Premier League 2024/25

[Blarmy]

6 hours ago, Finnegan said:

Imo Son is the most unlikeable footballer in world football that most people seem to think is likeable. 

 

I appreciate that's a slightly niche category haha. But everyone I talk to seems to like the guy. He's a diving, cheating, moaning, whinging, dirty little bastard. 

 

I also think he’s a diving, cheating, whinging,  dirty little bastard.

[JimJams]

1 hour ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Just seen Maddison scored in the last minute when the game was already won. Water is also wet.

To he fair he'd only been on for 14 minutes.

[Aus Fox]

1 hour ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Just seen Maddison scored in the last minute when the game was already won. Water is also wet.

Without being that guy, technically speaking water itself is not wet. When a solid comes into contact with water or a liquid, it becomes wet.

[PhillippaT]

29 minutes ago, Blarmy said:

I also think he’s a diving, cheating, whinging,  dirty little bastard.

And that was before he'd even had breakfast...

[PhillippaT]

14 minutes ago, Aus Fox said:

Without being that guy, technically speaking water itself is not wet. When a solid comes into contact with water or a liquid, it becomes wet.

Unfortunately, I am that woman, (because I'm much better informed due to work done by a friend (who lives in Leicester)) - and I recognise and understand the difference between considering anything from either a universe or human-centric perspective.  The problem, is that, as human beings, we can NEVER perceive anything AS the universe, and therefore anything based upon such a perspective MUST be wrong FOR humanity.

 

Not considering water wet exists within a perspective from the universe, not humanity, where we DO perceive water as being wet, directly - because of the effect the WATER (and other liquids) has upon what it comes in contact with, regardless of any other context.  Water (and many other other liquids) is indeed wet and transfers that property to things when it comes in contact with them.  It does not cease to be wet at any point, in itself.  We perceive water as having such a property, directly, based on our touch of it.  That other things becoming wet is a property that can be gained or lost in relation to such liquids, is the entire point.

 

This is NOT a unique situation or problem, unfortunately, and it's affecting a LOT more than just the property of 'wet' for water.  Although the nature and existence of of properties is the most obvious symptom in itself, there are others that are even more fundamental, and even being made by academia itself, though you'd expect those involved in such a manner would actually know better.

 

Academia makes this mistake, because, in an attempt to remove the influence of 'individual subjectivity' from affecting many of the type of things being studied and described, it often goes too far, and removes human perspective entirely, even though that's impossible for any human being recognise.  This problem is exactly how and why academia doesn't fully recognise and understand what mathematics truly is FOR humanity - (merely a matter of content, like anything else within that context) - and by trying to treat it solely as something we perceive, (or only apply), is to deny any and all human interpretation of creating numbers etc. to describe what we perceive - numbers that we haven't always had (the number zero being only a couple of hundred years old!)  

 

For a similar problem to that of water being wet, however, there is the perception of 'impossible colours' which makes exactly the same mistake - trying to consider the existence of properties that require human interpretation, completely separately from such context.  Colours, like every other property of things (or any other concept) requires our subjective interpretation of what we perceive - a matter of thought caused by such perception that then includes our imagination in combination. Humanity creates abstractions of everything perceived and imagined and its within this abstraction that such differences between things, their properties, things of happening + properties etc. are created.  The universe knows nothing of properties, only different things (and ultimately different forms of energy) that have them.  But this is why trying to treat properties of things etc. AS things, etc., is often the most fundamental mistake of all.

[HereBeFoxes]

Also, it was a slamming free kick. 

[Izzy]

4 minutes ago, PhillippaT said:

Unfortunately, I am that woman, (because I'm much better informed due to work done by a friend (who lives in Leicester)) - and I recognise and understand the difference between considering anything from either a universe or human-centric perspective.  The problem, is that, as human beings, we can NEVER perceive anything AS the universe, and therefore anything based upon such a perspective MUST be wrong FOR humanity.

 

Not considering water wet exists within a perspective from the universe, not humanity, where we DO perceive water as being wet, directly - because of the effect the WATER (and other liquids) has upon what it comes in contact with, regardless of any other context.  Water (and many other other liquids) is indeed wet and transfers that property to things when it comes in contact with them.  It does not cease to be wet at any point, in itself.  We perceive water as having such a property, directly, based on our touch of it.  That other things becoming wet is a property that can be gained or lost in relation to such liquids, is the entire point.

 

This is NOT a unique situation or problem, unfortunately, and it's affecting a LOT more than just the property of 'wet' for water.  Although the nature and existence of of properties is the most obvious symptom in itself, there are others that are even more fundamental, and even being made by academia itself, though you'd expect those involved in such a manner would actually know better.

 

Academia makes this mistake, because, in an attempt to remove the influence of 'individual subjectivity' from affecting many of the type of things being studied and described, it often goes too far, and removes human perspective entirely, even though that's impossible for any human being recognise.  This problem is exactly how and why academia doesn't fully recognise and understand what mathematics truly is FOR humanity - (merely a matter of content, like anything else within that context) - and by trying to treat it solely as something we perceive, (or only apply), is to deny any and all human interpretation of creating numbers etc. to describe what we perceive - numbers that we haven't always had (the number zero being only a couple of hundred years old!)  

 

For a similar problem to that of water being wet, however, there is the perception of 'impossible colours' which makes exactly the same mistake - trying to consider the existence of properties that require human interpretation, completely separately from such context.  Colours, like every other property of things (or any other concept) requires our subjective interpretation of what we perceive - a matter of thought caused by such perception that then includes our imagination in combination. Humanity creates abstractions of everything perceived and imagined and its within this abstraction that such differences between things, their properties, things of happening + properties etc. are created.  The universe knows nothing of properties, only different things (and ultimately different forms of energy) that have them.  But this is why trying to treat properties of things etc. AS things, etc., is often the most fundamental mistake of all.

And here's me thinking I was in the Premier League thread 

[PhillippaT]

11 minutes ago, Izzy said:

And here's me thinking I was in the Premier League thread 

I can think of a few properties that our team has right now, too  

[Aus Fox]

8 hours ago, PhillippaT said:

Unfortunately, I am that woman, (because I'm much better informed due to work done by a friend (who lives in Leicester)) - and I recognise and understand the difference between considering anything from either a universe or human-centric perspective.  The problem, is that, as human beings, we can NEVER perceive anything AS the universe, and therefore anything based upon such a perspective MUST be wrong FOR humanity.

 

Not considering water wet exists within a perspective from the universe, not humanity, where we DO perceive water as being wet, directly - because of the effect the WATER (and other liquids) has upon what it comes in contact with, regardless of any other context.  Water (and many other other liquids) is indeed wet and transfers that property to things when it comes in contact with them.  It does not cease to be wet at any point, in itself.  We perceive water as having such a property, directly, based on our touch of it.  That other things becoming wet is a property that can be gained or lost in relation to such liquids, is the entire point.

 

This is NOT a unique situation or problem, unfortunately, and it's affecting a LOT more than just the property of 'wet' for water.  Although the nature and existence of of properties is the most obvious symptom in itself, there are others that are even more fundamental, and even being made by academia itself, though you'd expect those involved in such a manner would actually know better.

 

Academia makes this mistake, because, in an attempt to remove the influence of 'individual subjectivity' from affecting many of the type of things being studied and described, it often goes too far, and removes human perspective entirely, even though that's impossible for any human being recognise.  This problem is exactly how and why academia doesn't fully recognise and understand what mathematics truly is FOR humanity - (merely a matter of content, like anything else within that context) - and by trying to treat it solely as something we perceive, (or only apply), is to deny any and all human interpretation of creating numbers etc. to describe what we perceive - numbers that we haven't always had (the number zero being only a couple of hundred years old!)  

 

For a similar problem to that of water being wet, however, there is the perception of 'impossible colours' which makes exactly the same mistake - trying to consider the existence of properties that require human interpretation, completely separately from such context.  Colours, like every other property of things (or any other concept) requires our subjective interpretation of what we perceive - a matter of thought caused by such perception that then includes our imagination in combination. Humanity creates abstractions of everything perceived and imagined and its within this abstraction that such differences between things, their properties, things of happening + properties etc. are created.  The universe knows nothing of properties, only different things (and ultimately different forms of energy) that have them.  But this is why trying to treat properties of things etc. AS things, etc., is often the most fundamental mistake of all.

So fundamentally you’re saying we only persevere the game to be already won when James Maddison slots in a last minute free-kick because as humans we can only interpret the properties of games as won or lost late on and in fact the game was not and will not be won until the ultimate final whistle blows.

[Greg2607]

so is water wet or what? 

[Jack1993]

10 hours ago, PhillippaT said:

Unfortunately, I am that woman, (because I'm much better informed due to work done by a friend (who lives in Leicester)) - and I recognise and understand the difference between considering anything from either a universe or human-centric perspective.  The problem, is that, as human beings, we can NEVER perceive anything AS the universe, and therefore anything based upon such a perspective MUST be wrong FOR humanity.

 

Not considering water wet exists within a perspective from the universe, not humanity, where we DO perceive water as being wet, directly - because of the effect the WATER (and other liquids) has upon what it comes in contact with, regardless of any other context.  Water (and many other other liquids) is indeed wet and transfers that property to things when it comes in contact with them.  It does not cease to be wet at any point, in itself.  We perceive water as having such a property, directly, based on our touch of it.  That other things becoming wet is a property that can be gained or lost in relation to such liquids, is the entire point.

 

This is NOT a unique situation or problem, unfortunately, and it's affecting a LOT more than just the property of 'wet' for water.  Although the nature and existence of of properties is the most obvious symptom in itself, there are others that are even more fundamental, and even being made by academia itself, though you'd expect those involved in such a manner would actually know better.

 

Academia makes this mistake, because, in an attempt to remove the influence of 'individual subjectivity' from affecting many of the type of things being studied and described, it often goes too far, and removes human perspective entirely, even though that's impossible for any human being recognise.  This problem is exactly how and why academia doesn't fully recognise and understand what mathematics truly is FOR humanity - (merely a matter of content, like anything else within that context) - and by trying to treat it solely as something we perceive, (or only apply), is to deny any and all human interpretation of creating numbers etc. to describe what we perceive - numbers that we haven't always had (the number zero being only a couple of hundred years old!)  

 

For a similar problem to that of water being wet, however, there is the perception of 'impossible colours' which makes exactly the same mistake - trying to consider the existence of properties that require human interpretation, completely separately from such context.  Colours, like every other property of things (or any other concept) requires our subjective interpretation of what we perceive - a matter of thought caused by such perception that then includes our imagination in combination. Humanity creates abstractions of everything perceived and imagined and its within this abstraction that such differences between things, their properties, things of happening + properties etc. are created.  The universe knows nothing of properties, only different things (and ultimately different forms of energy) that have them.  But this is why trying to treat properties of things etc. AS things, etc., is often the most fundamental mistake of all.

ffs, now I'm wet

[Super_horns]

Edu leaving Arsenal is a blow for them unless it’s planned.

[goose2010]

11 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

Edu leaving Arsenal is a blow for them unless it’s planned.

It was planned i think. 

 

Lots of rumours he is going to head up Marinaki's group. 

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, goose2010 said:

It was planned i think. 

 

Lots of rumours he is going to head up Marinaki's group. 

Brave man 

[goose2010]

3 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Brave man 

absolutely its a bizarre move but potentially massive for Forest.

[st albans fox]

Just now, goose2010 said:

absolutely its a bizarre move but potentially massive for Forest.

I doubt he’ll be going to take up the same role at forest that he had at arsenal 

likely be to head the whole group of clubs and take on a more ‘corporate role’

 

marinakis may be expecting something different though !

 

[Wymsey]

Are Forest and LCFC at both the same level, in terms of how 'big' of a club they are?..

[Lambert09]

1 hour ago, Wymsey said:

Are Forest and LCFC at both the same level, in terms of how 'big' of a club they are?..

problem with being a club our size is that we were never considered big. No matter what success we had, in the eyes of the majority it was a temporary thing.  There’s a reason we had to pay so astronomically for players, we were never considered a top destination. 

 

 

[Samilktray]

I wonder if arsenal will fancy rudkin to replace edu 

[JimJams]

4 hours ago, Jack1993 said:

ffs, now I'm wet

Pissed yourself?

[Facecloth]

Water isn't wet 

[CosbehFox]

O’Neil been given a lot of time and faith when you look at those stats excluding the tough start 

 

The signs of Wolves is very much lcfc two years ago

[winteriscoming]

2 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

O’Neil been given a lot of time and faith when you look at those stats excluding the tough start 

 

The signs of Wolves is very much lcfc two years ago

Can see them going for Conceicao if they get rid of O’Neil especially with the strong Portuguese links they have. 

[AKCJ]

2 minutes ago, winteriscoming said:

Can see them going for Conceicao if they get rid of O’Neil especially with the strong Portuguese links they have. 

Do those links still exist? 

[winteriscoming]

1 minute ago, AKCJ said:

Do those links still exist? 

I thought they did. Maybe they don’t.