den

It's just a stupid question, with no answer.

Her answers are within the quotation box.

Strange post. So why are you so interested in what's happening?

Well what's a bob hat called, that doesn't have a bob?

I went in for a Rovers bob hat on Saturday. Couldn't believe it, - they don't sell them. So I bought one from a guy outside the ground, something I've never done before.

Absolutely FLB. Unfortunately as I said before, we'll have to wait until OT is feeling the squeeze, before anyone in a position to do something about it, actually does.

Not while we were within range, which was up until Chris's interview.

Just one downer from todays game, - radio rovers reckon Savage picked up his fifth yellow and will serve a one match suspension. Has he not just served a suspension?

Look two posts up Jim.

Oxford V Rovers That was some team rovers fielded that day.

Slightly off topic, but talking about Mike Ferguson - what about The greatest goal ever seen.?

Have you had too many corn flakes this morning Theno? For goodness sake calm down. It's only half past ten.

I think Scotty means his comittment while he's on the park, Theno.

It's no good getting rid of him as early as possible, just out of spite. Like him as a player, or not, rovers are doing the right thing here. If they can get someone in who can hold down a regular first team place, then fair enough let him go. If not he must stay. Fair do's to Neill, he never gives less than his best.

Jeffers and Zura likely to miss out because of injury.

Steven Reid is back in training.

The four/five seasons after the cup final were amongst the best years ever to be a rovers fan.

I don't read it like that 1864. Sounds like fansfc believe a bid of £3m will do. Not that they actually HAVE made a bid. Might be my interpretation that's wrong.

Doesn't say anything of the sort 1864.

First thought, the Trelleborg result. That rovers team might have gone on to better things in Europe if that result had been better. The side was much better than the result.

I'm still waiting. Go on have a go, try to educate us. Show us how climate change over the past fifty years is nothing to do with humans. You didn't believe it, so tell us why. Either that, or give it a rest.

I'll tell you how hard me and Al are. This Burnley fan came down to a BRISA meeting and started to get a bit shirty - heckling and all that. Me and Al had a quick word together, then took him outside and gave him a hell of a beating. 20 minutes later, the guy walked back into the meeting looking battered and bruised, clothes torn and specs broken. He looked at me and Al and said "right you B******s, out side. This time, one at at a time." So both of us together, took him out again and gave him another thumping. He didn't come back again. Don't mess with me and Al.

I think they got it wrong with the internet. What a waste of time. I must have better things to do.

Still waiting for some kind of replies to these: Q Jack - The source to back up your allegations that it's simply about taxes? - apart from the oil company link you provided earlier is? Q Stern review: This chapter begins by describing the changes observed in the Earth’s system, examining briefly the debate over the attribution of these changes to human activities. It is a debate that, after more than a decade of research and discussion, has reached the conclusion there is no other plausible explanation for the observed warming for at least the past 50 years. Comments Jack? Q Taxation is a different argument Phil. However, I'm sure you will be delighted to know smile.gif , that at this stage - yes I would support a re-distribution of taxes to tackle the world accepted, scientific opinion [you, Jack and an oil company excepted] on climate change. I am open minded though on the subject of taxation. Would you or Jack agree with that? Suits you to ignore the difficult bits. Oh, I see you're back to normal. Pathetic.

Stern review: This chapter begins by describing the changes observed in the Earth’s system, examining briefly the debate over the attribution of these changes to human activities. It is a debate that, after more than a decade of research and discussion, has reached the conclusion there is no other plausible explanation for the observed warming for at least the past 50 years. Comments Jack? Taxation is a different argument Phil. However, I'm sure you will be delighted to know , that at this stage - yes I would support a re-distribution of taxes to tackle the world accepted, scientific opinion [you, Jack and an oil company excepted] on climate change. I am open minded though on the subject of taxation. Would you or Jack agree with that?