Undercover Posted May 1, 2006 Report Share Posted May 1, 2006 dont get me wrong...if you compare "plonk" to moderately priced wine...of course the plonk will score lower ......these prices are simply related to supply and demand..... now....I'm talking about ridiculously expensive over aged wines ....in comparison to moderately priced "popular" wines.........wine ages well to a point....then it would seem to my observation ...it gets crap (and expensive) ..... The first paragraph refutes your entire original argument and the second paragraph seems to indicate that you just don't know too much about wine. The price of the wine and the age of the wine are two separate factors. Some wines age well (1st growth Bordeaux that can take 30 years in the bottle comes instantly to mind, good Amarone, etc.) and some wines don't. Most California wines, for example, are designed in a modern style and tend to peak out at 10-15 years. Even a lot of good bordeaux these days can't go much over 15 years. Lynch-Bages for example. Meerlust Rubicon, probably South Africa's best and best known Bordeaux style wine (a blend of cabernet sauvignon, cabernet franc and merlot) is good for about 10 years max. I had a case of the 1994 and by 2003, it was headed south. The Pinotage grape so beloved in South Africa is notorious for not lasting so long in the bottle. And I'm not a big fan of Pinotage anyway. I find it a bit rough and cheesy, much like... never mind. Next time I'm in the RSA, I'll take you 'round Stellenbosch and try to educate you a bit. I'm sure Hannes Myburgh is dying to hear your insights into wine. N.B. You might try to spend a little bit more time attempting to string together an actual coherent narrative thought instead of just launching ad hominem attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undercover Posted May 1, 2006 Report Share Posted May 1, 2006 And blaming starving Africans on their corrupt Governments (which exist just about everywhere) is just a complete cop out. There is simply no economic or political capital by Governments or their electorates to be gained by doing anything about it. It's not a question of "blaming" starving Africans... The fact is, the central African governments just steal all the money. The word "kleptocracy" was invented to describe Mobuto's reign in the Congo and the situation is similar in many other central African countries. Most of these countries had thriving economies during colonial times. This is simply a fact. Secondly, the US, the EU, the Russians, the PRC and just about everybody else in the world has thrown money at Africa since the African Independence movement in the late 50's/early 60's and the results have been disappointing to put it mildly. In Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe is a psychotic despot who has single-handedly destroyed Africa's finest farmland and killed tens of thousands of black and white Africans. A few years ago, Mozambique began offering displaced white farmers from Zimbabwe free land in an effort to rebuild the economy. Liberia? Sierra Leone? Angola? Congo? CAR? The horror, the horror... and that's not because of any silly rich people's fondness for Caspian caviar. I've actually spent some time in Mozambique, which is normally rated as the world's poorest country. There is no infrastructure, the people are warm and friendly and would love to work, except there are no jobs. The only way to provide them jobs is through capitalism and direct managed investment. Communism is not the answer. Killing the rich people is not the answer (see the Wikipedia "Pol Pot" entry). Your response was serious. However, the original post was just empty-headed Robespierrian bomb-throwing which seems to be the poster's speciality. I understand that it's delightful to make fun of silly rich people (particularly in Sandton by the way) and I enjoy that as much as anyone else, but to start with the fairly ignorant premise that a) caviar sucks and anyone who likes it is full of **** and c) rich people suck and d) therefore poor people are poor because rich people suck, isn't a political ideaology, it's just... STUPID. I've also spent a lot of time with senior party officials from the ANC (who were by the way communist revolutionaries ) and I've never heard any of them express their opinions in such an ignorant and dimwitted fashion. Perhaps some of the other South African members could pipe up and respond. S_Plutonium suggested reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie36 Posted May 1, 2006 Report Share Posted May 1, 2006 It's not a question of "blaming" starving Africans... The fact is, the central African governments just steal all the money. The word "kleptocracy" was invented to describe Mobuto's reign in the Congo and the situation is similar in many other central African countries. Most of these countries had thriving economies during colonial times. This is simply a fact. Secondly, the US, the EU, the Russians, the PRC and just about everybody else in the world has thrown money at Africa since the African Independence movement in the late 50's/early 60's and the results have been disappointing to put it mildly. And what exactly did they expect to happen? Everyone knows that poor countries have tin pot Governments and that political and economic reform only happens AFTER you have got rid of the starving people and usually only with the emergence of decent sized middle class... The only way to provide them jobs is through capitalism and direct managed investment. Absolutely... couldnt agree more... pretty bleeding obvious...but it aint happening... Meanwhile today the UN is cutting food rations in the Sudan in half because of a 'severe funding shortfall'... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4954096.stm Is this really acceptable? ...while silly girls like to hero worship Russian mafia tycoons (whose assets could single handedly solve the whole crisis) or sell their bodies to purchase designer hand bags... These problems are not insurmountable - all they need is the political will combined with existing economic resources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0nmaster Posted May 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2006 The first paragraph refutes your entire original argument and the second paragraph seems to indicate that you just don't know too much about wine. The price of the wine and the age of the wine are two separate factors. you sir....are a wanker..... you can't take everything I say and stretch it out the the furthest freaking pole of your imagination.....to suit your poor undeveloped stereotype of a "boerish" south african ..... If you want to wank over the glory of all things you deem "fine " or "sophisticated" ....and have projected what you consider real and inherent qualities to these things .......fine......you are a toss pot of the highest order ....but fine....... I for one(unlike someone here) really aren't trying to overcompensate for anything.....been exposed to the best schools , universities that money could buy, silver spoon firmly planted into my bum.........and I just don't feel the need to advertise it and place value in trying to be "refined" ... I'm just never going to be that insecure that I even need to sell my pallette to make social statements......and at the same time...i'm just never going to be that self ******* indulgent ...that i'm going to live in africa and loose sight that people just down the road from my are going hungry tonight ...... but of course...you are right mate !!!!! gosh....how silly of me !!! you know the cost of everything AND it's VALUE ! no , no ....the world is perfect ..... your way of thinking is exactly what we need now ... if only we could educate those darn natives to drink wine from the Bordeaux region.............then they could stop getting billazia from the putrid water ! silly africans .......they dont have any bread ! why dont they just eat caviar ? savages ! why not read your own link to the french revolution .... especially the bit about "Marie Ationette" ha ha ha now please shut up...... Prat ! (ps ...I love pinotage ....gosh...i'm unrefined ! if only I could emulate undercovers masterful "taste" and alter the very nature of my tastebuds........then people might think I'm "sophisticated" .......ooooh....boy.......I'm starting to feel better about myself already....) wanker ! tosser ! git ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0nmaster Posted May 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2006 N.B. You might try to spend a little bit more time attempting to string together an actual coherent narrative thought instead of just launching ad hominem attacks. (first see post on previous page........then read this) you should try and actually say anything useful...without perpetuating my stereotype of pretentious wankers being cold , aleinated and apathetic to the suffering of others......the very crux of my argument.... and you know what.....I just don't need to spend the time....cause the gaping holes in all the shite you trying to spade at me is so damn apparent ....I struggle to feel even you could believe it .....you don't seem brain dead.....(but then again....I've been wrong before....) and I'm freaking proposing communism or anything of the like......so take all your poorly preconvieved notions and get over them....really!....you obviously are carrying a lot of baggage around if you cant even criticise your own "class" ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undercover Posted May 1, 2006 Report Share Posted May 1, 2006 N.B. You might try to spend a little bit more time attempting to string together an actual coherent narrative thought instead of just launching ad hominem attacks. (first see post on previous page........then read this) you should try and actually say anything useful...without perpetuating my stereotype of pretentious wankers being cold , aleinated and apathetic to the suffering of others......the very crux of my argument.... and you know what.....I just don't need to spend the time....cause the gaping holes in all the shite you trying to spade at me is so damn apparent ....I struggle to feel even you could believe it .....you don't seem brain dead.....(but then again....I've been wrong before....) and I'm freaking proposing communism or anything of the like......so take all your poorly preconvieved notions and get over them....really!....you obviously are carrying a lot of baggage around if you cant even criticise your own "class" ..... You're an amusing lad, but in this case a link may be worth a thousand words: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_serotonin_reuptake_inhibitor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie36 Posted May 1, 2006 Report Share Posted May 1, 2006 You're an amusing lad, but in this case a link may be worth a thousand words: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_serotonin_reuptake_inhibitor Hardly good advice for a dating website. The sexual side-effects of SSRIs are well known and any failure to perform may further deepen depression. May I suggest a 'dopamine enhancer'. There are several on the market. To quote Dr.Helen Fisher 'And unlike the serotonin-enhancing medications, they do not produce weight gain or lower sex drive. Indeed, patients regularly report their sex drive increases.' P.S. Dr. Helen Fisher is an Anthropologist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0nmaster Posted May 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2006 You're an amusing lad, but in this case a link may be worth a thousand words: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_serotonin_reuptake_inhibitor thanks....may I suggest in your case a serious overdose of barbituates...? I dont need any thanks....i'll just read your posts.....it's like valium for the soul..... seriously though...as robbie said ......SSRI are soooooooo 90's ......come now.....you can pretend to know what you talking about better than that ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undercover Posted May 1, 2006 Report Share Posted May 1, 2006 You're an amusing lad, but in this case a link may be worth a thousand words: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_serotonin_reuptake_inhibitor Hardly good advice for a dating website. The sexual side-effects of SSRIs are well known and any failure to perform may further deepen depression. May I suggest a 'dopamine enhancer'. There are several on the market. To quote Dr.Helen Fisher 'And unlike the serotonin-enhancing medications, they do not produce weight gain or lower sex drive. Indeed, patients regularly report their sex drive increases.' P.S. Dr. Helen Fisher is an Anthropologist. You want to encourage him to procreate? :!: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0nmaster Posted May 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2006 You want to encourage him to procreate? now i'm pretty sure we don't want to be getting personal .......do we ? give it a good think (well...try your best anyway). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted May 1, 2006 Report Share Posted May 1, 2006 The word "kleptocracy" was invented to describe Mobuto's reign in the Congo and the situation is similar in many other central African countries. and here i thought the term was invented for dubya... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiCKeDBiRD Posted May 1, 2006 Report Share Posted May 1, 2006 ...while silly girls like to hero worship Russian mafia tycoons (whose assets could single handedly solve the whole crisis) or sell their bodies to purchase designer hand bags... yeah yeah .... geez .... :roll: < Oh well.... Never mind ..... LOL .... my Sir Rob 8) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted May 2, 2006 Report Share Posted May 2, 2006 now i'm pretty sure we don't want to be getting personal .......do we ? after reading the above, looks like you want it to get personal as much as he does... i'd suggest not crying foul on this one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0nmaster Posted May 2, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2006 after reading the above, looks like you want it to get personal as much as he does... i'd suggest not crying foul on this one... wrong.....i never get personal unless someone else starts first......and if you read his previous condescending posts it will all become clear.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0nmaster Posted May 2, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2006 the suffering could be alleviated without stopping that kind of behavior, and a) how are you going to stop it, and who decides which is a pretentious fop and which is a genuine wine lover? sounds like a dangerous game to me. all thats important is that YOU know the difference......don't you think ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0nmaster Posted May 2, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2006 it occurs to me i have allowed my self to be wound up and it brought out the hyper sensitive over agro prick in me......apologies......lets insult each other in the right spirit ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted May 2, 2006 Report Share Posted May 2, 2006 after reading the above, looks like you want it to get personal as much as he does... i'd suggest not crying foul on this one... wrong.....i never get personal unless someone else starts first......and if you read his previous condescending posts it will all become clear.... glad you noticed you were getting wound up and took 5 to cool off... GOLD STAR to YOU for spotting and acknowledging this The first paragraph refutes your entire original argument and the second paragraph seems to indicate that you just don't know too much about wine. The price of the wine and the age of the wine are two separate factors. you sir....are a wanker..... and choosing to defuse. hurrah and huzzah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted May 2, 2006 Report Share Posted May 2, 2006 it occurs to me i have allowed my self to be wound up and it brought out the hyper sensitive over agro prick in me......apologies......lets insult each other in the right spirit ..... Haha didnt see that. lemme go retract my counterwind. kudos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted May 2, 2006 Report Share Posted May 2, 2006 the suffering could be alleviated without stopping that kind of behavior, and a) how are you going to stop it, and who decides which is a pretentious fop and which is a genuine wine lover? sounds like a dangerous game to me. all thats important is that YOU know the difference......don't you think ? more important to me than whether i know the difference, is that i dont have you telling me the difference. so seems to me that while your reaction to the caviar thing is all well and good as an emotional rant against injustice in the world, as an action plan for addresssing injustice it sucks ass. if for example someone tells me i'm pretentious for liking sushi, my response will probably be something along the lines of "mind your own ******* business." i dont see any consistency at all in the anti-caviar argument as robbie said, abramovich's money alone could solve the world's hunger problems. what say we get a team of superheros together, kidnap him and bill gates, and force them to save the world? (ok as a plan it sucks ass, but a tiny bit less than the "stop eating caviar you pretentious douche" plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ling_dtua_khaao Posted May 3, 2006 Report Share Posted May 3, 2006 OK, SSRIs were brought up in jest, but thought I would address the couple of points made about them. SSRIs definitely can play with your sex drive/sex experience, but they don't necessarily lower your sex drive. Yes it is a side effect common enough to be listed on pharmaceutical product information pages, but "common enough" does not mean anywhere near "a majority of users." In my experience (3 years now), at first sex drive was lowered, time to ejaculation was greatly extended (many would consider this a benefit ... as a friend who had also been on SSRIs remarked, "it takes you 6 months to cum"), and nature of orgasm changed.* All this passed within about 6 months, and my gf and I are happy to report plenty of sex drive. Weight gain: in my own case, yes, in the first 3 months I gained 15 pounds, and have been stable at the new weight since. However, I also see weight loss/appetite suppression listed on product info pages, and one SSRI user I know definitely experienced loss of appetite and corresponding substantial weight loss. (To be fair, the drug I and the two other people mentioned have been taking is not strictly an SSRI, it is an NSRI, a "norepinephrine and serotonin reuptake inhibitor," called Effexor (venlafaxine hydrochloride), so it acts on two neurotransmitters, norephinephrine and serotonin, not just the one, serotonin.) The upshot is that playing with your brain chemistry, which is exactly what these anti-depression drugs do, can have unpredictable side effects, varying from one person to the next. Some are common enough to be recognized and listed, and it certainly isn't a random crap-shoot what happens to you when you take these drugs. They have been carefully developed and tested over long periods of time. But the fact that people experiencing severe depression sometimes need to try more than one medication before they get one that works for them (about 25% of cases), shows that not all brain chemistry is the same, and depression may manifest itself in different ways in different brains. It's not nearly as cut-and-dried as taking a painkiller for a headache. The actual chemistry of depression and other mental illnesses is poorly understood. In fact, in reasonably rare cases Effexor may produce the opposite effect to what is intended, producing depression and suicidal thoughts. Sort of like taking an aspirin for your headache and having the headache double in strength. --Ling ----------------------------- *Or as the product literature remarked as a possible side effect, "abnormal ejaculation/orgasm." What the hell does that mean, I wondered, before I started using the drug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ling_dtua_khaao Posted May 3, 2006 Report Share Posted May 3, 2006 I like raw fish eggs. I like the flying fish roe that commonly appears in sushi, I like the much larger salmon roe that appears fairly commonly in Japanese restaurants in Canada (big salty balls that pop in a wonderful way when pressed between tongue and roof of mouth...). I like "lumpfish" caviar from Scandinavia. Only once have I had the opportunity to taste the "real" caviar, from the Caspian Sea. I was travelling through Iran, one of the producing countries, and bought a can, at vastly cheaper price than anywhere in the West. Unfortunately, vodka was nowhere in sight, since I was travelling through an Islamic Republic and didn't have any contacts among ex-pats. I didn't get to chill the can on ice either - didn't have a freezer on my bicycle. I enjoyed it, yes, but I haven't had it since because I'm not willing or interested to fork over the money for it here. I ate it with the local flat bread baked in ovens on hot gravel. When I walk into the "Vintages" section of the wine store, depending on the area of the city I'm in, I mght see some bottles of wine for $50 or $100. I have also been in the back room kept at a couple of stores, specially cooled to cellar temperatures, where bottles with prices like $600, $800 are kept. I have never bought a bottle of wine for more than $30 or $40, and even $30 is a very rare occasion. Thanks to a friend who is a real wine nut, and his personally constructed cellar in the basement of his modest city home where he keeps around 4000 bottles at any given time, I have been able to try wines that would be well beyond my wallet, if I had the chance to buy them in a store. I have no idea what price would be attached to them but I know it would not be pretty. What I really fail to see or believe is, that a wine at $600 is so much better than a wine at $60? There are some exceptionally olfactorily-gifted individuals on this earth who might be able to appreciate the difference, but I suspect there are far far more individuals on this earth who lack the olfactory gifts to really distinguish, but convince themselves that they can. Their attraction to these wines goes something like this: highest price = exclusive, exclusive = desirable (to them). Instead though they tell themselves, highest price = highest quality, highest quality = desirable, even though they lack the ability to adequately distinguish the subtle differences between the $60 bottle and the $600 bottle. The natural rate of occurrence of people with the olfactory gifts to be professional wine tasters is very low. I like Scottish whiskey. I like the huge variety of flavours available from one single malt to the next. In my 20-odd years of legal drinking age, I have seen single malts go from being mainly available here in Canada only at occasional higher end liquor stores, and then only in limited variety, or a few stock malts available at most liquor stores (think the usual Glenfiddich), to being available at all liquor stores in increasing varieties. Malts I used to see only in Scotland, not even at Heathrow airport, are showing up regularly in liquor stores here. The ages of the malts keep going up up up, along with prices. It's not enough to have a 12 year old malt now, it must be 18 at least. A bottle of 16 year old Lagavulin has rapidly gone up in price from a reasonable $60 to $95. Once upon a time I could score a bottle of 22 year old Brora, bottled from the remaining casks of a small distillery gone out of business, at the duty free in Aberdeen or Glasgow or Heathrow, for 30 quid. Not any longer, not by a long shot.* The whiskey has not changed, nor is inflation or huge increase in government taxes to blame. It's strictly market. Single malts have become in trend for the middle class in a way they never used to be. Price does not equal value. Finally, what about those handbags? I can walk into certain designer boutiques in downtown Toronto and find handbags for $10,000. Are they really 100 times better than the $100 handbag? Are they really 1000 times better than the knock-off available in Bangkok? I suspect any woman would find it hard to go through 100 good quality knock-off handbags, difficult to distinguish from the real thing except on close inspection, in her lifetime, and it would still be cheaper than buying one of the real thing. (Note to n'Riya - perhaps you are an exception.) I'm certainly not against paying for high quality, within reason. If we pay the Italian craftsman working for the handbag manufacturer, who makes the handbag by hand, $30 per hour (I have no idea what such people really make, but with a 40 hour work week (including one hour of paid break time ) that's a gross annual income of about $58,000), does he really work 250 hours on a single handbag? That's about 7 weeks of nonstop work on a single bag, with a little overtime. Assuming total markup of 33% between manufacturer and shop selling the handbag, to account for expenses and profit, that would come to $10,000. But I seriously doubt it takes the craftsman anywhere near 250 hours to produce the bag. (Which reminds me of something. In the West we really value handmade products. My gf finds this kind of funny. In Thailand, handmade versus factory made - people don't really care all that much.) So, the comment that "you get what you pay for" is way off I think, without serious qualification. More than often it is "buyer beware." You get what you pay for if you are careful and know what you are doing in the subject at hand. Most of the time, people don't. The market sets price. Value is determined by the utility of the buyer. For many people, price becomes its own value to them - they derive pleasure out of the purchase of something exclusive, for whatever social or psychological reasons, conspicuous consumption, self-validation, whatever. --Ling --------------------------- *Note to Scottish legislators: now that you have your own parliament, and some powers over excise, you should cut the taxes on whiskeys. Among the most expensive places in the world to buy good scotch is Scotland (and the rest of the UK). Only in Scotland is the true wealth in variety of scotch whiskeys available. I think you could boost your economy considerably by cutting these taxes - after all, what is Scotland's economy based on? Whiskey, tourism, North Sea oil, fishiing (oops, sorry, forgot most of the fish are gone...). The first two, whiskey and tourism, would be boosted by a cut in taxes on scotch whiskey. And of course, it would directly benefit me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undercover Posted May 3, 2006 Report Share Posted May 3, 2006 So, the comment that "you get what you pay for" is way off I think, without serious qualification. More than often it is "buyer beware." You get what you pay for if you are careful and know what you are doing in the subject at hand. Most of the time, people don't. The market sets price. Value is determined by the utility of the buyer. For many people, price becomes its own value to them - they derive pleasure out of the purchase of something exclusive, for whatever social or psychological reasons, conspicuous consumption, self-validation, whatever. Great Post. OK, I get your point and I think it's quite valid. However, luxury goods are in a category of their own. I was walking by Hermes the other day at Emporium and I saw a really cool briefcase. I stopped in to ask the price. 185,000 baht! That's about what I paid for my car. Needless to say I didn't buy it. Luxury goods are by definition status symbols. Some luxury goods are also very high-quality (Mercedes, BMW, Rolex) and some are of dubious quality (Louis Vuitton comes to mind). When I lived in California I bought a lot of wine. I typically paid about $20-30 for a bottle of wine but would go as high as $75 for special occassion wines. For example, the Robert Mondavi Cabernet is about $25 and is a very nice wine. The Reserve is $75 and is spectacular. I think almost anyone could tell the difference. I think that there is a clearly discernable value curve with wine that probably has $75 to $100 at the top of the curve and after that, the price/value ratio deteriorates. With Louis Vuitton, a lot of their stuff is just plastic junk. The men's wallets come to mind. They are plastic. They cost $200 US. They are virtually identical to the knock-offs that you can buy for $5. I took a knock off wallet into LV one time and compared it side by side to the real thing and they appeared absolutely identical. Much of LV's production is actually produced in China - not Italy. But LVMH is the king of branding and know how to really milk the luxury consumer cow. I think that in general, you do get what you pay for, bearing in mind that there is a value curve and that luxury goods command a distorted premium because they are by definition egregiously expensive - that's why people buy them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0nmaster Posted May 3, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2006 what say we get a team of superheros together, kidnap him and bill gates, and force them to save the world? (ok as a plan it sucks ass, but a tiny bit less than the "stop eating caviar you pretentious douche" plan. he he he sure....but that doesn't solve my cathartic need to rant at the pretentious wankers I have to work/live with... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted May 3, 2006 Report Share Posted May 3, 2006 what say we get a team of superheros together, kidnap him and bill gates, and force them to save the world? (ok as a plan it sucks ass, but a tiny bit less than the "stop eating caviar you pretentious douche" plan. he he he sure....but that doesn't solve my cathartic need to rant at the pretentious wankers I have to work/live with... well, see that's the genius of my plan... we kidnap gates and abramovich, you don't NEED to "work" and can live with whatever harem you want, even afford to weed out the pretentious ones. and i think after we save the world, mr abramovich, in order to ensure his survival, will allow me to play "championship manager" with the REAL chelsea... i'm quite confident this will work. let's get started, k? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee_Moose Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 Interesting post. It started with an anti-caviar rant seasoned with Marxist/Leninist theory, sauteed with a wine rant then topped off with a dollup of vicious slagging (but not too much) and a sprinkle of anti-depressants all wrapped neatly in a Chinese made Louis Viutton hand bag. Lovely. Dessert anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.