Chris_R

So Oba was right, he was equally good with both feet.

Burn is a fantastic central defender Burn has severe limitations as a fullback Both of these things can be true

Think that's even better than the first. Fabulous hit.

Steven? If so, wasn't it always?

I once spent a very enjoyable 20 minutes watching him try to parallel park his sports car outside a nightclub in Newcastle. Have no reason to think he was drunk, but it was quite the attempt!

He'll have written that reply with not an ounce of self awareness, he still won't get it. The penny still won't have dropped.

I can say with absolute certainty that if he was booked for the first dive, every passage of play after that would have been different. There is no way for the same match to unfold afterwards with the same incidents, because from that instant everyone is in slightly different positions, thinking slightly different things and doing things slightly differently. After just a few seconds, the entire future bears no resemblance to what happened when he didn't get booked. Even if (and this is impossible for the reasons above) Bruno found himself faced with making that exact tackle after getting booked for diving, he'd know he was on a yellow so would be thinking differently. But as I say, that's not a possible position for him to be in if you book him the first time because everything after will be different. First incident he was lucky not to get booked. Second incident was probably a booking but no more, he was playing the ball but just missed it, there was no malice. But "lucky not to get sent off for 2 yellows" is just nonsense talk due to the laws of causality. Anyway, I need another beer and I'm off to play Indiana Jones.

Not even that. Butterfly effect means that something small changing locally can eventually have repercussions on the other side of the world. What we're talking about here is something different happening on the same pitch. The ref pauses play to book Bruno, everything after that in the ground happens differently because all the players are in different positions, make different decisions and hit the ball differently. It's like when a commentator says "He could have had 3 today!" after a player misses 3 chances. No, he could have had 1 three times. Score one, and everything after is different.

That's not how it would have worked though. He gets a yellow for the dive, then everything after would have unfolded differently. Different passages of play would have happened.

Absolute baller. Unplayable on days like today.

Yeah I don't doubt we'd use the money, this isn't the Ashley era. But we'd either have to bring someone in better for less, or be left worse off as a squad. Personally I can't see who would be better for less, though I'm sure there's players out there. It's a big world. Just feels like a risky dice roll, but eventually we have to roll it I guess, if not for Bruno then for one of the other big names because FFP means we can't let everyone retire here. We do need to be better sellers, but that needs a really good long-term plan and strategy. We'll just have to trust that when we do sell someone, it's part of such a plan.

Gillespie is there to just take shots in shooting practice. You don't want the "main" keepers shattered from constantly having shots pinged at them for hours on end, plus it increases the chance of injury, so Gillespie is there mainly for that from what I understand. Plus if you're shooting at Pope during shooting practice and he saves almost all of it it'll be quite demoralising. If you're shooting at someone a bit shit then you'll feel like a superstar when everything half-decent hits the back of the net.

I'm not suggesting we won't sell him, and indeed we do need to recycle players at some point for FFP reasons so on that level I'd understand if we did, but anyone suggesting selling him is a good idea needs their head read. We're struggling right now to break teams down and he's our most creative player. It'll leave a massive hole.

He's rubbish and injured as much as Wilson. Just... why?!

It's funny Ashworth has gone and that Man U have given us millions in the process, but from Ashworth's perspective surely this is an absolute dream come true? Basically works just a few months a year then gets paid countless millions to not work for ages. Doubtless they've had to pay his contract up or at least some very good severance clause, so he'll be absolutely rolling in it. I'm laughing at Man U, but I'm certainly not laughing at Ashworth. Rather jealous really. Bit like when Bruce was making more money from sacking compensations than he was making from being employed as a manager, in fact that's probably still the case.

Thrown in a skip out the back with the words "well someone might take them?" uttered, as they key them into the computer as "distributed to fans" Absolutely convinced that's what they do.

True to an extent, I can understand a study without re-doing the maths. I read a lot of science that I appreciate the outcome of but haven't walked their path to get there so don't fully, truly understand it but I can cosmetically understand it when the concepts are explained to me.. But to dispute it, you do need to become pretty close to (or even greater than) the equal of the person who wrote it and it course that can be done by a lay person in any field. You do need to re-do their maths, find errors in their methodology, have your own work challenging the outcome peer reviewed by the community and come out intact. You can't just go "nah, I don't think it works like that" - at least not with an ounce of credibility. Of course that can be your starting point for investigation, but you've got to put in the hard yards to validate that opinion and you should do so with an open mind, that if your own work vindicates the original and you can find no error in your own work, you adopt that original outcome as your default standpoint too. Anyway, enough from me.

That's like saying neuroscience or car mechanics or plumbing or electrics is open for debate by the general public - it isn't Every professional discipline is 'gatekept' by the study, work, and understanding of the experts and we have to accept that. Doesn't matter if you like it or not. I don't tell my plumber I disagree with how he's going to do the work unless I've got a fucking good reason, certainly not that I just don't believe in pipes. He's the expert.

Science frequently changes it's standpoint based on new discoveries or experiments, but can only be disproven by better science, not by opinion. Do better science and get back to me.

If you read the Bible you'd know God killed 2,821,364 people, numbered in the bible, excluding events not numbered like the flood, Soddom and Gomorrah etc so the real total was much higher. https://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html?m=1 Satan killed just 10 - the seven sons and three daughters of Job, and God only allowed it as part of a bet. Maybe you've picked the wrong side?

I repeat: I've researched this academically. I can do the maths. I've studied this. You don't get to "not believe" science (at least not without ridicule) unless you can offer up better science to disprove it. Until you can, the scientific consensus is what I posted. Not just from my research, but that of countless others. Science isn't up for debate - Disprove it or accept it if you want to be taken seriously. As for a flat earth, fuck my life. We've literally been into space and flown round it. You can live stream the ISS camera feeds right now. I work in aviation now, look up great circles. Just no.

Oh my fucking god. I'll absolutely judge you. Sorry I can't debate anything with you anymore, I'm out. You're clearly either a troll, or completely incapable of rational thought and discourse. Have a nice day.

Of course you can't disprove me, because I can literally prove the big bang happened. I can do the maths. I can talk you through any aspect you disagree with. I've actually researched this as part of my physics degree. You've picked the wrong example I'm afraid. The big bang happened. It happened 13.8 billion years ago. We can even still hear it (Google Penzias and Wilson). It is beyond any scientific doubt. All you can possibly argue is "well maybe God started it?" but that's genuinely all you've got.

There is an absolute mountain of evidence for the big bang. I did my dissertation on it. Come at me. Red shifts, cosmic microwave background radiation. Inflation theory. There's been mountains of science done on it, each validating the previous work. If you want to dispute the big bang, do you own science to disprove it, don't just yell "indoctrination" like some tin-hat wearing loon.