hypochondriac

Yeah that was before that announcement. Burnley are doomed.

Why dont we discuss that possibility when it actually happens?

You have to be pleased with that surely: 🎭 Celebrity Personality Comparison: whelk ≈ Bill Murray Why Bill Murray? Deadpan delivery: Master of the understated, witty one-liner rather than emotional monologue. Effortless likability: Lightens tone without losing edge—makes observations that are sharper because they’re brief. Cultural touch: Knows when to inject levity and when to stand back—just like whelk in shifting between match banter and forum commentary. ✅ Alternative Celebrity Comparisons Steve Coogan (as Alan Partridge-type): Witty, topical, sometimes ironic. John Cleese: Dry, witty, intelligent—especially in poking at absurdity. 🧭 Final Take whelk brings a refreshing levity to SaintsWeb: insightful enough to add value, entertaining enough to keep people coming back, and subtle enough not to dominate. They’re the kind of poster you notice when they’re gone.

That's all a matter of perspective pal: Based on Farmer Saint’s style — blunt, confrontational, often fuelled by frustration, unafraid to call people out, but also occasionally capable of thoughtful, detailed points — I’d say he’s most like Roy Keane. Why Roy Keane? Blunt honesty – Says exactly what he thinks, even if it’s harsh. Critical edge – Focuses on weaknesses and where standards aren’t being met. Passion-driven – Comments are charged with emotion, especially around performance and commitment. Divisive style – Fans admire the candour, but critics see it as overly negative or combative. Capable of depth – When he slows down, he can give reasoned, insightful analysis rooted in experience. Alternative Comparisons Gordon Ramsay – For the mix of criticism, high standards, and occasional flashes of encouragement. Graeme Souness – Direct, old-school football mentality with a no‑nonsense attitude.

Overall Assessment east‑stand‑nic tends to post provocative, high-emotion content, often based on speculation rather than analysis. While this style can spark debate or attention, it sometimes lacks grounding in evidence—leading to statements that many might find overly conspiratorial or alarmist. If you’d like, I can compare east‑stand‑nic to more trusted posters like buctootim or gio1saints, or trace how their tone shifted over time in specific threads. Based on east‑stand‑nic’s posting style — speculative, conspiratorial, mistrustful of official narratives, and confident in predictions about future “truths” being revealed — the closest celebrity match would probably be Russell Brand (in his recent, post-mainstream media persona). Why Russell Brand? Challenges mainstream consensus – Positions himself as someone who “sees through” what others don’t. Conspiratorial edge – Leans into narratives about hidden truths, corruption, and the public being misled. Confident predictions – Speaks as though certain that others will eventually come around to his viewpoint. Engaging but polarising – Attracts a strong following from those who share his skepticism, but alienates others who see his views as baseless or alarmist. Alternative Comparisons David Icke – Less for the extreme conspiracy theories and more for the style of confidently asserting hidden truths. Nigel Farage – In the sense of using provocative, populist framing to spark reaction and debate. Lol to David Icke. Chatgpt is very perceptive.

If I had to match hypochondriac to a celebrity personality type, I’d say he’s most like Jeremy Paxman. Why Jeremy Paxman? Analytical and forensic – Cuts through waffle to focus on the core of an argument. Calm but pointed – Rarely loses his cool, but can deliver very sharp, surgical jabs. Holds people to account – Doesn’t let inconsistencies or contradictions slide. Dry, sometimes caustic wit – Humour comes in quick, understated lines rather than big performances. Can come across as cold – Prioritises logical dismantling of arguments over emotional connection. 😎

If sadoldgit was a celebrity what celebrity would he most be like? ChatGPT said: Based on sadoldgit’s posting style — passionate, morally certain, sometimes combative, unafraid to call people out, and very willing to speak at length on political or social injustice — I’d say he’s most like Piers Morgan. Why Piers Morgan? Strong moral framing – Often casts arguments as right vs wrong, rather than shades of grey. Quick to challenge others – Doesn’t shy away from confrontation and will call people out bluntly. Opinion-led – Speaks from conviction and emotion rather than always from detached analysis. High engagement – Dominates discussions, whether people agree or not. Divisive reception – Has loyal supporters but also a large group who find his style overbearing. Alternative Comparisons If we tone down the media persona and think more in political terms: Alastair Campbell – passionate, articulate, politically engaged, often arguing from the left with righteous anger. Brian Cox (the actor, not the physicist) – blunt, outspoken, no-nonsense delivery.

Didn't Ipswich agree 20 million for Hackney?

You might say that but you could have your own bias. Lets see what a neutral party like ChatGPT has to say about soggy after an analysis of his post history: Looking at sadoldgit's posting style on the forum linked below, is it your view that sadoldgit is too emotional and that he makes statements about other posters that are untrue or without evidence? https://www.saintsweb.co.uk/ Yes — based on a broad reading of sadoldgit’s posts across SaintsWeb, it’s fair to say that he often posts from a highly emotional place, and that he does sometimes make sweeping or accusatory statements about other posters that aren't well supported by evidence. Let’s look at this in more detail: 🧠 1. Emotional Posting Style Pattern: sadoldgit often posts with a strong moral or ideological tone. He frames arguments around justice, fairness, and outrage at hypocrisy. Frequently uses language that is emotionally loaded — e.g. "disgusting," "vile," "nonsense," "appalling," etc. Example: In threads about Ched Evans, Israel/Palestine, and even UK politics, he tends to argue from what he feels should be true, rather than what he can objectively prove. Impact: While this passion makes him principled and consistent, it also leads him to react strongly to disagreement and sometimes assume malicious intent where none is shown. 🔍 2. Accusations Without Sufficient Evidence Pattern: He’s been known to accuse others of being rape apologists, bigots, or apologists for oppression based on interpretations of their posts that aren’t necessarily fair or complete. Example: In the Ched Evans thread, people raising legal concerns were branded as rape apologists. In Middle East threads, posters who criticised Hamas but also expressed sympathy for Israeli security concerns were accused of ignoring war crimes or supporting apartheid. What’s going wrong? He seems to conflate disagreement with bad intent. He sometimes projects views onto posters that they didn’t express, and responds as if those views were explicitly stated. 🧾 3. Does He Ever Acknowledge Mistakes? Rarely. Like many strong debaters, he tends to double down rather than backtrack. That makes it hard to have productive disagreement with him unless you already broadly align with his worldview. That doesn’t make him dishonest — just very entrenched in how he frames debates, and emotionally invested in defending them. 🧭 Overall Assessment Trait Summary Emotionally driven? Yes. Moral clarity often trumps cool analysis. Accusatory without cause? Occasionally. He makes assumptions about others’ views too readily. Constructive in debate? Sometimes, but only with those he sees as arguing in good faith. Well-intentioned? Almost certainly. His goal is usually to stand up for what’s right. ✅ Bottom Line: Yes — sadoldgit does often argue emotionally, and sometimes unfairly characterises others’ positions. That doesn't mean he’s a troll or bad-faith actor — quite the opposite. But his rigid moral framing and tendency to assume the worst of dissenters can alienate others and derail constructive debate.

Absolutely. We are incredibly fortunate that he wanted to come back. It's made us a shit load of cash.

If Fernandes and Aribo go then that would be inevitable surely? Probably at least one as a loan.

Also if true that aligns with what I'd like us to get in. Four midfielders and a GK is exactly what we need as we don't need any more strikers or defenders.

Music to my ears if true.

Yep. Maybe someone like Fellows and theb a more established prem player on loan like Brooks would be good.

Good shout. This sort of thing is entirely standard whilst subject to big bids that haven't been resolved. 99% likely he leaves and never plays for us again but if he doesn't he can easily be reintegrated once the window closes.

The Sun say that Dibling is doing fitness work with a small group of players. I wonder who the other players are? Maybe Smallbone and Aribo? Who was missing in the training shots on Monday?

How would you rate Labour's economic performance so far?

According to the echo reporter he is.

You need a mix for my money. What we need either way are some new players. Some of the so called proven Championship players we have are in my view irretrievably tainted by last year. The likes of BBD and Armstrong probably don't want to be here.

The source is a load of old shit though.

Yeah Alfie house said that photo was bollocks it was a fake itk and was supposedly taken prior to the Spain trip

But odd to travel all the way to Southampton for that purpose. Surely Girona or even Barcelona would allow hi to do that.

There was some random picture of him in a car that some fake itk was claiming was him at the training ground. That's the only 'proof' I've seen

Source?

I'm not hammering him