I wonder (hope?) that the Bairstow moment will be the turning point. Every Australian team will be tainted and will never be successful again, because of it.
Would be glorious.
They talk about the Bairstow incident quite a lot on Australian media - which tells me that it really stung and it still hurts
Note how, even within the ashes series, the Aussies fell away after that day at Lord’s. They were not the same team thereafter
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
I can't say I'm interested in either to be honest.
I do watch women's curling, skiing, athletics, volleyball etc. Not sure why.
Well, I am on the last one.
But to answer your earlier question, people in England have become interested in women's football because of a mixture of factors: - massive increase in quality - a modicum of success for the England national side - better marketing of the game - the game finding its niche (e.g. I like the idea of taking my family to a sporting event but I'm slightly resistant to the tribalism and 18-rated language and constant fury of the atmosphere at a men's game, and, at any rate, not at that price) - far more girls playing football, who then become interested in role models - conscious investment decisions by various bodies leading to the above.
It's been a massive strategic success story. I don't know whether it's produced a financial return, but I don't think that was really the point (it rarely is in sport).
BBC cant afford to screen EPL matches so women get more air time.
Precisely. If womens football get bought out by Sky or amazon etc, expect the BBC to start pumping up the next big thing, inter-County tiddly winks, as its all they can afford to show...
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil. You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
Is the chance spout chickenhawk bs on the internet part of the deal?
Ah the "chickenhawk" horseshit.
As in "Shut up and take my opinion".
Oh aye? I don’t see mouthy dweebs expressing opinions like ‘You're just an apologist for evil’ being shut up. Still, the right on here and elsewhere has a long track record on whining about being censored when no such thing exists.
I was basically told to shut up by Kinabalu with his silly dismissal of a reasonable opinion as "posturing".
The fact I won't shut up is different to it not being said.
I didn't tell you to shut up. I merely flagged where you'd succumbed to posturing.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
Why are the men’s team overpaid? Their pay is based on their bosses analysing how much revenue is generated by sponsorships, match day revenue and broadcasting rights. If the figures aren’t there to pay them the amounts they get then they will get paid less.
The opposite at present to the Women’s team who don’t generate those sums but are demanding equal pay with the men which would then make them “overpaid”.
Because football is a corrupt sport from top to bottom. There is so much money floating about in it because it is in the interests of everyone to ensure that there is loads of money floating about in it. Player pay is just part of that corrupt system.
Years ago they had a debate about football corruption on R5L. From memory they had an ex-player, two managers, and an agent, who all proclaimed that there were a few rotten apples but the system was pretty fine.
Note players, managers and agents are all part of the system.
Still not sure why you think a set of workers who generate huge sums for their employers and are then paid a good reward for that are “overpaid” in your view.
Do you think women’s tennis players are overpaid for playing less time in tournaments or are they paid correctly because it reflects the revenue that the WTA events generate from them?
Women's tennis is an interesting one, and it depends on your viewpoint: afair women's tennis attracts the same, or more, revenue, so it's fair. But on terms of matches / time played, it is unfair.
I don't know much about tennis; what are the arguments against women playing five-set matches?
They generate the money so they get paid big money. Like men’s footballers. Still trying to understand why you mock men’s footballers for being overpaid. Why are they overpaid and what would be a fairer amount?
They are overpaid because the sport is corrupt, as I said below. Get all the bungs and backhanders out of the system, put honest people in the major organisations (FIFA, UEFA etc), and get them to pay fair taxes in the countries in which they play. Then I'd be slightly happier.
Also, take the benefits of the money further down the footballing ladder.
The women's game in football will now proceed to demonstrate the problem, once again.
I go further than that: Wherever there is big money (in sport, commerce, business, politics etc), there's a great opportunity for corruption, and that money will attract corrupt people, and may even corrupt the average person.
Therefore any area with big money needs very good anti-corruption systems, and not tiny systems tacked-on to make it look as though you are doing something about it.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil. You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
Is the chance spout chickenhawk bs on the internet part of the deal?
Ah the "chickenhawk" horseshit.
As in "Shut up and take my opinion".
Oh aye? I don’t see mouthy dweebs expressing opinions like ‘You're just an apologist for evil’ being shut up. Still, the right on here and elsewhere has a long track record on whining about being censored when no such thing exists.
I was basically told to shut up by Kinabalu with his silly dismissal of a reasonable opinion as "posturing".
The fact I won't shut up is different to it not being said.
I can certainly sense a change of mood in the air of this little corner of social media over the last few days. A kind of pervasive cynicism (they're all as bad as each other) coupled with hopelessness (if anything good happens, Russia will nuke us). If that's a straw in the wind for public opinion in the West overall then it's bad news for Ukraine.
The West has a lack of patience. If the US and EU get bored and start holding back military support then Russia will be able to exploit this and secure yet another few chunks of land out of their neighbours, as they've done since 1991 in Moldova, Georgia and now to all intents and purposes the whole of Belarus.
So Russian propaganda is working, essentially. Showing a bit of solidarity with a country that's being trampled underfoot by a fascist state rather than airing a bit of ever so grown up worldly cynicism is now unfashionable.
Really ?
I don't think anyone has changed their position much. There's perhaps some disappointment that the 'counteroffensive' hasn't seen dramatic gains, but that just it-is-what-it-is.
Much the same people (with the possible exception of Leon) who argued for a negotiated settlement, without putting forward any very clear idea of how that might happen, are still arguing for a negotiated settlement.
If I’ve changed my mind (not entirely sure I have) it’s because I’ve been to Ukraine and seen what this awful war is doing to Ukraine. You can see the injured men - everywhere
I would love Ukraine to win and drive Putin (personally) into the Caspian Sea. I’m no longer sure they have the manpower to win and the idea they should sacrifice 100,000 or 500,0000 more men to make incremental gains makes me deeply uneasy
Russia’s economy is having a wobble but I fear China will always bail them out in the end. Beijing wants Putin to stay in place
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
Why are the men’s team overpaid? Their pay is based on their bosses analysing how much revenue is generated by sponsorships, match day revenue and broadcasting rights. If the figures aren’t there to pay them the amounts they get then they will get paid less.
The opposite at present to the Women’s team who don’t generate those sums but are demanding equal pay with the men which would then make them “overpaid”.
Because football is a corrupt sport from top to bottom. There is so much money floating about in it because it is in the interests of everyone to ensure that there is loads of money floating about in it. Player pay is just part of that corrupt system.
Years ago they had a debate about football corruption on R5L. From memory they had an ex-player, two managers, and an agent, who all proclaimed that there were a few rotten apples but the system was pretty fine.
Note players, managers and agents are all part of the system.
Still not sure why you think a set of workers who generate huge sums for their employers and are then paid a good reward for that are “overpaid” in your view.
Do you think women’s tennis players are overpaid for playing less time in tournaments or are they paid correctly because it reflects the revenue that the WTA events generate from them?
Women's tennis is an interesting one, and it depends on your viewpoint: afair women's tennis attracts the same, or more, revenue, so it's fair. But on terms of matches / time played, it is unfair.
I don't know much about tennis; what are the arguments against women playing five-set matches?
They generate the money so they get paid big money. Like men’s footballers. Still trying to understand why you mock men’s footballers for being overpaid. Why are they overpaid and what would be a fairer amount?
I have one small bee in my bonnet about the slams - womens games should be 5 sets too, if for no other reason than the drama of a 2-0 down to win 2-3 match. By playing only best of 3, the ladies get to play more doubles tennis, thus increasing their earning potential.
Ultimately if you play sport and earn huge sums then fair play. But its also important to remember that the highest paid layer is incredibly thin. Most footballers are not on 100K a week. Down in the lower leagues its more in the 30-50K a year. See also cricket, rugby etc
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I watched the Columbia game with my young son. It was his first football game and he watched the whole thing, getting very excited about it. Ultimately it is good entertainment like any other decent football game. Perhaps the profile of women's football has been raised because of identity politics, but it is a good thing.
I played football for a few years, until a couple of years ago, in charity games etc. Towards the end women joined us. However this changed the game quite a lot, fewer tackles etc. The 'male bonding' element stopped.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
I can't say I'm interested in either to be honest.
I do watch women's curling, skiing, athletics, volleyball etc. Not sure why.
Well, I am on the last one.
But to answer your earlier question, people in England have become interested in women's football because of a mixture of factors: - massive increase in quality - a modicum of success for the England national side - better marketing of the game - the game finding its niche (e.g. I like the idea of taking my family to a sporting event but I'm slightly resistant to the tribalism and 18-rated language and constant fury of the atmosphere at a men's game, and, at any rate, not at that price) - far more girls playing football, who then become interested in role models - conscious investment decisions by various bodies leading to the above.
It's been a massive strategic success story. I don't know whether it's produced a financial return, but I don't think that was really the point (it rarely is in sport).
BBC cant afford to screen EPL matches so women get more air time.
Precisely. If womens football get bought out by Sky or amazon etc, expect the BBC to start pumping up the next big thing, inter-County tiddly winks, as its all they can afford to show...
The World Cup [both male and female] is a listed event, and given the BBC and ITV are allowed to bid jointly for it, the BBC will almost certainly retain their rights and interest in it.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
I can't say I'm interested in either to be honest.
I do watch women's curling, skiing, athletics, volleyball etc. Not sure why.
Well, I am on the last one.
But to answer your earlier question, people in England have become interested in women's football because of a mixture of factors: - massive increase in quality - a modicum of success for the England national side - better marketing of the game - the game finding its niche (e.g. I like the idea of taking my family to a sporting event but I'm slightly resistant to the tribalism and 18-rated language and constant fury of the atmosphere at a men's game, and, at any rate, not at that price) - far more girls playing football, who then become interested in role models - conscious investment decisions by various bodies leading to the above.
It's been a massive strategic success story. I don't know whether it's produced a financial return, but I don't think that was really the point (it rarely is in sport).
BBC cant afford to screen EPL matches so women get more air time.
Precisely. If womens football get bought out by Sky or amazon etc, expect the BBC to start pumping up the next big thing, inter-County tiddly winks, as its all they can afford to show...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
Why are the men’s team overpaid? Their pay is based on their bosses analysing how much revenue is generated by sponsorships, match day revenue and broadcasting rights. If the figures aren’t there to pay them the amounts they get then they will get paid less.
The opposite at present to the Women’s team who don’t generate those sums but are demanding equal pay with the men which would then make them “overpaid”.
Because football is a corrupt sport from top to bottom. There is so much money floating about in it because it is in the interests of everyone to ensure that there is loads of money floating about in it. Player pay is just part of that corrupt system.
Years ago they had a debate about football corruption on R5L. From memory they had an ex-player, two managers, and an agent, who all proclaimed that there were a few rotten apples but the system was pretty fine.
Note players, managers and agents are all part of the system.
Still not sure why you think a set of workers who generate huge sums for their employers and are then paid a good reward for that are “overpaid” in your view.
Do you think women’s tennis players are overpaid for playing less time in tournaments or are they paid correctly because it reflects the revenue that the WTA events generate from them?
Women's tennis is an interesting one, and it depends on your viewpoint: afair women's tennis attracts the same, or more, revenue, so it's fair. But on terms of matches / time played, it is unfair.
I don't know much about tennis; what are the arguments against women playing five-set matches?
They generate the money so they get paid big money. Like men’s footballers. Still trying to understand why you mock men’s footballers for being overpaid. Why are they overpaid and what would be a fairer amount?
They are overpaid because the sport is corrupt, as I said below. Get all the bungs and backhanders out of the system, put honest people in the major organisations (FIFA, UEFA etc), and get them to pay fair taxes in the countries in which they play. Then I'd be slightly happier.
Also, take the benefits of the money further down the footballing ladder.
If corrupt individual in charge of football, agents etc are taking too big of a slice of the pot then that would imply that the players are underpaid and that cutting "corruption" would free more money for players wages.
As for taxes, the Premier League pays a substantial windfall to the Exchequer annually. Players are on PAYE, not holding companies dodging tax like media personalities.
China wants Russia weak and subservient, and they're not delighted they got zero tip off about the invasion. China also has cash for Russia's abundant resources, but that's a very asymmetrical trading situation (China matters way more to Russia than vice versa). *And* Russia still holds vast amounts of land that was historically Chinese.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
Why are the men’s team overpaid? Their pay is based on their bosses analysing how much revenue is generated by sponsorships, match day revenue and broadcasting rights. If the figures aren’t there to pay them the amounts they get then they will get paid less.
The opposite at present to the Women’s team who don’t generate those sums but are demanding equal pay with the men which would then make them “overpaid”.
Because football is a corrupt sport from top to bottom. There is so much money floating about in it because it is in the interests of everyone to ensure that there is loads of money floating about in it. Player pay is just part of that corrupt system.
Years ago they had a debate about football corruption on R5L. From memory they had an ex-player, two managers, and an agent, who all proclaimed that there were a few rotten apples but the system was pretty fine.
Note players, managers and agents are all part of the system.
But it's not as if the women's team are succeeding where the men are failing. The "overpaid" men's team are playing other "overpaid" men's teams. The 'women succeed where men fail' line is a fallacy.
That said, I'll get much more pleasure from seeing the women's team win than I would for seeing the men win - not because the men are overpaid but because they seem a set of massive bellends.
Do you actually know anything about football? The men’s team aren’t a set of massive bellends on any measure
Have any graduated from a Russell Group University? That of course is the PB threshold for a substantial salary. Anyone without Cantab or Oxon after their name should be on minimum wage.
No, only in terms of professional jobs or managerial or executive posts in big established companies.
If you are really good at sport, such that you can be a Premier League footballer or a great entrepreneur then you are likely to earn more than even the average Russell Group graduate, especially those in arts and humanities subjects (unless they are good enough to get into Hollywood as an actor or scriptwriter)
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil. You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
Is the chance spout chickenhawk bs on the internet part of the deal?
Ah the "chickenhawk" horseshit.
As in "Shut up and take my opinion".
Oh aye? I don’t see mouthy dweebs expressing opinions like ‘You're just an apologist for evil’ being shut up. Still, the right on here and elsewhere has a long track record on whining about being censored when no such thing exists.
I was basically told to shut up by Kinabalu with his silly dismissal of a reasonable opinion as "posturing".
The fact I won't shut up is different to it not being said.
I can certainly sense a change of mood in the air of this little corner of social media over the last few days. A kind of pervasive cynicism (they're all as bad as each other) coupled with hopelessness (if anything good happens, Russia will nuke us). If that's a straw in the wind for public opinion in the West overall then it's bad news for Ukraine.
The West has a lack of patience. If the US and EU get bored and start holding back military support then Russia will be able to exploit this and secure yet another few chunks of land out of their neighbours, as they've done since 1991 in Moldova, Georgia and now to all intents and purposes the whole of Belarus.
So Russian propaganda is working, essentially. Showing a bit of solidarity with a country that's being trampled underfoot by a fascist state rather than airing a bit of ever so grown up worldly cynicism is now unfashionable.
Really ?
I don't think anyone has changed their position much. There's perhaps some disappointment that the 'counteroffensive' hasn't seen dramatic gains, but that just it-is-what-it-is.
Much the same people (with the possible exception of Leon) who argued for a negotiated settlement, without putting forward any very clear idea of how that might happen, are still arguing for a negotiated settlement.
If I’ve changed my mind (not entirely sure I have) it’s because I’ve been to Ukraine and seen what this awful war is doing to Ukraine. You can see the injured men - everywhere
I would love Ukraine to win and drive Putin (personally) into the Caspian Sea. I’m no longer sure they have the manpower to win and the idea they should sacrifice 100,000 or 500,0000 more men to make incremental gains makes me deeply uneasy
Russia’s economy is having a wobble but I fear China will always bail them out in the end. Beijing wants Putin to stay in place
🤷♂️
But what's the alternative? I would argue that the choice for Ukrainians is between living the life they have now, with risks of being maimed, or the life their compatriots in the east have, which from the limited information we have seems not to be a happy one. I would say the former would be preferable. There is no future in living in a Russian-occupied statelet.
I wonder (hope?) that the Bairstow moment will be the turning point. Every Australian team will be tainted and will never be successful again, because of it.
Would be glorious.
They talk about the Bairstow incident quite a lot on Australian media - which tells me that it really stung and it still hurts
Note how, even within the ashes series, the Aussies fell away after that day at Lord’s. They were not the same team thereafter
Did I mention I was there that day?
Really ?
You must tell us all about it someday.
I was there on pb.com on the day that Leon was there at Lord's. Shame you missed it. One of Leon's more vibrant recent performances.
afair women's tennis attracts the same, or more, revenue
Doubt that.
What do you notice about this picture?
Firstly its Wimbledon - an even that is hugely over-subscribed, and is part of the sporting calendar. Check out the crowds for non-slams (eg Eastbourne, Brighton, Nottingham etc).
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
I can't say I'm interested in either to be honest.
I do watch women's curling, skiing, athletics, volleyball etc. Not sure why.
Well, I am on the last one.
But to answer your earlier question, people in England have become interested in women's football because of a mixture of factors: - massive increase in quality - a modicum of success for the England national side - better marketing of the game - the game finding its niche (e.g. I like the idea of taking my family to a sporting event but I'm slightly resistant to the tribalism and 18-rated language and constant fury of the atmosphere at a men's game, and, at any rate, not at that price) - far more girls playing football, who then become interested in role models - conscious investment decisions by various bodies leading to the above.
It's been a massive strategic success story. I don't know whether it's produced a financial return, but I don't think that was really the point (it rarely is in sport).
BBC cant afford to screen EPL matches so women get more air time.
Precisely. If womens football get bought out by Sky or amazon etc, expect the BBC to start pumping up the next big thing, inter-County tiddly winks, as its all they can afford to show...
I wonder (hope?) that the Bairstow moment will be the turning point. Every Australian team will be tainted and will never be successful again, because of it.
Would be glorious.
They talk about the Bairstow incident quite a lot on Australian media - which tells me that it really stung and it still hurts
Note how, even within the ashes series, the Aussies fell away after that day at Lord’s. They were not the same team thereafter
Did I mention I was there that day?
I think it did more damage to their cause than it was worth. Despite the mocking, ribbing and joshing, most Aussies and Brits get on ok, and most Aussies I've met respect fair play. What they did that day was technically in the laws, but not in the spirit. If they were genuinely annoyed at Bairstow leaving his crease at the end of the over (I don't think that they were) then 'stump' him, but withdraw the appeal to make the point.
What fascinates me is the state of denial in the Aussie team. Warner - "I've not seen any Bazball" etc. England batted with freedom and scored at over 5 an over throughout. What did he think Bazball was?
The reality was that the Aussies emerged with the Ashes retained and a 2-2 draw after being battered for the best part of 5 tests. Who posts boundary riders in the first over of a match?
After watching replays, it's clear Bairstow was fairly stumped. He messed up.
The Keeper didn't hold onto the ball then throw it after Barstow left the crease, he threw it as soon as he caught it which is what a stumping is supposed to be. It was all Bairstow's fault.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
I can't say I'm interested in either to be honest.
I do watch women's curling, skiing, athletics, volleyball etc. Not sure why.
Well, I am on the last one.
But to answer your earlier question, people in England have become interested in women's football because of a mixture of factors: - massive increase in quality - a modicum of success for the England national side - better marketing of the game - the game finding its niche (e.g. I like the idea of taking my family to a sporting event but I'm slightly resistant to the tribalism and 18-rated language and constant fury of the atmosphere at a men's game, and, at any rate, not at that price) - far more girls playing football, who then become interested in role models - conscious investment decisions by various bodies leading to the above.
It's been a massive strategic success story. I don't know whether it's produced a financial return, but I don't think that was really the point (it rarely is in sport).
BBC cant afford to screen EPL matches so women get more air time.
Precisely. If womens football get bought out by Sky or amazon etc, expect the BBC to start pumping up the next big thing, inter-County tiddly winks, as its all they can afford to show...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil. You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
Is the chance spout chickenhawk bs on the internet part of the deal?
Ah the "chickenhawk" horseshit.
As in "Shut up and take my opinion".
Oh aye? I don’t see mouthy dweebs expressing opinions like ‘You're just an apologist for evil’ being shut up. Still, the right on here and elsewhere has a long track record on whining about being censored when no such thing exists.
I was basically told to shut up by Kinabalu with his silly dismissal of a reasonable opinion as "posturing".
The fact I won't shut up is different to it not being said.
I can certainly sense a change of mood in the air of this little corner of social media over the last few days. A kind of pervasive cynicism (they're all as bad as each other) coupled with hopelessness (if anything good happens, Russia will nuke us). If that's a straw in the wind for public opinion in the West overall then it's bad news for Ukraine.
The West has a lack of patience. If the US and EU get bored and start holding back military support then Russia will be able to exploit this and secure yet another few chunks of land out of their neighbours, as they've done since 1991 in Moldova, Georgia and now to all intents and purposes the whole of Belarus.
So Russian propaganda is working, essentially. Showing a bit of solidarity with a country that's being trampled underfoot by a fascist state rather than airing a bit of ever so grown up worldly cynicism is now unfashionable.
Really ?
I don't think anyone has changed their position much. There's perhaps some disappointment that the 'counteroffensive' hasn't seen dramatic gains, but that just it-is-what-it-is.
Much the same people (with the possible exception of Leon) who argued for a negotiated settlement, without putting forward any very clear idea of how that might happen, are still arguing for a negotiated settlement.
If I’ve changed my mind (not entirely sure I have) it’s because I’ve been to Ukraine and seen what this awful war is doing to Ukraine. You can see the injured men - everywhere
I would love Ukraine to win and drive Putin (personally) into the Caspian Sea. I’m no longer sure they have the manpower to win and the idea they should sacrifice 100,000 or 500,0000 more men to make incremental gains makes me deeply uneasy
Russia’s economy is having a wobble but I fear China will always bail them out in the end. Beijing wants Putin to stay in place
🤷♂️
But what's the alternative? I would argue that the choice for Ukrainians is between living the life they have now, with risks of being maimed, or the life their compatriots in the east have, which from the limited information we have seems not to be a happy one. I would say the former would be preferable. There is no future in living in a Russian-occupied statelet.
There is no good alternative. The war is an abomination
I’m unwilling to urge Ukraine to throw ever more young men into this hideous meat grinder. If they want to do that fair enough and good luck - but I’m not gonna cheer lead it and wave pom poms (not that it matters what we think on here)
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
I can't say I'm interested in either to be honest.
I do watch women's curling, skiing, athletics, volleyball etc. Not sure why.
Well, I am on the last one.
But to answer your earlier question, people in England have become interested in women's football because of a mixture of factors: - massive increase in quality - a modicum of success for the England national side - better marketing of the game - the game finding its niche (e.g. I like the idea of taking my family to a sporting event but I'm slightly resistant to the tribalism and 18-rated language and constant fury of the atmosphere at a men's game, and, at any rate, not at that price) - far more girls playing football, who then become interested in role models - conscious investment decisions by various bodies leading to the above.
It's been a massive strategic success story. I don't know whether it's produced a financial return, but I don't think that was really the point (it rarely is in sport).
BBC cant afford to screen EPL matches so women get more air time.
Precisely. If womens football get bought out by Sky or amazon etc, expect the BBC to start pumping up the next big thing, inter-County tiddly winks, as its all they can afford to show...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
As if the BBC could afford Games Workshop's prices ...
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
I can't say I'm interested in either to be honest.
I do watch women's curling, skiing, athletics, volleyball etc. Not sure why.
Well, I am on the last one.
But to answer your earlier question, people in England have become interested in women's football because of a mixture of factors: - massive increase in quality - a modicum of success for the England national side - better marketing of the game - the game finding its niche (e.g. I like the idea of taking my family to a sporting event but I'm slightly resistant to the tribalism and 18-rated language and constant fury of the atmosphere at a men's game, and, at any rate, not at that price) - far more girls playing football, who then become interested in role models - conscious investment decisions by various bodies leading to the above.
It's been a massive strategic success story. I don't know whether it's produced a financial return, but I don't think that was really the point (it rarely is in sport).
BBC cant afford to screen EPL matches so women get more air time.
Precisely. If womens football get bought out by Sky or amazon etc, expect the BBC to start pumping up the next big thing, inter-County tiddly winks, as its all they can afford to show...
The World Cup [both male and female] is a listed event, and given the BBC and ITV are allowed to bid jointly for it, the BBC will almost certainly retain their rights and interest in it.
It wasn’t until not long before the start of this World Cup that a broadcast deal was even agreed as FIFA were not happy with the size of the bids to screen from European countries so clearly the BBC/ITV had a value on it that was less than FIFA wanted to the point where FIFA were threatening to pull screening full stop.
The appropriate amount was paid. Sadly the under 21’s European Championship earlier in the summer was not deemed of any viewing value by the BBC/ITV despite it being the second highest level of international football, Channel 4 stepped in when England made the final which they won.
If the Euro U21s approach had happened with the women’s football there would have been wailing and screaming across segments of the media.
afair women's tennis attracts the same, or more, revenue
Doubt that.
What do you notice about this picture?
* All the cameras are pointed away from the lady making the serve. Bonus points if you can remind me in which Hitchcock film something similar was a plot point.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
Why are the men’s team overpaid? Their pay is based on their bosses analysing how much revenue is generated by sponsorships, match day revenue and broadcasting rights. If the figures aren’t there to pay them the amounts they get then they will get paid less.
The opposite at present to the Women’s team who don’t generate those sums but are demanding equal pay with the men which would then make them “overpaid”.
Because football is a corrupt sport from top to bottom. There is so much money floating about in it because it is in the interests of everyone to ensure that there is loads of money floating about in it. Player pay is just part of that corrupt system.
Years ago they had a debate about football corruption on R5L. From memory they had an ex-player, two managers, and an agent, who all proclaimed that there were a few rotten apples but the system was pretty fine.
Note players, managers and agents are all part of the system.
Still not sure why you think a set of workers who generate huge sums for their employers and are then paid a good reward for that are “overpaid” in your view.
Do you think women’s tennis players are overpaid for playing less time in tournaments or are they paid correctly because it reflects the revenue that the WTA events generate from them?
Women's tennis is an interesting one, and it depends on your viewpoint: afair women's tennis attracts the same, or more, revenue, so it's fair. But on terms of matches / time played, it is unfair.
I don't know much about tennis; what are the arguments against women playing five-set matches?
Bing's actually rather good AI tool offers this: Men’s tennis generates more revenue than women’s tennis. In 2014, revenue on the men’s side was more than 50 percent higher than women’s, roughly $107 million to $70 million. However, in the United States, TV ratings for tennis grand slams have been slightly higher for women than men. Tennis is one of the few sports where the United States women, on average, make more than men. Outside the majors, the average earnings of U.S. women ranked by the Women’s Tennis Association were higher than the U.S. men in the Association of Tennis Professionals.
Cough *Serena Williams* cough
Well yes, and that's a good point, but my point was more the first sentence (in response to Josias question about who generates more revenue).
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
Why are the men’s team overpaid? Their pay is based on their bosses analysing how much revenue is generated by sponsorships, match day revenue and broadcasting rights. If the figures aren’t there to pay them the amounts they get then they will get paid less.
The opposite at present to the Women’s team who don’t generate those sums but are demanding equal pay with the men which would then make them “overpaid”.
Because football is a corrupt sport from top to bottom. There is so much money floating about in it because it is in the interests of everyone to ensure that there is loads of money floating about in it. Player pay is just part of that corrupt system.
Years ago they had a debate about football corruption on R5L. From memory they had an ex-player, two managers, and an agent, who all proclaimed that there were a few rotten apples but the system was pretty fine.
Note players, managers and agents are all part of the system.
Still not sure why you think a set of workers who generate huge sums for their employers and are then paid a good reward for that are “overpaid” in your view.
Do you think women’s tennis players are overpaid for playing less time in tournaments or are they paid correctly because it reflects the revenue that the WTA events generate from them?
Women's tennis is an interesting one, and it depends on your viewpoint: afair women's tennis attracts the same, or more, revenue, so it's fair. But on terms of matches / time played, it is unfair.
I don't know much about tennis; what are the arguments against women playing five-set matches?
Bing's actually rather good AI tool offers this: Men’s tennis generates more revenue than women’s tennis. In 2014, revenue on the men’s side was more than 50 percent higher than women’s, roughly $107 million to $70 million. However, in the United States, TV ratings for tennis grand slams have been slightly higher for women than men. Tennis is one of the few sports where the United States women, on average, make more than men. Outside the majors, the average earnings of U.S. women ranked by the Women’s Tennis Association were higher than the U.S. men in the Association of Tennis Professionals.
How much have these averages been distorted in recent years, by one outlier called Serena, when the top men have mostly been European?
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
I can't say I'm interested in either to be honest.
I do watch women's curling, skiing, athletics, volleyball etc. Not sure why.
Well, I am on the last one.
But to answer your earlier question, people in England have become interested in women's football because of a mixture of factors: - massive increase in quality - a modicum of success for the England national side - better marketing of the game - the game finding its niche (e.g. I like the idea of taking my family to a sporting event but I'm slightly resistant to the tribalism and 18-rated language and constant fury of the atmosphere at a men's game, and, at any rate, not at that price) - far more girls playing football, who then become interested in role models - conscious investment decisions by various bodies leading to the above.
It's been a massive strategic success story. I don't know whether it's produced a financial return, but I don't think that was really the point (it rarely is in sport).
BBC cant afford to screen EPL matches so women get more air time.
Precisely. If womens football get bought out by Sky or amazon etc, expect the BBC to start pumping up the next big thing, inter-County tiddly winks, as its all they can afford to show...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
afair women's tennis attracts the same, or more, revenue
Doubt that.
What do you notice about this picture?
* All the cameras are pointed away from the lady making the serve. Bonus points if you can remind me in which Hitchcock film something similar was a plot point.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
I can't say I'm interested in either to be honest.
I do watch women's curling, skiing, athletics, volleyball etc. Not sure why.
Well, I am on the last one.
But to answer your earlier question, people in England have become interested in women's football because of a mixture of factors: - massive increase in quality - a modicum of success for the England national side - better marketing of the game - the game finding its niche (e.g. I like the idea of taking my family to a sporting event but I'm slightly resistant to the tribalism and 18-rated language and constant fury of the atmosphere at a men's game, and, at any rate, not at that price) - far more girls playing football, who then become interested in role models - conscious investment decisions by various bodies leading to the above.
It's been a massive strategic success story. I don't know whether it's produced a financial return, but I don't think that was really the point (it rarely is in sport).
BBC cant afford to screen EPL matches so women get more air time.
Precisely. If womens football get bought out by Sky or amazon etc, expect the BBC to start pumping up the next big thing, inter-County tiddly winks, as its all they can afford to show...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
TBF I would watch that.
The Nova Open streamed online last year and is coming up at the end of the month.
I wonder (hope?) that the Bairstow moment will be the turning point. Every Australian team will be tainted and will never be successful again, because of it.
Would be glorious.
They talk about the Bairstow incident quite a lot on Australian media - which tells me that it really stung and it still hurts
Note how, even within the ashes series, the Aussies fell away after that day at Lord’s. They were not the same team thereafter
Did I mention I was there that day?
I think it did more damage to their cause than it was worth. Despite the mocking, ribbing and joshing, most Aussies and Brits get on ok, and most Aussies I've met respect fair play. What they did that day was technically in the laws, but not in the spirit. If they were genuinely annoyed at Bairstow leaving his crease at the end of the over (I don't think that they were) then 'stump' him, but withdraw the appeal to make the point.
What fascinates me is the state of denial in the Aussie team. Warner - "I've not seen any Bazball" etc. England batted with freedom and scored at over 5 an over throughout. What did he think Bazball was?
The reality was that the Aussies emerged with the Ashes retained and a 2-2 draw after being battered for the best part of 5 tests. Who posts boundary riders in the first over of a match?
After watching replays, it's clear Bairstow was fairly stumped. He messed up.
The Keeper didn't hold onto the ball then throw it after Barstow left the crease, he threw it as soon as he caught it which is what a stumping is supposed to be. It was all Bairstow's fault.
The rest of your post - totally agreed.
The point is that Bairstow gained no batting advantage by leaving his crease - for example, turning a delivery into a full toss - which is, I suppose, why the stumping law is there: to stop such an advantage being risk free.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil. You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
Is the chance spout chickenhawk bs on the internet part of the deal?
Ah the "chickenhawk" horseshit.
As in "Shut up and take my opinion".
Oh aye? I don’t see mouthy dweebs expressing opinions like ‘You're just an apologist for evil’ being shut up. Still, the right on here and elsewhere has a long track record on whining about being censored when no such thing exists.
I was basically told to shut up by Kinabalu with his silly dismissal of a reasonable opinion as "posturing".
The fact I won't shut up is different to it not being said.
I can certainly sense a change of mood in the air of this little corner of social media over the last few days. A kind of pervasive cynicism (they're all as bad as each other) coupled with hopelessness (if anything good happens, Russia will nuke us). If that's a straw in the wind for public opinion in the West overall then it's bad news for Ukraine.
The West has a lack of patience. If the US and EU get bored and start holding back military support then Russia will be able to exploit this and secure yet another few chunks of land out of their neighbours, as they've done since 1991 in Moldova, Georgia and now to all intents and purposes the whole of Belarus.
So Russian propaganda is working, essentially. Showing a bit of solidarity with a country that's being trampled underfoot by a fascist state rather than airing a bit of ever so grown up worldly cynicism is now unfashionable.
So would you say that Ben Wallace is aiding the enemy with his recent 'we're not amazon' comments to Ukraine regarding their requests for more and more military aid? I don't think you can avoid these difficult problems by accusing anyone who is not entirely 100% behind the ' beat back Russia' narrative of peddling enemy propoganda. The question that interests me is how to stop the war in some way that preserves Ukraine and its ability to defend itself in the future, I don't think that this stance can be objectively regarded as being 'pro Russian'.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
I can't say I'm interested in either to be honest.
I do watch women's curling, skiing, athletics, volleyball etc. Not sure why.
Well, I am on the last one.
But to answer your earlier question, people in England have become interested in women's football because of a mixture of factors: - massive increase in quality - a modicum of success for the England national side - better marketing of the game - the game finding its niche (e.g. I like the idea of taking my family to a sporting event but I'm slightly resistant to the tribalism and 18-rated language and constant fury of the atmosphere at a men's game, and, at any rate, not at that price) - far more girls playing football, who then become interested in role models - conscious investment decisions by various bodies leading to the above.
It's been a massive strategic success story. I don't know whether it's produced a financial return, but I don't think that was really the point (it rarely is in sport).
BBC cant afford to screen EPL matches so women get more air time.
Precisely. If womens football get bought out by Sky or amazon etc, expect the BBC to start pumping up the next big thing, inter-County tiddly winks, as its all they can afford to show...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Didn't someone point of the other day that GamesWorkshop were running over the cliff of 3D home printing with their eyes wide shut? As in total ignoring the area.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
I can't say I'm interested in either to be honest.
I do watch women's curling, skiing, athletics, volleyball etc. Not sure why.
Well, I am on the last one.
But to answer your earlier question, people in England have become interested in women's football because of a mixture of factors: - massive increase in quality - a modicum of success for the England national side - better marketing of the game - the game finding its niche (e.g. I like the idea of taking my family to a sporting event but I'm slightly resistant to the tribalism and 18-rated language and constant fury of the atmosphere at a men's game, and, at any rate, not at that price) - far more girls playing football, who then become interested in role models - conscious investment decisions by various bodies leading to the above.
It's been a massive strategic success story. I don't know whether it's produced a financial return, but I don't think that was really the point (it rarely is in sport).
BBC cant afford to screen EPL matches so women get more air time.
Precisely. If womens football get bought out by Sky or amazon etc, expect the BBC to start pumping up the next big thing, inter-County tiddly winks, as its all they can afford to show...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
TBF I would watch that.
The Nova Open streamed online last year and is coming up at the end of the month.
Doubt my fave World Eaters will get much play. All Aeldari and Genestealer Cult atm.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
I can't say I'm interested in either to be honest.
I do watch women's curling, skiing, athletics, volleyball etc. Not sure why.
Well, I am on the last one.
But to answer your earlier question, people in England have become interested in women's football because of a mixture of factors: - massive increase in quality - a modicum of success for the England national side - better marketing of the game - the game finding its niche (e.g. I like the idea of taking my family to a sporting event but I'm slightly resistant to the tribalism and 18-rated language and constant fury of the atmosphere at a men's game, and, at any rate, not at that price) - far more girls playing football, who then become interested in role models - conscious investment decisions by various bodies leading to the above.
It's been a massive strategic success story. I don't know whether it's produced a financial return, but I don't think that was really the point (it rarely is in sport).
BBC cant afford to screen EPL matches so women get more air time.
Precisely. If womens football get bought out by Sky or amazon etc, expect the BBC to start pumping up the next big thing, inter-County tiddly winks, as its all they can afford to show...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
As if the BBC could afford Games Workshop's prices ...
GW have contrived to lose control of the tournament scene. The MCC don't get a cut of the IPL broadcast rights deal, and if the BBC want the broadcast rights to a tournament then GW don't see a dime.
* I am reliably informed by people on PB that "gammon" is a racist term. Since people on PB are never wrong, please feel suitably admonished for a brief period. * Given that middle-aged men are sports gambling's bread and butter, it perhaps was not the wisest of moves by PP to mock them...
I wonder (hope?) that the Bairstow moment will be the turning point. Every Australian team will be tainted and will never be successful again, because of it.
Would be glorious.
They talk about the Bairstow incident quite a lot on Australian media - which tells me that it really stung and it still hurts
Note how, even within the ashes series, the Aussies fell away after that day at Lord’s. They were not the same team thereafter
Did I mention I was there that day?
I think it did more damage to their cause than it was worth. Despite the mocking, ribbing and joshing, most Aussies and Brits get on ok, and most Aussies I've met respect fair play. What they did that day was technically in the laws, but not in the spirit. If they were genuinely annoyed at Bairstow leaving his crease at the end of the over (I don't think that they were) then 'stump' him, but withdraw the appeal to make the point.
What fascinates me is the state of denial in the Aussie team. Warner - "I've not seen any Bazball" etc. England batted with freedom and scored at over 5 an over throughout. What did he think Bazball was?
The reality was that the Aussies emerged with the Ashes retained and a 2-2 draw after being battered for the best part of 5 tests. Who posts boundary riders in the first over of a match?
After watching replays, it's clear Bairstow was fairly stumped. He messed up.
The Keeper didn't hold onto the ball then throw it after Barstow left the crease, he threw it as soon as he caught it which is what a stumping is supposed to be. It was all Bairstow's fault.
The rest of your post - totally agreed.
If you watch the replay the Umpire thinks its over - he starts getting the bowlers jumper out to hand back as if to move off. He clearly hadn't shouted out "Over!", but I wonder how much they do that in test cricket?
You are right that it was an entirely legal stumping, I don't dispute that, but it was not in the spirit of the game (and also out of character with how the series was played, which generally was in good spirit between the teams.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil. You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
Is the chance spout chickenhawk bs on the internet part of the deal?
Ah the "chickenhawk" horseshit.
As in "Shut up and take my opinion".
Oh aye? I don’t see mouthy dweebs expressing opinions like ‘You're just an apologist for evil’ being shut up. Still, the right on here and elsewhere has a long track record on whining about being censored when no such thing exists.
I was basically told to shut up by Kinabalu with his silly dismissal of a reasonable opinion as "posturing".
The fact I won't shut up is different to it not being said.
I can certainly sense a change of mood in the air of this little corner of social media over the last few days. A kind of pervasive cynicism (they're all as bad as each other) coupled with hopelessness (if anything good happens, Russia will nuke us). If that's a straw in the wind for public opinion in the West overall then it's bad news for Ukraine.
The West has a lack of patience. If the US and EU get bored and start holding back military support then Russia will be able to exploit this and secure yet another few chunks of land out of their neighbours, as they've done since 1991 in Moldova, Georgia and now to all intents and purposes the whole of Belarus.
So Russian propaganda is working, essentially. Showing a bit of solidarity with a country that's being trampled underfoot by a fascist state rather than airing a bit of ever so grown up worldly cynicism is now unfashionable.
Really ?
I don't think anyone has changed their position much. There's perhaps some disappointment that the 'counteroffensive' hasn't seen dramatic gains, but that just it-is-what-it-is.
Much the same people (with the possible exception of Leon) who argued for a negotiated settlement, without putting forward any very clear idea of how that might happen, are still arguing for a negotiated settlement.
If I’ve changed my mind (not entirely sure I have) it’s because I’ve been to Ukraine and seen what this awful war is doing to Ukraine. You can see the injured men - everywhere
I would love Ukraine to win and drive Putin (personally) into the Caspian Sea. I’m no longer sure they have the manpower to win and the idea they should sacrifice 100,000 or 500,0000 more men to make incremental gains makes me deeply uneasy
Russia’s economy is having a wobble but I fear China will always bail them out in the end. Beijing wants Putin to stay in place
🤷♂️
But what's the alternative? I would argue that the choice for Ukrainians is between living the life they have now, with risks of being maimed, or the life their compatriots in the east have, which from the limited information we have seems not to be a happy one. I would say the former would be preferable. There is no future in living in a Russian-occupied statelet.
There is no good alternative. The war is an abomination
I’m unwilling to urge Ukraine to throw ever more young men into this hideous meat grinder. If they want to do that fair enough and good luck - but I’m not gonna cheer lead it and wave pom poms (not that it matters what we think on here)
You'll be in scant company given the surfeit of armchair warriors on here
I wonder (hope?) that the Bairstow moment will be the turning point. Every Australian team will be tainted and will never be successful again, because of it.
Would be glorious.
They talk about the Bairstow incident quite a lot on Australian media - which tells me that it really stung and it still hurts
Note how, even within the ashes series, the Aussies fell away after that day at Lord’s. They were not the same team thereafter
Did I mention I was there that day?
I think it did more damage to their cause than it was worth. Despite the mocking, ribbing and joshing, most Aussies and Brits get on ok, and most Aussies I've met respect fair play. What they did that day was technically in the laws, but not in the spirit. If they were genuinely annoyed at Bairstow leaving his crease at the end of the over (I don't think that they were) then 'stump' him, but withdraw the appeal to make the point.
What fascinates me is the state of denial in the Aussie team. Warner - "I've not seen any Bazball" etc. England batted with freedom and scored at over 5 an over throughout. What did he think Bazball was?
The reality was that the Aussies emerged with the Ashes retained and a 2-2 draw after being battered for the best part of 5 tests. Who posts boundary riders in the first over of a match?
After watching replays, it's clear Bairstow was fairly stumped. He messed up.
The Keeper didn't hold onto the ball then throw it after Barstow left the crease, he threw it as soon as he caught it which is what a stumping is supposed to be. It was all Bairstow's fault.
The rest of your post - totally agreed.
Bairstow had no argument whatever.
I was a keeper and if the batsman wanted to go walkabout that was always fine with me. Dead ball is the umpire's decision and if he hasn't called it the batsman is fair game. Sportsmanship doesn't come into it when the laws are that clear.
As for the series, I must have been watching a different one. I saw four closely contested matches, and a fifth in which England were well on top when the rains came. These were two very closely matched sides. They could play each other a hundred times and it would be close to fifty-fifty.
It was a brilliant series, and I think but for the weather in Manchester it would have gone down as possibly the best ever.
afair women's tennis attracts the same, or more, revenue
Doubt that.
What do you notice about this picture?
* All the cameras are pointed away from the lady making the serve. Bonus points if you can remind me in which Hitchcock film something similar was a plot point.
Yes, rather than looking at the server - Madison Keys - the cameras on Court 2 are trained on 16 year-old Russian Mirra Andreeva. It's a bit sad really, as it should be about the tennis, not about looks.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
I can't say I'm interested in either to be honest.
I do watch women's curling, skiing, athletics, volleyball etc. Not sure why.
Well, I am on the last one.
But to answer your earlier question, people in England have become interested in women's football because of a mixture of factors: - massive increase in quality - a modicum of success for the England national side - better marketing of the game - the game finding its niche (e.g. I like the idea of taking my family to a sporting event but I'm slightly resistant to the tribalism and 18-rated language and constant fury of the atmosphere at a men's game, and, at any rate, not at that price) - far more girls playing football, who then become interested in role models - conscious investment decisions by various bodies leading to the above.
It's been a massive strategic success story. I don't know whether it's produced a financial return, but I don't think that was really the point (it rarely is in sport).
BBC cant afford to screen EPL matches so women get more air time.
Precisely. If womens football get bought out by Sky or amazon etc, expect the BBC to start pumping up the next big thing, inter-County tiddly winks, as its all they can afford to show...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Didn't someone point of the other day that GamesWorkshop were running over the cliff of 3D home printing with their eyes wide shut? As in total ignoring the area.
3D home printing is still very much niche, and even the high end printers can't match the quality of their injection-moulded plastics. I don't think they've ignored it fwiw; their miniature sculpts have achieved a phenomenally high level of quality (tbh so high that it is becoming counterproductively difficult to paint them, such is the level of intricate detail).
Most people in the hobby want to collect the official minis. And they're posting very strong results at the mo.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
Why are the men’s team overpaid? Their pay is based on their bosses analysing how much revenue is generated by sponsorships, match day revenue and broadcasting rights. If the figures aren’t there to pay them the amounts they get then they will get paid less.
The opposite at present to the Women’s team who don’t generate those sums but are demanding equal pay with the men which would then make them “overpaid”.
Because football is a corrupt sport from top to bottom. There is so much money floating about in it because it is in the interests of everyone to ensure that there is loads of money floating about in it. Player pay is just part of that corrupt system.
Years ago they had a debate about football corruption on R5L. From memory they had an ex-player, two managers, and an agent, who all proclaimed that there were a few rotten apples but the system was pretty fine.
Note players, managers and agents are all part of the system.
Still not sure why you think a set of workers who generate huge sums for their employers and are then paid a good reward for that are “overpaid” in your view.
Do you think women’s tennis players are overpaid for playing less time in tournaments or are they paid correctly because it reflects the revenue that the WTA events generate from them?
Women's tennis is an interesting one, and it depends on your viewpoint: afair women's tennis attracts the same, or more, revenue, so it's fair. But on terms of matches / time played, it is unfair.
I don't know much about tennis; what are the arguments against women playing five-set matches?
Bing's actually rather good AI tool offers this: Men’s tennis generates more revenue than women’s tennis. In 2014, revenue on the men’s side was more than 50 percent higher than women’s, roughly $107 million to $70 million. However, in the United States, TV ratings for tennis grand slams have been slightly higher for women than men. Tennis is one of the few sports where the United States women, on average, make more than men. Outside the majors, the average earnings of U.S. women ranked by the Women’s Tennis Association were higher than the U.S. men in the Association of Tennis Professionals.
How much have these averages been distorted in recent years, by one outlier called Serena, when the top men have mostly been European?
This sentence can be disorientating if you know that Ian McKellen's friends chidingly call him "Serena" as a satirical reference to his title ("Sir Ian" - geddit).
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil. You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
Is the chance spout chickenhawk bs on the internet part of the deal?
Ah the "chickenhawk" horseshit.
As in "Shut up and take my opinion".
Oh aye? I don’t see mouthy dweebs expressing opinions like ‘You're just an apologist for evil’ being shut up. Still, the right on here and elsewhere has a long track record on whining about being censored when no such thing exists.
I was basically told to shut up by Kinabalu with his silly dismissal of a reasonable opinion as "posturing".
The fact I won't shut up is different to it not being said.
I can certainly sense a change of mood in the air of this little corner of social media over the last few days. A kind of pervasive cynicism (they're all as bad as each other) coupled with hopelessness (if anything good happens, Russia will nuke us). If that's a straw in the wind for public opinion in the West overall then it's bad news for Ukraine.
The West has a lack of patience. If the US and EU get bored and start holding back military support then Russia will be able to exploit this and secure yet another few chunks of land out of their neighbours, as they've done since 1991 in Moldova, Georgia and now to all intents and purposes the whole of Belarus.
So Russian propaganda is working, essentially. Showing a bit of solidarity with a country that's being trampled underfoot by a fascist state rather than airing a bit of ever so grown up worldly cynicism is now unfashionable.
Really ?
I don't think anyone has changed their position much. There's perhaps some disappointment that the 'counteroffensive' hasn't seen dramatic gains, but that just it-is-what-it-is.
Much the same people (with the possible exception of Leon) who argued for a negotiated settlement, without putting forward any very clear idea of how that might happen, are still arguing for a negotiated settlement.
If I’ve changed my mind (not entirely sure I have) it’s because I’ve been to Ukraine and seen what this awful war is doing to Ukraine. You can see the injured men - everywhere
I would love Ukraine to win and drive Putin (personally) into the Caspian Sea. I’m no longer sure they have the manpower to win and the idea they should sacrifice 100,000 or 500,0000 more men to make incremental gains makes me deeply uneasy
Russia’s economy is having a wobble but I fear China will always bail them out in the end. Beijing wants Putin to stay in place
🤷♂️
But what's the alternative? I would argue that the choice for Ukrainians is between living the life they have now, with risks of being maimed, or the life their compatriots in the east have, which from the limited information we have seems not to be a happy one. I would say the former would be preferable. There is no future in living in a Russian-occupied statelet.
There is no good alternative. The war is an abomination
I’m unwilling to urge Ukraine to throw ever more young men into this hideous meat grinder. If they want to do that fair enough and good luck - but I’m not gonna cheer lead it and wave pom poms (not that it matters what we think on here)
You went there, and failed to see the spirit of the people on show, and the determination to keep fighting for their national identity, their right to be Ukrainians?
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil. You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
Is the chance spout chickenhawk bs on the internet part of the deal?
Ah the "chickenhawk" horseshit.
As in "Shut up and take my opinion".
Oh aye? I don’t see mouthy dweebs expressing opinions like ‘You're just an apologist for evil’ being shut up. Still, the right on here and elsewhere has a long track record on whining about being censored when no such thing exists.
I was basically told to shut up by Kinabalu with his silly dismissal of a reasonable opinion as "posturing".
The fact I won't shut up is different to it not being said.
I can certainly sense a change of mood in the air of this little corner of social media over the last few days. A kind of pervasive cynicism (they're all as bad as each other) coupled with hopelessness (if anything good happens, Russia will nuke us). If that's a straw in the wind for public opinion in the West overall then it's bad news for Ukraine.
The West has a lack of patience. If the US and EU get bored and start holding back military support then Russia will be able to exploit this and secure yet another few chunks of land out of their neighbours, as they've done since 1991 in Moldova, Georgia and now to all intents and purposes the whole of Belarus.
So Russian propaganda is working, essentially. Showing a bit of solidarity with a country that's being trampled underfoot by a fascist state rather than airing a bit of ever so grown up worldly cynicism is now unfashionable.
Really ?
I don't think anyone has changed their position much. There's perhaps some disappointment that the 'counteroffensive' hasn't seen dramatic gains, but that just it-is-what-it-is.
Much the same people (with the possible exception of Leon) who argued for a negotiated settlement, without putting forward any very clear idea of how that might happen, are still arguing for a negotiated settlement.
If I’ve changed my mind (not entirely sure I have) it’s because I’ve been to Ukraine and seen what this awful war is doing to Ukraine. You can see the injured men - everywhere
I would love Ukraine to win and drive Putin (personally) into the Caspian Sea. I’m no longer sure they have the manpower to win and the idea they should sacrifice 100,000 or 500,0000 more men to make incremental gains makes me deeply uneasy
Russia’s economy is having a wobble but I fear China will always bail them out in the end. Beijing wants Putin to stay in place
🤷♂️
But what's the alternative? I would argue that the choice for Ukrainians is between living the life they have now, with risks of being maimed, or the life their compatriots in the east have, which from the limited information we have seems not to be a happy one. I would say the former would be preferable. There is no future in living in a Russian-occupied statelet.
There is no good alternative. The war is an abomination
I’m unwilling to urge Ukraine to throw ever more young men into this hideous meat grinder. If they want to do that fair enough and good luck - but I’m not gonna cheer lead it and wave pom poms (not that it matters what we think on here)
The more equipment and support we provide then the less casualties Ukraine suffers. Ukrainian soldiers report that Western armoured vehicles are more likely to protect the crew than Russian ones, even when disabled by mines or anti-tank weapons.
Providing them with support isn't egging then on to throw lives away. It's the opposite in many respects.
I wonder (hope?) that the Bairstow moment will be the turning point. Every Australian team will be tainted and will never be successful again, because of it.
Would be glorious.
They talk about the Bairstow incident quite a lot on Australian media - which tells me that it really stung and it still hurts
Note how, even within the ashes series, the Aussies fell away after that day at Lord’s. They were not the same team thereafter
Did I mention I was there that day?
I think it did more damage to their cause than it was worth. Despite the mocking, ribbing and joshing, most Aussies and Brits get on ok, and most Aussies I've met respect fair play. What they did that day was technically in the laws, but not in the spirit. If they were genuinely annoyed at Bairstow leaving his crease at the end of the over (I don't think that they were) then 'stump' him, but withdraw the appeal to make the point.
What fascinates me is the state of denial in the Aussie team. Warner - "I've not seen any Bazball" etc. England batted with freedom and scored at over 5 an over throughout. What did he think Bazball was?
The reality was that the Aussies emerged with the Ashes retained and a 2-2 draw after being battered for the best part of 5 tests. Who posts boundary riders in the first over of a match?
After watching replays, it's clear Bairstow was fairly stumped. He messed up.
The Keeper didn't hold onto the ball then throw it after Barstow left the crease, he threw it as soon as he caught it which is what a stumping is supposed to be. It was all Bairstow's fault.
The rest of your post - totally agreed.
The point is that Bairstow gained no batting advantage by leaving his crease - for example, turning a delivery into a full toss - which is, I suppose, why the stumping law is there: to stop such an advantage being risk free.
That's not the point. That's never been a part of the law. If a player makes a mistake he can be stumped and Bairstow did, just an egregious one.
Had Bairstow swung for the ball, missed, fallen over outside the crease and been stjmped would you say he hadn't gained an advantage so shouldn't be out?
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
I can't say I'm interested in either to be honest.
I do watch women's curling, skiing, athletics, volleyball etc. Not sure why.
Well, I am on the last one.
But to answer your earlier question, people in England have become interested in women's football because of a mixture of factors: - massive increase in quality - a modicum of success for the England national side - better marketing of the game - the game finding its niche (e.g. I like the idea of taking my family to a sporting event but I'm slightly resistant to the tribalism and 18-rated language and constant fury of the atmosphere at a men's game, and, at any rate, not at that price) - far more girls playing football, who then become interested in role models - conscious investment decisions by various bodies leading to the above.
It's been a massive strategic success story. I don't know whether it's produced a financial return, but I don't think that was really the point (it rarely is in sport).
BBC cant afford to screen EPL matches so women get more air time.
Precisely. If womens football get bought out by Sky or amazon etc, expect the BBC to start pumping up the next big thing, inter-County tiddly winks, as its all they can afford to show...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Didn't someone point of the other day that GamesWorkshop were running over the cliff of 3D home printing with their eyes wide shut? As in total ignoring the area.
It was actually quite an interesting discussion - something I had been wondering about in general.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
I can't say I'm interested in either to be honest.
I do watch women's curling, skiing, athletics, volleyball etc. Not sure why.
Well, I am on the last one.
But to answer your earlier question, people in England have become interested in women's football because of a mixture of factors: - massive increase in quality - a modicum of success for the England national side - better marketing of the game - the game finding its niche (e.g. I like the idea of taking my family to a sporting event but I'm slightly resistant to the tribalism and 18-rated language and constant fury of the atmosphere at a men's game, and, at any rate, not at that price) - far more girls playing football, who then become interested in role models - conscious investment decisions by various bodies leading to the above.
It's been a massive strategic success story. I don't know whether it's produced a financial return, but I don't think that was really the point (it rarely is in sport).
BBC cant afford to screen EPL matches so women get more air time.
Precisely. If womens football get bought out by Sky or amazon etc, expect the BBC to start pumping up the next big thing, inter-County tiddly winks, as its all they can afford to show...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Some of the prices on eBay are insane.
Edit - there was a video on YouTube of someone unboxing a bunch of stuff they'd bought from an estate sale clearance of GW material. Definite antiques roadshow vibes.
On Betfair, England are slight favorites over 90 minutes, but Spain are very slight favorites to win the competition. Small arbitrage there for those greedy and needy enough to take it.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
I can't say I'm interested in either to be honest.
I do watch women's curling, skiing, athletics, volleyball etc. Not sure why.
Well, I am on the last one.
But to answer your earlier question, people in England have become interested in women's football because of a mixture of factors: - massive increase in quality - a modicum of success for the England national side - better marketing of the game - the game finding its niche (e.g. I like the idea of taking my family to a sporting event but I'm slightly resistant to the tribalism and 18-rated language and constant fury of the atmosphere at a men's game, and, at any rate, not at that price) - far more girls playing football, who then become interested in role models - conscious investment decisions by various bodies leading to the above.
It's been a massive strategic success story. I don't know whether it's produced a financial return, but I don't think that was really the point (it rarely is in sport).
BBC cant afford to screen EPL matches so women get more air time.
Precisely. If womens football get bought out by Sky or amazon etc, expect the BBC to start pumping up the next big thing, inter-County tiddly winks, as its all they can afford to show...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Didn't someone point of the other day that GamesWorkshop were running over the cliff of 3D home printing with their eyes wide shut? As in total ignoring the area.
3D home printing is still very much niche, and even the high end printers can't match the quality of their injection-moulded plastics. I don't think they've ignored it fwiw; their miniature sculpts have achieved a phenomenally high level of quality (tbh so high that it is becoming counterproductively difficult to paint them, such is the level of intricate detail).
Most people in the hobby want to collect the official minis. And they're posting very strong results at the mo.
3D printing has come into railway modelling big time, but there are limitations. Usually a lot of work is needed to remove the evidence of layering, and often the plastics can be a bit fragile. However the opportunity to produce small numbers of something rather than needing large runs with injection moulding is great.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
I can't say I'm interested in either to be honest.
I do watch women's curling, skiing, athletics, volleyball etc. Not sure why.
Well, I am on the last one.
But to answer your earlier question, people in England have become interested in women's football because of a mixture of factors: - massive increase in quality - a modicum of success for the England national side - better marketing of the game - the game finding its niche (e.g. I like the idea of taking my family to a sporting event but I'm slightly resistant to the tribalism and 18-rated language and constant fury of the atmosphere at a men's game, and, at any rate, not at that price) - far more girls playing football, who then become interested in role models - conscious investment decisions by various bodies leading to the above.
It's been a massive strategic success story. I don't know whether it's produced a financial return, but I don't think that was really the point (it rarely is in sport).
BBC cant afford to screen EPL matches so women get more air time.
Precisely. If womens football get bought out by Sky or amazon etc, expect the BBC to start pumping up the next big thing, inter-County tiddly winks, as its all they can afford to show...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Didn't someone point of the other day that GamesWorkshop were running over the cliff of 3D home printing with their eyes wide shut? As in total ignoring the area.
3D home printing is still very much niche, and even the high end printers can't match the quality of their injection-moulded plastics. I don't think they've ignored it fwiw; their miniature sculpts have achieved a phenomenally high level of quality (tbh so high that it is becoming counterproductively difficult to paint them, such is the level of intricate detail).
Most people in the hobby want to collect the official minis. And they're posting very strong results at the mo.
3D printing has come into railway modelling big time, but there are limitations. Usually a lot of work is needed to remove the evidence of layering, and often the plastics can be a bit fragile. However the opportunity to produce small numbers of something rather than needing large runs with injection moulding is great.
How durable, as in chemically stable, are the plastics, does anyone have any opinion? One wouldn't want to buy a Brunel corrugated iron prefab loo or a Games Workshop collectors' editioin orc if it was going to fall to bits in 5 years.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil. You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
Is the chance spout chickenhawk bs on the internet part of the deal?
Ah the "chickenhawk" horseshit.
As in "Shut up and take my opinion".
Oh aye? I don’t see mouthy dweebs expressing opinions like ‘You're just an apologist for evil’ being shut up. Still, the right on here and elsewhere has a long track record on whining about being censored when no such thing exists.
I was basically told to shut up by Kinabalu with his silly dismissal of a reasonable opinion as "posturing".
The fact I won't shut up is different to it not being said.
I can certainly sense a change of mood in the air of this little corner of social media over the last few days. A kind of pervasive cynicism (they're all as bad as each other) coupled with hopelessness (if anything good happens, Russia will nuke us). If that's a straw in the wind for public opinion in the West overall then it's bad news for Ukraine.
The West has a lack of patience. If the US and EU get bored and start holding back military support then Russia will be able to exploit this and secure yet another few chunks of land out of their neighbours, as they've done since 1991 in Moldova, Georgia and now to all intents and purposes the whole of Belarus.
So Russian propaganda is working, essentially. Showing a bit of solidarity with a country that's being trampled underfoot by a fascist state rather than airing a bit of ever so grown up worldly cynicism is now unfashionable.
Really ?
I don't think anyone has changed their position much. There's perhaps some disappointment that the 'counteroffensive' hasn't seen dramatic gains, but that just it-is-what-it-is.
Much the same people (with the possible exception of Leon) who argued for a negotiated settlement, without putting forward any very clear idea of how that might happen, are still arguing for a negotiated settlement.
If I’ve changed my mind (not entirely sure I have) it’s because I’ve been to Ukraine and seen what this awful war is doing to Ukraine. You can see the injured men - everywhere
I would love Ukraine to win and drive Putin (personally) into the Caspian Sea. I’m no longer sure they have the manpower to win and the idea they should sacrifice 100,000 or 500,0000 more men to make incremental gains makes me deeply uneasy
Russia’s economy is having a wobble but I fear China will always bail them out in the end. Beijing wants Putin to stay in place
🤷♂️
But what's the alternative? I would argue that the choice for Ukrainians is between living the life they have now, with risks of being maimed, or the life their compatriots in the east have, which from the limited information we have seems not to be a happy one. I would say the former would be preferable. There is no future in living in a Russian-occupied statelet.
There is no good alternative. The war is an abomination
I’m unwilling to urge Ukraine to throw ever more young men into this hideous meat grinder. If they want to do that fair enough and good luck - but I’m not gonna cheer lead it and wave pom poms (not that it matters what we think on here)
You went there, and failed to see the spirit of the people on show, and the determination to keep fighting for their national identity, their right to be Ukrainians?
He did however find an expensive SUV and go on a bus. So there's that.
afair women's tennis attracts the same, or more, revenue
Doubt that.
What do you notice about this picture?
* All the cameras are pointed away from the lady making the serve. Bonus points if you can remind me in which Hitchcock film something similar was a plot point.
Yes, rather than looking at the server - Madison Keys - the cameras on Court 2 are trained on 16 year-old Russian Mirra Andreeva. It's a bit sad really, as it should be about the tennis, not about looks.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
I can't say I'm interested in either to be honest.
I do watch women's curling, skiing, athletics, volleyball etc. Not sure why.
Well, I am on the last one.
But to answer your earlier question, people in England have become interested in women's football because of a mixture of factors: - massive increase in quality - a modicum of success for the England national side - better marketing of the game - the game finding its niche (e.g. I like the idea of taking my family to a sporting event but I'm slightly resistant to the tribalism and 18-rated language and constant fury of the atmosphere at a men's game, and, at any rate, not at that price) - far more girls playing football, who then become interested in role models - conscious investment decisions by various bodies leading to the above.
It's been a massive strategic success story. I don't know whether it's produced a financial return, but I don't think that was really the point (it rarely is in sport).
BBC cant afford to screen EPL matches so women get more air time.
Precisely. If womens football get bought out by Sky or amazon etc, expect the BBC to start pumping up the next big thing, inter-County tiddly winks, as its all they can afford to show...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Didn't someone point of the other day that GamesWorkshop were running over the cliff of 3D home printing with their eyes wide shut? As in total ignoring the area.
3D home printing is still very much niche, and even the high end printers can't match the quality of their injection-moulded plastics. I don't think they've ignored it fwiw; their miniature sculpts have achieved a phenomenally high level of quality (tbh so high that it is becoming counterproductively difficult to paint them, such is the level of intricate detail).
Most people in the hobby want to collect the official minis. And they're posting very strong results at the mo.
3D printing has come into railway modelling big time, but there are limitations. Usually a lot of work is needed to remove the evidence of layering, and often the plastics can be a bit fragile. However the opportunity to produce small numbers of something rather than needing large runs with injection moulding is great.
I’m pretty sure it’s eaten into their sales of (ludicrously priced) terrain pieces, particular because you only need one person in your group to actually have a printer. But there had always been a lot of ‘build your own’ with that stuff anyway; the magazine used to give you guides on how to do it!
* I am reliably informed by people on PB that "gammon" is a racist term. Since people on PB are never wrong, please feel suitably admonished for a brief period. * Given that middle-aged men are sports gambling's bread and butter, it perhaps was not the wisest of moves by PP to mock them...
PP have a no-prisoners approach to social media, similar to Ryanair. It's effective, and consistent with their brand.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
I can't say I'm interested in either to be honest.
I do watch women's curling, skiing, athletics, volleyball etc. Not sure why.
Well, I am on the last one.
But to answer your earlier question, people in England have become interested in women's football because of a mixture of factors: - massive increase in quality - a modicum of success for the England national side - better marketing of the game - the game finding its niche (e.g. I like the idea of taking my family to a sporting event but I'm slightly resistant to the tribalism and 18-rated language and constant fury of the atmosphere at a men's game, and, at any rate, not at that price) - far more girls playing football, who then become interested in role models - conscious investment decisions by various bodies leading to the above.
It's been a massive strategic success story. I don't know whether it's produced a financial return, but I don't think that was really the point (it rarely is in sport).
BBC cant afford to screen EPL matches so women get more air time.
Precisely. If womens football get bought out by Sky or amazon etc, expect the BBC to start pumping up the next big thing, inter-County tiddly winks, as its all they can afford to show...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Some of the prices on eBay are insane.
Edit - there was a video on YouTube of someone unboxing a bunch of stuff they'd bought from an estate sale clearance of GW material. Definite antiques roadshow vibes.
I didn’t have much as a kid, but it would be worth a fortune now if my dad hadn’t binned it all in a clear out.
On Betfair, England are slight favorites over 90 minutes, but Spain are very slight favorites to win the competition. Small arbitrage there for those greedy and needy enough to take it.
Can't last.
It's gone. Market has Spain FAV in all relevant markets. All prices fairly close to either 2-1 or evens mind.
afair women's tennis attracts the same, or more, revenue
Doubt that.
What do you notice about this picture?
* All the cameras are pointed away from the lady making the serve. Bonus points if you can remind me in which Hitchcock film something similar was a plot point.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
I can't say I'm interested in either to be honest.
I do watch women's curling, skiing, athletics, volleyball etc. Not sure why.
Well, I am on the last one.
But to answer your earlier question, people in England have become interested in women's football because of a mixture of factors: - massive increase in quality - a modicum of success for the England national side - better marketing of the game - the game finding its niche (e.g. I like the idea of taking my family to a sporting event but I'm slightly resistant to the tribalism and 18-rated language and constant fury of the atmosphere at a men's game, and, at any rate, not at that price) - far more girls playing football, who then become interested in role models - conscious investment decisions by various bodies leading to the above.
It's been a massive strategic success story. I don't know whether it's produced a financial return, but I don't think that was really the point (it rarely is in sport).
BBC cant afford to screen EPL matches so women get more air time.
Precisely. If womens football get bought out by Sky or amazon etc, expect the BBC to start pumping up the next big thing, inter-County tiddly winks, as its all they can afford to show...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Didn't someone point of the other day that GamesWorkshop were running over the cliff of 3D home printing with their eyes wide shut? As in total ignoring the area.
3D home printing is still very much niche, and even the high end printers can't match the quality of their injection-moulded plastics. I don't think they've ignored it fwiw; their miniature sculpts have achieved a phenomenally high level of quality (tbh so high that it is becoming counterproductively difficult to paint them, such is the level of intricate detail).
Most people in the hobby want to collect the official minis. And they're posting very strong results at the mo.
3D printing has come into railway modelling big time, but there are limitations. Usually a lot of work is needed to remove the evidence of layering, and often the plastics can be a bit fragile. However the opportunity to produce small numbers of something rather than needing large runs with injection moulding is great.
How durable, as in chemically stable, are the plastics, does anyone have any opinion? One wouldn't want to buy a Brunel corrugated iron prefab loo or a Games Workshop collectors' editioin orc if it was going to fall to bits in 5 years.
People frequently buy second hand models and then stick them in a jar of one liquid or another to strip the acrylic paint from them, so that they can repaint them. So they're mostly pretty stable.
With resin it can be more variable. Some issues with high temperatures causing deformation.
On Betfair, England are slight favorites over 90 minutes, but Spain are very slight favorites to win the competition. Small arbitrage there for those greedy and needy enough to take it.
Can't last.
It's gone. Market has Spain FAV in all relevant markets. All prices fairly close to either 2-1 or evens mind.
Reflecting just a moment on the Malkinson case, this looks like a case where people over a number of years have acted so notably wrongly and knowingly unjustly that there ought to be prosecutions, civil actions, dismissals and all that.
So what I wonder is this: Will the decision of the justice department be to hold a public enquiry into the case, and perhaps into a slightly wider remit, for the usual reason of thus being able to deflect all questioning and action onto a much later date when the heat will have dissipated, media will have moved on, and blame dispersed widely enough for no-one to be actually accountable?
It is, after all, standard procedure. This is one to watch.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
I can't say I'm interested in either to be honest.
I do watch women's curling, skiing, athletics, volleyball etc. Not sure why.
Well, I am on the last one.
But to answer your earlier question, people in England have become interested in women's football because of a mixture of factors: - massive increase in quality - a modicum of success for the England national side - better marketing of the game - the game finding its niche (e.g. I like the idea of taking my family to a sporting event but I'm slightly resistant to the tribalism and 18-rated language and constant fury of the atmosphere at a men's game, and, at any rate, not at that price) - far more girls playing football, who then become interested in role models - conscious investment decisions by various bodies leading to the above.
It's been a massive strategic success story. I don't know whether it's produced a financial return, but I don't think that was really the point (it rarely is in sport).
BBC cant afford to screen EPL matches so women get more air time.
Precisely. If womens football get bought out by Sky or amazon etc, expect the BBC to start pumping up the next big thing, inter-County tiddly winks, as its all they can afford to show...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Didn't someone point of the other day that GamesWorkshop were running over the cliff of 3D home printing with their eyes wide shut? As in total ignoring the area.
3D home printing is still very much niche, and even the high end printers can't match the quality of their injection-moulded plastics. I don't think they've ignored it fwiw; their miniature sculpts have achieved a phenomenally high level of quality (tbh so high that it is becoming counterproductively difficult to paint them, such is the level of intricate detail).
Most people in the hobby want to collect the official minis. And they're posting very strong results at the mo.
3D printing has come into railway modelling big time, but there are limitations. Usually a lot of work is needed to remove the evidence of layering, and often the plastics can be a bit fragile. However the opportunity to produce small numbers of something rather than needing large runs with injection moulding is great.
How durable, as in chemically stable, are the plastics, does anyone have any opinion? One wouldn't want to buy a Brunel corrugated iron prefab loo or a Games Workshop collectors' editioin orc if it was going to fall to bits in 5 years.
That's a good question.
Then again, in the 1970s/80s Hornby used a metal (Mazac?) that in many cases fell apart over time.
On topic (if you all don't mine): Here is a question for Mike Smithson and others with his views: Can you give us some examples of the EU making substantial changes in policy, as the result of EU elections?
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil. You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
Is the chance spout chickenhawk bs on the internet part of the deal?
Ah the "chickenhawk" horseshit.
As in "Shut up and take my opinion".
Oh aye? I don’t see mouthy dweebs expressing opinions like ‘You're just an apologist for evil’ being shut up. Still, the right on here and elsewhere has a long track record on whining about being censored when no such thing exists.
I was basically told to shut up by Kinabalu with his silly dismissal of a reasonable opinion as "posturing".
The fact I won't shut up is different to it not being said.
I can certainly sense a change of mood in the air of this little corner of social media over the last few days. A kind of pervasive cynicism (they're all as bad as each other) coupled with hopelessness (if anything good happens, Russia will nuke us). If that's a straw in the wind for public opinion in the West overall then it's bad news for Ukraine.
The West has a lack of patience. If the US and EU get bored and start holding back military support then Russia will be able to exploit this and secure yet another few chunks of land out of their neighbours, as they've done since 1991 in Moldova, Georgia and now to all intents and purposes the whole of Belarus.
So Russian propaganda is working, essentially. Showing a bit of solidarity with a country that's being trampled underfoot by a fascist state rather than airing a bit of ever so grown up worldly cynicism is now unfashionable.
So would you say that Ben Wallace is aiding the enemy with his recent 'we're not amazon' comments to Ukraine regarding their requests for more and more military aid? I don't think you can avoid these difficult problems by accusing anyone who is not entirely 100% behind the ' beat back Russia' narrative of peddling enemy propoganda. The question that interests me is how to stop the war in some way that preserves Ukraine and its ability to defend itself in the future, I don't think that this stance can be objectively regarded as being 'pro Russian'.
Yes, I think the way that was reported was unhelpful. He was quoted out of context though.
The trouble with today's hyper-online space is that the Russians are always listening and learning, and they use and amplify Western talking points (particularly the desire for a quiet life). So when I see these ideas starting to gain traction I know that's going to music to their ears. It's been happening on the US right for a long time of course.
I suspect the main difference in PB posters' views comes down to assumptions about Russian good or bad faith in any future settlement, and their appetite for future adventures. I've ended up convinced anything short of total eviction from Ukraine will only encourage another even more dangerous war in a few years, as it did last time. And encourage China on Taiwan too.
I was surprised to read that the chief of staff of NATO’s Secretary-General has floated a “Ukraine to give up land in exchange for NATO membership” deal.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil. You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
Is the chance spout chickenhawk bs on the internet part of the deal?
Ah the "chickenhawk" horseshit.
As in "Shut up and take my opinion".
Oh aye? I don’t see mouthy dweebs expressing opinions like ‘You're just an apologist for evil’ being shut up. Still, the right on here and elsewhere has a long track record on whining about being censored when no such thing exists.
I was basically told to shut up by Kinabalu with his silly dismissal of a reasonable opinion as "posturing".
The fact I won't shut up is different to it not being said.
I can certainly sense a change of mood in the air of this little corner of social media over the last few days. A kind of pervasive cynicism (they're all as bad as each other) coupled with hopelessness (if anything good happens, Russia will nuke us). If that's a straw in the wind for public opinion in the West overall then it's bad news for Ukraine.
The West has a lack of patience. If the US and EU get bored and start holding back military support then Russia will be able to exploit this and secure yet another few chunks of land out of their neighbours, as they've done since 1991 in Moldova, Georgia and now to all intents and purposes the whole of Belarus.
So Russian propaganda is working, essentially. Showing a bit of solidarity with a country that's being trampled underfoot by a fascist state rather than airing a bit of ever so grown up worldly cynicism is now unfashionable.
Really ?
I don't think anyone has changed their position much. There's perhaps some disappointment that the 'counteroffensive' hasn't seen dramatic gains, but that just it-is-what-it-is.
Much the same people (with the possible exception of Leon) who argued for a negotiated settlement, without putting forward any very clear idea of how that might happen, are still arguing for a negotiated settlement.
If I’ve changed my mind (not entirely sure I have) it’s because I’ve been to Ukraine and seen what this awful war is doing to Ukraine. You can see the injured men - everywhere
I would love Ukraine to win and drive Putin (personally) into the Caspian Sea. I’m no longer sure they have the manpower to win and the idea they should sacrifice 100,000 or 500,0000 more men to make incremental gains makes me deeply uneasy
Russia’s economy is having a wobble but I fear China will always bail them out in the end. Beijing wants Putin to stay in place
🤷♂️
But what's the alternative? I would argue that the choice for Ukrainians is between living the life they have now, with risks of being maimed, or the life their compatriots in the east have, which from the limited information we have seems not to be a happy one. I would say the former would be preferable. There is no future in living in a Russian-occupied statelet.
There is no good alternative. The war is an abomination
I’m unwilling to urge Ukraine to throw ever more young men into this hideous meat grinder. If they want to do that fair enough and good luck - but I’m not gonna cheer lead it and wave pom poms (not that it matters what we think on here)
You went there, and failed to see the spirit of the people on show, and the determination to keep fighting for their national identity, their right to be Ukrainians?
I saw all of that, and I also saw the men on crutches, missing limbs, with major head wounds, etc
If they want to fight to the last able-bodied man, good luck to them
I wonder (hope?) that the Bairstow moment will be the turning point. Every Australian team will be tainted and will never be successful again, because of it.
Would be glorious.
They talk about the Bairstow incident quite a lot on Australian media - which tells me that it really stung and it still hurts
Note how, even within the ashes series, the Aussies fell away after that day at Lord’s. They were not the same team thereafter
Did I mention I was there that day?
I think it did more damage to their cause than it was worth. Despite the mocking, ribbing and joshing, most Aussies and Brits get on ok, and most Aussies I've met respect fair play. What they did that day was technically in the laws, but not in the spirit. If they were genuinely annoyed at Bairstow leaving his crease at the end of the over (I don't think that they were) then 'stump' him, but withdraw the appeal to make the point.
What fascinates me is the state of denial in the Aussie team. Warner - "I've not seen any Bazball" etc. England batted with freedom and scored at over 5 an over throughout. What did he think Bazball was?
The reality was that the Aussies emerged with the Ashes retained and a 2-2 draw after being battered for the best part of 5 tests. Who posts boundary riders in the first over of a match?
After watching replays, it's clear Bairstow was fairly stumped. He messed up.
The Keeper didn't hold onto the ball then throw it after Barstow left the crease, he threw it as soon as he caught it which is what a stumping is supposed to be. It was all Bairstow's fault.
The rest of your post - totally agreed.
The point is that Bairstow gained no batting advantage by leaving his crease - for example, turning a delivery into a full toss - which is, I suppose, why the stumping law is there: to stop such an advantage being risk free.
That's not the point. That's never been a part of the law. If a player makes a mistake he can be stumped and Bairstow did, just an egregious one.
Had Bairstow swung for the ball, missed, fallen over outside the crease and been stjmped would you say he hadn't gained an advantage so shouldn't be out?
No, he should be out in that situation: he tried to play a massive, heaving shot (and get all the advantages that would have brought if he'd connected) but lost his balance. If you're going to attempt something adventurous, then there are pitfalls if you don't execute with complete perfection. None of that is ethically similar to wandering up to have a chat with your mate because you though the over was at an end.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
I can't say I'm interested in either to be honest.
I do watch women's curling, skiing, athletics, volleyball etc. Not sure why.
Well, I am on the last one.
But to answer your earlier question, people in England have become interested in women's football because of a mixture of factors: - massive increase in quality - a modicum of success for the England national side - better marketing of the game - the game finding its niche (e.g. I like the idea of taking my family to a sporting event but I'm slightly resistant to the tribalism and 18-rated language and constant fury of the atmosphere at a men's game, and, at any rate, not at that price) - far more girls playing football, who then become interested in role models - conscious investment decisions by various bodies leading to the above.
It's been a massive strategic success story. I don't know whether it's produced a financial return, but I don't think that was really the point (it rarely is in sport).
BBC cant afford to screen EPL matches so women get more air time.
Precisely. If womens football get bought out by Sky or amazon etc, expect the BBC to start pumping up the next big thing, inter-County tiddly winks, as its all they can afford to show...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Didn't someone point of the other day that GamesWorkshop were running over the cliff of 3D home printing with their eyes wide shut? As in total ignoring the area.
3D home printing is still very much niche, and even the high end printers can't match the quality of their injection-moulded plastics. I don't think they've ignored it fwiw; their miniature sculpts have achieved a phenomenally high level of quality (tbh so high that it is becoming counterproductively difficult to paint them, such is the level of intricate detail).
Most people in the hobby want to collect the official minis. And they're posting very strong results at the mo.
3D printing has come into railway modelling big time, but there are limitations. Usually a lot of work is needed to remove the evidence of layering, and often the plastics can be a bit fragile. However the opportunity to produce small numbers of something rather than needing large runs with injection moulding is great.
How durable, as in chemically stable, are the plastics, does anyone have any opinion? One wouldn't want to buy a Brunel corrugated iron prefab loo or a Games Workshop collectors' editioin orc if it was going to fall to bits in 5 years.
That's a good question.
Then again, in the 1970s/80s Hornby used a metal (Mazac?) that in many cases fell apart over time.
And there's a tin alloy of some kind (or group of them) that is metastable at room-ish temperatures, so it tends to shift to another allotrope, or something - so bye bye your old style toy soldier.
Plastics are a big problem for museum curators and conservators. Lots of interesting stuff,. but no fun - for instance if you have a doll collection. PVC can be a problem ...
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil. You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
Is the chance spout chickenhawk bs on the internet part of the deal?
Ah the "chickenhawk" horseshit.
As in "Shut up and take my opinion".
Oh aye? I don’t see mouthy dweebs expressing opinions like ‘You're just an apologist for evil’ being shut up. Still, the right on here and elsewhere has a long track record on whining about being censored when no such thing exists.
I was basically told to shut up by Kinabalu with his silly dismissal of a reasonable opinion as "posturing".
The fact I won't shut up is different to it not being said.
I can certainly sense a change of mood in the air of this little corner of social media over the last few days. A kind of pervasive cynicism (they're all as bad as each other) coupled with hopelessness (if anything good happens, Russia will nuke us). If that's a straw in the wind for public opinion in the West overall then it's bad news for Ukraine.
The West has a lack of patience. If the US and EU get bored and start holding back military support then Russia will be able to exploit this and secure yet another few chunks of land out of their neighbours, as they've done since 1991 in Moldova, Georgia and now to all intents and purposes the whole of Belarus.
So Russian propaganda is working, essentially. Showing a bit of solidarity with a country that's being trampled underfoot by a fascist state rather than airing a bit of ever so grown up worldly cynicism is now unfashionable.
So would you say that Ben Wallace is aiding the enemy with his recent 'we're not amazon' comments to Ukraine regarding their requests for more and more military aid? I don't think you can avoid these difficult problems by accusing anyone who is not entirely 100% behind the ' beat back Russia' narrative of peddling enemy propoganda. The question that interests me is how to stop the war in some way that preserves Ukraine and its ability to defend itself in the future, I don't think that this stance can be objectively regarded as being 'pro Russian'.
Yes, I think the way that was reported was unhelpful. He was quoted out of context though.
The trouble with today's hyper-online space is that the Russians are always listening and learning, and they use and amplify Western talking points (particularly the desire for a quiet life). So when I see these ideas starting to gain traction I know that's going to music to their ears. It's been happening on the US right for a long time of course.
I suspect the main difference in PB posters' views comes down to assumptions about Russian good or bad faith in any future settlement, and their appetite for future adventures. I've ended up convinced anything short of total eviction from Ukraine will only encourage another even more dangerous war in a few years, as it did last time. And encourage China on Taiwan too.
I agree with this. Putin’s Russia is aggressive, revanchist and fascist. It is overwhelmingly in European (and Western) security interests for him to be defeated.
It’s depressing that voices are starting to emerge which float possible compromises (compromises which entail Putin simply keeping lands seized from Ukraine).
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil. You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
Is the chance spout chickenhawk bs on the internet part of the deal?
Ah the "chickenhawk" horseshit.
As in "Shut up and take my opinion".
Oh aye? I don’t see mouthy dweebs expressing opinions like ‘You're just an apologist for evil’ being shut up. Still, the right on here and elsewhere has a long track record on whining about being censored when no such thing exists.
I was basically told to shut up by Kinabalu with his silly dismissal of a reasonable opinion as "posturing".
The fact I won't shut up is different to it not being said.
I can certainly sense a change of mood in the air of this little corner of social media over the last few days. A kind of pervasive cynicism (they're all as bad as each other) coupled with hopelessness (if anything good happens, Russia will nuke us). If that's a straw in the wind for public opinion in the West overall then it's bad news for Ukraine.
The West has a lack of patience. If the US and EU get bored and start holding back military support then Russia will be able to exploit this and secure yet another few chunks of land out of their neighbours, as they've done since 1991 in Moldova, Georgia and now to all intents and purposes the whole of Belarus.
So Russian propaganda is working, essentially. Showing a bit of solidarity with a country that's being trampled underfoot by a fascist state rather than airing a bit of ever so grown up worldly cynicism is now unfashionable.
So would you say that Ben Wallace is aiding the enemy with his recent 'we're not amazon' comments to Ukraine regarding their requests for more and more military aid? I don't think you can avoid these difficult problems by accusing anyone who is not entirely 100% behind the ' beat back Russia' narrative of peddling enemy propoganda. The question that interests me is how to stop the war in some way that preserves Ukraine and its ability to defend itself in the future, I don't think that this stance can be objectively regarded as being 'pro Russian'.
Yes, I think the way that was reported was unhelpful. He was quoted out of context though.
The trouble with today's hyper-online space is that the Russians are always listening and learning, and they use and amplify Western talking points (particularly the desire for a quiet life). So when I see these ideas starting to gain traction I know that's going to music to their ears. It's been happening on the US right for a long time of course.
On the other hand, there's something quite self-regarding (when we do it, or paranoid when the Russians do it) about treating Western public opinion as the critical factor. The war won't be won in the hearts and minds of people the West but rather on the ground in Ukraine.
Since you all are discussing sports, I'll add this bit: MIT, which is a pretty good university, has this policy: It encourages all its students to participate in sports, and will provide equipment and spaces to make that possible. I think that's much heathier -- physically and mentally -- than the pro teams now found at most American universities.
(Though I will admit that I prefer the NIL change which allows pro athletes at those universities to get paid what they are earning. For example: "LSU gymnast Olivia Dunne is having a lucrative year.
Dunne, who celebrated her 20th birthday on Saturday, leads the top 10 female NIL moneymakers, according to On3 Sports’ proprietary NIL Valuation metric, which measures athletes by performance, influence and exposure.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
I can't say I'm interested in either to be honest.
I do watch women's curling, skiing, athletics, volleyball etc. Not sure why.
Well, I am on the last one.
But to answer your earlier question, people in England have become interested in women's football because of a mixture of factors: - massive increase in quality - a modicum of success for the England national side - better marketing of the game - the game finding its niche (e.g. I like the idea of taking my family to a sporting event but I'm slightly resistant to the tribalism and 18-rated language and constant fury of the atmosphere at a men's game, and, at any rate, not at that price) - far more girls playing football, who then become interested in role models - conscious investment decisions by various bodies leading to the above.
It's been a massive strategic success story. I don't know whether it's produced a financial return, but I don't think that was really the point (it rarely is in sport).
BBC cant afford to screen EPL matches so women get more air time.
Precisely. If womens football get bought out by Sky or amazon etc, expect the BBC to start pumping up the next big thing, inter-County tiddly winks, as its all they can afford to show...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Didn't someone point of the other day that GamesWorkshop were running over the cliff of 3D home printing with their eyes wide shut? As in total ignoring the area.
3D home printing is still very much niche, and even the high end printers can't match the quality of their injection-moulded plastics. I don't think they've ignored it fwiw; their miniature sculpts have achieved a phenomenally high level of quality (tbh so high that it is becoming counterproductively difficult to paint them, such is the level of intricate detail).
Most people in the hobby want to collect the official minis. And they're posting very strong results at the mo.
3D printing has come into railway modelling big time, but there are limitations. Usually a lot of work is needed to remove the evidence of layering, and often the plastics can be a bit fragile. However the opportunity to produce small numbers of something rather than needing large runs with injection moulding is great.
How durable, as in chemically stable, are the plastics, does anyone have any opinion? One wouldn't want to buy a Brunel corrugated iron prefab loo or a Games Workshop collectors' editioin orc if it was going to fall to bits in 5 years.
People frequently buy second hand models and then stick them in a jar of one liquid or another to strip the acrylic paint from them, so that they can repaint them. So they're mostly pretty stable.
With resin it can be more variable. Some issues with high temperatures causing deformation.
The injected plastic? Sure, it seems pretty good. The new raster fabricated 3D printed plastic resin stuff is what worries me.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
I can't say I'm interested in either to be honest.
I do watch women's curling, skiing, athletics, volleyball etc. Not sure why.
Well, I am on the last one.
But to answer your earlier question, people in England have become interested in women's football because of a mixture of factors: - massive increase in quality - a modicum of success for the England national side - better marketing of the game - the game finding its niche (e.g. I like the idea of taking my family to a sporting event but I'm slightly resistant to the tribalism and 18-rated language and constant fury of the atmosphere at a men's game, and, at any rate, not at that price) - far more girls playing football, who then become interested in role models - conscious investment decisions by various bodies leading to the above.
It's been a massive strategic success story. I don't know whether it's produced a financial return, but I don't think that was really the point (it rarely is in sport).
BBC cant afford to screen EPL matches so women get more air time.
Precisely. If womens football get bought out by Sky or amazon etc, expect the BBC to start pumping up the next big thing, inter-County tiddly winks, as its all they can afford to show...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Some of the prices on eBay are insane.
Edit - there was a video on YouTube of someone unboxing a bunch of stuff they'd bought from an estate sale clearance of GW material. Definite antiques roadshow vibes.
I didn’t have much as a kid, but it would be worth a fortune now if my dad hadn’t binned it all in a clear out.
I suffered the same went to my dads, came back to find my mother had had a clearout of my room and ditched my box of pristine 2000ad comics issues 1 to 50
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil. You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
Is the chance spout chickenhawk bs on the internet part of the deal?
Ah the "chickenhawk" horseshit.
As in "Shut up and take my opinion".
Oh aye? I don’t see mouthy dweebs expressing opinions like ‘You're just an apologist for evil’ being shut up. Still, the right on here and elsewhere has a long track record on whining about being censored when no such thing exists.
I was basically told to shut up by Kinabalu with his silly dismissal of a reasonable opinion as "posturing".
The fact I won't shut up is different to it not being said.
I can certainly sense a change of mood in the air of this little corner of social media over the last few days. A kind of pervasive cynicism (they're all as bad as each other) coupled with hopelessness (if anything good happens, Russia will nuke us). If that's a straw in the wind for public opinion in the West overall then it's bad news for Ukraine.
The West has a lack of patience. If the US and EU get bored and start holding back military support then Russia will be able to exploit this and secure yet another few chunks of land out of their neighbours, as they've done since 1991 in Moldova, Georgia and now to all intents and purposes the whole of Belarus.
So Russian propaganda is working, essentially. Showing a bit of solidarity with a country that's being trampled underfoot by a fascist state rather than airing a bit of ever so grown up worldly cynicism is now unfashionable.
So would you say that Ben Wallace is aiding the enemy with his recent 'we're not amazon' comments to Ukraine regarding their requests for more and more military aid? I don't think you can avoid these difficult problems by accusing anyone who is not entirely 100% behind the ' beat back Russia' narrative of peddling enemy propoganda. The question that interests me is how to stop the war in some way that preserves Ukraine and its ability to defend itself in the future, I don't think that this stance can be objectively regarded as being 'pro Russian'.
Yes, I think the way that was reported was unhelpful. He was quoted out of context though.
The trouble with today's hyper-online space is that the Russians are always listening and learning, and they use and amplify Western talking points (particularly the desire for a quiet life). So when I see these ideas starting to gain traction I know that's going to music to their ears. It's been happening on the US right for a long time of course.
I suspect the main difference in PB posters' views comes down to assumptions about Russian good or bad faith in any future settlement, and their appetite for future adventures. I've ended up convinced anything short of total eviction from Ukraine will only encourage another even more dangerous war in a few years, as it did last time. And encourage China on Taiwan too.
I agree with this. Putin’s Russia is aggressive, revanchist and fascist. It is overwhelmingly in European (and Western) security interests for him to be defeated.
It’s depressing that voices are starting to emerge which float possible compromises (compromises which entail Putin simply keeping lands seized from Ukraine).
If it's overwhelmingly in our interests, shouldn't we dispense with the passive voice and get involved more directly?
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil. You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
Is the chance spout chickenhawk bs on the internet part of the deal?
Ah the "chickenhawk" horseshit.
As in "Shut up and take my opinion".
Oh aye? I don’t see mouthy dweebs expressing opinions like ‘You're just an apologist for evil’ being shut up. Still, the right on here and elsewhere has a long track record on whining about being censored when no such thing exists.
I was basically told to shut up by Kinabalu with his silly dismissal of a reasonable opinion as "posturing".
The fact I won't shut up is different to it not being said.
I can certainly sense a change of mood in the air of this little corner of social media over the last few days. A kind of pervasive cynicism (they're all as bad as each other) coupled with hopelessness (if anything good happens, Russia will nuke us). If that's a straw in the wind for public opinion in the West overall then it's bad news for Ukraine.
The West has a lack of patience. If the US and EU get bored and start holding back military support then Russia will be able to exploit this and secure yet another few chunks of land out of their neighbours, as they've done since 1991 in Moldova, Georgia and now to all intents and purposes the whole of Belarus.
So Russian propaganda is working, essentially. Showing a bit of solidarity with a country that's being trampled underfoot by a fascist state rather than airing a bit of ever so grown up worldly cynicism is now unfashionable.
So would you say that Ben Wallace is aiding the enemy with his recent 'we're not amazon' comments to Ukraine regarding their requests for more and more military aid? I don't think you can avoid these difficult problems by accusing anyone who is not entirely 100% behind the ' beat back Russia' narrative of peddling enemy propoganda. The question that interests me is how to stop the war in some way that preserves Ukraine and its ability to defend itself in the future, I don't think that this stance can be objectively regarded as being 'pro Russian'.
Yes, I think the way that was reported was unhelpful. He was quoted out of context though.
The trouble with today's hyper-online space is that the Russians are always listening and learning, and they use and amplify Western talking points (particularly the desire for a quiet life). So when I see these ideas starting to gain traction I know that's going to music to their ears. It's been happening on the US right for a long time of course.
I suspect the main difference in PB posters' views comes down to assumptions about Russian good or bad faith in any future settlement, and their appetite for future adventures. I've ended up convinced anything short of total eviction from Ukraine will only encourage another even more dangerous war in a few years, as it did last time. And encourage China on Taiwan too.
I agree with this. Putin’s Russia is aggressive, revanchist and fascist. It is overwhelmingly in European (and Western) security interests for him to be defeated.
It’s depressing that voices are starting to emerge which float possible compromises (compromises which entail Putin simply keeping lands seized from Ukraine).
Very few on here would dispute that it is in our interest for Putin to be defeated
The question is whether he CAN be defeated, at a cost to Ukraine which is justifiable and sustainable, or indeed whether he can be meaningfully defeated at all
It was in our interests for the commies in Korea to be totally vanquished. In the end that proved impossible, and an armistice was agreed, which reflected the realities of power on the ground
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil. You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
Is the chance spout chickenhawk bs on the internet part of the deal?
Ah the "chickenhawk" horseshit.
As in "Shut up and take my opinion".
Oh aye? I don’t see mouthy dweebs expressing opinions like ‘You're just an apologist for evil’ being shut up. Still, the right on here and elsewhere has a long track record on whining about being censored when no such thing exists.
I was basically told to shut up by Kinabalu with his silly dismissal of a reasonable opinion as "posturing".
The fact I won't shut up is different to it not being said.
I can certainly sense a change of mood in the air of this little corner of social media over the last few days. A kind of pervasive cynicism (they're all as bad as each other) coupled with hopelessness (if anything good happens, Russia will nuke us). If that's a straw in the wind for public opinion in the West overall then it's bad news for Ukraine.
The West has a lack of patience. If the US and EU get bored and start holding back military support then Russia will be able to exploit this and secure yet another few chunks of land out of their neighbours, as they've done since 1991 in Moldova, Georgia and now to all intents and purposes the whole of Belarus.
So Russian propaganda is working, essentially. Showing a bit of solidarity with a country that's being trampled underfoot by a fascist state rather than airing a bit of ever so grown up worldly cynicism is now unfashionable.
So would you say that Ben Wallace is aiding the enemy with his recent 'we're not amazon' comments to Ukraine regarding their requests for more and more military aid? I don't think you can avoid these difficult problems by accusing anyone who is not entirely 100% behind the ' beat back Russia' narrative of peddling enemy propoganda. The question that interests me is how to stop the war in some way that preserves Ukraine and its ability to defend itself in the future, I don't think that this stance can be objectively regarded as being 'pro Russian'.
Yes, I think the way that was reported was unhelpful. He was quoted out of context though.
The trouble with today's hyper-online space is that the Russians are always listening and learning, and they use and amplify Western talking points (particularly the desire for a quiet life). So when I see these ideas starting to gain traction I know that's going to music to their ears. It's been happening on the US right for a long time of course.
On the other hand, there's something quite self-regarding (when we do it, or paranoid when the Russians do it) about treating Western public opinion as the critical factor. The war won't be won in the hearts and minds of people the West but rather on the ground in Ukraine.
To an extent, but Ukraine depends on Western military aid and sanctions on Russia and it is also not immune to diplomatic pressure. Consider previous wars: Russia would not have defeated Germany on the same lands as they are fighting now were it not for US lend lease. Assad would have lost Syria years ago were it not for Russia and Wagner. Britain and France had to abandon the Suez war after US pressure etc. So public opinion here does matter.
Apparently this match might have attracted one of the biggest tv audiences in the history of Australia
CHORTLE
Why has everyone become interested in women's football all of a sudden?
No-one did 6-7 years ago, and that's still the case in most other of its equivalents.
I'm not interested in women's football. But I'm not interested in men's football, either.
But I would get a certain amount of wry amusement if the women's team wins a world cup, whilst the overpaid men's team fail every time...
I can't say I'm interested in either to be honest.
I do watch women's curling, skiing, athletics, volleyball etc. Not sure why.
Well, I am on the last one.
But to answer your earlier question, people in England have become interested in women's football because of a mixture of factors: - massive increase in quality - a modicum of success for the England national side - better marketing of the game - the game finding its niche (e.g. I like the idea of taking my family to a sporting event but I'm slightly resistant to the tribalism and 18-rated language and constant fury of the atmosphere at a men's game, and, at any rate, not at that price) - far more girls playing football, who then become interested in role models - conscious investment decisions by various bodies leading to the above.
It's been a massive strategic success story. I don't know whether it's produced a financial return, but I don't think that was really the point (it rarely is in sport).
BBC cant afford to screen EPL matches so women get more air time.
Precisely. If womens football get bought out by Sky or amazon etc, expect the BBC to start pumping up the next big thing, inter-County tiddly winks, as its all they can afford to show...
There are live streams of Warhammer tournaments online that the BBC could use before resorting to tiddlywinks. One step at a time.
Think of the spinoff in painting programmes and Antiques Roadshows about collecting the older ones (no idea if they are actually collectible, I admit).
Didn't someone point of the other day that GamesWorkshop were running over the cliff of 3D home printing with their eyes wide shut? As in total ignoring the area.
3D home printing is still very much niche, and even the high end printers can't match the quality of their injection-moulded plastics. I don't think they've ignored it fwiw; their miniature sculpts have achieved a phenomenally high level of quality (tbh so high that it is becoming counterproductively difficult to paint them, such is the level of intricate detail).
Most people in the hobby want to collect the official minis. And they're posting very strong results at the mo.
3D printing has come into railway modelling big time, but there are limitations. Usually a lot of work is needed to remove the evidence of layering, and often the plastics can be a bit fragile. However the opportunity to produce small numbers of something rather than needing large runs with injection moulding is great.
How durable, as in chemically stable, are the plastics, does anyone have any opinion? One wouldn't want to buy a Brunel corrugated iron prefab loo or a Games Workshop collectors' editioin orc if it was going to fall to bits in 5 years.
People frequently buy second hand models and then stick them in a jar of one liquid or another to strip the acrylic paint from them, so that they can repaint them. So they're mostly pretty stable.
With resin it can be more variable. Some issues with high temperatures causing deformation.
The injected plastic? Sure, it seems pretty good. The new raster fabricated 3D printed plastic resin stuff is what worries me.
There are lots of different resins, so it's hard to say. I hope that the technology will develop to use more durable materials in this niche of 3d printing.
Comments
You must tell us all about it someday.
Therefore any area with big money needs very good anti-corruption systems, and not tiny systems tacked-on to make it look as though you are doing something about it.
I would love Ukraine to win and drive Putin (personally) into the Caspian Sea. I’m no longer sure they have the manpower to win and the idea they should sacrifice 100,000 or 500,0000 more men to make incremental gains makes me deeply uneasy
Russia’s economy is having a wobble but I fear China will always bail them out in the end. Beijing wants Putin to stay in place
🤷♂️
Ultimately if you play sport and earn huge sums then fair play. But its also important to remember that the highest paid layer is incredibly thin. Most footballers are not on 100K a week. Down in the lower leagues its more in the 30-50K a year. See also cricket, rugby etc
I played football for a few years, until a couple of years ago, in charity games etc. Towards the end women joined us. However this changed the game quite a lot, fewer tackles etc. The 'male bonding' element stopped.
If corrupt individual in charge of football, agents etc are taking too big of a slice of the pot then that would imply that the players are underpaid and that cutting "corruption" would free more money for players wages.
As for taxes, the Premier League pays a substantial windfall to the Exchequer annually. Players are on PAYE, not holding companies dodging tax like media personalities.
If you are really good at sport, such that you can be a Premier League footballer or a great entrepreneur then you are likely to earn more than even the average Russell Group graduate, especially those in arts and humanities subjects (unless they are good enough to get into Hollywood as an actor or scriptwriter)
The Keeper didn't hold onto the ball then throw it after Barstow left the crease, he threw it as soon as he caught it which is what a stumping is supposed to be. It was all Bairstow's fault.
The rest of your post - totally agreed.
Although if Wizards of the Coast continue down the path of madness, maybe that'll change to Pathfinder.
And on that nerdtastic note, I am disengaging from this thread and departing posthaste.
I’m unwilling to urge Ukraine to throw ever more young men into this hideous meat grinder. If they want to do that fair enough and good luck - but I’m not gonna cheer lead it and wave pom poms (not that it matters what we think on here)
The appropriate amount was paid. Sadly the under 21’s European Championship earlier in the summer was not deemed of any viewing value by the BBC/ITV despite it being the second highest level of international football, Channel 4 stepped in when England made the final which they won.
If the Euro U21s approach had happened with the women’s football there would have been wailing and screaming across segments of the media.
For some on here
called Serena, when the top men have mostly been European?
Who knew there were so many closet wargamers and roleplayers on here?
Actually, it makes perfect sense.
I don't think you can avoid these difficult problems by accusing anyone who is not entirely 100% behind the ' beat back Russia' narrative of peddling enemy propoganda.
The question that interests me is how to stop the war in some way that preserves Ukraine and its ability to defend itself in the future, I don't think that this stance can be objectively regarded as being 'pro Russian'.
Fine if not. I have plenty of other things to do.
* Given that middle-aged men are sports gambling's bread and butter, it perhaps was not the wisest of moves by PP to mock them...
You are right that it was an entirely legal stumping, I don't dispute that, but it was not in the spirit of the game (and also out of character with how the series was played, which generally was in good spirit between the teams.
I was a keeper and if the batsman wanted to go walkabout that was always fine with me. Dead ball is the umpire's decision and if he hasn't called it the batsman is fair game. Sportsmanship doesn't come into it when the laws are that clear.
As for the series, I must have been watching a different one. I saw four closely contested matches, and a fifth in which England were well on top when the rains came. These were two very closely matched sides. They could play each other a hundred times and it would be close to fifty-fifty.
It was a brilliant series, and I think but for the weather in Manchester it would have gone down as possibly the best ever.
https://twitter.com/silvesterldn/status/1691791507781493126
Most people in the hobby want to collect the official minis. And they're posting very strong results at the mo.
Providing them with support isn't egging then on to throw lives away. It's the opposite in many respects.
Had Bairstow swung for the ball, missed, fallen over outside the crease and been stjmped would you say he hadn't gained an advantage so shouldn't be out?
Edit - there was a video on YouTube of someone unboxing a bunch of stuff they'd bought from an estate sale clearance of GW material. Definite antiques roadshow vibes.
On Betfair, England are slight favorites over 90 minutes, but Spain are very slight favorites to win the competition. Small arbitrage there for those greedy and needy enough to take it.
Can't last.
https://twitter.com/TIFF_NET/status/874680921429069825?lang=en-GB
With resin it can be more variable. Some issues with high temperatures causing deformation.
Remember - Some polls DO matter for the no hopers at this point, as they need some scores to get into the "Debates".
Fwiw I'd be backing England at those odds.
So what I wonder is this: Will the decision of the justice department be to hold a public enquiry into the case, and perhaps into a slightly wider remit, for the usual reason of thus being able to deflect all questioning and action onto a much later date when the heat will have dissipated, media will have moved on, and blame dispersed widely enough for no-one to be actually accountable?
It is, after all, standard procedure. This is one to watch.
Then again, in the 1970s/80s Hornby used a metal (Mazac?) that in many cases fell apart over time.
John Couvillon
@WinWithJMC
·
9m
POLL COMING TOMORROW
National GOP survey. Getting the sample finalized. And, yes, the intent is for this to be an RNC qualifying poll
Twitter name chopped.
The trouble with today's hyper-online space is that the Russians are always listening and learning, and they use and amplify Western talking points (particularly the desire for a quiet life). So when I see these ideas starting to gain traction I know that's going to music to their ears. It's been happening on the US right for a long time of course.
I suspect the main difference in PB posters' views comes down to assumptions about Russian good or bad faith in any future settlement, and their appetite for future adventures. I've ended up convinced anything short of total eviction from Ukraine will only encourage another even more dangerous war in a few years, as it did last time. And encourage China on Taiwan too.
Trump
DeSantis
Christie
Ramaswarmy
Haley
Possibly Pence, Scott.
If they want to fight to the last able-bodied man, good luck to them
Plastics are a big problem for museum curators and conservators. Lots of interesting stuff,. but no fun - for instance if you have a doll collection. PVC can be a problem ...
Putin’s Russia is aggressive, revanchist and fascist.
It is overwhelmingly in European (and Western) security interests for him to be defeated.
It’s depressing that voices are starting to emerge which float possible compromises (compromises which entail Putin simply keeping lands seized from Ukraine).
(Though I will admit that I prefer the NIL change which allows pro athletes at those universities to get paid what they are earning. For example: "LSU gymnast Olivia Dunne is having a lucrative year.
Dunne, who celebrated her 20th birthday on Saturday, leads the top 10 female NIL moneymakers, according to On3 Sports’ proprietary NIL Valuation metric, which measures athletes by performance, influence and exposure.
Dunne is valued at $2.3 million, according to On3 Sports."
source: https://nypost.com/2022/10/06/lsus-olivia-dunne-reacts-to-being-named-top-female-nil-influencer/ )
The question is whether he CAN be defeated, at a cost to Ukraine which is justifiable and sustainable, or indeed whether he can be meaningfully defeated at all
It was in our interests for the commies in Korea to be totally vanquished. In the end that proved impossible, and an armistice was agreed, which reflected the realities of power on the ground