EddieB

actually there are two Aston Villa's

I am sure it happens in the Indian subcontinent as well!

I think the point is that you should judge a quote for the wisdom or lack of in the words rather than the actions of the espouser. Never forget Churchill was possibly the biggest tyrant and mass murderers of the last century, yet he is lauded as one of the greatest humans of all time...

Like the theory that Bin Laden conspired in a cave to fly some planes into a building? Or another one?

There is no point in debating someone who can get such a fundamental statement wrong. Please read up on the "theory" of gravity. Or read down. Apparently it's not a fact if it's a theory. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Gravity isn't a force it's local distortion in spacetime caused by the interaction of particles in a Higgs field. Gravity is both a fact and a theory. Same as evolution. Your logical fallacies are showing. Time for some prescience. I'll link to peer reviewed papers with definitive conclusions accepted by the scientific consensus and you'll link to various apologist and creationist self-aggrandisement web blogs. Of course, if you have something new, then that's what the religion thread is for, but please don't just repeat the same old rubbish from the same old web sites. All your examples have been debunked many times, even on this website. Thanks Well I didn't actually say gravity is a force - I think I said big bang relies on a upon gravity being a force. I mean you could even read my posts that you wanna shout down and see that I said gravity isn't a force. You could get into differences between electro-magnetism and Higgs fields but whatever - which year there are loads of peer reviewed journals I could reference for this. Okay in one instance you could kinda be super pedantic and really nail the use of the word force but to argue semantics on that would be churlish to say the least. Not entirely sure where I kind of stated anything as a particular fact or ontological position - so as to debunking anything I am not really sure anything I said is debunkable as I think I was speculating on possibilities not hardline deep rooted positions. I think if you read the words I wroted with a similar level of critical thinking you applied to the use of the word force you would see this. I mean I presume you read peer reviewed scientific journals so I guess you can see this. Or you could answer some of the questions I asked which would like ... you know help me to 'learn' or expand my consciousness or whatever. Or you could just call something horseshit. I mean if you see something you don't like then you could just shout it down. Or you could like, you know, chat about it and have some kind of reasonable discussion. However much you disagree with something that's still the reasonable position to take. Maybe I was a bit rude to you? Sorry if so. The whole point of debating is presumably not to 'have an argument' but to kinda you know learn form the person you are debating with? I would say there is not point debating with someone who won't listen to your side of the debate and ignore your questions and focus on an stance won't move from. You can read all the scientific peer reviewed journals you want but you won't find much wisdom there - lots of knowledge maybe. I have just googled scientific fact for a definition and taken the first one I saw. Any observation repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true. I am not entirely sure that macro evolution or big bang fulfil this definition. Micro evolution - yeah you can call that a fact if you want. That is why it is important to differentiate. I take it you disagree - and also that you don't want to continue this convo. Appreciate your point about the location and tangent this was taken but kinda wanted to reply to the flow. Can consider it closed from my point of view.

It's all horse shit. Evolution is a fact (without any distinction between macro or micro). We do not share 99% of our DNA with celery (maybe around 50%). We do understand what all of DNA is and a large amount is not active (the problem with "design" by natural selection - lots of inefficiencies). The big bang isn't just a fact, it's observable. The big bang doesn't require ANY "co-incidences". As to your appeal to a magic sky fairy? Simply no. Don't try to squeeze a god into the gaps. I didn't say anywhere that big bang requires co-incidences (by read above - I meant my above post sorry for the confusion). But it is certainly NOT observable. What can be observed are effects or observations that could relate to a number of possibly infinite observations - as I alluded to the constant temperature of deep space / red shift / sky being black / dispersion of galaxies. In fact it is called the theory of evolution and the theory of big bang specifically because they are theories - not facts. What is a fact is that big bang relies upon gravity being the central underpinning force of the universe. This is increasingly implausible as the main forces are electricity and magnetism. A strong current scientific debate is that the effect of gravity is merely a manifestation of electro-magnetism interacting with physical mass. But if gravity doesn't exist - then the big bang theory is hugely flawed - so we have a problem. I am sure I don't need to explain the problems for evolution to you if the big bang theory falls apart as while they are not insurmountable they are part of the same narrative. Is a sky fairy more laughable and ridiculous that the notion that every single thought, feeling, love, hurt, pain, emotion, idea that you as a conscious human BEING has ever had evolved over some ludicrous and illogical time scale, that doesn't tie remotely in to the fossil records, from a consciousless rock?? Sorry but that is more ridiculous and implausible that life came and developed with a poke from other directions. How do you reconcile evolution with the clear archaeological / biological / historical records of civilisations more advanced than cave men? How do you explain the move from a sexual reproduction - surely you would have needed two huge co-incidences beyond imagination to have occurred in the same place at the same time? To be a scientific fact then it needs to be observable. No one has EVER observed a species changing into a different species - therefore macro cannot be scientific fact. This is despite the thousands of millions of bacteria observed in labs - with a short reproduction time. No one has EVER observed the big bang happening. All there are, are speculations based upon blurry grey observations, and based upon political agenda's. Can you provide evidence that these are scientific facts for me please?

What a load of horse shit. how is any of that horse shit? No-one knows what most of DNA is - that is true. We are very close to celery - in fact all biological things are very close in DNA. Evolution is a weak theory (Macro not micro) in that there is very very little evidence partly borne out of the theoretical timings being difficult to observe, but also to be a strong science it needs to be observable. It is also quite wishy washy and almost fantastic in some of the co-incidences it requires - which raise further queries... Big bang - read above. DNA and a code to life - I think it is a fair opinion that it indicates a creator of some sort / intelligent design. I can see why this may not be the case also. But it certainly is a debate worth more than horse shit... and in a thread titled 'things I wonder' is a reasonable contribution...

Big bang is an idea - based upon red shift, a constant temperature across deep space, and the importance of gravity as a universe shaping force, as well as the fact that space appears black whereas in theory there should just be stars. However whether gravity even exists, let alone is a force capable of holding the universe together is very debatable. There are implausabilities to big bang including the initial dimensions necessary in the initial first sections that are highly improbable if not impossible. My point was that there is no evidence anywhere to suggest that we are not the centre of the universe. Evidence to suggest we are would come from our position of observation, i.e that the sky revolves around us - circular trig and regular trig suggest that the sun is far closer than current science suggests. Which suggests that the model of the solar system is vastly different to how it is taught. No real evidence anywhere that suggests that the earth revolves around the sun... for instance no noticeable movement, the constant positions of the objects in the night sky over thousands of thousands of years, despite our speed of circa a few trillion miles a year. Empirical evidence from most scientific tests on the surface of the earth suggesting it is flat, and not moving. Now I don't think the earth is flat and thus presumably the centre but I don't believe it is a sphere, and presumably not the centre. My point is that both are very real possibilities based upon the evidence that has been garnered throughout thousands of years of scientific endeavour... So basically to sum up I am super busy to give this the attention it deserves right now... But

We are also 1% DNA away from celery. And we also do not know what around 99% of DNA does. Only a small fraction of it we know relates to our biology etc. I often wonder whether the rest of it that we don't know constitutes some kind of story of human life like a memory of the species. Anyway we are not obviously getting further away from the centre - there is more measurable scientific evidence to suggest we are the centre. And science r.e big bang / nature of the universe is borderline pseudo science. Evolution could be possible but it is infact (at least macro evolution) a very very weak scientific theory with no convincing evidence and very limited superficial evidence. It is far easier to build a scientific case against evolution that for it. Furthermore DNA in itself is at least an indicator of an alternative narrative along the lines of creation than evolution - in my opinion...

tbh not that I thought he was doing anything of a good job but I can't go to that place where I want a fellow human being sacked. I mean my judgement of the whole situation was that he was suffering from depression. Been there done that myself and actually got sacked as my performance at work suffered. I saw a buttload of the symptoms. I think the club should have helped him... maybe they did. I don't really know. Just can't go to that place where I want a human being to be sacked when they are having a rough time. Obviously he may have been well happy and I just misread the situ. Just didn't want him sacked. Think things turned out okay though

So if we paid him the 100k a week it would be the exact same. Not to an accountant it's not Am I missing something. A loan fee of £2.5m and 50k wages is about £5m so is 100k a week going on a years loan. As mentioned doing it that way also helps keep him in our wage structure. So we pay him £2.5m before he even kicks a ball for us. Purchases of players - assets are capital (i.e balance sheet items) so buying players never hits the profit and loss account. Wages and salaries go through the p/l so they do contribute to whether the Villa make a profit / loss

I see what you are saying but it does have an impact because all business operate on cashflows. Companies don't go out of business because of lack of profitability, but because of lack of cashflow. Presumably this isn't a significant issue for Villa with television deals and steady income... but it isn't irrelevant. What if benteke's replacement requires all cash up front? It is a standard practice but it isn't the standard practice. There are different ways of doing business. It impacts our cashflow and readily available cash. This could mean we get less interest from the bank - which means less income. On a deal of £32m I would expect this to be in six figures. This could impact how much we could pay players and thus what quality we could get in. Furthermore It could have a tax impact. Not saying any of the above is irrelevant... just I would imagine to the accountants in the finance team I think it would matter...

Actually as someone who has seen him play a lot I'll give a bit of a better write up. His main weakness is his height. As you can probably see from youtube clips he will often be stretching a little further - which I think always put bigger clubs off him where I guess the game becomes more about each and every minute detail. His distribution as I remember was a very strong point. Plus I was a lot younger when I used to watch and my critical analysis of games was in more formative stages. However - everyone in the town knew he was a few grades above the level he was playing at. In a not so terrible Northampton side he was the clear class or two above player. He was always a popular player and gave a lot to the fans. Everyone was unanimously under the impression that he was top level quality if it wasn't for his height. Most Northampton fans I know have followed his career onwards and kept tabs as he is so popular. He went to Blackburn to be replacement for Robinson when they were still prem if I remember correctly. I also think Robinson was involved with England at the time but I may have timings slightly wrong. And the next I really noticed was at Norwich where he impressed me. His strengths are shotstopping. He has a knack of making the sort of saves which may not be far from him but are nonetheless quite awkward. And I always remember him making quite a few penalty saves - although not sure whether this was my memory being tinted in pretty colours

Watched him a lot as at Northampton - second favourite team. He was always a class keeper and a real nice guy. Always thought that with a few extra inches he would have been one of the top goalkeepers this country had produced. Followed him at Blackburn & Norwich because he was a dude, and he always did the job there and let no-one down. Really happy to have him on board for personal and professional reasons - to be honest this slightly low key transfer has got me very excited. Welcome to the Villa Bunny

Seen this a few times in the last couple of weeks and feel the need to, not be a grammar nazi by any stretch, but just issue a minor correction in case people use it in the real world and end up getting quiet sniggers from behind the hands of others... It's actually "plied his trade", or "to ply one's trade", rather than apply one's trade, with "ply" meaning "practicing or performing diligently" a trade Although it is worth noting that 'applied his trade' also makes grammatical sense because he is presumably putting to use his trade

belhanda

I think that Newcastle, possibly Southampton, Sunderland, West Brom, possibly West Ham in addition to the promoted clubs could be weaker...

did you know Hitler only had that moustache so that he could fit his face into a gas mask. It was for practicalities sake not for seduction

Northampton please. My first home and second team. Ian Taylor love in. Or Watford because my friends dad has a box next to Elton John. x

My favourite thing about Brum and the Midlands is that the region has been soooo much more historically important than the South and the North yet no one ever shouts about it because it isn't important how big people THINK your tool is, just that you use it well aye. Think about all the things that have come out of the Midlands... not only was football - the worlds biggest art formed here, but so was rugby, the industrial revolution which changed the whole world and its philosophers who for what its worth have had more of an impact over how the world is now than I reckon probably any other single group of philosophers have ever had in history, for god sake Pythagoras wasn't even the dude that came up with his theorum. The English language came from Mercia (Midlands) English, not any other and was pretty much built on by Shakespeare, another Midlander. Englands best science talent, Darwin and Newton, the worlds greatest fantasy books Lord of the Rings, the best graphic novel ever, Watchmen, Heavy Funking Metal, the whole Goth scene, SKA. And yeah can anyone think of a football club that has given more to the world than all that??? But the best thing is that we don't shout about it. That is for the insecure gimpzoid in high school with his hand creaming itself towards the ceiling. I love how nonch we are about it all. And yeah Barcelona stole out strip colours the chuffnuts.

http://calmingmanatee.com/20 this may just help

Charlie Sheen. Lindsay Lohan. Barack Obama. Bashar Al-Assad. Muhammed Ali. I lolled at George Martin but would cry so hard if it happened.

Seriously don't think Lambert should get the sack. Reasons? 1) I haven't yet seen him take us backwards. If he ever does I will rethink. But slow tentative two steps forwards and one step back are fine with me. Sometimes it is the journey that is fun not the final destination, and it has been a fair few years since I have enjoyed watching a team develop. So much. Any good story has peaks and troughs and in the better stories the troughs are bigger, but what really makes a good story and a good ending is the story arc. 2)He is a young manager, with talent but a lot to learn. But I have a feeling he wants to build something. I would rather blow out aiming for something grand and failing than looking for mediocrity with ANOTHER manager who will end up getting the sack as soon as we inevitably go through a sticky patch. 3)We have seen brilliant attacking football at times, and we have seen decent defensive displays. Mostly at different times, but I don't think it is implausible that with a bit more time and development a balance can be struck. 4)I like him. A lot. As a person. And as a manager. I like how he mumbles. I like how he loves it when we score. I like his face. 5)Last season QPR, Sunderland and Reading changed managers. Us and Wigan stuck, and out of the lot of us, it was us and Wigan who were fighting hardest and longest at the end - Sunderland looked terrible at the end. 6)We had a fantastic second half to the season last season. Lambert has done enough in my opinion to have another shot at the second half of the season. Respect the counter opinions, but feel they are more influenced the by skysports, create a story out of nothing, for a profit la la la era we unfortunately live in. Break the cycle guys, come on we are Villa we are different to everyone else!

If anyone want to watch a good documentary on the nature of addictions - try the zeitgeist 3 documentary. Caffeine is hideously addictive and whilst I can stop smoking weed whenever I want, giving up caffeine I found was so hard. The reason society likes caffeine so much is because it makes you more alert and more productive, which kind of fits with what society wants people to be like. Society wants people to work hard. It doesn't want them thinking outside the box. And whilst diet coke isn't a drug... I would daresay it is far worse for your health than softer drugs... Coke is a horrible horrible drug though in my opinion

I always thought that people who were entertained by the most boring things were the least boring people. How boring must you be to need to get your kicks from jumping out a plane. But if you get kicks from watching paint dry, literally the whole world must be the most exciting place for you. Shrooms are good. The only trick and as good a hard and fast rule for ensuring that you have a good trip, is do it somewhere pretty and natural. Stay away from man made things, and never ever watch a film. If you stay outside in a safe place... guaranteed fun. But they are something to be done every now and then. I can't imagine, and don't want to imagine being addicted to them. To the guy that said stoned people are boring? Some are. But again the trick is to realise that marijuana exxagerates and increases the enjoyment of what you are doing when you are smoking it. Whether this is reading a book, watching a film, going for a walk, enjoying the company of the opposite sex etc etc. It just happens that a lot of people are sitting around and doing nothing when they smoke it, which is is where the stereotype comes from. Again it comes down to the personal spec of the user...