Joensuu

That's simple. Irrespective of the money, or the ownership of the club, during the summer of 2009, did we or did we not sell players which other teams were willing to pay large transfer fees for (well large for league one)? If so those players, who were highly valued by other teams, were lost over the summer. You could easily argue that the money we have spent since the clubs change of ownership is broadly equivalent to the value of the players lost during administration. It doesn't matter whose money this is, or where the money went. While the value of the playing squad is broadly the same as it was last Easter, IMO the quality of the playing squad has improved significantly. I imagine this isn't actually being denied. It is the implication that this has a bearing on what we should achieve that people don't want to be drawn. So I agree. Yes, we are blowing everyone out of the water with money in this league. Does that mean we should demand promotion this year? Not at all. Does that mean we should demand promotion next year? Absolutely.

Voltz has been injured (groin), is currently unsigned and training in London http://www.volzy.com/diary.html He sounds quite positive about his career, and I found his blog an interesting read...

He will hang on as long as possible. So long as his bank account keeps seeing a regular credit he'll stay. But if Pompey can't afford his wages I'm sure he'll have them to court over breach of contract. Of course, if he is offered another position he'll be off like a shot, but until then he will join Storyteller in bleeding them dry.

I have to completely disagree. Milliband, much as I dislike him, comes across rather well. Certainly his points are coherent and make sense. On the other hand Lord Lawson is such a buffoon! I mean, how can anyone say this sort of rubbish and expect to be taken seriously: Scientifically he is completely and totally wrong.

I'll get shot down for this I'm sure, but I'd quite like to see Grégory Vignal back... I think he's on a season loan to Birmingham, but Lens look like the would sell if the price was right? Any takers?

Not sure if it's been suggested before, but how about a Board specifically for infractions & bannings? Might lead to greater transparency perhaps? Something along these lines? http://www.pasoti.co.uk/talk/viewforum.php?f=22&sid=c149f5ebb92dcee7d11fd59ecf7fba6f[url=http://www.pasoti.co.uk/talk/viewforum.php?f=22&sid=c149f5ebb92dcee7d11fd59ecf7fba6f][/url]

Perhaps he mean't Swindon or Plymouth?

Absolutely agree. (Can't we have a whip-round on this forum, then make a big fuss of giving the cash to pompey. Get BBC Solent & Meridian on board, and then find a saints fan who can keep a straight face while handing over a couple of collection buckets. That would "show our class", and make me smile! Anyone in?)

Hey... I think I'll do St George's job: Here's a really top science person, who has must be right, and makes loads of sense, hope you agree with her, because yeeeha, I sure do. I can't wait to vote for her, because she's not a commie like O'bomb'a, shame she's female, because if I had my rootin' tootin' way she'd be bent over in my kitch'n (if ya, know what I mean ). Ha Ha, you commie tree huggers are so dumb. Have a good day ya'll. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/dec/09/sarah-palin-obama-boycott-copenhagen

Is i wrong that the statue of Milan bit actually made me laugh. (The rest of it was obviously somebody photoshopping saints logos over the pompey ones which were there in the original photos)

Obviously 'growth in population' has a correlation with 'impact on climate'. Many left-wingers argue that the richest 10% produce about 40% (or something) of the co2, and therefore it's not population that needs to be reduced/controlled, but consumption by the richest. Many right-wingers argue that the earth's population is increasing rapidly, and any attempt to reduce the consumption of the richest will quickly be negated by the growing third-world population. I'm somewhere between the two views. All countries should do everything they can to reduce their co2 emissions. Likewise all countries should be taking a serious look at their own population growth, and whether it is sustainable. If you take a country like Bangladesh and model a reduction in say food or oil you will quickly find starvation occurs. So the question is how you tackle population growth. The obvious answer is to take a disgusting authoritarian approach like China's one child policy. This is an abhorrent solution, and should be avoided at all costs. Perhaps it would be better to encourage people in other ways, say tax incentives for fewer children? All I know is that if we do nothing, there will be a lot more mouths to feed, couple that with climate change, and you come to the only conclusion: a wrecked climate and mass starvation. I think we would all hate to see it happen, but I can't see any political policy being both acceptable and having a positive effect. Is it better to enforce birth control, to prevent over-population and therefore eventual starvation? IMO definitely not, but it's certainly not a desirable choice. It would be mighty hypocritical (and racist) if birth control were enforced only in the developing world, before the richest nations have made any real concessions. Neither left-wing nor right-wing have got it right on this issue, they both need to soften their stances and meet in the middle.

Well said PES. I love the rivalry and love the banter, but whenever it spills over into hatred or violence it's gone too far. I don't want to see the end of Pompey. Perhaps someone should start a poll: What would you most like to happen to Pompey? A) Admin, followed by Pompey ceasing to exist, or B) Admin, followed by 5 years of hell. Keeping the rivalry alive, and restoring the Blue Few to their rightful place (Hampshire's 3rd team below Aldershot)

You could be right. The cold snap or the rain could both be symptoms of climate change, but I'd guess they are little more than isolated weather. Of course the fact that an unseasonal cold snap in December even makes the news, tells me how relatively warm we've all come to expect our December's to be... Now that's more indicative of climate change.

I heard that too, apparent the bookies have slashed the odds against a white Christmas. BTW, wrong thread MB?

Russian missile launch possibly: http://www.barentsobserver.com/failed-missile-launch-caused-strange-light-over-northern-norway.4663494-58932.html

Or how about The Good, the Bad and the Ugly?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/portsmouth/6763984/Balram-Chainrais-interest-in-Portsmouth-is-purely-financial.html

So are the 'non-science' brigade on SWF being paid, or just "unwitting recruits of campaigns they have never heard of"? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/07/climate-change-denial-industry

Wasn't Mark Oaten from Winchester, straight, married, with 2 kids?

Well I've read up about radiocarbon dating. RC14 tests are undertaken at one of a limited set of laboratories. The original technique required a fairly large amount of carbon, say an entire shin bone, but now the technique is far less destructive, requiring only a few grammes of organic matter. The results are normally presented to the scientist in the form of a series of numbers, each relating to the similarity between the carbon profile and individual years. From these numbers you extrapolate the most likely years that the carbon last lived (ie the date given by RC14 of a leather shoe is not the date the shoe stopped being worn, it is instead the date that the cow died). Scientists will take this range of dates, and present their results as a range of dates with an accuracy. So you might see the same RC14 date given as 1710-1790 with a 95% accuracy; but 1760-1780 with an accuracy of 90%. The major limitation of using radiocarbon for dating is that the half life of RC14 limits the use of the techique to organic matter which died in the last 2,500 years. Quite a limited time span. Fortunately other techniques (such as thermoluminecence can be used to cover vast distances of time, albeit for a very limited set of archaeological finds). Of course carbon dating has absolutely nothing to do with historical temperature records! For that we turn to techniques such as dendrochronology and ice varves. Still, it's been an interesting aside.

Agreed. Oil prices will shoot past $100 per barrel over the next few years. If the UK had tar sands any governement (except Green) would exploit them ruthlessly to fill the coffers. Understandable, but regretable. Yes there will still be oil, but there will be less and less of it; or to put it another way, demand will be reduced by pricing the poorest out of the market. I know what you mean, scientists do sometimes sound arrogant. I guess they must find it hard to tread the line between accuracy and getting the message across. Tell the public that something is 'almost certain' or 'highly probable', and even though you are being accurate a minority will misintepret your accuracy for doubt. Perhaps out of frustration that their message gets skewed by public/media mis-interpretation, it is understandable that some scientists react by becoming more bullish. Scientists should stick to being scientists. That's what they are good at, not PR! Entirely agree. Like a fighter pilot, what choice do you have? Fight or give up? If you give up, then it's all over anyhow, so no matter how desperate the hope gets, there really isn't a choice to be made... Not quite. The largest extent the ozone hole was seen to cover was in October 2006. Reducing CFCs was the only option, but the environment takes time to change. In fact "Ozone concentrations in the lower stratosphere over Antarctica will increase by 5%–10% by 2020 and return to pre-1980 levels by about 2060–2075" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

Well, not all that wrong. The general concensus is that peak oil is pretty much upon us, hey, but some "Optimistic estimations of peak production forecast the global decline will begin by 2020 or later" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil So the scientists in the 70's weren't too innacurate - thank goodness science is an adaptive process eh? Of course the oil companies themselves will tell you we have virtually endless oil - why then are less-profitable tar sands now being refined? Whoever this proffessor was, he/she was wrong. Of course the six or so elements that have been confirmed since the 70's are all radioactive, and have very short half-lifes. Blink and you'll miss them! A bit defeatist there. Of course the UK stopping carbon emissions would impact climate change, but by ourselves the difference wouldn't be that significant. Thankfully China, India and the States are all waking up to the problem http://www.theage.com.au/national/china-forges-new-emissions-axis-with-india-20091208-khn8.html?autostart=1 Together we stand a fighting chance. Which of course is what we have been telling St George to do! It's crazy for any one of us to think we know better than the current scientific consensus. A perfect example of someone who attempts to bend the science fit his political agenda, rather than adapting the politics to fit the science.

Now Primus has given up on Pompey too http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=710068&cc=5739

Spot on. In geological time climate change matters very little indeed, but then in geological time humanity matters very little either! Whatever we do to mess up the planet, I have faith that life will continue to exist, will adapt and evolve and make a come back.

Oh, you mean this Bob Carter: I'm sure asking for people to be killed makes for responsible and more accurate science.