Norman

21 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Hey @Norman Why the laughing emoji’s? You can laugh but there will be the usual Mel apologists on here later defending him (again). ‘It was Sam Rush’s fault’, ‘he was just supporting his manager’, ‘he’s one of our own’, ‘duck the EFL’, ‘everything was ok till COVID’. It boils my piss that the same posters will post any old rubbish to support their agenda. Rant over. 

That's a good question, and one I often find asking myself......*goes on to blame someone else*

1 hour ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

 tedious streams of gushing hyperbole.

Instead of wasting half your days on here preaching 

I like it when someone posts a word such as hyperbole and even goes to the effort of giving an example of it in the very next sentence. 

Makes for easier reading. 

3 hours ago, Eddie said:

In summary (there's half a dozen on here echoing this sentiment):

"My ignorance is just as valid as your knowledge".

I've gone back to putting the ignorant on 'ignore'.

If you have half the thread on ignore, ignoring the ignorance of it, don't you just read the other half of the thread.... Which is the other half quoting the people you have on ignore? Or does that function work better now? 

I like the quote 'the worst kind of arrogance is arrogance from ignorance', myself. 

6 hours ago, GboroRam said:

Can anyone explain to me why the people who disagree with the vaccine seem to be largely the people desperately promoting other medical intervention? Aren't they both open to the same criticisms? 

Big pharma making profits - tick
Lack of testing - tick (that worm medicine has been used externally but not internally I believe)
5G/other silver foil hat moments - all open to the same criticisms surely?

 

You quoted me yesterday about the BBC and confirmation bias, whilst coming up with your own OPINION which I was going to highlight how you would have twisted it into a conspiracy theory. I just couldn't be arsed to show the lack of self-awareness. If someone doesn't agree with your opinion, it doesn't mean it's a conspiracy.

If your post is aimed @maxjam, which I'm assuming it is as he posts other medicines on trial, then you don't read his posts.

You still try to link it to conspiracy theories, though. 

Must be a conspiracy theory that you don't want other medicines available so the government you despise can carry on telling you what to do? 

See how easy this is?  And how it doesn't help a discussion at all. 

It does try and discredit the poster and make them feel like they can't post their OPINION, though.

Maybe we should change 'imo' to 'imct'.

2 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Of course not - i'm just saying that what one man considers newsworthy, another man has no interest in, and we're all subject to our own confirmation bias. As you keep proving repeatedly!

 ?

And if the person(s) at the BBC who decides what's newsworthy have a confirmation bias?

Which is the point being made. 

2 hours ago, Alpha said:

Big shock!! I think maybe nobody rates Teofimo Lopez more than Teofimo Lopez. Arrogant arse

I think AJ has lost the plot

Khan v Brook is happening! The fight everyone wants to see 10 years ago! A fight between two guys who are frozen out of their divisions. £20ppv... think I'll pass. 

Teo interrupting George's interview to tell his home crowd he won 11-2, with a battered face and then to get booed was better than when the ref held his arm up by mistake. Teo's corner were awful. 

Great fight. 

5 hours ago, QuitYourJibbaJivin said:

It’s certainly not just a 1 in 50 chance of catching and dying from Covid. There’s actually a a risk calculator designed by The university of Oxford, turns out mine is 1 in 500,000.

https://www.qcovid.org
 

More worryingly the WHO found that the chances of suffering from vaccine related myocardartis are around 25,000 to 1 ?

https://www.who.int/news/item/27-10-2021-gacvs-statement-myocarditis-pericarditis-covid-19-mrna-vaccines-updated

 

Aye, from the ONS

'In England, the percentage of people testing positive for coronavirus (COVID-19) decreased in the week ending 6 November 2021; we estimate that 925,400 people in England had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 875,200 to 975,100), equating to around 1 in 60 people.'

36,015 was the average 7 day figure for testing positive for Covid on November 6th.

I will let those who are so amazing at math(s) and using calculators to work out roughly how many positive cases there was that week. 

It's nowhere near the estimated amount of people walking around with Covid. 1 percent of an estimated 925400 is 9254. Lots of deaths coming in the next 28 days. 

So how can you make the calculation? You can't. And yet still people will use the same figures and call everyone else out for not believing them. 

6 minutes ago, observer said:

where does the 2% figure come from its nowhere near that rate across the population?

even just looking at the confirmed cases

 

It comes from a calculation using positive tests. Ignoring all those who have had it but never got tested due to never showing symptoms. Which at the moment, according to the ONS, is 3 times the number of people. 

20 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

I’ve seen lots of people quote this 2% and brush it off like it’s nothing. It’s so weird. 2% chance is one in 50, that’s ridiculously high in terms of a percentage considering you are likely to get COVID at some point.

I have a friend who bats it off like nothIng. Yet he’s afraid of flying. The chances of you dying in a fatal airplane crash is one in 1000000. Chances of you dying of COVID by the 2% rule is one in 50. 

Would you get on an airplane if one in 50 flights suffered a fatal crash? Of course you wouldn’t.

So why do people brush off the chance of dying from COVID like it’s nothing...

 

 

 

It's not ducking 2 percent or anywhere near that's why. 

12 hours ago, GboroRam said:

Absolutely correct. The figures are based on a flawed assumption that everyone who has it, has been tested. So the figure will be reduced by some degree. If you go back to last summer it would be reduced a lot. Now we're throwing LFT tests at anyone with a sniffle or feeling a bit warm. Or sat near anyone with a sniffle or feeling a bit warm. The number of people who have it but weren't tested is going to be pretty low. 

But I agree, the 1.8% or whatever is going to be an approximation. But we can use it to gauge trends. Improve our response and we see the stats change, as fundamentally we aren't changing our testing methodology. 

But I posted the ONS figures that show their estimates that there are more people with Covid and untested, than with it and have had a positive test in the week of the 6th to the 12th of this month. 

The 1.8 percent isn't just an approximation. It's just wrong. By a lot. 

So much mockery going on of people's maths skills, calculator skills and of being a far right-wing conspiracy theorist and the same people are using flawed calculations themselves. 

The irony is, @TexasRamis probably as close as those using the 1.8% figure. 

20 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

You can't include the people who haven't had it yet. You just can't, it's not how any of this works. 

You need to include the people who have had it but not had a test.

Impossible to do.

At the start of this month, there was a weekly average of about 275,000 or so positive cases in the UK. 

How many people actually had it as an estimate? 1 million. 

Roughly about 1.6 percent of the population. 

You can't use the numbers people are using on here. 

It's unfathomable. 

10 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

I know you're just on the wind-up, so I won't bite as it will only get the thread deleted ?

But on a serious note, our 11 year old just started at senior school and it's a bus ride away. Since Trent Barton scrapped their mango card, the only way you can use contactless payments now is if you have a debit card (which he obviously doesn't have - being 11) or a mobile phone with the app.

As an incentive - the "old-fashioned way" of paying with cash is 25% more expensive - so we had to buy him a mobile, despite not really wanting to. And we're lucky because we could afford to buy him a smart phone and contract. What does a family do that can't afford that?

So we have public transport providers now discriminating against the poor, and doing their best to trap them in poverty

 

 

Nah, he's right. It's priorities. Maybe he hasn't used the best examples. 

I have worked with the most abused, illiterate, abusive, addicted, uneducated, violent people this country has to offer. 

The tale is always one of priorities. That comes from a lack of education, addiction and abuse normally. I can't be arsed to get into it further because none of you will change your stance and, as you say, it will only get the thread deleted. 

And it's a vicious circle, particularly abuse and addiction. Which is why we will always need charities. People don't have the same start to life, the same chances and therefore the same priorities as people on here. Priorities, priorities, priorities.

The problem will never be solved as to why we need charities. Society is far too complex for an answer to that. 

1 hour ago, uttoxram75 said:

Lets hold fire until we see what happens with the stadium.

The least he can do is give us back the stadium. And I won't be thanking him for it, either. 

The guy has ruined us. 

duck the rules. 

Why are we debating rules? We're down. Do what we want. The points deductions would have to be in this season. 

16 hours ago, Miggins said:

We can't control what goes on in the wider world but we can control what goes on in our homes. We have started to take all our soft plastics to the co-op rather than put them in the land fill bin. We already recycle everything we can. We grow as much of own veg as we can, I am vegetarian and Steve only eats meat once a week, We have a compost bin and both of us drive small cars.

We can only control what we can.  

You see, I've cut down my commute to 4 miles instead of 40. I, like you, grow veg, we both drive small cars, we have decided to take one abroad trip every 2 years instead of a few a year and we recycle as much as we can. 

The problem is, like you say, that you can only do what you can do. There will be people on here that say they care about the future of the planet, but by posting snippets of their lives over the last 5 years on this forum, I know full well they have massive carbon footprints. 

It's easier to say you care than to act on it. Like everything in life, hypocrites and virtue signallers are everywhere. Not aimed at you by the way.

I will add, I'm a massive hypocrite too. I eat far too much meat. All for a personal endeavor that means little to anyone else. 

10 minutes ago, Anon said:

Some fans did, some fans didn't. Attendances were dropping under GSE because people were unhappy with the perceived lack of ambition. Clough's tenure still gets slated by many on here because we spent within our means and repeatedly finished mid table. I'm not saying this absolves Mel of responsibility. If all chairmen let themselves be subject to the whims of fans then every club would be in severe financial difficulty. I am saying it should be recognized that a significant proportion of Derby fans did want increased spending and didn't really care to think about the potential consequences.

Increased spending is different to the claim of gambling the club's future away. Especially as we were told we were fine. Close, but fine. 

Don't disagree with you on the rest.

If at a supporter's meeting, Mel said we were ducked on FFP, he'd have to sell the stadium to himself etc if the levels of spending continued, we would all have told him to stop spending. Not gamble it all again. 

29 minutes ago, Eddie said:

He gambled - with the encouragement of many Derby fans (see transfer threads passim).

The numbers didn't come up. Like many gamblers, he went 'double or quits' on several occasions, and everything spun out of control, so then you end up robbing Peter to pay Paul. Unfortunately, when Peter works for HMRC, you're buggered.

Nah, I'm not having this. 

We were told we were right on the line after most of the extravagant spending. Every penny counted. 

Derby fans did not encourage gambling, did not encourage spending what Mel could not afford or have the details on wages and fees paid. There is no blame on Derby fans for that. 

2 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Thing is, if we'd got just 9 points for FFP/accounting and not gone int administration, we'd have had a fighting chance.

I'm quite annoyed with the previous ownership.

Easier to sell the club in administration. Apparently. 

Just now, Yani P said:

If this does prove to be correct it could help us..

We can build a league 1 squad in January, sell those that won't fancy it or will be priced out of our revised budgets..we can land in League 1 running..it doesn't often work that way with teams relegated on the last day and having to react and plan in 6 weeks..

Ah, memories of Paul Jewell and 2008/09 flooding back.

2 minutes ago, enachops said:

Agreed. People need to vent, let them.

Morris has got off incredibly lightly. Maxwell and the Amigo’s got pelters, yet Morris has been a million miles worse than them. Can’t stand the bloke. Ruined this club. Deserves all the criticism. It’s a shame we can’t do it to his face at the ground. 

No, no, no. You can't do that. Even if you just do a little boo at him, he will walk away from the club......

Just now, Curtains said:

I’m afraid they have been telling us what we wanted to hear. 

Let hope with this points deduction a takeover can proceed quickly 

Yeah, they have. Whip up the positivity, get numbers through the door, hope it corresponds to slightly better results on the pitch and on the whole make us look as attractive as possible to buyers.

It's their job. But still. I got sucked in. 

Facts don't have feelings.

49 minutes ago, Jourdan said:

 

Entrenched? Me? No. It just takes more to impress me than 4 wins in 30.

Is that what it is? ducking hell. Didn't realise it was that bad. With everything else going off this summer, I had completely forgot how bad it was at the end of last season on the pitch. 

I just want a football club that has a chance of staying in the Championship this season and not facing the prospect of selling Bird etc. in January. If not, being run sensibly in League 1 and retaining as much of our young talent as possible. 

Anything else I would class as massively greedy considering the position we are in. 

Couldn't give a duck if he has billions or just enough for us to operate sustainably. His attitude to the future of our club is more important.