-A-

I really hope they ditch this time travel nonsense as soon as possible, I absolutely detest it as a plot device and the holes are starting to appear already. Unfortunately it seems as if it's going to become quite central to the plot

How does the difficulty work with vocals on Rock Band? Is there just more leeway in hitting the notes? I'm completely oblivious to how the system actually works...

Somewhere Harvey Weinstein is cackling with glee.

Christian Shepard (if he's alive) seems to have only just re-emerged, so it's possible that the same process that healed Locke and the rest, resurrects people over a longer timescale, so they could bring him back in the final series (or something.) Of course, that opens the door to anyone dead on the island coming back down the line. Might seem like a bit of a cheap tactic, but I'd almost be surprised if they ididn't do it at some point down the line.

Try it. Sharp seems to be one of those players the big clubs actually have interest in signing. In my Millwall game, Man Utd signed him after a couple of seasons and he was getting games for a couple of seasons. After a couple of seasons rotting in the reserves I bought him on the cheap, rejuvenated him and sold him back to them for a decent amount of credit in my Rooney deal.

Something that somebody on another forum rang quite true with me - it's quite likely that Charlie is one of the 'other two' since he actually made contact with the outside world - Penny. After reading the transcript of what Jack said in the courtroom, he doesn't actually imply that the 'other two' died immediately after the crash as I thought first time round, there's the possibility that they survived for some time and that Kate 'tried to save them' later on.

I've been trying to figure out why they'd claim that 8 people survived the crash with two dying, rather than saying that they were the only survivors. There's the possibility that they brought two bodies back with them for some reason - perhaps 8 people made the decision to leave/were forced to leave and two died en route. There has to be a very definite reason why they'd say this, which is why I find it quite interesting. TMM: Why would they bother to say that another 2 people survived? They have to be claiming that everyone else from the original plane flight is dead or society would demand that another rescue be attempted, which is what the Oceanic 6 seem to be trying to avoid. I'm basing all my thinking on this '8 survivors' lie around the idea that they don't want people paying too much attention to the island, which means that they're aware that whoever's left on the island doesn't want to be rescued, or they're being compelled by something very powerful (knowing Jack, in particular.) Re Kate's Pregnancy: They've been on the island for 4 months already; if the Oceanic 6 leave the island at the end of the series that'll be approximately 5-6 months and plenty of women aren't visibly pregnant at 2-3 months (a premature birth could mean there's more leeway.) There's also the very obvious fact that the outside world might believe they've been on the island for more than that 5-6 months because of time distortion. Jimmy: why do you say that Kate had to be 8 months pregnant? They've been on the island for over 100 days I think. I think Lost has settled into a pattern that I find slightly reassuring given how laden with questions the first few episodes have been, relative to how many they've answered. The necessity for there to be a big climax to each series means that the beginning of the next season is spent explaining exactly what the conundrums presented by the previous series are (NOT on actually explaining them, that happens in the lead-up to the next finale.) The hatch was put into context, the truth about the Others was put into context and now the flash-forwards are being put into context.

How are people making judgements about 'intent'? How can you possibly know what he was thinking and is that even relevant to the length of ban? The entire purpose of a ban is to cut down on the dangerous tackles, no matter what's going through the player's head. You can't legislate for 'intent,' you can only make decisions based on the tackle itself. Likewise, when deciding what kind of punishment the defender should get, the injury sustained is irrelevant, it's the tackle. It's the same problem with penalty decisions and diving - the referee should be looking at whether the defending player committed a foul, not whether the attacking player went to ground. Taylor was very close to getting the ball, it was a situation where Eduardo got a touch on the ball just beforehand, making it look like Taylor's tackle was worse than it was. Compare a scenario where a defender makes a tackle and misses by a couple of inches, which is one kind of faulty timing, to another where the tackle's perfectly timed but the attacking player gets a touch a fraction of a second before the tackle comes in. Neither is necessarily more poorly timed than the other, but in the situation where the player gets a touch, the ball is further away and the tackle is seen to be worse by the crude 'how far away the ball was when contact's made' standard. The FA should look at the tackle in real time and look purely at Taylor's tackle, how far away from success the tackle was and how high his foot was. Also taken into account should be the fact that he went in 'studs up,' the damage to Eduardo is completely irrelevant.

He's a cheat for managing a Premier League club without having achieved his Pro License.

I'm not really interested in the tactics sided of things by any means, but I've had loads of success with a defensive, counter-attacking, direct 5-3-2 system like this: All you need are two strikers as pacy as possible, and an AMC with high creativity (rather than one that provides a goal threat himself.) Unfortunately, if you've got the players for a 4-4-2 it's hard to play a system without wingers, but it's surprisingly effective to stick them in at the wing-back position until you can change your players. My left hand MC is fully defensive and my right hand MC is more attacking. I sometimes get draws against teams I should handily beat, but you can put the AMC behind the strikers and make the wingbacks run futher to make it more attacking.

Was Gallas chewing gum? Is that normal?

Here's a less gruesome picture that shows where the ball was:

How is that a foul from Adebayor? He was inches away from heading the ball and Maik Taylor jumped into him if anything. Andy Gray is such a zealot, he'll never accept that anything could be a matter of opinion, or not clear-cut.

I can't understand why Alex Ferguson's blaming agents for Wes Brown not signing a (reported, and therefore probably less than) £40,000/week contract. It's not his agent's fault if he's telling Wes that Newcastle will probably throw £60,000/week and a guaranteed first team place at him, blame Newcastle!

If they made kidnapping and rape legal it'd really make my day.

Oh well, fuck it then.