And I have you down as a wet behind the ears student, probably a liberal but I only took offence when you thought I was a conservative. Btw it proves nothing but I got a degree before they started just selling them for £9k a year.
1963 and 1947 were worse winters. 1976 and 77 were hotter summers. A rising sea level would be great. Apart from washing hull from the map it will mean I don't have spend so long driving my gas guzzling car when I visit the coast.
Oh a couple of examples proves it then! I'll just forget about all this actual science stuff and take your word for it. "there was a hotter summer in 76 so that must mean there's no global warming". Are you being intentionally dense?
Well said jock. Personally have contacted Gary numerous times in past year and he has always been very honest in his replies. I've never or won't post any of them as they were one to one emails. I'm satisfied LUST played a part in the eventual removal of Bates and their assessment of our sad accounts six months back were bang on. I don't know why you waste you breath though because some have such a biased anti lust view.
Sorry, doesn't really answer my question, which was what the ****'s wrong with the Daily Mail? Citing his behaviour in this thread doesn't really suffice. What's the relevance - do the Daily Mail not believe in global warming either? Just asking like
1.They twist facts to suit their Rupert Murdoch right wing views rather than reporting the news honestly like ethical journalists should...wait isn't ethical journalists an oxymoron? 2. It continually supported Bates and offered propaganda articles against anyone who disagreed with him (LUST ect) 3. Adrian Durham is one of the most biased journo's ever and has never stopped sucking off Fergie while writing poor articles against their rivals ('Gerrard should of signed for Man U') he even had the balls to write an entire article how Brazil is a bad place because he got mugged there. ****er. The only DM journo i've ever liked is Jeff Powell because he was one of the few to be un-biased against the Don and his fantastic 70's side. Even attended his funeral.
I think I may as well show my opinion on this matter. As far as LUST go, I don't feel they fully represent the whole of fan base particularly well, very opinionated and biased because realistically only people who have the same beliefs as Gary Cooper will join and that is who he will represent. Now of course this was always likely to happen because you can't realistically expect to be able to represent a million people accurately especially when it only has 10,000 or so members (I have no idea how many members there are incidentally). I don't really agree wholeheartedly in their opinions and he (Cooper) does try to make LUST seem more important than what it is by stretching facts slightly, for example he clearly said that he had contacted the potential buyers before GFH came in and GFH replied saying they had never spoken to them before. That was a big low point for LUST and was unnecessary to even mention even if they had contacted them, why boast about it and just do what you think is right rather than trying to show everyone what you are doing it right. They don't really effect the club in anyway and whether that is there fault or the club's fault I don't know. Having said all that, I think it is important for a club this size to have a respectable fanbase club and they are the closest thing to it and should try to continue to grow and become more effective. On the global warming thing (which I have realised is very hard to communicate it well over the internet), I'd like to think I'm quite educated on the matter given that I'm in the engineering industry and a major part of what we do has to have huge environmental considerations, I also did a class on environmental studies at uni. Now there has never been any concrete evidence that global warming exists or rather is implemented by humans and more and more scientists are saying that they are starting to believe that our impact on global warming is very minimal. My opinion is also that our impact on the globe is minimal and is far more restrained to local areas and impacts humans more than the earth. I think it is quite big headed of ourselves to believe that we, an animal, can effect the world in such a big way. Thats not saying that disasters don't cause difference in air temperatures or oxygen quality which at the end of the day effects ourselves more than the planet but they are far more local to the disaster and don't spread worldwide to cause a "global warming" effect. GH is in fact right in saying that the weather naturally cycles. But in fact if you look at the world's temperatures over thousands of years or millions of years you will see a sin graph which accurately shows cycles. So I don't think we have anywhere near as big an impact as some people would have you believe (on a global scale that is). I am still mindful of the environment (given my job) but the bigger issue is sustainable measures rather than global warming anyway, for example solar, wind and hydro power is far more sustainable than other power sources because they are never ending supplies. Anyway, probably far more of an opinion than any of you wanted to know
Well reasoned and thought out response. It's a shame that there are too many vested interests at stake when discussing climate change. Al Gore and corporate America are making too much money from this scam to give it up. East Anglian university have been caught with their fingers in the till by making wild claims that were linked to them receiving research funding. No story meant no cash. Very damaging to the cause when they are the countries leading advocate of man made climate change. Strangely enough lust are in the same boat. They need to lie about their size and importance to have credibility. Those who support them just keep restating the same stuff in relation to the T/O in some weird belief that if they say it often enough it will become fact. Not one scintilla of evidence of lusts part in the T/O has ever seen the light of day. There are none so blind as those who will not see springs to mind.
Wtf does Rupert Murdoch have to do with the Daily Mail? The rest I cannot comment on, I never read it.
In fairness though, I do believe if the protests never started that bates would still be here. He was no coincidence that he was trying to sell the very same season that the protests where gaining numbers and getting more frequent. He realised that the money was drying up and sold because of this. I'm not sure whether LUST started the initial protests but they certainly made fans more aware of them and orchestrated a few of their own as well. I don't believe they had any contact with GFH though prior to the takeover (seeings thats what GFH have said) and it was an obvious lie to try and make themselves seem more important figuring that the new owners would never say it was a lie purely because they would be trying to get LUST on side.
We've actually been over this ground before, Josh. The GFH statement was very carefully worded, and probably only issued due to pressure from Bates. It's a matter of interpretation. LUST were speaking to a chap who was specifically engaged by GFH to help them with the TO. He was never a regular employee of GFH, hence they were able to carefully word that statement. If you'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth, send in that specific question over Twitter or FB at the next meeting. LUST are working with a number of the RSC's for some time now on an initiative named Leeds Fans United, where one voice of the fans can be presented to the club.
