pazzerfox

We've won 2 premier league games on the bounce mate, have a beer and enjoy it! The 7-0 was tongue and cheek to get people like you to bite. 🎣 Have a good evening! Come on Steve...Blue Army!!

We've just won 2 premier league games in a row! We just need to stay up and get a decent foundation to build from.

Cooper is our trooper! Great result today.. get behind our Steve!!!

Post of the day. 👏👏

I agree, he should be criticised, but let us not forget we're debating in a thread entitled "Cooper Out".

We could have won 7-0 and people would still want him out! It doesn't matter what he does I'm afraid, some fans think he is clueless when he's actually far from it!

Brilliant win. Well done Cooper!!

I'm in this boat these days! Used to sleep like a log in my 20's and 30's. Struggle to get 5 hours now! Any ideas why we can't kip like we used to?

"Nicknames are bad............ names."

You're right—when elements or consequences lie beyond the control of those allegedly pulling the strings, it raises valid doubts about the feasibility of such plans. It’s more about their ability to influence key systems—be it through funding, media narratives, or institutional pressures—in ways that benefit their long-term goals. Skepticism is healthy, and I believe it can coexist with the pursuit of greater transparency. You’re absolutely right that science should be shielded from political and personal biases, and ideally, funding would be ring-fenced from such influences. Unfortunately, in practice, funding decisions are often shaped by political, economic, or philanthropic agendas, even if the science itself remains neutral. Researchers tend to follow where the money is, and if certain areas receive more funding because they align with broader social or economic goals, those areas will naturally grow and become more dominant.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply (as always). You've raised some valid points about evidence and the complexity of such claims. Firstly, you're right that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. However, it’s also important to remember that many significant historical events and power dynamics were hidden in plain sight for long periods before documentation or whistleblowers brought them to light. I'm not claiming that Norgangard's book offers definitive proof (I haven't read it to sunstantiate his "evidence") on its own, but it compels a deeper examination of the ties between powerful financial interests and global initiatives, such as climate change. While the Rockefeller influence may be speculative to some degree, it's historically true that they have shaped many aspects of finance, industry, and philanthropy, often with significant global impacts. That doesn't mean every claim is accurate, but we shouldn't dismiss concerns without investigating more thoroughly. In response to your point about it not making sense for some of the smartest peoplke on the plane, going alomng with the lie. I guess It’s important to remember that many smart, well-intentioned people aren’t necessarily “in on” a grand lie but may be influenced by structural incentives, particularly when it comes to funding and career advancement. In academia and research, funding plays a massive role in determining which projects get pursued and published. Large-scale initiatives, like climate change research, often attract significant financial backing from governments, philanthropic organisations, and private donors. This isn’t inherently a problem, but it does create a system where certain narratives or approaches might be favored over others based on where the money flows. I like (and agree) with your last paragragh of a 1984 scenario being the lesser of two evils and one that avoids the potential of a catastrophe!

Whenever I get sent something like this, my first thought is always "I think I'll get a more reasoned view from @leicsmac "

Looks offside from this angle.

My view is that a point at Palace isn't a bad result with our current situation on and off the pitch. If you look at the Palace forum, they believe we are relegation fodder and are aggrieved they couldn't beat us, and i'm pretty sure every other club will be thinking the same. The style now is very much one of making us hard to beat, rather than attacking, fluid football at every opportunity. It's obviously dividing opinion but if we stay up, I personally don't care.

Palace just paid a fortune for Nketiah, have one of the most coveted wingers in the league, a centre back that Newcastle wanted to spend £40 plus million on and a young midfielder who is very highly rated. Meanwhile, we have taken two of their squad players who weren't regulars in their first team. A bit more perspective is needed I think.

We did invite them on to us granted, but I don't think they created much or our keeper making any miraculous saves. We were 2 minutes away from shutting them out and an individual error that cost us. I'm taking the positives. I'd be delighted if we finish 4th bottom to be honest.

We are treading a fine line. At this level, if we open up too much, we will get picked off and get pumped 3 or 4. The tactic is to be solid, strong and to try and stay in games. A lot of teams have more quality than us.

Do you realize where we are as a club right now? The issue seems to be that some fans have an unrealistic sense of entitlement, thinking we have a divine right to show up at Crystal Palace and easily beat them. We simply don’t have the squad for that! Let’s not forget, the last time we were in the Premier League, Crystal Palace beat us at their place, and they had the most shots in one half that they's had all seaon, in the first half! We also got thrashed 5-3 by Fulham that season. Expectations need to be more grounded.

We lost by 1 goal against Fulham, we drew with Spurs and drew with Palace, so we were competitive in energy game. Did you not watch them?

We'll be more attacking at home. You've got to stay in games in this division.. if you go too gung ho you can find yourself 2 or 3 down in a blink of an eye and the game is done. I'm happy that we have been competitive in every game so far.

Is it not just the case that if Coady hadn't have been so stupid, we would have got all 3 points?

Same here! This is baffling

Can someone confirm if it was definitely onside?

This thread needs closing FFS.

Seems a logical lineup. We're trying to stay in the game for as long as possible