MMFy

You don't want that, you want this: Hopefully I'll be using that for the London - Paris cycle next May...

He left Newcastle for Villa mainly due to money. He wanted a new contract with a higher wage and Newcastle wouldn't give it to him. Wasn't he the best player at the club at the time, yet one of the lowest earners? It would be like us paying Ashley Young £10k a week and expecting him to stay here?

Not being funny Damocles, but you can't boast a proud history of Division 2 runners-up, league runners-up and play-off wins. These are not achievements. Being in the top flight and finishing 17th is better than a lower league play off win. You're playing lesser opposition in a play off. I find your post quite funny. And incredibly naiive.

Indeed. MON rates Young far higher than Milner. Didn't he once quote £75m for Young? While we all know Young is not worth £75m, he's also never said that about Milner. MON's quotes this weekend about Young should be assurance enough that there is not a chance he will be leaving Villa for a fee in the region of £19m. Laughable.

You can support a team from anywhere. There is a difference between supporting a team and following a team though. It's much easier to follow a team.

They will pay £30m. I'm sure of it. We may have to wait until 31st August, but if they really want him they will pay it. That club paid £24m for Lescott. As I've said several times - if Lescott is worth £24m, Milner is worth £125m. Milner >>>>>>>>>> Lescott.

Anyone know where I can get Swype for my X10?

My DAB from the house is currently sitting in the office at work. Listen to it all day every day. BBC 6 Music.

I do not work in any of those sectors. Neither does the University of Illinois.

How did the planet cool then warm in the eight ice ages of the last 600,000 years, if it was not man made CO2 that caused it? And when you answer that simple question, and it is a really simple question, answer this one. What is different now to then?

I would, if I had a female boss. I'm no cocoa shunter, me. I can't stand my job. Any chance of a rise/career enhancement would be worth the nailing...

I an a total cynic. It's a punishing lifestyle, but I do not believe anything I am told by the press. I even contacted Tony Blair four years ago asking for evidence of a link and was fobbed off with a DEFRA letter which had absolutely nothing to do with CO2. We are being lied to.

For those that believe in the theory, can you link me to a piece of evidence that supports the theory? No rise in the oceans. No reduction in sea ice. No increase in global temperatures. No change in global weather patterns. CO2 only represents 0.038% of atmospheric gases, and only represents about 0.4% of all greenhouse gases. Water vapour (clouds) make up between 65-95% of greenhouse gases, depending on cloud cover/precipitation. What d'yer think is going to cause the bigger problem?

What an utterly pointless and abrupt statement. I can provide endless evidence to rubbish the link between climate change and CO2, and I can provide endless evidence to rubbish the human interference theory. This is my specialist subject. I have read a lot of books on this subject and done a hell of a lot of research. Ask yourself this. If the Stern report has a large number of climatologists and scientists taking legal action to have their names removed from it as a direct result of it's misrepresentation of the facts, how can it be taken seriously? The Stern report 'had' 3000 signatures, which only claimed about 90% belief in the theory. The Oregon petition already boasts 33,000 signatures of scientists and climatologists who dispute the link. Al Gore has over 30,000 legal suites against him for the misrepresentation of facts in An Inconvenient Truth. For whatever reason, you never hear about the Oregon petition though...

Absolutely not. **** them all! There is no room for chance in destroying the world's economies for the sake of unproven theory. There is absolutely no evidence to support a link between climate change and CO2, so there is no point in trying to combat it at the sake of the economy. The US budget for tackling climate change in accordance with the Copenhagen agreement would have been a third of a trillion dollars. This is utter lunacy!

What can we reduce and what effect will if have? How have we played a part when only 3% of CO2 in the atmosphere is man made?

There absolutely is cause or doubt! You are far from correct here. The ice caps are not melting. The northern ice cap has seen minimal melt over the last 100 years, but the southern ice cap has very much grown. The sea levels have not risen either. You will not find evidence to support sea level increases or significant reductions in sea ice. I can, however, provide evidence that they are stable. http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

no-one (except maybe you :winkold: ) is disputing that global-warming is happening - that can & has been proved. the debate is whether its natural / cyclical, or whether humans are the main cause. If I was to tell you man-made CO2 from all human interference on the planet, including industry and travel, is only 3% of the total of CO2 entering the atmosphere annually, firstly, would you believe me? And secondly, if you research this and find I am correct, how can human interference possibly have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by an estimated 25% over the last 100 years? And how did the planet cool between 1940 and 1975, in an unprecedented period of industrial growth?

How so? Surface temperatures have cooled by 0.4C in the last 12 years, and there has been no signs of warming. In this time, it is considered that CO2 has increased. The oceans have not risen. The weather has not changed. It's not a question of if we have interfered with the climate, of which there is no evidence, you first need to establish evidence of climate change, which is negligible at best. Forget the Stern Report. You need to research the Oregon Petition. If you want to read up on fair and balanced information on climate change, go to http://www.cfact.org/

I've considered doing that. I was talking to a couple of reps while watching the Tour Of Britain in Barnstaple last year and reckon with a bit more training (and a new seat and some more Endura padded shorts) I could do it. Next year though. :winkold:

Ye cannae beat a wifebeater in teh summer. I can't understand some bloke's refusal to wear shorts on hot days either. It's not gay and it's far more comfortable.

Perhaps you need a history lesson. To be honest, I don't really see the point of the argument, as the people who are idiotic enough to post something like that about a 130 year old club probably don't have any sort of inclination to read. It's also funny hearing that some people on here feel that the media is anti-Villa. I'm pretty sure that every single forum thinks that, including City ones. Anyway, for that poster for mentioned £15m + Hart + Ireland; you're living in a dreamland. You have to consider the worth of any player as the percentage of your transfer budget that you will spend on them. For example, if you have a £30m budget, is Milner worth 100% of it? Probably not. However, if you have a £300m budget (and I'm pretty sure ours is around half of that), is Milner worth 10% of your budget? Probably. This is akin to Spurs paying £4m for Milner, or you guys paying £2m for him. Whilst some may find it vulgar, it is no different from how football has been working since around 1995. Was Andy Cole 'worth' £15m? No, as budget wise at the time, that was a huge percentage of their annual spending, so they settled on £7m. It's all relative. Due to this, Milner is quite obviously a player that we desire, but if we're arguing over £5m, we can't be that keen. We are certainly not keen enough to go out and swap the best young English goalkeeper, who is pivotal to our team. Ireland you may have more of a point over, purely because he wants to leave. The City vs Villa argument came up during the Barry saga, so I won't repeat all of it again. What I will do though, is ask all of you an honest question. With the dropping in standard of Liverpool, the renaissance of Spurs, and the huge funding given to City, would you personally back Villa to make that Champions League spot in front of City/Spurs/Liverpool/Arsenal? More importantly, would you bet your career on it? I discount everything you have written. Transfer fees are relative. If you are willing to pay £24m for Lescott, you can pay £50m+ for Milner, because Milner is twice the player Lescott will ever be. Milner is our best player. Lescott was not Everton's.

He handed one in to get his move to Villa...... so he is the sort im afraid ! That's not how I remember it. IIRC, he didn't want to leave Newcastle. He hasn't got this reputation as an honest and loyal man by handing in transfer requests...

Look harder. Above picture of a guido = inaccurate. Ergo, not a guido. I also don't have a spray tan or wear wifebeaters. Stay in college Don't knock the wifebeaters. I fell asleep in the sand dunes at Croyde today wearing one of mine. I now have a permanent wifebeater burned in for the summer. Rock and roll. It's been about 30°C in North Devon today, and I had done a lap of North Devon on my mountain bike, as anyone who know me on Facebook will verify...

Just acquired an X10 this week. Where do I go from here?