CB Fry

Of course. One spurious conspiracy proves the existence of another. Great. Close the thread. Shall we start on the 7/7 bombings now?

Well rather than qualify any points, I thought I would go off on a tangent based on a raft of new questions unrelated to the previous point. That's what you've been doing brilliantly on this thread. Do your JFK stuff again, because that, like, really proved the moon landings were fake. Or something.

Are you? There is no primary evidence whatsoever to support any of the conspiracy theories. But there is tons to support the moon landings. And no, its not just the 12 astronauts that can provide primary evidence. Not sure how you can put yourself up as the guardian of any evidence at all. Apart from pointless trolling.

I've got nothing to add on Turkey advice but how about > Make your own cranberry sauce: boil up a bag of cranberries from supermarket, juice and zest of one orange, few spoonfuls of sugar to taste and thicken. Absolute doddle and lovely. You can chuck in a cinnamon stick or cloves but no real need IMO. > Braised red cabbage with apple and a cinnamon stick, with a splash of red wine vinegar. > Sprouts parboiled then tossed in a pan with butter, ginger and the juice of a clementine or two. As someone said above, the turkey can come out early to rest and it will keep warm for ages if covered, and it doesn't really need to be piping hot, as long as your plates and your gravy are warm. Oh, and don't fu ck up your kitchen worktop by putting a raging hot pan on it, as I did a year ago next week. Chump.

Who are the eyewitnesses that have built the sets/did the catering/wrote the shooting script/worked the cameras/fixed up the lighting on these movies of moon landings. If I'm allowed twelve astronauts, then see if you can find 13 eyewitnesses for the movie. Then you win.

I'm talking about a fu ck of a lot more people than have ever come forward as eyewitnesses to a movie shoot of not one, but several moon landings. Anyway. Great trolling.

You're going on about what now? But suffice to say at the time it happened, the moon landings were proved because they happened and there was and is a vast pool eyewitnesses who say it happened around the time it happened.

I answered that. 1) is harder in the context of a fifty year cover up. Far harder.

Surely the easiest argument against the nutjobs is it would be at least ten times harder to execute the hoax than it was to land on the moon. So there you go. End of debate.

Another sparklingly correct prediction from me then. Haven't changed my view though - It's all a bit lame in my opinion - if the "team of the year" is not one, but two multisport organisations made up of countless governing bodies, coaches, individuals and athletes, then you might as well give the 2012 SPOTY Award to, like, "everyone". Just stupid.

Blimey. Think that they'd maintain a similar level of gates to us (plus a bit because of size) if they came up now.

Sheff Wed get gates in the 25k region in the champ (and in L 1), v similar to us. Did they really get sub 20k attendances in the Prem last time? Seems unlikely.

Not our very best eleven but enough there to beat Reading at home. No excuses.

Yes. Our catchment area is ten times bigger at least. Massive it is.

So your current arguments focus on Swansea (22k stadium) and rambling on about what if we were in Stoneham (we're not). I think I preferred the classic stuff about Chelsea 1984. Come on, play us one we know.

Sounds like they followed the "man walked on the moon" business plan, so favoured by some of the geniuses on here for us. Who'd have thought it could ever not work?

The prize will go to the "Team GB Cycling Team". And rightly so. Can't see team of the year being given to the entire Team GB olympic team - its not a team, just an organisation, and some areas - swimming, team sports - massively underperformed.

Err, not really. Plenty of mid table finishes throughout the 90s and early 2000s.

You want to lay off the Cake, my son.

Don't know what to make of this post! Tragic.

I don't think we will lose both either, but we need bare minimum four points. But you can't use future games as evidence that a managers job is no longer untenable. Having winnable games ahead doesn't ease pressure, it ramps it up.

Shall we wait until we have played those two games before we describe them as "good". If we lose them both I think his job becomes more untenable than ever and he will be in a world of pain.

Correct. We'll see how it pans out but at this precise moment in time we have overpaid for this kid - which is why no other club went near him over the summer. People are deluded if Gaston is some investment for the future, he was a gamble for now. Five years time he might blossom into a £20m megastar but he might not, right now, at best, both scenarios are equally likely.

He's going to have to score twenty goals and play like Messi for the remainder of this season for us to make a "tidy profit" on him. It's not like we snapped him up for a couple of mil. If a big club wants to buy an exciting attacker from a small club, they're better off going for someone like Michu who they could probably get for less than we paid for Gaston in the first place. A profit on Ramires is way off in the distance.

You missed off "The Barclays-Premier-League is the hardest league in the world"