The Fish

We have 3 1/2 'keepers, 2 of them have performed good-to-average in the top flight before, and while signing Reina would be a bit of statement of intent, I'd be hoping to see the priority areas addressed. I don't believe an "experienced quality keeper" is as vital as a striker, a left winger, a number 10, a centre mid and/or a left back. Cabaye used to make all the players around him 10% better, and this experienced 'keeper may well do the same, but the current roster would still be pretty poor by Premier League standards. That's why I think those positions I mentioned should take priority over a well-stocked position of all right players.

'keeper is not a priority.

Was visiting a mate in Australia (Freemantle) and her friends honestly told me that the "only reason Australians are racist is because we've all the races here". She wouldn't accept that London is more multi-cultural, even when our mutual friend backed me up. Swear to god I didn't see a single non-white face is Freemantle, not even an Aboriginal. That was part of the holiday where I visited Vegas, some of California, Sydney and Perth. Met friends of the family, family of friends, locals and holidaymakers and the only places where overt racism/bigotry wasn't the norm was Monterey and San Francisco. Even with my mate's dad's family, his partner was not a fan of "them mexicans". Thoroughly depressing on reflection.

I can't remember, were you someone who struggled with keeping up with the myriad subplots, locations and characters?

Hunnan couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. He's been shit in everything I've seen him in, but yes, he wasn't exactly helped by a script that stunk up the place.

Cannot understand why both managers set their teams up to limit the opportunities of their opponents. This is the biggest game of their season, it could be the biggest game of some players' careers. If they're going to lose, surely it's better to lose when trying to win? Do the Huddersfield have money behind them? How're they set up to strengthen in the window, because that team will go straight back down.

Sorry Brock, but Reading are an unappealing addition to the background of Newcastle surprise Premier League title season.

Who do you want to come up

Why not? Decent option on loan imo

Just think of lass surprised by a mexican corn snack

Iheanacho on loan would be great. Him and Abraham.

Fair play if you actually follow through. You've taken a lot of shit, but if you're switching for the reasons above, I think that's fair enough. You still know nowt about football like

Well done mate, was planning on returning at some point, but... beer.

Well done mate, was planning on returning at some point, but... beer.

Well done mate, was planning on returning at some point, but... beer.

But it's also based on what hasn't come before. So you have free will to choose between A/B because despite all the miles of rails you've trundled down, there is still the potential to jump the tracks and go a route that is in direct conflict with experience, socialisation etc. I may have misunderstood, but you're suggesting that free will doesn't exist?

Hey, it was silent when I popped in, so I thought I'd at least let Andrew know he wasn't playing Zelda into the void. The webpage is open, but behind FM17 and muted

The desire to learn is, imo, instinctive (and we see it throughout nature) and while the facility to nurture and explore may be the responsibility of agents of socialisation to begin with, there will come a point where it falls upon the individual to continue nurturing and exploring, or abandon it. The ability to make that choice will come from socialisation e.g. a kid from the projects who had no schooling, no parenting, will not necessarily choose to get his nose in a book because he's not been taught it's value. Conversely, he may see the impact that a lack of education has had on his peer group and his family and choose not to follow the same path.

Dead or Alive Xtreme 3?

That's a terrifically long winded way of missing the point. You state, categorically the earth isn't a globe, there aren't satellites, the earth is only a few thousand years old, without a single, scrap of evidence beyond "Water is flat, innit". Then claim the reality is a far more fantastic state, with domes and ice walls and cellular realities and so on, without a scrap of evidence. So, what we have is reams of evidence and testimony and replicable experiments on one side and, literally, nothing on the other. You drown the nuggets of your theory in long posts that proffer analogies and make arrogant claims about your open mindedness while implying that whoever agrees with the official line is closed minded by comparison. But essentially, when you boil off that detritus you're left with one man arrogantly making baseless claims. We've all tried to reason with you, some with more patience than others, but you are impervious to common sense.

She'll no doubt get a job on FOX or with Breitbart or something. Odious demagogue.

You reject all evidence and proof (that you haven't seen for yourself) of the earth as a globe, but you don't apply that scrutiny to your own theory. This is hypocritical.

There was a fairly self-evident point. There was also a point to my post. Do you need the points explained to you again?