holystove

Elbow - One Day Like This.

Doesn't make any sense if they were dead from the beginning. The theory that seems most logical to me is : the "sideways world" was some sort of purgatory. And they only could get out of there once they had all died, and come together in the Church. Which is a pathway to heaven. That's why everyone was waiting inside and Ben Linus couldn't join them (yet?), why Hurley said to Ben he was a good number two even though it seemed like they spent 0 time together running the island, it's why Christian Sheppard wasn't in the coffin, ...

I'm not sure what exactly happened in the season finale of Lost .. but I'm quite sure they weren't all dead from the beginning. Waiting for the lost-forums to go online again to see what some of the other theories are. IMO, they weren't planning on giving a theory that would explain the last 6 seasons because they couldn't come up with one. So they just made an episode that tried to bridge both realities (the one in LA, and the one on the island) and then took a page from the bible in saying we'll all be together again in the end .. not surprisingly in a church on a beautiful day.

.

Scary.

aaah it was fixed. Must be a user on this forum who wrote that .

Says in that article we finished 7th .. cool.

Actually that comparison with the 10m paid for Vermaelen is interesting because I would rate Vertonghen higher. Maybe 11m isn't that bad for a player we don't really need .

Van Gaal talks about his experience with Mourinho when they were both at Barcelona. Funny English as well. http://nos.nl/video/158348-anekdotes-van-gaal-over-mourinho.html .

It's weird to see a man just who is supposedly still at least three months away from playing football due to a foot injury walk around like nothing is wrong with him. Always expect to see him on crutches or something. Hope they don't rush him back though. In September the Germans are coming we need him healthy .

Aren't there certain gamblers in Vegas, called "wiseguys" who make a living by betting? Well I'm not really asking, I know there are . Chad Millman of ESPN is one of the journalists who writes about them extensively http://search.espn.go.com/chad-millman/. Maybe the system in America is different from UK bookies.

Didn't see him play all that much this year, but remember him playing quite well at Arsenal in the CL. Scored both goals IIRC. Quick note on Alcaraz : safe to say Wigan just got worse. If that's the quality of players they'll be signing, I think it's a pretty safe bet they'll be relegated. Best way of knowing you just made a bad signing? If all the fans of the team he came from are happy he's gone.

Reading the original article (in Dutch) it says that the offer was € 12m , not 10 .. so the claim at the end of the article that 12m would do it is obviously wrong. Think that's a little much for a player who plays a position where we only need to sign a backup.

Dead Or Alive - You Spin Me Round (Like A Record) .. Also reading up on the horror story that is Pete Burns (' face).

Celtic Woman Jesu Man's Desiring.

Funny and sad at the same time. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1278734/Revealed-What-BNP-supporter-Wayne-Brown-said-enrage-Leicester-team-mates.html .

Yes but obviously not with Irish interests in mind, which was the point. Which is based on a wrong conception of sovereignty, as I said was my opinion in my previous post.. But it's certainly positive that is was understood by everyone .

"a career threatening foot blister" ? Never knew there was such a thing.

The article was so bad that the comments are really elaborate. So if you really want to see how we did, just read them.

You make the same mistake so I'll try to make my point of view more clear (this would be easier in Dutch btw ). but here goes: Ireland claims it is sovereign. This implies that the origin of all powers exercised within the Irish territory derive from its people, the Irish (assuming you have a system of popular sovereignty). This means that any type of legislation, no matter where it originated from (EU or Irish Parliament) is traceable to the will of the Irish people. Now let's look at this notion in a European context. Normally under international law you could say that the link with the sovereignty of Irish people is to be found in the fact that the treaties were approved by the Irish Parliament or through referendum if you wish. But given that the European Union is not a fixed "international organisation" but is rather defined as a project results in the fact that the treaties are not interpreted literally but in a teleological manner, meaning with the purpose of integration ("an ever closer union between the peoples of Europe" etc.). Therefor that link is broken. (paraphrasing an accepted theory here, could elaborate on this if you wish). Now take for example that there is a European regulation based on a competence that is believed to be with the European Union through the interpretation of the treaties. In the Council the Irish minister is outvoted by the other ministers, and in the European Parliament, all the Irish MEP's are outvoted as well. At this point there will be binding law in Ireland without any link with Ireland, not through the ratification of the treaties, not through the involvement of the Irish in the drafting of the legislation. If the Irish government thinks that the regulation concerns a competence that was not transferred, the only court they could turn to for the protection of their "sovereignty" is the European court of justice, a -European- institution. Where has their sovereignty gone? In my opinion in regards to European integration the notion of sovereignty no longer applies. UNLESS, Ireland hangs on to its sovereignty. At which point it could, based on its own constitutional structure which is for a nation that claims to be sovereign the basis for it's membership of the European Union, invoke this sovereignty to say that the legislation is not applicable in Ireland. So that is what it would mean if he says "Irish sovereignty will be protected". It has nothing to do with referenda and has only marginal meaning in the case of the transfer of more competences if you accept that sovereignty can be split into little pieces each concerning a different issue. But then the notion would become meaningless (once again ). If the political landscape as you said agrees with what he -meant- to say then it's fine. But then he should have said what I said in my previous posts and seeing how he used sovereignty to make his (political?) point, I said it was laughable. So there you go. Anyway, I fear we've gone horrible off topic.

Happy birthday Steve.

That I agree with, but it's the link with sovereignty that was imo laughable. Referenda are not an expression of sovereignty but merely an expression of constitutional practice. Additionally, sovereignty as a barrier for the transfer of competences is based on a misconception of the notion of sovereignty. As a general statement about sovereignty, it can just as easily be said that the transfer of state competences is not a weakening of national sovereignty but can lead to strengthening it withing the joint action of an integrated Europe. Also I find it tough to find the link between the sovereignty of a nation and individual competences such as regulation on abortion. If I were him, what I would have said is : "Ireland will continue to use the exceptions based on public policy provided for in the treaties to limit the European freedoms. And secondly, the Irish population will be consulted in case of further European integration." Instead he said "We will guarantee Irish sovereignty", which doesn't mean anything and is also very confusing, as both our interpretations show .

North Korean governement has found a way to get some fans in South Africa . http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/100514/sports/soccer_world_china_n_korea .

I read Rainbow Six last year and enjoyed it so much that when I saw a box with all the Clancy's for only € 68 at my local bookstore, I decided to buy them. Probably am going to read them in the order they were written unless someone has a suggestion with which I should start..

Oh ok. I feared it could mean to imply that for example if British parliament didn't agree with the scope a European regulation, they would have the authority to decide that it doesn't apply even if it concerned a competence that had been fully transferred. It's an empty statement then really. Much like when the Irish premier promised the Irish people that Irish sovereignty has remained intact thanks to the changes to the Lisbon treaty before the second Irish referendum. Thought that was hilarious.