Off Topic Thread 4.0

bilston

Zzippy wrote: »

bilston wrote: »

It takes a lot more than 15 times to get anything ascross to my kids

Oh you get it across to them alright. They just don't care... my 16 month old just looks at me with disdain when I remind him he can't do something. Your kids have presumably had even more practice...

Yeah...about 4 or 5 years

wp_rathead

Awh man i accidently watched the video of the shooting from the Madden Tournament ...

errlloyd

wp_rathead wrote: »

Awh man i accidently watched the video of the shooting from the Madden Tournament ...

It's ****ing tragic. This has to help change the debate. It's the third serious mass shooting in Florida in a short time. The state with the most pro gun gun laws in America. If you've got time for a long read the New Yorker profiled the NRA lobbiest in Florida and showed the power down they wield down there, but I hope its waning.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/05/the-nra-lobbyist-behind-floridas-pro-gun-policies/amp

Neil3030

Nah, Sandy Hook didn't lead to any change, very unlikely this will.

NRA already claiming it happened because of "gun free zones". Seems to be their most common play these days.

As to what constitutes a "gun free zone" is unclear: if they can't blame state law (e.g. illegal to conceal carry), they'll blame local law (no guns in schools/state buildings) or even just behavioural patterns (happened in a place where nobody else had a gun).

In their mind, the only solution to a bad guy with a gun, is a good* guy with a gun, and absolutely nothing will shift that. Nothing.

(*ideally white, christian).

P.S., a buddy of mine lives in North Carolina and claims the local shooting range doesn't allow people on the premises if they are carrying a concealed weapon.

awec

Sandy Hook was the point of no return. When dead children doesn't change things then nothing will.

Buer

stephen_n wrote: »

So 1 million down to 130,000. Don’t think it’s accurate to say anymore that Ireland is a catholic country.

Not sure that figure is accurate. The Journal is the only place I saw it reported and I wouldn't exactly regard them as even handed on the topic. They don't have any official source either.

With that said, it was clearly miles below the capacity. I'd be surprised if it was much more than 200k. The Vatican are reporting 300k which is wildly optimistic. The whole set up was a sham. Bussing elderly people to sites 3-4km away and expecting them to walk in the p*ssing rain.

I can understand why the event was where it was but it would have surely been easier for many if they had it at a central green field site like they have for the ploughing championships which has a proper park and ride set up that genuinely works and they're well experienced at dealing with tens of thousands.

With all that said, I think the trip really underlined where the Catholic church is in Ireland now i.e. dying a death and not as slow a death as we had thought. Unfortunately, they're so entrenched in aspects of our society such as education and healthcare, it's going to be decades before we manage to fully disentangle their influence from our society.

stephen_n

The journal are claiming the Garda were keeping count of people entering and leaving. If that’s the case I’m sure the actual figure will come to light. Looking at the aerial photos though it wouldn’t be that far wrong.

Even the ploughing championship doesn’t get anything near the expected 500,000 in one day. If they got a million in the park in 1979, surely it could accommodate 500k today.

irishbucsfan

stephen_n wrote: »

The journal are claiming the Garda were keeping count of people entering and leaving. If that’s the case I’m sure the actual figure will come to light. Looking at the aerial photos though it wouldn’t be that far wrong.

Even the ploughing championship doesn’t get anything near the expected 500,000 in one day. If they got a million in the park in 1979, surely it could accommodate 500k today.

I wouldn't be the best judge of the size of crowds but judging by the aerial photos I'd say there was about 6 people there

Squidgy Black

stephen_n wrote: »

The journal are claiming the Garda were keeping count of people entering and leaving. If that’s the case I’m sure the actual figure will come to light. Looking at the aerial photos though it wouldn’t be that far wrong.

Even the ploughing championship doesn’t get anything near the expected 500,000 in one day. If they got a million in the park in 1979, surely it could accommodate 500k today.

Ah yes, the Gardai have a history of providing accurate and truthful figures!

mfceiling

Wife's mother went. Delighted to hear the mass. She said it wasn't particularly busy at all.
I wonder how long it will take for it to "die out"?
Mass numbers must be dwindling and there's very few young people bothering with faith anymore.
20 years, 30 years?

kuang1

mfceiling wrote: »

Wife's mother went. Delighted to hear the mass. She said it wasn't particularly busy at all.
I wonder how long it will take for it to "die out"?
Mass numbers must be dwindling and there's very few young people bothering with faith anymore.
20 years, 30 years?

It's worth pointing out though that the same dwindling in numbers isn't a worldwide phenomenon. Central and South America would still be staunchly Catholic for instance.

My fascination lies with the finances of it all.
Fast forward to a time when the church is practically unattended in Ireland. With the financial might of the church, what do they do? How are their lobbyists put to work then?

I've no clue.

Buer

mfceiling wrote: »

Wife's mother went. Delighted to hear the mass. She said it wasn't particularly busy at all.
I wonder how long it will take for it to "die out"?
Mass numbers must be dwindling and there's very few young people bothering with faith anymore.
20 years, 30 years?

The priests will die out before the congregation. Not that the congregations aren't dwindling but the number of priests under the age of 65 must be a small percentage at this point. In 10-15 years, I would imagine the 2-3 priests that are in my area will all have either passed on or be unable to work.

I know I'm probably in something of a minority but I genuinely pity some of the priests who remain (on the assumption of innocence). There was an interview of the radio with a priest from rural Mayo last week. He's in his sixties and his work schedule is ridiculous. At a time when most of us would be winding down or retired, he's on call and working 70-80 hours a week, covering an insane geographical area including islands.

irishbucsfan

Buer wrote: »

The priests will die out before the congregation. Not that the congregations aren't dwindling but the number of priests under the age of 65 must be a small percentage at this point. In 10-15 years, I would imagine the 2-3 priests that are in my area will all have either passed on or be unable to work.

I know I'm probably in something of a minority but I genuinely pity some of the priests who remain (on the assumption of innocence). There was an interview of the radio with a priest from rural Mayo last week. He's in his sixties and his work schedule is ridiculous. At a time when most of us would be winding down or retired, he's on call and working 70-80 hours a week, covering an insane geographical area including islands.

I think I read recently that an association of priests in Ireland were polled and the lack of young priests was their biggest concern, followed closely by the handling of clerical abuse. Says it all really.

It's an existential crisis. No doubt there'll be many buildings and many, many acres of land sitting idle when the church can no longer operate them.

mfceiling

mfceiling wrote: »

Wife's mother went. Delighted to hear the mass. She said it wasn't particularly busy at all.
I wonder how long it will take for it to "die out"?
Mass numbers must be dwindling and there's very few young people bothering with faith anymore.
20 years, 30 years?

Hard to know and that's presuming it will ultimately die out, if we went through any spate of societal upheaval for any reason it would swing back again in popularity.

Ultimately though I think while questions relating to faith, theology and life after death will continue to be asked, without families carrying through the Catholic tradition those questions will ultimately be answered elsewhere.

I do think it's going to take a long time for the traditional elements to die out, we'll be 'Catholic in tradition only' quite soon but how long before non church weddings outnumber church weddings? How long before not getting children baptised becomes the norm?

Buer

kuang1 wrote: »

It's worth pointing out though that the same dwindling in numbers isn't a worldwide phenomenon. Central and South America would still be staunchly Catholic for instance.

My fascination lies with the finances of it all.
Fast forward to a time when the church is practically unattended in Ireland. With the financial might of the church, what do they do? How are their lobbyists put to work then?

I've no clue.

That was a point made on the radio this morning. In relation to the church putting in place new procedures for reporting and dealing with abuse, Ireland is a blip on the radar. The RCC still has a massive worldwide following who are happy to follow their teachings and the church still has a firm grip in these nations. Mexico, Brazil and the Philippines have well over a quarter of a billion Catholics between them.

The Vatican isn't going to rock the boat and make significant changes to deal with their issues in the western world when they're making hay in the developing world. There's a rake of African nations that have more Catholics than Ireland. We're just an irritant to the Vatican at this point, I would imagine.

The Vatican won't care too much if they lose Ireland. They'll continue to hold their financial interests here if and when they lose their congregation entirely. They'll still hold plenty of power and financial clout worldwide which is the bigger picture for them.

Buer

Buer wrote: »

The priests will die out before the congregation. Not that the congregations aren't dwindling but the number of priests under the age of 65 must be a small percentage at this point. In 10-15 years, I would imagine the 2-3 priests that are in my area will all have either passed on or be unable to work.

I know I'm probably in something of a minority but I genuinely pity some of the priests who remain (on the assumption of innocence). There was an interview of the radio with a priest from rural Mayo last week. He's in his sixties and his work schedule is ridiculous. At a time when most of us would be winding down or retired, he's on call and working 70-80 hours a week, covering an insane geographical area including islands.

I'd be even more sympathetic given that his employment contract demands life long celibacy and denies him the right to both work and have a family. Some reward for a lifetime of commitment to a faith ay!

swiwi_

I’ll believe when people stop putting « catholic » the moment they are sick and hospitalised. Cancer tends to suddenly make people religious again.

stephen_n

Buer wrote: »

I know I'm probably in something of a minority but I genuinely pity some of the priests who remain (on the assumption of innocence). There was an interview of the radio with a priest from rural Mayo last week. He's in his sixties and his work schedule is ridiculous. At a time when most of us would be winding down or retired, he's on call and working 70-80 hours a week, covering an insane geographical area including islands.

That’s exactly how I felt the other day when he was in the Capucin Centre. They do so much fantastic work, real Christian values. It must be incredibly difficult for them being associated to this. Undoubtedly there are a lot of good people involved with the church and they must feel betrayed by all of these scandals.

irishbucsfan

swiwi_ wrote: »

I’ll believe when people stop putting « catholic » the moment they are sick and hospitalised. Cancer tends to suddenly make people religious again.

People put themselves down on the census as Catholic all the time. Completely standard stuff really, it’s got a bizarre meaning here.

swiwi_

irishbucsfan wrote: »

People put themselves down on the census as Catholic all the time. Completely standard stuff really, it’s got a bizarre meaning here.

That's what I mean. People go rah rah rah Catholicism, but I'm betting between Buer, Venjur and mfceiling there will be (at least nominally) Catholic ticked for

1) Schooling of their kids
2) Any hospitalisation
3) Baptisms & confirmation

I sort of thing being Catholic in Ireland is more about identifying as being Irish rather than an actual religious choice...?

OldRio

In our local parish Mass attendance is still high but because of the changing demographic there are fewer 20 somethings attending.
Following college people move for employment. They are not many jobs in this locality. We lost a teacher last year because of the decline in numbers in the school.
If Catholic Ireland is in decline so is rural Ireland.
I blame you City heathens corrupting our God fearing youngsters. 😁

irishbucsfan

swiwi_ wrote: »

That's what I mean. People go rah rah rah Catholicism, but I'm betting between Buer, Venjur and mfceiling there will be (at least nominally) Catholic ticked for

1) Schooling of their kids
2) Any hospitalisation
3) Baptisms & confirmation

I sort of thing being Catholic in Ireland is more about identifying as being Irish rather than an actual religious choice...?

I'm still quite close with a lot of people from my year in school (which was a catholic school despite my parents making good life choices and raising me as a decent protestant man). Out of 100-odd I'd say a large majority would identify themselves as catholic on that form but only a handful (less than 10) would attend mass with any regularity.

stephen_n

swiwi_ wrote: »

I sort of thing being Catholic in Ireland is more about identifying as being Irish rather than an actual religious choice...?

I think for many the two are indivisible. You are brought up Irish and Catholic, most people never question what either means to them.

awec

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I'm still quite close with a lot of people from my year in school (which was a catholic school despite my parents making good life choices and raising me as a decent protestant man). Out of 100-odd I'd say a large majority would identify themselves as catholic on that form but only a handful (less than 10) would attend mass with any regularity.

Always knew you had protestant tendencies, do you keep your toaster in the cupboard?

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

Always knew you had protestant tendencies, do you keep your toaster in the cupboard?

You have asked me this before!

I am from a mixed marriage and inherited my toaster storage habits from the other side of the family.

Buer

swiwi_ wrote: »

That's what I mean. People go rah rah rah Catholicism, but I'm betting between Buer, Venjur and mfceiling there will be (at least nominally) Catholic ticked for

1) Schooling of their kids
2) Any hospitalisation
3) Baptisms & confirmation

I sort of thing being Catholic in Ireland is more about identifying as being Irish rather than an actual religious choice...?

100%. For the record, I'm not having a pop at religious people. A number of family members are quite religious and my parents were deeply religious. My wife is practicing although far from staunch and thereby my children will definitely have that influence in their lives but there's absolutely an a la carte element to it.

I've said before that Catholicism is largely more of a cultural thing in Ireland than an actual practiced thing. We do communions and confirmations (which are a brutal waste of time and money) because it's a day out for the family and seen as a landmark. Very few are bothered about the religious aspect. It's almost an automatic reaction for people to tick that they're Catholic because that's how they were raised.

I think we'll see a change in the next 20 years and it's already taking shape but the influence of the church in this state is incredibly deep rooted beyond what I even realise, I reckon, in relation to the formation of the state and just how much influence and power they had.

thomond2006

Eir are useless.

Installation of broadband cancelled today. Of course I had to call them to find that out. They tell me their systems were down. That's great lads. It's still no ****ing use to me and others who took time off to be at home.

swiwi_

Well...wife took the dog for a walk in the forest...and he found a corpse!

Apparently not that uncommon but yuck.

bilston

awec wrote: »

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I'm still quite close with a lot of people from my year in school (which was a catholic school despite my parents making good life choices and raising me as a decent protestant man). Out of 100-odd I'd say a large majority would identify themselves as catholic on that form but only a handful (less than 10) would attend mass with any regularity.

Always knew you had protestant tendencies, do you keep your toaster in the cupboard?

He's still a Leinster fan though

bilston

swiwi_ wrote: »

Well...wife took the dog for a walk in the forest...and he found a corpse!

Apparently not that uncommon but yuck.

A human corpse or a dead rabbit?

swiwi_

bilston wrote: »

A human corpse or a dead rabbit?

Human. Police now at the scene with forensics. Wife a bit shocked

kuang1

swiwi_ wrote: »

Well...wife took the dog for a walk in the forest...and he found a corpse!

Apparently not that uncommon but yuck.

Not that uncommon?
Thought you were in Switzerland not Japan!

swiwi_

kuang1 wrote: »

Not that uncommon?
Thought you were in Switzerland not Japan!

Relatively speaking. But the policeman said his dog had found a corpse once too. I’d say Japan is even safer than Switzerland.

irishbucsfan

swiwi_ wrote: »

Relatively speaking. But the policeman said his dog had found a corpse once too. I’d say Japan is even safer than Switzerland.

I think that's a reference to the forest in Japan where a lot of people go to take their own lives, and supposedly there's a lot of bodies about the place.


I hope your wife is OK, it can be quite harrowing. Even if you feel like its nothing at the time it can creep up

swiwi_

swiwi_ wrote: »

Human. Police now at the scene with forensics. Wife a bit shocked

If this turns out to be Victor Matfield I for one will be suspicious.

thomond2006

Stephen Rochford has resigned from Mayo. I was hoping he would stay on but perhaps it was time.

swiwi_

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If this turns out to be Victor Matfield I for one will be suspicious.

Early reports suggest its a Mr J. Ryan.

mfceiling

swiwi_ wrote: »

Well...wife took the dog for a walk in the forest...and he found a corpse!

Apparently not that uncommon but yuck.

That's a wow from me!! Bloody hell that's a horrendous thing to encounter.

mfceiling

Any Man U followers here?

Asking for a friend....a Liverpool one who is pìssing himself laughing!!

*not me...I follow the mighty Wolves*

bilston

mfceiling wrote: »

Any Man U followers here?

Asking for a friend....a Liverpool one who is pìssing himself laughing!!

*not me...I follow the mighty Wolves*

How long you supported Wolves?

3 weeks?

irishbucsfan

bilston wrote: »

How long you supported Wolves?

3 weeks?

Hey now I'm a Wolves fan as well and its been a long, long road for us so let us have our moment! I'm sure it'll all come down on top of us eventually but maybe we'll get one joyful season out of it. Out of Darkness cometh light and all that.

Anyway I still love Jose. Absolutely one of the best sports managers/coaches in the world. His press conference was a masterclass last night. The journos will be able to set the narrative that he's throwing the toys out of the pram in the press but his players will have watched that and taken a lot from it. Things probably won't work out for Mourinho at United because the club don't seem to agree with his philosophies but I will enjoy watching him, and looking forward to Wolves going there in September!

mfceiling

bilston wrote: »

How long you supported Wolves?

3 weeks?

33 years!! Ever since my uncle gave me a load of old wolves programmes as a gift (he was clearing out shìte and saved him dumping them!!).

Buer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Anyway I still love Jose. Absolutely one of the best sports managers/coaches in the world. His press conference was a masterclass last night. The journos will be able to set the narrative that he's throwing the toys out of the pram in the press but his players will have watched that and taken a lot from it. Things probably won't work out for Mourinho at United because the club don't seem to agree with his philosophies but I will enjoy watching him, and looking forward to Wolves going there in September!

Mourinho was brilliant. His time is done. I think you're giving him far too much credit to say that his performance last night was a masterclass. I'm not sure his players are taking anything from him. That press conference was nothing unusual for him, filled with deflection and whataboutery and it certainly isn't having a positive impact on his team. He's still entertaining but that's just because he's a bit of a loose cannon.

I don't think it's a disagreement on philosophies either that is the issue. Whatever magic he had to create an atmosphere of absolute devotion from his players seems to have evaportated. He no longer can cultivate relationships like the ones he had with Drogba, Terry and Materazzi. If he doesn't win a league this season, it will be one title in seven seasons which is a very poor return for the amount of money spent by him.

Management tends to be a game for younger managers of late. Mourinho is 56 this season and I think he's become bitter and somewhat detached from his players.

awec

He lost the plot in the press conference with the papers. People like to say that he's doing it on purpose but nah.

Mourinho's problem is his style of football is turgid and his ego is huge, so when things aren't going well then he loses favor with people very fast. He builds up no good will.

He won't last the season at United. He'll fall out with someone and that'll be that. Out the door by Christmas, with maybe Zidane replacing him.

irishbucsfan

Buer wrote: »

Mourinho was brilliant. His time is done. I think you're giving him far too much credit to say that his performance last night was a masterclass. I'm not sure his players are taking anything from him. That press conference was nothing unusual for him, filled with deflection and whataboutery and it certainly isn't having a positive impact on his team. He's still entertaining but that's just because he's a bit of a loose cannon.

Whataboutery and deflections... that's exactly what a press conference is supposed to be! But in reality he wasn't deflecting, he was pretty straightforward with the press.

When he came back to that journalists he said: "I'm sorry, you have to tell me what is the most important thing for you because I don't know. When I win matches I come in here many times and you are not happy that I've won. You say that the most important thing is the way of playing. You need to make a decision in relation to that because I need to know from you what is the most important thing, if it is to play well or if it is to win matches. If it is to play offensively or if it is to play for a certain result. Today we were aggressive, we press high, Tottenham couldn't make two passes coming from the back, they made lots of mistakes because of our pressure. We project the full backs, we had Valencia and Luke Shaw arriving in dangerous positions. We missed goals with an open goal. We missed chances, we were unlucky in rebounds in both goals. We lost the game because we conceded a goal in the first corner of the match against us, on the minute 50-something. In the first half, 0 corners, 0 lateral free kicks, 0 frontal free kicks. On the minute 50-something they had 1 corner, they scored a goal. And you want with that goal, to transform the story of the game."

That's exactly what his players want to hear. Now there are obvious flaws with his premise (that you either try to play well or try to win), but its an accurate analysis of the game, which is important in legitimising his later criticism. Spurs had a single shot on target in the first half. (or if you're a nerd the expected goals was 0.35 until the 65th minute despite being 2-0 up). The athletes will know that he is right. Soccer is a sport in particular where the journalists and bloggers are lightyears out of touch with the high performance athletes, there's a major disconnect. He's doing exactly the right thing by using a good performance to try to create a siege mentality and take the spotlight off his players as much as possible. Whether or not it works with fans is up in the air, but I'd be very surprised if it hasn't planted a flag for the players to rally around.

Anyway I dislike the club for other reasons so a big part of me hopes they don't turn it around and he heads off somewhere else, I just hope it's still the Premiership because I love the entertainment of it. And maybe he'll never win another title, but the league benefits from his presence.

Buer

The above is defending his players and making a case for their performance. But it's absolutely deflection to then go on a tangent and start questioning how many titles other managers have won and highlighting the number he has won...none recently. That's absolutely irrelevant to the press conference and, whilst the players might be glad to hear the backing in the quoted section above, they'll surely be rolling their eyes at him reverting to type and making it about himself.

He has done enough damage already throughout his time there in terms of criticising his players and lack of signings to put his relationship with the players on the ropes. Trying to defend a performance when they lose 3-0 is not really going to assuage the concerns of guys like Valencia or Pogba who have been publicly criticised by him particularly when he then finishes on the usual bizarre note.

The conference may have been smart thinking in isolation but we've seen this a number of times at this stage. The tactic and approach can only have a very limited impact with the players at this point. By the end, it came across to me as Mourinho circling wagons around himself much more than his team.

irishbucsfan

Buer wrote: »

The above is defending his players and making a case for their performance. But it's absolutely deflection to then go on a tangent and start questioning how many titles other managers have won and highlighting the number he has won...none recently. That's absolutely irrelevant to the press conference and, whilst the players might be glad to hear the backing in the quoted section above, they'll surely be rolling their eyes at him reverting to type and making it about himself.

He has done enough damage already throughout his time there in terms of criticising his players and lack of signings to put his relationship with the players on the ropes. Trying to defend a performance when they lose 3-0 is not really going to assuage the concerns of guys like Valencia or Pogba who have been publicly criticised by him particularly when he then finishes on the usual bizarre note.

The conference may have been smart thinking in isolation but we've seen this a number of times at this stage. The tactic and approach can only have a very limited impact with the players at this point. By the end, it came across to me as Mourinho circling wagons around himself much more than his team.

Have to completely disagree with you there. Whatever about him not winning anything recently, everything I've seen from guys in environments like that suggests strongly to me that it will play perfectly with them.

All this same stuff was being said about him back when he was winning titles, including by me btw, about how the players were surely rolling their eyes at his antics, at how he was childish, and how they would see right through it. We've since found out that the exact opposite was true.

The finishing note wasn't bizarre at all to me. It's just bizarre if you don't watch the whole thing and even moreso for those who didn't watch the match and just saw the score. Of course the only thing being shown by the press is exactly that clip without any of the preceding questions, because the storyline of him going off the rails and losing control is the one that people want to believe, but he was actually pretty well spoken and engaged in both his post-match interview and the rest of the press conference. But the audience he cares about, conveniently enough, saw it all!

Synode

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Spurs had a single shot on target in the first half.

They also had a 2 on 1 that they absolutely should have scored but the pass never went to Kane. I thought they looked comfortably the better side throughout the game and it was only a matter of time before they scored. United's defence was an absolute shambles. Jose is delusional thinking United should have been 2 or 3 up at half time.

irishbucsfan

Synode wrote: »

They also had a 2 on 1 that they absolutely should have scored but the pass never went to Kane. I thought they looked comfortably the better side throughout the game and it was only a matter of time before they scored. United's defence was an absolute shambles. Jose is delusional thinking United should have been 2 or 3 up at half time.

They didn't have a single shot until the 39th minute. By that stage United had had 4 strong chances on goal, normally they would have been winning at that stage.

He's absolutely right in reality, your reading of the game is just wrong. Expected Goals are derived to tell us exactly this kind of information. At the 65th minute it was 1.07 - 0.35, despite Spurs having a 2 goal lead. Over the course of the game United had 23 shots, Spurs had 9.

Synode

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They didn't have a single shot until the 39th minute. By that stage United had had 4 strong chances on goal, normally they would have been winning at that stage.

He's absolutely right in reality, your reading of the game is just wrong. Expected Goals are derived to tell us exactly this kind of information. At the 65th minute it was 1.07 - 0.35, despite Spurs having a 2 goal lead. Over the course of the game United had 23 shots, Spurs had 9.

Expected goals :pac::pac: So United should have won yeah