I'm not sure why you deleted your reply there - but fortunately I got it by email.

You were of course half right without knowing it, the National team was made for the people of Nortern Ireland, so I guess it was 'made for me'.

As for 'never being unemployed in your life' - ill admit I am a little sceptical of this being true. What line of work were you in during your pre teen year?!

More light entertainment, thanks.

I dont want to be to critical, but...
A quick scan of your profile and comments history shows you are pretty confused. Two things you either detest or have no interest in are the two things you talk the most about, by quite a margin it would seem.

And do you still live here? You did, then you didnt, then you did. t was hard to follow. I gave up after the third or fourth time you said 'All fur coat, no knickers' - is that your catch phrase, did you steal it from somewhere cause it sounded clever? I wasnt sure.

Either way, thanks for the brief afternoon entertainment.

Just finished actually. Mathmatics. The question was...
What is 2013 - 1987?
Answer = 26
Moron.
Presuming you are a 'freelance' (unemployed) food journalist, and thats why you have the time to come on here and make a fool of yourself, I might suggest you get a real, regular job - it will keep your mind off such things as how much you detest football, but cant help but talk about it.

Mentioning in your little personal summary that you detest the sport, have never been to see the sport and never will, then bringing it up completely irrelevantly and voluntarily is like walking around with a t-shirt on that says "I really am a tw4t"

It never ceases to amaze me how so many great scientific minds find so much time to hang about this forum. Having not commented for quite a long time, I am shocked to see the same 'great minds' still at it...

"No true Scotsman...."

Its funny how some commenters (seemingly similar to yourself) would usually laugh when someone said, "They aren't true christians" to counter particular accusations, but apparently "No true Scientist" is a valid point.

Steve, for the less 'wise' among us, give us a break down of your evidence and reasons for thinking Paul only wrote three of the books attributed to him. And I suppose while your at it, your evidence for him being a 'nutter'. If your evidence is based on him believing something you don't, I guess that makes you a nutter to. I'd just like a brief overview of actually historical evidence that you are aware of to suggest Paul didn't write books attributed to him, and throw in bait about the 'dangerous assumption' that the gospels actually record Jesus life/words. Demonstrate the effectiveness of your weapon of reason. This would need to be good,if it's the only weapon you've got...

I'm amused by this for two reasons...

1. Your telling me to get a life as you read over conversations between strangers from over 3 weeks ago? Strange.
2. If you read the posts, you'd see I had a very good life, hence you think I'm pretentious...so still an odd suggestion, what would I want to change based on what you read?!
I suppose it's odd for a third reason too, if you did read over it, you'd realise I don't make a habit of mentioning much at all about my job/travel etc, I only mentioned the fortunate position I was in because it was being suggested I was some sort of wasted spending my days on here with no prospects/good job etc etc. As it happens I'm none of these...if I was, I might just spend my evenings reading other peoples comments from a month ago.

Thanks for the advice though.

I always preferred the idea of putting people like this to work. Death always seemed to soft, but life in a hotel/prison isn't much better. Hard labour so that they atleast offset the cost of keeping them, that is an idea I could get behind. Chain gangs wernt such a bad thing.

I think you are making my objection out as being more than it is. He is elected to rule in a shared city, and has went around pretending to be a 'cross community, mayor for everyone', so I find it unusual that at the first opportunity he makes a move that would offend a reasonable number of those people. I don't care what else he puts up, but to think people wouldn't find it odd/offensive to move a picture of the head of state (everybody in NI's head of state, regardless of political preference or claim of nationality) is abit naive...or alternatively he just didn't care...which is more of a worry. I also don't care how he chooses to demonstrate his 'political preference', however petty that might be, his role is defined as to promote and benefit the people and businesses of the Belfast area. He is elected to operate in the interests of the people, as are all politicians, and therefore of course I expect my opinion to be given as much consideration as anyone elses. And of course I would expect him to behave in the interests of everybody, and not just the people who share his republican viewpoint. His role is not one that should be influenced by his unionist/republican views, and they shouldn't be brought into it. He is there to promote the well being and success of Belfast in it's current position within the UK.
So I have no difficulty grasping 'the real issue', it is quite simple, as a mayor, his political preference should not leak through to his actions as that would be considered bias, and he is not elected as a 'ruler' in that sense. He shouldn't therefore make moves that might alienate, offend or seem unreasonable to half the people he is there to help. That's just common sense. If he thinks that little 'political statement' has helped his cause in any way, he is a fool, and if he thinks in his role as a mayor it is his job to promote republicanism or any other ism, he is a bigger fool and shod have read the job description. Of course if he wanted to continue making little gestures like this, and abusing his position, I am sure everyone would agree to remove him.