rocket_scientist

Why? Did we offend you? You didn't have to read it. If you hadn't found our various discussions so offensive, you might have seen that I was objecting to another poster saying that Salmond wouldn't get a fair trial. He decided to introduce my use of "karma" in another thread (or threads) as an insult and I asked him, fruitlessly thus far, what he meant by this. From that discussion, he asked for "enlightenment" and our discussion went into other fields. The subject of closed minds and lack of imaginations were put on the table in relation to Salmond's upcoming trial, subjects that are equally applicable to religion and art so it wasn't a random diversion, not that there's anything wrong in that. So shut the fuck up you moron.

But I also said it's important to define the subject first, before choosing to investigate or not, before accepting or rejecting. What is the subject? The Vatican? The catholic church? Religion itself? I think the catholic church is an evil organisation so why would I give money to it? Why would any non-believer give money to see stolen gold? I know what's in there but fucked if I'm paying to see it.

I agree that organised religion is a pile of shite, a system designed to exploit and control the masses but no, I've not been to the Vatican. Well I've been to the square and I seen the queues of people waiting to part with their cash but why the fuck would I want to do that? However, religion tries to explain some of the big questions and whilst I don't accept their answers, this doesn't mean that the questions don't exist. They are still valid questions despite their invalid interpretations. Rejecting an interpretation doesn't mean we should ignore or deny the subject. As for your looking for "evidence" and "facts" (of a "higher power" or the "divinity of nature" or whatever the subject might be), there might be plenty and in various forms but these could be invisible to many by virtue of their inability to recognise them. It's not a bad idea to fully investigate a subject before rejecting it and in order to do that, you need to define the subject properly first. At least I read the bible in full (voluntarily I may add) before rejecting it when I was already a teenage atheist. I was probably an atheist for 20+ years until I hit 30-ish when I started to realise that some of the magic that happens in this world (including to us, directly as individuals) can not be rationally explained, therefore putting some new (and old) questions back on the table. The problem with your interpretation of modern art is once again of definition. Where do we or where can we draw the lines? I don't see anything in Tracey Emin's work but I like hearing her speak. She's a very intelligent and interesting woman and whilst I can't see any artistic merit that she supposedly has, I'm certain that she's serious about it and is most definitely not "taking the piss". Damien Hirst is another I wouldn't get out of bed to go and see his work but I'm at least closer to recognising something about his output (than I am of Emin) so I recognise that it's my limitation, it's my fault, it's my make up and outlook that makes it invisible to me. It's not the artist taking the piss out of art itself, even though some of the subjects are valid piss-takes on that theme. Those were the two artists you specifically mentioned but where have you drawn the lines? I don't profess to understand Francis Bacon's paintings but I love them and went to Tate Britain particularly to see his triptych. I consider Hockney as the other great British artist of my lifetime but again, even when I read about others interpretations of the same work that I've seen myself, I don't understand what some are seeing in it but on many other occasions (Picasso's Guernica in Madrid being the most striking example for me), I can only fully appreciate the art after being educated about it, whether how and why it was made or what the constituent parts (or the whole) represents. The iconic Goya and Velasquez works in the Prado weren't works that I understood at first but they grabbed me, big time. I didn't have to know everything about the image I was looking at to recognise the beauty within it. Abstract Expressionism isn't meant to be understood arguably but it doesn't mean it's "pish" or "shite". I loved seeing Jackson Pollock's stuff in the RA whereas Mark Rothko's work I couldn't see or feel anything in. That was 18 months ago and last weekend I went into a room of his big works at Tate Modern. I had seen a documentary on BBC4 in the intervening period which explained Rothko and the church he was commissioned to do in the US was brilliant, the way he used his art and his distinct uses of colour to create ambience and atmosphere. I therefore changed my view of his work after educating myself about it and whilst I still don't understand the basics of his particular modern art, I can at least feel something of his intent now, without being a full convert. That's Paul Klee in my avatar, who like Cezanne, are artists who have created stuff I would travel to see, which indeed I've done. I went from Aberdeen to London on my own to see Picasso's Picassos aged 16. This has been a lifelong passion for me and so when I hear views like yours, I would want to know that you've invested a minimum amount of time to be qualified to reject it, rather than taking the easy cop-out, which is what the blind and ignorant might do, unable to confront their own lack of comprehension. Having said that, I was pleased to see Koons getting a pasting last week. His pop art is plain vulgar to me and if ever there was an artist who got incredibly wealthy for reasons I don't see, it's him. I wouldn't describe Warhol as the greatest and most important artist of the 20th century (as some do) but some of his stuff, the soup cans in particular are very clever and deeply thought provoking. Turner's Snowstorm was incredible in the flesh. I've never liked his paintings before (nor Constable's brand of realism) but it's important to allow the natural changes that occur within us all to allow us to change our outlooks, our reflections and our opinions. The great work done by professor Carol Dweck (of Stanford Uni) on the differences between people of fixed and growth mindsets applies here, particularly on these subjects of religion and art.

Thanks to poster dd on here, going to see a band I'd never heard of before he introduced it. Nouvelle Vague. April. Wow mat.

6,000 v Hamilton in the SC during Calderwood times. 2006 I think. Maybe 2008. The most freezingist Pittodrie day ever. 1-0. Josh Walker either scored or set it up.

Aberdeen man David Law won the European Tour event just now in style with an eagle at the last. Brilliant performance and well deserved. There are no shortcuts to success. This 27 year old has worked so hard and having witnessed his last 28 holes when he won at Spey Valley last year, he's one of the most improved golfers I've ever seen. So chuffed for him and hopefully a MASSIVE boost for the sport in the North East

If it had become an interesting discussion, why not add to it? Denying the existence of spirituality and exhibiting a failure to understand the whole point of art isn't adding anything. It's doing the complete opposite, sucking the life out of any possible opportunity for growth, learning and development.

Unfortunately the Bribery laws are circumvented, ignored and flouted by the Tory establishment. Blair also is a corrupt cunt and took "new Labour" down the same dirty road, one that he continues to run down. Grayling, like Hammond, Mundell, Davis and all of them are specific individuals. They are non-Alpha males, they are public schooled, they are arselickers and they are in politics for themselves, not for the people, in breach of their job descriptions. And yet middle England and the NE of Scotland voted these cunts in? That's unfathomable to me. As a wifie said in QT from Motherwell on Thursday, the timing is ripe for a brand new party.

Wonder how the NE Tories are feeling about that horrible little cunt Ross Thomson being outed as a weirdo pervert?

It depends what you mean? You might have been but until you clarify what it is you're actually saying, we will never know, not that this subject is necessarily definable and therefore easily rejected by the absolutists, those without imagination, the science types who demand answers for everything, even when it is perfectly obvious that not everything is explicable. You need to first define what your position is; You attributed an interpretation of "karma" to me, one that you disagreed with. Not that I give a fuck what you think but how can you be right (or wrong) on something if you don't back it up? What were you meaning by this sleight?

Yes I was at arguably THE most meaningful match ever played there. It was meant to be April 1989 but Hillsborough happened so the Liverpool-Arsenal match was postponed until a Friday night in late May when it had turned into the league decider. Everybody including us thought we would be witnessing the crowning of another Liverpool title but it never panned out that way. We were in the Kemlyn (?) Road stand which was like a pitch side main stand and when Michael Thomas scored that goal, the guy in front of me couldn't help himself, jumping up and letting out a squeak before sitting down rapidly, after remembering where he was. I put a firm hand on his shoulder and I could feel him freezing before I whispered in his ear - you deserved it (before explaining we were neutrals). My wife was at Anfield for the Aberdeen game five years before I met her. I wasn't but the main reason we've been together for a third of a century is because I picked well, my sense of karma - instinct really - identifying the Dons fan within her, despite the fact that her now deid old man was a hun prick. I love Yorksire and despite Leeds city centre, I like that part of the world and will be going to Elland Road one day soon. I've heard it's a great club. My next new fitba experiences shall be Balmoor tomorrow (never been but only as long as its not pissing rain) and Feyenoord in 3 weeks time.

I love a bit of irrational hatred. I'm also no fan of Liverpool, both the club and the people. Chelsea are my newest hate. I never liked how Abramovich bought success and his gains were ill-gotten with the theft of Sibneft assets, as many of the Oligarchs did but having attended Stamford Bridge for the first (and last) time on Saturday, I wish the club great misfortune. The pub opposite the main entrance wasn't heaving, bizarrely, and the pubs inside the stadium had no queues. Do these fuckers not drink? It's such a soulless corporate stadium, reminiscent of the Emirates for the wankers content. There's no atmosphere. The Huddersfield fans were funny. In the second half when they were getting horsed they were singing "this place is like a fucking library", whereupon the shitey home support (which we would have been singing) made a pathetic attempt at a rebuke. The standard uniform of camel-coloured flat caps by the wannabe middle class Chelski boys in their 30's was as far removed from cockney as Chelsea is removed from being a proper football club rather than the money laundering exercise that it is. So I guess that's a rational hatred towards them on this occasion. Weird as fuck though, they sang Stand Free and went to mow a meadow on the rare occasions they did make a noise, although they sing Care Free instead.

I'm guessing there's an interesting story behind the origin of your detestation for Liverpool?

At least your tone is less confrontational now and you have desisted from your insulting rhetoric. It was you who introduced "naive" to the debate in an attempt to back up your point which has since been proven (beyond all reasonable doubt) to be a confused one. I would argue that it is incredibly naive to fail to understand that people do lie but to hold up the legal system as somehow being to blame for that. Your "apparently worth writing about" was noted for what it was and as Marcellus Wallace said "that's pride fucking with you. Fuck pride" Instead of seeking confrontation all the time or attempting to portray yourself as being the only man on the planet who doesn't make mistakes, get some humility. If you admit that you're not all-knowing about karma, what did you mean when you tried to insult me? What did you interpret by my use of that term in other threads and why did it weaken any points that I had made when using it? As for enlightening you, there are no short cuts in life. You either study a subject or you choose not to. Atheists are as arrogant (and as ignorant, close-minded and imaginationless) as the pious, for a very simple reason. They have decided that there is no God just like the religious have decided that there is a God (or Gods). Agnosticism is the future, the ability to say "I don't know", which requires humility of course. As an agnostic myself, we can reject all world religions too. Philosophy and religion need to be recognised as totally different subjects. Ancient philosophies do not stem from ignorance. On the contrary many of the truths in this world have been articulated before and many of them are to be found within ancient texts. By reading many of these texts, we find that the same truths are expressed in different ways and in different contexts. Never confuse science and religion too. That's as stupid as people who decry art because they don't understand it. I was at Tate Britain and Tate Modern at the weekend and I guarantee that most of us (particularly on the south bank and definitely including me) didn't have even an entry point at which to attempt to understand the subjects and themes of many of the exhibits, far less interpret them for our own learning let alone interpret them for others. It doesn't make life any less enjoyable however, not knowing. It's only the really ignorant cunts who need to be proved right all the time, particularly on a forum such as this where it enters patheticism (a word made up by Rico on this thread rather than me, who invents words all the time to fit a debate). Edit: my mistake, it wasn't an invented word. It is a real one, a word I had never come across before.

It appears that you don't know even the basics about the legal system, let alone "inside out". EVERY conviction in Scotland (and I understand in England too) needs to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. This is why I mentioned the Moorov doctrine in my first post, which I suspect the pf will need to get conviction in this case. And yet , without knowing the very first basic fundamental premise of criminal law, you still feel qualified to state that it's "impossible in fact" for him to get a fair trial? The Scottish legal system is very highly regarded in many countries in the world. The law does not mean ONLY criminal law. There are many other aspects of human existence that are covered by legislation and judicial interpretation. "The rule of law" that you've heard all the politicians regurgitate means the separation of powers and recognising the distinct roles of the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. What you fail to understand is that it is not the weakness of the system that leads to wrongful convictions (in criminal law) or wrongful decisions in civil law (where the burden of proof is less, being on a balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt). It is wholly down to the evidence presented and where a policeman lies, or where a witness misinterprets a situation but presents it as fact (or also lies), this is not the fault of the legal system itself. It is very common to engage a reflection strategy, to simply throw back an argument (or an insult) in the face of your accuser, particularly when exhausted and having run out of credible arguments. It's what weak people do; I did NOT deny any possibility. You on the other hand did: - It is poetic that you then go on to prove your inability to embrace possibilities with your closing statement: - Karma as a concept is widely misunderstood and it has many different meanings. Just because you don't believe in the concept - you are probably an ignorant atheist too? - doesn't mean that Chinese philosophy over millennia is completely without merit and that the doctrine of Yin and Yang does not exist. Your failure to embrace the possibility doesn't mean that the other billions who follow Hinduism are misguided. The Bhagavad Gita isn't nonsense just because you say it is. The three gunas of nature embraced by Yogi cultures and practised in Yoga might be beyond your limited imagination but that doesn't mean it does not exist. You should seek understanding before seeking confrontation for the sake of it. I believe that one creates one's own luck and I believe that we reap what we sow, matters that are described in some of the interpretations of karma. You however have attributed some meaning of karma to me without first knowing what I mean and, I strongly suspect, not having invested the energy to read any philosophy (let alone Eastern philosophies) which kind of proves that you are lacking in credibility and imagination but still think you've got all the answers. You sir, are a small bitter man with a major problem. Edit: By the way, Salmond hasn't got "so much to lose" in terms of his "career". That is already spent. It's his reputation that is at stake here, plus his liberty.

It's football. We won't all agree. It was the best game I've seen by Greg Stewart in a red shirt. It was McKenna's worst. Some are blaming McInnes tonight, I'm not, unusually as I think he's a clown (but with an exceptional ability to talk a good game and to appear like a competent manager). I would sack GMS right now, the majority would not. The only thing we can all agree on is that we are not good enough to win the league and even in this agreement, we would disagree on the reasons why. It's not fucking working and it's sickening to the stomach.

I love Sam but he really was anonymous for over 93 minutes of that game. No, he wasn't a pass mark for me. Let's face it, there's a reason he's cheap as chips. He's a journeyman at best. Not enough about him. Will never progress above this level and if we ever get good enough to win titles, he won't be playing every week.

Only Shinnie and Stewart played well tonight. In an 11 v. 11 sport, we can't afford only two with pass marks. GMS should never play for AFC again. The man is bad karma. He's fucking poison.

Get GMS off the pitch. He's a weak fud cunt.

Terrible capitulation first half. Shocking defending for the first, Kent waltzed past us all and Joe was weak. Brilliant response, all made possible by a tremendous Shinnie intervention. Pity I had Cosgrove first goal @ 10/1. The first time I've ever said this but sublime finish by cunthead for their 2nd. A massive McKenna fuck up for the pen. He's got that in him. The positive is Greg Stewart, infinitely better post-Clarke. GMS and Logan need a massive kick up the arse. The former is all show. The latter has been regressing for too long. Fair score at HT. Shocking situation.

Please don't tell me it's Consi at LB. In fact, with Hoban and McKenna playing, why is Considine on the pitch? Oh yeah, Shinnie in midfield, where he's been for two years, two years of fruitlessness. This team is still good enough to win tonight.

I agree on every one of your points and in support of this one, the Scottish legal system is a beautiful thing. With its foundations and core principles taken from ancient Roman Law, it's a masterpiece of human creativity which enshrines fairness and decency for all. Any foundation-less claims that Salmond won't get a fair trial are not to be taken seriously because the claimant hasn't offered even a notion of how this might be possible. He simply hasn't thought it through and has confused what he wants to happen with his own absurd arguments and ridiculous points. That's ok, he's not the first to spik utter shite and he won't be the last although quite what makes a man put his head in the sand and attempt to deny a possibility, any possibility, is really quite bizarre and concerning.

You said the charges didn't make sense. You said he's a smart man, too smart to grope. You said it was impossible for him to get a fair trial. Yes I did read properly. You can't take back your words. I too have seen wrongful convictions, almost always police lying in court. But this won't have any police witnesses, it will be the retired elder statesman's words against those of the women he affronted. Once again, why have you already made determinations that a) he's too "smart" to grope, and b) this particular trial will be an affront to truth and justice?

calm down calm down. I swear there used to be an emotion for that. Enfield nailed scousers. Permanently.

Usual excitement for match day and the special anticipation that it's them, my least favourite institution. All to usually however in the last couple of decades, it's excitement based on hope and prayers rather than conviction and confidence. We never know which side will turn up. My optimism today however is based on what the scouse tink said after the 1-1. A class above was crass and insulting and it's smacked him in the face, hard and twice. I'm not sure if the spell he cast upon himself in these matches was permanent but I reckon we've still got some mileage coming. AFC do have the players to beat them. It should be totally in our own hands if we do or not as they're really not that good. The timing of their manager's latest outburst couldn't have been better. The way he contorted his face with disgust when speaking of Steve Clarke was, well, it was scouse, it was tink and it was Rangers. I never heard what Clarke said but I understand he had a go at Defoe. Gerrard may have thought he was acting like an experienced manager and what an experienced manager would do, protecting his players but he's not an experienced manager and he's failing to cut his own cloth. He's a stereotype, a thick scouse cunt and he needs his arse felt a whole lot more in our country and particularly in our part of our country. Fuck him and his dirty fucking team.