yorkleyblue

Neither did Alf Tupper

And the point was that that particular bit of mumbo-jumbo was apparently four-sided. And it's still basically meaningless as well. What were the specific circumstances in play at the precise moment that every piece of "data" was collected? What was the perception-bias of the collector? You work in IT @Zeta, you know what is required for true data analysis, and this ain't it. It might well be a simplistic, if lazy, method of representing subjective opinion-based concepts, but meaningful knowledge it isn't.

See that's the problem with looking at these arse things when you are old and got the wrong glasses on. You are sorta right, in a way, but not for that example above, which is four lines, with a dot in the middle of two. I can, however, see that different performance criteria might give you a hexagon. It would still be meaningless bollocks though.

A couple of times in the matches yesterday someone was grappled to the ground almost identically to Kane's claims and the commentator/retired old ex-pro who never really made it said something like "No, not a lot in that for me" or "He went down very easily there, not a penalty in my opinion" Nothing like a bit of jingoistic hypocrisy to make the football go better.

No, we have Lewis Cook's grandad saying we should buy him. Not the same thing at all

Actually, they are quadrilaterals, but the point you make is still sound. They are mostly bollocks. (hexagons have six sides)

To be honest, I'm still a bit undecided about Ruben's future as well. All I think at the moment is that if he wasn't one of our own, would we have a thread started saying we really really must buy him, unless it was started by @RIP Mourinho ?

Bless you for identifying someone we possibly should buy after admitting you've only seen him in three games, mostly in the artificial arena of World Cup group matches against the minnows. But, sorry, mate, I was just taking the piss. Didn't mean to offend.

No, that was my point. Blatant racism from a publicity-junkie, then compounded by being re-published by a racist rag like the Mail, with faux-outrage because it "is in the public interest". Is it f**k in the public interest. It's OF interest to a sub-set of society, and that's all. If the Mail had abused Sugar without actually re-printing the picture, it wouldn't have been so bad. Actually, you could be right. Other than the tits and the shagging and the safe release of inner violence, it's a deep and meaningful insight into the world of creating a televisual addiction.

He is an arsehole, that's true, but the mindless, celebrity-awe-struck twatter generation pander to him and his ilk, so do the click-driven media. The worst thing you can do to these people is ignore them. They will then wither and die. But, when you have Love Island and Naked Attraction and things like Game of Thrones gaining such huge viewing figures, there is no chance of that. How else can we get our prurient self-validation without them?

OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!!!! but not enough outrage to prevent the Mail from re-printing it

awww bless you.

Perhaps Kane's reputation had preceded him.

I'll give you a shout tomorrow if I can make it - Need to see what is going on here.

Gotta to renew yet, but would be a good day -