Jump to content

dylanisabaddog

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    9,606

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    45

Posts posted by dylanisabaddog

  1. Posted

    11 minutes ago, Northluck C said:

    Early on during our current winning streak at home I made the mental association that I’d always entered the ground through turnstile 46 during this run. So for the last half dozen or so home games I’ve made sure to enter through that turnstile, even if it has the longest queue of the batch. 
     

    The bad news is - I’m sitting in a different part of the ground today, so we’re doomed! 

    What!! Oh God😱

    • Haha 1

  3. Posted

    15 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

    Hadn’t the donors given the money to the Tories?

    Yes they had donated the money to the Conservative Party. Menzies stole it and used it for personal purposes. 

  4. Posted

    57 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

    So because she had a harder upbringing that gives her the right to not pay the taxes she owes? The fact other people are also doing it isn’t really much of a defence.

    I’ll agree the amounts involved are rather trivial, but she has often been the first to attack any Tory MP accused of any misdemeanour, no matter how big or slight. If you’re going to do that you’d better make sure there’s no skeletons in your cupboard otherwise you justifiably leave yourself open to accusations of hypocrisy.

    Shes been happy to attack the Tories and label them as scum, she can’t really complain when they eye an opportunity to return the favour.

    You are quite right of course. I think the problem is that the Conservative Party has been sitting on this for some time whilst throwing stones at Rayner. That doesn't excuse what Rayner has done either but what concerns me is the wall to wall media coverage of one compared to the other 

    Screenshot_20240420_070139_X.thumb.jpg.942bf2ac742809c5a883f67c6d0665a9.jpg

     

  6. Posted

    12 hours ago, Herman said:

    Sunak's new "sick note" policy.

    Announce daft new policy adding another pointless layer of bureaucracy.

    Give a fat government contract to his mate to sort it.

    His mate makes a mess of it through incompetence, corruption and/or an unwillingness to admit it was a stupid idea in the first place.

    His mate walks away with a lot of cash while the taxpayer pays to sort it out.

    An inquiry is set up to find out what went wrong.

    I listened to this in amazement yesterday. The simple question is why not put the money it would cost into the current system?

    The one thing that everybody who discussed it yesterday failed to mention was the role of the employer. They're in business to make money, not to act as social workers. They want staff who want to work. I'm sure there are people out there who are taking advantage of the rest of us but if I was running a business I really wouldn't want the hassle of trying to make them work. 

    • Like 1

  7. Posted · Edited by dylanisabaddog

    19 hours ago, TheRock said:

    Could the Iran/Israel escalation in the Middle East be a major catalyst in deciding the US election?

    There may well come a time when American people decide they've had enough of sorting out the world's problems. Trump could decide to run with that opinion. 

    • Like 1

  8. Posted

    9 hours ago, horsefly said:

    Sorry old boy! I have absolutely no idea how that could have happened as the quote was taken straight from LYB's response to you (see above). I really can't explain how the system then attributed it to you as I certainly didn't. Would you like me to delete it so people don't get confused?

    That's OK! I think it's best left as a lesson to us all. But I'd imagine not many people will have read it. 

    The system allows you to quote someone then change what they have said!

    • Thanks 1

  9. Posted

    2 hours ago, horsefly said:

    I take it you haven't read the Bible or Koran then. Perhaps start with Leviticus and then return to tell me that misogyny and mistreatment of women is a "bolt on" rather than core to the religious doctrines. 

    Hello @horsefly

    I'm a bit baffled by the quote that you have attributed to me. Not something that I wrote! 

    Perhaps someone is having a silly game? 

    Screenshot_20240419_180929_Chrome.thumb.jpg.ab16f9113c07ea4e2fb99c619385a6b2.jpg

  10. Posted

    5 minutes ago, GodlyOtsemobor said:

    What am I ignoring? I want to know, come on, tell me.  Just tell me. 

    JUST TELL ME ALRIGHT!! WHAT.... AM.... I.... IGNORING!!!???? and can I record it? 

    You were number 700. Put it on your CV. Every little helps

    • Haha 1

  11. Posted

    2 hours ago, shefcanary said:

    The first South Stand cover I remember reading as being supported by the supporters club. As said above the seating was originally installed in 1974/75, before complete replacement in this century when it was effectively condemned by the local authority. The cost of the floodlights in the '50's that nearly broke the club and the wider role of key figures in the saving of the club is worthy of a video itself. No mention of Reeves' sale funding the River End, or Captain Barclay's support of the cover at what became "his" stand. Thus the development of the ground generally has been funded by fans.

    I hate to be too critical, because this is a fan's perspective on things. A nice start, but as a piece on local social history and heritage, there is a much, much bigger story to tell. This barely scratches the surface. I look forward to an Attanasio driven piece on the history of the club in a few years time.

    The sale of Reeves did i think help to finance the new stand. But I also remember buying some sort of bond that gave me first choice on seats. Which I'm sure is how I ended up with middle block row A upstairs. 

    At least that's how I remember it😂

  12. Posted

    1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

    No it hasn't; people arguing about it has. And people argue and kill each other over all sorts of things, including politics, resources, skin colour, you name it.

    Hitler wasn't religious, but criticised lots of religion and killed off  6,000,000 Jews in the name of disliking that one in particular, so that clearly wasn't actually about the existence or non-existence of a deity.

    The mistreatment of women in Islam is more to do with culture than religion. A friend remarked of a giant poster of a smiling female fighter pilot at Jordan airport (Princess Salma apparently), underlining that misogyny and mistreatment of women is a bolt on to the religion rather than a core part of it and some Muslim countries don't force women to wear niqabs, burqas or head wear.

    A growing number of Muslims support secularity and feminism; oddly, Western liberal progressives pay them little heed, in favour of generally favouring the rights of Islamic Conservatives.

    And much more sexual abuse happens that has nothing to do with religion. It happens in families, with carers, all over the place.

    Oh right. That's OK then, my mistake. I thought it was religion that killed all those people bit it's not. It turns out according to LYB that it's people arguing about religion. 

    I am going to join several others in simply not bothering with you anymore. 

    • Haha 1

  13. Posted

    16 minutes ago, Bobzilla said:

    I've got into an awkward situation.  I don't usually drink, and I don't drink at football, but I fancied a cider before the stoke game.  And we won.  An away game that we won.  So I thought 'well, there might be something in this'.  So I had a point of cider before the Ipswich game.  That we won.  

    Then I was at Preston, and the places to get a drink around the ground are all home fans only.  But I still went over to the Catholic social club to get my pint.  And we won.

    Now I'm stuck wondering whether I need to have one if I'm not watching live.  And also wondering how I'll manage it at Birmingham given the early kickoff.

    I share your pain. A couple of months ago I had a very uncomfortable afternoon at Carrow Road in a forgettable win. When I went to bed I realised I'd had my boxer shorts on back to front. At the next home game I told the people around me about this and they sent me off to the toilets to switch my pants round. This is quite clearly the reason for our upturn in fortunes. That and your cider. 

  14. Posted

    30 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

    Politics is divisive. Should that be banned?

    Kids are being brainwashed to entertain left wing ideology that their birth sex might be 'wrong'. Religion seems harmless in comparison.

    "Religion seems harmless in comparison" 

    That's absolutely laughable. Religion has historically been the root cause of millions of deaths. At the moment the Jews and the Muslims are killing each other in huge numbers in the Holy Land. Perhaps it will be renamed the Hatred Land. 

    Add to that the life changing sexual abuse in the Catholic Church which has affected an enormous number of people and the continued ill treatment of women of Muslim faith. 

    All this over what? A totally unnecessary imaginery friend in the sky. 

    • Like 2

  18. Posted

    6 hours ago, Herman said:

    It has been pointed out that he barely mentions the Conservative Party in his pamphlets etc. A toxic brand now. 

    We had a council by-election this time last year. The Tory candidates rebranded themselves 'Local Conservatives'. All 3 seats went to local Lib Dems. 

    • Like 1

  19. Posted · Edited by dylanisabaddog

    12 hours ago, shefcanary said:

    I just thought I'd lay out why pursuing this would be a difficult thing to do.

    There is a risk in that unless Brum are also "safe" from relegation at that point. If there is a possibility they could get relegated and we put out a "weakened" team and thus give Brum a potential "advantage" over other teams facing relegation, we could land up with a financial penalty or even risk a points deduction (although I think I am right in saying that this would be in a future season not this one because of the subjectivity over what is a "weakened" team).

    We have 22 players you could deem as "experienced" in our squad (at some point having started a game this season). Gibbs and Dimi are unlikely to be fit until next season, and Onel, Hanley and Lungi have not made a squad in a month.  If those latter three are fit, then sure, you could rest six of last week's starting line up without being deemed to start with a "weakened" team. However if any of them 3 do not make it back then the number of players you can rest reduces further to avoid such an accusation. This is where I think Wagner may have scored an own goal in not bringing players like Aboh and Welch on more often in recent weeks to prove they are truly part of our squad. With wholesale changes there would also be a change to the tactical set up as well which could undermine continuity. Finally there would also be a more than two week break between Swansea and the first leg of a play-off, after a long season a player could go stale in that time.

    The balance between keeping players sharp and fit and avoiding injuries is a difficult one to tread, so is avoiding the wrath of other clubs and the EFL.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/02/22/efl-introduce-new-rules-stop-teams-playing-weakened-sides/

    We simply need to include 10 outfield players in the 18 who played the game before. So 6 on the bench along with starting the back 4 is OK. 

    I'm sure Josh will be rested but I'd also definitely not play Sainz. He is fouled constantly and is also a red card risk. 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  20. Posted

    1 hour ago, essex canary said:

    Whether that would be good preparation for a play off semi is a moot point.

    There are various ways of looking at it. It's a good warm up for a possible play off game but - 

    Everyone is going to be trying to ensure they don't get injured. Players who are trying not to get hurt sometimes manage to do just that. 

    The only way to ensure no one gets injured is not to play them. James Maddison springs to mind. 

    There are 4 or 5 players we simply can't do without so they really shouldn't be risked. Top of the list is Sargent who should be sitting at home with his feet up. 

  22. Posted

    23 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

    Your

    Lack of belief is agnosticism; atheism is a rejection of an idea, but goes beyond reflection of simply monotheism, but also polytheism and also non-theistic metaphysical ideas like Buddhism.

    Nonsense. We'll all club together and buy you a dictionary for Christmas. 

    Screenshot_20240418_105554_Chrome.thumb.jpg.322bdf294622358cb9bbe6b01415890f.jpgScreenshot_20240418_105842_Chrome.thumb.jpg.55641148d62c215824a39a0f89bd7529.jpg

    • Like 1

  23. Posted

    12 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

    It's not complicated. Atheism definitively rules out anything if we can't comprehend it.

     

    Atheism is a lack of belief in God (or God's as there have been around 300 so far). It simply rules out God, nothing else. You can try and make it mean something else but you'd be wrong.

    You are entitled to your opinion but you are trying to change the simple meaning of a word to support your own views. 

     

  24. Posted

    12 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

    That particular article was posted on April 1st, and the 'confirmed' was the April fools joke, but the thinking is genuine; the scientific community genuinely believes it's about a 50/50 chance that what we experience actually is a simulation.

    This from Scientific American on the subject, but not on April 1st. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-live-in-a-simulation-chances-are-about-50-50/

    One small group of people in the scientific community believe there is a 50/50 chance we are living in a simulation. That is very different from 50% of the scientific community believing it. 

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...