wacko

It's not an assumption, it's a fact. I'm really happy that I didn't get any of the (in hindsight) dumb tattoos I briefly considered when I was a kid. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough that I'm only talking about myself. Like I said, I couldn't care less if somebody else wants to paint stuff on their body or have holes made in it. You're right re the "you only get one chance" thing, but I hardly think it applies to tattoos. A 45-year-old can just as easily have a tattoo done as a 20-year-old.

I'm not being judgemental here: I don't care what other folks have scrawled across their bodies. It has nothing to do with taste. My main reservation about the whole thing is that tattoos are kind of permanent and somewhat unpleasant and expensive to remove, and being nearly 40, I know that I would be massively narked to have to splash out money to get the crap off my skin that some dumb, young kid splashed out another load of money to have engraved on there. I think many people my age and older would say the same. Again, particularly when you're 60, you're probably not going to be the same person you were when you had the tats done, and you're quite likely to be unhappy with the twat that was 20-year-old you who had a load of dumb shit tattooed on your body and you now have to deal with. That said, I clearly have no problem fucking up my liver and lungs for my future self with booze and fags.

Of course it matters. If only because it costs a hell of a lot of money to remove the bastard things when you've matured/got old and think the 20-year-old you was a naive/dumb/tasteless twat. And what does "look fucked" mean, anyway? There's a massive difference between 35 and 65, you know To be honest, I've thought about tattoos regularly throughout my life, and it was only at 35 or so that something occurred to me that I would truly consider worth having permanently inscribed on my body for the rest of my days. (The idea itself is daft, but it was something I could really imagine having for the rest of my life.)

That's a bit harsh. Super Sambas are okay.

Maybe they like the way they look? In the same way you might like a different pair of trainers to me or someone else? Just because you don't like them doesn't meant they aren't good. Sure, but I'm smart enough to know I'm probably not going to want to wear the same trainers for the rest of my life. And might on occasion also need to wear shoes. (The fact that I've been buying blue Super Sambas for 20 years now notwithstanding.)

Until the first time it rained.

*shudder* I'd ask what these people are thinking when they have great, big holes put in their ears and tattoos on their faces, but I suspect they're not really thinking at all.

Man, I wish I'd never posted in this thread. Is there any way to remove if from my "new replies" page?

I saw a lad with them working in Harrod's. He'd had to put flesh-coloured plugs in them. Looked even more daft.

Neville's clearly not a fan.

Better call Claire Perry on the filthy fucker.

Couldn't help but titter a little at that one.

That's definitely true, but the Munich/Hillsborough thing is particularly pathetic. Both sets whinge and whine like little children about how "they started it" and continue singing the same disgusting songs/vandalising the oppo's stadium. Makes me ashamed, when I see shit like this: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3136/172/400/w8re2o.jpg http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3136/172/400/w7kaau.jpg There's no excuse for stooping to that level, no matter who started what. Liverpool fans, who I know much more about, have a long track record of despicable behaviour. A lot of us simply won't acknowledge that (or blame someone else).

Respectful my arse. Your lot were singing about Munich long before Hillsborough. http://truenomads.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Oktoberfest-2012.jpg

It's hideous. I wouldn't wear that if you paid me.

I honestly hear that about anyone with a bad reputation "Oh, I know he acts like a dickhead when everyone is looking but in real life he's a great bloke" You hear it, but it isn't really true, is it? It's just apologists making excuses. Most of the leagues known arseholes have at least as many scrapes off the pitch as on it. Whether it's fighting in nightclubs, fucking around or just being a dick to people. Given how bad Suarez behaves on the field, you'd expect there to be at least a couple of off-field stories but there aren't any (at least that I'm aware of). Maybe he is just a coward? I doubt he would have the balls to go up to someone like Ivanovic when there isn't the ref, other players, tv etc.. and bite him. No idea why that's the case, nor am I trying to defend him. It just strikes me as something that sets him apart from the run-of-the-mill cunt footballer.

I honestly hear that about anyone with a bad reputation "Oh, I know he acts like a dickhead when everyone is looking but in real life he's a great bloke" You hear it, but it isn't really true, is it? It's just apologists making excuses. Most of the leagues known arseholes have at least as many scrapes off the pitch as on it. Whether it's fighting in nightclubs, f***ing around or just being a dick to people. Given how bad Suarez behaves on the field, you'd expect there to be at least a couple of off-field stories but there aren't any (at least that I'm aware of). Oi, thats your captain your talking about. I know …

I honestly hear that about anyone with a bad reputation "Oh, I know he acts like a dickhead when everyone is looking but in real life he's a great bloke" You hear it, but it isn't really true, is it? It's just apologists making excuses. Most of the leagues known arseholes have at least as many scrapes off the pitch as on it. Whether it's fighting in nightclubs, fucking around or just being a dick to people. Given how bad Suarez behaves on the field, you'd expect there to be at least a couple of off-field stories but there aren't any (at least that I'm aware of).

That's the funny thing about Suarez: he seems by all accounts to be a perfectly nice person and entirely professional off the pitch/in training. He's just a cunt when he plays.

Fingers crossed, you'll be living the dream once again real soon. /wacko for mod!

Okay. You got me. Pheeny sent me to infiltrate your forum, work my way up to mod and ban every last one of you slags from this thread.

Can you stay out of this thread, you're ruining my idea of the typical Liverpool fan. I wouldn't worry about that. If I were one, I wouldn't be on NO in the first place, would I?

Or, why don't they just have a general "Transfer news in the press" and a "Twitter Bollocks" thread? Mostly because there are ~40,000 registered members on RAWK vs ~2,300 on here. As a result, there's an awful lot more bollocks would get posted on there if they weren't stricter about content, and you can imagine the cash money cost of running the forum if all that bollocks were allowed. I'm the first to admit that RAWK mods are a bit heavy-handed with the banhammer, but I think it's reasonable that they forbid/delete threads based on pure rumours or otherwise vapid threads just to keep the forum running and the signal to noise ratio up. You can always post a thread based on the rumours, as long as it isn't obviously based on rumours, i.e. a reasoned "we need a player like XYZ" thread rather than "XYZ linked with LFC according to gobshites" thread.

RAWK's always had a very limited selection of sources from which transfer stories are accepted. Too many shite threads of baseless rumours otherwise.

I'm pretty ambivalent about this. He's a great player, like, but such an embarrassing liability to boot. As long as we don't lose money on him, I'll not be overly sorry to see him go. That's not to say I'm confident we will get a good price for him or that we'll spend it wisely