Hamilton Saint

Sigh. You'd think so. I've stopped anticipating this. I don't hope for this any more, as I've stopped referring to any Saints' fixture as a "must-win" game. Been burned too many times!

Don't blame the ref for the sending off; blame the player for getting himself in trouble. Playing the game is a tacit recognition of the authority of the ref to interpret the run of play. No ref, no game. And harassing the ref, Man U-style, doesn't work in getting the decision reversed.

On the western edge of Hythe in Dibden Purlieu. My brother and older sister went there in the 60s.

Stick to the arguments. Insults are not required to make your point. 1) I did not say that innocent civilians were being targetted. Innocents do get killed accidentally. But they're still dead - accident or not. 2) I don't know why you call my argument a "cynical 'realpolitik' " one. My argument is a moral argument. I oppose real politik rationalisations. 3) I did not say I didn't like you expressing your revulsion. I agree with your sentiment. I disagreed with your conclusion. You have clearly misunderstood what I've written, because you mis-characterise my point. Go back and read my posts carefully again. Read what I've said, not what you think I've said. I don't appreciate being told to "sod off" by someone who invited comments and opinions in the original post of this thread. If you cannot think clearly, or read effectively, or argue dispassionately, don't bother initiating debate.

"Paradigm shift" seems to have died a merciful death.

In my opinion, the object of the cover letter is to demonstrate that you can string sentences together effectively - to show that you can communicate in a coherent and articulate manner. Depending on the type of job you are applying for, this could be the crucial consideration.

2 pages.

The 80s were a bummer, man! Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher - OMG!

Part of a major political trend - privatise public services to reduce costs and eliminate unionised protection.

I am not justifying anything - and nothing I have said gives you the right to make that claim. Stick to the argument. Don't try to wriggle out of it by making ad hominem attacks. If your concern is for the fate of the innocent victim then there is no distinction. The victim is still dead. Your original point was that disgust with the horrific killing of this innocent child justifies "bombing the f*ck" out of Syria. Bombing can kill scores, hundreds, thousands of innocent lives. You don't achieve justice by punishing an entire community for the crimes of individuals. You don't achieve justice for an innocent victim by killing other innocent victims.

Do you draw a distinction between killing an innocent child up-close and personal, and killing an innocent child by dropping a bomb on him?

Fair enough. My last word on this topic: I also consider myself a "live-and-let-live-atheist" . But fundamentalist religion (especially the "Bible belt" variety found in the US and the "jihadist" type of Islam) does get me going. I did a degree in Philosophy and Religious Studies at university, so I certainly respect people's beliefs and faith - but religious extremism does need to be recognised and condemned. One can understand the scientist's dismay with the sort of religious fundamentalism that rejects obvious scientific fact (creationism, for example). And science, furthermore, does recognise that new theories and new evidence arise to challenge previous understandings. I consider science and religion two distinct versions of reality. When "religious" people deny scientific truth, or scientists deny that human experience contains other "realities" than scientific truth, I think of it as a "category mistake". Often, the so-called conflict between science and religion is based on this failure to recognise that category mistake. Two ways of experiencing the world that should not be confused or conflated.

Great book! I read it again in Cuba in March. When you've finished it watch the 1940s film version starring Gary Cooper and Ingrid Bergman. Cooper became a good friend of Hemingway.

But if you did change his words it wouldn't correspond to what he was saying. And he's not dressed in khaki, wearing an explosives belt or toting an AK47. That's the point. He may be sat in front of a video camera having a bit of a rant, but he is engaged in rational argument. You might not like his take-no-prisoners style, but he's talking about ideas and cultural trends. He's not attacking individuals. And he is criticising religion in general, not focusing on only one religion. The parallel you try to draw there is a false one, since you are mis-characterising what he's doing. An aggressive debating style is hardly equivalent to a fundamentalist world-view. Fundamentalism is the strict adherence to a set of prescribed beliefs or doctrines. And that is the mental attitude this guy is arguing against.

Shoddy journalism: the article does not reveal when the interview was done, and what the context for it is.

So, if it's OK with them, it ought to be OK with me? I prefer to think for myself.

So, your response to torture and killing is to "bomb the f*ck" out of the country, which would indiscriminantly kill and maim innocent civilians. Where's the logic or empathy in that response?

I have to disagree fundamentally (but not in a fundamentalist way!) with the part I've put in bold type. There's no parallel at all.

Fundamentalist atheist? What exactly do you mean by that?

Yes, what an amazing line-up that was! Well, to give LJB his due, after his brief flirtation with the "big time" as an Engelbert Humperdinck-styled pop singer, he returned to the Blues. In 1971 he put out a great LP called It Ain't Easy - one side produced by Rod Stewart, the other side produced by Elton John. It featured the amusing lead-off track "Don't Try to Lay No Boogie Woogie on the King of Rock and Roll". BTW, Long John Baldry became a Canadian in the late 70s. He lived near Hamilton first and then went out to the west coast.

Must be about extermination, then, not evolution.

I remember doing a radio interview with Long John Baldry shortly after she died and asking him about her. He said he was impressed by her voice but found her material rather "twee". I was rather annoyed with the comment, but got a little dig in at him later when I referred to his brief stint as a "housewives' choice"-style of pop singer in the late 60s. [Remember Let the Heartaches Begin?] He wasn't too thrilled with me bringing that up!

Here's a live performance of B Movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56ipWM3DWe4

Sad news. I used to play B Movie and H2O Gate Blues regularly on my radio program.

The acropolis in Athens Salisbury Cathedral Niagara Falls Central Park in NYC Trafalgar Square Notre Dame Cathedral (Paris)