hypochondriac

So did I. More fool me for assuming that the original poster actually wanted to talk about Reform rather than just spamming links from external sites.

That's obviously untrue.

Sulemana is such a frustrating player. All the attributes to be brilliant but just can't use the ball effectively.

K What character to basically be binned and treated terribly by us only to come back how he has.

Well that was by far our best half of the entire season. How the fuck have successive managers not given Onuachu more of an opportunity? It's actually embarrassing, he's head and shoulders (literally!) above any other options.

Even if we get thrashed from now, I'm still going to be sick that we persisted with Martin and his fualed policies as much as we did. Such a wasted opportunity.

Created more in the first 15 minutes than bay other 15 minutes this season.

I said to a relative there aren't many bits of media nowadays that genuinely make the world a more positive place by its existence. We had toddlers to old people equally enthralled which was an achievement on its own.

He's probably not someone you would ever want to meet with socially. Many accounts of Steve Jobs describe him as a terrible person who neglected relationships and upset people all the time. I'm not sure you'd ever describe him as a chancer even though politically he appeared to be somewhat of a hippie.

Wasn't a patch on Wallace and Gromit which was absolutely superb.

Almost double the net worth of the next richest man. It would be like hating the politics of Jeff Bezos so dismissing him as a chancer.

Thanks for the info. I know that when I need informed political opinion, the first people I go to are the entertainment industry and novel writers.

I thought that was szmodics. Could be wrong though.

We had a bid accepted for Delap and he chose Ipswich because they wanted him more. I don't believe it was to do with money.

Looked great to me. I was in a box next to the non binary person Sam smith so I can't say for definite what the game was like as I was quaffing champagne but I was happy with our performance for the bit I did see.

100%. My wife's uncle is a hardcore Muslim and he's also a great bloke who I'm going to the Fulham game with tomorrow. My only criticism of him is I can't have pigs in blankets on boxing day. Absolutely hilarious to suggest I hate all Muslims - it's demonstrably untrue.

Except that's factually inaccurate, both for terrorist attacks in general but particularly for attacks on Christmas markets. Do you have any stats to back up you assertion that attacks on Christmas markets are "just as likely" to be committed by other groups? Or have you just "jumped in" yourself with unevideced assumptions.

And if they had waited until the religion of the perpetrator had been known or if it had been obvious straight away? How does that change anything? It was the actions of the nutter that led stupid people to do stupid things. Saying a man in Germany who mows down people at a Christmas market is very likely to be an Islamic fundamentalist on a Saints forum isn't going to be the cause of any riots. If for not other reason than that's what anyone with common sense who has experienced attacks of this type before will have been thinking too.

Hey egg. Give me an honest answer. What would you say is the biggest threat to Christmas markets that has meant there have been police on high alert and bollards erected in recent years when this wasn't happening before?

I've made a reasonable assumption about the motivation based on every or virtually every Christmas market attack of this type being carried out by an Islamist. I'd be making the same reasonable assumption that it was some IRA nutter in the early 90s if there was a bombing on an English street. You're right though, I do hate those who engage in the killing of innocent people in service of a religious ideology. You'd be a fool or a wicked person yourself not to.

I wonder if the police made any assumptions when they saw the attack?

Nobody was prosecuted at Southport for speculating on the religion of the perpetrator. Of course the religion makes a difference if that's the motivation behind the attack.

"looking at historical data it is overwhelmingly likely that the perpetrator of this Christmas Market attack is an Islamist nutter" is a completely non controversial statement. Making a reasonable prediction on a web forum before it's confirmed is completely fair. I'm also happy to say that the next person who rams their car into a Christmas market is also overwhelmingly likely to be an Islamist nutter too because these types of attacks are almost always committed by these types of people. Same thing if someone blows themselves up on a bus or on the tube. If we were in the 80s or early 90s I'd be saying that if I saw a bombing on UK streets it would probably be some nutter from the IRA. Sorry the truth upsets you.

Let's be honest, even the people posting about how virtuous they were for not jumping to conclusions were thinking the same thing too they were just less honest about it.

So when a group that makes up 6.5% of the population is responsible for a vastly disproportionate amount of terrorism offences and when almost every single other terrorist attack where Christmas markets have been targeted it's turned out to be an Islamic nutter (including possibly this one) - you aren't allowed to point out that this has very likely been perpetrated by an Islamic nutter before it's proven to be the case lest some fanny on a Web forum who goes around calling people pricks accuses you of prejudice? There's nothing prejudiced about it. Based on historical data it's by far the most likely outcome. So no I didn't lurch towards my target and missed, I pointed out the overwhelming likelihood that this attack was committed by an Islamist nutter and that's still the case even if it turns out it wasn't on this occasion (although evidence now suggesting he may well be anyway.)