Grant(aka_eddy)

Not quite what i thought and i didnt really like what i first thought. I feel faint!

'Fess up Bicks, is that actually a still from one of Robs videos?

Other - Most motorbikes i come across are going too fast, weaving in and out of traffic and/or overtaking on unsafe bends. By far the worst group of drivers and i've witnessed/experienced so many near misses because of them. Then it would be Mercs. Arrogant middle aged fatcats. Probably in-between those two groups would be boy/girl-racers in chavved up cars. But that spans across the different manufacturers.

World cup...even the disappointing ones are a mile better than anything else...love it!

Quagmire walks into a toilet cubicle to find a cheerleader bound and gagged on the floor... "Dear diary.......Jack-pot!"

Family guy for me. Isnt it made by the same people as the simpsons? I know they mocked themselves for it early on. Basically the simpsons but more adult and imo funnier for it. WIth the Simpsons Homer steals the show everytime, whereas Stewie and Brian do alot more in Family Guy to keep the laughs up along with Peter. Futurama is very easy to watch but also rarely makes me piss myself laughing, good entertainment but too average to be a huge hit. South Park is very funny in moments but i got bored of it after about 2000. Family Guy Simpsons South Park Futurama

Still very much a believer in O'Neill and the board. This summer has been very frustrating and that sentiment has been echoed by the club and manager too. For that it will always go as a minus against O'Neill i think. Things could have been done better even though i understand there are many reasons why it was extremely difficult. How big the minus is will depend very much on two things. 1) the signings we go on to make before the window closes and 2) The way the team performs next year. I think it will end up being a small minus against O'Neill as the team will play exceptionally well and continue to progress. Our style of play is improving dramatically and we'll see the nucleus of his squad in place and learn which positions need improving to really challenge the top 4. I also think we'll make the siginings to improve the defence and cover any injury crisis. In short things will look alot better soon but they look worrying at present. Only signings will put that right.

5 that will be in first team consideration immediately. 2 Right backs 1 Centre Back 1 Keeper 1 Winger Very encouraging that O'Neill said his main targets havent been snapped up.

I'm really surprised by this vote as it is clear to me that as our defence currently stands we cannot mount a challenge for Europe. When the signings are made though does that means most people think we will be fighting for the title or Champions League places? Or do people not think those signings will make a difference? Or is it just people have looked at the first 11 and hoped we dont get an injury all season? Odd as i consider myself very optimistic about Villa at the moment and read alot of negative posts...yet this poll shows the opposite :?

I've played by the rules and gone for lower mid-table. That is only because without another keeper and defender or two, then we are not protected from an injury crisis whcih could devastate our season. I'm actually very optimistic though and once these players come in - and i am confident they will be - then i'll say UEFA challengers.

If the vote was for Aussie teens i'd probably say yes. But since this is England i was thinking of ours and generally i'd say no they dont. We're turning into the US where you have some people who take on board the health information thats widely available and join gyms, sprotes clubs and so on, becoming very fit. Or they reject it completely and fatten up. In oz you have great weather and alot of space (speaking generally) so outdoor stuff is just integrated into your culture. You're recognised as probably the fittest of the Westernised nations i'd say.

Luke is capable of scoring more goals, gabby of scoring goals out of nothing. Both will do well but i opted for Gabby purely as i think O'Neill prefers him to Luke to partner Carew.

So if say 10,000 of a 12,000 workforce become unhappy with changes to pay should they a) Negotiate and strike as a last resort All move on. I think you're thinking about it from a very individual viewpoint and not considering wider issues such as the difficulty 10,000 people may have seeking new employment if conditions changed suddenly. Especially those with families to support. These people may have invested years of their life in training or invested in education specific to that sector. They may want to carry on in that job and not want to do whatever pays the bills or they may be unable to secure similar pay levels elsewhere. Jobs in that area may not be available, particularly if a whole batch of people are suddenly looking. Sorry Nick but a blanket "striking is bad, m'kay" just doesnt make sense to me.

Regardless of the details of the post i think the sentiment of it is spot on. It's not a black and white issue, i would cross a picket line if i disagreed with a strike, just as i would strike if i agreed with the reasons. I would assess the situation and make my choice as an individual. In fact it seems so obvious that it's a bit of a non-subject really. Quite like the idea on page 1 of striking by not charging for tickets that day or not doing paperwork. Still effective and as mentioned doesnt disrupt the public.

I think it will be a right back. That is currently our weakest area with only Mark Delaney a specialist in the position...... and he is made from twigs and spittle.

I meant to make that point that Blandy picked up on, about him being similar to Young. You could argue that having two of these pacy tricky wingers is great as you have cover or could use both with Young on the left. But for £10 million i prefer the idea of a different option in Milner rather than another player who's so similar. For example against many clubs you might struggle to justify Young and SWP in the starting line up unless you have only 1 up front. And Sam100, i dont think you can help but judge SWP on his Chelsea time. Or at least consider it as a factor. Why didnt he get much game time, why didnt he do much, why 17 months for first league goal, why sold for an £11 million loss etc. They're not the defining judgements of course and it doesnt mean he cant get back to Man City days but those question marks should not be disregarded imo. I would hope if O'Neill does buy him that he can get him back to his best again but whereas Milner seems like a safe investment, SWP feels like a big gamble.

Right then, I know that there are many James Milner fans on this site along with all the Wee Shauny II fans. However given that SWP will cost us £10 million (if the reports in the media are true) then i cant help but think Milner would be the better option, possibly a few million cheaper too. This is just for fun mind, i dont think we are even in for Milner. The case for Milner: Jimmy is 21 years old, Newcastles player of the year last year (dont know if that's official mind) and our player of the season the year before that. So there is plenty to be optimistic about his potential. Strengths - He is strong, hard-working, creative, versatile and consistent. Weaknesses - Well it used to be his acne but now there's very little you can say, he really is quite a solid all-rounder. Perhaps his crossing isnt as good as it should be. Wee Shauny II is 25 and will be leaving Chelsea shortly after 2 seasons with very little on-field action. It would be fair to say his career has gone backwards in this period and he is no longer young enough to be have unrealised 'potential'. Strengths - He undoubtedly has that little bit of something extra, when on form he can create a goal or an assist in the blink of an eye and really punish teams. He is very quick and skillful and once he gets on top of a full-back during a game he is the kind of player who can really humiliate them. Weaknesses - His lack of action and ability to adjust to the highest level is a worry. His consistency is also not the greatest but for me his major downfall is that he is too small and lightweight to win the ball very often, is often knocked off play and can constantly leak posession whn he isnt on form. Conclusion - For similar amounts of money i'd take Milner every time. It is easy to overlook him and it almost seems SWP is till 19 with bags of potential but the truth is that Milner is the player in the ascendency. He may only ever be 95% of the player SWP is but SWP only turns up every other week.

Bet that would tickle a bit!

Interetsing points RISO. Personally i prefer a society that supports people so that they dont need to offend in the first place. If they do offend then they have already 'wronged' the society that supports them. In which case surely they are equally likely to offend again, itis afterall the same society. Perhaps in the case fo a thief the theory of repenting, or being able to re-integrate people with better support may hold up. But a paedophile? No, i cant see it.

The level of evidence necessary etc can be debated, but in theory ... Abso-****-lutely!

Smoke probably does affect others (health) but unless it can be proved scientifically then it's nothing more than an unpleasant inconvenience and as such it shouldn't be banned. It's a fine line yes but are they looking at banning farting in public places. I'm a non-smoker so you'd think I'd be in favour of a ban but not this way. If they want to bad smoking in public places for health reasons then they should ban cigarettes in the publics interest. Any other way is hypocritcal. Not really, it wasnt this government - or any government in this culture or with the knowledge of the damage they do - who made the decision to allow smoking. So taking action isnt actually hypocritical. There are many things such as alcohol, fast food that are very bad for your health but will still remain legal, and rightly so. This is a giant leap towards discouraging smoking as many people who do smoke either started, or mainly get through the bulk of their smoking, socially. The full effects may take several years, even decades to filter through but it's the right choice imo. A straight ban on cigarettes would cause uproar, all those people who are addicted and suddenly cut off....just not feasible, i mean look at some of the protests on this thread already about infringing on rights and choice. Needs to be a culture change first.

Simply because it's the only plausible way to achieve the aims of the smoking ban. Without the enforcement all the issues over segregation, cost, loss of income etc that has been highlighted and discussed would become an issue. They wont be an issue and most people are glad of that.

I've already listed the reasons Dundee, if you dont agree with them then fair enough but i think they're valid. Agree to disagree on this one!

In theory no, i'd agree there is nothing wrong with it. I'm not a big anti-smoker, have smoked before and don't mind a cheeky spliff now and again. But in the scenario you proposed i think there were flaws that made it unfeasible. Sorry, but i cant come around to the idea of premises that are one or the other or have seperate rooms.

I'm far from clean living mate, a right tramp! If i'm right about the vast majority of people are going out in mixed groups and you're right that the smokers will be prepared to go outside, then isnt that what the smoking ban in it's current format will support? A rule that suits the vast majority!?