Rayvin

Very eye opening though.

Is he? That's some fucking statement mind Surely Pence wouldn't have such a hair trigger fuse though? Ideologically he's probably worse I guess but I'm starting to think the real threat from Trump isn't his ideas (although they're bad), it's the risk of him unilaterally declaring war on another country, on a whim, over Twitter.

Fair points.

Could maybe play him and then sub off once game is won? Assuming we can shift formation appropriately. The main thing has to be getting points on the board though.

That guy is a useful commentator on these things I have to say. The thing is though, that reading that is just depressing - anyone with half a brain knows he's right, but none of that message will get through. I had a look at the DM comments and they're all full of 'ISD telling it like it is as usual' style comments.

My Gran reads reads it but she's in her mid-90s. It probably feels left wing to her given how much things have changed over her life.

I would get as much out of Shelvey before the bigger suspension kicks in as possible, personally...

Well he's just a liar then, isn't he? Although tbf, he could be lying for the golf course for all we know.

Seriously? I'll take a fucking lot back about the FA if this is true - rescinding both reds is some statement.

I threw that in there especially for you

It is weird that he can't see it, mind. I think Essembee's logic is that he's just one person and they're many - and that somehow this makes his hypocrisy less potent.

Tenuous but feasible. I can see your point and certainly with respect of climate change it makes things difficult. I think Monbiot was arguing not long ago that think tanks that don't publish their funding backers should be considered lobbying organisations as their advice can't be treated as independent. People are easily corralled generally and if there is a widespread move to manipulate people through information such as what you've just cited, it should be a worry for all of us.

I'm with you now, yes. I would tentatively suggest that the MSM themselves set the groundwork for this by playing fast and loose with the truth in the first place of course (see the Mail and on some days, the Guardian), and that, having lost people's trust over a lengthy period of time, they have in effect invited this state of affairs. Which isn't to say that the whole matter isn't very worrying. Very hard to police without just instilling basic critical thinking skills in people though. Although maybe I'm wrong actually, and perhaps Google and others can make more of a dent into this than I think they can.

Do you mean that we can't establish them as a separate category from non-fake news because there is so much misinformation in the news generally or because there are elements of truth within even the fake news stories? If it's not either of those then I must just be slow on the uptake today. I think my question is, why can't we just call them fake news stories? What is incomplete about that label? Unless you mean consideration about how we label and perceive not just the story itself, but also the ensuing hysteria and the narratives and actions that these develop into...?

2-0 I reckon. Don't see us being free scoring, but we should be able to manage a couple and there's no reason our defence should be any weaker, even without Dummett.

Sorry, run that past me again You mean the framing of particular stories?

Done

I've come across pizzagate - fucking crazy development, that one. But probably an inevitable end point of where we're ending up!

Nice catch.

His partner was black ffs. I just don't understand that mentality.

It was rumoured a little while ago but no, hadn't seen confirmation. It's a shame I guess but I hadn't been personally convinced of his importance other than someone pointing out that if Rafa has kept him on it must be with good reason. That could just have been player familiarity though.

Reckon we'll be pushing it out wide without Shelvey. Diame can perhaps have a role to play there in arriving late into the box since he can hit them from a way out, but we'll be far less penetrating overall IMO. Also suspect we'll have to play Mitro more if we're going for crosses from the flanks. Hard to see how we make the most of Gayle with that system given that our wingers aren't pacy enough to break forward and whip it in for him. We'll likely be crossing into a congested penalty area.

Why don't we do this? No harm in it.

Why kill him though? Do they really have that little respect for life? As for the juror, I'd be interested to hear their take on why this was justifiable. Assuming they're not KKK or something.