peterw

9 minutes ago, fightoffyour said:

Good job there's no linesmen then. I presume there won't be in the actual matches either, I believe it's one of the new rules to uphold safety and integrity - up to the forwards to admit if they were offside or not like park football (spoiler: they never are).

Probably still more accurate than VAR.

9 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

It’s an interesting one. Was Ghandi any more racist to non Hindus than say Nelson Mandela was to non black people? I know it’s an extreme example but I’m surprised  by this attack on his statue to be honest.  

I always thought the world loved Ghandi as he’s portrayed as a hero in the media.

Will have to try and do some more reading on this one. 

For the record I don’t care about any statues. I’m just having a discussion.  @snowychap you tend to know everything. Any thoughts?

In india Ghandi isn't overwhelmingly popular with all Indians. The nationalist Hindu's for example (not all but taking a group that do not identify with him). You may call them hardliners, but there is a voice that believe Ghandi was too anti-Hindu and pro-muslim especially around the time of partition. Modi's BJP appeals to the nationalist vote for their power base, but it also means he has to give a voice or a platform for those that agitate against Ghandi's legacy, or for those that want to promote a harder line across India on religious lines (death penalty for killing a cow for example).

Don't get me wrong, Ghandi is hugely popular but many people, usually of a poorer background, are either not interested in him or allow his memory to be tranished for their own right-wing agenda, which is ironic given his own questionable racist background in South Africa. However, it did also appear that he attempted to disavow or separate from those early views, something which Churchill never did.

Tulips, although associated with the Netherlands, are actually a Turkish flower and it was Turkey that originally imported the flower to the Netherlands.

Nice move and finish, the forward who knocked it back to trezeguet looked a mile offside, though.

I think that davis should be utilised similar to the way that Vassell was.  he matches up with size and is clearly strong enough to hold up the ball, and unlike many strikers we have had since Vassell i have seen none who run the channels as well as Davis does. Add to that his one attribute that no-one else in the first team squad has - pace - then I would also start him v Sheff Utd and ask him to play in that Vassell role of running channels and being predominantly wide a la henry when we are shifting from defence to attack and to run at players committing them and looking to bring in Samatta/midfield runners. i think he could be the glue that hold it together leaving jack free to be the one feeding the players.  

13 hours ago, villalad21 said:

Look what happened with Adama and Gueye. Players we deemed not good enough.

I know some on here rated them but many didn't.

 

Gueye left because Everton came in for him despite us wanting him to stay. Same as Adama, we wanted him to stay but Boro came in for him  in the Prem and off he went. Not quite as black and white as you're trying to paint.

Mosquitoes. The w*nkers.

Exactly. Crimea is Russian, move on. They no longer have the will for a protracted to stay in Ukraine especially now that Ukraine joining NATO/EU  is further away than ever.

2 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

But you deplore it. If I said I deplore equal marriage that is me rejecting it.

That's up to you. I deplore veganism as it applies to me. Not someone's right to be one, or that it exists.

Because I'm not one. I didn't say that I reject someone's right to be a vegan. That's up to them.

19 hours ago, Davkaus said:

If the best argument you've got is that shit occurs in nature, you may as well go on a murdering spree. Stealing is alright as well, squirrels do that shit all of the time. Typically we hold humans to higher standards than animals that have no concept of morality. 

 

The militant vegan is as annoying as a militant anything else, but the vast majority of the times I talk about it it's because someone else starts a conversation, says something demonstrably wrong, then gets all arsey about me "preaching" when I correct them. Militant meat eater, keep it to yourselves! 

There's no problem with someone being a vegan, the world is full of people doing different things and each one is as valuable and rich as the next. The varied tapestry of life. But I object to Veganism, if there is such a phrase, being wheeled out as some sort of revolutionary life-expanding, planet saving cure for our ills. It is a life style choice, nothing more. It should receive the same amount of airtime saved for people doing similar things which they think is best for them. I feel no guilt as being an animal eater because I'm an animal. It's what I do. I deplore veganism, but don't point fingers at you and say you're destroying this that or the other, nor that your way of thinking is so far better than the rest that we should just all follow suit. 

meat eaters take the pee, I get that, but its mostly a ridicule based on not understanding that you are different. A militant meat eater doesn't get angry, just confused. Now a militant, or even a what they consider themselves to be a 'moderate' veggie/vegan are more inclined to leab towards the 'you're wrong and i hate you' line of defence. 

Apart from the good people here of course. And the vegans/veggies that just are that. Live and let live and not propaganda monkeys.

11 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

I do feel your pain.

I was also a guilty meat eater.

Once you’ve come over to the good side you’ll feel such a mug about writing out these cruel thoughts. Which are actually just your own guilt. Like a monkey or a child lashing out because they know they still have a lot of evolving to do.

We’re here for you once you’re ready. We forgive you, and we love you.

I'm going to find you. I'm going to find you and eat you.

There are lots of sites you can check

http://uacrisis.org/73956-weekly-update-ukraine-35-4-10-november

https://tass.com/world/1078764

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/12/ukraine-russia-emmanuel-macron-angela-merkel

Russia has 'made its point' with the West regarding Ukraine and does not want to get further bogged down in Ukraine and Ukrainian politics. its foreign policy agenda now lies elsewhere, and this isn't a popular internal piece of Russian resistance as it was 2/3 years ago.

Animal cruelty my ar*e! Do they care about the mouse toyed with by the cat until it's bored and killed? I doubt it. Or the caterpillars that are injected by a wasp to carry their larvae until the are old enough to eat their way out? Probably not. Or the toad/frog that is seduced by the odour of a type of grub that attaches itself to said animal and eats it alive? Pfft, they say. Why? Because it's nature. Its cruel and we're part of it. Right at the top of it to try and minimise the cruelty inflicted upon us. Abstain by all means, but keep your (vegans/veganism - not aimed at anyone in particular here) self-satisfied smugness to yourselves. I don't share my fetishes with you, don't share yours with me.

oh Jesus, how could i forget those tw*ts?

we are able to identify and 'see' in around a thousand or so differing shades so its unlikely that one green size would fit all.

Vegans. Veganuary or whatever nonsense they come up with. So bloody pious thinking they have the secret to eternal life and happiness when they're just annoying.

8 hours ago, limpid said:

We don't see the world in colour at all. Your eyes aren't cameras.

What you "see" is a mental construct made up from all available data sources. A social construct tells you that what I call "green", you call "green". How that is actually imaged in your mental representation isn't as important as the social construct.

Well that's semantics, its the 'is water wet'? argument

the eye is a receptor and whilst it relies on all available data a deaf person living on their own on a desert island would still have a receptor constructing an image of the world around them. What word they use to describe what they see isn't the point being raised. The eye takes in what we know as yellow and blue particles and it develops from there. The question here is is my red strawberry, what you see as the colour blue, not the semantic construction or the position of ourselves amongst the world we live in.

"would you like regular"?

"no, medium please".

"can i take your name"

"Yes, yes you can"

(both wait for seconds for completely different things).

do we all see the world in the same colour? i don't mean some with colour blindness but deeper than that. Is someone's green another's yellow for example; one person's red another person's blue. We would never know. The world, literally as we see it, may be unique to us.

smoke and mirrors. The russian economy is nowehre near the level of what they like the world to believe, and there's noway the are developing hypersonic missiles to any degree of completion. they're trying to disengage from Ukraine/Syria because they're stretched enough as it is.