CB Fry

I think your "dribbling from the side of your mouth" comment is unhelpful and offensive with a clear implication. For someone who likes to ponce about on every thread as a holier-than-though moral authority it's interesting to get some clear evidence to show how paricularly malevolent you can be. We've seen it now a few times in the last couple of days and it's good to see how you really are.

You going to start accusing me of being autistic or disabled too now? Classy.

It's you getting wound up, I'm just pointing and laughing.

Indeed it is. Not really helped by people saying that factually correct statements are "absolute lies", is it? That's the dictionary definition of spurious, yes? If that's anal to you, then it's going to be a long ten weeks.

Try and stick to the facts in future. I accept your apology.

My advice would be to not make stuff up in your head and then claim it is an absolute lie. "Absolute" is a rather difinitive statement and the "oh it was from memory" vagueness only came afterwards. And has been mentioned the statement isn't an absolute lie anyway. But carry on, it's good to get the measure of someone.

The side of truth.

What's agressive about pointing out absolute lies?

You only said it was from memory when I challenged your "absolute lie" claim. Although in fairness your original post was correct. What you said was in the leaflet was indeed an absolute lie.

And my point, which it looks like you still don't understand, is that the 1% is not statistically significant to justify turning that into a population equivalent. It would be an unjustified, sensationalist number. On the 4% it wasn't incorrect to show the population, just ill-advised editorially. For you to again suggest Channel 4 knowingly share false and unjustified information suggest you don't really understand what "a reasonable and rational analysis of the figures" actually means. Funny I thought you understood my point when I explained before but looks like I over estimated you. Try again. PS. Also interesting you switched the percentages around in this post. Nice try.

And thats not an "absolute lie" is it? I came through an airport the other day and I was checked and I weren't even a greasy dago, frog or kraut or a brown person or nothing.

Using the percentage of Muslims was fine as it shows a representative sample - a small minority that agreed with the statement and also indexed significantly above the control group. That's how they should have explained the data - a distinct minority who expressed "sympathy" versus the control sample. The % were small so unhelpful to dramatise it with hundreds of thousands of people, but not strictly wrong as it gave a reading within the margin of error, but just misjudged. Your "both or neither" argument came after you twice asking for C4 to express the 1% of the general population as a number and, more importantly, after I explained to you why this would be sensationalist and silly, but nice try anyway.

Quite. Nothing worse than the false confidence of "look at the team they're putting out!!". A win tomorrow will be a great result, regardless of who they send out.

You explained your thoughts, I'm just pointing out you were wrong twice to ask they say something which would have been completely misleading and unfounded.

Just trying to point out that something you wanted C4 to do so much you mentioned it twice on this thread was a rather silly thing to ask for. Happy to help though.

I know you don't like "absolute lies" so can you tell me which page of the booklet that sentence is from?

Seriously, how many times are you going to ask the same pointless questions over and over and over again on this thread?

I'm not having a go at you. Mark Lawrenson has been employing that particular technique (say the opposite in the text to the prediction) for many matches for at least couple of seasons. Probably an attempt to reduce the volume of fans convinced he has an agenda against them but frankly there's not really anything he can do is there?

But Mane was definitely sold in January, wasn't he? https://tapatalk.com/shareLink?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.saintsweb.co.uk%2Fshowthread.php?t=55508&share_tid=55508&share_fid=3658&share_type=t F**ked without Mane

http://www.myfootballfacts.com/Mark_Lawrenson_Predictions_2015-16.html Top six, eight points more than we have in reality. He hates us he does. Please say we'll win Lawro. Please say we'll win. Just say we'll win Lawro. Please Lawro. Please Lawro. Please say we'll win. Please. Please. Please Lawro.

You seem awfully animated about that bit, some might say you are at "great pains" to point it out. I agree the programme would have been better off not quoting the "this equates to X thousand Muslims" for that stat as it wasn't particularly helpful, but they were absolutely correct not to start quoting 600k of the general population as you advise which would have been a ridiculous statement. With a standard margin of error for a survey like this 1% is simply not statistically significant and the programme was right to not dwell on it. Rather amusing that you've been getting upset about how sensationalist the programme was but then demanding that they report utterly sensational and baseless info instead. Well done.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=aluminum http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/aluminium.htm

Aluminium can of frogs.

At least Liverpool are trying to win the Europa League, which seems something of a rarity for an English team. Still hate the c u ts though.

He won't leave us for Everton but it's not a drop down. Everton have just been taken over and will have as good a chance as anyone to finish top 8 next season, especially if they bin off Martinez which I think they will. They could also do a Villa but then so could we.