RicoS321

Elgin, any suggestions for places to walk roundabout our neck of the wids? Somewhere suitable for youngsters so nae too high. Cheers min.

I don't think this falls in line with Mr Savory's work: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/05/beef-eating-must-fall-drastically-as-world-population-grows-report

Was it suicide? It just said sudden death (or Golden Goal as it was called for a while). Shame like. Wasn't aware that suicide was rife in the forces, but I suppose it makes sense. I assumed that bullying was actually part of the training if you know what I mean? I couldn't hack it like. Being told what to do wouldn't really work for me.

This article from George Monbiot a few years back pretty much says it all. He's a charlatan. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2014/aug/04/eat-more-meat-and-save-the-world-the-latest-implausible-farming-miracle He could, miraculously, be correct but he provides absolutely no evidence to back it up. I remember looking into it when the video first came out thinking he'd stumbled upon some amazing idea but there was basically no information on it aside from his website. Then I read the article from Monbiot above, and realised that it wasn't just me and that he's probably at best a religious nut-job, at worst a bought and paid for lunatic. There are absolute benefits to managed grazing on farms, but to suggest that whacking some sheep on a desert is suddenly going to turn it into an oasis is just a little fucked up (what were the animals even grazing on?). You'll find plenty of people backing him though, in the same way that you'll find plenty of people who'll tell you that a medium knew exactly the name of their dead auntie Betty (no Betsy... I have a Bethany? Francis?) without prompting. The type that would tell you that it only works when the spirits can see that the scientists have left the room.

Unfortunately it's a heap of shite. I thought Ted would have taken it down by now. Very little basis in fact and goes against just about every study done. He does sound good though.

Yep, I heard it too, I thought it was a little bit harsh. It was almost like he'd been on dons forums and heard that Logan was culpable for a few goals this season (although not many, I thought he was worse last season) and took the easy way out with his analysis by blaming Logan without paying that much attention knowing people would take note. It certainly was the case that Logan could have got to the ball, but he also had another man to worry about, and Stewart should know that that area of the pitch isn't the responsibility of the full back. If anything, Logan does bail us out on numerous occasions by using his pace to cut out attacks that have breached the centre halfs.

He lost his man, but so far you've both ignored the point that that is what midfielders do regularly in games. They can afford to, generally speaking, as there's a line behind them that should be there to hold up the attacker. That there wasn't a line behind Shinnie wasn't Shinnie's fault. You should watch the replay back a seventh time and ask why McKenna is trying to hold a back line when there's an important other central defender missing from that line. It's a poor bit of defending by any standard. If McLeish had done what Considine had done, Miller would have known to cover. It's basic defensive instruction, if one goes up/forward the other closes the gap, going deeper if required. When Considine retreats, he (McKenna) takes a few steps back to position. I've taken the liberty of showing a screenshot of it*: Although it doesn't look great for Logan in that shot either mind you (and leaving Sinclair would have been the lesser of the two issue given the position), but you can see Shinnie is an a straight run with Christie in which he's always going to lose. *[patronisingSmiley][/patronisingSmiley] Edit: Seriously, look at that gap that McKenna is occupying when there are four attackers on his right, he's marking space, it looks ridiculous in that shot, it's a fucking massive hole. I'm actually really surprised that's not what Stewart was pointing out given they go over these things in great detail.

Nope, I wasn't blaming Logan the most, I was definitely blaming McKenna. I simply meant that Logan's effort was poor as he should have been playing the line with McKenna or coming right infield to challenge Christie if he thought there was danger, neither of which he did until it was too late. Stewart's point was that he took a poor position, and I agree, but he did so for the right reasons as his back four let him down. It wasn't his job to be covering, so I agree that it would be exceptional harsh to attribute blame to him. As I said regarding Shinnie, midfielders let there man go all the time. It happens heaps during a game. That's the gamble that they're allowed to take in that position and in a straight race Christie was going to win. It's a completely acceptable position for him to be in. If you go back to youtube and have a look, you'll see that McKenna is attempting to retain a back four high line when his other centre half has left that area. He's marking no-one, but is simply occupying a spot on the pitch that corresponds to his position at a goal kick/formation diagram or whatever. As Considine was marking his man, and still making his way back, McKenna should have been within a few yards of Considine's normal back 4 position, at which point he could easily have got in and headered that. The defence can see what's happening in front of them, the midfield cannot, so it's far easier for a defender to not get caught out by a run than it is a midfielder (indeed Ball got caught a couple of times as did Ferguson, with Christie booked for them for lettings his man go - that comes with the position). It was an excellent run and pass though.

Logan didn't though, he stood half way between covering his man and covering Christie, which is what Michael Stewart pointed out; he basically was caught in the middle. Shinnie let Christie go, undoubtedly, but that's fine. Midfielders do that loads of times in a game, they're not the last line of defence, indeed Christie let Shinnie go in the second half and was booked for bringing him down. We need our defenders to be alert to the runners beyond the midfield, to stop them, or slow them up enough for the midfield to get back. To me, that responsibility had to be with the centre half rather than Logan. Logan attempted to match the run from Christie but ended up in no-mans land playing him onside but not close enough to take him out. As I said, if Devlin had been in McKenna's position, he'd have pulled across to split the gap between his own man and the hole behind the other defender so that he only had a few yards to cover to stop or slow down Christie allowing Shinnie to get back in as cover. McKenna was concentrating on his own man and playing a ridiculously high line rather than watching what his other centre half was doing. Russell Anderson wid have totally read that play in his day and that's what McKenna needs to aspire to (be better than).

Logan did drop very deep and was badly positioned (no idea what the fuck he was doing to be honest) but for me McKenna has to be the guy that controls that defence. Considine did exactly the right think (he had a good game) by following the attacker upfield and pressuring him. When he does this, the other central defender has to be positioning himself more centrally by taking a couple of steps infield (and probably back the way). He has to expect that there will be several times in a game when a midfielder loses his runner and he needs to step across the way to block the ball over the top as the last line of defence. It's something Devlin would have dealt with I expect, McKenna seems slightly less aware of what his partner is doing than Devlin - it'd be one of the few criticisms I could have with McKenna. Overall, I thought the performance was as expected. I think McInnes got the tactics about right and we gave it a good go. I think the problems very clearly lie with the forwards and I don't think we'll be in a position to fix until January and perhaps the summer. With our existing personnel we were really hoping for a piece of luck, an amazing bit of skill from nowhere or a setpiece goal and when you go in with that as your only hope your likely to lose. A good bit of fight and effort all round though, apart from Wilson who appears to be a Maynard-esque charlatan but on a significantly higher wage. I'd be sending him back down the road now to send a warning to the other charlatans that we signed in the summer and anyone else that thinks they can take the piss out of the club with such a lack of effort.

Beards would be okay if they weren't a "thing". As soon as they became a "thing" then they became shite, ruining it for pre-"thing" beardies. My face is too beautiful to be hidden, so I don't grow a beard (which would take me approximately 63 years to accomplish if attempted).

He is fucking awful like. I'd say him and Thompson are the worst refs in the game here. Worse than thon chunt Muir who's improved over the last couple of seasons. I actually think that the refs are significantly better than they were just a few years back. They seem to be fitter and thus a lot closer to the contentious points. Still getting stuff wrong of course, but more likely through just being wrong rather than incompetence. Dallas is just weak to the point of arseyness, which is never good in a ref.

Good stuff min, well done. If we lose, we'll blame yer grandkids.

[ It's not a case of bottle though, is it? You just said that you're not sure if Anderson is ready to lead the line, and I'd totally agree (that he isn't). If McInnes is in the same boat as us, then it wouldn't be lack of bottle that keeps him from starting Anderson, but prudent management. I genuinely don't think he'd last 90 minutes for what it's worth. Really it's a tactical call on whether you're better having him on from the start, or his energy off the bench later in the game and I'd go with the latter. I'm probably in the same boat as Elgin in that I think McLennan might have a bit more about him in terms of strength and ability at firs team level (although I think Anderson will be the business in a year ot two's time). No chance. McInnes has kept faith in Lowe after his excellent showing against the hun, and he won't risk upsetting that side of the park for Considine. He also won't risk having to dick about with the selection if Devlin can't make it through the 90. As long as we don't fuck about with the back three option with Ball in midfield. We basically have to go with the team that played against the hun (after Considine went off) with a toss up between Wright, May and Wilson to see which two get to start.

I always knew thon cunt was a plagiariser.

I see what you're saying Rocket, but Considine was trying to get back to cover his man (who he let get beyong himd in the first place) and was in the correct position. A more experienced player than Ferguson - like Considine - would have simply conceded the corner if they weren't comfortable launching it from that location. We definitely need Devlin back for the final, but if Ferguson does shite like that against the Tim, it will be punished too. He reminds me of Christie last season a little and it's an indictment of McInnes' shitey signings that we're asking this much of Ferguson in his first full professional season.

Same team, but Considine for Devlin. Unsurprising. Hope Wilson can actually do something and we get Anderson on sharpish if not.

It's a difficult one like. Anderson undoubtedly deserves it on merit. However, if he's rushed in and has a run of poor games then it could dent his confidence. He's getting the sort of minutes that we've been crying out for our youth players to get since McInnes arrived, easing them into a good strong career. I think he has a good way to go to become a starting 11 dons striker. Unfortunately for us, so do May, Cosgrove and Wilson. At least with Wilson we can send him back at the end of the season, and if he's finished then it's nae really our problem. If we have a plan that we follow when introducing youngsters (I'm not convinced we do) then we shouldn't sway from that just because Wilson is pap. If starting Anderson in the next few games is deemed good for him then get him in, if he's nae there and it could be detrimental then continue to give him regular minutes until he's up to speed. In short, do what's best for Anderson at this stage rather than what's best for the team. I'm with you like, I'd have him in to see what he can do. Although part of me would like to unleash him in the final instead.

Fucking right. I'm actually a free marketer if anything, it's just that I believe that a free market isn't free unless your free not to participate. Free from advertising, cronyism etc. That means that yer basic human rights need to be provided so that you can't be coerced into buying shite you don't need, you have to genuinely want something because it's fucking good or it's an activity you love. The basic problems of housing, food, travel, education etc should have been solved long ago and we should concentrating on advancements and enhancements now. Our existing economy isn't fit for that purpose. Corbyn is a capitalist. He's a social democrat. He won't solve climate change, he won't solve resource depletion, he won't solve species extinction, he won't solve air pollution. He will keep a car battery factory in Sunderland open, re-instate an inefficient nationalised rail network and he'll be a lot nicer than the current fuckers, but in ten years we'll (not me) be voting those fuckers back in again because "immigrants" or some shite.

I suspect the 350K homeless in the UK would have something to say about just how accessible that is. Indeed, just giving it to people makes perfect sense. The current system allows me to own multiple houses (I don't) and rent them to poorer people at a profit with no additional effort required. Those poorer people work far harder to pay that rent + tidy profit than me, the owner, because the overwhelming majority want to work and do something. Unqestionably. It's a simple case of arithmetic, where the number of UK houses exceed the number of UK citizens requiring housed, ergo we could decide quite easily to ensure that everyone has one. Throughout the entire history of humans people have been entitled to a living space without paying for it, the notion of land and home ownership is very recent. It's nothing to do with entitlement as a trait, it's simply a case of saying that people shouldn't have to make monetary payment in order to live a basic life. Giving people the fall back and freedom to choose what they can do to improve society rather than just how they can exploit others for the most gain could see massive returns. If folk want to sit at home and be sloths and not involve themselves in society, who gives a fuck? It won't make mine or your lives any worse. If everyone is entitled then there is no entitlement, just something that is.

If they're in surplus then why shouldn't they be a right? Yes, worked for, but graft? For what reason? If the building(s) itself already exists, then what does that graft add? If the vast amount of work done in this country (and many countries) produces fuck all, and if - by recognising this - we dispense of it, then what graft is there to do? Surely most graft these days - my graft, certainly - just produces unnecessary emissions working for a company that produces unnecessary emissions. I'd argue that the only way we'll ever solve the issue of climate change is to remove the unnecessary work and the unnecessary production. That'll involve making access to food and housing a human right.

What about collective self-discipline? What if your self-discipline requires the lack of self-discipline of others in order for it to be a success? What if the system defines success as "diseases cured", "species saved" or "help given" rather than "£s collected"? Winners at what? What is there to win? Being best at remembering Kings like Gove? Or best at being a little cunt like I was? Punishment for what? And to what end? What I remember are punishments for not wearing the correct uniform, for talking back to the teacher or for asking questions. Let not pretend that schoool was ever anything more than a "sit down and do as your told" place to put kids while their parents went to work. I agree with them. What the fuck should we need to graft for and why (I mean really graft, 5-7 days per week)? Housing, food, travel, health are all just badly managed supply and demand - we have enough for everyone. Why should a chilld born today have to fuck about with these trivialities which should be stuff that they just have as a right? Perhaps if they had these things as a default then they wouldn't be pissing about on betting sites trying to make their thousands on that one perfect bet. Perhaps if they weren't chasing that dream then Bet365 wifie wouldn't have the upper hand on them as a default because they'd focus on actual stuff with the freedom to do what they wanted. Agreed. She's playing the system by the system's rules. If she didn't, then Bet365 wouldn't be Bet365.

I don't understand what you mean by that? Are you suggesting that by regulating rather than educating that people need the physical barrier (banning betting etc) proscribed rather than being taught it or learning through experience? I struggle a little with the "nanny state" tag as I've never really been sure what it's supposed to mean - it seems like a bit of a catch-all to me. What would you say is the nanny state approach to gambling for instance? How does that approach result in increased stupidity of the average gambler? How does it prevent the state from introducing proper gambling regulation (or is it used as deflection whilst allowing the industry to do whatever the fuck its donations pay for)?

It was news, to the extent that I knew about it so I must have read it somewhere. I disagree. Pretty much everything is now classed as "personal responsibility" these days, and I don't buy it; or at least the extent to which it can make a difference. The state doesn't have to be responsible for the personal decisions of the stupid, it just has to attempt to prevent stupid people from being taken for a ride - especially when "taken for a ride" doesn't just mean losing £50, it can mean losing a home, losing friends, losing family, suicide. We, as a society, underfund education then an entire industry uses pyshcological techniques that they've spent billions perfecting to trick those under-educated (or simply with addictive traits) into parting with their money. It's similar to the food industry - tricking people into buying foods that they don't need resulting in mass obesity. Some may not fall for the gambling industry, but there are few how don't get drawn in by the food industry, or the pharmaceutical industry, or the chemicals /plastics industry. There's little difference between me buying the unnecessary chocolate bar than the gambling addict putting another £2 on the horses because it's just a small bet. We're all tricked to some degree, whether it be recycling or betting, because that's the way we've designed our economic system. Saying that it's a person's responsibility not to be tricked isn't really addressing the problem.

Absolutely. He's tightened up nicely going back the way where he was a little loose defensively (especially against Hearts). Nobody would suggest Considine getting back in there before January. I've a feeling he'll stay for the remainder of the season and we'll see McKenna leaving and Considine seeing out the season at left centre half until we replace. I'd be happy enough with that outcome. I'd like to see us ditching Reynolds and keeping Considine as centre half cover for another couple of years if he's happy to stay - proper Dandy.