rocket_scientist

I reckon you and I might accord on substantive matters. It was what wasn't said that was the meat. The best thing to come out of it was the collapse of Cameron. In the Commons at PMQ he is so assured of himself as he eats, swallows, regurgitates and re-gorges on the bones of wee Mili Winkie. In that forum, he was incredibly unconvincing, much more so than I considered he would be. The value is this. It guarantees a hung parliament. People are finally starting to see through Westminster politics. The marginals, Wales, Scotland and Green came out of it better than they could have hoped. Sturgeon was fantastic, the only statesperson on show. All four men were shown to be insane. Change is coming. That debate helped it come.

You ignorant loser cunts on low wages and sad lives. It was an awesome debate. Not only did Wales, Scotland and Green come out well, the four Englishmen were proven mad. It was a women superiority v. men happening. Something your stupid feeble little minds were incapable of observing. Maybe you're all Muslim cunts?

The presumption is always that we're being told the truth. The critical thinking part is exploring boundaries. In this case, my gut feel was that we were getting told the truth and that it was a deliberate act for this reason. The speed with which they told us and the nature of it. To allege he was a nutjob within 24 hours (12?) of finding the audio then it had to be true. Leaving yourself wide open otherwise. Too big a lie to pull off. Too much personal history to concoct or wipe out. Question over Lufthansa's recruitment and assessment strategies which may or may not result in legal culpability but I bet there were huge sighs of relief at Airbus and throughout Europe. Profit before life. Every time for these cunts.

Plane fa's oot the sky. "Falls", in case yer weegie and dinna ken the score The critical thinker's first instinct is to look for the boundaries of possibilities. Doesn't matter how remote the possibility, always good to frame the overall context. Technical or engineered? Engineering malfunction - design or service - or engineered by man? Or an "act of god" of course. Consequences. If a technical design malfunction, Airbus go out of business with the lawsuits pending. If a technical maintenance malfunction, Lufthansa go out of business with the lawsuits pending. Airbus and Lufthansa are far more important than kids and babies and randoms who died in the sky. They have shareholders. They have profits to make and dividends to pay. Fuck a small number like a couple of hundred dead to fuck this up. Best to blame it on a 28 year old kraut fruitcake, never to release the audio evidence and rely on the press to do what they're owned to do, forgetting the pursuit of truth and serving the corporatocracy they are obliged to do.

Clangfud should have been shot by now. Been got shot of, if the PC polis are around. Been liquidated from the payroll. Been ousted from AFC Plc. He's fucking shite. Always has been. Always will be. You can't be a half decent fitba team with a total cunt like him in goal. McInnes is a fucking wanker for not having identified this basic truth by now, two years into the job. You just can't compete with a total incompetent between the sticks. We have two completely useless bastards to choose between.

Roses are red. Violets are blue. Sevco nil, Hibernian two.

Sunk by a shocking decision for Rooney's goal and a keeper who was fucking horrific. If we didn't have such a clown on the bench, Brown should never play for AFC again after that.

There are facts and there are opinions. Anybody holding the opinion that Considine's best position is left back isn't qualified to join in football debate.

Chuck Berry was a genius. Yes were wrong. Tarantino uses music brilliantly in his films. I'm not sure Mia and Vincent might have danced so well at Jack Rabbit Slims if some pretendy intellectual art house wanker shrill shite like Yes was the track.

You're not very good at this, are you? Bollocks. To your gross distortion of my character and to your unfounded optimism. I've never been described as negative, nor as a pessimist, because I am neither. If you are familiar with the groundbreaking work of Professor Carol Dweck of Stanford University, which will have major implications in various fields inc. management, recruitment, team-building and high performance coaching, you will be aware of the distinction between fixed mindsets and growth mindsets. Fixed mindsets would listen to shit music from 40 years ago and would get stuck in that era. The growth mindset listens to everything and make their own minds up. As for winning the SPL, that's just never going to happen this May for a number of reasons. To understand this, you would have to understand football. If we hadn't got Brown between the sticks, the mathematical remoteness still existing would have been snuffed out ages out.

Well it only took a couple of weeks to finish that idea. It would have been nice for the dream to have lasted a bit longer. The karma that told me that it was always going to be a pipe dream was those Dons fans on the telly that they cornered in the ticket office, singing "we're gonna win the league". There's a good chance that the unfortunate souls are regular posters on an AFC webchatspeaksite given that they seemed to have nothing else in their lives. It was the fact that they were all virgins that was the most unfortunate, bonding together behind their football team, unable to get a woman through their common social handicaps.

I do.

Yes, you're all right. It is nothing to do with moderating. It's more basic than that. Possible reasons for nothing interesting being posted on AFC forums include this, that and the other. As it is futile to identify those possibilities, the ship having sailed and only morons left to speculate, I think I'll be having Thai beef salad for tea. I might even buy some red Schloer.

You're really not much cop at this at all, are you? Then again, anyone who "appreciates" Yes is going to be a No-No in the absence of refuting evidence, of which there is none in your case. If I was sexually frustrated, how does this manifest itself exactly? This will be the same lazy fuddled thinking that those who claim my posts are as a result of being pished engage. Allow me to expand your imagination. Let me give you some other possibilities, a list that will not be exhaustive, deliberately. A confrontationalist would react and provoke a reaction for the sake of it. Somebody with a fucked up sense of justice would react to defend himself in the face of attack. An intolerant man would react when there is gross stupidity being posted, unable to have the intelligence to let it go. A stupid or insecure man would react against others who he perceives as better/funnier/more intelligent/more popular than him in the mistaken belief that cutting down the tall poppy would bring solace to his miserable existence. A mental gymnast or a twisted manipulator might use online confrontation as a means to sharpen his people control skills, somebody who obviously lacks empathy and gives no thought to the consequences of trampling on people. Someone who is frustrated with himself and feeling guilty about wasting too much of his time on online forums would react, lashing out at anybody rather than lash out at himself. And of course, the wonderful catch-all, the poster could be plain mad. What's the range of some of the possibilities for your boring, nothing posts? Edit: I'll give you a starter, a list of one. From the keyboard of a boring, nothing man.

Is that the best you can do? I'm not angry. I've never been angry, for 20 odd years now, probably 25. You're not very good at this, are you? I'm just retaliating to your insult on another thread, one which I'm guessing was because I don't obviously give a fuck about cliquey cunts like you. I also happen to know that anyone who likes Yes or Genesis or Pink Floyd or Emerson, Lake & Palmer or the Rolling Stones or Bruce Springsteen or Dire Straits or Coldplay is a fanny, particularly Yes with the hilariously shrill vocals. The first four "bands" appeal to a particular type of fanny, a middle class wanker who aspire to pseudo intellectualism. Peter Gabriel last month on the other hand at the AECC was utterly outstanding.

I would keep my appreciation of Jon Yes quiet if I were you. Like Genesis, music that appealed to a certain type of fanny. People sad enough to still listen to that shite? It was crap 40 years ago.

So the fact that every one of his posts, and your solitary one thus far on this thread doesn't engage with the debate is my fault is it? What's wrong with your pathetic little lives? You ever wonder why nae cunt talks to you? Disgrace to the club.

Don't concern yourself about me. Ask yourself where the ire towards you derived. Introspect. And if as I suspect you have the shit job that is stable and boring and a life that is bare minimum acceptable to you without risk and bereft of excitement, just appreciate how even a handful of words reveals deep aspects of personality. Christ on a bike isn't very AFC by the way. It's an infuriatingly wanker expression.

Stunning fail. You couldn't have put it worse if you tried. It was your lack of empathy more than anything else, your inability to appreciate how it may have been received by the OP. Either it was an epic fail or you're a fucking liar. I couldn't personally give a fuck either way what you are. I just can't stand seeing a poster on any AFC forum behaving like an OF type thick bigot towards a fellow AFC. That was wanker behaviour. From an apparently middle class pretendy intellectual type wanker. The type of wanker who's sair needing the smack in the pus he's nivver had his hale life.

What sort of mindset engages energy to express apathy? And without the slightest trace of humour, what was the point? Inform or entertain? That's the only possible objectives of discourse on forums such as these. Are you as much of a sad act wanker in real life? Rhetorical. You managed to illustrate your sickness perfectly in one post.

I agree Redmist. The guys is a charlatan. I'm amazed he got the gig. Don't they conduct recruitment interviews? The most uninspiring man in Scottish fitba and boy we've already got a few beauts, mostly solid thick fucks. His getting sacked if AFC win the league would be hilarious. The fact they're not already well ahead with their resources is wholly down to his incompetence... plus an amazing recent run from the Dons of course!

When I say I "studied" religion, it was more an examination. Nothing formal. No teacher. I just wanted to read the book that governed our state before rejecting the religion called Christianity, which I had already instinctively done. It was a good read in parts. Some decent shit in amongst the dogma and formulaic presentation. I got the most from Buddhism and some of the philosophy from the east, again just personal reading, exploring stuff for myself without specific direction. You obviously didn't see Question Time tonight. The point I make about the balance between freedom of speech and gratuitous offence was the view agreed on by the panel. There are laws of blasphemy on the subject. It's not rocket science. It's a very simple argument. I can't express my words any more clearer than I did. Edit: The Pope also said it very clearly. With Celtic being anxious just now, his holiness has been viewing on here, saw my post and regurgitated it verbatim. Plagiarising papal papstick.

It is your opinion that a whole religion is parochial. It is your opinion that Islam is inward, backward, discriminatory etc. Whilst I find Islam and indeed all organised religions offensive in many respects, I recognise that it is just my opinion. I respect the fact that for so many millions, it's the whole code by which they live. Not that it's relevant at all unlike what one confused poster above seems to think but I have dealt extensively with Arabs and been in their countries during Ramadan etc. What is relevant is that my rejection of their religion is a qualified one. I read the Bible in full, voluntarily and made a point of reading the Koran and studying (not academically) all religions before rejecting them all in establishing my own beliefs. But I would never use judgemental adjectives such as "backward". That is poor, so typically "western" and Sun headliney. Whatever my opinion, qualified as I may be or not to comment on such a significant part of the existence for so many, I wouldn't draw a picture of the prophet with his arse hinging oot, far less publish the obscenity. I would also have the decency and respect for other people not to insult them by having the prophet snogging a man and repeatedly producing images designed to offend, images that in my judgement were grossly inappropriate, totally over the top and disproportionate to whatever ill-conceived objective they could possibly have. If they were trying to be funny, only 60,000 readers agreed. The 5m+ windfall sympathy injection won't bring their dead back. They wouldn't be dead if they hadn't been so infantile, offensive and disrespectful of others.

Congratulations. It is wholesome and hearty to see ignorance put down with clinical efficiency, in absolute terms from where there is zero prospect of any credible comeback. That it was done with a robustly functioning sense of humour, the icing on the cake. In a new year where Charlie Hebdo has dominated the news and the debate about freedom of expression came to the fore, it is interesting that not one commentator spoke about taste or decency or motive or the potential effects of provocation. Where one has been challenged in words on an online forum by a stupid or sick boy, then it is open season as to the nature of the retort which leaves them urinating into their shoes, to use his analogy. But where there has been no previous attack - and in the events last week, let's be honest, how can a whole religion attack a bunch of cartoonist individuals - why was the publication so consistently and gratuitously offensive towards Allah? Surely any reasonable man could have foreseen that their "humour" would have generated huge offence amongst many and it was foreseeable that a radical nutjob or a thousand would have had steam coming out their ears and a sweaty angsty finger hovering over their trigger. The slaughter of the staff in Paris last week was a shocking disgrace, the act of two madmen. But it wouldn't have happened in Scotland. We don't have arsehole cartoonists, weak wimpy men hiding behind their pens, poking derision at whoever they feel like just because they can, mistakenly believing that freedom of speech was their shield to protect them for all evil. That some of their cartoons were shockingly offensive bordering on sick, without good taste, well beyond any line of decency in many cases and always provoking a reaction for the sake of it, by fuck they got one.

Seems like you put a lot of thought into it. Seems like you needed to come up with something, anything to believe in. There is an argument that an atheist is stupid by his very declaration of not believing. We can only come to conclusions on matters where conclusions can be had. Knowing what can be known and what is unknowable is wise. I reject every world religion but not everything contained therein. I am unable to say that I'm an aetheist however.