RicoS321

Maybe, maybe not. I think that if you're trying to motivate your players to beat a better team (or any team) then you need to deploy these types of tactic. I don't mean the tactic of playing to either of the above, but the tactic of getting your players to believe that they are. If you're playing Celtic for the nth time this season, then it's important to differentiate between what you did last time you lost to what you're about to do that's going to get the win. These descriptions of formation are useful tools in motivating your team or individual players within that team. They don't have to physically manifest themselves on the pitch in order to perform a function. I don't doubt that Ferguson would have described a player as playing off (or behind) the front man in order to get across to that player that they had to track back from the front more than usual. That said, what your describing is the punditry use of these terms I expect. The good thing about last night is that when Stewart came on, he played very high up the park and centrally, giving the effective 4-4-2 in which he was succesful with at Killie. It worked.

I liked it. Bit stupid in places, but original enough and good. Brit Marling very good.

Just back, a deserved, good and vital win. We made it difficult for ourselves at times, and we never look like scoring up until the point that we actually do. Good early sub in the second half, bringing on Stewart which really turned the game in our favour. He brought the anonymous Cosgrove back into the game by actually running onto his flick ons, held the ball up and made a couple of good incisive passes to bring McGinn into the game too. That gave McGinn the time and space to have an excellent second half. Alongside Lowe, they were the best two on the park. Stewart and Considine with good performances and Shinnie did the work of three players in midfield, which is extremely worrying given he's missing for the semi. Ferguson was largely anonymous and Campbell did okay but was right to be subbed. McLennan was fairly pap and needs a good boot up the arse and told to stay on his feet and concentrate. Ball was gash and gave the ball away too many times, which is worrying given he's likely to be in midfield for the semi. Thought McInnes poofed it by taking Devlin on at home, but then we did get a third so perhaps we can let him off. An absolutely sublime goal which justifies staying until the very end.

Didn't know there was a game. Fuck sake. Fucking midweek pish

I wish our board would make an imaginative appointment like Kurt Russell. He'd be an ace manager. Good though SeaBass, inspiring stuff. That said, how do we know that the Russian manager didn't make just as heartfely a speech? We'll need a lot more than a good team talk to beat the Tims. I think we can, but we need everything to go right - no mistakes, no injuries.

Some folk somewhere - I canna mine (maybe TC on here?) - were suggesting that we had a 22.5% sell-on clause. That'd be some fuckin deal if so, but I doubt it. What sort of figure do they pay for the likes of Fraser doon Sooth? Must be near £20M given he starts every week (I think)? Even at 10% it wouldn't surprise me if we end up getting more for Fraser than we do for McKenna.

That's not appeasement, that's just not using the sensationalist term isn't it (i.e. the correct approach)? If they'd said punch and it was McKenna or Cosgrove then you and I would be complaining - correctly - about the BBC's biased when reporting on non-scum teams. You're asking them to angle their bias in our direction instead rather than just be impartial. If there's evidence that the BBC writer saw what he thought to be a punch, but toned it down then fair enough, but I'm saying that I see a shove too. Anyway, I don't actually care in this case, I just think that over-using terms such as propaganda makes actual propaganda be taken less seriously. I actually think that across the board managers and players get too much respect from the BBC and the line of questioning is too often weak (rather than impartial).

Not when I use it isn't, hence why I added context. In the context of this particular incident it is misuse in my opinion. Why it annoys me is because when you use a term as loaded as "propaganda machine" you have to be specific and accurate. In my opinion, the term (conspiracy theorist) gets used to discredit anyone (and I agree that it does, and it also annoys me) because of the platitudinal nature of the accusations that get thrown about lazily without evidence. It basically gives people the opportunity to lazily reply with the term "conspiracy theorist" to anyone questioning the established order of things. It's like crying wolf. If you want to question "the deep state and/or presstitute media", then do you think it's advisable to give them easy fodder like this? In my opinion, you immediately put off your reader and you hurt those who bother to provide more in depth examples. Is the BBC used as a propaganda machine? Yes. Is this an example of that? Absolutely not. Not even slightly. To me, a conspiracy theorist is one who finds an agenda in absolutely everything and refuses to take any other point of view (I'm not suggesting that is you, Tyrant). A conspiracy theorist is not someone who questions the extablishment. I find it a very easy distinction to make, and it is very much possible for one person to be/do both (me. probably).

The council have never been given the option to reject a proposed Pittodrie re-development, so I don't believe we'd have to wait 5 years. We'd just need to apply.

It's similar to McKenna's one, but the actual hit out is with excessive force given that it's in Brown's face (without even looking) and a decentish clout, so it's completely consistent with the rules. Totally agree with the bit in bold, that was my first thought as soon as I heard the comments without having to think. Again, it's fucking frustrating that proper journalism can't take place - that question should have been immediately posed to Gerrard. In terms of Brown being "clever", I actually don't think that he was even trying to be clever in that incident. I assume he would have thought he had to be significantly more clever in order to get a reaction, it was embarrassingly inoccuous

It is a shove though. It's of the push variety. Nobody would actually punch like that unless they're a total fanny. It's aggressive and worthy of a 2 game ban, but nothing in the lik suggests otherwise. Annoyingly, you've used the phrase "propaganda machine". There are some excellent examples of this in the BBC, but this clearly isn't one of them and it makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist when you use examples like this. It's actually a very impartial phrase to use. They've attached the clip where the pundits agree that it should end in retrospective punishment. It's pretty standard journalism. If anything, "punch" would be sensationalist tabloid pish.

I'd hope that's what we give all our players to be honest. To me there's little difference between an injured player and a charlatan like Nicky Maynard who spends his entire time on a bench. Yep, it could just be bad luck or injuries that are unrelated. We'd have regretted not getting Anderson back despite his previous injuries for example. Sometimes a player just goes through a spell of incidents. We could get a couple of years out of him injury free if there's no underlying issue. Similarly, we could sign someone without injury problems who tears a cruciate the next week. Basically, if the medical staff thinks there's no reason to be concerned then get him on board.

Aren't these the risks we have to take in our position in the world of fitba? It's no different to taking a punt on an unknown from the English leagues for me. Ultimately, we've had more use out of Hoban than we have from Gleeson, Forrester and Wilson combined despite neither of those having injury issues. In other words, you can take a punt on a guy that you know to be a good fitba'r that could miss games through injury or you could take a punt on a guy that you think might be a better player than those you've got but should remain injury free. Hoban would be an improvement on what we've got (at right centre half) in my opinion so we could I quite like it if I'm honest, it makes things a bit more interesting. It would be shite if all our signings were ace. Part of what makes fitba exciting is that opportunity to make mistakes. We're probably one or two signings in budget ahead of Hibs and Hearts at the moment so to have that pressure on yer recruitment is the way fitba should be.

It's a weird one like. I was reasonably positive/hopeful when he was appointed until I heard his first couple of interviews. It was like he had completely forgotten why he wanted to be a manager. He's never been the most articulate, but there was always a visible confidence and determination about him and that just seemed to have gone. To the extent that if you'd interviewed him there's no way that you could have looked beyond it. Nothing like the manager that we had first time around. Shame like. His approach to playing players from Scotland was refreshing (and exactly what many fans have been crying out for) and, annoyingly, the next manager will revert to championship subs further distancing the national game from the league game. A better manager would have managed those SPL players to a far better standard, so it's frustrating that playing SPL players will be the easy target. I think Strachan will get the gig again. I fucking hope not, obviously. You could be right with Malky though Rocket, but I don't see him as any better a manager than some Owen Coyle chunt. But that is based on very little evidence whatsoever, I've never paid that much attention to him.

Indeed, it's almost exactly what you would have expected his national manager to say.

It strikes me that McInnes might want a player who feels he has something to play for in his remaining games. A bit of encouragement/psychology or whatever you want to call it. Good management if you ask me. If he gets 16 minutes between now and the end of the season but we still sign him, then I reserve the right to retract that comment.

Maybe just a bit nervous playing out of position....

So what percentage of violent extremism is Islamist led?

Just caught the end, it looked good. Did you continue on to watch Storyville's Silk Road/DPR documentary? Seen it before like, but a good watch. Anyway, a great point about the phones Seabass: "Just bloody LIVE THE MATCH rather than becoming desensitised to it with a concrete memory of some play on your phone". Great quote sir, nicely put. I genuinely believe that people like Milne think that they are pulling in the same direction with regard to the new stadium. I don't think they appreciate the plastic environment they're creating for plastic fans. A manufactured day out in the car. I suppose that when you spend your life building soulless housing estates with zero redeeming features, perhaps you begin to believe in it.

It's not practically on anyone in Aberdeen's doorstep though, that's the thing. It is the very definition of soul destroying. It's a fucking trip to Ikea. If Ikea was a lot shitter. Sheddocksley number 2 would retain the soul of a city club. I'd move there no bother.

The "I pay my money, I can be a dick" attitude that surrounds life in general is a bad thing. It's not just football. Entitlement at its worst.

To be honest, it's the market we should be operating in. If we can find a talented and proven SPFL player then we're onto a winner. Not sure it's this guy like as I don't remember him in the two home games. Hopefully he's more McLean/Shinnie/Ferguson than Tansey.

Could have been in the World According to Truth thread, but it's a book, so it goes here. "33 myths of the system", Well worth a read, and not that long, and also free to download in any format: http://expressiveegg.org/portfolio/33-myths-of-the-system/

My mistake. I'm not asking you to "buy" anything, I provided you a fact and a link that corroborated that fact. Again, you seem to be mistaking ignorance and evidence. In fact, you probably still think that your "pretty much 100% Islamist led" figure is still correct even though it's in your own head. Maybe you should grow up and take some responsibilty for what you post? Admit you have absolutely no idea what percentage of violent extremism is "Islamist led".

You're mistaking political correctness with ignorance*. Political correctness is a myth perpetuated by fuckwits like Donald Trump to disguise his fucking idiocy and the fact that he's just wrong all the fucking time. It's a way to lie and then accuse folk when your completely wrong. Take your comments above for example. It's just ignorance. I have no problem with you not knowing what the fuck you're talking about, but your presenting it as fact. Not just fact, but fact that people are preventing you/others from publicising and discussing. Read back through your comment and then present us with the evidence for your claims. There's nothing in your paragraph above that suggests that you've even looked at any documented evidence or even attempted to. Furthermore, you're not asking people if you're right or not, you're unapologetically being wrong. It's not political correctness that is your issue, it's incorrectness. You'll then counter with some shite about "not being able to express an opinion". First, you haven't given opinion, you're stating fact. Second, nobody is preventing you, they're (me) just calling you out for it. Those two things are present in just about every accusation of "political correctness gone mad" - the person being apparently "shouted down" is a) completely incorrect in their text/speech presented as fact, b) not being prevented from saying anything, just called out and unable to cope. Most of the time, as in this case, the person is saying something that is contentious, zenophobic or racist and usually targetting a minority. There are some intelligent folks (Jordan Peterson as an easy example, Nicholas Taleb on occasion) who are perfectly able to make very contentious comments in public without issue because they provide evidence for their comments and back up their points. They receive abuse, but they've all got a platform they can talk on and a huge audience. You can disagree with them too. It's yer fucktards like Tommy Robinson who claim "political correctness", because he's evidentially talking shite and usually with a lot of deliberate hate baked in. Basically, the rule of being an adult human being is that if you're going to state something controversial then check yer facts or expect to get abuse. *over 73% of deaths by extremism in US were right wing: https://www.adl.org/murder-and-extremism-2018 Do your own research.