Seal

6 hours ago, The Fun Factory said:

Well this thread is a bit depressing after last week I thought we had actually turned a small profit. 

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

15 hours ago, gwi1890 said:

What’s best for the club? Money or west ham going down? The only logical answer here is money.

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. 

1 hour ago, sne said:

Caption competition?

"Grab em by the penalty"

hand of god

6 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

Where is this top international manager? Smith managed Villa out the Championship, do we think Southgate could have done this? You do know Steve Holland is the brains behind the coaching and Southgate just delegates and bonds the team, apparently. Southgate cannot coach for shit.

I'd actually put Steve Holland's name in for the next England manager.

 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.

11 minutes ago, Pinebro said:

Can't find it but a mate messaged me he's done an interview in the England camp where he says he plan on getting stoned out of his mind this weekend.

high as a camel

On 27/11/2022 at 08:20, desensitized43 said:

People aren’t overreacting. They’re angry because they see yet another generation of capable England talent being wasted by someone so risk averse he’d wear a life jacket in the bath.

They can see the trajectory we're currently on. We’ll get out of the group, that’s nailed on now pretty much, but the moment we come up against a half decent team we’ll revert to playing like Greece 2000 but without the capable defending and organisation.

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

3 hours ago, Wainy316 said:

I'd rather my Nan's dead dog was in charge of our healthcare than the current UK government.

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. 

On 20/10/2022 at 23:50, HanoiVillan said:

It isn't though, it's darkest in the middle of the night, hth 

that is before dawn isn't it?

20 hours ago, fruitvilla said:

I frequently find myself frustrated when talking with religious folk, who in my opinion obfuscate when it comes to words like belief, know and faith. I  believe the Earth rotates and revolves around the sun. Is this a belief zone? Of course when be push the boundaries of our understanding, our understanding becomes murky. What's the issue? Walking into a brick wall and the resulting pain  may not be what they seem, but they are real. 

I do wonder about your qualifications to speak knowledgeably here. Firstly, it is not colour/wavelengths but the absence of certain spectral lines that correspond/match light emitted by elements when ionized. For example, the doublet wavelet emitted by sodium in sodium vapour street lights is missing in the sun's spectrum.

The last part of the sentence is almost as though you dozed through the physics lessons at school.

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. 

2 hours ago, fruitvilla said:

 

And here I will leave you with the words of the famous layer Clarence Darrow:

Chase after the truth like all hell and you’ll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails.

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.

2 hours ago, fruitvilla said:

I disagree ... if it is beyond our intellect how have made incredible advances in our understanding?  Quantum phenomenon certainly are not intuitive, I will agree.  

This reminds of Auguste Comte quote in 1842:
Of all objects, the planets are those which appear to us under the least varied aspect. We see how we may determine their forms, their distances, their bulk, and their motions, but we can never known anything of their chemical or mineralogical structure; and, much less, that of organized beings living on their surface

Little did he know that the tools to get a really good head start on this problem had been developed a few years earlier.

And here I will leave you with the words of the famous layer Clarence Darrow:

Chase after the truth like all hell and you’ll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails.

2 hours ago, fruitvilla said:

I disagree ... if it is beyond our intellect how have made incredible advances in our understanding?  Quantum phenomenon certainly are not intuitive, I will agree.  

This reminds of Auguste Comte quote in 1842:
Of all objects, the planets are those which appear to us under the least varied aspect. We see how we may determine their forms, their distances, their bulk, and their motions, but we can never known anything of their chemical or mineralogical structure; and, much less, that of organized beings living on their surface

Little did he know that the tools to get a really good head start on this problem had been developed a few years earlier.

And here I will leave you with the words of the famous layer Clarence Darrow:

Chase after the truth like all hell and you’ll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails.

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. 

6 hours ago, mjmooney said:

No. They aren't. 

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. 

13 hours ago, fruitvilla said:

Well enjoy the Med. Mens is Latin for mind. To me the suffix ment (from the Latin to make concrete) seems more likely. And dictionaries give Test and from the Latin Testis to witness seems more fitting.  I looked up Manly P Hall, an astrologer and mystic. I don't get a warm and fuzzy feeling here.

Yeah ... along those lines yes. We use responsible in couple of different ways. 

Say, the high slag content in the rivets was responsible for the loss of the ship.
versus the construction engineer not checking the slag content of rivets was responsible for the loss of the ship.

So how are moral consequences different from plain old consequences?

 

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.

22 hours ago, fruitvilla said:

Do you have a reference for this?

OK ... do you mean that they maybe the proximate cause of an event or something else?

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. 

50 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

I respect you faith @Seal I appreciate your comments regarding the old testament. Its clearly a historically inaccurate text with outdated moralistic guidelines. 

The new testament is slightly better but it is still contradictory and historically questionable.  That does not bother me in the slightest as long as people who believe in it also live by a reasonable moral code.  

My problem is where people use their 1600 year old book as justification for behaviour that is questionable in a modern society.  If God is infallible and the Bible is the word of God, why is the Bible wrong in so many places? 

When I visited the Vatican I was amazed. I was amazed that any God would want that to be built and maintained instead of spending that wealth on supporting the poor and needy. 

But if your faith gives you comfort then who am I to question it?  I am sure that time will prove that some of the things I believe in are wrong. 

 

 

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". 

On 20/06/2022 at 19:51, Mandy Lifeboats said:

I work with a Jehovah's Witness.  His wife had an operation which would normally require blood. She refused. It went well and everything turned out OK.  

We had the predictable conversations about whether a benevolent God would want one of his followers to die for the sake of a pint of blood.  

I asked why she didn't give a pint or two of her own blood in the weeks before the operation and then have it back. That seemed logical to me.  That's not allowed either. 

I found the reasoning behind the rule truly bizarre.  It relates to biblical passes relating to the slaughter of animals.  Namely that the blood of the animal must drain into the earth. 

I can see the reasoning for that 2500 years ago.  It fertilises the earth and reduces the chance of blood related disease. But to apply it to a human medical proceedure in 2022 seems ridiculous to me.  

But I am an atheist. 

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. 

On 09/05/2022 at 13:27, Nicho said:

I think this is fair. For example I cant name many Basketball teams, Dodgers (maybe LA Dodgers) and Chicago Bulls. But for Chicago I can tell you the colour, the logo and their best players from 30 years ago (not because of the documentary). 

Unfortunately previous success at the right time does build a brand that lasts, I have no idea how good they are now but the only team id get jersey of is Chicago Bulls. I wouldnt though as Id look like a clearing in the woods wearing a basketball top. 

United will survive as a big brand for a long time, as big as they once were probably not. They grew and succeeded at the right time, annoyingly as challengers a time when Aston Villa failed. 

Long may their failure continue. 

we support the Bucks these days mate

17 minutes ago, juanpabloangel18 said:

I have never understood why this is interpreted to mean every individual US citizen has an unqualified right to own a gun. It's just not what the 2nd Amendment says.

• "Well regulated" - how else except by federal or state law. It literally says well regulated in the constitution.
• "Militia" - Specifically groups, not individuals.
• "Necessary to the security of a free State" - The purpose of this amendment is to protect the freedom of individual States (not individual people).

Am I missing something?!

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.

8 minutes ago, a m ole said:

Called it!

Liverpool have not ‘been the better team’, they’ve failed to break down Madrid and been sucker punched.

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.

16 minutes ago, hippo said:

You can't go saying that - they are the plucky underdogs !

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

6 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

yep, they somehow like to think of themselves as plucky liverpool up against the spending might of man city...whilst having the at the time record signings for GK and defender in their team

in the cup final they had £380m out on the pitch and £150m on the bench - but they sold harry wilson to fulham for £12m, taiwo awoniyi to union berling for £5m and shaqiri to lyon for £5m so really that team was only worth £508m, its nonsense 

week in week out if you look at the cost of the 11 they put out on the pitch they are right up there with the rest of them

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.

5 minutes ago, Don_Simon said:

Wow.

Schmeichel...

19 hours ago, bickster said:

(If true) Amusing stupidity

Metro (though I think originaly in the Torygraph

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. 

9 minutes ago, rjw63 said:

I fear my lyrical joke has escaped everyone

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