benjii

Fair enough.

He’s the first to moan when he or one of his northern mates can’t get tickets for a match.

He clearly was.

Actually, yeah, good point: Pelle was better than Lambert in the Prem.

Yeah, not much debate really. You could swap Tadic for Rodriguez but I can't see what else there is to debate!

What are you saying? That's there's a Jewish hegemony controlling business and politics?

Agree. It will sell out, so arguably the prices are too cheap. #economics

Wrong.

The Tory party is not particularly right wing. Edit - although I suppose if your study categorised it as such then it doesn't really matter either way so not worth arguing about.

If you're running in a straight line and someone sticks their foot under yours because they are trying to dive at an odd angle it isn't a foul.

Labour is one of two parties with a chance of winning the election. Anti-Semitism in Labour is slightly more newsworthy than Anti-Semitism in the EDL.

There's nothing wrong with the idea but it has been implemented incompetently. That clearly wasn't an obvious error. It was a debatable decision (in my mind, not a foul).

He's a complete scatter-gun of weirdness but we usually do OK when he refs us.

Talking nonsense on a factual level isn't "reasoned debate" pal.

This post is just logically wrong on a number of levels. I have already explained why. If you don't get it then I'm afraid it's just a matter of intelligence and I can do no more to help.

Mental. Superficial semantics over reasoned thought. Your quote is a judge's two line summary of the evidence presented by one single witness, which would have been quite complex I expect. That witness, whose evidence was summed up in two lines, gave evidence based solely on their own testing and the base of their own knowledge. It was one witness. Johnson may have broader evidence - all witness evidence, plus secret service evidence not disclosed etc. which, overall, leaves him in no doubt. From that, these nut jobs conclude someone's lying and it's all a big conspiracy. It wasn't necessary to present evidence that it was 100% a Novichok - whatever "Novichok" means; it seems slightly nebulous in any event, which renders this sort of semantic argument a fool's errand. "concrete evidence of lies!!" As I said before, these people are paranoid and either incapable of thinking properly or willing to throw logic out of the window to satisfy their own cravings for subterfuge.

Gerard, Beckham, Lukaku. I asked a sample of "EPL fans".

Nonsense. That court application was to obtain permission to take blood samples from the Skripals so that they can be independently tested by the international body. It was not necessary to provide evidence of what the nerve agent was in detail or to prove its provenance at all; in fact, that is precisely the question which the taking of blood for the independent testing is attempting to verify. The court ruling does not prove Johnson was lying at all. It might suggest that not all the testing evidence was disclosed, which is probably correct for reasons of expediency, secrecy and pure practicality. Those websites smack of paranoid delusion and the logic employed is simple-minded and wrong. "concrete" evidence **** me.

Carrol and Sturridge. Job done.

Is it really worth a read? Looks like the ramblings of a swivel-eyed loony to me.

This is true. Look at the expensive ****e WBA and West Ham have accumulated.

This is correct. Even when "fit", I've been told he can't play Sat, Weds, Sat as his knees aren't up to it. If we stay up we could do with a major overhaul of our striking options (even though we've just spent 19m on one of them).

Not sure. The accounts will say whether we paid a dividend or not. I don't recall us paying a dividend.

The point is, you don't know. As things stand, the evidence suggests she has put around 40m into the club and taken zero out aside from perhaps some relatively modest interest on an 11m loan. Being paid by Gao is not taking money out. If Gao is shown to have dodgy motives or to be a bad owner then perhaps we will need to reevaluate but, as it stands, for someone who was essentially a reluctant owner one might say she has been a model custodian.

You don't understand what you're talking about pal.