Slarti

It's already been established, long ago, that he believes that an opinion that something is fact, makes it a fact. It is my opinion that it is a fact that he is a wee fud, therefore it is a fact that he is a wee fud. We can all play that game. --- Now, the fact that his view that it (the subject you are discussing) is a fact is now, according to him, just beyond reasonable doubt and not a fact. So things that he knows 100% to be fact are not fact and things that only in his view are fact are definitely fact. This is getting confusing. --- Oh, and yer still baith wrang.

When are they due to expire?

It's Glasgow, only one of those would have a queue with folk salivating.

Seeing as you have been "kind" enough to quote him and give me the "pleasure" of seeing his posts, I'll stick my oar in and say ... yer baith wrang.

Mibbe they know something we don't.

If they were truly following the teachings they would be stoning unruly children and getting their slaves from the nations around them. One of the main problems with religion, especially Christianity, is that followers believe that they get their morals from their god/book but they really (mostly) act in a morally superior way to the teachings, showing that they are actually more moral than the thing they think they get their morals from. The nutters from the likes of the Westboro Baptist Church and the NIFB are actually following the teachings closer than most "mainstream" Christians. I think the main point is that it doesn't take religion/faith/teaching for people to help others, it takes compasion and that is a human trait, not the sole preserve of people of religion/faith.

Who does he think he is? Me????

I can't renember details, but it stuck in my head for being, imo, strange as the pattern had been used "everywhere, on everything, forever" prior to that. Maybe there was a lot more to it than I recall. Well, there you go then. Either things have changed since the incident I recall or I'm just plain wrong. I could just blame it on a badly written article in the PDE many years ago. [emoji16]

Stop trying to give away Oaky's title.

I know that a while back the council took some Japanese (i think) company to court over it and the company ended up paying the council in an out of court settlement. Dunno how much, dunno if it still applies, dunno much about it really to be honest. I was just wondering.

Yep. Obviously inflation etc etc, but still ... aye, probably.

Nope. You were arguing against a statement/point I made, so it couldn't be me building strawmen. Nope, no link, can't remember what thread it was.

That's funny, a while back you argued with me for days about whether or not you can choose what you believe. Maybe you've changed your mind. If not, just choose to believe that I am right on this.

He's nothing like me.

I don't believe it. But then again, I tend to not believe things until there is evidence for them (or, at least, enough evidence to show a likelihood, even if not definitive). All down to not being able to choose what you believe (again). Maybe once it's published there will be enough evidence to convince me but, until then, I'm not convinced and therefore do not believe it. Very intelligent people can be wrong too, even if they are talking about fields in which they are authorities, so their credentials mean nothing unless they can back up their claims with evidence. Just the same as anything else.

salmonbuddie was just repeating back to me something that I had posted. It was a wee laugh at/with me. Dunno why bok picked on him saying it rather than me but ... wgaf really. Mibbe I'm on his ignore list.

IIRC Renfrewshire Council own the rights to the "teardrop design". I wonder how much they are getting?

Just something along the lines of "I had been part time at St Mirren for three and a half years by then" when talking about going to Aberdeen.

^^^ Missed the humour.

Aye, dollars, not pounds. Hmm. [emoji848] So about £8.55m per year "lost" in transfers.

Yeah, I'm so silly sometimes. [emoji1787]

It generally is. The problem is that there are people on both sides of the indy debate who just can't see any good from anyone on the other side and try to find offence in anything. I usually refer to them as f**king idiots. There was nothing anti English in what she said. Anti Tory and anti right wing, yes, but not anti English.

Nobody had said anything on this thread for almost 6 months, so they were saying nothing.

The state some people get into when there are no cheese and onion crisps left.

It's because, well, ye ken, the Torygraph is really just an English paper, for English people (like a local shop, for local people) and therefore anyone who reads it is OBVIOUSLY English. You're so silly sometimes. [emoji12]