Alan Medic

If I were to blame anyone it would be Sexton for the garryowen which led to lost possession and their try. Those high balls just seem like 50/50 so much of the time. Why risk losing the ball? A kick for terratory would have been a better option. Or, I could blame Best for that last line out throw though I don't know for sure that he didn't throw it where he intended to and it was the jumper's mistake. I can't see Nowell getting near the test team but apart from him I didn't see anyone have a poor game.

Which bit did you edit Snor.....Borky?

Don't know how the managed to be losing at HT

Is this for real?

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?2 > 0,1685726,page=1 > > Any chance of something similar for the GE Admin? > There is a thread asking which way people will > vote. Someone mentioned that any Conservatives or > UKIPers in the area would probably avoid the > thread. This would give people the chance to say > something anonymously. > > PS Not that I would vote for either A reminder in case you were still considering it but forgot, Admin.

Gatland said all of the players would get a start in the first 3 games. The first team was undoubtedly selected on the basis of players who were in camp before the others. Some were there for 2 weeks, others for 1 before all those playing in finals arrived. This means that 11 of the team for Saturday's match are already known. Only 4 players won't have had even a place in a 23 by then, O'Brien, Murray, Davies & North. Makes you wonder if they are pencilled in for the Saturday team. I'd imagine Murray and North are. Not sure about the others. I agree with both rule changes. This sticking your foot in touch or behind the dead ball line before touching the ball seemed artificial. Perhaps I don't understand the rule but it seems to me if you have a foot out of play and then touch the ball, it should be considered you took the ball out of play. A rule I would like to be got rid of is the mark. It just penalises the attacking team and slows the game down. Is there a good reason for it?

Match 2 is on Wednesday morning @ 8.35 a.m. v Blues

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You suggested we live in a meritocracy (which > implies that those who work hard get rewarded .. > the single mum working three jobs and still > struggling to get by might disagree). I don't > believe we live in a meritocracy. I think that the > system is very much stacked in favour of certain > people and that there needs to be a degree of > redistribution to go some way towards remedying > that. And actually, On a more fundamental level I > just think that we ought to look out for each > other. There but for the grace of god etc. Lots of > torys think that they've earned everything they > have (even those who've inherited their wealth) > and and that there's some sort of divine justice > at play where everyone gets what they deserve. On the other hand (to my previous post) I now work in a company which is a family run business. The MD has inherited the business from his mother who started it in the 60's, and he has never worked anywhere else. I don't know how wealthy he is, but more than I'm ever likely to be. The point of mentioning him is that in my humble (I hope) opinion he really does not know how to run a company. If he had to make his own way in the world without a path being set out for him, I doubt he would be very successful. Do we live in a meritocracy? For some it's true, in that their talents are recognised, and for others they happen upon wealth they didn't earn. A single mother working three jobs is most likely going to be at the bottom of the tree. There isn't the time to have a career. Should wealth be redistributed is an interesting question. Those who say it should are probably not wealthy. When I read that footballers will stay at a club only if they are paid ?300k a week for example, I wonder what the world has come to. This discussion could go on and on.......

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It has never been a level playing field and it can > never be made into a level field by social > engineering and handouts. > The migrants I mentioned ( and myself included) > overcame the life chances that were handed out. > The harder I studied the easier it got. As > American Founding Father Thomas Jefferson said > ??.. > ?I?m a great believer in luck, and I find the > harder I work the more I have of it.? > I found that too. This is an excellent example of luck. My father's uncle tossed a coin to decide which direction we would take in 1800's America. He got lucky and a lot of people benefitted from it including my father whose own father died before he was born: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgins_Building

From the FT

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/02/brexit-scaremongers-proved-right-economy-slump-inflation?CMP=share_btn_tw Couldn't agree more with this article on the 'scaremongers' of Brexit being proved right.

Round 1 And RC is off to a flier. Unlike one I could mention. PS I believe the BP wasn't shared as RC got the exact result.

For a scratch team I thought the Barbarians played really well. It's difficult to judge the Lions performance for the reasons you mentioned but 3 weeks seems like a very short time before the 1st Test. At least the Blues are the lesser of the NZ Super teams this season but I'm not sure that's much consolation. Gatland has a very difficult task to blend a team to prepare for the Tests. They won't want to lose any game but it's the Test series that matters.

Points scoring is like this: Win Point = 1 point (though I think it may be 2 for the Tests) Margin Point = 0.5 points for getting prediction within 5 points Bonus Point = 1 point but will be shared for those getting prediction within 15 points. No Grand Slam points in this game. Five players so far. This I think is far more difficult than the 6 nations. Anything could happen........

I've set up a pool for the Lions tour. The previous participants should receive an invite automatically. Haven't had a chance to read the rules. This is a link to the site for anyone wishing to join & play https://www.superbru.com/home/login_form.php?login=1&referer=%2Flionstour_predictor%2Fjoin_tournament.php%3Ffolder%3Dlionstour_predictor Once registered, search for Lions Prediction Game, and then search in Pools for EDF Lions P G. To join use the code mudsbuds Use your Forum name so we know who you are.

The mind boggles. To form a new party?

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If there is a hung parliament then there will be a > pro-remain coalition (almost certainly involving > neither Corbyn or May). This is the reality: we > have had plenty of them before. You've lost me. A coalition government? Who between if Labour isn't involved?

The only way it won't happen is if there is another referendum. What circumstances might bring that about? Without knowing the details of what Brexit will encompass there is no justification for one. Therefore the negotiations will have to proceed. If May doesn't get her mandate, what happens next is anyone's guess.......

Aberdeen made a game of it today. I think Rangers think they're a big club. Well done Arsenal. I love seeing Chelsea lose.

I've been so happily ignoring her that I didn't know who she was until the other day.

The Batcave?

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They are still unbeaten domestically aren't they? > I'm seem to remember RD saying what the odds were > of that happening some months ago. They were quite > attractive if I remember correctly. > Looked it up. On Feb.20 it was 7/2 to be unbeaten in the league and win the cup.

They are still unbeaten domestically aren't they? I'm seem to remember RD saying what the odds were of that happening some months ago. They were quite attractive if I remember correctly. PS What happened in 1966?

Louisa Wrote: > a) what makes you think the dog wouldn't follow? > If this person is so horrified that a seemingly > un-threatening animal is being annoying, why not > hush the animal in a gentle and friendly way back > to its owner and laugh it off. > b) it doesn't have to be a horrible confrontation, > it could be a friendly encounter. She could loudly > make the dog walker/owner actually realise that > it's not OK to let this happen. > c) you, like others, assume confrontation has to > be a 'bad ' thing. It doesn't at all. > d) and on what basis do you think it won't? But > simply choosing to ignore, and not actively > seeking a solution, the same will happen again, > will it not? > > Now, why don't some of you on here, particularly > those who come in screaming me and others down for > "attacking" the OP, actually contribute to the > situation by offering some handy advice for future > situations like this. Some people just like to > shit stir on here. Others think doing nothing is > better than resolution. > > Louisa. Confrontation does not equal encounter. Confrontation is a bad thing.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So the dog was trying to take food? It wasn't > showing aggression or frightening people? Wouldn't > it have been a good idea to calmly call the dog > away, and take it back to the owner/dog walker and > then confront said individual there and then? I > don't understand why people find it so difficult > to confront situations as and when they happen. I > appreciate it isn't always possible, but it > certainly helps to avoid future problems from the > same person. > > Louisa. a)What makes you think the dog would follow a stranger? b)What makes you think confronting the person will lead to a solution? c)What makes you think it should be normal for everyone to be confrontational? d)On what basis do you conclude confronting this person will make things better and not worse in the future?