den

Yes, so now you see, that playing in some junior international side doesn't mean sod all, does it? It's the only evidence that you ever put forward for the inclusion of any youngster.

Your first two sentences stand out Rover6. You use those kind of stats to push youngsters forward for the first team. Treacy in the form of his life for the irish U21s etc. When it's someone not good enough, that means nothing, when it's a youngster it means everything. Just an observation, no malice intended.

Discussed here. Birdy is still around. He's involved in the running of Ewood Blues and can be found in the Aqueduct pub. Ste B might be able to help you contact him. I went to Norwich and to West Ham when we drew 3-3 in the cup. John Byrom hat trick.

Just for the record, why?

I can't give you an exact answer, but LCD HD TV's run at a higher temp than CRT's, - they have a much higher power consumption - so keep well away from radiators.

Ooijer declines Dutch return. Underrated player IMO, it appears as though he had plenty of options in Holland.

Fantastic.

Any chance of getting him to do a Q&A for the site?

We could have kept those lads and pushed them into midfield against Bolton. They have all the credentials: 1] they're young 2]

Your point was this "So he has to make to with trialist,loans and freebies and hope that they are any good." You put McCarthy and Rocky into that catageory then, fair enough. Why did you laugh at Rocky?

He wasn't past his best when we signed him - and that was your point. and Rocky?

McCarthy, Santa Cruz? - to name just two. That's an argument that Souness used to put forward in his last months - we can only get youngsters or players past their best.

What you must remember about skyHD, is that you only get the HD channels, that you pay for on the normal package. IE, you only get sky movies HD, if you already subscribe to Sky movies. Likewise, you only get skysports HD1&2, if you subscribe to sky sports. Having said that, I DO subscribe to those channels, thus I can watch HD TV all day long. As Biddy says, BBC HD is excellent. Sky1Hd is also excellent. On top of that you have SkyartsHD, Two HD movie channels, 2 Skysports channels, Discovery, Nat Geo, and the history channel - all in HD. Using sky anytime, you also get first viewing of quite a lot of the HD films. You can make use of the planner to record any HD programmes that you might have missed, so all in all, there is quite a lot of content. It's also fair to say that not all of the HD channels actually show HD content 100& of the time, but hopefully as time goes by, the HD content will increase. There is also Bluray, via a Bluray player or PS3. [or HDDVD]. As I say though, I can watch HD all day long if I wish. Get a good TV though. Get one that shows 1080p with 1:1 pixel mapping. That means there will be no scaling done by the TV, hence a very stable, noise free picture.

Blummin eck Rover6! Surely, for a player to be useful to the squad, he must be able to perform to a good level in the premier league, whenever called upon. That would make him premier league standard, - wouldn't it. What are you trying to prove now? Lot's of us have said Gally [for instance] isn't premier league standard. He's played in the prem though, so do you reckon he's prem class, - or what?

The only thing I can say to that is, - if rovers were looking for players good enough to get us out of the championship and into the prem, I would pray that Gally wasn't one of them.

It doesn't matter whether he has cost us next to nothing Philip. I was questioning Hughes judgement in this case. Gally wasn't and will never be, good enough for Prem/ championship football. There was absolutely no point keeping him at Ewood.

Which just goes to show that all managers make mistakes. Most people on here didn't think he was worth a new deal, for some strange reason, Hughes did.

North End bottom of the league!

Hmmm? Petrov is a good player - full stop. He aint THAT good though. He's a speed merchant with a good cross. Force him inside and [like Wright Philips] he doesn't offer much. Rovers didn't do their homework tonight. If they did, - god help us.

You didn't answer my question BP.

Do you want to make a serious proposal, or just continue to berate anyone who responds to you?

I've been asked to store this topic, where people can access it easily. I thought this forum might be the best place for it.

I'll play along. You start with the number of times they've been right. Off you go............ Struggling? Just goes to show what a daft statement that was.

Says who? "This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so. Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no. The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data. The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming." One possible explanation? Again Bazza, you're using your ignorance of the subject, to cast doubt on the facts. [and that isn't meant to be nasty.] I don't think you or I know enough about the science involved, to make claims that "I have a suspicion that the great global warming debate is not only an environmental argument, but an argument made by western governments to retain their position of economic global monopoly"

I told you never ask "why". Go find the facts yourself. For example: why does rises in co2 have a several handed year lag behind temperature rises, not the other way around? - You use that question as a reason to doubt Global warming. Don't ask "why", ask yourself - who would know the answer to that question. Then, ask that person what can cause rises in co2 to have a several handed year lag behind temperature rises, not the other way around? You will no doubt get the answer. Because you don't know the answer doesn't mean there is any doubt about it. Likewise your question about how can scientist predict temperatures in 30, 40n or 50 years if they only have an 80% chance of getting next weeks forecast correctly? Ask the right person and get the facts. If they're wrong in what they're saying, it will show. I haven't said what I believe either Bazza. I'm not the one who says they don't believe what the concensus of scientists tell us. If I can't prove otherwise, I accept it until I know different.