Cheer me up

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

TBH I don't think there is a way to stamp the diving and cheating out of the game.

Totally disagree.
It's time for Fifa to get tougher.
They bottled it with the Eduardo incident.
They should have banned him for three games for bringing the game into disrepute.
Sure things would be tough for the authorities as they would have to deal with a flood of incidents, but if they kept up the tough measures, managers and clubs themselves would enforce their players to tow the line as they faced many of their top players being banned for a number of games.

Generali wrote: »

What annoys me is seeing Man Utd (and other) players running 80yds down the pitch to scream in the face of the referee and for them not to be cautioned. It's even worse when they do it to an AR as the AR can't defend himself as he can't give a card. It would be easy to stamp out dissent as it is very easy to spot.

The players should be carded and sent off if another bookable offence occured.
The referee should also card the player for doing it to an AR.
Again, put in a tough stance and you'll eventually see teams and managers conforming not to tougher rules, but the rules already in place

Generali wrote: »

What we were told was if someone starts moaning behind you, you say something like, "It's just as well I didn't hear that because you have to be cautioned for swearing at an official". If someone swears or shouts directly at you it's a straight yellow or red, no warnings. If someone swears at your AR it's a straight red. If we don't protect the ARs the FFA will be on our case.

I recall I once received a caution for swearing, not at an official but at myself.
I collected a ball in midfield and without any real pressure made a very bad pass. I said in frustration "For Fcuk Sake ISTL" and was cautioned for it.
For me, that ref was tough, but I tell you what, made me make sure I didn't carry out a second bookable offence for the rest of the game.

carolt

WISHIWASRICH wrote: »

Ha Ha - very rich coming from MSEs biggest weirdo:T Though carolT and her many personas are coming a close 2nd I'll give you that.

My many personas?

Can you enlighten me as to which personas they might be?

And whilst we're on the subject, could you share with us which user name you usually type under?

carolt

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

The things is, maybe the correct path would be to allow the options and allow the failures to happen.

By restricting the options, you are punishing the responsible.

Bit like putting the whole class on detention because 1 or 2 are disruptive, not fair really is it

If I recall correctly, you were very for socialism, yet this view of yours contradicts that in my opinion.
To clarify, every working person pays income tax which is then utilised on a number of things.
It goes towards education, yet some earners don't have children.
It goes towards healthcare, yet some may never need to go to the hospital.
It goes towards welfare, yet some may never be out of work or disabled.
Etc Etc Etc

My point being is that we elect the government and they make decisions on how much and where our taxes are utilised. We may not utilise or agree with the things they spend it on but as a society we still need to contribute.

To answer point 2 first, I don't recall credit being a big feature of socialism, let alone 100% mortgages. The idea, I believe, is that individuals are given a suitable house for their needs by the state.

But I digress.

I'd be much more with you if it were true that the 'failures were allowed to happen'. The problems is, as I see it, that the failures are not allowed to happen - they are rescued by the rest of us.

If your capitalism was true capitalism, I'd have much less problem with it, ironically. It's this privatising of gains BUT socializing of losses, that I have a problem with.

Harry_Powell

carolt wrote: »

My many personas?

Can you enlighten me as to which personas they might be?

And whilst we're on the subject, could you share with us which user name you usually type under?

I think we know Mr Brodderprick when we see him carolt. Best to ignore this loser if you ask me.

carolt

I thought brodders had given up behaving like that.

Can't be bothered to keep track of sockies tbh - don't really care enough.

Afriend_2

Harry_Powell wrote: »

I think we know Mr Brodderprick when we see him carolt. Best to ignore this loser if you ask me.

I don't think it's broders. broders style is more dark wit and awkward humour.

carolt

Of late, he's sounded more lovelorn than b1tchy.

Sounds more like Dan and his various multiple personas (ess0 - whatever he's called, chucky etc.

Who cares.

Harry_Powell

carolt wrote: »

Of late, he's sounded more lovelorn than b1tchy.

Sounds more like Dan and his various multiple personas (ess0 - whatever he's called, chucky etc.

Who cares.

You're right.

Anyway, have you cheered up now carol? Don't be glum, the double dip is coming in a couple of months

LizEstelle

Harry_Powell wrote: »

You're right.

Anyway, have you cheered up now carol? Don't be glum, the double dip is coming in a couple of months

Really?

Then at this range surely you could name the week.

Come on. Get off that fence. Let's hear it.

carolt

Harry_Powell wrote: »

You're right.

Anyway, have you cheered up now carol? Don't be glum, the double dip is coming in a couple of months

Yes, feeling much cheerier thanks. Double dip or not.

I'm sure it will astonish some people on here, but my life and mood swings don't actually revolve around the future direction of house prices (or the past direction, either.)

Or potentially, I could have spent the last few years weeping. Which I haven't. My mood yesterday owed a lot to having had a really !!!!!! day.

But thanks for asking.