|
Post by jdl on Dec 14, 2017 23:19:13 GMT
A debate about 3g pitches becomes a debate about loving or hating the EU!! Quality. To be fair it never reached the level of a debate, on 3g pitches or anything else.
It was started as information about a forthcoming meeting which, because of the weather, is still forthcoming. Not difficult to see how with nothing actually happening it got sidetracked.
Even so how we got sidetracked on to the EU escapes me as well.
Possibly this? "May be a psychological issue. When you oppose an idea that has been shown to have demonstrable value you either have to be big enough to admit you were wrong, or keep opposing it in the face of evidence."
|
|
|
3g update
Dec 15, 2017 3:31:01 GMT
via mobile
nws likes this
Post by pmhnot on Dec 15, 2017 3:31:01 GMT
Sounds like one of those between NWS and DaveU !!.
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Dec 15, 2017 7:36:47 GMT
Why bother with the facts when you can rely on fake news and good old fashioned prejudice
|
|
|
3g update
Dec 15, 2017 11:00:41 GMT
via mobile
Post by jdl on Dec 15, 2017 11:00:41 GMT
Why bother with the facts when you can rely on fake news and good old fashioned prejudice Is that you, Donald?
|
|
|
Post by Tstone on Dec 15, 2017 14:38:00 GMT
You trumped him there.
|
|
|
Post by nws on Dec 16, 2017 0:33:31 GMT
Unfortunately, not - to be prolific, you have to produce something tangible - a 'thing' (or things, as, technically, as a single thing would hardly be being prolific!). Goals are tangible things, strikes, I would argue, are not. A strike is just a kick of the ball - some may consider it having the purpose of becoming a goal, others may consider it merely a misplaced attempt, or even just a pass - or in some cases, an inexplicable volley into row YY. It only becomes a tangible product/thing/creation when it results in a goal - at which point, of course it stops being a strike and becomes an entirely different entity - a goal. All footballers (well. OK, most footballers) kick the ball frequently during a game - you might even say it's their job - but are any of them 'prolific' at kicking a ball? Clearly not. Ippso facto, you can be a prolific goal scorer, but not a prolific striker (or defender, or midfielder*). You can be a great striker, a clever striker, an awful striker, but you can't be a prolific striker. (*If anyone would like to argue if you can be a prolific goalkeeper, don't let me stop you...). Good case. Although how, for example, a fantastic knock down from a 40 yard pass to set up your fellow strike partner for an easy tap home could not be considered a tangible input to that goal is beyond me. Anyway, I am going to bed now as I am a prolific sleeper 😉 Sorry spurstone but it is a ridiculous argument he puts forward. A goal is no more tangible than a strike of a ball. If you strike a ball a lot you are a prolific striker. Tangible has nothing to do with it. You may wish to put in something about relativity to other players to define prolific.
|
|
|
Post by nws on Dec 16, 2017 0:34:41 GMT
tangible = touchable prolific = numerous I wondered when you would appear on this
|
|
|
Post by nws on Dec 16, 2017 0:37:38 GMT
A debate about 3g pitches becomes a debate about loving or hating the EU!! Quality. To be fair it never reached the level of a debate, on 3g pitches or anything else.
It was started as information about a forthcoming meeting which, because of the weather, is still forthcoming. Not difficult to see how with nothing actually happening it got sidetracked.
Even so how we got sidetracked on to the EU escapes me as well.
To go off-track even more can anyone please tell me why, in 2016, people frothed at the mouth to get Parliamentary Sovereignty and then, in 2017, are frothing at the mouth because they got....er....Parliamentary Sovereignty?
|
|
|
3g update
Dec 16, 2017 1:26:17 GMT
via mobile
nws likes this
Post by spurstone on Dec 16, 2017 1:26:17 GMT
Good case. Although how, for example, a fantastic knock down from a 40 yard pass to set up your fellow strike partner for an easy tap home could not be considered a tangible input to that goal is beyond me. Anyway, I am going to bed now as I am a prolific sleeper 😉 Sorry spurstone but it is a ridiculous argument he puts forward. A goal is no more tangible than a strike of a ball. If you strike a ball a lot you are a prolific striker. Tangible has nothing to do with it. You may wish to put in something about relativity to other players to define prolific. I agree with you it is a ridiculous argument NWS. I just thought it was a good case put forward in support of the argument. I like that.
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Dec 16, 2017 8:24:51 GMT
To be fair it never reached the level of a debate, on 3g pitches or anything else.
It was started as information about a forthcoming meeting which, because of the weather, is still forthcoming. Not difficult to see how with nothing actually happening it got sidetracked.
Even so how we got sidetracked on to the EU escapes me as well.
To go off-track even more can anyone please tell me why, in 2016, people frothed at the mouth to get Parliamentary Sovereignty and then, in 2017, are frothing at the mouth because they got....er....Parliamentary Sovereignty? Well, try to imagine Jay promising the signing of a prolific new striker leading us to the promised land of the EFL and then ending up with a 'has been' like Danny Kedwell
|
|
|
Post by daveu on Dec 16, 2017 10:22:01 GMT
To be fair it never reached the level of a debate, on 3g pitches or anything else.
It was started as information about a forthcoming meeting which, because of the weather, is still forthcoming. Not difficult to see how with nothing actually happening it got sidetracked.
Even so how we got sidetracked on to the EU escapes me as well.
To go off-track even more can anyone please tell me why, in 2016, people frothed at the mouth to get Parliamentary Sovereignty and then, in 2017, are frothing at the mouth because they got....er....Parliamentary Sovereignty? Even as a confirmed remainer I can see their point. Like it or not, the country voted to leave. To now come up with ways of blocking it seems anti-democratic.
|
|
|
Post by nws on Dec 16, 2017 12:27:38 GMT
To go off-track even more can anyone please tell me why, in 2016, people frothed at the mouth to get Parliamentary Sovereignty and then, in 2017, are frothing at the mouth because they got....er....Parliamentary Sovereignty? Even as a confirmed remainer I can see their point. Like it or not, the country voted to leave. To now come up with ways of blocking it seems anti-democratic. I suppose it does, indeed, depend on intention. The vote was to leave and that must be upheld not blocked through process. However, it should not be upheld at all costs. Having watched the negotiating debacle unfold I would not want my future, or indeed, the future of my children left in the hands of a handful of people, none of which I see as particularly competent. The vote to leave was not taken by people on one issue but one of the central issues was that they wanted Parliament to have it's sovereignty back. yet when Parliament has voted to have debate and greater widespread sovereignty over an issue of supreme national importance those same people that called for sovereignty are wanting it sidelined so they can get their own way. If that is what happens and is called democracy then why can it not - logically - be argued that majority rules and the idea of minority rights (in this case 48% minority) no longer exists. I think such a day would be a sad and dangerous one, particularly given our media's ability to lie and influence.
|
|
|
Post by nws on Dec 16, 2017 12:33:15 GMT
To go off-track even more can anyone please tell me why, in 2016, people frothed at the mouth to get Parliamentary Sovereignty and then, in 2017, are frothing at the mouth because they got....er....Parliamentary Sovereignty? Well, try to imagine Jay promising the signing of a prolific new striker leading us to the promised land of the EFL and then ending up with a 'has been' like Danny Kedwell This is a poor analogy. People campaigned for parliamentary sovereignty and have got it but then complained. Your analogy would thus have to be People asking for Danny Kedwell, getting Danny Kedwell and then complaining. However, in an air of Christmas forgiving, I will say that I can see where you are going with this one.
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Dec 16, 2017 14:11:22 GMT
To go off-track even more can anyone please tell me why, in 2016, people frothed at the mouth to get Parliamentary Sovereignty and then, in 2017, are frothing at the mouth because they got....er....Parliamentary Sovereignty? Even as a confirmed remainer I can see their point. Like it or not, the country voted to leave. To now come up with ways of blocking it seems anti-democratic. Leaving aside whether you're Leaver or Remain, the referendum was a balls-up: 1) 37% of the electorate voted to Leave (most without the faintest idea of what they were voting for - or simply against immigration). You can't even call a strike on an under 40% vote. In every other democracy around the world, no constitutional decision like this can be taken without the vote passing an electoral threshold - sometimes 50% (of the electorate), usually 2/3rds in parliament. It may have been 'democratic' in the narrowest sense, but it certainly wasn't constitutional - or fair. 2) 48% of those who voted, voted to stay - how does 'the voice of the people' exclude nearly half of the people? (And Farage publicly stated, prior to the referendum, that a 52/48% result would be too close to accept, and there would need to be a second referendum.) 3) It was an ADVISORY referendum - we live in a Parliamentary democracy. We are going to hell in a handcart because the hard-right in the Tories have got May by her non-existent balls - it has nothing to do with democracy.
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Dec 16, 2017 14:12:57 GMT
Sorry spurstone but it is a ridiculous argument he puts forward. A goal is no more tangible than a strike of a ball. If you strike a ball a lot you are a prolific striker. Tangible has nothing to do with it. You may wish to put in something about relativity to other players to define prolific. I agree with you it is a ridiculous argument NWS. I just thought it was a good case put forward in support of the argument. I like that. Not a ridiculous argument at all - just the dictionary definition of 'prolific' - you can't be prolific unless you are creating/producing something, not (possibly) assisting someone else to do so.
|
|