|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 10, 2023 20:39:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 10, 2023 18:55:27 GMT
8 Ace
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 10, 2023 13:52:41 GMT
Kin hell mate, so we’re told that all these demonstrations are just about peace and solidarity with the Palestinians and absolutely nothing to do with support for Hamas… but then when a bloke in attendance gets attacked for saying Hamas are terrorists it’s his fault for “stirring up trouble”. Talk about blaming the victim. Why would a sign saying Hamas are terrorists stir up trouble and incite violence at march of solidarity with Palestinians - the people who arguably suffer most at the hands of said terrorists? PotterLog you've expressed no sympathy for 10,000 innocent civillians which have been murdered. I have no interest in debating with a zionist who supports the murder of civillains. I referenced two examples where I seen people join protests and try to create trouble. Not surprisingly the zionist who turns a blind eye to 10,000 innocent civillians being killed only focuses on one. I have no interest on commenting on a video clearly cropped showing small extracts but not showing what he's saying or doing between the breaks in the video. Off and celebrate more People being bombed. I've no time for your strawman arguments. Wow. Some of you lot need to step away from the internet for a bit
|
|
|
Israel
Nov 10, 2023 13:26:31 GMT
via mobile
knype likes this
Post by PotterLog on Nov 10, 2023 13:26:31 GMT
For instance I seen this video last weekend of a guy in the middle of a protest with a big smirk on his face. I don't think he joined the protest because he wants a ceasefire. I think he did it because he wanted to try and incite trouble and get a headline. I imagine there'll be many more like him joining the Marches on Saturday to try and get a reaction or incite violence. And yes I do agree Hamas are terrorists but the point im making is the individual was there to stir trouble. He wasn't there for genuine reasons. He was there to provoke and to try and get his 20 second video to pain the Israel protestors in a bad light. Kin hell mate, so we’re told that all these demonstrations are just about peace and solidarity with the Palestinians and absolutely nothing to do with support for Hamas… but then when a bloke in attendance gets attacked for saying Hamas are terrorists it’s his fault for “stirring up trouble”. Talk about blaming the victim. Why would a sign saying Hamas are terrorists stir up trouble and incite violence at march of solidarity with Palestinians - the people who arguably suffer most at the hands of said terrorists?
|
|
|
Israel
Nov 9, 2023 15:54:26 GMT
Post by PotterLog on Nov 9, 2023 15:54:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 8, 2023 21:25:38 GMT
It was two identical profiles mate, that was the point of it. *edit, although that said, in that particular case it could just be that the person responded first to the white woman and had already decided they wanted her to have the room, thus resulting in the negative response to the next person who enquired. That would be quite the coincidence across all 210 examples...😄 Of course, I was just referring to the one specific example cited in the OP. Presumably they randomised the order the enquiries were sent it across the board.
|
|
|
Israel
Nov 8, 2023 20:21:41 GMT
Post by PotterLog on Nov 8, 2023 20:21:41 GMT
Chris Williamson proving to be just as big a cnut as he was as my local MP It's so utterly disgusting to invoke the holocaust, concentration camps and being "worse than the Nazis" about the world's only Jewish state, at war with a genocidal neighbour who have literally the exact same aims as the Nazis - and indeed made a start on their endeavour exactly a month ago. What a way to mark the anniversary. I imagine a lot of people do it carelessly or unthinkingly but it's no surprise coming from this bloke.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 8, 2023 18:09:48 GMT
One email doesn’t tell a story, of course. The 36% reduction in positive responses for blacks begins to tell one though. What is the possible reason for not renting to someone based on the color of their skin? This story would be more compelling if the “experiment” had been repeated with multiple age/gender/BMI matched profiles across the spectrum of each variable. However, if two fake, profile matches people are applying for the same room and there is such a discrepancy in response across the couple of hundred messages sent, does that not highlight that there is still work to be done on social attitudes? The rejection could be down to a work situation, her as attitude, lots of things. It was two identical profiles mate, that was the point of it. *edit, although that said, in that particular case it could just be that the person responded first to the white woman and had already decided they wanted her to have the room, thus resulting in the negative response to the next person who enquired.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 8, 2023 18:02:41 GMT
😂 🙄 just what this thread needs We got 127 pages in before it went completely cuckoo, that's not that bad I think that’s debatable but point taken 🥲
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 8, 2023 17:51:24 GMT
Which is why the initial massacre was allowed to happen in the first place in my opinion. The alternative being that one of the best intelligence services in the world was somehow blindsided by people flying in on hand-gliders. Similar to 9/11 😂 🙄 just what this thread needs
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 8, 2023 15:01:26 GMT
The other day I used an aerosol disinfectant to clean something and for some weird reason the smell sent a chill down my spine... took me a few moments to reasons it was a lockdown flashback
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 8, 2023 14:53:50 GMT
I can think of a few Stoke-related ones but they may be best avoided...
|
|
|
Israel
Nov 8, 2023 14:20:43 GMT
via mobile
Post by PotterLog on Nov 8, 2023 14:20:43 GMT
I'm still lost for words. I hate Hamas with every breath I take but that is now how I feel about the Zionist state of Israel. Since WW2, this is now turning out to be as brutal and and cruel as what the Yanks did in Vietnam. I'm now hoping as far as Israel is concerned, that the outcome for Israel is a carbon copy of what happened in Vietnam. And no, I am not anti-Semitic... I'm anti-Zionist. OS. What does that mean OS? What would the overall outcome be
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 8, 2023 11:40:46 GMT
Why would he, hardly a rivalry with Port Vale during his time with us, they were just another lower league club. Probably never heard of them like most people
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 8, 2023 0:59:29 GMT
Come back James all is forgiven
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 8, 2023 0:58:28 GMT
A depressing number of people are going to think that’s real.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 7, 2023 20:47:39 GMT
Ok The Auto Glass trophy isn’t the ultimate accolade But bloody hell we enjoyed it at the time And for all it’s lowly status the mental on the away end when that free kick went in was up there with the really great ones RIP Paul It's one of the great things about proper fan culture that "lowly" achievements are celebrated and remembered just as gleefully as the major ones. The '93 title season won't be beaten for a lot of Stoke fans.. I love the fact that we still sing about the Autoglass, and I bet the longer-in-the-tooth Man City fans have just as fond memories of their 3rd div playoff win as they do of their recent glories. And those players will be legit club legends, just as Warey is for us.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 7, 2023 19:18:15 GMT
Plymouth away fans, what legends 👏🏼
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 6, 2023 19:05:04 GMT
Yeah I don't know anything about that, I was just pointing out that the data taken at face value shows a much more significant improvement than just "5%". Still, I don't find it hard to believe, even taking into account all the errors and questionable decisions we've seen. Apart from anything else the scrutiny has increased enormously so things that we would have barely noticed before are now outrageous howlers - to go back again to that released audio about the Liverpool offside, they dropped a massive bollock, it was all over twitter, they were suspended etc etc, but at the end of the day it was just a very tight offside decision, barely discernible to the naked eye even on the replay, the like of which we would have had dozens of every weekend previously. The thing is, if the offside is so marginal that you're not sure if it's even offside, why is it so important figuring out if he was an inch offside with his hand? He's not gained anything by it, and the old rule where you give the advantage to the attacker was good enough for most cases. It used to take half a second to look at the linesman to figure out if it was offside, now it's 4-5 minutes! I even think 30 seconds is too much. They're spending several minutes drawing lines (that aren't even straight according to tele lens experts) too in some insane pursuit of "fairness" that only takes away the excitement and immediacy of the game. And I strongly suspect these numbers are exaggerated. Who came up with them? We all see how much different the decisions from still frames and slow motion viewing is compared to watching situastions in realtime. Do these coount as "improving" the amount of "right" decisions"? And it makes it worse for the fans at the stadium. Fuck the gamblers and the TV plastic "supporters" craving more and more ridiculous measurements to see if it was "fair". What happened to "it evens out over the season"? It sure as hell hasn't made the fairness for smaller clubs any better. I'd argue it's worse now than ever for them. I completely agree regarding the marginal offsides (although you can’t be offside with a hand) - I’m just not sure there’s a satisfactory solution other than binning it off altogether and thereby accepting huge mistakes will continue to be made. The law is the law and if the tech is capable of discerning things, what’s the justification for *not* using it in certain instances? And again, who decides which ones are “obvious” and which ones aren’t? You say “why is it so important”? but imagine if a goal was scored against Stoke which to you looks clearly offside, but they decided not to properly review it because it didn’t look an “obvious” enough error. The only way out would be down your wobbly lines route, where they come out and say the technology is not precise enough to determine when there is less than xxxx distance involved - but as they’ve been using it like that for years already, I can’t see that being an option somehow. They believe it’s accurate 🤷🏼♂️
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 6, 2023 16:02:31 GMT
That's looking at it the wrong way round. Previously 7% of decisions were wrong - that's now been massively reduced to 1%. So before VAR one in every 14 game-changing decisions against you would be wrong, whereas now it's one in a hundred. That's a huge difference. Who, and how were they judged to be 'right' or 'wrong' What is right and wrong seems to be subjective in a lot of the cases. For example, would the penalties Wolves conceded in the last 2 games now be considered right or wrong, if the answer is 'right' then something is clearly wrong! and that would mean the data analysis is questionable at best. Yeah I don't know anything about that, I was just pointing out that the data taken at face value shows a much more significant improvement than just "5%". Still, I don't find it hard to believe, even taking into account all the errors and questionable decisions we've seen. Apart from anything else the scrutiny has increased enormously so things that we would have barely noticed before are now outrageous howlers - to go back again to that released audio about the Liverpool offside, they dropped a massive bollock, it was all over twitter, they were suspended etc etc, but at the end of the day it was just a very tight offside decision, barely discernible to the naked eye even on the replay, the like of which we would have had dozens of every weekend previously.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 6, 2023 14:48:09 GMT
“Decision accuracy before & after VAR (study of 972 games worldwide) Accuracy before VAR 93 per cent Accuracy after VAR 98.8 per cent” That’s a worldwide stat done a few years ago, I recall last season it being referred to by Howard Webb stating the premier league was in the high 90’s post var and was in the 80’s pre. There is lots of stats and data that back it up. Think it’s had a bad couple of months VAR in the premier league, undoubtedly being blown out of all proportion and false insinuations like I say. Over all decision accuracy has vastly improved. I think 93% by refs is impressive, 5% more by technology- meh. Especially given the negative impact it's had on 'a fans game experience' and given that two thirds of fans aren't in favour of VAR. Also its still getting the big decisions wrong which is what most fans assumed would improve. That's looking at it the wrong way round. Previously 7% of decisions were wrong - that's now been massively reduced to 1%. So before VAR one in every 14 game-changing decisions against you would be wrong, whereas now it's one in a hundred. That's a huge difference.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 6, 2023 14:31:33 GMT
Isn’t there some sort of automated system (might have been used in the World Cup) which effectively eliminates human error which is what is making VAR so terrible? The refs and especially linos in the Premier League are generally very good (unlike the EFL). VAR is supposed to help them but it is simply making things worse. There is way more controversy over VAR than there ever was over incorrect refereeing decisions and they’re still getting it wrong. So it’s obviously not working. Time to try something else. PS I wish we’d got it in the Championship though. We’d be about 5 points better of this season at least. We’d have had a few pennos at least. Not convinced that would mean we’d have any more points though 😆
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 6, 2023 14:30:25 GMT
There will be whining but there always will be. We’ve shown VAR doesn’t work. It was a bad experiment and the results are in. Fuck it off. They make it work abroad. It's the idiots in the English game running it that are the issue. Our referees are terrible so no wonder the VAR is - it's the same blokes running it. I would never have brought it in other than goal line technology. It isn't going anywhere, we're stuck with it. Dunna be daft, you think these same debates and complaints aren’t being made everywhere in the world? We’re no different. Madrid fans call their rivals VARcelona
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 6, 2023 11:33:28 GMT
set a time limit. if the VAR official can't clear it up after 90 seconds, it's not a clear and obvious error so stick with the on field officials decision. I would make it even more stringent. 30secs is plenty. If you can't spot an obvious error in 30 secs then the original decision stands. Not going to happen though. Once you give people technology they tend to over-analyse. But all that will do is make it more controversial and prone to error - what’s the protocol for those 30 seconds? What does “obvious error” mean? What if it takes 10 seconds longer than normal to get the replay up and running for some reason? Imagine the fan or manager or pundit who sees one replay, thinks it’s clear as day that there was an obvious error but the VAR is looking at another angle which sheds a different light on it and can’t make a decision in the time available… think of the uproar after that.. it really wouldn’t solve anything. In fact if that released audio taught us anything it’s that the officials should *not* be rushed into making hasty decisions in the name of keeping the game flowing. It just leads to more mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 6, 2023 0:36:35 GMT
Have we had a shout for McCoys yet? Grab bag of mcC’s S&V, god damn
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 5, 2023 21:07:48 GMT
The happiest people I've met were the mentally retarded in Cheddleton when I spent six months on maintenance there. They were in their own heaven during autumn when squads of three were sent into the woods to clean up leaves - one with a wheelbarrow, one with a brush, and one with a size 10's shovel. Inner peace is only sought by people who live a troubled life. They had no worries. OS. Even when they said OldStokie can we take these chains off now, we’re hungry
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 5, 2023 21:03:21 GMT
Don’t compare yourself to anyone else Easier said than done, but you’re a much better person than you think you are Well said. In fact I knew you’d say it better than I could ffs
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 5, 2023 16:01:15 GMT
Christ, 85 was bleak. I was born in the August, me old man must’ve been pulling his hair out. Bet he was annoyed about Stoke as well
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 5, 2023 14:55:58 GMT
How do you feel about it? For or against? Please give reasons for your viewpoint. Also, I know this is difficult, but please try and avoid being partisan. It was hilarious when Chelsea had that equaliser riled out in the cup final but try and avoid those feelings in response. 🙂 I think that the laws of the game need to catch up to VAR. Offside is a good example. The whole point was to stop people standing in the box all game and gaining unfair advantages. How much of an advantage is there is your left arse cheek is offside? If they want to make it more precise, then the laws of the game should be altered to keep it reasonable (i.e., whole body offside (or 50%)). Edit: apologies. This was covered above. I should have just read the thread in full and liked the comment. And then the problem with changing the rules to suit VAR is that 99% of football matches played don’t use it
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 5, 2023 13:12:30 GMT
There is a negative, cognitive bias with all of this. No-one praises it when it makes the correct decisions. It doesn't sell newspapers or grab headlines. It's like customer service. When it is going well, very few people write glowing reviews. Yet if a service is poor, item not received etc, all hell breaks loose - people complain, write negative reviews all over the internet etc. I love VAR. Overall the decisions are better. Yes there is controversy. This is as a result of the decisions being better, the few mistakes stand out more in the the higher level of scrutiny We are in the 21st century, all other sports incorporate similar technology successfully and football can improve too. It just about better training. The cognitive bias thing is a great point that I always think about linos anyway, regardless of VAR. People gripe about them but the number of times they get tight offside decisions correct while running down the line at full pelt is amazing. After being very VAR-sceptic at the beginning I’m just about in favour of it although it needs to be constantly reviewed and improved.. the thing is there aren’t any easy answers. It’s easy to say things like “if it’s not clear after 30 seconds…” but you have to really think through the practicalities.. think of the extra pressure that puts on the VARs to decide quickly whether something is “clear” (defined how?) or not, for example, and the extra errors and uncertainty that could lead to. With offsides it’s similar. I still hate these toenail-length offsides that goals get ruled out for, but how can you resolve that if the tech is there to get the decision right? Especially given that with such tight decisions it’s basically a lottery which way the on-field liner calls it. One thing I definitely think needs looking at is the protocols of the decision-makers. On that released audio from the incorrect offside decision against Liverpool a couple of weeks ago it seemed to me they were really not following any verbal protocols to check that everyone was on the same page - I was expecting an almost air traffic control style interaction where each party confirms what the original decision was, how and why it’s changed etc before a formal handover back to the ref, but it was all very informal and hasty, and it was easy to see how they got confused when there was no standardised script in place to double-check everything. I definitely agree the genie is out of the bottle whatever happens, it ain’t going anywhere now.
|
|