Perchinho's 27th Birthday today.
Here's to him
Blimey didn't realise he was that old thought he was only about 24 or 25.
Shearer's ebar
- Thread starter ToonSi
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Blimey didn't realise he was that old thought he was only about 24 or 25.
Well, some players hit their peak later on, but now we've seen from others that Perch could play for another 10 years or so.
I mean, Coloccini only started playing well at PL level at around 27 years old, and Jonas.
To be fair Tash, think with Colo he took a year to adapt to English conditions. He was in a quality Deportivo side and was on the books of AC Milan.
Yeh but at the end of the day I think we can all agree this is the toughest league in the world, and both players were in leagues that were lower than PL quality.
You don't often hear about an English player doing good in the PL then struggling to adapt to Foreign styles.
Steve Howey saying Albert was the joker. He was addicted to Sid the Sexist and kept trotting out his chat up lines.. A right lothario.
Just thought I'd share my incoherent babble quickly in a post...
I'm really tired of having principles. Stupid things that make-up background noise, childhood memories, parent's social status and income, and your perceived world of "right" and "wrong" all contribute to destroy chances you get when you're older. For Mackems this might simply mean being sexually limited to relations and furniture within a 1 minute designated "hump zone" when they get an urge, but for more complex beings it means setting out a certain life which will always come in for criticism.
This one example from today has me perplexed. Macmillan are looking for a fundraising supervisor, who'd get paid "£26,000-"£29,000" a year. Now to someone who currently gets fleeting and backbreaking archaeology contracts, that seems like a lot of money. Only thing is, I would never ever actually apply for it. The reason? The fact people are employed means that it is a business, not a charity. A charity, by very definition, involves sacrifice, so unless the recipient of the job is a charity case, then it's a genuine perversion of the term "charity" itself (if they employed vagrants, then really it would become some sort of super-charity).
It's the whole infrastructure of these mainstream "charities" that is despicable, because bosses on millions to "plebs" on pittance are all in collusion to deceive those who might donate, and are in actuality robbing from those the organisation was set-up to help. That is not right to me, and no matter how much people tell me to "turn the other cheek because it's all for the greater good", it never will be right.
Now, a good few here have done things for charity recently, and I commend that and I've given when I can. Giving up time and putting in effort is indeed charitable. However, when it's not for a local cause or similar where the whole organisation is thoroughly and transparently non-profit, I often have difficulty deciding if the whole process is worth it, or whether it will just keep some rich tosspot in caviar for the evening...
Many people think that I'm nuts, a commy, or worse cheap on the issue. Problem is, they see "administration" and "cost-effectiveness" as reasons for inflated fees and competitive prices for "charity" workers. They aren't, and charity will be grossly misrepresented until "volunteering" genuinely means just that. Capitalism is just an ideology and political stance, not a necessity. We are human beings, and beings implies drive and purpose, and when it comes to charity people should be driven to do great things (like carry a fridge through 30 great north runs) and purposefully provide for others who need it, not take what they can and burn the rest. Acts of pure charity now are seemingly limited to those who most regularly enter our sphere of conscious, friends and family.
So not to be hypocritical, or inspire some weird hate-filled response, I should enclose that DT worked for the lottery charity at the matches, and got paid (at "plebian" rate). While I personally and theoretically objected, it was absolutely her right to do that, and I don't offend anyone else with my view point or get all judgmental on those that work for such causes at paid rate... Why should I? It's my principles, not theirs... And that's why I will never apply for a charity position...
Anyway... It's bed-time, so if you'll excuse me...
I'm off to rob a bank...
I'm really tired of having principles. Stupid things that make-up background noise, childhood memories, parent's social status and income, and your perceived world of "right" and "wrong" all contribute to destroy chances you get when you're older. For Mackems this might simply mean being sexually limited to relations and furniture within a 1 minute designated "hump zone" when they get an urge, but for more complex beings it means setting out a certain life which will always come in for criticism.
This one example from today has me perplexed. Macmillan are looking for a fundraising supervisor, who'd get paid "£26,000-"£29,000" a year. Now to someone who currently gets fleeting and backbreaking archaeology contracts, that seems like a lot of money. Only thing is, I would never ever actually apply for it. The reason? The fact people are employed means that it is a business, not a charity. A charity, by very definition, involves sacrifice, so unless the recipient of the job is a charity case, then it's a genuine perversion of the term "charity" itself (if they employed vagrants, then really it would become some sort of super-charity).
It's the whole infrastructure of these mainstream "charities" that is despicable, because bosses on millions to "plebs" on pittance are all in collusion to deceive those who might donate, and are in actuality robbing from those the organisation was set-up to help. That is not right to me, and no matter how much people tell me to "turn the other cheek because it's all for the greater good", it never will be right.
Now, a good few here have done things for charity recently, and I commend that and I've given when I can. Giving up time and putting in effort is indeed charitable. However, when it's not for a local cause or similar where the whole organisation is thoroughly and transparently non-profit, I often have difficulty deciding if the whole process is worth it, or whether it will just keep some rich tosspot in caviar for the evening...
Many people think that I'm nuts, a commy, or worse cheap on the issue. Problem is, they see "administration" and "cost-effectiveness" as reasons for inflated fees and competitive prices for "charity" workers. They aren't, and charity will be grossly misrepresented until "volunteering" genuinely means just that. Capitalism is just an ideology and political stance, not a necessity. We are human beings, and beings implies drive and purpose, and when it comes to charity people should be driven to do great things (like carry a fridge through 30 great north runs) and purposefully provide for others who need it, not take what they can and burn the rest. Acts of pure charity now are seemingly limited to those who most regularly enter our sphere of conscious, friends and family.
So not to be hypocritical, or inspire some weird hate-filled response, I should enclose that DT worked for the lottery charity at the matches, and got paid (at "plebian" rate). While I personally and theoretically objected, it was absolutely her right to do that, and I don't offend anyone else with my view point or get all judgmental on those that work for such causes at paid rate... Why should I? It's my principles, not theirs... And that's why I will never apply for a charity position...
Anyway... It's bed-time, so if you'll excuse me...
I'm off to rob a bank...
Pleased it was just a quick babble TJPF and not a mini novel.
Got to be in bed before 2:00 am.
Got to be in bed before 2:00 am.
For my collected philosophical musings on how to take "charity" to the Zth degree (because Nth is not nearly far enough), please see my teen angst blog "Why-don'[email protected]/weadvertiseporntokeepthedomainholderinbattenbergfortheweek"...
It has a beautiful section on how giving money to the homeless isn't "ideal charity" because they have to go and use it in a shop, so the shop-owner is making money, thus destroying the whole premise of non-profit charity... Better the homeless man use the fiver as a mini-blanket and starve whilst being a smidgen less cold in winter...
For my collected philosophical musings on how to take "charity" to the Zth degree (because Nth is not nearly far enough), please see my teen angst blog "Why-don'[email protected]/weadvertiseporntokeepthedomainholderinbattenbergfortheweek"...
It has a beautiful section on how giving money to the homeless isn't "ideal charity" because they have to go and use it in a shop, so the shop-owner is making money, thus destroying the whole premise of non-profit charity... Better the homeless man use the fiver as a mini-blanket and starve whilst being a smidgen less cold in winter...
Er, erm, yes I see what you mean, er erm, at least I think I do.
You should try my approach... There haven' been no carol singers in these 'ere parts for manee a year
I was just trying to explain how the financially inclement climate for carol singers due to music-industry profiteering (which has dragged up a new style of fame-conscious-artists to whom we have instant and daily access, as well the instant download phenomenon, which has not only provided us with the luxury of directing media through a vast variety of technological advancements, but also of deciphering previously recognized hits into the new formats. This means that, while "Johnny no pubes" has what appears to be the voice of an angel (on acid), it cannot compete with the true golden voice of any generation known to man, Barry Manilow... Therefore why waste time (energy and money) opening the door to hear what remains of little Johnny's singing career (before the unfortunate day when he either drops two octaves and sounds like a car-backfiring, or his mother cuts off his christmas balls in daddie's industrial vice, in the desperate hope of living out her presumed dreams of being an awkward "male" eunuch on the West End) when I could click "add Christmas Time is Here to basket" and be listening instantaneously (thank you broadband... and me never being too far from a computer... so thank you also to porn addiction)) means they should actually just sit at home, enjoy some cake and rest the old vocal chords... But no... They ****ed off...
Some people, eh?
I could click "add Christmas Time is Here to basket"
__________________________________________
I actually made a Christmas cd yesterday.
__________________________________________
I actually made a Christmas cd yesterday.
how spooky... I'm doing that right now.
A bit ecclectic though as I've gone from Bing Crosby to Bo Selecta....
Munch munch, wouldn't dream of talking with my mouth full, got told about that when I was a kid.