Matt

It's been 40 years since one of the most iconic albums of all time, one of my favourite albums even though the album was almost 25 by the time I was born. I'm looking forward to the re-recording tomorrow on Radio 2 with bans such as Razorlight, The Killers and Oasis. Anyway, what's everyone's favourite song from the album? Personally, I like the opening two (Title track and "With a little help from my friends") as well as "When I'm 64" but "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" has to be my favourite. It's hard to pick a favourite as the album is filled with some of the greatest tracks of all time.

I think they're usually filming the last few episodes of the series when the first few episodes are on.

Out of all of the small, minute details that these writers put into the show, you think that they'd screw up something as important as that? You've got to be out of your mind. Everything that they do have a purpose, and they're smart enough to know that if they show an obituary, it's got to make sense. It might not make sense right now, but I'm sure that it eventually will. That's what they've made the show on. Like when they put the Dharma logo on the shark Maybe they just took a legit obituary for John Lantham's death as a tribute, for their own pleasure (for want of a better word), like when they put the logo on the shark. What are the chances of us meeting a midget character somewhere down the line? Much less one they choose to name with the same name as one of the top 3 characters (Locke, Jack and Kate). Also, the philosopher died in February of this year, the episode was set on April 5th (13th anniversary of Kurt Cobain's death, hence Scentless Apprentice playing), why would his obituary be 2 months after his death? Edit: Not thinking, they're not the same person, just named after him.

Forgot about that part. Maybe John Locke isn't actually his father's son and is someone elses (i.e someone Lantham), thus realising he is John Lantham. But then he'd be a friend and wouldn't fit the casket. Also, he doesn't have a son. And in answer to my own question, Charlie's 5'7, so it's not him (I'm determined to find a way for Charlie to still be in future episodes ) EDIT: So, we're looking for a guy named John, who's 5 feet or less tall, who's an adult (because they have a fully grown teenager), has a kid, that knows both Kate and Jack, but isn't a friend/relative of Jack's. To be honest, I'm thinking the crew just fucked up with the obituary. EDIT 2: Anyone tried rearranging the letters of John Lantham or John Latham? We know the Lost crew have pulled anagrams before, as recently as last night.

Really long shot, but remember Juliet's episode, when she was shown her sister over the TV in Mikhail's home? The guy reporting... was his name John? Not sure how that'd tie in, but for some reason I seem to remember him being called John. Could it be Sawyer under a con-name? There were 3 years between that flashforward and the Island, perhaps they'd become good friends or something? Then again, it wouldn't fit the "not family or friend" thing. Hell, maybe we're reading too much into it, maybe it's just someone he tried to fix whilst drunk and now they're dead. EDIT: 1) No, we had this dicussion about 20 posts back, he's dead, the writers have confirmed it. 2) How big's Charlie? Not much bigger than 5'5 I imagine.

Surely you can extend though and they can easily be done in the off-season (so long as you don't get Wembley builders). And as for what you (TP) said about the Mariners getting relegated there being no teams near you... so what? Support the Mariners in a lower league. Why do you have to support a top flight club? Yorkshire is the biggest county in the UK and we have no Premiership teams... boohoo, we can still stand behind the teams we support.

But in fairness, most of those 16 goals would've been scored just as easily by other good players. I'm not denying Lampard isn't good, but this season he hasn't been at his best - nowhere near it. Yes he's still worthy of being in the squad, but the team... not unless he gets back to his best (ala Beckham).

So your argument is because things are done wrong they should be continued to be done wrong.

OK then I'll rephrase, surely it SHOULD be down to the best 23 in-form players. 95% of Britain don't think Downing should be in the squad so that's a pretty redundant point to make. Argue the point, not my choice of words.

He hasn't done that much for Chelsea this year either. Has Lampard ever done well for England? Has he scored? (Note: They're serious questions, I don't recall either) [insert your typical 16 goals this year response here]

They were Brazilian. They spoke Portuguese. Doesn't make them Brazilian. Henrik isn't a very Brazilian name Wiki says these are the countries which speak native Portugese, so it could be any of these: Angola Brazil Cape Verde East Timor Guinea-Bissau Macau (PRC) Mozambique Portugal São Tomé and Príncipe You're acting as if Jack saw his future. He didn't, obviously, otherwise he wouldn't have made contact with the freighter. I was just presuming that because it was Jack's episode and saying that I thought someone needed to see it and thus: Jack. But I realised I was wrong about Jack seeing the future Fair enough, I'd never really thought about it like that; I'd always just thought of it as the character's remembering things, as they usually react to the Flashbacks. Still doesn't really answer the question of what the camera is recording - and for flashbacks too, now you've mentioned that it's not the character's memory - unless like Jouzy said the entire show so far has been a flashback (which would be pretty cool, so long as Jack and Kate got back on to the island before the end of Season 4) - but that'd mean the Flashforward was a present, and the present is the past, which would be too confusing for some people. But at least it's more consistent and I can buy it. Anyone got a better shot of the newspaper clip than the one I posted? I checked lost-media but it was very low quality.

Everything we see on the Island is things that are going on or in people's heads. The camera is either watching the action on the Island or someone's thoughts, what exactly was it recording? Where was the flash-forward coming from? If I switched on EastEnders tonight and see Phil Mitchell getting shot by a character not yet in the show, only for tomorrow's episode to see him running around as normal. I'd be like "what the fuck?" because the show is set in the present, much like Lost although you also have people's memories. Going to the future is odd because so far the only way to see the future is through Desmond's visions, and we have an explanation as to why he sees those. This we don't know why we - the audience - can see it. That's not to say I don't like the idea of Flash-Forwards I'm just confused as to how we're seeing them. Also, I remember seeing some spoilers mid-series that said Kate, Sayid, Charlie, Jin and Ben die... Seeing as 4 of those turned out to be bullshit (though all threatened), who's to say the LOST Producers didn't leak the spoilers out to make people think that those people were dead in last night's? Thus, Charlie might not be dead. Right? Right? Also, Jack attended the funeral of a guy (so not Juliet)... http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/Image:Article_small.jpg his surname might be something ending in "antham" but I'm not sure (and no-one with that name springs to mind).

My dad actually said "that phone looks brand new" and I saw the funeral name and thought it was just ridiculous, didn't think anything of it. And TRB, fair enough, but it still doesn't answer how we saw it. Surely someone had to have seen that.

I really enjoyed last night's episode and it makes me want more (as ever), but one thing that's puzzling me is: How did we see that flash-forward? All the flash-backs were in people's memories, how can you remember what hasn't already happened? If it were Desmond seeing them, then yes, I'd be fine with that, as he has future-sight and it'd be far more believable. But Jack? I hope we get an explanation for that in S3.

I think it depends. Most of the Becks hate comes from people who've not seen him in La Liga recently and just judge him on the fact that he didn't score 5 goals in the last World Cup (which in all honesty, he didn't do that bad in, at least compared to the likes of Lampard and Shrek) and single-handedly take us to the final. People who want David Beckham back are generally the ones who've actually seen how good and sharp he looks recently. I've seen him in La Liga, thanks, and like I said - he's been good. But that's it, and it's ignoring the fact that he's going to a poor league in a couple of months. We also know exactly what Beckham's capable of, so why call him up for a friendly? What does it matter which league he's going to? How does that mean he's not good? Didn't say he wasn't good, try again. You know what I mean, stop nitpicking for the sake of it. Why does what league he'll be playing in in 2 months time affect why he should(n't) play for England next week? Even more so if he is good. Surely it's down to who are the best in-form 23 players at the time.

I think it depends. Most of the Becks hate comes from people who've not seen him in La Liga recently and just judge him on the fact that he didn't score 5 goals in the last World Cup (which in all honesty, he didn't do that bad in, at least compared to the likes of Lampard and Shrek) and single-handedly take us to the final. People who want David Beckham back are generally the ones who've actually seen how good and sharp he looks recently. I've seen him in La Liga, thanks, and like I said - he's been good. But that's it, and it's ignoring the fact that he's going to a poor league in a couple of months. We also know exactly what Beckham's capable of, so why call him up for a friendly? What does it matter which league he's going to? How does that mean he's not good? It just means he's making a financial decision to get stupendous wages - which I too would go for.

As you get to lower leagues, no, just in the top few leagues. A lot of the youths overlap with reserves anyway.

I think it depends. Most of the Becks hate comes from people who've not seen him in La Liga recently and just judge him on the fact that he didn't score 5 goals in the last World Cup (which in all honesty, he didn't do that bad in, at least compared to the likes of Lampard and Shrek) and single-handedly take us to the final. People who want David Beckham back are generally the ones who've actually seen how good and sharp he looks recently.

I too have always stood up for Becks, but I reckon it'll be a less biased reports, if Beckham doesn't do too well - i.e. doesn't set up/score a goal or give 150% - they'll say he should never have been brought back and Mac was stupid to. Then he'll miss 3-4 games which we'll not do too well in and the whole debate will spark up again. If he plays well, makes a few good tackles, runs around the pitch and really tries, maybe sets up a goal or two, the media will say Mac was stupid to drop him in the first place and Beckham will be a god once more. I think he'll do well, certainly he will if he plays like he did for Real last night.

^ Surely that could be solved by giving the promoted team a bonus to expand their stadium. Without relegation, you have nothing to lose, and there's nothing to win. Sure you can win your league, but if there's still 3 leagues above you, your team can never expand and try to beat those teams. It'd have to be slowly introduced, you couldn't just decide one season that there'll be 3 teams going up and down, but maybe start ploughing a little more money into the second league 3/4 years before, making sure that all the teams are better equipped for a step up for if they win the league (initially, only one team should be promoted). Then over time, make that apply to all leagues within the sport, slowly working down until you get to the grass roots, then make it 2 teams who go down - possibly.

Anyone see Becks playing last night? He was on fire. If he plays like that he'll be our best player, he looks like he's about 24, up and down like no-one's business and making some excellent play. Also, it was Albania's first team, not Albania B, to whoever said it. And Downing played poor, his first goal was relatively easy and for his second, he made it harder than it needed to be. Other than that he looked clueless and gave away possesion constantly.

I'm working with it as it is, I just cropped and resized it Should be up soon.

Sorry I was away, I'll get up a response in a few hours.

And fucking Burnley. I was sat in the James Hargreaves stand last night and every house in the town looks identical. Decent place though, wouldn't mind going if Leeds got Burnley in a cup - I'd have gone to the pre-season if I wasn't away. As for the game, I thought it was pretty good, Albania's #11 (the goalscorer, Berisher or something) was a good player and would fit in very well in the Championship. Owen looked relatively poor last night, though, hope that picks up before Estonia.

It would have been covered by Reina if it hadn't have bounced off Inzaghi's arm. Then again, Liverpool were lucky to be given onside for their goal.