Dion

Asymmetrical man thong or something to that effect.

Where did your forum alias inspiration come from? Do you enjoy having a hairy chest? Have you ever considered shaving it? Would you shave your arms and legs? Would you ever wear one of these?

@The Skipper, @Fulham Broadway, still on the topic about happiness. Transitory or enduring state? Is it possible to achieve sort of a permanent happiness? I don't mean you will be smiling and laughing all the time, shit happens after all. Someone you care about just died you won't be there high-fiving everyone. But I mean a permanent state where you can at least feel content, peaceful, grateful, satisfied. I don't think such a thing exists. You may experience such a state for perhaps a extended period of time - several months, maybe a couple years - but life is cyclical and I believe worse times must come so we don't forget to appreciate the good ones when we're living them. I also believe we grow desensitized if things don't change. There must be a bad for every good. There must be change. Also, I think every human being will develop new goals and needs to be fulfilled as times goes by and those things will eventually get in the way of one feeling truly complete, contented. It may be possible to permanently achieve a certain threshold of happiness but certainly not the utmost and completely satisfying level that everyone craves for.

It's more likely to wreck him mentally even further. Seeing what a striker should at least remotely look like and knowing he won't ever reach that level? Blondie is probably gonna cry on his bed every night. I won't even start to talk about Drogba. He's probably still got nightmares about him.

I wonder how would you know that :eyebrows:

I think two of the philosophical questions I like the most are "do we really have free will?" and "how real is everything we sense - can we really trust our senses to assess reality objectively?"

Between Hernandez and Remy I'd take the former if prices were close. I think Cuntarito is better, younger and brings a different dimension from Costa and DD, even though I hate him.

I'd really, really like Di Maria here. He's so underrated... IMO he was Argentina's best player in the WC. Problem is we're already stacked with AMs and he would cost a fortune so I'm not sure. I wouldn't mind buying him at all, but I think our squad looks good as it is. If we get rid of Torres maybe we could use Costa/Drogba/Bamford and save some bucks. I'd even call it an improvement over Torres. Probably the best option and what makes more sense from a financial point of view. We'd have a proven and reaching his peak striker in Costa, a proven and experienced striker in DD and a young and promising one who is probably already better than Torres in Bamford.

That would be a possibility. It would get pretty insane if there were nuclear bombs involved from Israel and Iran.

I wasn't. I'm saying that no matter how awesome that may look if we discard the costs of those 3 players, it still only pays for Torres fee, which helps putting in perspective how bad of a business the blondie turned out to be.

In other words, if we don't consider Matic, Salah and Zouma, all these awesome pieces of business could only finally recover what we payed for Torres in fee. It just goes to show how terrible of a buying he was.

That's what I meant by better player. I was totally expecting him to be more of a slower and get the ball to the back of the net with limited technical ability kind of player.

Any individual highlights video?

I must admit he's playing better and looking to be a better player than I expected, granted I'm only watching highlights because my internet sucks for streams right now. I just hope this isn't one of those misleading pre-season performances.

I also find it funny when israelis talk about fighting terrorism and not compromising with terrorist groups when they had the "paramilitary" group Haganah/Irgun - it never ceases to amaze me which groups history decides to name terrorist or paramilitary/freedom fighters/resistance/militia/whatever.

If none of them is going to interfere I can only assume Palestinians are definitely doomed. The israeli right wing only grows stronger by the day. Extremists gather more and more followers in both sides, which only takes us further away from peace and will only bring more attacks and hatred. But what pisses me off more than anything else about this is that jews should know better than anyone else how it feels to be expelled from your own land and to be discriminated against. Or how it feels to have another people try to exterminate your own people. Hypocrisy doesn't even come close to describe the situation. When they were weaker and minority in Palestine, this was not the way they were treated. I mean, there were of course problems here and there, as one should expect from two different groups living together, but not government enforced discrimination like what we're seeing now. Human stupidity annoys me like no other.

I never said it was a religious war. But muslim countries seem the most probable candidates to care about what happens to the palestinians. I also didn't mean only the countries who share borders. Does Iran care, for example?

How likely is it for muslim countries to interfere military again in the conflict if Israel goes on with this massacre? How attached are they to the palestinians, who are fellow muslims? Realistically speaking, I can see only two outcomes to this. Israel killing the last palestinian and nobody giving a shit or muslim countries deciding it's enough and wiping Israel from existance.

How can you guys forget to mention Schweinsteiger amongst the best players in Germany is beyond me.

If teams are waiting for a counter, we have all the time in the world to build plays as long as we keep possession, and a partnership of Matic and Fabregas are the best we have to give us exactly that, pace would be good but not a must - stamina is a must for pretty much any pivot player though. On the other hand, teams that attack and give us counters leave more space behind, their defenses will usually sit a bit higher up for compactness or else they will leave a big gap between midfield and defense. In that kind of situation long passes and through balls are even deadlier than in the first. Pace is absolutely not needed in the pivot for counter-attacks, the players on the receiving end of passes are the ones who must be pacey, the ball can travel faster in a pass than any Ramires or Usain Bolt could do while running in possession. For those reasons I think it works in both situations. Mourinho probably thinks that's possible as well. And he's testing Fabregas there against weak teams in the preseason, sides that are expected to give us a parked bus circumstance, which should provide a rough idea to how it may work. Of course nobody is giving these games much importance and teams who are going to park the bus in the PL are stronger than those we're facing right now, but still.

I disagree. I think Torres and Liverpool jersey are a perfect match, both are shit.

Probably the same reason I had when I did it. I was curious to know how I'd look like if I went bald or shaved my head but I ended up hating it

This. Now I realize it's England's fault we didn't have Suarez and Cavani as our strikers this year. But I was looking for what he was talking about and it seems he's "correct". Way back in the past, in colonial times, Ecuador was much bigger than that. And their territory would go up to somewhere in Rio Amazonas, so the western part of our Amazonas state used to be spanish territory. We didn't take a lot but from looking at the map I'd say maybe about 15% or so of Amazonas state was a contested territory by Ecuador, however they signed a peace treaty about it in 1904. And if I understood it correctly, the reason why we don't share borders there anymore is because Peru and Colombia took a lot of land from them consequently making we lose territorial contact. But now that I think about it, it's weird he mentioned us and not Colombia since what we took was very minor, everything (Peru and Colombia) considered.

It must have been way back in the past. Probably colonial times, when Ecuador was more like Spanish territory and when borders meant a lot less. I'm scrolling through articles about our territorial expansion and I can't find anything about Ecuador at all. I have found a treaty but no robbery yet.

Did we? I must have missed that history class because we don't even share borders with Ecuador.