Bit of a rewriting of history here isn't there? He had three terrific seasons, followed by one under par, then left three games into his fifth season? So basically three incredible seasons, and one bad. His time should be remembered as an overwhelming success, even if he is the type of character that can ruin perceptions very quickly.

In a nutshell. Good point. This is another indicator that it could never happen. I mean, a 14 team League, they'd have to play each other 4 times per season, with little scope for domestic cups. They are essentially just plotting a Football equivalent to the Davies Cup (to replace the Champion's League) where the "Super clubs" can never not be in the top tier, thus ensuring they get minted whilst the smaller clubs that usually qualify for the Champion's no longer receive anything.

Other sources suggesting this would be a replacement for the Champion's League. Seems the incredibly greedy and corrupt "Super Clubs" in Europe aren't happy at having to share the money pot between 32 teams. Guardian also reporting that Real Madrid would own 17% of the "Super League Group" business, with Barcelona owning 14% and Man United 12%. How on earth does that work? Unbelievable on one hand, but the greed and arrogance of these clubs never ceases to amaze....

You just got annoyed with me and then told me to lighten up. Are you looking at my pint?

If you don't, would it be so difficult to not enter the thread and mind your own business? No disrespect intended.

Interesting how you perceive that I believe I have an answer for everything when I have not given one "answer" in this entire thread. All I have done is speak about other people's theories. What does that say eh? (And in my original post that quoted you I was asking you to cite where anybody had suggested that "computer, man or god" had been the "boss," as you stated in your post.)

In it's purest form the Simulation Theory goes back as far as 500 odd BC I think, but we're risking getting all Brent/ Dostoevsky now. You remember that we were talking about Dostoevsky earlier? Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky. Born 1821. Died 1881.

Who mentioned man, computers or God being "boss?"

Absolutely, it seems incredibly obvious when you analyse with a little bit of depth, but again, we can only analyse such things with an incredibly limited bandwidth of perception. Taking into account that we are capable of creating and running simulations, along with the fact there is (beyond reasonable doubt) more intelligent life forms than ourselves (including in our direct surroundings that we cannot perceive) who can also create simulations (more advanced and detailed than our own), there can only be one "base reality." The stastical possibility of that being our own "reality" is incredibly low. Physics therefore would just be "rules of the software," which again, makes perfect sense. Get well soon Glenn.

Statistically speaking this is the most probable and likely theory that humans have come up with. It's estimated that by the year 2050 we'll have created AI more intelligent than ourselves. They will be able to understand and perceive things that we, it's creators cannot. People often think of "God" as a divine being better than those he created. However, perhaps we were created by a less intelligent being? What to you is a "brain" may well be to another race nothing more than a microchip.

They won't, because human beings are not biologically equipped to perceive nor understand such things. There are life forms that will look upon us as and our intellect as if we were less than the smallest piece of bacteria that exists within our band of perception.

Exactly. Like I said earlier, whilst the moral code may be very different and viewed upon very differently, Islamic Extremism and Atheism as concepts are both as ridiculous as each other.

Science has no idea. I have explained the reason why numerous times in this thread. Ask a Scientest or a Doctor enough questions (which usually isn't many) on a subject and the answer will eventually retort to "we don't know" or "chance." Science can tell you the cause of the disability in the body, but not why the body has been subjected to the cause. Some people believe in fate, some in consequence. Nobody knows which, if any, of these two is the reality. Like I said.. "anything outside of the 0.0003%..."

He died in 1924. It's more likely that I'm Kafka reincarnated. Keep up.

Interesting. So now you've stated that "anyone who doesn't find his comments offensive will hopefully be reincarnated as a slug." As you well know, I don't believe his comments are offensive, so you are saying that you hope that I reincarnate as a slug? Hmmmm. Hipocrisy indeed.

How did it infringe on another's reputation? If you call me an idiot, that infringes my reputation, but you're more than welcome to do it, and i shouldn't think you'd lose your job for doing it. When you sing vile songs at a football match, it infringes on "another's" reputation, but I don't see many arrests for this. When you come on here slagging other people off, you "infringe the reputation" of others, so what are the consequences? If it had been perceived that he'd committed a hate crime, he would have been charged and potentially arrested. You've tried to suggest that my entire argument is based upon freedom of speech. It clearly isn't. You've tried to suggest that Hoddle presented his opinions as fact. He clearly didn't. The problem is, you're trying to win an argument, but only one person is arguing. I have no intention of changing your opinions or beliefs. I'm just defending the right of "another" to express his, whilst trying to understand the true reason why people find them offensive. At the same time I'm expressing my counter opinions to express why I don't feel his comments are at all offensive. It's called a "discussion."

You're incapable of making a single post without trying to manipulate what I've said in order to try and make your own point stronger. I've made many long and detailed posts explaining my point of view, and if you're are indeed capable of engaging them directly without reverting to "so what you're saying is" type comments, then be my guest. I've made it explicitly clear exactly what I think, so if you're incapable of understanding/ or unable to respond directly to comments I've made, then I'd suggest you go and reply to things you can debate with a degree of competence. Otherwise I'm not willing to waste any more time trying to have a conversation with you. I can't really spell things out any clearer than I have done in the dozen odd posts I've made. There are no grey areas within what I've said. You don't need to second guess any of it.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, and nobody can tell you it's right or wrong. You haven't responded to any of my points though. You have however stated that his beliefs are "ridiculous." Surely to hold such a strong opinion you would be able to state pretty clearly and concisely why they are ridiculous, much in the same way as you could tell me why you think a player is a bad player.

I knew exactly what he said from start to finish, and have done for many, many years. Again you have made presumptions and altered the reality in order to suit your own agenda. When he says "'I do believe spiritually we have to progress because we've been here before. The physical body is just an overcoat for your spirit. At death you take the overcoat off and your spirit will go on to another life in a spirit dimension," this is fundamental Buddhism philosophy. The seven dimensional realms though which we progress and regress, as well as the lack of attachment to the physical body. This philosophy has been adapted to many modern religions and philosophies, and are the basic foundations upon which reincarnation theories are based. Again, you have added things that I never said, and treated them as direct quotes from myself. You have also said that "he thinks it's a fact." He's explicitly stated that it's his belief. I will say it again; you're just making presumptions that contradict the reality in order to suit your own agenda.

What's offensive? Do you believe in past lives? If not you can just dismiss it. Do you believe in multiple lives but don't believe that previous karma is carried from one life to another? Fine, argue that. Do you believe in anything? If not, absolutely fine. I'm not sure why anyone would be offended by what he said? I'm not dismissing your right to be offended, I just disagree. If somebody said to you "the reason you're crap at something is because of something you did in a past life," would it bother you? If somebody said to you "because of that riskay racist joke you made you'll be subjected to racial discrimination in your next life," would that offend you? You either believe it, or you don't. Or you believe it as a possibility, or you don't. Who cares if Glenn Hoddle thinks you're in a wheel chair because of sins in a past life? He's not said that people in wheelchairs are bad people. It's his belief that your spirit transcends from one physical body to another, experiencing the positive and negative consequences of previous actions and lives along the way. I don't really see the harm if this is what he believes. Again, the reality is, people are offended because they believe he should think differently. I don't believe that people should think they have the right to determine how others should think. You're entitled to disagree.

A minute a go you said that he said it was a fact. I pointed out that he said it was his belief. In was correct. You twisted it to make your own argument seem stronger. I know exactly what I'm defending, however, you have no idea what you're attacking. Do you know the first thing about the concept of Reincarnation? Of course not. You're just arguing based on your initial reaction to something. That's your prerogative, but in my opinion it's not the type of stance nor attitude that will particularly help in contributing anything meaningful to the world.

But I don't believe it's offensive. I have explained in great detail why I think this. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression by it's very nature allows us to speak with the risk of offending others.

He starts the entire passage with "it is my belief that...." You have conveniently cut that part out. How much clearer can it be?

The bit in bold is a direct quote from yourself? How on earth can I create that? Your entire argument has been based on science being the foundation of why Hoddle's views and anybody else's views (that aren't based on Science/ atheism) are wrong. I'm simply stating why that's a ridiculous stance to carry.

When did he ever state that his opinions on Karma and Reincarnation were facts?