Happy Face

lovely delay from Jonas before passing to an onside Milner for the goal.

Where's the quote from, because he was just on pre-match saying his players would look at him like he's daft if he claimed they could win the league.

How the fuck is Shola described as a 'want away' striker? 'I hope it will not be the case that I get priced out of a move' 'If the club don't want me, they know that I've been a faithful servant, so, in a perfect world, being allowed to leave for a reasonable price would happen.' 'If regular football doesn't happen, I'll have to go somewhere else. But I'm still hoping I can get a chance here.'

By the bins in a back alley. Romance is not dead.

You mean your tea.

Next to go odds Alan Curbishley 3.2 Mark Hughes 7.2 David Moyes 7.4 Harry Redknapp 8.2 Kevin Keegan 8.6 Paul Ince 9 Gary Megson 10 Rafael Benitez 13.5 Roy Hodgson 14 Steve Bruce 16.5 Tony Mowbray 16.5 Gareth Southgate 16.5 Juande Ramos 20 Arsene Wenger 20 Luiz Felipe Scolari 21 Tony Pulis 21 Phil Brown 34 Roy Keane 60 Sir Alex Ferguson 75 Martin O Neill 85 Must be plenty of wonger going on Moyes.

95% certain we'll finish between 1st and 14th.

Whos this 'we' you speak of? Cos never in my history of going to the match have i heard the song sung from beginning to end There's the origin of this unfortunate confusion. For some reason you thought that Flintoff had written out the whole song. Which he hadn't.

All the focus in currently on Owen, but these all run out at the end of the season... Cacapa Owen Harper Butt Ameobi Viduka and these a year later... Beye Geremi Who can walk away for nowt? Who should we be touting around in January? Who should get an extension?

Whos this 'we' you speak of? Cos never in my history of going to the match have i heard the song sung from beginning to end Do you never go to games like? If you have never heard that, I can only assume you have never been to a match. You talking shit mate, Ive been to hundreds of matches and im telling you now, the crowd has never sung the full Blaydon races 'during' the match Agreed, I cant remember it ever being sung in full. Flintoff didn't say it was. Just that the first verse was always sang (in some form). J69 changed it to "from start to end" and now they're arguing about different things.

It's ALWAYS first verse and chorus and that's it. Anyone trying to start it any later than "I went to Blaydon races..." would have been beaten to death by now

I'd have thought 2 x Scotswood Road would stick out like a sore thumb. I'll have to listen next time. By the way, not happy with that Opera singer stuff. Nice idea (I missed it for the mackem game so it might have been better) but it gets slowed down so either the crowd try to join in and it sounds shit, or they don't and it's too quiet for pre-kick off. Even when he was doing other call and response chants, they weren't at the standard crowd tempo so it didn't work.

Just getting this right would be a good start for most of the crowd What do most of the crowd sing?

Yeah, but this isn't statistical variation that's being discussed. It's not as though we're doing a medical study for example and we're looking at variation in ages or whatever, it's a hard number that they're estimating. That line is just pure wank trying to make their point sound more intelligent than just "uh, we're not sure how many people have died but it might be this many." I've never seen the paper, but I assume the world health organisation did more than stick a finger in the air. "degree of statistical certainty" suggests some sums were involved. The problem is they did a statistical analysis on figures that were very... pliable, then decided to pick a figure in the middle (based on what I'm not sure - it is the mean, I guess, but really that means ( ) not so much in this context). I don't know how you'd do something like that, we struggle enough in this country with data sets like that, never mind Iraq. Estimates for how many died in the Iran/Iraq war for example are wildly varying, and Iraq was in a much better state to have a clue then. No-one's denying the difficulty of statistical analysis in the area. That's why it's a massive range without certainty. It's importance is being that much higher than official guesstimates with more reliability. It's not though, it is at best a guesstimate, trying to tack statistical analysis onto a data set doesn't make it (the initial date set) better or more accurate. Think of it like money laundering. You push it through some stats and it comes out "clean", even if really it is not particularly. I don't think there'll ever be a remote accurate total for deaths in Iraq over recent years, never mind types of death/categories of death. Parky's repeatedly said read the article, I've reiterated it. No-one is saying this is an accurate and definitive figure. Just that the WHO are 95% certain the figure is at least double the official story. It's unlikely to resolve the debate, but it's important that the official numbers are questioned and countered.

Yeah, but this isn't statistical variation that's being discussed. It's not as though we're doing a medical study for example and we're looking at variation in ages or whatever, it's a hard number that they're estimating. That line is just pure wank trying to make their point sound more intelligent than just "uh, we're not sure how many people have died but it might be this many." I've never seen the paper, but I assume the world health organisation did more than stick a finger in the air. "degree of statistical certainty" suggests some sums were involved. The problem is they did a statistical analysis on figures that were very... pliable, then decided to pick a figure in the middle (based on what I'm not sure - it is the mean, I guess, but really that means ( ) not so much in this context). I don't know how you'd do something like that, we struggle enough in this country with data sets like that, never mind Iraq. Estimates for how many died in the Iran/Iraq war for example are wildly varying, and Iraq was in a much better state to have a clue then. No-one's denying the difficulty of statistical analysis in the area. That's why it's a massive range without certainty. It's importance is being that much higher than official guesstimates with more reliability.

More details... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/world/mi...t=cse&scp=7 "While the new study appears to have the broadest scope to date, increasing its reliability, well known limitations of such efforts in war areas make it unlikely to resolve debate about the extent of the killing in Iraq." "the study ended four months after the bombing of a revered Shiite shrine in Samarra helped set off a wave of killings throughout Baghdad and other mixed Sunni-Shiite areas. So because of its timing, the study missed the period of what is believed to be the worst sectarian killings, during the latter half of 2006 and the first eight months of 2007."

Yeah, but this isn't statistical variation that's being discussed. It's not as though we're doing a medical study for example and we're looking at variation in ages or whatever, it's a hard number that they're estimating. That line is just pure wank trying to make their point sound more intelligent than just "uh, we're not sure how many people have died but it might be this many." I've never seen the paper, but I assume the world health organisation did more than stick a finger in the air. "degree of statistical certainty" suggests some sums were involved.

No, I do absolutely nothing. ..except pay the taxes that aid the war effort.

I don't know what you're talking about now. Is it still statistical analysis? Seems to me you were the one taking the high ground without doing the sums.

I D.A.R.E. mutha fucka.

What? I think that's what he meant. Its just a stupid statement, they are 95percent certain that they arent certain how many people have died You never did standard deviation and variance at school?

I wonder if The World Health Organization can get me a quote on a boiler.

Of course, no charges have been laid against Blackwater people. http://www.blackwaterusa.com/company_profi...ore_values.html

To make up for my earlier petulance, Bremer gets a hell of a roasting in the documentary No End in Sight. Well worth a watch. http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...mp;#entry444758

Topical