NJS

Arsenal - bear with a sore head after yesterday - no chance of a win Pompey - with their home record/or record there and the boost of yesterday? - no chance. Chelsea - not playing in plimas like last year - no chance. Reading - hard to say but doubtful. Blackburn - inconsistent - if we hit them on one of their good days then no chance. Watford - THey'll be down but never trust a dead dog. I'm usually an optimist but honestly don't see "a few winable games" - we have to rely on Wigan and Sheff U ending poorly to be sure.

Should be but I only feel any confidence about beating Watford. In that case 43 (or 44) should just just do it.

Well? Don't know the lass but since I'm in a pulse/vagina kind of phase its probably a yes. (though I prefer women sober(ish))

Thought the question was going to be would you?......

Its the way they're sized - 320Gb is the nominal size counting a Gb as 1024x1024x1024b (Binary) - When they are sold the size is talked up ie 320 but then windows rounds it down for the actual storage space based on a more decimal size. Also when its formatted some space is allocated for the table that tells the disk which file is where - a bit like an index in a book. I have a couple of 300Gb which are listed as 279 and 250s bwhich are listed as 233s.

One thing thats guaranteed to lose any kind of sympathy anyone might have had for an admittedley difficult season injury wise is lost by absolute garbage like "6 players out for 6 months" - only Shola and Owen have been missing that long and Shola would be back by now if the club hadn't completely fucked up his treatment and Roeder hadn't kept playing the poor bloke for 2 months when he was a virtual cripple. Shite transfers haven't helped.

Judging by all the porn I've watched there is nothing guaranteed to make a woman orgasm more than rear end action. Thats real isn't it?

I've always found it strange how much "ignorance" of the stuff in this thread still exists - I'm no expert but I honestly thought most people in 2007 were aware of such things as gay men being generally givers or takers. I mean you did know that the same applies to Lesbians didn't you folks? I guess theres an attitude somewhere of "I don't want to think about it". On anal sex theres seems to be a lot of fear of the messier aspects but a good wash and even going as far as using enema kits if you're that fussy would mostly ally those concerns if you did want to try it. Having said that anyone who was that nervous who is on the receiving end would then make it more difficult. As an aside one of the most funnily offensive posts I've ever seen on a message board was on one of the forums on the Richard Dawkins site arguing about religious morality where a "strong" christian was arguing that homosexuality had some god given risks (apart from the usual) such as anal and penile cancers. Someone replied asking him how he knew for certain that his Dad hadn't given his Mam one up the arse on any number of occasions - I'm sure it was a triple whammy for someone like that not wanting to know that 1) his parents had sex, 2) heteros could have anal sex and 3) putting 1) and 2) together

It would be some acting task to play the black-hearted evil bitch - a female version of the child catcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang comes to mind.

When I was at school (many years ago) my physics teacher was some sort of area advisor and he told us that at that time (about 1980) it was assumed the Russians' targets were : one on the Tyne bridge, one mouth of the Tyne, one Blyth power station and one on Sunderland town centre (the regional bunker is under their civic centre) so I'd say you were well fucked anywhere with people around.

Just got mine for Reading - Fucking Yes!!!!

I can't understand how the number of occasions you need to travel somewhere new where you need to find it justifies the cost. Just an opinion but I think they're just a faddish gadget - nowt wrong with that as it goes (I have plenty of them) but hardly life changing.

3rd transfer window lucky eh? I'd sack Roeder just for dismissing Woodgate out of the equation.

Since they started to win fter the new year I've just assumed they're going up - recent results would suggest automatically. They are over-reacting but at the same time hope is a good thing - I still think they have no premiership quality players so would have to do a lot in the summer. I also hope it will stir Shepherd into digging deep for us. Funnily enough I remember posting a questiion ages ago on the SMB on why they found the idea of Shearer being a manager so hilarious - they described his traits of being too single-minded, tough and likely being "a bully" as being fatal - traits in Keane that they now cream over. I think Keane will be found out when things get tough - I can't see him standing failing mediocrity without exploding.

That is definitely true, and I actually think there may be times people lie to themselves, or may have been hallucinating possibly. I can't understand how it would answer all sorts of questions regarding such experiences. I have heard and seen a huge number of cases where people have had a really "big" meet with God. Today a friend of mine said he was at a talk with some other people where a man who used to be one of the biggest gangsters in east London became a Christian. He used to hurt and probably kill people and earn millions. He now lives in a small house with his wife (who he used to beat up and also became a Christian). He'd seen some pretty horrid things in his time, but when he had a big calling he became a Christian and having God in his life had such an immense change to it. He lives his life for God, despite what he used to be and all he's been through. Now I'm afraid, those things don't happen every day. Similarly, not every "miracle" that takes place can be a healing from God - there's reasons for this. Yet these happen all over the world every day and it's a big big risk to deny it all as being healing from God. I'm not sure what some atheists might perceive religious experience - it strikes me from what I've read by various people, that they think an imaginary voice must say random things in some Christians' heads maybe once or twice in their lifetimes. Dawkins went on to say the Yorkshire Ripper was told to kill someone by Jesus - I think he might be missing the point somewhat in that Christianity is based on subjective relationships with God, not just the belief he exists and will help you. I'm sure I could really go on but chances are would make myself look ridiculous. A "bad" man becoming "good" is obviously good - but I'm afraid it doesn't prove that what he put it down to is true. 13 years ago I was a really lazy fat bastard heading for an early grave when I had a health scare which changed my life - I've let it slip a little and am now an "average" fat bastard but that life changing moment was a simple reaction to fear of death - not a "revelation" though I could easily describe it that way if inclined. I'm also afraid I don't believe in miracles - every day or ever - none have ever been proved. I know there have been claims for some people from Lourdes and similar but there have been just as many spontaneous remissions from some diseases without "intervention" while of course nobody questions how many pilgrims are "rejected". The same "logic" is used elsewhere - that case the other week when the bairn was given viagra - Doctor's with years of training use all their expertise and finally use a drug brought by science to save a life. The parents thank the doctors then say "we prayed for a miracle and got one" - so which God was it that caused the kid to be born early in the first place and endanger its life? If they believe the God goes around constantly "correcting" his mistakes if the people are worthy then why don't they ask whether the initial problem means they were being "punished" - if thats the case what for?

Yep - we do have the weirdest religion of all.

I watched episodes 3-6 of Heroes last night and have really got into it - going to have a marathon for the rest of the day and see how far I can get.

Just because I'm so anti-religion doesn't mean the idea doesn't intrigue me but my instinct is to say no.... I think if it did exist one of the "conditions" I'd have would be an end to the idea than humans are so special compared to other animals. I'm a big fan of Monkey Business on Animal Planet and its easy to recognise that same "sense of wonder" being displayed by chimps - albeit at simpler things sometimes like giant ice lollies Its thinking about things like this that most make me regret that a humans's lifespan is so short - I'd love to be able to live another couple of hundred years (at least) for no other reason to see what we find out about the universe in that time (and maybe see us win a trophy).

Thats not my view at all - I know that relatively recent discoveries actually open up whole new ball games and reveal a universe a million miles from Newton's notion that once we know how everything works then we can predict everything but its the intent to look at these things that appeals to me. The failure to question things is what condemns religion at its core for me (theology is just dancing around shite) - if science "proves" that the universe is the plaything of some mega-entity then so be it - but lets at least find the bloke first. Forget about fucking religion....the deabte here should be about spirituality, something we ALL have - even if we feel it only as a momentary sense of wonderment. And if we are going to line up spirituality/mysticism - then yes that would be a good foil for 'string theory'. These long sentences mean something....Not sure what. I take your point about religion however and agree. But the engine room of religion is mysticism....You see?? What you call "spirituality" I just called an evolved intellect taking in its environment with a "sense of wonder" which I have no problem with. It just doesn't have to be couched in pretensious terms imo.

Thats not my view at all - I know that relatively recent discoveries actually open up whole new ball games and reveal a universe a million miles from Newton's notion that once we know how everything works then we can predict everything but its the intent to look at these things that appeals to me. The failure to question things is what condemns religion at its core for me (theology is just dancing around shite) - if science "proves" that the universe is the plaything of some mega-entity then so be it - but lets at least find the bloke first.

Fair point - and I'd agree that some of the theories make a grey-haired old bloke look sensible in comparison but its the desire to find out that matters. I've read a couple of books on string theory - bizarrely they sort of made sense and the 10/11 dimensions thing is supported by maths.

I can see the 14bn years is nothing argument but its the 14bn years in the context of 6000 years of "action" that makes no sense to me. There are now very few scientists who dispute the age and size of the universe or evolution - those that do tend to be theists - I think they have what is known as compartmentalised minds - they can be perfectly good scientists but have what I would say is an unscientific portion which sees things differently due to faith. There are obviously perfectly decent christians. My mother was one and we used to talk about these things - my view of christians is certainly not one of the kind of ignorance you suggest. Again there are many scientists who are theists but there is a general correlation between education and lack of belief. Many American sites who try this argument have a very dubious definition of scientists when it comes to this and would for example count people with degrees in Engineering - now I think engineers are to a certain extent scientists in that they apply scientific principles but I don't think they are as relevant to the argument as physicists and biologists where the correlation of non-believers is far, far greater. The brain and the mind combine to form one of the last frontiers of science. A lot of recent work has started to explain "revelations" and "mystical experience" - I'm not saying such discoveries would or should hinder your beliefs per se - they are a part of you but I'd hope your fascination with science would let you consider such evdence. Creationism as part of a study of comparitive religions and obviously including the hundreds of versions ie not just genesis I don't have a problem with (though the subject should be optional). Teaching it as science is completely wrong. As I said earlier even though history is open to interpretation key facts like who won wars and whether the holocaust happened are sacrosant - there is no "alternative" theory of the German death camps and the same should be true about the age of the world and the common descent of man. The evidence really is overwhelming to the point that creationists should be dismissed as easily as the nutjobs who deny the holocaust. As an alternative science to evolution its a joke - as is its stealth cousin - ID. As has been said many times the phrase "theory" in scientific terms is not the same as in more general useage. Evolution is really just as nailed on as gravity or electricity. Dawkins has rattled a few cages and thats one of the best things imo - firstly we are seeing how much people rely on this "you must respect us" thing as a barrier to honest query. Secondly the arguments used against him if examined somewhat prove his point - classics like he doesn't understand theology - replied by I don't need to undertsand Astrology or Fairyology to know they are flawed. It also seems apparent that theology is a non-subject without a God - that seems obvious but theologians have now moved on from defending the biblical god and have tried to move the goalposts more towards Isegrim's "God" - as I said fair enough but thats not the God most people "know". The atheists/ moderate theists who have attacked him tend to be from the camp who demand too much respect imo. People who look at the good believers do as a justification for the faith. Once again as I argued with Isegrim I prefer to see that as people who would do good with or without the faith. They also use the argument "it makes people happy" - once again I have no objection to "comfort" but that doesn't make the beliefs themselves any more true. You also have the point as made by Sam Harris that "nice" believers get in the way of the "nasty" elements. Because we are taught that faith is a virtue no matter what we say there is no great will to condemn fundamentalists as they are just "really faithful" or "holy". If the moderate followers of religion all woke up tomorrow and said en masse "we reject dogmatic faith and fundmentalism" the idiots wouldn't last much longer.

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. Cherry picking a few verses to make your point and ignoring the entire OT. The prevailing morality at the time was christian and it taught that slavery was okay. The majority of the law making part of the bible in the OT condones slavery. To me he was a rebel against the majority of christian teaching. The people who profited from slavery no doubt considered themselves good christians yet their morality wasn't outraged by slavery because I would argue that was the prevailing general morality. I suppose you would argue Wilberforce was a better christian than them - I'd argue he was simply a better man - people are "good" or "bad" due to a combination of genetics and early environmental influence - religion has lttle to do with it - if it did the more religious societies would be "better" - they are not. Slavery (as in european driven) was abolished because general morality demanded it - the same goes for rights for women and more recently less outright persecution of homosexuality. Most religion's stances on the latter two have not changed at all but society has adapted anyway - as it would have done no matter what belief system thrived.

I mentioned Stalin as he's an iconic Athiest in the context of you saying irreligious societies were failures - I was just saying that he didn't become an atheist trough rationality - "Hating" religion because you were its victim is different to taking an enlightened position. How devout were the slave traders, owners and the church leaders who opposed Wilberforce? Would he have found his anti-slavery stance in the bible where you say christian morality is based?

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. If the morals are a cut and paste job from the bible why is for the most part the OT insanity dropped? - could it be that the base morals are more human at the core and don't need embellishement? - Thats all I'm saying.