CB Fry

What about it? The "look at his hands" stuff made it onto here. As did crisis actors in Boston. That stuff made the cut. So don't give yourself any medals on filtering out stuff more mental than that. Look. I've given you the leeway of only being in the 3% most gullible people online. Take it to the bank, Deep Throat. It's a compliment.

Keep filtering out the 90% and keep posting up only the solid gold truth. You, Icke and Ottery Keep fighting the good fight you sword of truthers. Swallowing only 10% of premium grade made up conspiroguff on the world wide internet.

Being that "Boston bomb victims were crisis actors" and "Lee Rigby death faked (look at his hands)" made it into your golden 10% of non dismissed stuff, I dread to think what sh ite you a reading online every day. But, hey, well done you. 90% dismissed. So you're not the single most gullible man on the internet. Just in the top three percent. PS. Sensational linking your conspiro-chums with the entirity of Christianity. Keep it coming, you open minded so-and-so, you.

I love it when Pap does his "teat suckling" stuff. He's such a free thinker. Something I could never be what with being a brainwashed sheep android zombie. Keep reading David Icke, won't you, Pap. He really knows the truth and stuff and no mistake.

The fact that the Savile thing was not uncovered by your internet clique of nut jobs is not strawman nonsense. It's just true. Two types of conspiracy? Correct. Those that are uncovered by professional journalists aided by whistleblowers. And those that are horsesh it fantasies on dinlow websites that normal humanity laughs at. And we all know your favourite type. Get online Pap. The next atrocity that you can pretend is fake may only be days away. I'll get you started: "There's, like, no way a man thirty feet away from a bomb blast would fall over like that. And blood definitely doesn't come out like that. And how convenient that policeman is there. Look at his hands! Look at his hands! [...etc]"

Just wondering why Jimmy Savile's victims get the honour of being believed by you but the victims of Boston, or Lee Rigby, don't. Funny, aint it?

Just summarise the Pap guide to victims. Savile abuse victims: definitely were abused. Mainstream media said so. Drummer Lee Rigby: Possibly not dead, possibly staged, possibly actor, crying relatives maybe fake, not of it can be trusted because mainstream media said so but internet people not so sure. No blood on that guy's hands. Boston bomb victims: probably actors maybe, not sure, I mean that guy with the leg? C'mon.Mainstream media said they are dead but to be honest I only trust them on stuff about Jimmy Savile. 9/11 victims: all people on one giant film set or something. Totally staged. You can see the camera in the reflection of the space helmet.

Except, of course, the fact that the Savile case is not, and was not, a conspiracy. Unless you are saying the BBC actively encouraged, or told Jimmy to abuse kids. Maybe Thatcher did too. Called Jimmy up and asked him to lead a little task force of child abusers. The Savile case was many things but it isn't a conspiracy. The Libel laws were not created specifically to cover up Jimmy Savile. Just classic Pap cherry picking. And, I repeat again, none of the case, none of it, NONE OF IT, was uncovered by your "the blood was added afterwards"/"they're all crisis actors"/"people with their legs shot off don't act like that"/"They laid explosives on every floor of the World Trade Centre" fu ckwits. None of it. The only way it would fit your dopey little conspiroworld was if the "abused" were crisis actors paid by the CIA/Murdoch/Lizard people to lie to bring down the Commie BBC. Because that's your way of looking at the world. Try to avoid using actual real life to back up your worldview...it aint your style mate. Stick to the fantasy. After all, it were are fake blood, weren't it?

Who finally uncovered Savile? Twa ts on the Internet? Or ITV? Answers on a website. You can't suddenly make up a retrospective Savile "truthers" movement sunshine. That's why it's guff.

I'll answer your question all day long. The answer is no. Simply because if anything is ever uncovered....saaaaay George Bush commanded the mass murder of hundreds of innocent civilians by destroying one of New York's most famous landmarks....then it will be uncovered by...wait for it...the mainstream media. That's who will uncover it. And you'll cream your knickers over it. Funny, eh? So all the conspiracies on your gimp websites? Utter guff. I have answered your question. Happy?

You have definitely won this argument. Well done. Defeated, yet again. Think its because you're so coherent and that.

Watergate was uncovered by journalists. Not gimps who pretend that bomb victims are actors or who think the government blew up a skyscraper and mass murdered hundreds and hundreds of civilians. Iran Contra does not equal "government staged a fake bombing". Seriously. It aint me that needs an Utter Bullsh it filter. But keep wearing your medal. You are, like, so clever.

What, apart from George Bush and the Neo Cons planning the extermination of hundreds of US Citizens within weeks of being sworn in? That one deffo happened. I mean, look at foreign policy and stuff. So yeah. That one. And the Boston bomb all made up by a cast of two thousand actors. And that Woolwich beheading. Actors and stuff. So them three were proper, like, fake. But other than that, no. I haven't got the enlightened mind to see conspiracies like what you can.

Thats right. Boston bomb. Woolwich beheading. Madeline McCann. Basically the exact same CIA operation carried out by the CIA for the same reason which is something to do with the CIA. Or the Masons. All down to the CIA. Definitely the CIA done all of it. And the masons done it. I have an enquiring mind and have worked out the CIA done Boston and Madeline McCann. Planned on the same day actually. In 1998. The CIA. And the Masons. They done it. And the Neocons. They done it. US Foreign Policy. And the CIA. Enquiring mind. That's me. Woolwich. CIA. Masons. They done it. McCann parents: CIA and Masons or something. Anyway. They done it. Open mind.

I think the concept of targets and aimless blue sky speculation are being confused.

Who on here is going to be saying "hang on a minute Gaston" about anything? This is a football forum. Setting a target of 75 goals is retarded however anyone tries to slice it and dice it. Hey, it's merely one goal in every half of football we play. Thats not unreasonable is it Hmmm? Hmmm?

You could have just said "our game with Liverpool on the xth of September" or whenever it is. Sorry haven't memorised the "Matchdays" yet.

Who's saying this then?

Why is it lazy to predict something different to other pundits? Surely it's lazier to just forecast Saints to be mid table just like all other experts. Personally I think Norwich are a reasonable bet to go down. Stoke will be fine and Hull could stay up. Both have managers with proven ability to deliver mid table Prem finishes. Something, funnily enough, Saints don't have.

Seriously it isn't. Do find anything said by anyone connected to the club in any way to back up your little theory. There's nothing. And that's without even bothering to junk this dopey myth that dumb orientals can only support teams who wear red. And the fact that we had effing red in our kits before anyway. And the fact that the Cardiff thing is as far more about owner vanity than it is about marketing to them oriental red-loving braindead sheep. On all levels, everywhere, it isn't.

Bobby Moore died a few months after lifting the World Cup FFS.

Seriously, it isn't.

Rarely does a MLG-ism make me laugh, but this is a great one. Employees present at place of work shock development. Call Sky Sports News.

Readers of this forum need to learn who is a reasonable source of info and who is consistently and utterly full of sh ite. I won't share who I think is reliably full of it because it will apparently make me a coward.

Also, if it's all just "natural development" then we don't deserve any credit either, right?