Messages

You've referenced an article there, please please tell me that you aren't using that infantile analysis as some sort of information source about the Iranian political system.

You ask for a citation.

I go off, find a citation, and post it here.

You complain when I give you a citation.

Somebody please shoot me.

Well tbh Eamon its like something that was written by the terrorism 'expert' who thinks Birmingham is a caliphate lol.

Are you for real? Personally I had as much faith in Ahmahinejad having his finger on the button as that clown George W, who was getting advice from God of all people. And if Khomenei [sp] had had a nuclear option it would have been a toss up between him and Reagan too.

I'm deadly serious. Iran was a democracy before, there's no reason to believe it won't be again.

Iran isn't a democracy? Well now thats news to me, and to most Iranians I would imagine.

Oh they go through the motions of having elections and all, but at the end of the day nobody gets elected without the approval of the mullahs.

Oh right I didnt know that. And can't find any proof of it either, maybe you could point me in the right direction??

However it sounds like a lot of other democracies tbh e.g. its's just like the way its done in the UK then where the Head of State and Church accepts the Prime Minister's offer to form a government.

Are you really equating Khamenei with Lizzie Windsor!?

Not really but there are certainly parallels between the 2 systems in the mix of theocracy and state institutions.

Though now you mention it if you want to maybe add up which of the 2 would be responsible for invading the most foreign countries, starting the most wars and causing the most deaths over the last 30 odd years as a result of this, feel free to put the numbers up.

NB you are unlikely to be able to source this information on the BBC, which, like you appear to, tends to believe that the UK has the mother of all parliaments and is the good guy out policing the rest of the world.

Like I appear to what? I asked you one direct question and you inferred a whole load of bollocks about what I appear to believe. Unsurprisingly, you managed to get it completely wrong.

The parallels you speak of are tenuous at best. The monarchy in the UK is little more than symbolic and any suggestion otherwise is nonsense. Cameron and the government, i.e. those democratically elected, are the ones with executive power. When was the last time Liz did anything other than rubber stamp a decision?

The theocracy in Iran on the other hand is very, very real. Perhaps not as strong as previously, but still in power. If you want to get into a pathetic point scoring exercise, while I'll (bizarrely) no doubt be accused of being a turncoat, I'd happily wager that since the Iranian revolution, it has been directly responsible for many more deaths that the brits.

Well you rowed into the middle of an argument asking a question which appeared to show shock/horror/astonishment/outrage that I had compared the Queen and the Ayatollah. Yes it did sound a bit more West Brit than West Belfrast tbh.

And I would happily take on a wee wager about that. Though how either of us could prove how many peeps either side side killed is gonna be difficult. Suffice to say that Iran hasnt been running around invading other countries on the other side of the world, or indeed anywhere, unlike our friendly neighbours.

No it didn't. It just participated in a fruitless, extended war that killed in the region of a million people.

You can kid yourself all you want that my incredulity over your belief that Iran is somehow a democracy makes me a west Brit.

Well in fairness it was defending itself from a direct attack from its neighbour during this conflict.

Are u saying that Iran is not a democracy? I'm fairly sure it is, and in my opinion it is the most stable democracy in the region.

But I suppose their form of democracy is the wrong type because they've elected the wrong type of people in the past and it needs the good ol western powers to go in there and show them how it's done so they can clean their act up. This approach has worked really well in the past and is still working really well today 

Are you for real? Personally I had as much faith in Ahmahinejad having his finger on the button as that clown George W, who was getting advice from God of all people. And if Khomenei [sp] had had a nuclear option it would have been a toss up between him and Reagan too.

I'm deadly serious. Iran was a democracy before, there's no reason to believe it won't be again.

Iran isn't a democracy? Well now thats news to me, and to most Iranians I would imagine.

Oh they go through the motions of having elections and all, but at the end of the day nobody gets elected without the approval of the mullahs.

Oh right I didnt know that. And can't find any proof of it either, maybe you could point me in the right direction??

However it sounds like a lot of other democracies tbh e.g. its's just like the way its done in the UK then where the Head of State and Church accepts the Prime Minister's offer to form a government.

Are you really equating Khamenei with Lizzie Windsor!?

Not really but there are certainly parallels between the 2 systems in the mix of theocracy and state institutions.

Though now you mention it if you want to maybe add up which of the 2 would be responsible for invading the most foreign countries, starting the most wars and causing the most deaths over the last 30 odd years as a result of this, feel free to put the numbers up.

NB you are unlikely to be able to source this information on the BBC, which, like you appear to, tends to believe that the UK has the mother of all parliaments and is the good guy out policing the rest of the world.

Like I appear to what? I asked you one direct question and you inferred a whole load of bollocks about what I appear to believe. Unsurprisingly, you managed to get it completely wrong.

The parallels you speak of are tenuous at best. The monarchy in the UK is little more than symbolic and any suggestion otherwise is nonsense. Cameron and the government, i.e. those democratically elected, are the ones with executive power. When was the last time Liz did anything other than rubber stamp a decision?

The theocracy in Iran on the other hand is very, very real. Perhaps not as strong as previously, but still in power. If you want to get into a pathetic point scoring exercise, while I'll (bizarrely) no doubt be accused of being a turncoat, I'd happily wager that since the Iranian revolution, it has been directly responsible for many more deaths that the brits.

Well you rowed into the middle of an argument asking a question which appeared to show shock/horror/astonishment/outrage that I had compared the Queen and the Ayatollah. Yes it did sound a bit more West Brit than West Belfrast tbh.

And I would happily take on a wee wager about that. Though how either of us could prove how many peeps either side side killed is gonna be difficult. Suffice to say that Iran hasnt been running around invading other countries on the other side of the world, or indeed anywhere, unlike our friendly neighbours.

Are you for real? Personally I had as much faith in Ahmahinejad having his finger on the button as that clown George W, who was getting advice from God of all people. And if Khomenei [sp] had had a nuclear option it would have been a toss up between him and Reagan too.

I'm deadly serious. Iran was a democracy before, there's no reason to believe it won't be again.

Iran isn't a democracy? Well now thats news to me, and to most Iranians I would imagine.

Oh they go through the motions of having elections and all, but at the end of the day nobody gets elected without the approval of the mullahs.

Oh right I didnt know that. And can't find any proof of it either, maybe you could point me in the right direction??

http://www.hscentre.org/middle-east-and-north-africa/the-mullahs-selection/

However it sounds like a lot of other democracies tbh e.g. its's just like the way its done in the UK then where the Head of State and Church accepts the Prime Minister's offer to form a government.

Nope, not the same. The Queen rubber stamps the decision of parliament. If she goes against the will of parliament then the Prime Minister can demand her abdication, and she'd have to go if she wants to avoid a constitutional crisis. The English civil war sorted out who was in charge between the crown and parliament. The mullahs in Tehran are a bit more powerful than that.

You've referenced an article there, please please tell me that you aren't using that infantile analysis as some sort of information source about the Iranian political system.

Are you for real? Personally I had as much faith in Ahmahinejad having his finger on the button as that clown George W, who was getting advice from God of all people. And if Khomenei [sp] had had a nuclear option it would have been a toss up between him and Reagan too.

I'm deadly serious. Iran was a democracy before, there's no reason to believe it won't be again.

Iran isn't a democracy? Well now thats news to me, and to most Iranians I would imagine.

Oh they go through the motions of having elections and all, but at the end of the day nobody gets elected without the approval of the mullahs.

Oh right I didnt know that. And can't find any proof of it either, maybe you could point me in the right direction??

However it sounds like a lot of other democracies tbh e.g. its's just like the way its done in the UK then where the Head of State and Church accepts the Prime Minister's offer to form a government.

Are you really equating Khamenei with Lizzie Windsor!?

Not really but there are certainly parallels between the 2 systems in the mix of theocracy and state institutions.

Though now you mention it if you want to maybe add up which of the 2 would be responsible for invading the most foreign countries, starting the most wars and causing the most deaths over the last 30 odd years as a result of this, feel free to put the numbers up.

NB you are unlikely to be able to source this information on the BBC, which, like you appear to, tends to believe that the UK has the mother of all parliaments and is the good guy out policing the rest of the world.

Are you for real? Personally I had as much faith in Ahmahinejad having his finger on the button as that clown George W, who was getting advice from God of all people. And if Khomenei [sp] had had a nuclear option it would have been a toss up between him and Reagan too.

I'm deadly serious. Iran was a democracy before, there's no reason to believe it won't be again.

Iran isn't a democracy? Well now thats news to me, and to most Iranians I would imagine.

Oh they go through the motions of having elections and all, but at the end of the day nobody gets elected without the approval of the mullahs.

Oh right I didnt know that. And can't find any proof of it either, maybe you could point me in the right direction??

However it sounds like a lot of other democracies tbh e.g. its's just like the way its done in the UK then where the Head of State and Church accepts the Prime Minister's offer to form a government.

Are you for real? Personally I had as much faith in Ahmahinejad having his finger on the button as that clown George W, who was getting advice from God of all people. And if Khomenei [sp] had had a nuclear option it would have been a toss up between him and Reagan too.

I'm deadly serious. Iran was a democracy before, there's no reason to believe it won't be again.

Iran isn't a democracy? Well now thats news to me, and to most Iranians I would imagine.

[then it should reach a point where we could actually live with them having a nuclear weapon. But we have to trust the Iranian people and drop the same arrogant attitude]

I don't think anyone is in any doubt that the campaigns carried out by any of the forces within these Muslim countries is wrong and should pull out straight away, let them deal with their own issues, is that the best method?

Would you prefer the Taliban to run their own affairs within their own country? (I've no opinion on this btw)

I used to be in favour of intervention but I've come around to the view that it's not always for the best. "We" (western powers) tried to impose democracy by force in Afghanistan and Iraq. Success has been limited in the former, and as for the latter, the less that's said the better.

What the west needs to do is drop this arrogant attitude that freedom, democracy and the rule of law is something that only we understand or want. The need for freedom is something that all peoples yearn for. History has shown that dictatorships are not sustainable in the long run, because it is impossible to govern without the consent of the governed in the long run. Dictators hang onto power by various means (terrorizing their own people, building support among their own people by attacking neighbouring countries, or some combination thereof) but dictatorships have a tendency to burn themselves out eventually when left to their own devices.

Democracy in the west is stable and pretty much indestructible because it was home-grown. Democracy in the UK evolved over centuries of figuring for themselves out which powers belonged where (including a civil war and a brief experiment with a republic) and eventually it settled into the fairly stable system they have today which everyone accepts. If it were an alien system imposed from the outside I'm not so sure it would have stood the test of time so well.

The experience in the west shows that power has a tendency to flow downward towards the people over time. The same is true everywhere. As China becomes more affluent, their people are going to want more control over their lives and the powers-that-be will have no choice but to allow it. The Arab Spring and the protests in Iran in the wake of their rigged election several years ago are another example of how populations will only take so much crap.

Iran is probably the most interesting case. When the mullahs in Tehran allowed Ahmedinijad to get reelected they seemed to underestimate the strength of feeling among the people. In the most recent election a more moderate president was allowed to win.  That's why I think the best approach to Iran is slow down the uranium enrichment process as much as we can, but not in such a way that it strengthens the hand of the extremists. As long as the mullahs have a western bogeyman that they can blame for their country's problems, the hawks in Tehran will have the upper hand. If sanctions can be eased and the economy boosted, then the doves will be in a stronger position. If Iran is allowed to evolve into a stable democracy, as it was before the UK/USA stuck their noses in in the 1950s, then it should reach a point where we could actually live with them having a nuclear weapon. But we have to trust the Iranian people and drop the same arrogant attitude that didn't trust the Egyptians to run the Suez Canal.When democracy is imposed by force it is not very stable. When it is home-grown it puts down deeper roots. But nothing weakens democracy like a hostile external intervention.

Are you for real? Personally I had as much faith in Ahmahinejad having his finger on the button as that clown George W, who was getting advice from God of all people. And if Khomenei [sp] had had a nuclear option it would have been a toss up between him and Reagan too.

Reports of 4 people [hostages] critically wounded at the supermarket.

What an attention seeking A***hole.

[Dividing by (x-y), obtain x + y = y.]

Statistically it's been a great success.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/gaa-claim-statistics-prove-success-of-black-card-1.1949901

Here is proof that 1 = 0:

x = y.
Then x2 = xy.
Subtract the same thing from both sides:
x2 - y2 = xy - y2.
Dividing by (x-y), obtain
x + y = y. Since x = y, we see that
2 y = y.
Thus 2 = 1, since we started with y nonzero.
Subtracting 1 from both sides,
1 = 0.

After 17509 posts your beginning to make sense.

The excellent Spailpín nails the issue here I believe.
http://www.spailpin.blogspot.ie/

Now in fairness I didnt listen too well during simultaneous equations but if x=y then x-y=0 and if you divide by zero you end up with 0=0

Close enough. 

You can't normally divide by zero.

Yes I know. I was just pointing out that you didn't!

[Dividing by (x-y), obtain x + y = y.]

Statistically it's been a great success.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/gaa-claim-statistics-prove-success-of-black-card-1.1949901

Here is proof that 1 = 0:

x = y.
Then x2 = xy.
Subtract the same thing from both sides:
x2 - y2 = xy - y2.
Dividing by (x-y), obtain
x + y = y. Since x = y, we see that
2 y = y.
Thus 2 = 1, since we started with y nonzero.
Subtracting 1 from both sides,
1 = 0.

After 17509 posts your beginning to make sense.

The excellent Spailpín nails the issue here I believe.
http://www.spailpin.blogspot.ie/

Now in fairness I didnt listen too well during simultaneous equations but if x=y then x-y=0 and if you divide by zero you end up with 0=0

I think it's reasonable to keep a separate hurling board. There are so many football threads that hurling threads would swiftly be pushed off the end of the first page. Out of sight...

Wouldn't necessarily disagree with this find it hard to keep track of the hurling threads when theyre in a different place. And maybe if hurling was on a shared board more people would see it, take an interest and post on it as well. or it could be made a sticky?

This place is looking a bit shabby, time to move the furniture round a bit.

The Child Boards in Local Gaa Discussion are a complete waste of space. In the past I would have looked at other counties threads. However after they were all separated out I never do, as its too much work and one can't see the activity around a particular county without actually going into their local discussion. Having done a quick survey there is usually only one topic active for each county [if that] so why not combine them again.

For instance in the most popular local Child Board, Derry,   there hasnt been a post in the second most recent discussion topic in months, and this appears to be true for most of them. All of the Child Boards plus any 'hot' topics would comfortably fit onto one page under Local Gaa Discussion.

Tbh I d like to see the Hurling combined under Gaa Discussion as well, as I would be interested in reading about it, but find that I dont go into it as it too is a separate page.

[1. The current generation are the best athletes to play the game. That's a statistical fact.2. The speed of the game is unparalleled . 3. It takes longer to recover from a match . 4. If a player plays for a number of teams and had to train with all of them he burns out very quickly It's very simple. 5. The current structure is unsustainable]

My club, who are senior, are doing a wee weights programme over the winter, no biggie. The training demands havent changed that much over the past few years as far as I can see. Players are maybe expected to get time off work for a thurs/fri night championship match and maybe a training weekend once or twice a year but in general they don't train more often or more intensively than they did before. there 's always some eejit who will be wanting to do a 6am session 3 times a week but sure....

The type of training has changed as well to reflect the changing physical aspect of the game but to say that the workload is more intense, well i don't know about that. It's more focussed certainly but running for miles uphill in a few inches of shite, trailing a big tyre, wasnt exactly easy. It might well have been the completely wrong thing to do but it was as hard, if not harder and a lot more tiring, as any training todays players do, and I know this for a fact as Ive done both types.

Every generation of players thinks they're better/harder/faster/more skillful/more committed/better trained/smarter than the ones preceding it, and as they say, paper never refused ink. I would hazard that there are similar articles like this written in every decade since Gaelic football/hurling started.

1. The current generation are the best athletes to play the game. That's a statistical fact.

2. The speed of the game is unparalleled .

3. It takes longer to recover from a match .

4. If a player plays for a number of teams and had to train with all of them he burns out very quickly

It's very simple.

5. The current structure is unsustainable
and comparing it to non weight bearing sports, amateur runners or otherwise really is bizarre.

The evidence I have offered is anecdotal, and I haven't claimed anything different. 

You on the other hand are making grand pronouncements, [as indeed have many other commentators such as the author of the piece that inspired this thread], and then proclaiming them as fact!!!

Can you provide one single piece of empirical evidence to back up any of the statements you have made above???  [not that I disagree with everything you have said.]

Empirical evidence of ?

I've numbered them 1-5 above.