Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Where is the evidence that Excelebration is better on good ground? He is 3 out of 3 on soft / very soft.
He beat Elusive Kate and Cityspace in France and has been kept fresh since then – they have ran elsewhere. He is better off at the weights with Elusive Kate this time. Furthermore, those two ran from the front in that race and stayed there – only Excelebration caught them up. So I think they were at something of an advantage, despite not winning.
As for Carlton House – he’s never won a Group 1 before nor a race over 1 mile. Despite a sneaking feeling that he may run well, I’ve got to rule him out for the win. You’ve got to stick to the form book or suppositions and ‘what ifs’ will put you off ever having a bet.
My only doubt about Excelebration is that it all looks too good. In my eyes, he should be 4/7.
All Tomorrow’s Parties! No tents. And the line-up for the My Bloody Valentine-curated one is brilliant (IMO).
I think ‘Jacko’ got away with a lot due to this ‘he’s just a big kid’/Neverland nonsense. Let’s face it: his dance-routine consisted of him grabbing his crotch every two-seconds (when he was touring, I remember complaints that it was too sexualized); when his home was raided during one of the trials, he had a massive collection of porn; he was married to a grown-up woman.
So clearly he wasn’t this grown-up kid who has never had an impure thought. He was a sexualized man… a man who built a theme-park in his garden to attract children and then had them sleep in his bed.
In a way, that’s pretty awesome though: compared to normal peadophiles he was like a kind of James Bond-villian – but without hiding underneath the Earth’s crust or something: doing it all while being one of the most famous/photographed men in the World. You’ve got to admire that.
Michael Jackson: ‘The People’s Peadophile’.
.. can hardly believe he’s dead .. omg!
Am I the only person who noticed that, for the last ten-years, he looked very, very ill?
As for his death, I find it hard to care – he wasn’t even my favourite peadophile.
Y’know I’d NEVER heard of the Bradford City F.C. Fire Disaster until a couple of years ago. It happened when I was 2/3 years-old but I live in Yorkshire and regard myself as a fairly cultured, knowledgable chap.
In fact, I think it was the comedy clipshow which brought it to my attention – showing the footage of it over a jokey commentary and wacky sound-effects had the local papers understandably outraged but until then they had NEVER mentioned it. Totally forgotten.
NWRA – I admire your firm stance but i’ll just remind you of some of the comments you made on my thread about "unwanted" and "ungifted" celebrity’s (as I thought you commented on that so read through it and it turns out you did."
"I have a 15-year old cousin who is intrigued by the lives of the famous, finds the spectacle of it all rather amusing – but ultimately know that it’s abstract, far removed from her and her world, and instead concentrates on getting an education. Not every person who passively watches Pop Idol on a Saturday night wants to be famous."
So does your 15 year old cousin think Jade Goody’s illness is "far removed from her and her world." I’m not saying your a hypocrite here, but do you understand how one single person with one single set of views can’t really be "right" on stuff like this – I do now anyway…
"I don’t agree. Nearly every celebrity helps charities, so if that’s a barometer for what makes a celebrity ‘deserving’ or not – then nearly all celebrities are deserving!"
I hope you now see this paragraph for this bollox it was – the only charity dear old Jade helped was the Jade Goody charity…
Bless her all the same.
Regarding the first quotation: I almost wanted to agree because I was too confused to argue otherwise but, no, I think you’re trying it on here!
I said originally that my cousin is not influenced by celebrities (i.e., copying their behaviour, fame-hungry) because ultimately she sees the celebrity World as far removed from her own – like hopefully many teenage girls do though patronising folk believe that all teenagers are idiots without the capacity for independent thought. And you seem to be implying that this must mean (following my logic) that my cousin
doesn’t believe in cancer
(its removed from her World)… because Jade had cancer and she doesn’t believe in Jade Goody
… and its impossible that she was aware of cancer before Jade got it. Also she can’t believe in the colour pink too as that was Jade’s favourite colour. Or something. What?
You have a point in the next quotation. I said that it was stupid that people were making out how great and admirable Jade was for raising money for her sons when it would be far more admirable to raise some for charity too. But in that old thread, I said that, in general, celebrities who raise money for charity aren’t unquestioningly wonderful people – the merest mention of words like ‘mum’ and ‘charity’ makes people too pious. Yes, following this logic, it seems like Jade can’t win. But both of those are rational opinions – and the latter is a generality. I was thinking more of David Beckham being thought of as a saint because he clicked his fingers in an advert.
And yeah it’s absolutely true that ‘one single person with one single set of views can’t really be "right" on stuff like this’ and it’s fine to make that point. But what’s the consequence of that? Posting that at the beginning of every debate thread and then asking the moderator to close it down? Qwertyuiop! Arguing is one of the great joys of the Internet.
I still don’t believe it and am expecting her to rise on the third day – live on Sky News….
Dave, I think the plan is to have her Canonised and she will become the Patron Saint of the United Kingdom – and we can all celebrate our ‘Britishness’ once a year together.
(expect the Paki’s of course)
This just goes to show – I could have
really
done with the Internet when Diana died.
Hang on… Candle In The Wind ’09 anyone?
Just wondering: in what way has Jade been ‘brave’? and are people who die of cancer in private, and don’t have pictures of themselves looking brave in newspapers – ‘cowards’?
I’m also suprised that nobody has made the point that, for all her raising money for her children – her children are millionaires anyway! How much do they need? More importantly did she give anything to cancer charities?
I know there are probably more appropiate days for making these points but asdfghjkl. She wasn’t Jane Tomlinson.
Well, you miss the point completely in your first paragraph. What a silly question to pose.
1. Her children are not millionaires.
2. She has donated to a cancer charity.
3. Was Jane Tomlinson a better person than Jade Goody?Exactly what is it with people like you?
We’re bored of hearing about it?
If she has donated to charity, then that’s great. I’d rather the charity gets the money and I’m proven wrong on an Internet forum than the charity not get any money.
The way that newspapers have been writing about it is counter-productive in a sense – it’s changed a real-life tragedy into a Hallmarks weepie, about a perfect, charming princess who was brave to the end, which is going to make the cynical (or less-easily-manipulated) react against it. The clichés, the Stalinist revision of history – it requires a bit of balance.
And one ‘TV star’ is not equal to 150,000 civilians – that requires a bit of balance too.
I hate to play this card but I’ve known two people who have died of cancer, and another one who is recovering from it. It’s hard to care about this; but then, does anybody care about it really (who didn’t know her personally)? It’s an abstraction: someone people have seen on
TV
has died – people are paying their respects over the
Internet
– all these emotions that have been provoked by, and are directed at, nothing real (to them), floating in an overlit, florescent World – the unreality is near-poetic.
And this isn’t to say that I haven’t felt sad when reading particular books; but the characters were more sympathetic, and the story was told better.
I did make that point, NWRA, though your timing could have been better.
Ahh so you did make that point, and very well too. I skimmed the first page, sorry.
Just wondering: in what way has Jade been ‘brave’? and are people who die of cancer in private, and don’t have pictures of themselves looking brave in newspapers – ‘cowards’?
I’m also suprised that nobody has made the point that, for all her raising money for her children – her children are millionaires anyway! How much do they need? More importantly did she give anything to cancer charities?
I know there are probably more appropiate days for making these points but asdfghjkl. She wasn’t Jane Tomlinson.
I think it’s a good idea to look for graded-level horses who can dominate a niché type of race. Over the last few years, look at horses like Beef or Salmon (3m chases in Ireland), Nickname (2m/2m4f chases in Ireland) and lately Catch Me (2m-3m hurdles in Ireland – they were/are a class above the rest in their respective, weak divisions and can build-up sequences. This obviously applies to mares too, i.e., Solerina, Peeping Fawn on the flat.
There’s also the factor for mares of being in-foal though this applies to older handicappers who, once they win and confirm that it has had an effect (it doesn’t always) can then run-up quick sequences because being in-foal has made them 20/30 pounds better.
I haven’t been into racing as long as many but here goes; considering New Approach was a multiple Group 1-winner at 2, was beaten only a hd in the 2000 Guineas (1m) by a brilliant miler, won The Derby (1m4f) impressively, won the Champion Stakes (1m2f) by 6l – I thought he was strangely underrated. One of the only horses, along with Zarkava and George Washington, that you could make a case for being a ‘superstar’-type in recent times.
I’m expecting VPU to drift. The last few season he’s ran between Christmas and The Cheltenham Festival, he’s been a beaten favourite – and there have been negative vibes about him in the morning (King saying it’s a prep. for Cheltenham, it’s not the end of the world if he gets beat, etc). With the trip (I’m not convinced he stays it) and the ground (has been beaten by inferior horses on this ground before), I think he’s a very dodgy favourite.
Has to be Tamarinbleu for me. Goes on the ground, gets the trip, loves the course, and he’ll get an uncontested lead. He’s proven at this level unlike Gawanko. 9/4 seems a reasonable price to me.
I honestly cannot remember the last time I went into a betting shop.
As for my betting – I never bet more than I can afford to lose.
‘If you cannot afford to bet,
Then you cannot affordnot
to bet’
I back over the phone or online – my bets tend to be an amount greater than I would generally carry in cash, and also I don’t like it when you put a bet on at the bookmakers, they notice it as it’s a big liability than their average, you stay and watch the race, it loses and then you have to do ‘the walk of shame’ – try to walk casually out of the shop like the objective, calculating semi-pro gambler that you are, when you’re compulsion is to scream and start (mildly) self-harming.
I can’t remember the last time that I backed a horse over 3/1. I tend to back ‘value’ short-priced favourites. I know some believe that you can’t make money backing favourites, particularly at odds-on (without Harry Findley-like funds) but I think you can, most often if you back before the race and the influx of money on Betfair, i.e., getting 4/5 about Eighteenfifty, which won at 1/3 yesterday.
There are a lot of value short-priced favourites in ‘big races’ too, more than ever, and I think it’s due to the democratization of opinion, layers on Betfair going down blind-alleys and others following them, layers getting a vague feeling of ‘something’s not right’ because some other layers are laying their horse and they don’t trust their own opinion, behaviour economics. As an example, why was New Approach @ 6/4 in the morning to win his last race, against a poor field, when his real odds were surely in the region of 1/2? because that Bolgers a bit untrustworthy? the horse can be a bit wacky? Some vague feeling from the two? It was nothing to do with its form.
