Sheaf Saint

Hopefully that will add another £10m to his price tag at the end of the season.

https://www.theguardian.com/food/2024/nov/16/uk-cheeses-miss-out-on-international-prize-after-getting-stuck-in-customs Un-blessed are the cheese makers.

Just been to see Gladiator 2. If, like the ancient Romans, you love a bit of gratuitous violence with little to no realistic supporting storyline, then it'll be right up your street. It's good entertainment, but very contrived and borrows too much from the original film, so it's unlikely to win any awards for originality. Still a solid 7/10 though.

I don't think you understand how football contracts work. If Russ were to quit because he knew the club were lining up a replacement then he would literally be walking away from a fortune. He has a contract and if SR want to terminate that then, depending on the terms they agreed, they will have to pay him a very large sum of money to do so. If he were to resign then he gets nothing. You say everyone has their pride, but if you swap the d in that word for a c, it's still equally true, if not more so.

So it's just a coincidence that the two people you used as examples are trans, is it? What is it about Rachel Levine that you believe makes her unqualified for her role then?

So why did you choose someone who actually does appear (as aintforever has shown) to be very well qualified for the post she was appointed to as an example? Actually, don't answer that. Given your transparent dislike of trans people, it's pretty obvious really.

And I think you have also missed the point. When I first mentioned Hesgeth's history of political activism, I wasn't suggesting that alone should preclude him from becoming SecDef. I was merely pointing out that that appears to be the only reason he was chosen for the role, because his CV doesn't exactly shout "top government post" material.

Ah, so your post was just pure whataboutery then. Nobody said anything about Trump's picks being unique - just questionable. So who are they anyway?

I have no idea who these people are, so you'll have to be a little clearer about what point you are trying to make.

So Musk spending $130m on Trump's campaign was purely a sign of his honest intentions, and nothing whatsoever to do with buying his way into a position of immense power in the government with what is, to him, just pocket change. OK then. Not that I'm defending Oprah BTW. Can't stand the woman anyway, and in this case the guy has a point. Ostensibly supporting someone's election campaign while outrageously profiteering from it is really not a good look.

If he had been a General then perhaps his appointment wouldn't raise any eyebrows. But he only reached the rank of Major, and without wanting to belittle that achievement in itself, it's not exactly what you would call 'top brass' is it. Clearly it's his history of political activism, rather than his military career, that was the dominant factor in his selection.

A Fox News host as Defense Secretary, and a guy who has previously advocated for the total abolition of the FBI and Dept. of Education to join Elon in the new Dept. of Government Efficiency, stick out as particularly 'interesting' picks.

Wicked

Did life used to be better? It's a difficult one to quantify for so many reasons that a lot of posters have already touched on. Certainly life used to be simpler, but whether or not that made it better is down to the individual. Some are pointing to a reduction in the number of people below the poverty line to argue life is better now, but I think that is an over-simplification. Firstly, the definition of poverty has changed over time and the 'poverty line' is just an arbitrary number. And secondly, wealth does not equal happiness - or at least it shouldn't. It's perfectly possible to be poor but still happy, but these days we are bombarded with insidious advertising that is carefully designed to manipulate people into believing that their lives will be incomplete without the product they are selling. Some have also touched on the longer life expectancy that we have now, and it's true that modern medical advancements mean people are living longer, and lots of conditions that would have been fatal in the past are curable now. But the massive rise in rates of obesity and other diet-related diseases, which correlates very closely to the proliferation of ultra-processed food in western diets since the 1970s, would suggest that although we might be living longer, we aren't necessarily healthier than we used to be. On top of that, we now live in an age of information overload which has led to a massive rise in levels of stress and other mental health related problems. We've also decimated our natural world, which has reduced people's opportunities to benefit from the proven mental and physical health boost of getting out into nature. It used to be perfectly feasible for a young couple on a single, average salary to get a mortgage, but that's impossible now. Overwhelmingly, parents both need to work full time these days to live a comfortable life, which means running a household falls on both parents outside of work time and kids aren't getting as much day to day interaction with their mothers at a young age as they used to. On top of that, families tend to be much more disparate now as people are often forced to relocate to find work. The result of all this is kids growing up with working parents and no other family nearby, so parents are forced to rely on expensive childcare and their kids don't get the social interaction with a wider family group that is important for their development. This is not a positive advancement in society IMO. Overall, I wouldn't say I'm happier now than I was in, say, the 1990s. I wasn't earning a lot of money back then, but I was secure and didn't have any worries, and I had a lot of fun. I'm now fast approaching 50, with a fairly stressful job and a family to consider, which together takes up about 95% of my energy and doesn't leave a lot of space for leisure - certainly not the things I used to take for granted in my 20s anyway. I guess that's just part of getting old and isn't really an indicator of how good life in general is now compared to then, but therein lies the problem with trying to make a comparison. I could only really tell you if life is better now than in the past if I could reverse my ageing process and go back to trying to live the same lifestyle I was back then. Obviously I can't, so it's impossible to make a firm judgement either way.

We played pretty badly against some of the poorer sides as well. The home defeat to Millwall, and the debacle of that home game against Huddersfield spring to mind. Let's face it, the only games in which we comprehensively outplayed the opposition were the ones where they were naive enough to fall into our pressing traps like Blackburn and Swansea.

Could say the same about Ipswich. But they went and won away at Spurs yesterday by employing a system that gets the best out of their players and makes life difficult for their opponents. Our squad is limited, but IMO it is not as bad as this season's results and team performances suggest.

Just two key points here which might suggest otherwise... Firstly, they appointed Nathan Jones, and secondly, they appointed Nathan Jones. Now I realise that this is, in fact, only one point. But I thought it was such an important one that it was worth mentioning twice.

In fairness, a whole new thread is the only way to conduct an up to date poll and get a current snapshot of the balance of people's thinking.

I can't read, and I can't write But that don't really matteerrrrr

Wasn't Forest at home his first game?

A very small sample of fickle idiots on an Internet forum moaning about him doesn't mean he wasn't backed FFS.

Just like the Leicester game - we can rightly point to some very questionable refereeing, but ultimately we were the architects of our own downfall and didn't deserve anything from the game. To go to the team bottom of the table, who haven't kept a clean sheet since February, and not test their keeper once is fucking criminal. I'm utterly sick of this propaganda football. It's fucking dreadful to watch, and yields no reward. And it's never going to change with RM in charge. I'm out. Can't bring myself to watch anymore with this muppett in charge. Got better things to do with my weekend. I want to be proud of my team, even in defeat, but this current shit show is just unbearable.

Should have been 3-0.

Commentator: "It was never going to be straightforward for Wolves today". Have you not watched any of Saints' games so far this season?

Jeez. Dibling REALLY needs to learn when to release the ball.