ChezGiven

Think I'm going to start yoga too.

Where i say we dont need rules but we might need them? I suppose it does sound like that tend. I was asked to be a mod to help solve a problem that everyone was complaining about. That OP was my shit attempt at solving it. The next 10 pages are funny. The view that you should be able to just ignore people was shared by HF and i haven't changed that view either. I am literally horizontal about this issue too. There is a certain earnestness that comes from thanking people (Ant) and trying to help, you're right. That's not in any way inconsistent with self-effacement nor light-heartedness. I'd expect a student of Wilde to at least recognise that.

Am cool as fuck throughout that, its pure gold. TRS thinks me taking the piss is somehow throwing toys out of the pram and on page 9 when Gemmill says 'if you really dont give a shit, dont be a mod' i thought aye spot on i dont give enough of a shit. I'm obviously a bit odd, i like CSD for example, think he is funny. Re-read that and apart from being deliberately obstreperous with Gemmill, stand by anyting i've said there.

Gemmill's internal narratives are like an episode of The Truman Show.

Just caught bits of it, the audience members didnt exactly inspire the view that little harm could come from it. The fat geezer who said that Metallica's use of it had inspired his favourite genre of music, "DOOM!" was cringeworthy.

Said the cripple with a pacemaker.

For most people, my supportive view of Pardew was completely wrong (which was really about the extenuating circumstances he was under). As soon as i changed that view, we then went on an amazing winning run, so i was wrong about that too. I'm comfortable being wrong about things every now and again as i'm usually right about everything.

My version was clearer. Carver has done ok in all fairness, easier to judge now he's had a few games. What I anticpate is pessimistic. Pardew's time at the club was over, I said so after 7 or 8 games into the season. I thought he did ok too overall under the circumstances. Those circumstances include being hated by a lot of supporters. Given the level of support he had, a change was as good as a rest, as they say. It's not exactly harmed us massively him going so no issues for me now he's gone. The players we have make it a difficult job for whoever gets the role, hope we get better but seems just as likely we won't.

It was time for a change at the start of the season. Under the normal cycle of managerial changes anyway. This at least keeps the dynamic of change and progress open to debate. Also, every cunt hated him and wanted him to go (whether I agree or not), so it was going nowhere given the circumstances and level of board support expected.

The football is shite under Carver because thats how good the players are. The football was shite under Pardew because thats how good the players were. The only time we've played good football in the last 4 years was when we had good players in the first 11. Its this basic logic which meant i didnt detest Pardew as much as many on here. To be fair, i am glad he has gone but the post-Pardew world is no surprise to me at all. 42 points + and it will be Carver in charge next year.

Back at work today after a week in Tenerife. Was lush, weather was hot, ate and drank a lot, got 3 massages at the Spa, swam a bit, lay down a lot, read a book, got tired, snoozed.

My advice is to do it quickly, the trend back down in value which started a few weeks backs looks to have taken hold. So any delay of a few weeks would more than wipe out any gains from finding the lowest charge. Not that you'd want to stop looking for the lowest charges and best rates, its just i would do it now (or rather a few weeks ago).

All the best posters do.

Really hypocritical. Its ok for him to earn massive amounts of money and fight the corner of the poor but it's not ok for politicians to represent their constituents and also earn money from big business? I think he has that right as I believe politicians also have that right. I don't see the line of injustice he is peddling here. If we want clever people running the country then we have to expect they take advantage of their intelligence and earn the sort of money they are able to. There may well be people who think 60k a year is more than enough 'reward' for serving the public interest but I think those people are few and far between. Running a country is a very difficult job. I want the very best people available to do this job. I don't want to rely on the small sub-group of these people who will do it for love. These are great people but imo not enough of them exist. If you have the skills to run a country then you are a special type of person. Politicians should be amongst the best paid people in the country. Teachers and Nurses do the most amazing work, if you believe they should be paid more because of their social worth then politicians who affect many hundreds of thousands of people more should also be paid more. A politician's work touches more people than a teacher'. However, I want teachers and nurses to be paid more because they do the most important work for any society. By the same logic, I think politicians should also be paid more to incentivize the best people to join politics. Am not saying they shouldnt be held accountable for their influence and of course, their business interests need to be monitored and be publicly scrutinised. I just think we need to encourage the best people to do the hardest jobs. Perhaps if these people didnt need to supplement their income from outside business interests we wouldn't have corruptible politicians? If they earned a lot of money to start with, wouldn't it be harder to corrupt them? I don't know but it seems ridiculous to expect the most important job to be rewarded by the most average income.

Am taking my time with that Varoufakis speech Parky, it's very dense and full of excellent common sense, a very profound reading of Marx, Keynes, Marshall, Robinson and the Cambridge school. However a lot of radical stuff in there too. I got an hour in and want to start again when I have time. Am sunning myself in Tenerife so not really the best time to get into it. In short, the man is exceptionally impressive. A Marxist game-theorist disguised as a neoclassical econometrician. If he can't shake up the EU order, no one can.

for what? I'm more 'open collar' than 'white collar' these days, since i modernised my image and learned how to look relaxed.

Putin has a team of internet trolls working out of St Petersburg, they are highly active on the Guardian message boards as well as the Washington Post. RT has some editorial choices but its primary aim is to seed doubt on western media narratives on issues relating to Russia, to instigate western-led counter narratives which are then used back home to drive Putin's warped view of the world. RT is quite simply the propaganda arm of the KGB and everything on their drives an agenda. Its not another POV and its dangerous to even think that. I didnt reply to the PM as you asked me to have a look at something half way down a page, i checked potential pages this cryptic message could have been referring to and found nothing. I therefore assumed you were drunk.

One of the few positives that's come from this recent conflict has been the broader exposure of RT as a mouthpiece for the Kremlin and a direct tool in the soft war on the west. I remember discussing years ago the 'media' with someone who claimed that the BBC just broadcast the propaganda of the western elites and that RT was one of the only independent sources of information I think it may have been Parky come to think of it.

Big Trouble In Little China. Class.

Alex not disagreeing with himself there.

Inochi has

The U.S. are lobbying hard to broker a deal for the very fact that they see stability as critical to their own interests. The risk profile of the vehicle is indifferent to the investor profile. Why would the risk of Greek debt be higher when bought by an Amercian than by a German?

Siem De Bong.

Aye, spell it? I bet he couldnt pronounce it.