All Activity

Firhill sold out.

But that shit team actually had enough about them to dig themselves out of the hole they were in and only finished below us on goal difference. Maybe the load of players we are after, might give us a bit of badly needed character and fight. After the shit we have signed over the past few years, we can't really do much worse with these guys linked with us and I say that hardly knowing a thing about any of them. I'm not overly convinced on Robinson, but lets give the guy a chance to see what he can do and then all the naysayers, like you, can turn around and say I told you so, when he gets punted.

Looks like Rico wants to go back to the stone age.

Askou leaves to take up the Toulouse job. I reckon he will flop in France and be back in Scotland in a season or two. Motherwell will be our replacements in the bottom six next year.

I really don't see the logic in buying a load of players from a team that finished below us in the league. Robinson not taking long to prove that he is a numpty.

Is it confirmed they're coming to NL?

It also highlights just how far our standards have been allowed to slide since those halcyon days…

Can't wait for pre season in Holland with all these ex Killie players. Will need to be stoned out my head for the Twente Enschede game.

Allegedly looking at Jason Kerr. Came through at St J and has been playing for Wigan the past 5 years and was captain. Robinson defo seems to be trying to get some more leaders into the team it would seem.

Well this is an indicator of where we are after absolutely spaffing all that cash last couple of years. Still, Mayo is a right sided CH who is big, physical and can actually head a ball from what I’ve seen, so that’s a massive upgrade for me. Assuming Tobers is back in the mix next season, that’s Milne replaced at the back so its a good start for me. Lyons I can’t say I know much about, so lets see what he brings if he comes…

Fair enough, I think the evidence is wrong

You don't think I'm wrong, you think the evidence is wrong. We are in planetary overshoot, inclusive of a couple of billion or so who aren't in overshoot Overshoot is a function of energy use Growth has never been decoupled from energy (and materials) use Net zero, as presented to us, and as you're cabling for, is predicated on the status quo of between 1-3% growth globally, or a doubling every 23-30 years Almost all key minerals required for renewable energy are finite and in short supply for global rollout Those minerals are getting harder to access as the easier to reach deposits get used Mineral extraction requires more energy over time (due to the previous point) Fossil fuels provide all (give or take 1%) mineral extraction Fossil fuels perform refinement, transport, installation, maintenance and abandonment of almost all minerals Wild animal mass has gone from ~80kgs per person in 1800, to ~2.5kgs today There are plenty more. Your solutions are non-solutions, based on evidence. If you solved for the problems above, the sixth mass extinction, and not for human supremacist reasons(!) then the solutions that present themselves would look hugely different to the ones you present. Net zero ignores overshoot and thus is an unethical stance. I'd expect better from someone who loves animals...

I am a member of a site that grants ARC's (advanced reader copy) in return for honest and unbiased reviews hence a lot of books I actually read are not yet published. One of the books I've just read and posted an online review is called "The Butcher Of Aberdeen" by Roje Augustin. The Aberdeen in question is not our one but Aberdeen, Australia. It tells the story of Katherine Knight and is a true story of Sex, Madness & Murder and gives the background to her life and the horrific crime she committed and is still incarcerated for and will remain so for the rest of her life. It is without doubt, the most brutally descriptive book I have ever read. It is however, extremely thought provoking in that it is beyond belief that the Australian authorities allowed her to walk free for so long and ultimately her committing the brutal murder and skinning of her partner. As long as you're not squeamish, this one is worth a read when it is published in the summer.

I think you’re wrong though

To his credit, Fergie now says he regrets what he said, but it just highlights the man's drive and determination to win.

See this (in bold) is part of the most frustrating part. It's the third thing after people have tried magical futures and calls to authority, putting the focus on me and personalising it (I'm a hypocrite in this regard as I do the same to others, so I'm not having a go). I don't focus too much on it because my whole way of thinking is pinned on it. I draw attention to it because that is where the evidence leads. Ecological destruction is a function of energy use, full stop. There has been no evidence to suggest otherwise in human lifetime. Growth has never been decoupled from energy use, and will not be (otherwise what's its purpose?). That is what the evidence shows, regardless of whether you or I focus on it, and regardless of our feelings on it. Modernity has been built on the energy of 200 million year old sunlight. That's gone. There's no building our roads or mining or steel or concrete or plastic without it (because the alternatives all require it to make them). Again, that's what the evidence shows, not what I focus on. The beautiful network of cables you are building will almost certainly work for a bit, but by the time we've built the renewable utopia, we'll more than likely have recognised that we can't maintain it.

Ah, the days afore instant news and social media. Having been at the game and pished on the way back up the road it was the Sunday afternoon before I first heard about Fergie's comments

The bit we disagree on is that a high energy civilisation doesn’t mean more land use, chemicals, pollution etc Diesel makes the world go round and there’s no doubt deranged orange nonces starting unnecessary wars they can’t win does put pressure on that, but I think your focused too much on it because your whole way of thinking is pinned on it One of us will be more right than wrong. It won’t be fun finding out

On this day in 1983, Miller and McLeish won the Scottish Cup after a disgrace of a performance.

I'd like to think we could take each on its own merits. Findlay was clearly a very good defender for the SPFL. Milne was a gamble, but more the type of gamble I think most would have been happy with. Mayo probably sits in the Findlay category, maybe slightly below (Welsh might be better, for example). Lyons strikes me as very average, a bottom six player. I'd prefer we took a slight gamble on someone like Stanway. Not sure there's room for both.

So as a fan base we are delusional Then one of his fellow Squirrel Humpers pips up with the thought that they could get Mitov as their back up keeper

I think your first sentence sums it up! Where you see "progress", I see denialism. What you're describing is the maintenance of a high energy use society (whose sole purpose seems to be the economic game in which it exists, rather than meaning or happiness). All of the above requires diesel to create and maintain. Diesel that is getting increasingly more energy intensive (and thus expensive) to access. Most importantly, none of the technologies on their own meet the definition of sustainable, as I've mentioned. They lock in a high energy civilisation, which means destroying biodiversity, more land use, more chemicals, more everything. All at a time when total fertility rates are falling, and we're passed peak oil (almost certainly). Everything you describe is a design for a society that runs on diesel and oil and gas, rather than a future that uses way less energy, with way less people and doesn't have growth as its measure solely for the sake of growth itself. Going back to your initial sentence, I have no problem walking around with what I believe to be the evidence in my head. Where I do sometimes struggle is with the lack of people who see the problem as I see it. It's not just that they don't see it, but they don't counter what I'm saying with actual evidence. It's almost always either a call to magical future technology (the rubbish that is small nuclear to take from your post), or a call to authority: "well there are smarter people than you or I out there that know a lot more about it than us". As I see it, the first step on the way is to admit to the problem, and in that regard I see your position as a hindrance! I see it the same way you see a climate change denier. You've just stopped looking at the evidence at a different point that is more palatable to you. I'm almost certain that I've peeled back the layers of modernity to a point that I'm comfortable with too in the same way. For example, there are those that believe that we are destined for extinction and that it's human nature, and that we were always going to take this trajectory - inevitable through our evolution. I don't believe that, and choose to take the evidence of the few hundred thousand years prior to agriculture to back that up, but that could just be my denialism. I'd argue that at least it's denialism grounded in some evidence.

Min, I’ll send you £50 to get it framed! An Ante Palaversa would say, “this is history man, fucking history!”. Important these things don’t get lost.

I’m trying to keep an open mind. Couldn’t tell you anything about the pair even though I must have watched them play us 4 times this season. What would have been our reaction to Stuart Findlay or Harry Milne this time last year?