hypochondriac

Wow. Crocker is certainly an impressive person. To think that some people thought that Krueger was actually worth listening to and not full of absolute shit.

Really? I thought we had already started sending out some players on loan?

I agree with you.

I don't care where it came from, it's unique and iconic. Every attempt by some marketing company to "modernise" it makes it look bland and the same as every other logo.

Absolute shite. I still haven't seen anyone do a better effort than our current one.

Yes that was my point. Well said.

Does the EU currently get virtual unlimited access to the fishing waters of other countries with no regular negotiations?

Do other third countries have annual reviews of their tariff free access?

Seems reasonable. The EU are seemingly rejecting annual quota reviews though which seems incredibly unreasonable.

Hi verbal. Odd that you're still posting on here considering how unhappy your wife was at the prospect. Why do you continue to disrespect her?

That's quite a specific thing to mention. Who supports those two then?

Last year the media team were told not to use Bertrand in any promo material so they were expecting him to leave.

People who always talk about Tommy Robinson and Katie Hopkins.

Hence why I said "thus far" and "great person."

I fail to see how anyone could look at his contribution thus far and not think he was a great person to bring in.

Quite a significant number aren't necessarily anti vaxxers but are anti this particular vaccine due to the short amount of time it has had to be developed.

One person's unfounded opinion is another person's reasonable view. My point is that it's unrealistic to expect opinions to be policed on the Internet. The sheer volume of moderating that would require virtually in real time inevitably means that you'd have to employ machine learning which would err on the side of caution and end up with the mass stifling of opinion that strays from a mainstream narrative.

Absolutely. I speak from experience also having a rational and intelligent friend who is an anti vaxer. They will just not listen to reason.

I think a higher number than you think will.

Again, that ignores the risks for those people who are unable to have a vaccine. I don't want censorship but what I do want is wider awareness that if enough people refuse the vaccine it will undoubtedly cost lives.

But that's an absurd standard. How on earth will you police everyone on the Internet to such a degree that you can say with confidence that every person will not ever be influenced by misinformation? It's like tackling coronavirus by welding everyone in individual rooms.

It's not about them trying, there are demands that they are held legally responsible for everything written on the platform. That means there's no room for nuance at all and things will be mass blocked.

What if there are links to an article or a video? Does that need to be fact checked and validated before it's removed?

Who decides if it's true? Who decides if it's based on bs? Bearing in mind this all has to be done in real time to stop any spread.

Haven't there been news stories like that for literally decades that predate the Internet?