useless

Sorry by subconsciously I meant that maybe you'd seen the image already without realising.

That might be because you saw the image before your dream without realising it maybe subconsciously and then dreamed about it. This might be a load of mumbo jumbo, but I read in a Carl Jung book the once that he believes that memories can be inherited, so if that were to be the case then you could be seeing what a relative has already seen I know it sounds daft just another suggestion. I think there was an Horizon episode about it, although they didn't mention Jung.

I don't believe in God or am I religous, but for some reason hate thinking of myself as an atheist just because I don't believe in something I don't think I should have to belong to a particular group, I prefer to stand alone. I guess you have to take a leap of faith to certain extent when reading books of science, your kind of taking someone elses word for it unless your carrying out the research yourself.

It wasn't really my opinion but something that had been stated to me as fact and it made sense to me, which I repeated as best as I could. This video I found explains it better. Thanks for information by the way.

I was trying to understand what was meant by 'Darwin Nominated' it sounded to me like it was being suggested that people were selecting themselves out of the gene pool through stupid acts. I probably should of thought of a better example than a drug addict though. Anyway I always thought Darwinism was about selecting for the environment and adapting to that rather than anything like filtering out people who might be deemed 'stupid'. As I say I'm just trying to learn. Essentially man kinds greatest evolutionary step was cognitive intelligence. The ability to reason, to absorb and to act upon sensory input. The Darwinism they're talking of suggests that for man to evolve further then we need the "less intelligent" humans removed from the gene pool, that this is a natural phenomenon. This fails on many levels. Not least because it's not necessarily a good thing that we get "more intelligent". It's my opinion that we'll act more and more ruthless as a result, as emotion and unity are set aside for the greater good of the individual. Or the fact that one random foolish act does not make somebody less intelligent, or less "useful" to the race as a whole. An important part of our evolution is education, we have the ability to teach and to retain information that we then pass on down our own blood line. What BOF seems to be suggesting is "**** it, let em die off"! Also, you know, I don't think sympathy is a dirty word. That it should be regulated. I'd read that the familar picture depicting an ape in a series of images as he eventually turns into man is one of the most misleading depictions of evolution, because it suggests that it's about becoming streamlined superhuman beings when all evolution is about is becoming more adapted to the environment and increasing your genes frequency. So although we have become more intelligent as a result of evolution that's not what it's actually all about.

I was trying to understand what was meant by 'Darwin Nominated' it sounded to me like it was being suggested that people were selecting themselves out of the gene pool through stupid acts. I probably should of thought of a better example than a drug addict though. Anyway I always thought Darwinism was about selecting for the environment and adapting to that rather than anything like filtering out people who might be deemed 'stupid'. As I say I'm just trying to learn.

This sounds like a mugs game. I don't like the sound of this 'Darwin Nominated' stuff either, but what do I know? I'm not as clever as some of you lot on here, but I'm trying to learn by reading the threads. What about Phillip Seymour Hoffman was he Darwin Nominated or what?

Bleurgh, sorry.

One of only two Library records I own, It's not that amazing if I'm honest I think these records at one time were sought after for the design of their sleeves.

That's been at the back of mind as well, but can't see past Southampton if he's to get involved with anyone.

Thanks, I just had another check to see if I've misrepresented him and his words were "I thought I'd look into some of the marketing reach, based on website analytics" and then he tweeted some figures. Oh well, I think he meant well.

The Gerry Anderson Fan Club, AKA Fanderson, press their own versions of Barry Gray's stuff. They don't tend to appear elsewhere, and they knock spots off the generally available titles. The Fanderson 40th Anniversary UFO is much better than Trunk one, and I like JT's stuff. I don't listen to the Trunk UFO that much although I like it. I did try getting the Fanderson version but couldn't find it anywhere I think I did see it on ebay but it was ridiculously expensive. This might have been before the 40th Anniversary edition though. I'm guessing Fanderson must have the rights to the CD versions and that's while JT only put out the Vinyl.

I don't know, someone on twitter did one of those web traffic analyser things for the official site and the whole of the Far East counted for only 0.1 percent of visitors, not sure though I never go on it myself.

Interesting to see that Norwich's last four games are against Liverpool, Man Utd, Chelsea and then Arsenal. Looks like they will be needing a good March.

I was just looking for an old quote of Randy's when he first took over the club about sponsoring Villa Park, I can't find that but I did find this short video interview, it's nothing significant, just the first time I heard his voice I think.

I've a feeling it's sadly inevitable that Villa Park will be sponsered one day soon, and that would be so with whoever owns us. All to do with fair play rules I guess.

Esso

Here is the Air France article.

It might be true, but it probably would've brought the summer funds down to about 12 million.

I still think Lerner wants out I had been thinking he'd be gone pretty soon, but I'm doubting that now with some of these leaked stories and the supposed 250 million asking price. I don't think he'll go again because it would take too much money for us to achieve anything of any significance, but who knows? maybe he'll do his best to ensure we are not in a relegation battle until a good buy comes along at least. Does anyone know what Howard Hodgson was meant to have said exactly? I've seen on a few places that he got kicked out of the excutive boxes for saying that Villa were for sale, or maybe he didn't say that at all and it's a bit of a Chinese whispers thing. But if that's true then it doesn't surprise me that Mat Kendrick will only report what he's told.