Rayvin

Essentially your online presence can be summed up as 'SomeDave and a Fish'.

Actually your username origin story was a good one!

So bringing this back onto films worked out well... My g/f wants to see that Judy Dench film where she loses some kid or another and has to find him again... is that as bad as it looks? I have to watch it apparently because she sat through Pacific Rim...

How can that possibly be the avatar you've decided on...

I quite enjoyed that, people can be so creative with terminology when given the proper inspiration.

I'd argue that there isn't a moral difference per se, but that morals that direct behaviour outside of being a decent person to those around you are artificially created to perpetuate subservience to our 'betters' in the absence of religion. It's not like the writers for movies get paid per sale. They barely get paid at all. The 'system' lost the moral high ground with the advent of DRM anyway.

Only decent? I had really high hopes for it to be honest... not the kind of film I expected to enjoy, but I thought it'd be eye opening and unsettling. Boy do I love being unsettled.

It's a really tough one in my book - to be honest, I think the thing that's been proven with music is that if you make it available for a reasonable price, people will buy it rather than risk downloading it illegally. They still haven't got this set up properly with films IMO - You've got iTunes which is utterly awful (That condition that you need a specific kind of TV to download to a computer them stream up to the TV is utter bollocks - and I no longer use iTunes as a result - HDCP or something like that). iTunes is also extortionate though - I think Amazon will do it, I'd buy from them and they'd likely be cheaper than everyone else. Also, this is the people vs corporations - it's not like they don't screw us over at every opportunity. I'm generally ok with screwing corps over. Not that I download actually, but then I don't watch many films.

And thank you for that mental image...

Ah... wtf happened to Santon?

I truly and honestly thought your username was some kind of bizarre inneundo, possibly involving wanking. I assumed "Throbbing" under your avatar was a continuation of that. Can't believe it's something as mundane as a knot...

Having watched Swansea do a reasonable job against them in their last game, I don't see why we can't test them. It's not going to be a massacre by any stretch. Probably lose but only by a couple of goals I reckon.

Thanks for replies and sorry I duplicated the thread - I did an initial search but apparently a rubbish one. Found this really interesting though! It's cool how many people just went with whatever was immediately available to them mentally/whatever was lying around (CT). Also never been on a forum where so many people are comfortable using their actual names mind. I'm actually disappointed that you didn't come up with that fair enough though. I noticed on the twitter thread that your twitter account is thisdave - Specifically this one. Not that other one, fuck him.

Just wondering if anyone fancied shedding some light on why they have the usernames they have? I know some of them (Tom, Andrew, etc) are obvious (constellations, right?), but I have to wonder why for instance, we have someone called Christmas Tree. And Ayatollah Hermione (which I think is my personal favourite, certainly if it is indeed a simple combination of an Islamic cleric and Hermione Grainger). There's also a lot of people named after animals which I've not seen before and is slightly bizarre. (Not Fish, but 'The' Fish. Why 'The'?) So for me - it's just a long standing internet alias; it used to be Ravenblade after the video game that never was, but it's morphed over time. I decided that this forum was more 'real' than a lot of others I'd been part of, and that Rayvin would give me a more human sounding edge (in that it could be shortened to Ray if needed). Anyway, just curious (and apparently slightly crazed).

Does that come out before or after tax?

Well fair enough, but that only mirrors what you see at every other club. He wouldn't let Cabaye go for £10m over the summer and as a result we're benefiting from a strong season from him. If his policy is to buy low, raise the price through long contracts and good performances, and then sell at the right time then so be it. You could argue that such an approach actually has the club's interest at it's core rather than his - he could sell earlier into the contract for a faster return if he was prepared to drop a few million from the asking price. If you're saying he'll take a lower price at the end of the contract, how is that different as far as he's concerned with taking lower prices mid way through the contract? Say Cabaye is worth £20m now, and Arsenal offered £10m in the summer. In a year's time, Cabaye will be entering into the final year of his contract, so his value will fall to what? £10m? Why wouldn't Ashley just take that now if all he cared about was the financials (and technically, £10m now is worth more than £10m in a years time) There's only two possibilities in my mind: 1 - He's holding out in the hope of receiving bigger offer while the players are at peak value 2 - He actually sees the value of the players to the long term success of the club, and therefore while he could sell earlier, he's choosing not to unless we receive a really good offer that can assist the club in replacing the player. I just think that on some level, it's not just about recouping the money through transfers, it's about recouping it through making the club sustainable.

Does look like a nice pie though

it does all seem very half-hearted. We should get that Gene guy back to show them how it's done.

Jermain Defoe signed for Toronto...

He's absolved himself of any responsibility again the craven bastard.

Manchester City striker Edin Dzeko: "We are getting better all the time. It's not easy to win 5-0 at home against a Premier League team but we did. "Was it 6-0? Oh."

Surely he'll just give it up. He must know there's no coming back from this.

Y'know what, Barcelona aren't going to put City out easily. I know West Ham are God awful but...City are immense.

...Ouch.

West Ham with 28% possession so far...