Halo Stickman

You’re more than welcome, Jeff. Perhaps we should make it a daily event? All takes turns to give a depressing Thought For The Day. Or a cheerful one - whatever rocks your boat, really. You sorted out those Masons yet?

Ok, SOG - it will be interesting to read your views on it.

Interesting. Sounds like one for the The Ramirez Off Topic Thread at a later date, perhaps. BTW, I’m not sure the Isle of Wight is actually the reason - at least not the main one - why Southampton Water has double tides, although I realise that’s not really relevant to the point you were making.

Speaking as a born-and-bred Caulkhead, can we have a little less of the Shite please, pap!

It is a shame when things like the QE2, aircraft carriers, or buildings like Netley Military Hospital are demolished or left to rot away; but, at the end of the day, I suppose, it all boils down to the cost of maintaining these things. Fundamentally, it’s life’s constant battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics – entropy, and all that. Eventually, everything turns to ratshit, and the larger the thing is, the more it costs to delay this inexorable process. Here endeth Halo’s Thought For The Day.

I suspect a lot of us spot apparent patterns, get hunches, gather anecdotal evidence etc about various things, from time to time … but, for most of us, that’s where it ends. So, hats off to you, pap, for setting up something to test whether your anecdotal experiences are a true reflection of what’s actually occurring. I don’t profess to understand the technicalities involved in gathering and processing this information, but I assume data will be obtained and analysed in a ‘blind’, unprejudiced fashion, i.e. not subjected to experimenter, expectation, observer-expectancy-effect biases etc – the pitfall of many investigators, scientists, journalists, politicians, football fans etc. I wish you well with this project and look forward to watching its progression and eventual conclusions.

Possibly, but it was the black eye that was instrumental in his departure.

On the subject of the McCanns, I recently read Looking for Madeleine by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan. FWIW, below is the blurb for the book: I don’t want to rekindle the endless debate about what happened to Madeleine; therefore, I’ll limit my comments to saying that the book concludes that the McCanns were not responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance (over and beyond leaving her and her siblings unattended). The book was an interesting and quite informative read, but what I found almost as interesting was the breakdown of the Readers’ Reviews on Amazon: 5 Stars 29 4 Stars 4 3 Stars 1 2 Stars 2 1 Star 53 Reading the review comments it appears that those who have already made their minds up that the McCanns are responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance hate the book, whereas those who have made their minds up that the McCanns are not responsible love the book … with just a few dithering souls in between. I can’t recall ever seeing a Readers’ Review so polarised. It seems that people have made their minds up concerning this issue and they ain’t gonna be shifted! PS I did not write a review.

That is interesting, pap. If you establish that this sort of thing is happening on a regular and wide-scale basis, will your project end there? Or will it seek reasons as to why this is happening (other than those already suggested by yourself and Tim)? If so, any ideas on how you will go about this?

Ok, cheers.

Pap, I’m probably being dumb here, but can you explain the meaning of those percentages under the ‘Freedom Quotient’ heading, please.

I’m kinda hoping I’m in this clique because 1) I don’t think I’ve ever been in one before, and 2) whilst it sounds a bit wrong, it also sounds quite exotic and exciting.

Yeah, but not enough for the Guardian jouro, apparently. Not enough sh1t, not enough p1ss, not enough blood, not enough vomit, not enough entrails. Bloody hell, the essence of the 1914 Christmas Truce is its symbolism. What next, sh1t, p1ss, blood, vomit, entrails to be depicted on all crucifixes?

Och aye pap, and trustworthy too – although, it has to be said, the last time I trusted a fella wearing a skirt I got myself into a terrible pickle

Who did you play as your goalie? Carson* or Mrs Hughes? * a euphemism for Bletch, apparently. (I've heard he’s dour, or was that dire, between the posts, or was that sheets – blowed if I can remember)

It appears there are two Schools of Thought (SoT) as to how this ad came about: SoT 1 Mr Sainsbury’s: We want to do something that reflects an event that is happening this year. Ad Man: How about the centenary commemoration of WWI? Mr Sainsbury’s: That’s all killing, killing and more killing. How can that be suitable? Ad Man: There was a brief interlude exactly 100 years ago this Christmas when the ordinary soldiers from opposing sides defied orders, laid down their arms and came together in an act of brotherly love and compassion towards their fellow man. Mr Sainsbury’s: Okay, let’s run with that. SoT 2 Mr Sainsbury’s: We want to do something that sends the Christmas message that Sainsbury’s chocolate makes war okay. Ad Man: Really? Mr Sainsbury’s: Yes, but we want to show this ad before the watershed; therefore, unfortunately, no corpses, dismembered bodies or flying entrails. Ad Man: I guess that just leaves Christmas 1914, when the murderous bastards reluctantly interrupted their gleeful slaughtering just long enough to play a stupid game of football. Mr Sainsbury’s: Okay, let’s run with that.

Agree

I liked those regular run-ins he had with Pap, especially when Barry would suddenly conjure up from nowhere nuggets like this: Comedy gold, imo Justice for the 21

Yeah, know what you mean Tokes, especially as it appears they’re gonna be fleecing him on an annual basis, unless, of course, Barry figures out how to cancel his paypal standing order, which, on the evidence so far, seems unlikely.

Just what this forum needed - Tokes has created a new word game!

Speak for yourself Tokes

I acknowledge the fact that I’m in a minority on this one (especially on the trolling issue), but, personally, I never had a problem with Barry. In fact, imo, he instigated some decent threads, banter etc, didn’t take himself too seriously (well, not most of the time), and wasn’t abusive. Plus, the night when Pap met up with him and finally established, once-and-for-all, that Barry wasn’t Dune produced one of TMS’s all-time classic threads. Not to mention the fact that it turned out that Barry’s estate agent mate may well have been right about Lallana house hunting in Liverpool – an accusation that upset so many people on here at the time. Personally, I’m against banning people unless they are racist, homophobic, regularly extremely abusive, or completely obvious trolls etc – imo, Barry was none of these things. Dammit, now Bletch will tell me off for getting all serious on TMS.

Yippee, the panto season has officially started! Bloody how Barry, I don’t know what I’m more amazed about – that you’re back or that you’ve got a bank account! I've missed you, but I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority!

Yeah, but on the plus side, pap, Blue Harbour do a 29” inside leg, which is quite handy for us shorter chaps

Merry Christmas and a Crappy New Year