Nick de Cusa

Pour Lucilio

Et tout le potentiel du rapprochement rap et metal, on en parle? (mmmmh, c'est bon quand même) sans oublier bien sûr

On néglige le Hard français, et on a tort.

Rien que le titre: Queen Of The Reich, par Queensrÿche:

Aidons un peu RH dans ses rares domaines de lacunes. Les années 80 sont inépuisables dans tous les styles.

Si on préfère le clanisme au beau jeu.

C'est lui qui nous regarde fixement ou c'est nous? (Tu voulais dire starring. La double consonne donne la voyelle courte…)

Ça n'a jamais été aussi beau.

Lunch is for wimps.

Toi, tu ne t'intéresse au foot, sale type. Tu as tout fait pour me gâcher mon w-e. Sauf magouille, cette saison ils descendent. Mon seul espoir c'est la décla de Aulas comme quoi le PSG ne doit pas descendre, ce qui laisse éspérer la magouille. Mais bon, ils méritent la D2, la plaisanterie a assez duré. Moi je préfère des joueurs qui se battent en D2 que les escrocs qui touchent des salaires de D1 pour des prestations de D2 dans l'effectif actuel.

On arrête à 7. Si il y a une chose que je tiens de source sure c'est ça.

Les Girondins doivent être contents de ne pas avoir été à votre place.

Je crois que les intéressés comprendront de quoi il s'agit: … Exactement. Il est clairement explicité que ces années "équipe de jeune" sont une période de transition due au poids de l'investissement dans le stade. Des transitions comme ça.

Le but de Fabregas. Ce que Wenger arrive à faire avec une équipe de jeunes. Et 0-2

Il neige.

Tiens, je vais un peu casser l'ambiance du fil, mais pour lui souhaiter un prompt rétablissement :

Ce continent est foutu: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articl…6,prtpage-1.cms

Avec toutes les méchancetés que tu sors sur le pauvre homme, pas étonnant qu'il s'en ressente. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7276490.stm

Un nouveau est-il un être humain? Bienvenue

Vous jouiez contre un de nos concurrents direct pour le titre (d'équipe qui ne descend pas). Mais non, c'était trop vous demander. Oublie.

Un politicien moins con que la moyenne: Stop penalising consumers for climate change By David Howell Published: February 27 2008 19:42 | Last updated: February 27 2008 19:42 The campaign for a sustainable, low-carbon future is not going well. A Norwegian Arctic measuring station last week reported that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere had reached a new peak, at 394 parts per million, heading for the danger levels at which we are told violent climate change will set in. Meanwhile, an FT/Harris poll tells us that two-thirds of western European consumers are reluctant to pay more on their sky-high energy bills to cut emissions and subsidise renewables, while European industry's grumbles at the prospect of higher energy costs and even more ferocious lower-cost competition from Asia are growing louder. And although China and India are worried about the long-term impact of global warming, their colossal programmes of coal-fired power stations are going ahead as fast as ever, guaranteeing that, however virtuous the western example, CO2 will continue to rise fast in the atmosphere. What is going wrong? The green establishment, which has captured the attention of policy-thinkers and makers, has a simple explanation – market failure. Its "answer" is more taxes, penalties and charges on the demand side and more public spending on the supply side. But it is not working. People are duly worried about the planet's future, but when it comes to action their concerns are more immediate – how to stay warm and pay utility bills; how to keep down manufacturing costs in the west; and, in the poorer half of the world, how to find food and water, how to lift themselves out of poverty and achieve economic growth – based on plentiful cheap energy. The grand "penalise and subsidise" strategy, proclaimed at global gatherings and by the European Commission, is therefore in serious danger of hitting a political brick wall. When long-term aspiration meets short-term desperation the outcome is predictable. The speeches will be made, the targets will be set, the elaborate schemes for pricing carbon will be promulgated, large sums of public money will be spent. But carbon levels will go on rising and the sustainable planetary future will remain out of reach. Might it not be time to pause and listen to voices telling us that the whole approach badly needs changing? Step one would be to prevent ministers talking about the extra power bills it is our painful duty to pay and start offering an immediate future of lower energy costs. The need is to associate a greener future not with still higher gas and electricity bills, or with dubious payback calculations decades ahead, but with lower utility bills now. Step two is to let $100 oil do the "taxing" and incentivising. No further green consumer taxes – over and above the already ferocious ones on petrol – are required. The driving factor is that this time (as opposed to experience in the 1980s) oil will stay expensive. The private sector will research, develop and deliver the biofuels that make commercial and environmental sense. The same goes for wind farms, for which the UK consumer is paying some of the highest subsidies in Europe on their already inflated electricity bills – with questionable results. Markets will filter out the unprofitable wind projects and leave the few good ones to make money. The same goes for new nuclear power. Press the nuclear industry to compete and deliver even safer plants, built more quickly and with less toxic waste, and it will do so – maybe with a bit of planning help but without levies on the already overlevied consumer. Step three – probably the least popular in some circles – is to face the fact that the multiple opportunities for innovation and development in low and clean energy are going to come from private sector technology and privately financed research. Government-funded research will make the wrong choices and crowd out the market winners. There are hundreds of new energy and energy-saving technologies ready to be marketed as demand grows in richer societies for cleaner energy. By all means rejig the tax systems to make "green" commercial innovations increasingly attractive, but at all cost avoid subsidising energy scams such as dubious carbon offsetting schemes. The renewables that can survive only on subsidy and the technologies that get by only on ill-judged government grants are delaying and crowding out the real advance towards a low-carbon world. And the levies, fines and taxes being piled on to users to finance them are turning what ought to be a positive cause into one that is not only negative in its appeal but certain to founder in face of political obstacles. Lord Howell is deputy leader of the opposition in the Lords, foreign affairs spokesman and former energy secretary Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/85849f34-e59f-11…00779fd2ac.html

J'avais envisagé l'interprétation bénigne mais elle avait l'inconvénient rédhibitoire de me priver d'une vanne. Je suis faible.

Ton sens du compliment te sera utile. Bienvenue quand même.

J'espère que tu n'as pas omis celle de Van Halen (ou était-ce DLR en solo?)

Listen to me very carefully. I shall say this only once (pour les fans de Allo Allo, s'il y en a): allez l'OM. Pour demain dimanche seulement.