pap

No-one wanted to see your pubic mound on the banner, Alps.

Thanks for posting this. Just listened to the whole thing. I work with North Americans, including senior management and VPs. The very best are skilled diplomats, able to dispense truth in a way that offends no-one and paints current efforts in glowing terms. Lest anyone be overly worried, these people are also very effective at their jobs. If you've not had the exposure to it, it can sound insincere from a British perspective - and parts of this interview certainly do reek of management-speak, such as "letting processes run their course", etc. Yes, it's a way to avoid the question, but he's not wrong. I like RK a bit more each time I hear from him. He'll deflect when he can't answer a question, but gives consistent and clear answers when he can. On that basis, the big themes of this interview are growth, Europe and player movement. I think we can now accept that we are going to lose some stars, but the new board knows how strong its negotiating position is, will get top dollar and will re-invest. If players like Lallana want to go so much they'll hand a transfer request in (not happened, but possibly on the cards) then we can't really stop them, but we can justifiably invest loyalty bonuses in improving the club. Same thing with silly money transfers. If someone wants to "do a Carroll", it'd be rude not to snap their hands off if we've a suitable replacement identified. A positive but realistic interview.

Got a PS4 myself, which I'm happy enough with, but is a pocket calculator stacked up against my PC. Chucks out much nicer image quality than XBox One ( e.g. full HD ) so not all of those concerns are as applicable. Also, if you were playing Gears of War when you bought your 360, you must have bought it at least a year after launch. Software is always patchy on new hardware for the first 12 months.

Eleven. Nigel Tufnel will be pleased.

Absolutely not. Was the right manager then, but not now.

Big fish, small pond?

Nah. We haven't had one for a bit, what with Poch insta-replacing Nige. Good field of candidates too.

Cheers for posting that peacey; sounds like Yakin is a superb fit.

Nor me. Needs some time out. He'll be a broken man at the moment.

Depends. If the new board manages to secure a top class manager, then we've more chance of hanging onto some of our better players. Top class manager, one or two player sales properly reinvested would count as success for me.

MP has just joined Spurs, lads. We're all on the main board discussing new managers and things. What the fúck are you still doing here?

Board intentions permitting, there has never really been a better time to get a new manager. There are a number of very decent candidates; the quality of some of the names we're being linked with is testament to the progress the club has made. MP was a huge gamble that paid off. We all remember the noise on here when he was appointed. "What's he won? Didn't he get sacked? Look at Espanyol's league position!". Many pointed out that he was having his players sold from underneath him; MP vindicated that view in his time here. Many of the names we're being linked with are proven winners. De Boer has won the Eridivisie so many times he's bored with it. Murat Yakin has done well in Switzerland; doubts about the quality of the league are quieted by FC Basel's European performances. Even Steve McLaren won the Eridivisie with FC Twente. Yes, each represents a gamble of some kind, but much less than Poch, and thankfully, we are a f**king long way from having to appoint the Sturrocks and Wigleys of this world.

I see minds are already adjusting to the new reality Win-win for him. Like it or not, it'll be seen by much of the media as a promotion. No-one will think too badly of him if he loses his job there. And there's the money. Don't think there is much the board could have done. Nevertheless, Southampton is a fantastic opportunity for a manager. Let's hope the next one we get is a bit more loyal, eh?

Quick! Someone's pointing out that Mossad agents were picked up on 9/11 and that they were "there to document the event". ANTI-SEMITE!! Tim, if you're ordering me a concentration camp uniform, get me a 29" leg. I want to be sure they don't drag under my feet and get caught on my jackboots.

It has got a decent reputation, and while I do like the Brit-centric and eclectic nature of the DiF forums (the Savile thread is ace), it's nice to see one forum focus so heavily on 9/11.

I never outed you, and the only reason I wanted you outed was for a bit of parity and to test something I've long said, that your anonymity was purely a shield to prevent you from ever becoming attributed with this hateful forum character you've created. I still stand by that view - you picked the wrong career for anonymity; your name associated publicly with all your work. However, I'm not at all surprised to learn that someone pegged you for an Israeli agent. You genuinely come across that way on here.

Well I'm glad we both enjoy it. Expect to see it a lot more.

More goading, aintforever? The video is evidence of possible Mossad involvement. There is other evidence of US complicity, such as Cheney's stand-down order.

It has been very helpful. Until now, I never realised you were so limited in your approach. Where did I do that? In one comment, I accused you have having jizz dribbling out of your mouth. For the record, that's your jizz. Auto-sexual, maybe. Homosexual, no. In another, I described a rumour in which two chaps tossed each other off while looking at a female, likening it to the way you Tim get each other off on the conspiracy threads.

Keep up, Tim. Verbal was outed. I know who he is and what he does, and it could absolutely have a bearing on his slavish support for anything establishment, especially his 2004-2007 work. No clue who CB Fry is, but with his people skills and all that, I reckon he's probably self-employed. And don't be coy. Of course you know each other, at least on here. Unfailingly, you're on every single conspiracy thread that pops up on TSW arguing with me. Frankly, I'm amazed that you've devoted so much time to someone with such clear cognitive deficiencies, or the subject in general. 2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well. 4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength. 5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues. 17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?" Don t the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.

CB Fry claimed that the US had never needed to murder its own citizens to get into a war, yet the USS Liberty was ordered into a spot by US Command so it could be destroyed by unmarked Israeli forces, all to get into war with Egypt. I never claimed USS Liberty proves everything; I was addressing a specific point. CB just chose to misrepresent it, clear enough for anyone reading the thread. This is unrelated, but one of the best things about these threads is seeing the bromance between buctootim and CB. It's not quite as cute as finishing each other's sentences, but on the Flower Estates, there was a rumour that went round concerning two of the local lads. Around the time topless sunbathing was a new thing, they would go to the back bedroom of the house and check out their female neighbour sunbathing in the next garden, wánking each other off. This is more like that.

If you say so, Tim. We'll let those questions you dodged remain unanswered, eh?

Expansion again. Try constraining yourself to the point I'm making at the time, which was a response to Gemmel. He wanted to know why planes were used. I provided an answer, whereupon you (twice) immediately change subject to something you can handle. Earlier, I asked why eyewitnesses are the best evidence you have (they are, the physical evidence provokes more questions than answers) for the existence of a passenger airline in the attack at the Pentagon, known to be coming in for 50 minutes. You avoided that too. It's a shame, because some of the "chaff" questions you're throwing out really are quite interesting, particularly Manning and Snowden.

I take it from your "expansion" that you have no basic problem with my rationale, then?

I've fielded this before:- That's a fair question. Best guess is to obscure the true means of destruction. If controlled demolition were suspected, any investigation would uncover a trail which would eventually lead to the truth. Under the directed energy weapon thesis, the buildings would just appear to explode for no good reason. The planes are a decoy. Broadly:- 1) To avoid an investigation 2) To be able to immediately identify perpetrators (and thus, follow-up actions) 3) Vanish evidence