Seal

It makes you wonder whether more AI is involved in the decision making than we are afforded the knowledge of. I thought it was quite symbolic that the first controversy after covid stopped football was the goal line decision between us and sheffield utd. It kind of seemed almost seemed symbolic of - now it is technology that decides what is right or wrong not humans. Obviously it wasn't deliberate, but it planted a thought in my head nonetheless at the time that actually the humanity is disappearing from the game. I actually do think though that Fabrizio Romano is not a real person, and is more a ghost or AI that reports transfers the moment they are contractually signed / registered on a computer.

Cult hero?

I am know wondering whether this is the real reason he chose to stay at that team (who had a meteoric rise through the divisions) - as in reality the only jobs available would be the ones with a similar will to take such a route. And ultimately he was not taking any job - until the next job, where the owners seem the sort to do anything to win and spend any amount of money to ensure that this happens as fast as possible. Same goes for another manager, who has only managed at a Catalan club who have in all likelihood been doping since the Cruyff 'revolution' (it is interesting that Dr Ramon Segura, who was the trusted doctor that provided Pep with "multivitamins" at Brescia, where he received his ban for steroids, then became the club doctor at Barcelona during his stint there). Then he managed at a German club who are capable of producing athletic players like few other clubs ever do - and have done for a long time now. And then a Manchester club - who again will spend any amount of money to win and have a habit of picking up signings that have an unusually high rate of becoming the real deal. It makes sense to me that there are a group of managers who are known to be open to such tactics, and are then sought by clubs who wish to proceed down such a route. The strange thing is that they are touted as geniuses, yet when they speak they never speak with the quality that a truly intelligent person has, and a cult of personality seems to be built around them.

Dr Mark Bonar is an interesting guy. Leicester City players visited him during their Premier League winning season. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5463841/Shamed-former-Harley-Street-doctor-accused-doping-stars.html There are claims he provides his services to Man Utd / Chelsea / Leicester City, https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35953447 https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2629872-arsenal-and-chelsea-comment-on-dr-mark-bonars-doping-allegations

Someone on here, apologies for not remembering who, as it is not I that deserves the credit for this observation, noted that cocaine is rife amongst premier league players, and also a banned substance, yet no-one is ever banned for taking cocaine. Unless there is an agreement that such bans are painted as injuries. This fact very much says that drug tests are either not a thing, or a charade. Furthermore I would assume that drug cheating is more than often a step ahead of drug testing.

Personally I think that it PEDS really started with the dutch players of cruyffs era. The Barcelona Cruyff revolution was founded on this and I think that it continued into the noughties at that club. A certain superstar managers career ended basically due to being caught taking nandrolone. Although he was For my money there are a number of managers who are known to be 'ok' with doping, and have a personality cult built around them, and move to clubs open to doping. A clue is teams that play the high and intense press. This is a tactic that when you have the athletic edge, you will basically be able to run teams off the pitch if not straight away then certainly going into the latter stages. I am pretty sure it is going with a few clubs in the prem at the minute. Probably the obvious ones.

Technically apocalypse doesn't mean the end of the world, its meaning is closer to 'to reveal'. No destruction involved, merely enlightenment and comprehension of what life and meaning really is. I would bring useless etymological tidbits. Oh and lifestraws. I have about twenty lifestraws. That would be useful.

After my spotify discover weekly playlist let me down this morning, I randomly picked this band out of the lucky dip that this thread is. I have really enjoyed it. Thanks.

getting PSG to finish outside the Top 1 was quite impressive

I have no idea whether we win this, but I have a cool conspiracy theory (and that is all it is, just a thought I sometimes ponder) about why we might win. My intuition feels that there is a little more to Newcastles levels than player ability and tactics. It feels kind of unnatural, the transformation in their players and I guess I am always suspicious of teams that employ an intense press. I suspect it may be a tactic employed that works successfully with players on perhaps the run harder juice. I would speculate that there it is perhaps understood in football that there are certain managers more open to this (Eddie Howe and Guardiola both have a history I wouldn't be surprise if Arteta did as well under Guardiola, or Klopp who certainly seems to have perfected the cult of personality trait). The spurs game was a bit suggestive, spurs were useless but that was something else. Why do I think we win this? When we played Newcastle at Villa Park that wasn't the Newcastle that played most other teams around that time. I kind of wonder whether the reason Unai Emery didn't take up the Newcastle job was because they asked him if he would be down with that approach, and he perhaps wasn't. Perhaps there were non-disclosure agreements, but I wonder whether when Newcastle played an Emery team, they were like, guys we gotta chill out a bit here. Dude knows our secret weapon. And yes I agree this could be filed massively under paranoid.

So a random facebook post popped up from the NFL fan site, which I don't actually follow. Nonetheless there was one of those clickbait images to try and get you to click or summat of England and China playing. It was very lame, I think the comments appeared quite confused, but the general consensus was that it was funny because the fella in the greenshirt was watching the wrong way. Very droll right. Anyway what caught my attenshun was the fella sitting below. COULD IT TRUELY BE YOU DR TONY?

There is wisdom in this. But there is also wisdom to say that a key to wealth is through minimising your wants and mastering your nature. I think maybe it isn't just human nature but rather humans are told their nature is. The main thing that I think is an issue with accepting these salaries is not necessarily the amounts which are fantastic. But that these players have already become very wealthy. And what has made them wealthy is not just their talent. But that millions of people are in love with a game that they are willing to part with their hard earned and much tighter cash to spend on supporting football. To move to a new league, that looks to be undermining the leagues and the supporters that have pushed their banks to one limit so that yours can be pushed to the other limit comes across as ungrateful, and ultimately mercenary. Although I doubt this aspect is ever really considered by the players. Bear in mind that this is a government that appears to be benefiting from the cost of living crisis through obscene energy profits, whilst seemingly spending these profits on something ultimately showy. I mean I don't know if directly the energy profits are going into buying footballers but it kinda feels like it. It is actually a massive two fingers up at the fans who have made these players wealthy in the first place. There are two famous phrases, one a misquote of another. Money is a root of all evil. I disagree with this. It is ok to want and need money. The second is that The Love of Money is the root of all evil. I think we might be getting to the place where a love of money is creating a dystopian world football scene. Which did admittedly also happen with the Prem. There are really worrying things with this Saudi pro league, and they are being enabled by the love of money. You asked a lot of rhetorical questions. But this one caught my eye: "What if we were just content with what we have all the time?" If we were content all the time humanity would have mastered the existing game. I also think it is quite incorrect to say that human nature is to want the most you can possibly get. Sure for many people. But many people only want what they need, and would also put the wants of others ahead of their own.

I ain't a brummie but I went to the University of Birmingham. It was actually my second choice behind manchester. This was the early 2000's. The University is effing A. It's on pretty scenic campus walkable drunk or sober from the city centre. Yet it doesn't feel like you are in a city. You have a golf course / botanical gardens, a a reservoir as the surroundings. It is definitely one of the more idyllic campuses in the UK. I visited Manchester a few times to visit friends and visit the uni. Whilst a good uni, it didn't have the same homely vibes. As a post grad Harbourne is lovely. But you also got loads of nice places about like Moseley ain't too far. You have Edgbaston nearby. I can't speak for Manchester on this front. But I hear good things too. Manchester is legit a bit more rainy than most places. But I cannot recommend the birmingham campus enough. I was a fresher. I guess as a mature student this is less of an issue. Here is a tour video. Let me know if you have any specific questions about the uni. Peace

hah. he is like a goat. like he has eyes and stuff, but when you look deep into them, there is absolutely nothing going on within their depths,

tbh it all comes back to that strange decision to declare in the first innings of the first test.

https://games.mi9.com/play_roby-baggio-magical-kicks/ Here you go dude. Make sure you aren't doing anything productive with your life before you play. Classic of procrastination this one.

People often forget that much (40% in the UK higher elsewhere, particularly in soya producing countries) of crop farming is used to grow crops to feed animals on farms to be fed to humans. So eliminating meat farming would quite significantly reduced the amount of overall farmland needed by FAR more than just the animal farming.

I actually think I came up with it. There is small chance it was something Robert Anton Wilson wrote that I forgot and then it popped up in my head disguised as an original quote. If it is Robert Anton Wilson, i suspect it is from illuminatus! or cosmic trigger.

there is only one nation that can truly exist! the imagination!

Ok. It might be I am not understanding quite your point also. I think that it is everyones responsibility now to be good. However, in this society I would argue that you are not taught to be good. You are told you are a good citizen if you do what society considers to be good. Not if you follow your own intuitive path as to what is good. I personally think it is good to explore ones consciousness and various states. Yet a number of the plants I would choose to accompany me on this path are illegal. Also if I were a bird, I would be able to fly from one nation region to another no questions asked. Yet as a human I need to pay someone for the privilege of their protection in order to do so. We live in a society whereby many people form their opinions based upon what they read in the news and the media. They aren't acting as they see good, but how they are told to be good. I think it is important for the human experience to work that out for yourself. It is considered good to charge interest on money for instance, but really this just has the long term impact of flowing more money to those that have money and less to those that have little, it ain't good in my book. I think good is not something that is defined by a society. It is something that exists better in all of us as our own (unimpeded moral compasses). I think there are thousands of ways that this society is said to be good, when really it is just benefiting a few at the expense of many. You (royal) are taught to be selfish. Capitalism is fundamentally fraud. Fraud in you pay the workers less than they work, and sell products for more than they are worth. Society supports that. I would argue society is created by elites to be run by elites to benefit elites. In thousands of different ways. I don't think marxism is any better for the human. What I am suggesting I prefer is: anarchy. Anarchy the word comes from Greek. An - meaning without. And archy(? or something similar maybe archon??) meaning rulers. It means without rulers. It doesn't mean without rules. It means with rulers. So what I am arguing for is a society which does not favour particular groups. This means rules to allow a society to function. I don't see the need in having rules that stops people from doing things that cause no harm or bother. I am not arguing for no rules. I think you (royal you, I am sure you are a decent driver) are causing harm by speeding. So no, I don't think that is ok. Personally. Someone else might. On the driving license issue. I quite like knowing that everyone on the roads can also drive. I also think that not having a limitation or requirement could be said to cause harm to society. So I don't have a bug bear with that at all. I got a scuba license once and the government didn't issue that, so I guess it is possible to work these kind of things out without a government. I think that this idea that the government brings to the party all the things we need to have a society that isn't a bunch of people slinging poo at each other in trees is a bit of an axiom at best. Does that clear up what I am saying? One thing I would like to be clearer on is that I am not really advocating a particular society. Although I do have views on what this would be. I am just explaining why i think it is ok to consider that you don't have a government. Nor do I wish to impose my views on you, I am merely just explaining my position. But am a little aware I am probably sounding preachy. I hope I ain't being preachy. Thanks also for engaging in positive manner. Sometimes on the internet people forget to do that so ta for not being that. You can have a license to use the internet in my made up hypothetical utopia.

You could take responsibility for educating them by educating them and you could take them to the dentists? I'm pretty sure there would still be schools and dentists. Or you could send them to a school based on the Prussian education model, which most of the school system is today, with the stated goal of breaking up the family unit and rather than focusing on intelligence and helping the child to become a good human being, focuses more upon rules, getting a child used to a full day of work, and teaching them subjects that uphold a capitalistic world view. Or to a dentist that will encourage them to have fillings so they can make a bit of money, or something.

Ok, it might be a badly written sentence by me? By people of dubious moral character I have never met, I was referring to the government. I am just suggesting that I have a better idea of what works for me in my life than say, Rishi Sunak. I don't mean to pick on him, I am referring to every person in his position. My fundamental rule is that you should be able to do what you want, as long as you do not stop anyone from doing what they want or cause harm. If you have a view that if someone wrongs you you have a right to kill them, then you are causing harm. That don't fly. If your view is that you have a right to have consensual relationships with a person of any age, and it turns out that person is too young, then you are causing them harm. That don't fly. I agree that in the extremes of society some people do have these views (I appreciate you are not accusing me of those views). I agree some people will have those views (I would argue less than have those views in this society). I don't know what levels of punishments would fit what crimes in this situation. Im not a big fan of death sentences of life imprisonment personally. But there would of course need to be rules in this scenario to deter people from causing harm. I do agree that there are assholes like you cite. I think what I am trying to say is I think to an extent they are as a result of government policy (monetary gain eg). I think what I am trying to say is that if most people were lurched into a society where the responsibility was on them as individuals to be good, on the balance of i, I rather suspect goodness would come out on top. Cuz love and shit.

you don't need to move to Somalia! nation states are a figment of the collective consciousness, and the only nation that can truly exist is the imagination