Woodstock Jag

I notice Dundee got papped out by Berwick on penalties. Our result against them may look, in time, like a lucky victory against a team in even bigger crisis.

Losing 1-0 but putting on late pressure. Found this wee gem on the BBC updates "Chris Erskine takes a shot from 25 yards. Save made by Bryn Halliwell."

More goals. Better football. Cheaper to watch. It's like a triple lock win.

I agree with most of that, and I perhaps should have been clearer when I described myself as "agnostic/deist". I don't have any strong inclinations to a positive statement of belief in anything "supernatural" (I use that word merely out of convenience and not because of its accuracy). What I have eliminated as plausible is a theistic basis of an interventionist creative force, hence the premise of deism remains plausible, but unlikely.

No it doesn't. Religion requires the belief in and worship of one or more Gods. I don't worship any God, but am open to the possibility of a supernatural creative force. I hold that if it is the case, it is on a deistic basis and not a theistic one.

Listen here ya Nottingham diddy! I'm the only one to have Harry Wragged all season! If you want an exclusive HW from the 5 a sides Goals centre in Aberdeen, I'm more than willing to assist

On the subject of Dawkins, he makes a lot of valid points, but his philosophy is far from infallible and it doesn't stop me thinking he's a prick. And I say this as someone who used to be mildly religious, but who is now somewhat agnostic/deistic.

Halliwell looked like the only one with a bit of fight in him.

I seem to recall more specifically it was used as a sort of down-payment on a repayment plan for a debt accrued to HMRC under the quantitative easing scheme.

I don't think it's as clear cut as you think. Most people, even when the "red mists" descend as you put it, do actually take on board elements of what those who disagree with them are saying. Whilst they won't perhaps acknowledge it in the heat of discussion (the main problem with the internet is that you can completely miss the tone of what someone's saying, which radically affects the response) they often will consider it in their own views towards a certain policy formation or in the way they look at future events wrt the various political parties. Will it change the world? Probably not. Will it change the minds of those most likely to be contributing? Less likely. Will it determine who has "won" the political argument in the big bad world? Less likely still. Does it serve as an acid test of general political approaches and feelings towards the present political situation? Arguably. The "if you're a Tory you're always going to be a Tory", "if you're Labour etc etc" is (perhaps obviously) not true because we get different election results that clearly can't just be put down to people moving house! What I would say though is that more people who swing vote don't hold the polar positions on an argument, so are less likely to feel the urge to give their opinion. Those that throw their opinion out-there are more likely to be set in their ways precisely because they feel confident enough in their beliefs to present them to others they know disagree with them. I've only ever voted in two elections, and I voted for two different parties in each of them. Next year in the Scottish Elections, I'm far from decided who I'm going to vote for: it depends on the stats of my constituency. What I do know, though, is that I'll seriously consider doing anything to stop Labour winning a seat, even if that means voting SNP for tactical reasons. A year ago, I couldn't have brought myself to do that, and I probably still won't, but if I feel it's the only way my vote will count because of constituency realities, I'd rather have an SNP administration in Scotland than that absolute abomination Iain Gray as First Minister.

I wouldn't even be certain of that.

The Trust set-up a working group with expertise in property matters, and asked the Club for a face to face meeting to discuss the ins and outs of the deal, but no effort was made by the Club to meet that request. The Trust Board Rep is, of course, bound by the infamous Confidentiality agreement, which restricts what the Club Board Rep can and can't report back to both the Trust Board and the Membership, but the question as to whether he withheld relevant information from the Trust Board is one you'd have to ask him personally. I'd be surprised if any substantial information that the Confidentiality agreement didn't prevent the Board Rep from passing on wasn't.

I seem to recall it being mentioned that his family was subjected to some unwelcome behaviour while in the Jackie Husband Stand shortly before he was sacked, but then again I could be wrong.

I think what he's pointing at is that it's well known elements of opposition supports attempt to abuse the system. I've heard of people in their late 20s successfully chancing their arm at getting in as a kid in the away end. That's not to say that Thistle doesn't have those who will try to get into a cheaper gate at other grounds, but we get hit more heavily as the jump is (e.g.) £17 at our ground vs what might only be £6-10 in other grounds.

Confirmation on Official Site that the Challenge Cup Quarter-Final against Ayr has been moved to Saturday 4th September from the Sunday and will have a 3pm kick-off. Clicky

A lot of it is down to our structural debt. If we didn't have any bank debt, our operations in season 2008-09 would have only been about £30k in deficit. Because of the bank debt, we lost more than £200k.

For the umpteenth time, it was one of the public lines trotted out, but the actual paperwork surrounding the deal gives the bank first dibs on any money the Club makes out of it. The money saved on interest payments by the actual sale of the land only helps towards breaking-even, and doesn't add a penny to the player budget.

I need look no further than below. What you say is exactly what is supposed to happen, and there are parts of the TU movement who comply with this. Many, however, don't provide a clear option and leave people who don't support Labour inadvertently paying the political levy.

Eh, no.

DublinJag Drinking Game:- because things were better in the good old days. :drink2: This forum is missing the Uzi smiley. It's not the same as the good old days on here merely with the Guiness. Bring back The Shed McCall must go...

We were pretty good against Dundee. Not the best football we've played in the last 2-3 years by any stretch of the imagination, but a genuinely solid performance combined with much higher than average effort from the players.

Labour don't come down on anybody, wrecking the public finances and in the process ultimately coming down on everyone anyway, as we have to try to pay off the debt they accrue. The Tory/Lib Dem Coalition has, so far, phased in an increase in the income tax threshold, bringing the poorest out of income tax completely, and is looking at removing benefits from those who either are cheating the system or are on incomes receiving universal benefits but don't need them. If you think that's got priorities back to front, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'm not saying they've acted in a manner morally justifiable. I'm saying that it is wrong simply to chastise the Tories for the legal activities of an individual with whom they are associated when Labour were the ones with the power to make that individual subject to a fairer tax code. They are all as bad as each other, so let's not pretend the Tories are any more corrupt and command any less moral authority than their predecessors.

Labour turned every bit as much a blind eye to tax dodging! Lord Ashcroft held his title for 10 years before Labour eventually decided to force members of the legislature to be domiciled in the UK! It is a complete "two wrongs" fallacy to suggest that benefit cheats shouldn't be cracked down upon because others are evading tax by legal loopholes.

Again, completely misrepresenting what I'm saying. I am not saying that Ashcroft and co are paragons of virtue. Further, I don't really care if they are paragons of virtue. All I care about is that the public finances are balanced and government doesn't overspend in the future. The McMaster one is actually a very pertinent example of the distinction I'm drawing here, and which you're refusing to acknowledge. It was an absolute scandal that McMaster, having been given shares to safeguard the future of the Club, upped sticks and took them with him. He would have been morally right to return the shares given the purpose for which they were provided. However, the greatest issue is not his taking the shares, but the mechanism which allowed him to take the shares in the first place. Both his and Tom Hughes' guardianship shares should have been subject to the same sort of limitations as the Jags Trust's are: upon ceasing involvement in the Club they should have reverted to the Club by default. The question of invasion of personal liberty has nothing to do with whether or not something is morally right or wrong, but the gravity of the behaviour and the extent to which the state has authority to act retrospectively.