lestippp

Paul I understand what you are saying and to be honest I don't know enough about the situation to comment much more but if, as you say, the company made huge profits but is trying to take these higher at the teams expense then you have my sympathy. On the other hand my feelings on how the union is trying to achieve a solution, effectively by threatening our fuel supply here in Scotland is and will remain a brutal act of extortion on the Scottish public Also have you ever considered why BP sold out.... perhaps because they could see the problems coming, after all if it was a cash cow why sell out when you can have year after year of huge profits with the current pay conditions? When I referred to closure I was not suggesting that will happen as that is unlikely but my point was if Ineos decide that managing the refinery is not viable you will be faced with even worse terms than before when the new owner moves in Cullinmin I was refering to your comment that "Its management that is to blame for any chaos caused." based on initial suggestions that the pension was suffering a shortfall. Many reputable companies are having issues with this due to the poor market conditions at present, not because of incompetent management. This is not a case of Maxwell stealing millions from the pension fund, this is investments not growing well enough to fund the pensions future demand, it's totally different.

I agree with Fraser and StrikE. It is ridiculous that your union is using this tactic... it's nothing short of blackmail or extortion, only here you are using the public as your victims I don't have a problem with you fighting your corner but not at my expense as I have nothing to do with your argument Unions served a purpose many years ago when pay and conditions were very poor but these times are long gone and this is a classic example of there idiotic behaviour. You ask where it will end... well that's simple... have a look at what happened to Timex in Dundee years ago. The workforce were asked to accept a 10% cut in pay or the site would close, simple really. Union steps in and says no way and we want a pay rise, went on strike. The management met with them and explained that they could not continue if the request was not agreed to, union stands firm.... Timex closes and everyone takes a 100% pay cut... well done to the union Bye the way the "fat cats" in the union are probably still living off the money they got from their members before they lost their jobs Some of the detail here may be wrong but the result was for real and cost a lot of people their livelihoods. Paul I understand that you must try to protect your income / pension but is it not better a 6% cut than risking the business going to the wall because one thing is for sure, if a new company has to take over it will be on different terms than you currently have as the pension is in trouble and it will probably cost you more than 6%! Incidently is it an actual cut or just a reduction in the contribution as there is a big difference? Good luck with your fight but I suspect, like many others, if your battle causes me hasstle then I won't be on your side... sorry Cullinmin please explain how management at Grangemouth has managed to destroy the worlds economy and market trading... they must be a powerful lot down there

Speech thanks for the explanation on the BP it's been bugging me quite a bit. Having said that I can't believe that's what happened... don't they have different connecting systems for the different fuel types! If they don't it's just asking for trouble! I would have thought they would have just flushed out the tanks a few times to sort it out but I noticed them digging the place up and stuff. The least they should have done is to post up a notice explaining what was up. Cullinmin Keith is the same as having to go to the airport for me really as I work in Huntly and live in Kintore but good to know there is a shell there all the same, so thanks. Bugeyebob what is the price of the 99? Might be worth a try. Les.

It is a pain, I couldn't believe it last night when I went to the Shell at the airport and found it closed as well.... has the world gone mad or what! All these garages closing or re-furbing at the same time.... nightmare. Then went to the Shell near MacDonalds and it was packed out, well nowhere else is open of course! About 15 Shell stations in a small area in Aberdeen and not one on the main route from Blackburn to Elgin!

Right I'm hacked off because the BP garage is a mess and the Esso has closed! Where can I get this fuel locally now? Nearest Shell is at the airport! So 16 mile round trip roughly! Don't have the STi now but the Cayman S still needs good fuel. Is there a garage in Kemnay that sells this fuel as it is close by? Any ideas appreciated. By the way, does anyone know what the story is with the BP, one minute it's closed, then open, then partly open, then open with most pumps not working..... what the f**k!! Les.

Now, now, lets not discount a man who believes we are going to develop bigger n**s and pert p**s Now before I am censored, did you know that "pap" is a biblical word. Now if you don't believe me look in Revelations, I think, something to do with 7 candlesticks and 7 stars representing the churches of Asia and angels. It is however used in describing a man, I think? Welsho might be able to back me up here. A little bit of humour never hurt, or am I in trouble... again!

That's you damned, you can't go coveting the female form you know

Looking into some of the points again: Welsho your "claim" that these Japanese fishermen found a leviathan, for me, has weakened you case rather. To cling to a belief that a puny (compared to biblical descriptions of such a creature), grossly decomposed lump of putrefying flesh dragged out of the sea by fishermen is confirmation of these creatures is desperate at best. This "thing" was never properly identified and just because the biologist on board was "creative" with his sketch means nothing. If you have complete faith in this, fossils should be even more believable and provide more factual evidence due to there detailed, "finger prints" if you will. I seem to recall another occasion when this happened only for it to be identified as a giant sea squid. You have frequently stated that fossils prove nothing but you insist on using a single example of an Indian sketch, of what we want to think is a dinosaur, bizarre and contradictory at best. Why are there so many cave paintings that do not include such sketches but commonly have deer, bison, wolves and bears? New fossils are being discovered all the time and links are being made, you have said yourself that the fossil record is tiny, and it is, but it is teaching us about our origins, bit by bit. What about “tiktaalik roseae” the fish that walked on land, this might be a partial link to creatures moving from the water to the land… evolving? The fossil record would show by now fossils of all creatures, not just great lizards (dinosaurs) and other long extinct species because all these animals were present on earth, in great numbers, at the time of the flood. Remember only two of each was saved to allow re-population of the world the rest are buried in the mud… right? Certain things just don't stack up, given that at the time of the flood there would have been "billions" of people drowned and buried with the dinosaurs, as well as cattle, dogs, cats, wolves, etc, etc.... where are all the fossilised human remains or those of other modern day animals for that fact? None of the fossil remains that have been found have suggested that they were fossilised alongside these creatures. If a fossil was found containing a human, a mammoth and a T-rex – case closed for evolution, as we believe it to be. Now I have done some research on "Christian" sites (there are lots of these, they seem very intent on publishing as much propaganda as they can) to see what their take on this is and they basically can't explain it but they do try to, saying that humans were destroyed completely but then this is not true as god said he would destroy all creatures on earth with the flood and made no differentiation between man and beasts. The "Ark" is fascinating, granted, but whilst people have calculated that it may have been possible to house every creature on earth, in pairs, in this vessel as well as 7 of each of the clean animals or food for want of a better word. Believers have to concede that the dinosaurs must have been on board to, so spend much time justifying why they died out whilst others thrived, natural selection of course, but most of their explanations are just guesses to affirm their faith. Let's accept that the land animals were on the ark, in a semi conscious state (because that helps believers to justify how 8 people could feed and water thousands of animals every day for a very long time). Let's also accept that all the dino's subsequently died. Where are all the leviathans and sea creatures of the time then? Because again, believers, justify the ark's viability be saying that only land living creatures needed to be on the ark, per the bible, so avoiding the need for building water tanks, etc and so allowing there to be enough space on board. Large predators would be fine as the seas were teaming with life, such as whales, so where are they? On this point it is also contradictory to say that on the one hand, the ferocity of the waters was such that all human remains were obliterated yet somehow sea creatures survived this sustained raging torrent. Come on, why not just destroy human kind by his spoken word, why all the drama? He could blink his eye and we would be gone, given his all-conquering powers. If, on the other hand, the ice melts on the mountain of Ararat and the “Ark” appears, I will apologise to the big man for being a bit cheeky because this would be very conclusive evidence indeed but I will reserve my judgement until then on the ark. I want to go back again to the beginning and good old Adam. One of his ribs was removed and used to create “woman” and they have been nothing but trouble since, surely we all agree on that. No, on a serious note why create temptation and why put the serpent (that could talk incidently) in Eden and why put the “off limits” tree. I know what you are going to say, to test man’s faith but why bother, no temptation created, and no issue surely! Humanity is curious by design… and whose design is it? God, if he exists is what kind of being? Creates man from dust, creates temptation for man, man accepts temptation, god waits for there to be over a billion people from his creation and then exterminates them all! Nope not exactly… he saves a few and starts all over again with his threats of judgement day and Armageddon (On this point revelations seems to suggest that its predictions will soon come to pass, so perhaps the bible is already proven wrong as 2000 years or more is not “soon” in biblical terms although it is in evolutionary terms)! He has created a beautiful and complex world solely for the purpose of his adoration and when his creation is flawed through sin, remember we aren’t just talking about murderers, rapists, robbers and thief’s here, we are talking about anyone who does anything that results in “their” pleasure rather than his (God), he kills everyone! When I look at the world I see much trouble (but there is still more good ), a large percentage of this is created by gangism in the form of faith and religion and whilst you (Welsho) justify this by saying that these groups are not true to the bible, they exist because of it. Many are fanatics hiding behind faith as they murder and create untold misery. Why not strike these “false prophet’s” down where they stand! Why must all suffer for another’s indiscretions, why, if god is all-powerful, can he not punish each person rather than by the destruction of the entire world. He has, allegedly, the power to do this but elects not to, in favour of mass genocide instead. What would you call someone who demanded our devotion or else in the world today? We would all have faith if we could see every truly bad person stricken by disease or worse but this is not how things happen. How many truly good people have found themselves at the mercy of untold misery with their only consolation being that they will possibly move to the afterlife. Such simple policies could make god’s presence clear in daily life but instead we get “it’s man’s fault that the innocent suffer and the bad thrive”, b***ocks! We are probably going to destroy our earth but we may not and if the “Alien / God” who created us is unhappy because we have forsaken something unseen or confirmed in thousands of years, so be it. I think I live a decent life and I don’t hurt others, nor do I choose a faith blindly and then push it on others (not you Welsho but many do). I “believe” that we are not alone and that there are far greater beings than us in the universe, something you also believe but label it per the bibles teachings. Perhaps you will have a place on the next “Ark” my man but it is more probable that you will be up sh*t creek without a paddle or a boat… just like the rest of us!! Coveting a 300bhp road warrior must make us all damned!! Les.

Looking at the dinosaurs again I want to raise a few other issues: Behemoth is just a large, dumb, beast so covers many things, cattle for example but could also refer to some of the dino's. Strange that they are described as “ox like”. Leviathan is a large sea monster / creature so need not necessarily refer to dinosaurs but I won't say it's a whale because whales are referred to as, well, whales in the bible so clearly they are different creatures. The bible suggests that only one male and one female were made and god killed the female (why does he keep doing that) to prevent them from spawning (and for food). So we would not be finding multiple fossils if this were to be true and it clearly is not. Sea creatures, such as the Megalodon (basically a giant version of the great white shark, I know, scary!) were believed to have inhabited our oceans up to 10,000 yrs ago and we have fossil proof. The issue I have is that the biblical references to these creatures seem to suggest that they were living alongside humanity only a few thousand years ago, if this were true they would have occupied far more space in the books of the bible and we would have many references to them in man's ancient history. There are many stories of giant sea serpents and dragons in more recent history but these would all seem to be "exaggerated" shall we say and it is possible that the references of the bible are the same. It’s the old how big was the fish that got away syndrome, isn’t it. The other definite issue is, if dinosaurs heavily populated the world, why exterminate them just because you can! Are we talking about a true God or a megalomaniac? Our understanding of the shape and pattern of the history of life depends on the accuracy of fossils and dating methods. Some critics, particularly religious fundamentalists, argue that neither fossils nor dating can be trusted, and that their interpretations are better. Other critics, perhaps more familiar with the data, question certain aspects of the quality of the fossil record and of it’s dating. These sceptics do not provide scientific evidence for their views. Current understanding of the history of life is probably “close to the truth” because it is based on repeated and careful testing and consideration of data or scientific testing if you will. The line marking the end of the dinosaurs was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only1% or so. This clearly detaches the bibles writings from events of it's time i.e. up to 6000 yrs ago to those of some 65,000,000 yrs ago. It also tries to link the "cave man" with those expelled from Babel who went and lived in the clefts (caves possibly?) of the hills and these men through ill health devolved, if you will, into cave men as we think of them. This to can be contested by the fact that we have human skeletal remains, accurately dated at 15,000 yrs old so pre dating biblical times by some 9,000 yrs. You made reference before to the Peppered moth case for evolution and it has provided very convincing, up to date evidence that natural selection and evolution do exist. For those unaware, the experiments were carried out from 2001 – 2007 (this year) by Professor Majerus (Cambridge Uni) on predation of two types of the same species of moth and here is a quote from him on the subject: "The peppered moth story is easy to understand, because it involves things that we are familiar with: vision and predation and birds and moths and pollution and camouflage and lunch and death," he said. "That is why the anti-evolution lobby attacks the peppered moth story. They are frightened that too many people will be able to understand." More interesting is the fact that God and the bible are designed for one Adamic (the descendents of Adam), Caucasian race. What of all the others? Are they to be forsaken? The decision made for them before they are even born! How divine is this God that they would favour just one lineage of humanity. One other point Welsho, I did a little more research on the mention of the stars in the bible and found something that reinforces you’re argument (damn it!) and that is a comment that states something along the lines of “I will make the stars in the sky as many as the grains of sand in the sea”. This isn’t word for word but it is similar. Now the fascinating point here is that scientists estimate the number of stars to be around 10 to the power 21 and the grains of sand on earth to be around 10 to the power 25! Now whilst that is a fair difference, we are discovering more stars all the time but the sand isn’t changing that much, interesting isn’t it? This has to be the most interesting topic you can research as it covers three things that hugely arouse our curiosity: Dinosaurs, God’s existence and the Universe, brilliant! On the issue of who wrote the bible, I’m not sure it really matters whether Moses wrote it or pulled it together because it is generally agreed that many were involved in it’s formation. It’s really more about how it seems to all come together given its multiple authors I think. My point being that if several modern day authors tried to each write a chapter of a book would this work and be cohesive?

Great track, I've seen them in concert at the Glasgow Apollo (in 1980 something), good band but don't follow them now.

Emperer Frog @ Carluke High School Oh and Ozzy at Donnington AC/DC - Glasgow Apollo Meatloaf - Glasgow Apollo Marillion - Barrowlands Ozzy - Glasgow Apollo Pink - AECC (What?)

James don't know mate, it was there when I submitted a reply, hence my comment about it that you can see towards the end of my post. You make me laugh man

Very good indeed and well written to. Why did it take until 1995 for Galileo to be exonerated, surely by your account this was already known prior to 12 years ago and should have been known during his own time in the late 15th and early 16th centuries? Or is this one of those seriously obscure writtings that is difficult to translate bearing in mind some of the complexities of some parts of the book. I think it is a good point (about the shape of the earth) and proves that "science" works and in time we may be able to prove the origins of man, be that through creation or otherwise. Given that we are talking about this great man, it is interesting that he was the person who first discovered Europa, the "ice" moon of Jupiter, thought to be a "possible" home to extra terrestrial life forms, within its sub terrainian oceans. Not only that but his discovery of these satellites, orbiting jupiter, also strenthened his copernican cosmology theory (this being that everything does not revolve around our earth). Some theories on this moon suggest that the oceans (if they exist?) could be as much as twice the volume of all earths oceans and we all know that the oceans here are over spilling with diverse life forms. So if life is found in this moon in the coming decades, how will it be explained through the bibles teachings? On the explanation about the universe it is a compelling fact that the bible seems to have it covered but why then are we not in the centre of it (bear in mind that not only are we not at the centre of creation (can't really prove this I know) but we are not even at the centre of our own galaxy - fact), given that the stars were created partly for us? On another point why some 200 billion stars in our galaxy alone, most of which provide no guidence and no light for us? Most of these stars are so distant they are invisible to the human eye and most telescopes so this is not explained. Please also explain M31 the Andromeda galaxy, why is it there and who is it for? If, according to other theories, the universe has no centre then why is it there at all and why is it full of other galaxies that have no bearing on us? On your quote from O'Keefe I would say that it is certainly true that we are lucky we have not suffered a galactic event causing earths demise but then look at it this way, given the trillions of star systems in existence,many will thrive and many will be destroyed, this is not particulary complicated. Now here's a theory: Eons ago an advanced being from across the universe visited us. They have evolved over millions of years and know everything compared to humanity. They are infinately intelligent and peaceful and wish to give their discovery (us) a chance at a bright future, so they contacted some people on earth and had the bible written as a type of procedures manual to help us on our journey. With this done they left to explore other regions of space and may never be back....... or will they??!! James, I like your input and no apology needed, always good to have a fresh point of view. One other thing though, it is humanities quest for knowledge that led to Subaru's being created and ultimately enjoyed by us, so it should never be stifled. "Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom: let him who has understanding reckon the number of the beast, for it is a human number, its number is six hundred and sixty-six." (Revelation 13:16-18 RSV) Even your elected number is covered my friend. You don't happen to have it written on you... do you! Much respect to you Welsho, your understanding and interpretation of the bible is admirable and more of us should make the effort to read it. I feel that it's cryptical and at times unintelligible scripture prevents its understanding to the masses. This in turn causes many interpretations resulting in religious confrontations. Perhaps if it were in much simpler language it would have more credence. Excellent job though and I have learned much from you in these last few days.

Fair do's Welsho, I think this one could go on for a long time. We possibly need to "evolve" (just kidding) a little bit more before we achieve true understanding of our quite wonderous existence. I still think it might just be a bit of both but I know we won't agree on this. Just to backtrack a little you did say faith in ref to evolution so my mistake there, sorry, I had a lot to read through. On the puppy analogy, I like your use of this but it actually reinforces my viewpoint because the living puppy will be loved more as time passes (just as we grow the love our friends and families) and the relationship builds throughout their lives. So on that point let's add a third boy with an "invisible" puppy that he to loves in his mind but through time this love will wane and disappear as he grows and realises that in truth the puppy does not really exist. You know where I'm going with this, God, remains unseen and as far as I am aware has, in actual fact, never been seen, so, if he exists, his construction of us is flawed as we have been given intelligence that fights against belief in an unseen overlord. Your use of science itself to disprove the theory of evolution, as in the probabilities of life beginning from nothing does not help people believe that a divine being was able to create this multi-faceted world simply through the spoken word and science is always changing as we expand our intellect. You will be aware that not so long ago we thought that travelling at 30mph would kill us and that the world was flat! Science learned that this was flawed and corrected itself. It is a better belief that can adjust to increasing knowledge rather than that which puts its fingers in it's ears and sings, to ignore it. We are very young and have more "flat world issues" to resolve. Finally, why go to all the trouble of not only creating us here in our world but then creating billions of other stars and galaxies. If space were empty, we would know we were alone.

Okay, I'm not shamefaced, I am expressing a view that is soliciting a reaction from you, who are also expressing a view, but feel you are completely correct. I do not feel that I am completely correct, more interested is all. I also find it interesting that my "label" of how I see my beliefs has been questioned by you as has another posters. Yes and I have read these explanations but curiously they avoid the issue of a pure, innocent, new birth and make no explanation why new life must suffer for the indescretions of their forebares and if you do justify it then you condem the god whose readings you completely believe to be no more than a power crazed demon, seeking to be worshipped, unseen in millenia, if ever. At best they are a deserter, just as mankind has deserted them. Again I don't disagree with what you say here but this is down to interpretation of what religion is and in what basis it is driven. You clearly state here "Man-made" so I ask you who "made-man"? Just say who it was and then we can discuss where the blame lies? As you previously stated God did a good job but it wasn't perfect was it, because if it was we would have the capacity to believe on a global scale, not everyone can read a book and believe it without question because you to have no "real" proof of "God's" existance either. No problem but here you are defining my definition of religion for me and you can't do that. The very presence of a book telling us who and why god is has created religion in most of its forms therefore the source of the creation of the issue is the bible. Some definitions of religion are: · Belief in something sacred (for example, gods or other supernatural beings). · A distinction between sacred and profane objects. · Ritual acts focused on sacred objects. · A moral code believed to have a sacred or supernatural basis. · Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual. · Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural. · A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it. · A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the world view. · A social group bound together by the above. So my use of the word is accurate and your use of it saying that "evolution is a religion" is not accurate as I don't worship, pray to or base my existance around the theory of evolution. Can you say the same about your view of the bible? So you know the truth? Please share how you know this, I'm genuinely interested. Ahhh! My fingers are on fire! Your fingers are on fire because your belief is being judged. Perhaps we will meet in hell. Sorry about the quote thing I don't fully know how to use the reply options.

Sorry I haven't responded for a while but I am only usually on line for brief times during the day. This has to be one of the best threads ever bye the way To continue the discussion but getting a little deeper: I see myself as more of a theistic evolutionist (but i do contradict this a bit so not an exact definition) which is to say that I believe in evolution but also in a supreme being or beings but not specifically what we might call "God" (although I am open to any idea). Here is a quote from a (supposedly learned chap) Professor Steven Pinker of Harvard University: "Nearly all working biologists accept that the principles of variation and natural selection explain how multiple species evolved from a common ancestor over very long periods of time. I find no compelling examples that this process is insufficient to explain the rich variety of life forms present on this planet. While no one could claim yet to have ferreted out every detail of how evolution works, I do not see any significant "gaps" in the progressive development of life's complex structures that would require divine intervention. In any case, efforts to insert God into the gaps of contemporary human understanding of nature have not fared well in the past, and we should be careful not to do that now. Science's tools will never prove or disprove God's existence. For me the fundamental answers about the meaning of life come not from science but from a consideration of the origins of our uniquely human sense of right and wrong, and from the historical record of Christ's life on Earth." Welsho I am sure that you will be aware of the theory that "God" continues to have a hand in humanities ongoing development and from this you have to consider what kind of sadist would create a parasite that blinds millions every year or a gene that covers babies (new borns) with excrutiating blisters? A new born is an innocent life form, untainted by man's indiscretions at birth but already cursed (not a very divine quality)! Now the theory of natural selection can explain this "horror story". It explains the life around us with all its quirks and tragedies. We can prove mathematically that it (life) is capable of producing adaptive life forms and can track these via computer sim's, experiments and real ecosystems. This does not try to resolve the mystery of the origin of complex life by slipping in the excuse (if you like) of a complex designer (God). Our own bodies are riddled with flaws that no competent engineer (or God perhaps) would have planned but that realistically disclose a history of trial-and-error tinkering (evolution as it happens): a retina installed backward, a seminal duct that hooks over the ureter like a garden hose snagged on a tree, goose bumps that uselessly try to warm us by fluffing up long-gone fur (back in our ape like days). To name but a few examples. The moral design of nature is as bungled as its engineering is people. Many people who accept evolution still feel that a belief in God is necessary to give life meaning and to justify morality. But that is potentially backward. In reality, religion has given us stonings, inquisitions and 9/11. Morality comes from a commitment to treat others as we wish to be treated, which follows from the realization that none of us is the sole occupant of the universe (how arrogant are we to believe this). Like physical evolution, it does not require a white-coated technician (who are we referring to here - a watchmaker perhaps?) in the sky. Evolution is based on scientific method. There are tests that can determine whether or not the theory is correct as it stands. Thousands of such tests have been made, and the current theories have passed them all. Also, scientists are willing to alter the theories (as Welsho has previously stated) but not just to avoid an admission that "god" exisits but as soon as new evidence is discovered. This allows the theories to become more and more accurate as research progresses. Most religions, on the other hand, are based on revelations, that usually cannot be objectively verified. They talk about the why, not the how. More importantly, religious beliefs are not subject to change as easily as scientific beliefs, if at all but they will use a biblical parallel to try and explain it. Finally, a religion normally claims an exact accuracy (based on what exactly?), something which scientists know they may never achieve. Effectively what I am trying to say here is that the scientific mind is more open to the truth (if this is ever known) than the religous one. For example let's say that a dramatic event occurs undermining the whole basis of the bible, believers will go into melt down as there entire belief system crumbles whilst the scientific communtiy will assimilate the new events and work them in to existing knowledge and there is nothing wrong with that now is there. One final point - whether someone thinks they are this or that is not an issue, they simply have the right to believe what they want to based on what they believe they know.

So god creates man, man is flawed, god is to blame.... surely. If you build a machine but put something in the wrong place, it's not the machines fault. Yet you defend them blindly, or based on a book anyway. God creates life and elects when to destroy it, the boy is, well, playing god...surely. One other point, you didn't explain why they created us and all else on the planet, why my friend, why? So they could be worshipped, why then give us free will!! Better a bunch of pre programmed zombies for that job. We have conscience and that conscience runs free. Creating life so you can be idolised is dictatorial at the very least. We are not play things and if we are off track, why no visit to set things straight? Why does he hide from his creation? You say there is no evidence of organic evolution so cannot see the link between man and the great apes then. I contest your dismissal of human evolution on the grounds that we used to get around on foot and now have 300 bhp play things that do it for us because we have evolved, just because it is technological evolution does not negate its parallel with the biological form. You say disease is a mute point, linking it to man's creation (god's fault again) but why then do undeveloped worlds suffer such misery, they are not born bad but die young! Over to you, my honourable friend

Yup I'm with you boys... not believing does not make you evil or bad... believing on the other hand, in a lot of cases, does! Oh cr*p I'm off to old hell again They must have beer in hell..right, since it's a vice.. not so bad after all

All very interesting folks just a couple of points to make; I think everyone has a right to choose what they believe in, but does not have the right to judge others based on it. I want to know why "God" decided to kill all the creatures that lived on this great planet before us, or at least most of them. The proof of these creatures existence is all around us and has been effectively dated. They were not hateful creatures, they just went about their business and only killed what they needed to eat, unlike "god's" great creation eh! Given that "God" is eternal why is there no book about these dinosaurs - surely they warrant a mention either in their own book or in ours ( the bible), or is there a one statement fits all in there somewhere? Don't remember Adam and Eve talking about dino's! Given "god's" brilliance in creating something as complex as the earth and all the creatures and other living organisms that are here, why did he/she make such a mess of it? Many of the wars being fought today are based in religion and result in innocent people being murdered - what true faith could possibly condone such behaviour, yet it happens every day! What was the point of creating this world? Was it just a project or a bet with another "god"? What supreme being creates a race and then watches as it is raveged by disease, suffering, faithlessness and conflict? Now if we have "evolved" as a world then all of the above is explainable, humanities imperfections (we are learning as we go [evolving if you will]), making big mistakes, learning to live together and accept each other. Every year we work harder to protect our world by our own "evolution"! I am not a bad person and I have never done anything particulary nasty to anyone. I live with my girlfriend (how bad am I) who is a lovely person and we try to have a good life but we don't "believe" as such, then again we don't find those who do to be a problem. So why then will we be going to "hell" for our lack of faith whilst someone who has committed atrocious sins will be let off for saying a "hail mary" or declaring their belief all of a sudden! Nonsense! A basic trait of humanity is "gangism" and the various religous factions are simply large gangs causing havoc like any small street gang, accept on a global scale. We are very blessed to have planet earth and we are definately not alone (but we may never confirm this due to the size of the universe). Only arrogance would make us think we were the only life forms. Over the piece we are a good race (that's all humanity) but we are only young and have much more evolving to do. This will be needed because earth won't sustain the rising population so colonisation of other suitable worlds may be necessary for our survival. Just some thoughts. Flame jacket is on as I head for hell!

I am in the area and will attend this event. Its all very tragic. I grew up just along the road from Lanark and although I didn't know Colin I always watched his racing exploits and he will be sadly missed. My condolences go to the Mcrae family and also to the families of the others killed in the accident. Sorry folks I don't know how to add my name to the list.

I would definately go for it, I had a Caymen S for a day (a gift) and this car is sublime! It certainly isn't slow, the stats say it is every bit as quick as my 05 STi PPP to 100 and keeps going all the way to 170 (where allowed to). The engine note is amazing, sitting just behind your ears, and the cars handling ability defies belief. The cabin is a great place to sit in and the build quality is second to none. One warning though....... you may remortgage the house to buy one afterwards (I'm still thinking about it!) []

I resemble that statement!! []

Some great cars in here guys thanks for making the threat so interesting. Funny how most of us have worked our way up, so to speak. Nice job. [Y]

Read an comment on this in Autocar last nite and they say you will hardly notice any difference over 97 or 98! So don't bother! I am now using BP Ultimate after religiously using Vpower and have noticed no difference other than slight improvement in mpg. It is a type UK though so probably of no use to owners of imports.

Very harsh punishment, was this only for the tints? Never heard of anyone getting this treatment before. I know a couple of people who have been told to get them off pronto. I did know about this law though, that's why you see a lot of cars with only the back tinted, basically a clear window only lets a little more than the 70% of light required, hence all but the very slightest tints are illegal. If a window tinter agrees to do it they can also be held partially responsible and any good fitter will tell you it is illegal. When I had my second CTR they would not tint the front windows even with the lightest tints they had. Don't tint the front windows unless you want to be fined or worse, you are simply inviting yourself to be stopped. I think the law changed after a very bad accident, where the car's tints were so dark that it was believed to have impaired the drivers vision and contributed to the accident, people were killed!