Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Zulu

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 443
1
GAA Discussion / Re: Top 8 teams in the country
« on: May 12, 2017, 04:14:31 PM »
That's not true. The GAA is the way it is because it's not a level playing field and never was. Money maybe increasing the gap between the top 3-6 and the rest but it isn't the main issue. For two thirds of the country they haven't had a golden age of any description in living memory.

Money and it's distribution is the biggest issue.

It's not Dinny. If it was then we'd have seen a far more equitable GAA in previous generations. Of course it's a big issue but Longford, Roscommon or Carlow would more easily close the gap with an extra 100,000 people rather than an extra 1 million. The GAA has always been unfair, financially, as much as anything else and money won't solve the imbalance.

I disagree in sport money is the single most important factor, it's why they have salary caps and wealth taxes in US and Australian sports. It's why the UK can dominate the Olympics ahead of countries like Russia and China with far bigger populations. The more money invested the greater the results.

Granted, but as rosnarun points out there are plenty of wealthy sports entities that fail to achieve much. I remember listening to someone on the radio talk about the population of Cavan when they were winning All Irelands being much bigger than now. Talent will always be the biggest factor and you are likely to have more talent with bigger populations. It's not the only factor but it is the main one in the GAA IMO. In professional sports any sports team with money can buy the players you need, you could give Longford all the money in the world and they still wouldn't be All Ireland champions anytime soon. Give Longford town all the money in the world and they'd certainly be the best team in Ireland by the end of the year.

2
GAA Discussion / Re: Top 8 teams in the country
« on: May 12, 2017, 10:33:02 AM »
There are a hundred and one factors that go into a county being competitive. Money is, of course, one of those factors and an important one at that but it isn't the defining one. Population is the defining factor. Every now and again a county will stump that, like Monaghan currently, but the trend will always be defined by population as it always has.

Seafoid, did you look at the relative size of populations in counties that were successful?




3
GAA Discussion / Re: Top 8 teams in the country
« on: May 11, 2017, 10:55:42 PM »
That's not true. The GAA is the way it is because it's not a level playing field and never was. Money maybe increasing the gap between the top 3-6 and the rest but it isn't the main issue. For two thirds of the country they haven't had a golden age of any description in living memory.

Money and it's distribution is the biggest issue.

It's not Dinny. If it was then we'd have seen a far more equitable GAA in previous generations. Of course it's a big issue but Longford, Roscommon or Carlow would more easily close the gap with an extra 100,000 people rather than an extra 1 million. The GAA has always been unfair, financially, as much as anything else and money won't solve the imbalance.

4
GAA Discussion / Re: Top 8 teams in the country
« on: May 11, 2017, 04:31:13 PM »
That's not true. The GAA is the way it is because it's not a level playing field and never was. Money maybe increasing the gap between the top 3-6 and the rest but it isn't the main issue. For two thirds of the country they haven't had a golden age of any description in living memory.

5
General discussion / Re: Proof there is no god.
« on: May 10, 2017, 07:53:01 PM »
Not sure I follow. I don't believe there is a God because I have seen nothing to suggest there is and the Gods have changed over the years and even now, we can't agree on what or who God is. It seems odd to me there are different Gods or that the current Gods weren't even always the ones we believed in. Why did people think Zeus was a God at one time but now nobody gives the Greek Gods credence?

Does that not say more about us than about God?

Does it not just say we don't know there is a God so we make up entities that represent one? I understand that people from ancient history would see the world in terms of an all seeing creator. They couldn't comprehend many things but science has explained a lot of what we didn't understand even 200 years ago.

I think we'd all like to believe there is something after this life. It's understandable that meeting our friends and relatives again and being rewarded for living a good life would appeal. This is particularly so when life is tough, as it has been for the majority throughout history. Is it a coincidence that as more and more people live lives of plenty that they have less attachment to a God?

I can't convince myself there's a God but if others do that's fine. However, if I accept someone saying the Christian God is real and should equally accept a guy who tells me Zeus is the only true God. Neither person can prove to me they are right and I can't prove either is wrong. Is the Christian God to be accepted more purely because it has the numbers now and the Greek Gods don't?

6
General discussion / Re: Proof there is no god.
« on: May 10, 2017, 06:27:44 PM »
Not sure I follow. I don't believe there is a God because I have seen nothing to suggest there is and the Gods have changed over the years and even now, we can't agree on what or who God is. It seems odd to me there are different Gods or that the current Gods weren't even always the ones we believed in. Why did people think Zeus was a God at one time but now nobody gives the Greek Gods credence?

I don't know, for certain, there isn't a God, it just seems very unlikely as there is nothing leading me that way. Science seems to be able to gradually prove why things are the way they are so I tend to accept that though I don't fully understand the science behind everything.

You are fully entitled to believe in a God but if it's based purely on faith then surely you should believe that anyone following any God is as likely to be right, whether it's Buddha or fairies at the bottom of the garden? And if you believe there is a God surely you would believe that God could engage with people on earth and if so, would you believe me or someone in your circle of friends if they said they were visited by God?

7
General discussion / Re: Proof there is no god.
« on: May 10, 2017, 04:06:43 PM »
What's the prize for anyone who can prove by the end of the week there is no leprechaun playing poker with a hobgoblin under your kitchen table when nobody's looking?

Are you trying to set up an accumulator or just deflecting

I know it's been said before but surely the burden of proof is on the religious? You're saying the world was created by a God, those of us who don't believe that don't really know but accept the likelihood of science being able to explain it.

8
General discussion / Re: Proof there is no god.
« on: May 10, 2017, 12:21:11 PM »
So can we all make up whatever we want and it is automatically valid as it can't be proved wrong?

You already do... your entire experience of the world is subjective.
Firslty no you couldnt just make it up, you'd have to truely believe it. Ideally we could all do that but for me part of spirituality  is connecting with other souls so they'd have to believe it to, so thats when it gets complicated and where religion comes in to join us together, and leads on to your next point


Just to clarify, I'm not saying all Gods are made up but if faith is enough then surely no belief system is wrong?

Possibly they are all right who knows..... maybe you should join the Masons ;)

My own belief is that religion is a way of answering the call of the spiritual and there are different ways of answering that call because it is subjective, although most religions do accomdate for this to some degree.
But then of course just by answering that call means that you believe one belief system is closer to the spiritual "correctness" than another. Its a bit of a conundrum I admit and if you want to take it to a black and white objective conclusion(s) you can say well there is either one correct, they are all correct, or none are correct.

But for me its alot more fuzzy than that since the source of the spiritual is subjective and we all have a personal relationship with God as we all see him in different ways even within religions (which actually most preach). Religion is a man made construction of that spirituality and only a guide to our personal spiritual journey.

Then again is this paradox proof or evidence of no God? Not for me. But if thats your point its not disimilar to saying that because Black Holes dont make sense logically then the entire model of the empirical universe that we understand must be wrong.
[/quote]

It's not entirely subjective though. The vast majority of what we do or experience isn't subjective, if I put my hand into a fire I'll burn my hand and it will hurt, the same would happen to everyone else if they did the same. There's very little that's subjective I would say. Linking to others is simply a numbers game and doesn't make a religion or God more or less likely.

Bottom line is nobody can categorically prove Santa Claus, Zeus, God or Budda doesn't exist so not believing in them is as valid as doing so. Under normal circumstances most people wouldn't accept believing in something based solely on faith so I find it hard to accept there is a God. Furthermore, if I told people who believe in God that I was visited the previous night by God and we spoke at length about various topics would they believe me? Would they take me at my word and if not, why not? If God exists why couldn't he visit me?


9
General discussion / Re: Proof there is no god.
« on: May 09, 2017, 11:16:43 PM »
Just to clarify, I'm not saying all Gods are made up but if faith is enough then surely no belief system is wrong?

Which ones aren't?

Sorry, poorly worded. I don't think there is a God but if somebody does and that is based on faith, not proof, then would that person not have to accept that any belief is just as valid? So for example, if I said I believed in Gozer the Gozerian and could only eat Weetabix on a Thursday shouldn't any believer of a God accept my beliefs as entirely valid?

10
General discussion / Re: Proof there is no god.
« on: May 09, 2017, 03:10:34 PM »
Just to clarify, I'm not saying all Gods are made up but if faith is enough then surely no belief system is wrong?

11
General discussion / Re: Proof there is no god.
« on: May 09, 2017, 03:09:13 PM »
So can we all make up whatever we want and it is automatically valid as it can't be proved wrong?

12
GAA Discussion / Re: Search for New Mayo Manager
« on: May 03, 2017, 05:04:06 PM »
That's fairly speculative to be fair but I think they showed some decent game management. It's impossible to say who is doing what behind the scenes anyway so it's all a bit speculative in these things.

13
GAA Discussion / Re: Search for New Mayo Manager
« on: May 03, 2017, 04:46:37 PM »
How do you know McEntee can be easily replaced and that Buckley is so important? I'm not saying you're not right but it seems an odd statement if you're not part of the panel.

I think Mayo will remain competitive for the foreseeable future but it's hard to see them not slip back into the pack rather than step up to All Ireland winners with the players coming through.
Buckley was brought in by James Horan and his impact in improving team in organisation,tackling and added toughest is clear for all to see.

McEntee was brought in by Rochford in the hope he would add more and deliver a further impact to the panel of players however thus far Mayos form has been patchy at best the sweeper system has been hit or miss. And some have the opinion that too many cooks will eventually spoil the broth.

At the moment Mayo have the right blend of experience and youth but the foreseeable future it remains to be seen how Mayo cope when the current experience players call time on their careers.

To be fair, McEntee came in when this Mayo team were close to performing at full capacity. Harder for McEntee to make clear improvements but I think many feel they've been tactically astute and pushing a more talented Dublin team so close is a good reflection of the current management. What McEntee contributes I don't know but it could well be a lot.

14
GAA Discussion / Re: Search for New Mayo Manager
« on: May 03, 2017, 04:28:48 PM »
How do you know McEntee can be easily replaced and that Buckley is so important? I'm not saying you're not right but it seems an odd statement if you're not part of the panel.

I think Mayo will remain competitive for the foreseeable future but it's hard to see them not slip back into the pack rather than step up to All Ireland winners with the players coming through.
thanks for the concern but theres loads of players coming through . just not all at the same time . more of a seamless transition. the cream of last years u21s are in a development group to be deployed as needed

The type of player who will make the difference don't seem to be coming through. A big traditional football county like Mayo will always produce players but to win All Irelands you need some of the top 2 or 3% of the players in Ireland. Players like Higgins, Moran, Boyle etc. won't be easily replaced and I see no sign of a really good forward or two coming through. Maybe there is but Kerry and Galway seem to have that quality coming through more than Mayo.

15
GAA Discussion / Re: Search for New Mayo Manager
« on: May 03, 2017, 02:59:27 PM »
How do you know McEntee can be easily replaced and that Buckley is so important? I'm not saying you're not right but it seems an odd statement if you're not part of the panel.

I think Mayo will remain competitive for the foreseeable future but it's hard to see them not slip back into the pack rather than step up to All Ireland winners with the players coming through.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 443