DonnyTJS

It's very good, but better still imho is the actual drama of the Calendar interview of Clough and Revie after Clough's sacking. They don't make 'em like this any more: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x492rc9 http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x47rgcp http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x492rza

Ok. Looking back I see that I did indeed misconstrue your comment on Allardyce. Apologies

The point is, Craig (and I'm not getting at you - it's a general point about nationality, international football, and the knots into which some people tie themselves) that it's not about quality - the discussion was about Allardyce after all. You were saying that Allardyce wasn't a suitable manager for Scotland as he's not Scottish. When someone helpfully pointed out that he arguably is, you whipped out the 'Elvis' analogy. This happens to be far more closely analogous to Bardsley than to Allardyce, so I pointed out that nationality hadn't bothered you a few years back when Bardsley was the best option for the national team, despite his Scottish credentials being based on his gran visiting Scotland on holiday and being so overwhelmed by the scenery, the haggis and the quaint local customs that she immediately went into labour and gave the world Phil's dad - an all-but-forgotten family anecdote until Phil's CV jogged his memory.

Sorry - must've been confusing you with this guy.

Just saying ...

That would certainly be true of Phil Bardsley. I seem to remember you were rather keen on seeing him in a Scotland shirt and Allardyce is far more 'Scottish' than him.

Evening All A few months back, when this new, bells-&-whistles version of the board was in its infancy, there was some discussion about whether the 'like' feature should be resurrected after a previous, disastrous attempt years ago (you could also 'dislike' posts in that version and it all ended in tantrums and tears - thanks Phart). I was agin it, due to the likelihood of normal message-board discourse being distorted by a flood of vacuous 'like-bait' posts (and because I knew I wouldn't be very popular). How wrong I was (apart from my relative lack of popularity). Instead of the board being awash with like-bait, we seem to be witnessing a wholly unexpected phenomenon - an Old-Firm-esque-of-yore domination of the TAMB league table by DoonTheSlope and Ormond. Now, I can think of three possible explanations for this: 1. Ormond and DTS continuously post fucking superb stuff that simply leaves the rest of us in the shade. 2. They have cunningly registered under alternative user-names with the sole purpose of liking themselves into a masturbatory orgy of apparent popularity. 3. There's a behind-the-scenes mutual liking going on that is quite frankly gay. And of course I don't mean 'gay' in the politically incorrect sense of mild disparagement; I mean full-on, mano-a-mano indulgence in the-love-that-once-dared-not-speak-its-name gay. Weighing up the probabilities, I think it's most likely option 1, in which case the rest of us need to up the quality of our posts. But I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise ... Edit: Perhaps we could have a poll?

Very true. I was just getting mine in first ...

Aye, I remember watching that. I'd known them for a fair while as the cousin of my sister's boyfriend of the time played keyboards in an early incarnation of the band (Yvonne Pawlett, she's on the cover of the 'It's the New Thing' single I linked to above). Despite meeting the bloke, enjoying the gigs and buying all the early singles and some later ones I don't think I ever really understood what was going on. I saw the Fall as a band rather than a Mark E Smith apolitical situationist project which would have been a better perspective, but I wouldn't have got that at the time anyway. Mark Radcliffe's show is worth listening to, especially for Stewart Lee, who did get it.

Wonder what they'd make of Byron ...

That's Bob for you. I'm going by those he mentioned as influences in Chronicles, in his Nobel Lecture, and those (including Burns) that are obvious in his lyrics.

Woody Guthrie, Herman Melville, PB Shelley, the King James Bible, a host of Delta Bluesmen, Dylan Thomas, Robert Browning, Robert Lowell, William Blake, whoever wrote 'Lord Randall', Lord Byron, Allen Ginsberg, William Shakespeare ... Burns has been an influence, but 'single greatest' is pushing it a bit.

I honestly don't think I recall that. But I'll take your word for it. So, as I said, you cherry-pick. And so that conclusion is your own human, and therefore fallible, construct. Nothing wrong in that, but since you have chosen (based on study) which verses apply to the natural world and which are merely figurative then you cannot claim any divine basis for their accuracy - the basis for your claims is your faith in your own ability at cherry picking. And there's a very good reason for that. The Bible is not a reliable source for accurate descriptions of the nature of the physical cosmos. Since there is no objective difference between Isaiah 40:22 (the Earth is circular) and Revelation 7:1 (the Earth has four corners), it cannot be reliable. All we can say is that you choose to accept the Isaiah verse as literal and the Revelation verse as figurative (interesting that you reject the truth of the New Testament verse, by the way), and your studious opinion, if you don't mind my saying so, isn't a good basis for cosmological theory.

If you insist: That's what I mean by 'debunking'.

Ta. I like a good 30 for 30. I'll give it a go this weekend.

Yeah, there was a lot of ego there and he must've been a bastard to work with. On their night, a great live experience though. I've still got a wad of drunkenly scribbled lyric sheets he gave me stuffed in a drawer somewhere.

Agree with that, and was very impressed with the elegance and simplicity of your proof. For me though, the keeper from this thread is Scotty's admission that the Bible contains figurative language that should not be taken literally. He's right, of course, but it means he not only fails 'Bible-believing Flat Earther 101', it also undermines any attempt to use Biblical texts to make truth-claims about the nature of the physical world.

Club. In part due to the media. Questions like 'would I take an FA Cup / Premier League Championship for club over a World Cup for country' don't apply because DRFC aren't going to get close. If they did, it would be because a billionaire has decided to spunk his wealth into the club, in which case the soul would be gone and I'd no longer be supporting them anyway.

So, to sum up: Huddersfield has provided a straightforward way of showing that the earth is not a flat disc, and Scotty has said that the Bible contains poetry which should not be taken as a literal, physical description of the world. A useful morning for all concerned and we can finally put this one to bed.

Are you really so self-blind? Of course I know it could be figurative. That's my whole point. Exactly the same argument could be made, for example, for Isaiah 40:22 (your source for the circularity of the Earth - according to that graphic you posted): "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the Earth" - that reads like poetry to me. You cannot cherry-pick from the Bible what is figurative and what is literal fact, based solely on what fits your pre-determined world-view - but that is precisely what you are doing - and ironically it's precisely the argument you're trying to use against me. I know it means spell. Trying to muddy the waters, Scotty? You were claiming that it means spell because of the Greek word for 'six'. It doesn't, as I showed. It means spell because of the Germanic word for 'hag'. But you did say in that thread that what you were claiming was 'the truth'. You have said in this thread that I have never debunked you. Wrong on both counts. Anyroad, continue to troll the thread with shite ... oh, but I forgot, I'm the one who's tediously boring.

I was quoting Scripture, Scotty, just like you (sometimes) do. Rather than try to convince you of the objective validity of current scientific models of the universe, I occasionally feel it is more interesting to point out counter-arguments from the fount of knowledge at which you sup. Weirdly, you then moan about it. Take this example from a while back when you were getting all hot and bothered about naked witches and making false claims about the etymology of hex to mean spell (in a Shay Logan thread of all places):

Book's worth reading ...

I was pointing out that your answer was inaccurate even in its own terms and felt that Mario, and others, would be interested in that fact. This tends to be how message boards work. Far from it, but you choose to single me out as the Gatekeeper. Look at my posting history, Scotty; it doesn't bear that out at all. Seriously? If so, you don't understand what I mean by 'fundamental questions about the nature of knowledge'. Those were individual, one-off events involving countless variables and therefore not subject to 'theory' in the sense of testable hypotheses with predictive potential. The nature of the universe, on the other hand, is quite different and that's where fundamental questions apply. I like that you're questioning scientific orthodoxy - it shouldn't go unquestioned. But, by the same token, nor should your explanations of the nature of the universe. People answer your questions more effectively than you answer theirs. And there's a reason for that... I don't know the identities of the 'perps', so how can I call them out?

Why do you need images? Your source of information doesn't use images (not pictorial ones at any rate). If there were a way of unsquaring the circle, it should be explicable in words. The problem is not that you can't find the EXACT image, it's that you can't explain it, and you can't explain it because the source you rely on is inconsistent if taken literally. By taking Biblical text as the literal truth you tie yourself up in knots - it's not me tangling the ball of yarn. Far from watering down the truth I simply don't accept your version of the truth, in the case of the flat earth - same as pretty much everyone else on here. Yet I am the Gatekeeper? I'm not on the board much these days because I'm busy and not many topics interest me - this one does, because it raises fundamental questions about the nature of knowledge. Why do you need me to "admit the obvious" about JFK or 9/11? I rarely enter those discussions at all because I have nothing to contribute (you'd think any Gatekeeper worth his salt would be all over them). I know a bit about the history of science; I know a bit about the Bible; I know a lot about the transmission and interpretation of texts. I know nothing about the dynamic forces involved in what we witnessed on 9/11 nor about the events surrounding JFK's assassination so what would my ignorance bring to the debate?

I sense you know that answer, so kindly tell us what it is. I'm not a mathematician, as I said, and I don't currently have time to dig around to find out what you're on about.