....and players gave it 100% just like any other time in the history of the game. Nah I disagree to an extent. Players dont always give 100%. You need the right manager, club atmosphere and so on for that. Plus, lets say we were just promoted like back then with SJH. We couldnt compete. SJH has even said so himself that he could see where the game was going. Spending £15M on Shearer was big time back then, now its buttons to most clubs. SJH was a bit like a Jack Walker, but these are not a patch on what Chelsea and City have. Plus as has been pointed out, the Premiership wasnt the attraction then as it is now. At the same time though the money to be reaped from that investment was nowt compared to now. Not sure. If MA done well could he re-float the club? Not sure how that works. If he could, then surely that would be the way forward for him? Equity doesnt have to be sold publicly, one way to raise funds is sell a % of the club but the price would be better with no debt. Yeah true. Not sure what price he could demand though. Or rather if people would pay what he demanded. I dunno, I just get the idea he asks much more than its value (when selling as a whole Im on about here - something I still think he is keen to do).

Pretty much agree with that. Yes, SJH done wonders for this club. As LM points out, we were sinking fast before SJH took over. But, its also correct that we were again sinking at the end of Shepherds reign. Each year it felt we were slowly dropping to hit relegation. I doubt Ashley will ever hit the heights that the previous bunch did, but then the league is a very different place now. when we were promoted with KK at the helm, the league was nowhere near the quality it is now. I dont think Ashley is a patch on SJH, but lets not think SJH done it for the love either. He could see what Ashley cannot. that by making a successful club he could get back his investment several fold. It is a gamble though as you are not the only club trying that. I think our gamble failed when we were put out of the Champions League by Partizan. I don't think it's a case of that mind, it's more of a case that it'd have took a hell of a lot more to get us back to europe when Ashley took over than what it cost Hall to do it. Remember there wasn't competition for the top 4 spots back then because the whole top 4 champions league incentive was introduced whilst we were already up there. complete myth. Clubs have ALWAYS wanted to finish as high as possible, play in europe, etc etc....and players gave it 100% just like any other time in the history of the game. Nah I disagree to an extent. Players dont always give 100%. You need the right manager, club atmosphere and so on for that. Plus, lets say we were just promoted like back then with SJH. We couldnt compete. SJH has even said so himself that he could see where the game was going. Spending £15M on Shearer was big time back then, now its buttons to most clubs. SJH was a bit like a Jack Walker, but these are not a patch on what Chelsea and City have. Plus as has been pointed out, the Premiership wasnt the attraction then as it is now. At the same time though the money to be reaped from that investment was nowt compared to now. Not sure. If MA done well could he re-float the club? Not sure how that works. If he could, then surely that would be the way forward for him?

So, gardening recently and found this along one of my borders? No idea how it grew (I thought they needed a warmer climate?) or how the hell it got there (someone suggested the seeds can be found in bird seed, which I do have near this spot?). Any idea's?

Pretty much agree with that. Yes, SJH done wonders for this club. As LM points out, we were sinking fast before SJH took over. But, its also correct that we were again sinking at the end of Shepherds reign. Each year it felt we were slowly dropping to hit relegation. I doubt Ashley will ever hit the heights that the previous bunch did, but then the league is a very different place now. when we were promoted with KK at the helm, the league was nowhere near the quality it is now. I dont think Ashley is a patch on SJH, but lets not think SJH done it for the love either. He could see what Ashley cannot. that by making a successful club he could get back his investment several fold. It is a gamble though as you are not the only club trying that. I think our gamble failed when we were put out of the Champions League by Partizan. I don't think it's a case of that mind, it's more of a case that it'd have took a hell of a lot more to get us back to europe when Ashley took over than what it cost Hall to do it. Remember there wasn't competition for the top 4 spots back then because the whole top 4 champions league incentive was introduced whilst we were already up there. complete myth. Clubs have ALWAYS wanted to finish as high as possible, play in europe, etc etc....and players gave it 100% just like any other time in the history of the game. Nah I disagree to an extent. Players dont always give 100%. You need the right manager, club atmosphere and so on for that. Plus, lets say we were just promoted like back then with SJH. We couldnt compete. SJH has even said so himself that he could see where the game was going. Spending £15M on Shearer was big time back then, now its buttons to most clubs. SJH was a bit like a Jack Walker, but these are not a patch on what Chelsea and City have. Plus as has been pointed out, the Premiership wasnt the attraction then as it is now.

And the whole thing only took 6 days. Ah but, not only did God create the Heavens and the Earth, he created light afterwards meaning he created the former in the dark! How cool is that? Evidence of this can be seen with the mess he made of the midlands

All that to change a fucking bulb! No way I could do that like. Though I imagine after a while a little extra height makes no difference. Never mind vertigo, Id be knackered before that became a problem

Pretty much agree with that. Yes, SJH done wonders for this club. As LM points out, we were sinking fast before SJH took over. But, its also correct that we were again sinking at the end of Shepherds reign. Each year it felt we were slowly dropping to hit relegation. I doubt Ashley will ever hit the heights that the previous bunch did, but then the league is a very different place now. when we were promoted with KK at the helm, the league was nowhere near the quality it is now. I dont think Ashley is a patch on SJH, but lets not think SJH done it for the love either. He could see what Ashley cannot. that by making a successful club he could get back his investment several fold. It is a gamble though as you are not the only club trying that. I think our gamble failed when we were put out of the Champions League by Partizan.

Aintree is a fucking shitehole and I drive through it every fortnight so I have first hand knowledge. Not surprisingly, you've never been to Newcastle though, have you? And we can still see you lurking you daft cunt! Full of housing estates. I know some of us like to live in the pub, but yeah you get me there like.

Likely more pleasure from them as well Aye nothing better than shoving a shoe up your snatch, eh JawD Aye ok Kevin.

The concept of religion sounded fine until Man got their hands on it....

As I've said on here before, to me, religion is essentially a vessel with which to channel and practice your faith. Religion and faith are two very different things, essentially religion is man made and all religions are certainly flawed in one way or another. I don't agree with everything the Catholic church says, nor should any rational being, I haven't really put any effort into finding a better fit for my beliefs but then again, religion isn't that important to me. I'm struggling to understand what you have faith in here. And I would struggle to write it down tbh. Faith in God, faith in an afterlife, faith in the occasional example of divine intervention. As I said earlier in this thread, it's difficult to explain. I think I'm probably coming from a similar angle as you. No, I cant really explain it either. Fuck that, I want this sorted out before 5 o'clock. Ok, the answer is 42

Just checked it. I use Firefox and it seems ok? Not helpful I know!

As I've said on here before, to me, religion is essentially a vessel with which to channel and practice your faith. Religion and faith are two very different things, essentially religion is man made and all religions are certainly flawed in one way or another. I don't agree with everything the Catholic church says, nor should any rational being, I haven't really put any effort into finding a better fit for my beliefs but then again, religion isn't that important to me. I'm struggling to understand what you have faith in here. And I would struggle to write it down tbh. Faith in God, faith in an afterlife, faith in the occasional example of divine intervention. As I said earlier in this thread, it's difficult to explain. I think I'm probably coming from a similar angle as you. No, I cant really explain it either.

That's pretty much how I feel. Faith is a difficult thing to explain to those who don't have any, it's just a personal thing that it appears you either have or don't. I know that's a bit of a cop out but that's how it is. I'm along those lines. Ish. Yes I'm intelligent enough to know whether a God (for any religion) could exist. Thing is, any God can only be explained as much as human understanding. Much like the universe and the way it works. Scientists are constantly making things up, making rules up so that their maths work. Take Anti-Matter and Dark-Matter. Nothing more than made up rules to explain why their maths didnt work. Thing is, if I take what I would call common sense, I would say that ghosts dont exists, no God exists, Aliens from another world do exist, fortune tellers are all scams as are those who do stars etc. As it happens, much of that is what I believe anyway. But what I do know is that when I've been at my lowest point, whatever the faith is that I have has kept me going with at times a surprising outcome. I was christened a Catholic but my views dont really fit that pigeon hole. I generally keep any belief I have to myself and find it a personal thing. I am amazed by nature almost daily, as much as Im disgusted by the human race. Perhaps everything did just happen by coincidence. I dont buy the church's version of events and Im pretty unsure about the latest science version (they call it fact, but its only fact until their next version). Maybe there is only us and no life elsewhere and maybe mice will take over the world. Bottom line for me is religion is good on an individual level. I dont understand why because someone doesnt agree, it has to be a problem? Its only a problem in my eyes if it negatively effects another. Your criticisms of science here aren't valid though. The subject has been done to death so I'm surprised we're still hearing these false arguments. Regarding the dark matter debate, this is simply a working hypothesis to account for unexplained empirical evidence. It's not some kind of unchallangeable dogma like religion is. When there is a better theory that fits the known evidence this will supercede the dark matter theory, or help confirm it. Billions of pounds have been invested in CERN to further our knowledge regarding this, rather than relying on old, dodgy book for all our answers. The answer to one question I'd like to hear from the various catholics, muslims, Jedis etc on here is why you are convinced that your own particular brand of religion is correct when usually your belief is purely a matter of chance depending on where you were born? How do you reconcile this with your Faith? I've never heard a remotely satisfactory answer to this. Ah its been done to death so I'm not allowed to have my own opinion if it differs? I'm not saying science is right or wrong only that I cant take everything they say as 100% correct when they dont know themselves. Also no, I dont believe the bible is correct either. Much of it will be exaggeration, misinterpretation and basic lies. As to your question. First, someone cant believe someone elses religion is correct when they have little or no knowledge of it. I see your point, but I differ somewhat in that I dont like to be pigeon holed. I have my own personal belief which I have to say stems more from what I feel than anything ever taught. I could sit and argue with a Catholic such are the things in that I dont believe, Half the time I cant even say what my views are as I havent thought out every possible scenario. In one way though, I think many religion actually worship the same God with different teachings of it. Again, I dont see the problem in that? But the point is 'science' doesn't claim to be 100% correct, which was implied by your first post. In fact the more I understand it, it is all about quantifying degrees of probability - taken literally science offers no certainty at all. This is in contrast with many religions which claim to be infallible. You're last comment seems to suggest that you are veering to a general theistic viewpoint rather than a specific dogma. I have no problem with this, obviously, but from a personal point of view I find it intellectually facile. Before you can believe in God, you need to know what God is. I dont. Regarding your first comment, I agree with you that science isnt 100% correct but also that I dont think any religion is 100% correct. Even I can't understand how anyone could think the world was created when some think it was. But, I wont question someones belief in that.

Completely agree with you. I cant stand some things about the church. Through history they have modified their teachings to their benefit. Some stances the Catholic church have are absurd (using protection during sex for one). Anyone who knows a tiny bit about history knows how corrupt the church has been over the ages. If there was a God, the church would likely be one of the first for him to strike down

That's pretty much how I feel. Faith is a difficult thing to explain to those who don't have any, it's just a personal thing that it appears you either have or don't. I know that's a bit of a cop out but that's how it is. I'm along those lines. Ish. Yes I'm intelligent enough to know whether a God (for any religion) could exist. Thing is, any God can only be explained as much as human understanding. Much like the universe and the way it works. Scientists are constantly making things up, making rules up so that their maths work. Take Anti-Matter and Dark-Matter. Nothing more than made up rules to explain why their maths didnt work. Thing is, if I take what I would call common sense, I would say that ghosts dont exists, no God exists, Aliens from another world do exist, fortune tellers are all scams as are those who do stars etc. As it happens, much of that is what I believe anyway. But what I do know is that when I've been at my lowest point, whatever the faith is that I have has kept me going with at times a surprising outcome. I was christened a Catholic but my views dont really fit that pigeon hole. I generally keep any belief I have to myself and find it a personal thing. I am amazed by nature almost daily, as much as Im disgusted by the human race. Perhaps everything did just happen by coincidence. I dont buy the church's version of events and Im pretty unsure about the latest science version (they call it fact, but its only fact until their next version). Maybe there is only us and no life elsewhere and maybe mice will take over the world. Bottom line for me is religion is good on an individual level. I dont understand why because someone doesnt agree, it has to be a problem? Its only a problem in my eyes if it negatively effects another. Your criticisms of science here aren't valid though. The subject has been done to death so I'm surprised we're still hearing these false arguments. Regarding the dark matter debate, this is simply a working hypothesis to account for unexplained empirical evidence. It's not some kind of unchallangeable dogma like religion is. When there is a better theory that fits the known evidence this will supercede the dark matter theory, or help confirm it. Billions of pounds have been invested in CERN to further our knowledge regarding this, rather than relying on old, dodgy book for all our answers. The answer to one question I'd like to hear from the various catholics, muslims, Jedis etc on here is why you are convinced that your own particular brand of religion is correct when usually your belief is purely a matter of chance depending on where you were born? How do you reconcile this with your Faith? I've never heard a remotely satisfactory answer to this. Ah its been done to death so I'm not allowed to have my own opinion if it differs? I'm not saying science is right or wrong only that I cant take everything they say as 100% correct when they dont know themselves. Also no, I dont believe the bible is correct either. Much of it will be exaggeration, misinterpretation and basic lies. As to your question. First, someone cant believe someone elses religion is correct when they have little or no knowledge of it. I see your point, but I differ somewhat in that I dont like to be pigeon holed. I have my own personal belief which I have to say stems more from what I feel than anything ever taught. I could sit and argue with a Catholic such are the things in that I dont believe, Half the time I cant even say what my views are as I havent thought out every possible scenario. In one way though, I think many religion actually worship the same God with different teachings of it. Again, I dont see the problem in that?

Essentially thats it down a T. Who am I to question your existence and what you believe when you are here for a pissy short length of time? So long as it doesn't effect me, you do what you must to make the most of what you have.

That's pretty much how I feel. Faith is a difficult thing to explain to those who don't have any, it's just a personal thing that it appears you either have or don't. I know that's a bit of a cop out but that's how it is. I'm along those lines. Ish. Yes I'm intelligent enough to know whether a God (for any religion) could exist. Thing is, any God can only be explained as much as human understanding. Much like the universe and the way it works. Scientists are constantly making things up, making rules up so that their maths work. Take Anti-Matter and Dark-Matter. Nothing more than made up rules to explain why their maths didnt work. Thing is, if I take what I would call common sense, I would say that ghosts dont exists, no God exists, Aliens from another world do exist, fortune tellers are all scams as are those who do stars etc. As it happens, much of that is what I believe anyway. But what I do know is that when I've been at my lowest point, whatever the faith is that I have has kept me going with at times a surprising outcome. I was christened a Catholic but my views dont really fit that pigeon hole. I generally keep any belief I have to myself and find it a personal thing. I am amazed by nature almost daily, as much as Im disgusted by the human race. Perhaps everything did just happen by coincidence. I dont buy the church's version of events and Im pretty unsure about the latest science version (they call it fact, but its only fact until their next version). Maybe there is only us and no life elsewhere and maybe mice will take over the world. Bottom line for me is religion is good on an individual level. I dont understand why because someone doesnt agree, it has to be a problem? Its only a problem in my eyes if it negatively effects another.

Its a no win arguement. with £60M you could easily build a top 6 side. Good manager and very good selective purchases. Every good player doesnt need to be £15M+ However, with £60M spend you could just as easy get relegated with a struggling manager and poor purchases.

Likely more pleasure from them as well