Forum Replies Created
- Posts
"Judging by what you say, however, though many would like to see an united Ireland, just as many would simply like to two the two kept separate but living in harmony"
I’m not quite saying that. The vast majority of Irish people (as shown by a 95% vote in favour of the Good Friday Agreement) want the solution that results in the peaceful co-existence of both communities in Northern Ireland – whatever that may be. And they are equally not prepared to support violent means to achieve that aim.
Interesting parallels in the first article Wit posted between George Bush/al-Qaeda and Margaret Thatcher/IRA.
At the start of the eighties the IRA were close to defeat. They lacked arms, money and new recruits. Thatcher’s complete mishandling of the political prisoners issue (which led to the hunger strikes) provided no end of new recruits, made Sinn Fein a political force, and along with Ghadafi’s semtex and weaponary, extended the conflict for another ten years.
We don’t learn.<br>
My issue Ian, is that I find Gus’s assumption hugely offensive. It’s only an "assumption" as he offers absolutely no evidence to back up his claim.
Your surprise that someone could take issue with what he has written leads me to believe that the view Gus expresses is seen as not too far wide of the mark in Britain – that is sad.
If Gus had written that the London bombings would not have been possible without substantial and tacit support from the Muslim community in Britain, I reckon there would be plenty on here ready to argue otherwise but it seems that it’s assumed if you are Irish then if you are not a republican supporter then at least you are a republican sympathiser.
The IRA campaign was kept going through a cobination of intimidation, money from misguided Irish-Americans and in the eighties, Margaret Thatcher (the best recruiting officer the provos ever had) and Colonel Ghaddafi.
In the republic, while there has always been a tiny number who would support a tradition of physical force republicanism, the actions of the IRA have always been viewed with absolute abhorence by the vast majority of the population.
As far as a united Ireland goes, ask most Irish people would they like one and the answer would be "yes" but equally offer them an option which gauranteed that the two communities in Northern could live together peacefully and a similar number would support that option.
The other thing to say is that the "United Ireland" issue is just not on the agenda in the south. It’s not debated and there would be numerous other issues that people would see as having far more relevance to their lives.<br>
Quote: from guskennedy on 1:18 am on July 10, 2005[br][
By reference to the dictionary.
I’ve got a dictionary too, Gus. I suppose you have evidence that you wouldn’t mind sharing with us that would stand your statement up?
Quote: from guskennedy on 2:24 pm on July 9, 2005[br]
the IRA were able to function as they did for as long as they did because they had the tacit support of substantial sections of the Irish people.
How would you define "tacit", "substantial" and "Irish people"?
Quote: from The Minstrel on 2:58 pm on July 9, 2005[br]
I’m sure there’s plenty here  who will support me.
I’ll take Ian’s ramblings over the muck you post anyday, Minstrel.
Zilzal,
I’ve been away for the best part of the last month but that pledge stands. I’m told though that 2lbs a week is the sort of weight loss you should be aiming so if you don’t mind I’ll reduce the weight loss target to 32lbs.
Lost eight of it so far through cutting back on the intake of Guinness, eating more sensibly and a 30-40 minute walk most days.
Point out the fact that Britain may have made a few mistakes in her dealings with poorer, weaker countries in the past and you are a bitter Irishman. The sheer arrogance of that position might give you some as as to why Britain wouldn’t win many polls as the world’s most popular nation.
Lolly’s Mate thinks colonisation was something akin to a holiday in the sun. Hilarious.
BTW, the Maastricht treaty which enabled the introduction of the Euro took one vote to ratify in Ireland.
I suppose even with the recent invasion, we could be far worse off and be like the Irish and not even have our own money or language.<br>
Dave,
You are an ignorant tool.
Under British rule, it was illegal for a Catholic in Ireland to receive an education. The decline in the Irish language came about because half of the population of 8 million either died because of starvation brought about by British Government policy or they had to emigrate to find work. Parents decided that it was more valuable for the survival of their race that children learned english rather than Irish.
Still, despite British intervention, Irish is a thriving language.
Ireland adopted the Euro as our national currency by way of a public referendum. This was necessary because Ireland has a constitution which overrides all decisions made by government. Unlike the British who get **** all say in major decisions, we chose to abandon Sterling in favour of the Euro.
You saddos will cling to sterling even as it drags you down the toilet.<br>
Zilzal,
Count me in. 6ft 4in, 17st 10lbs. That’s 248lbs. I’ll pledge to lose 38lbs by Arc day. If I don’t, I’ll donate a monkey, if I do I’ll donate half that.
I just came to this debate – very interesting. The colonisers being colonised. Not feeling very welcome in their own country. Poor things!
I can’t help but sneer at the mentality of people like Lolly. They pine for the things that once made Britain "great" – uninvited, prolonged stays in other peoples countries.
Now it’s happening to them they feel threatened. There’s so much irony in this an American would see it.
Overrated –
Ratings – any type. I say that as a speed figure compiler myself. Ratings are so often the starting point for a punter’s analysis instead of the reference point they should be.
The most overrated rating is the "master" rating. They should be banned from all racing publications except for those read by anoraks who like to make lists.
Underrated –
History. Many punters try to predict what will happen in the future when they don’t understand what happened in the past (usually those armed with a bunch of ratings). This is both on a micro-scale with individual horses and in individual races and on a macro-scale with trends over a number of years.
I’m not just talking about the sometimes overly simplistic 10-year trends type thing but sometimes more subtler trends that take a bit of rooting to find.
I’d agree with EC regarding his basic premise that horses who earn a good figure while winning deserve extra credit to those who earn their figures when running further down the field.
These are the strike rates for horses who have earned the best last time out speed figure in an all-aged h’cap on the AW and who earned that figure in a h’cap.
<br>Prev Pos    Wins    Runs   Win %    <br>   1   213  827 25.8%<br>   2   129  600 21.5%<br>  3-6   139  783 17.8%<br>  7+    10  109 9.2%
It clearly shows that the further down the field a horse finished the less chance it has of winning next time. If speed figures were supposed to do what they say these strike rates should be practically identical.
While the differences are interesting from a purely ratings perspective from a punting perspective they are even more so.
The groups of horses who finished 1st or 2nd last time out would earn just a 1% profit backing them to level stakes suggesting that the horses chances are fairly obvious to most even without the use of speed figs.
But the group who finished 3rd to 6th last time earn 11% on turnover. This suggests that one of the better applications for speed figures is identifying horses who have run well and whose chances are not so obvious to the general punter.<br>
(Edited by ACR1 at 2:52 pm on May 1, 2005)
EC – I think you might be just bending the facts a little to suit your argument. It’s fine pointing out with three years hindsight that the second and third horses never won again.
But what price would you have given at the time that Trace Clip wouldn’t be able to win off a mark of 90 considering he had just been beaten 1.75L’s by a horse who had just run a "solid Group 1 time" getting 13lbs?
Looking back at Kyllachy’s record, his progress from that April 19th h’cap to a Group 1 win would’ve been little suprise to a collateral handicapper either. It was a desperate year for sprinters – Rudi’s Pet beaten just three lengths in a Group 1 and the 107 rated Continent winning the July Cup!
According to the Racing Post ratings Kyllachy was about 1 length better in the Nunthorpe in August than he was in the handicap in April. He was also the highest official rated horse in the race when he won the Nunthorpe. So basically, collateral ratings told you exactly the same thing as speed ratings.
This isn’t a "good example of how the clock is more helpful than A v B form reading" but if you do have one I’d love to see it.
Quote: from aston on 1:17 pm on Jan. 12, 2005[br]Trends are the very last thing you take into considderation imo. If you went by trends, you would have diregarded Essex chances on Sunday immediately.<br>
Aston – which trend or trends would have discarded Essex on Sunday?
Quote: from Prufrock on 12:08 pm on Jan. 12, 2005[br]
In contrast to ACR1 I do not personally know of a single successful punter who pays more than lip service to trends as they are presented by the likes of Craig Thake in the Post.
Pru- that’s not what I said. I said that "every successful punter is an analyser of trends".
You have to be or else you’re operating randomly. Successful punters are successful because they recognise what has been successful for them in the past. They spot patterns or trends and try to repeat them.
Quote: from thedarkknight on 11:42 am on Jan. 12, 2005[br]
Does that mean I don’t want to back an 8 year, even if every other factor is in his favour and he has otherwise opposable horses to beat?<br>
TDK – not at all. It depends on whether you think you have found a reliable trend or not.
You could look and find that only 10 8yo’s+ had taken part in the race and all had started at 16/1 or bigger. That’s not a trend that would put me off.
Or you could find that there were 50 8yo+ contestants, 0 winners and a dozen that got beaten at 8/1 or less. That’s a trend it would pay to heed.
Having said that, it’s just a trend – a tendency rather than an absolute. You might decide that your horse is not a typical 8yo. For instance, he might have had less runs than a typical 8yo, he might be handled by a trainer who has shown he can overcome trends or you might decide that there is an overriding factor that’s more important on that particular day such as really heavy ground.
