As someone who has a commute home via Wembley . I approve of this . <| sep |> He is either parodying me or something . Either way making fun of someone just because they are ugly like me is unacceptable . I am a human being I deserve respect , no matter how hideous my face is . <| sep |> Agreed . The only time most of our fans made any noise was to give a player abuse . We barely encouragesing for the players , but we ' re quick to berate them . Although it does depend where you sit . North Bank is pretty decent <| sep |> The knockout blow would be if KZ actually has some integrity and looks at tests that go against Avery as inculpatory and instead of twisting them into some convoluted explanation just says he did it , nothing more I can do , I ' m out . She gets just as much proKZ publicity that way as if she had actually exonerated him . The testing is potentially winwin for her . The C 14 test authors actually claim a year or less as their error band . But when you look at their data , they use a very unusual statistically error calculation to paint themselves in the best possible light . The papers they publish show the error as either Median Absolute Deviation or Mean Absolute Deviation , which are only slightly different , and basically take the absolute value of the deviation and then represent the midpoint of the data as their error . This means that 50 % of the data falls outside their represented error is larger error so this is less than one standard deviation which would encompass about 23 of the data . This is kind of an alarm bell to me , as most researchers would represent at least 2 standard deviations which would encompass about 95 % of the data or 3 standard deviations about 99 . 7 % of the data . Bottom line , their error is far larger than they represent . There is a ready explanation if the age calculates to post 2005 . the sample was contaminated with something containing carbon that was more recent . The problem is going to be if it comes back with something in between the dates of interest , such as 2000 or 2001 , possibly within the error band if the blood age was either 1996 or 2005 . Each side would say it supports their case . However , they are testing enough different samples , hopefully with some replicates for each , that the distribution of results should fall around a point that is either 1996 or 2005 , with any luck .