DarkFruitsRam7

On 13/02/2024 at 06:01, nottingram said:

Think I’ve said it before but if it was called something like “chance quality” instead of expected goals then you’d have a lot less people poo-pooing it for whatever reason they do.

It’s not the be all and end all but can add context if you want it to. Does make me laugh when people will say it’s meaningless and then happily sit there quoting shots or shots on target.

This 1000 times over

21 hours ago, Red_Dawn said:

Anyone on here alive when Derby last won it? 

Very much doubt it

@sage

4 hours ago, David said:

If valuing the lives of children makes me an old fart so be it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackout_challenge

But that’s such a tiny, tiny element of the platform. Horrific, yes, but hardly a justification to shut the whole thing down.

Labradors have killed people but we don’t ban them. 

1 hour ago, David said:

You think it’s ok that kids are setting other gullible kids challenges to eat wash tablets, or how to self harm videos?

It’s a platform that has caused to many deaths already and needs to be wiped off the internet for good 

You sound like those old farts who hears one bad thing about the internet on the news and then tells everyone it should be shut down for good.

There's so much more to it than that.

3 hours ago, David said:

Twitter, probably the best of the bad bunch still for the latest news and football.

Facebook, the family zone where you get nothing but memories being shared or competitions entered.

Snapchat, for single teenagers and a place for OnlyFans content creators to avoid the tax man.

Instagram, images and videos, been ruined by turning it into a shopping site where you follow content creators, not just seeing what your mates are up to.

TikTok, attention seekers and gullible kids taking on life endangering challengers. The worst of the lot.

Threads, had promise to be the new Twitter, launched with missing key features and limited countries, subsequent releases over what the site is for shows it’s just another follow these content creators.

Nobody insults TikTok on my watch

6 hours ago, David said:

We’re over here deducting penalties from goal tally’s, whilst over in Leeds they are rocking up at players houses giving them abuse when they miss a penalty. 

In all seriousness, his behaviour on the pitch makes him a dislike-able character, however rocking up to his house is as you say disgraceful, even more so when it’s your own player!

Nothing Leeds fans do overly surprises me. You can screenshot this and share it with your Leeds mates on X @DarkFruitsRam7, I’m sure they will defend the behaviour as perfectly reasonable for anyone that misses a penalty.

Imagine the pressure that puts on the player taking them. Idiots.

Thank you for reminding me of that hilarious pile on. Still brings a smile to my face to this day.

1 hour ago, Carl Sagan said:

You post a link to internet censorship and then advocate adding to it? Do you really not think all governments engage in propaganda, and it's useful to listen to a diversity of voices to better understand what is going on in the world? I've had fascinating conversations with academics who travel the globe for conferences etc, discussing how very differently the Ukraine war is reported in different countries. And how badly it's reported in the US and UK.

People should be able to listen and make up their own minds, rather than being told what to believe. As @maxjamposted, there was 60 Minutes doing an interview with Putin a few years ago, but the world is now too polarized and the legacy media is on one side of that divide, and wouldn't dream of doing the same thing nowadays. But it is what a good journalist should do. Fine you might not think Tucker is a good journalist, but maybe he'll lead the way for a restoration of journalistic standards when someone else also goes out and does an interview?

Again, this isn't journalism. It will be a puff piece.

I learned years ago not to spend time arguing on the internet though, so I'll leave it there.

1 hour ago, Alph said:

I'm not having a dig or anything so I hope this comes across in the right way. 

But is it not important to hear from both sides or all possible angles rather than to allow one country or perspective to filter the news? 

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing Putin could say that would, for example, justify in my mind the war on Ukraine. Everything he says should be challenged and examined. But I also think by hearing him it encourages us to challenge and examine opposing views.

I would say the same about Hamas or Netenyahu too. Whether you approve of their behaviour or agree with their views won't change the fact that they are what they are. The problem isn't just going to vanish if you ignore them. The justice is kind of half way between the two kind of scenario. 

The point of my original post, which I kind of got lost on, isn't that the big problem is Putin being interviewed. It's the fact that I fear this is the beginning (or midpoint) of Musk becoming a shill for anyone who opposes what he deems "the deep state", who are apparently turning people gay to get more people to vote for Biden.

Hypothetical question: would you have advocated interviewing Hitler during the Second World War and broadcasting it on the radio?

6 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

I'm curious what you think is wrong with Tucker interviewing Putin. And it being broadcast live and unedited on Twitter. What brilliant transparency. Carlson has been by far the most watched political commentator in America, yet lost his voice when dumped by the legacy media.

In this age of new media, he can broadcast via his own channel, but the question is also one of discoverability. Hence those broadcasts also going out on Twitter (hence the watermark to distinguish you're viewing there rather than on his personal channel). The ratings for these pieces are much higher than the political commentary across all legacy news channels in America combined.

If it weren't for Musk, no one would be able to hear Tucker. Are you deciding on behalf of the very many tens of millions who tune in, that they shouldn't be able to? Surely he has a right to be heard?

Yes, because an interview with Vladimir’s Putin, that famous advocate of free speech, is likely to be a serious piece of journalism. You think Putin would allow this if it wasn’t going to be a puff piece? An American journalist is currently being detained in Russia for “espionage”. 

There’s literally a whole Wikipedia page dedicated to internet censorship in Russia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Russia

22 minutes ago, David said:

Is he that powerful? I mean he has money, a large social media platform and his own cult following yet the only real power he has is controlling what people see. Even then it's limited to the algorithm feed and search pages. 

I'm sure the US government is watching closely and can rein him in at any point. Can see Europe blocking X soon as well if things continue.

Controls what people see, as you say. Also in charge of getting us to Mars, and he’s behind Neuralink, which is putting chips in people’s brains. He also owns Starlink, which has already become relevant in the Russia-Ukraine war: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#:~:text=SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has,school instead of drone strikes.

You only have to watch Sunak’s fawning interview with him last year to see where the balance of power lies between Musk and the British Prime Minister, for example.

7 minutes ago, David said:

I would love to see an in depth explanation of how this deep state are turning kids into LGBTQ. 

Imagine having a few pints with these 2, be some wild discussions.

It would be funny if he wasn’t one of the most powerful people in the world. 

I think it’s becoming more apparent by the day that this man is going completely haywire and is potentially even a Russian shill. He now appears to be funding/facilitating an interview with Vladimir Putin - note the watermark in the bottom left.

And you can’t tell me this is an opinion of a sane man

She’s like your Elizabeth, @Van der MoodHoover

Appointed at Aberdeen

10 hours ago, Wolfie said:

A guilty pleasure of mine. To be honest, I often skip through a lot of the task stuff.

Highlight of the first epiosde was the lad that made an arse of himself by not understanding what refunds were, in the boardroom, and started clapping like they'd won.

7 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

Agreed. Easily the best episode is when the Claud etc. are ripping them apart over their business plans.

One of the things that irritates me (apart from Lord Sugar, his lame jokes and the contestants themselves of course) is some of the things they are judged on just to make it "good" entertainment. Is Lord Sugar really going to assess (and potentially eliminate) a candidate just because they're not very good at selling products on a market stall or don't know how to follow a cooking recipe? I try to convince myself that that's all just for the TV programme and the real assessments is done off camera. 🤷‍♀️

I read a tweet the other day suggesting that it's basically Love Island now.

People have seen that it can launch an influencer career (see Tom Skinner and Ryan-Mark Parsons, as well as the likes of Katie Hopkins if you go back further) and apply to the show for a shot at fame. The tweet also suggested that this is obvious from the quality (or lack thereof) of the contestants' business plans.

I've not watched it in years so would be curious to know if this is the case.

6 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

Chelsea showing how it doesn’t matter how much you spend, if you spend it poorly, you suffer.

Pochettino is also vastly overrated. 

Seen a tweet the other day suggesting that he had a tactical edge at Southampton and Spurs because he was a Bielsa disciple. But the game has progressed quickly and that edge no longer exists, which makes him pretty ordinary. 

40 minutes ago, YouRams said:

Fury looked in good shape I don't think anyone will fear Usyk after Dubois got robbed against him. In fairness it should be Dubois vs Ngannou for the undisputed heavy weight titles if boxing wasn't so corrupt.

The rumour is Fury is getting knocked about in sparring.

5 hours ago, i-Ram said:

No, no, no. He was a pretty decent player, but he has not been on his game for 5 years. We have Washington and Waghorn supposedly back soon. That would be 3 average journeymen strikers, waiting for one above average journeyman striker to not be available. We missed out getting someone we needed. Gayle would just be a case of badly papering over cracks with expensive wallpaper.

My first thought was the same, but then you look at how Jordan Rhodes has done this year.

This is Derby though, so he'd almost certainly be crap.

11 hours ago, Topram said:

0% chance with the other clubs interested 

Fabrizio Romano is definitely ITK at times, but he's also a paid shill for agents (and Saudi), so it wouldn't surprise me if this is made up.

To be fair to Bielik, he pretty much kept us up with his run of appearances in the season we stayed up on the final day. Keeping us in the Championship for the admin season that followed may have had a bigger impact than we'll ever know.

4 minutes ago, Jubbs said:

3 years ago and had a couple of injuries since then. Wednesday fans don't like him either and say his legs are gone.

Incredibly uninspiring. Warne specifically said we were looking abroad at players, yet come the end of the window we're looking at ANOTHER Wednesday player, over the age of 30 and on big money. 

What's the scouting department doing? Or is Warne ignoring them?

Looking at Thomas' signings for Oxford, there's absolutely no correlation.

I think we’re in a bit of a bind with short-term vs long-term strategy. 

A smart, patient League One club with a long-term strategy doesn’t pay £300k to release a 26 year old League One winger from his contract a few months early. But it sounds like we really need to get promoted sooner rather than later. And if the CBT signing and other short-term moves get us promoted, it may all be worth it.

The question is, if we were to get promoted, I have no idea if we would be more strategic or we’d just carry on with the scattergun approach.  

Not sure why this is being mocked. I thought he did a pretty good job for us when we were struggling in the Championship. 

Anyone seen him play recently? Just hoping his legs haven't gone.

13 hours ago, uttoxram75 said:

I could watch him play all day. From the moment he made his debut (was it v Tranmere in the cup?), he immediately became my favourite player since the 70's heroes.

In his debut game he looked anything but a footballer, skinny, young kid that he was, but he calmly took down an awkward 40 yard pass and passed it on accurately without thinking about it. Easy. Very gifted player, intelligent and made others around him look good with the weight of his passes and vision.

You say he's never really hit the heights yet he's had a good career in the top flight of English football. How high do you have to go to be recognised as a top footballer?

If we go up i'd expect David Clowes to sell a few members of his family to finance Hughsey's return to see us back to the Prem.

He’s had an excellent career that most dream of. I was just referring to the fact that some expected him to play for England, and he was linked with the likes of Barca.

2 minutes ago, Shipley Ram said:

There was loads of times with Hughes when he was 23, 24 or maybe 25 at Watford and he would say 'there's no way I make it [playing] to 30', he's just an old moany so-and-so. But, you see him at Palace now, still playing and still doing well."

I think this explains why he never quite hit the heights we thought he might. Watching a few interviews with him at Watford, I got the sense he was happy with his lot earning good money in a profession he could abide. I don't really blame him for it.

33 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

You could field these 10 as your outfielders from all of those to have featured for the U18s that season.

Festy   Cashin   Buchanan   Archie

Knight   Bird   Thompson

Whittaker   Delap   Sibley

That's a genuinely outrageous talent pool for a Championship (at the time) club.