Seal

you do gotta pay tax on profit. you don't wanna pay tax (not from a tax evasion POV, but from a cashflow POV). if the eggs are straight from the ffp front ( which I have no clue about) you gunna wanna get your profit down to pay less tribute to dem government fellas. gotta remember it ain't lack of profit that kills busy nesses, it is lack of cash. a bit different with FFP, but I am sure that the accountant nerdz in the AV Finance Dept also try and manage da cashflow too. in the world of ffp, profits do help to buy players, but also cash is better at buying players, so yeah its a balancing act. I am a bit naive on FFP rules, so out of interest, is the profit its calculated on PBT or PAT? peace

hmmm. i kinda see them as a bit of a bogey team these days. logically it could be good if we were in different leagues to our bogey teams

I wonder whether this is less a natural bias, so much as the natural character of the Midlands. I think in general terms it is fair to apply the stereotype to Northern and Southern people (and thus fans and teams) that they have a chip on their shoulder, or at least some kind of north south fixation. In my biased experience, growing up in the Midlands, Midlanders just seem to get up and go about their lives without the said chip on their shoulder. I reckon ultimately it makes it easy to build big narratives up around northern and southern teams when you do a media thing. Like when I went to uni (in birmingham) it was all just like northerners and southerners arguing about which region was best and stuff. Midlanders just never cared too much about that. Probably goes back as far as the Birmingham enlightenment. Far more globally influential than the actual enlightenment but I ain't never heard no body talkin bout it.

hand of god

I've always thought Chris Wilder would make a great England manager. His stock seems to have evaporated entirely since Sheffield Utd got relegated but I don't think that was down to him. I think his management and tactical style would suit international football perfectly. I have no tactical knowledge to back that up though, other than a strong intuition. Although I suspect in reality his moment has passed.

high as a camel

Still (one of) the greatest trance songs of all time. This is what happens when you play bittersweet symphony backwards.

I think one of the major glaring omissions in the education system (along with not teaching every kid how to grow their own food) is the absence of a module that teaches children how to maintain their own health. They might even dabble a little in nutrition, but nothing on like how to basically just be a healthy human being. Cuz if you can do the basics then you in the main fingers crossed won't really need anyone to be in charge of your health care. I am really sorry to hear about your Nan's dead dog.

that is before dawn isn't it?

I would say that the earth rotates, and revolves around the sun, is a belief. That doesn't mean I disagree with it or that it is wrong. Your second sentence - you can walk into a wall and personally verify that it hurts. If you cannot personally verify the nature of reality, I would say it is a belief. However if one wanted to get quite picky, our senses are all ultimately constructed inside us, probably, therefore we are always limited to never being sure reality is not just our brain is just playing tricks on us. So I guess one could argue everything is a belief. It all depends where you set the limit. On the second paragraph. Spectral lines refer to disambiguates in a spectrum. Spectrums are composed of things with wavelengths of which visible light and colour are one. It was a short sentence in a forum post not a scientific thesis. I don't think there is anything in what I said that your statement disagrees with. It kinds feels like a straw man is in the room here where each time I have made a comment, you push the discussion in a different way. So rather than deal with my suggestion that there is significant room for error based upon the difficulty of knowing what we can actually know that we see in deep space, you kind of seem to push the discussion onto sentences not pertaining to the point not being fleshed out to a point. Sure we can know that sodium is not in the sun. But can we know that everything we know on earth is everything that can be known in the entirety of the universe? Knowing that sodium is not in something is not knowing what is in it. In particular, I don't recall ever saying anywhere there is an issue with pushing the boundaries of our understanding into murkiness. Because I said at times physics displays mystical qualities, does not mean I think any less of it. In fact I think it makes it more important and fascinating. I also think mysticism is fascinating and very important. I love quantum physics, and I love astro physics, and I think that they are fantastic because they deal in such murky areas. Valuable also. I had already said this. So to say that I have a problem with it, is a bit straw man territory. Nor have I claimed to speak knowledgeably about quantum physics. I have no scientific qualifications. Are you knowledgeable concerning mysticism? I think we are both ok to talk about it and we need no qualifications to do that. In fact I think that one of the ways of becoming qualified to talk about something is via talking about it. I am sure you are aware of the double slit experiment. I think it is fair to say that what it suggests it is ok to extrapolate that quantum physics delves into the realms of the mystical. If you disagree with that that is fine, but at this juncture we leave the real world to enter our own subjective world of perceptions, which is kinda poetic bearing in mind the nature of the experiment. I do have a very solid memory of feeling very very dozy in physics once at school. Could be I slept through some of it.

It has taken me all evening to unravel your meaning behind this. Sometimes it is the most human messages that are the hardest to unravel. This thread may not prove religion right or wrong. But it can prove good exists. Heartfelt thanks, and if I am mistaken I am also embarrassed.

It was a jest. Like I said they are fields of study that I respect and enjoy and think they have worth. I think quantum physics has contributed wonderfully to the world of stuff. However, in terms of using particles to explain reality, it is still very much in the realms of the belief zone. Although as a tool it is pretty wonderful. The meaning of the double slit experiment is nothing if not mystic. IMO. I would disagree that we know what planets are constituted of. Even less so deep space. Using wavelengths to determine material is unreliable when you have no idea the limit of what materials are possible. I would suggest this becomes harder and closer to guessing the deeper into space you get. Using colour to determine the distance of a star, is guesswork as far as I am concerned. Although again I respect the efforts of our science folk.

That was a joke. Not a very good one, but certainly not my worst. A mystic is someone who believes in truths beyond the intellect. Quantum physics is kind of that in a way. Astro physics relies on maths which is ultimately a numerical philosophy, and is in its own way contemplating things we cannot reach. Thus is kind of delving in truths beyond the intellect. Not to belittle those fields, however, they do for sure have their own mystic qualities.

hah, he is indeed an astrologer and a mystic, but then maybe so are some astro and quantum physicists in their own way! I would read his works though before criticising (although I would also say follow your intuition on things as well). It isn't who writes things that matters, but what they write. Mostly. For what it is worth, the book well worth reading if you have an interest in philosophy. It is one of those good ones where you can pick out an interesting chapter and ignore the ones that sound dull. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ment "From Old Catalan -ment, from Latin mente, ablative singular of mēns (“mind”)." I appreciate that this con fusion (fusing things together incorrectly?) arose from my spelling of mente as ment. Although I am now wondering whether there is more to the word cement than meets the eye. But that just means its time for a siesta. Etymological routes in the bible are often a blend of the Semitic languages, latin, and greek. But I am not disagreeing, you may indeed be right. And if you are I need to take responsibility for that and be better next time. I do find, however, that etymologies are one of the least exact of the not sciences. This is just my subjective usage, but I would say that if you said something nasty to someone and got a broken nose, then you suffer a plain old consequence. If you say something nasty to someone damage your soul, then that would be a moral or spiritual consequence. IMHO. I guess Karma may be a bridge between the two in this analogy. In your slag example I would suggest the construction engineer need take ownership for his lack of action. Yet these are simplistic examples, I have no idea whether there is any sort of moral consequences. I have a lot of time for the concept of karma.

I am in Ibiza at the moment. I read it in Manly P Halls book the secret teaching of all ages (I think, or something like that). I can try and look it up when I get back. Ment is Latin for of the mind. Although to be honest, etymological derivations are a bit iffy, so maybe I wouldn't stake my life on it being the correct one. By the second query, I am not quite sure what you are asking. I meant something along the lines of that your actions are your own, and consequences of your choices. If there is morality, then you take on the moral consequences, if indeed there are any. I meant generally rather than with reference to something specific.

My answer (NOT OBJECTIVE, and not even something I am sure about) would be: The Bible is designed (I suspect) to be deceptive (testament even means - test of the mind!). If the world is - as it claims to be the Devils. Then the Devil - who plays the role of the deceiver may well have had certain elements removed. There are something like 66 texts removed, such as the Book of Enoch, or Jasher, that if you would include paint a very different picture overall of what the bible says. Furthermore the KJV edition (the first popular out of Latin bible) is translated very very badly almost deliberately. For instance one of the greatest Christian icons is the cross, and it is universally accepted that Christ was alleged to have died upon the cross. However, in actuality, Jesus was said to have been hanged from a tree (there is some explanation that I find unsatisfying that crucifix was translated from tree because tree meant any wooden structure). Literally the most iconic image of Christianity, the cross, is from a weird suspect translation. That is mad. I do not think the bible is the word of God, at least in that it has been chopped and changed and translated terribly badly. I personally am open to the idea that Christ was a man who existed. However I perhaps currently favour the idea that Christ is a state of consciousness obtainable by all. And the man in the book is allegorical. Christ said he was the truth, maybe we can all be Christ if we live in line with the truth. The New Testament admits that it is written in parables (ie it is not all truth, but stories designed to convey a greater meaning). I think taken the bible at its literal word is silly. But then I also think criticising the bible at its literal word is equally silly. This is a fairly lightweight but clear explanation of the gnostic creation myth: https://gnosticismexplained.org/the-gnostic-creation-myth/ I also do think that the Vatican has much to do with Christianity, so much as the manipulation of what it is. I think the Vatican Library and its hoarding of texts (not only pertaining to Christianity, but all those confiscated during the inquisition, or pagan histories) is one of the greatest crimes against humanity. I would rather suggest that the Vatican has been strongly involved in the subversion of Christianity. I don't actually consider myself to have 'faith', I think belief is the death of intelligence (or to be a lie) and I try and avoid beliefs (although I appreciate this is a belief!). So I don't believe per se in the bible. Instead I have suspicions and think that the only thing that I can confirm is what is inside me (and even that I am sceptical of). My suspicions include that this reality is fundamentally deceptive. That I can only really confirm what I feel and observe myself. And I find Christ/Christianity the most useful tool for navigating this reality I find myself. For me being a Christian is recognising the world is not a great place (there is some true beauty here) and trying to make it a better place. And for me that is what being saved is. It isn't a matter of faith. It is a matter of trying to be good. I have been through a road of being from a Christian upbringing, rejecting it and accepting the material world, then searching for something more real and finding Christ again, although very very differently from before. You are welcome to question me though. If you do a good question and I can't answer it I can tune myself accordingly. If I can answer it may be I had to learn more about things to answer it. There is nothing more enlightening that realising that you are horribly mistaken in something. "My problem is where people use their 1600 year old book as justification for behaviour that is questionable in a modern society." This problem is mega interesting and on point. I think in all situations people need to take responsibility for their own actions. Using a book to justify something is ceasing to take responsibility for something. However, I also think humans should be free to act differently from societal expectations. My personal rule is "do what you want so long as you do not harm anyone else or stop them from doing what they want".

This is also not allowed by the NHS. I always ask for my blood back and they refuse it every time. However, I do not permit it to be destroyed, which is what they usually do, so I like to think there is a little vault of my blood somewhere. No religious reasons, just a matter of principle, that I should get my blood back, and have no wish to have my blood destroyed. Regarding your conversations about a benevolent God (it is a conversation that I find interesting, and obviously do not have a definitive answer to). I find there to be a very different 'vibe' between the new testament, which (compare the ten commandments to the beatitudes for instance), which baffled me for a long while. For me the answer is provided in Gnostic Christianity. In summation, the God of the Old Testament is not the ultimate God, or creator, but is a demiurge, perhaps best described as Satan (which is actually backed up in the New Testament), and is the story of how Satan came to control the world (the Christian god existing outside of this). The Christianity of the New Testament being how to transcend this world. There is actually no reason a Christian need believe, or agree with ANYTHING in the Old Testament. For a start, Christianity did not exist before Christ. Thus the Old Testament by logic cannot be Christian. A Christian is someone who tries to live as Christ would, not someone who thinks it is correct for the God of the Old Testament to smite, or to commit genocide and be vengeful and stuff. The Old Testament and New Testament sorta got glued together in the middle ages, despite not really being of the same spirit. The Old Testament is Babylonian, and Jewish, and concerns Jehovah/Yahweh. The Christian God is actually more likely the Monad (a Pythagorean concept), and would not want one of its followers to die for the sake of a pint of blood. The God of the Old Testament is a Babylonian demiurge - which is not the ultimate creator, just the ruler of this realm. The only sentence that is in the Bible, that can be said to link Christianity to the Old Testament, is where it says Christ is the son of God. But there is nothing to say this is the God of the Old Testament. On the Other hand, in the New Testament, after Jesus (phonetically He's us, and in French Je Suis (I am)) goes into the desert and fights temptation, he and Satan go to the top of a hill and they both agree that the world is Satans, suggesting that the God of the Old Testament is indeed Satan. Not that any of this is any less true, but the Bible can be read through a number of different lenses. I find that the lens that affords it the most sense, is the Gnostic one. It irons out many of the Bibles famed contradictions. That doesn't make it right, but it makes it a better guess than most. I also note that many Christians do buy into the Old Testament as being the God, so the contradiction still exists practically. Having writ all this, I do note that you had this discussion with a Jehovah witness, who does get down with the Old Testament so I clearly have not solved that. I am just merely trying to explain how a Christian (such as myself) might not necessarily be on board or cool with a vengeful god that would like flood stuff and genocide this and that for reasons and stuff and perhaps that the dichotomy you are suggesting exists in the minds of individuals, not necessarily in the religious texts themselves. Peace.

we support the Bucks these days mate

I think you are missing the part that says 'the right of people to keep and bear arms'. ;). Not that I am arguing for that right. Different times I guess. Also there might be room for some grammatical misunderstanding on my part.

there was me thinking, yeah liverpool have been better. then someone says a simple post like this, and it completely makes me rethink how I watch and understand football. you should do tactics and stuff.

Oh man I thought they were mentality monsters. I can't keep up.

Obviously just my personal opinion from watching them, but they look like the most obviously juiced squad I have ever seen in my life as well. Robertson looks like Maradona scoring a goal at the 94 world cup every time he takes a defensive throw in.

Schmeichel...

Very stupid. But it must be said that it was very stupid also of Ukraine to spend the last ten years arming Russia, especially post Crimea. Smedley Butler might have had something to say about that.

I thought that was a Tonev strike flying over my head. Sorry!