The Big Sammon Thread

[VulcanRam]

When we adopted the practice of not disclosing fees,we did so on the basis that we didn't want other parties (from memory,agents and other clubs were given) to know the kind of fees we were paying.If you maintain that this 'guidance' should be taken as accurate by we fans,then why shouldn't these other parties also take them as being accurate?If everyone should accept their accuracy,then the other parties would effectively know what the fees were (a situation that was supposed to be avoided).It wouldn't matter a jot if they were disclosed or unofficially disclosed.

 

Don't tell him,Pike.

 

Yes but it would still allow the business involved to deny it all. Whether its football clubs, politicians, business, it's just how it works, whether it makes sense or not.

 

Look, don't shoot the messenger, I'm just saying that's how it works. I should know, I've built a career out of it!

[ramblur]

Yes but it would still allow the business involved to deny it all. Whether its football clubs, politicians, business, it's just how it works, whether it makes sense or not.

 

Look, don't shoot the messenger, I'm just saying that's how it works. I should know, I've built a career out of it!

Ah,and as a journalist you wouldn't want to create an impression that anything you reported might actually be factually wrong.Of course anything said off the record to a journalist might be deliberately wrong in order to create an impression that the truth might not convey?Or to put it another way,journalists lay themselves open to blatant manipulation.Absolutely nothing you've said makes me any closer to accepting DET etc reported transfer fees as gospel.

[CornwallRam]

When we adopted the practice of not disclosing fees,we did so on the basis that we didn't want other parties (from memory,agents and other clubs were given) to know the kind of fees we were paying.If you maintain that this 'guidance' should be taken as accurate by we fans,then why shouldn't these other parties also take them as being accurate?If everyone should accept their accuracy,then the other parties would effectively know what the fees were (a situation that was supposed to be avoided).It wouldn't matter a jot if they were disclosed or unofficially disclosed.

 

Don't tell him,Pike.

I strongly suspect the £1.2m figure came from the club. By 'leaking' the figure they effectively said ' look we've bought a star striker - buy some tickets.' Of course, the 'fact' that it came from the club (if my theory is correct), doesn't make the figure correct. In this case it would have been in the club's best interests to inflate the figure.

 

I'm pleased Sammon did well last night. I still believe that he's very limited and just not good enough for a team with promotion chasing ambitions (if only). On the other hand - I'd be extatic to be prooved wrong. I love Sammons attitude, and would love him to suuceed, it's just that I daon't think he will.

[eranio20]

Hopefully we will tie him down to a long term deal after yesterday's goal.

Five or six years would be "lovely" as Nigel would put it.

[Albert]

I strongly suspect the £1.2m figure came from the club. By 'leaking' the figure they effectively said ' look we've bought a star striker - buy some tickets.' Of course, the 'fact' that it came from the club (if my theory is correct), doesn't make the figure correct. In this case it would have been in the club's best interests to inflate the figure.

That's not a theory, that's a hypothesis. A theory is tried, tested and backed by a body of evidence.

[CornwallRam]

That's not a theory, that's a hypothesis. A theory is tried, tested and backed by a body of evidence.

No that's the definition of a theorem.

 

One of the OED's definitions of a theory is 'A hypothesis proposed as an explanation'

 

And it's an unsupported assertion - you have no idea how much evidence I have or have not got, and you have no idea of how many case studies I have undertaken, so even by your incomplete understanding of the phrase you are struggling

 

If you want to argue semantics you've come to the right place

[EastKentRam]

Owned

[ronnieronalde]

I believe the fee of 1.2m to be correct. Although I didn't ask the question as directly as I could have, I asked if the fees reported were accurate. The answer I got was that details of Conors deal were accurate.

 

I don't think it matters a jot if we paid 1.2m or 800k or 600k, this was Nigels target that he'd chased for a while. He was the summers big signing and he hasn't done as well as we would have hoped on the goals front.

 

It doesnt take much to get the Clough out brigade going but I can also see that when Conor was chased for so long many including me saw this as an important piece of the jigsaw. From that point of view looking at his goals and the league table as the cold hard measures of whether he has improved us, he hasn't delivered and we haven't delivered as a squad either.

 

Those measures though, personally I believe we're a much better side than we were when we had Davies upfront. I think Conor has added to us. I'd have preferred that we got him for 500k or so but we didn't and that's not his fault.

 

I'm interested Cornwall in how he'll be judged if he's a success or not? Will it come down to his goals ratio alone? Christ we've bought some duffers over the years if that's the case. He cost us 1.2m so worst case scenario that's 150k a goal if he doesnt score again in his Derby County life and we give him away.

 

Rank that against other strikers we've signed who didn't have half his work ethic and you might start to understand why it's so frustrating to see HE is the one we boo. He is the one we've singled out as the scape goat?

 

It's like some have decided he's the worst player to ever pull on a Derby shirt. Really?

[Albert]

No that's the definition of a theorem.

 

One of the OED's definitions of a theory is 'A hypothesis proposed as an explanation'

 

And it's an unsupported assertion - you have no idea how much evidence I have or have not got, and you have no idea of how many case studies I have undertaken, so even by your incomplete understanding of the phrase you are struggling

 

If you want to argue semantics you've come to the right place

One of Oxford English Dictionary's definitions of literally is "used for emphasis while not being literally true". There is a difference between usage of a word and strict definition.

Also, a Theorem is a statement that is true so long as previous statements that are also considered true hold. This is most common in mathematics, for example Pythagoras' Theorem. So no, that is not the definition of a Theorem in any way.

A theory however is something very different, particularly in scientific contexts. Within scientific contexts, and contexts where you are exploring the nature of system of something. In this type of context to be a theory a large body of evidence that has bee thoroughly tested. If one has not presented it in this way it is not a theory. Examples of theories in this context are the Theory of Gravity or Theory of Evolution.

What you offered was a vague idea based off of a thought you had about it. You offered no evidence, let alone a large body of evidence, and you have not been able to test it. As such this idea is at the stage of being a hypothesis. Basically, you've hypothesised that what you said was the case, but you've yet to build up the body of evidence for it or test it.

[CornwallRam]

If a striker scores lots of goals he is pretty much always going to be a success - and if Sammon starts banging them in I, along with all other doubters will be converted.

 

If a striker doesn't score goals he's got to do other stuff to make himself worth the shirt. The main think that a non-goal scoring striker can do is bring other players into the game. In the games I've seen this season (all home games after the first three except Leeds) Sammon has generally failed to do this. His control is poor, which usually means that he ends up giving the ball away. His jumping is poor, so he doesn't make many knock downs. Now if he sorts out these things and starts to retain possesion and use the ball well, then he'll be a success.

 

At present he chases 'lost' causes and his size means that centre-halves have to compete physically, which opens up a little space for others. Clearly, these things a good, but not enough to make him a success

 

The only way for Sammon to succeed is to get better.

 

Booing him is silly (although from my seat in the West Stand I've never heard any booing) as he always tries his socks off. But it seems that some people are now defending his lack of quality from a sense of sympathy.

[ronnieronalde]

If a striker scores lots of goals he is pretty much always going to be a success - and if Sammon starts banging them in I, along with all other doubters will be converted.

 

If a striker doesn't score goals he's got to do other stuff to make himself worth the shirt. The main think that a non-goal scoring striker can do is bring other players into the game. In the games I've seen this season (all home games after the first three except Leeds) Sammon has generally failed to do this. His control is poor, which usually means that he ends up giving the ball away. His jumping is poor, so he doesn't make many knock downs. Now if he sorts out these things and starts to retain possesion and use the ball well, then he'll be a success.

 

At present he chases 'lost' causes and his size means that centre-halves have to compete physically, which opens up a little space for others. Clearly, these things a good, but not enough to make him a success

 

The only way for Sammon to succeed is to get better.

 

Booing him is silly (although from my seat in the West Stand I've never heard any booing) as he always tries his socks off. But it seems that some people are now defending his lack of quality from a sense of sympathy.

 

Fully agree that if he's not scoring he's got to do more but just don't agree that fans are the best judges of what he does bring. If it's judged that he's not putting enough in, I'd have no issues at all with him being dropped or sold but I won't be the one who decides that.

 

I'm prepared to get some stick over the fact I won't be pressured into changing my mind on him. I'll make that judgement based on what I see.

 

I think he's got quality Cornwall and I'm certainly not defending him for a sympathy vote.  He's just one of those type of players that will get stick. I can list a few of them that no matter how they play people will think they had a stinker. It's down to how "gangly" they are, because they don't "look" like a player.

 

I think that's where the Ward comment rings true and you'll either see it or not see what he brings to the side. I agree there have been a few games where he hasn't done that well but still feel that he's had more positive than negative contributions to most games. The boo boys don't even acknowledge when he does score or create, you only need to see the posting reaction to the Forest goal and to his goal last night.

 

What really gets my goat is that the hounding and booing of a player who has our shirt on his back by our fans. If you didn't hear the booing were you were then all you've got to do is watch the highlights and listen out. That is the part I'm "defending" him over, it's totally unwarranted and it goes against every single fibre of my mentality to boo one of your own.

 

Imagine me coming to your work and snarling and spitting in your face every 30 minutes telling you that you're ****. I can't ever see how ANYONE with an ounce of intelligence thinks that is the way to go.

 

Stupid people have no excuse. They're stupid and they don't know any better.

[CornwallRam]

One of Oxford English Dictionary's definitions of literally is "used for emphasis while not being literally true". There is a difference between usage of a word and strict definition.

Also, a Theorem is a statement that is true so long as previous statements that are also considered true hold. This is most common in mathematics, for example Pythagoras' Theorem. So no, that is not the definition of a Theorem in any way.

A theory however is something very different, particularly in scientific contexts. Within scientific contexts, and contexts where you are exploring the nature of system of something. In this type of context to be a theory a large body of evidence that has bee thoroughly tested. If one has not presented it in this way it is not a theory. Examples of theories in this context are the Theory of Gravity or Theory of Evolution.

What you offered was a vague idea based off of a thought you had about it. You offered no evidence, let alone a large body of evidence, and you have not been able to test it. As such this idea is at the stage of being a hypothesis. Basically, you've hypothesised that what you said was the case, but you've yet to build up the body of evidence for it or test it.

 

As you alluded to, many words have multiple definitions - I merely used the word 'theory' in a way that you disapproved of.

 

Just because you refuse to recognise a definition does not mean that it is incorrect, it merely means that you believe your knowledge of lexicography to be superior to that of the compilers of the OED.

[eranio20]

Is this countdown?

[Gritstone Ram]

I'll have a vowel please.

[ladyram]

Can I have a P please Bob?

[ramblur]

Can I have a P please Bob?

 Can't you wait?

[notts_ram]

One of Oxford English Dictionary's definitions of literally is "used for emphasis while not being literally true". There is a difference between usage of a word and strict definition.

Also, a Theorem is a statement that is true so long as previous statements that are also considered true hold. This is most common in mathematics, for example Pythagoras' Theorem. So no, that is not the definition of a Theorem in any way.

A theory however is something very different, particularly in scientific contexts. Within scientific contexts, and contexts where you are exploring the nature of system of something. In this type of context to be a theory a large body of evidence that has bee thoroughly tested. If one has not presented it in this way it is not a theory. Examples of theories in this context are the Theory of Gravity or Theory of Evolution.

What you offered was a vague idea based off of a thought you had about it. You offered no evidence, let alone a large body of evidence, and you have not been able to test it. As such this idea is at the stage of being a hypothesis. Basically, you've hypothesised that what you said was the case, but you've yet to build up the body of evidence for it or test it.

Have you been watching The Big Bang Theory lately?

 

[VulcanRam]

Ah,and as a journalist you wouldn't want to create an impression that anything you reported might actually be factually wrong.Of course anything said off the record to a journalist might be deliberately wrong in order to create an impression that the truth might not convey?Or to put it another way,journalists lay themselves open to blatant manipulation.Absolutely nothing you've said makes me any closer to accepting DET etc reported transfer fees as gospel.

Except there's nothing to say I'm a journalist. I said I'd built a career out of it. I'd be careful with my assumptions

[ramblur]

Except there's nothing to say I'm a journalist. I said I'd built a career out of it. I'd be careful with my assumptions

Except that I didn't say "Ah,as you're a journalist etc". Seems to be your own assumptions at issue here.

[Albert]

As you alluded to, many words have multiple definitions - I merely used the word 'theory' in a way that you disapproved of.

 

Just because you refuse to recognise a definition does not mean that it is incorrect, it merely means that you believe your knowledge of lexicography to be superior to that of the compilers of the OED.

Words can be used in many ways, and language does evolve, but by the same token it was pretty clear the context you were trying to use the word in. The word 'literally' is a good example, as mentioned before, as it in common usage now means both that something is literally and not actually literally, and the compilers of the OED recognise this as well. However, when discussing something that has strict definitions, such as the differences between a hypothesis and a theory in a context of exploring something in a manner like you were, then you should avoid using the casual terms as they may be misleading or confusing.

I would also point out that you are still wrong about the meaning of Theorem, that includes the OED definitions.