blonde poker forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 27, 2016, 10:07:01 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
2124166 Posts in 64894 Topics by 18654 Members
Latest Member: dtd_live_updates
* Home Help Arcade Search Calendar Guidelines Login Register
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 10

 1 
 on: Today at 09:49:15 PM 
Started by Sheriff Fatman - Last post by fatcatstu
As mentioned before, I'm up for anything, would love to play a D league.

Iron side can vouch for how much I love a bit of fantasy NFL!

 2 
 on: Today at 09:47:37 PM 
Started by Ironside - Last post by fatcatstu
Man City and Everton are in talks about a possible £50m deal for John Stones. http://bbc.in/2ahdxQE

Everton have been linked with Ben Gibson from Boro in the last year of so if Stones leaves. Hope not.

 3 
 on: Today at 09:43:29 PM 
Started by TightEnd - Last post by OverTheBorder
Guess it is about time somebody defended the indefensible.

I used to be a big admirer, but think Frank Field has lost his mind.  He said this today of Philip Green

,” Field told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “I’ve always thought Maxwell meant to pay the money back, he was just going all over the place borrowing money to keep his companies going. When the music stopped he had no money.]“He’s much worse [than Maxwell],” Field told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “I’ve always thought Maxwell meant to pay the money back, he was just going all over the place borrowing money to keep his companies going. When the music stopped he had no money.

People can think bad things of Philip Green, He clearly could have found a better buyer, but BHS was a dinosaur and likely was going to go bust soon in anybody's hands.  I also very much think that he and others shouldn't be allowed to pay tax on UK profits in Monaco.  But these are side issues to the state of the BHS pension scheme. 

Maxwell flat out stole all the money in the mirror group pension schemes.  All Philip Green did was pay less into the pension schemes than he could have done.  To say that Green is worse than Maxwell is absolutely wrong and it is very misleading given every idiot in the press, and on twitter, seems to be under the impression that Green really did steal from the pension schemes.  But even if Green had paid twice as much as he did, the scheme would still be in a bad mess on wind up.  The scheme was not in a great state when he took over and much of the big deficit is caused by the different basis  pension schemes must use on windup.  FWIW it is likely a toss up if quantitative easing has done as much damage to the prospects of the BHS pension scheme as Philip Green.   

By contrast, the old British Steel scheme is teetering with a much bigger deficit and Frank Field is not in the press accusing those who ran that as worse than Maxwell.  Seriously, why not give those people the same treatment?  Or is it only OK to smear people in the press if they have 3 big f off yachts?

It is absolutely shambolic that a bunch of MPs don't listen to expert advice on something like this and instead choose to mouth off in the media their premeditated conclusions.  It is also pretty disgraceful that Frank Field was allowed to chair an inquiry after he slagged off Philip Green in the media before the inquiry had started.  Was it not apparent to anybody in power that there was absolutely no way he should have headed that inquiry after his statements to the press.  It is very important for people who are effectively acting as judges in these matters are shown to be impartial. 

Whilst this may well be a stain on capitalism, it is very much a stain on democracy that our MPs are able to act in this way.  The sooner the issue of how much Philip Green should pay in to the pension scheme is taken out of the MP's hands and put in the hands of an independent member of the judiciary the better. 

Big +1 Doobs. He didn't break any laws, and yet those who set the laws are scalding him for "moral responsibility" the absolute go to when the law makers have cocked up spectacularly. One of the most misreported cases you will ever find. Halcrow and Tata are as big a deal but they don't sell tabloid inches

 4 
 on: Today at 09:32:33 PM 
Started by zerofive - Last post by Marky147
Neither can I... Another of the reasons I have a trainer Grin

 5 
 on: Today at 09:24:55 PM 
Started by TightEnd - Last post by Doobs
I think it's nonsense to talk about equality of outcome but we could talk about quality of outcome ahead of equality of opportunity. Ie. What is actually being achieved rather than what have we done to notionally make achievements in 30, 40, 50 years time

Equality of opportunity seems like a pretty trite phrase to me to put a gloss on the fact that not much happens to address the needs of very disadvantaged people.

The problem is also that the equality of outcome that some people (particularly government ministers) aim for isn't actually helpful at all.

One of the targets that I could see them setting as having to have 'equality of outcome' rather than 'equality of opportunity' is state school access to elite universities (for example).

This is already being looked at as a major factor with higher education, and it would be pretty easy to legislate for a minimum percentage of yearly intake coming from state schools - and then the government that does this would hail their own achievement at widening access to elite higher education.

The problem with it is that the percentage of students entering higher education from state schools is a worthless statistic. At the moment there are universities who take almost 100% of their intake from state schools - but who have over 50% drop out rate; whereas there are elite universities who only take about half their intake from state schools - but have a virtually zero percent drop out rate.

In terms of improving people's life chances and widening social mobility they could be seen as roughly equal - and the elite universities could even be said to be doing better (as the 50% who graduate from there are likely to be doing better than their equivalent from the more bog standard higher education institutes); but the current measure would say the elite universities  are doing terribly and the universities where most people drop out are doing well (for social access).

This is the kind of yardsticks politicians are likely to use if they start trying to fix equality of outcome - not only is it going to unfairly skew whatever they're measuring one way or another, it's not even likely to end up being helpful.

I do think some of your point is fair.  There will always be some inequality.  Equality of outcomes means there can be no reward for parents spending time with their kids etc.  And there is no point in forcing people on to courses when they aren't capable of completing them.  I do think that 50% is a pretty sorry figure though.  Sure that they could move that without any significant change for the worse.   Equality of opportunity is a long way off.  Not sure how you go further without massively screwing around witha whole host of things and producing some very bad unintended consequences.   

FWIW, I am not sure there are many universities with 50% dropout rates, though I am sure there are plenty of courses at some universities.

 6 
 on: Today at 09:14:34 PM 
Started by 4KSuited - Last post by nirvana
Never folding pre. 8 times out of 10 I'd check shove with the stack you mention because it feels like the proactive thing to do.

I'd rarely do what pads suggests as I'd likely fold turn if I check called a moderate bet on the flop and whiffed, and I'd then hate myself. But he is pads and got a slight feeling his view counts for more.

2-3 times out of ten I'd be happy to lead small and be prepared to get it in bad (ish) on the flop. If only called on the flop we can strap on our bandolier and unload on just about any turn - tbf, this is why I often go out of tourns before the end

 7 
 on: Today at 09:08:23 PM 
Started by tikay - Last post by Doobs
sent PM, I claim the 50 quid from mantis.

 8 
 on: Today at 08:55:15 PM 
Started by TightEnd - Last post by nirvana
I think it's nonsense to talk about equality of outcome but we could talk about quality of outcome ahead of equality of opportunity. Ie. What is actually being achieved rather than what have we done to notionally make achievements in 30, 40, 50 years time

Equality of opportunity seems like a pretty trite phrase to me to put a gloss on the fact that not much happens to address the needs of very disadvantaged people.

The problem is also that the equality of outcome that some people (particularly government ministers) aim for isn't actually helpful at all.

One of the targets that I could see them setting as having to have 'equality of outcome' rather than 'equality of opportunity' is state school access to elite universities (for example).

This is already being looked at as a major factor with higher education, and it would be pretty easy to legislate for a minimum percentage of yearly intake coming from state schools - and then the government that does this would hail their own achievement at widening access to elite higher education.

The problem with it is that the percentage of students entering higher education from state schools is a worthless statistic. At the moment there are universities who take almost 100% of their intake from state schools - but who have over 50% drop out rate; whereas there are elite universities who only take about half their intake from state schools - but have a virtually zero percent drop out rate.

In terms of improving people's life chances and widening social mobility they could be seen as roughly equal - and the elite universities could even be said to be doing better (as the 50% who graduate from there are likely to be doing better than their equivalent from the more bog standard higher education institutes); but the current measure would say the elite universities  are doing terribly and the universities where most people drop out are doing well (for social access).

This is the kind of yardsticks politicians are likely to use if they start trying to fix equality of outcome - not only is it going to unfairly skew whatever they're measuring one way or another, it's not even likely to end up being helpful.

Easy to agree with you on this. Reminds me of so many nonsensical corporate targets I've seen where no one really benefits except the person saying they set a nonsense target and met it. So many examples like yours of giving the appearance of betterment with little really changing

 9 
 on: Today at 08:53:42 PM 
Started by zerofive - Last post by iRaise
Legs

Leg Press

100x10
120x10
140x10
160x6

We couldn't use the studio, so did the leg press in reverse, and finished with a drop set.

160x4
140x5
120x4
100x6

Finished with one set on the press only, which is 70kg, and got over 40 reps.

Just the slight clonus exacerbation Cheesy


Not an unexpected drop, as they were my weakest body part anyway

Leg Press

100x10
120x10
140x3

After failing so quickly on 140, I took 5 minutes and then worked back to an empty machine.

120x10
100x10
70x51

Got over 50 reps, which was more than previously, but has to be down to doing almost 2 sets less with heavier weights.



Not sure I can count to 50.

Well played.

 10 
 on: Today at 08:48:49 PM 
Started by The Camel - Last post by RickBFA
I believe Abdi to Sheff Wed confirmed for £4 million.  Medical passed.

Wow that is a huge signing.

Excellent player, surprised a Prem team didn't pick him up.

Not confirmed yet. Hope this comes off.

With Fletcher signed that's 2 quality new players hopefully.

If we sign a quality centre half we'll have a decent side next season.

You surprised Dung that he's being sold?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 1.12 seconds with 16 queries.