[Football] Matt Le Tissier

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Some musicians must be the work of the devil, otherwise, how do you explain Chris Martin, Geri Halliwell and Phil Collins?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Top response, but I really don't know why you bother with Swanny.

Generosity of spirit? Because I think there is an interesting mind in there? Because I like a challenge? Because it helps me understand my own perspective by re-examining it? Because I have a pile of essays to mark and I really don't fancy it? You decide

 

[Weststander]

Is Le Tissier turning into the new David Icke?

He’s trying to, he refers to his copy & paste thoughts as “my work” or “Mein Arbeite”

These whacky mavericks see themselves as special, messengers sent to save us.

World Jewry, 5G, Biden, Clooney, Hilary, faux Covid, no moon landings, lying Ukrainians.

Nice fella.

 

[Swansman]

I understand what you are saying, broadly that an underground can sometimes be important and even essential. I agree. But that does not mean that 'underground' is a virtuous by definition. Clearly underground neo-nazi groups or Islamic terror groups are not virtuous.

So the cause is the key.

Your music example is weak. The only people who think rock and roll is the work of satan are folk who already believe the earth was created by god in 7 days, 6000 years ago. I have been up to my cerebellum in music since the 1960s and I have never met anyone who thinks music is the work of satan. The work of twats, maybe, but never satan. It does not need underground punk magazines (which I read, incidentally, as I was balls-deep into punk rock in the 1970s) to expose the satan conspiracy theorists as cranks. Yes, of course we had the hilarous bout of people theowing bricks through their own TV serts at the Bill Grundy incident, but trust me, when I wandered around Brighton and London with spiked up hair, eye liner and a glare, I enjoyed the looks of horror in the faces of (a few) people. Mostly we were left alone. It was only bone heads and teds who took umbrage. Most people understood that a bit of yoof culture is largely harmless. The headlines in the gutter press were quite amusing, though. Oh and the fanzines were largely rubbish. I still have some.

Your example about cannabis, however, is frankly nonsense. I have personally published research on cannabinoids. I know key people in the field, people who have worked in some cases for decades trying to find some sort of medical use. There have been some successes but there is a great deal of noise among the signals. Meanwhile in many places cannabis for recreational use is virtually if not literally legal. An old friend of mine has created a company to develop cannabis for medical usage. In Vancouver when I visited a few years ago there were cannabis shops springing up all over the place. They were not yet open as the laws had not quite been changed (they have, now). Even so, walking down Granville Street (look it up) midday in the week, the air was thick with the whiff of ganga.

As a scientist I challenge everything. I don't embrace something just because it is underground, left field, novel or controversial. I will explore something (read about it, maybe even do some lab work) if it has, in my opinion (which is the only opinion I own) potential impact. I am engaged in a collaboration right now on effects of designer cannabinoids on certain aspects of human health. There is no conspiracy to stop me. The scientific and medical literature contains all sorts of things that are incorrect but the whole process of molecule to human is well established, with checks and balances, and these days adversity from a novel intervention in humans is rare. Obtaining effective interventions is the bigger challenge. The overwhelming evidence is that the amount of interest and hype around cannabis is not justified by the (mountains of) data. Would I smoke dope if I had MS, though? I expect I would (albeit largely because when I was younger I enjoyed the effect) but that is an entirely different issue.

I have a feeling that you are more inclined to give more credence to underground opinions rather than the mainstream. That's fine, but always test your sources. And also do the 'if this then else' thing - if an idea is correct what are its implications, and is there any evidence to refute as well as support the idea? And what is the provenance of the evidence (I give greater credence to peer reviewed publications, albeit I realise they may not be correct, so I give greatest credence to replicated findings, and findings that predict other outcomes that have been tested and shown to be most likely correct - this is known as the 'scientific method'). If the idea seems unlikely this is normally because it is false, but if it is potentially important it will be tested by others.

Again: just examples and obviously it is possible to discuss the details of each example forever, especially if we dive into personal experiences - "I've never met someone who.. / We were..." - but again the subject here is believing that mainstream media is more knowledgeable or true just because it is mainstream, which is something I strongly disagree with, yet the "you've got information on the internet from a non-popular source!" thing keeps popping up.

I dont have credence in any particular direction. Whenever it is possible I try to check interesting things against multiple sources and try to see why the one providing me with information would want people to recieve the message. If for example The Sun, The Sunday Times, Fox News or New York Times wants to tell me I should be pro-war, I will obviously question the source because I know that their biggest shareholders are the Vanguard Group and BlackRock who are also the big shareholders in various arms production groups - a clear conflict of interests, making these sources unreliable in this regard. Same goes for the underground - as an example, if they think vaccines are a sham and then try to sell me some pills or something, its an indicator (often among many) they are not reliable.

I dont trust mainstream media and I dont trust underground media, but I would also not label one as more trustworthy than the others, they all have agendas. I have world views and they all come from dusty old books with quotes, documents and often boring as **** logs over this and that, usually confirmed by multiple men, preferably who hated each other. Not flawless but I feel it is as close to finding the truths I can come. The modern world, mainstream or underground or anything in between, knows too much about public relations and human behaviour and how to lie, manipulate, falsify... **** all of them.

 

[withdeanwombat]

Generosity of spirit? Because I think there is an interesting mind in there? Because I like a challenge? Because it helps me understand my own perspective by re-examining it? Because I have a pile of essays to mark and I really don't fancy it? You decide

Okay. I’m in.

I’ll go option 5.

Will there be a poll?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Again: just examples and obviously it is possible to discuss the details of each example forever, especially if we dive into personal experiences - "I've never met someone who.. / We were..." - but again the subject here is believing that mainstream media is more knowledgeable or true just because it is mainstream, which is something I strongly disagree with, yet the "you've got information on the internet from a non-popular source!" thing keeps popping up.

I dont have credence in any particular direction. Whenever it is possible I try to check interesting things against multiple sources and try to see why the one providing me with information would want people to recieve the message. If for example The Sun, The Sunday Times, Fox News or New York Times wants to tell me I should be pro-war, I will obviously question the source because I know that their biggest shareholders are the Vanguard Group and BlackRock who are also the big shareholders in various arms production groups - a clear conflict of interests, making these sources unreliable in this regard. Same goes for the underground - as an example, if they think vaccines are a sham and then try to sell me some pills or something, its an indicator (often among many) they are not reliable.

I dont trust mainstream media and I dont trust underground media, but I would also not label one as more trustworthy than the others, they all have agendas. I have world views and they all come from dusty old books with quotes, documents and often boring as **** logs over this and that, usually confirmed by multiple men, preferably who hated each other. Not flawless but I feel it is as close to finding the truths I can come. The modern world, mainstream or underground or anything in between, knows too much about public relations and human behaviour and how to lie, manipulate, falsify... **** all of them.

Good.

You can also make great discoveries by thinking outside the box.

As with everything, the only proof is in the pudding

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

He’s trying to, he refers to his copy & paste thoughts as “my work” or “Mein Arbeite”

These whacky mavericks see themselves as special, messengers sent to save us.

World Jewry, 5G, Biden, Clooney, Hilary, faux Covid, no moon landings, lying Ukrainians.

Nice fella.

He's always been my favourite non albion footballer. I've the watched "Matt Le Tissier Unbelievable" video about 6 times. (That video name, in retrospect is unfortunate). He was an unbelievable purveyor of lackadaisical brilliance and inexplicable screamers.

What do I do now?

I suppose find another favourite. Son maybe.

 

[Swansman]

He's always been my favourite non albion footballer. I've the watched "Matt Le Tissier Unbelievable" video about 6 times. (That video name, in retrospect is unfortunate). He was an unbelievable purveyor of lackadaisical brilliance and inexplicable screamers.

What do I do now?

I suppose find another favourite. Son maybe.

Good option. Wife is another one I'd consider.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Okay. I’m in.

I’ll go option 5.

Will there be a poll?

I think I've made my view about polls very clear.

Incidentally, it's amazing how few we have now that Musty has flounced. Assuming he's 'back' under a new name, can you imagine how much he's itching to canvas our opinion again, but can't for fear of blowing his cover?

 

[clapham_gull]

People have always been "radicalised" by one source or another. In Nazi-Germany people were "radicalised" by underground newspapers and magazines questioning if the Nazi thing was really all that good. In Soviet there was the same thing, underground literature, magazines and radio stations radicalising people into not believing the mainstream narrative. In the modern day there are people getting radicalised into questioning the truths produced by the modern media (owned by banks and investment companies that also owns eg oil companies and weapon manufacturers) through underground websites and individuals on social media. Long may it continue.

Somewhat proving my point, there is a lot of it about.

Your post is hilarious.

Unlike you, I visited the Eastern Bloc under Communism.

Unlike you, my Grandmother visited pre-war Nazi Germany and told me the stories.

And unlike you we saw it first hand and didn't read about it on the internet surrounded by empty pizza boxes. To somehow liken those peoples experiences with your own shows a complete lack of historical context, empathy and let's face it, a sense of reality.

Think, type, post.

 

[Swansman]

Somewhat proving my point, there is a lot of it about.

Your post is hilarious.

Unlike you, I visited the Eastern Bloc under Communism.

Unlike you, my Grandmother visited pre-war Nazi Germany and told me the stories.

And unlike you we saw it first hand and didn't read about it on the internet surrounded by empty pizza boxes. To somehow liken those peoples experiences with your own shows a complete lack of historical context, empathy and let's face it, a sense of reality.

It's appalling.

Think, type, post.

As I already told HWT my post was very obviously not a comparison about the severity etc, but about information and credibility. But I'll have to blame myself for using those examples, thus providing you with a way to ignore talking about the subject itself.

 

[clapham_gull]

As I already told HWT my post was very obviously not a comparison about the severity etc, but about information and credibility. But I'll have to blame myself for using those examples, thus providing you with a way to ignore talking about the subject itself.

You've provided me a bit of entertainment, but I won't waste my time replying to your posts again because you going are going on ignore. I suggest you do the same to me, because I won't be reading your replies.

 

[ShandyH]

I understand what you are saying, broadly that an underground can sometimes be important and even essential. I agree. But that does not mean that 'underground' is a virtuous by definition. Clearly underground neo-nazi groups or Islamic terror groups are not virtuous.

So the cause is the key.

Your music example is weak. The only people who think rock and roll is the work of satan are folk who already believe the earth was created by god in 7 days, 6000 years ago. I have been up to my cerebellum in music since the 1960s and I have never met anyone who thinks music is the work of satan. The work of twats, maybe, but never satan. It does not need underground punk magazines (which I read, incidentally, as I was balls-deep into punk rock in the 1970s) to expose the satan conspiracy theorists as cranks. Yes, of course we had the hilarous bout of people theowing bricks through their own TV serts at the Bill Grundy incident, but trust me, when I wandered around Brighton and London with spiked up hair, eye liner and a glare, I enjoyed the looks of horror in the faces of (a few) people. Mostly we were left alone. It was only bone heads and teds who took umbrage. Most people understood that a bit of yoof culture is largely harmless. The headlines in the gutter press were quite amusing, though. Oh and the fanzines were largely rubbish. I still have some.

Your example about cannabis, however, is frankly nonsense. I have personally published research on cannabinoids. I know key people in the field, people who have worked in some cases for decades trying to find some sort of medical use. There have been some successes but there is a great deal of noise among the signals. Meanwhile in many places cannabis for recreational use is virtually if not literally legal. An old friend of mine has created a company to develop cannabis for medical usage. In Vancouver when I visited a few years ago there were cannabis shops springing up all over the place. They were not yet open as the laws had not quite been changed (they have, now). Even so, walking down Granville Street (look it up) midday in the week, the air was thick with the whiff of ganga.

As a scientist I challenge everything. I don't embrace something just because it is underground, left field, novel or controversial. I will explore something (read about it, maybe even do some lab work) if it has, in my opinion (which is the only opinion I own) potential impact. I am engaged in a collaboration right now on effects of designer cannabinoids on certain aspects of human health. There is no conspiracy to stop me. The scientific and medical literature contains all sorts of things that are incorrect but the whole process of molecule to human is well established, with checks and balances, and these days adversity from a novel intervention in humans is rare. Obtaining effective interventions is the bigger challenge. The overwhelming evidence is that the amount of interest and hype around cannabis is not justified by the (mountains of) data. Would I smoke dope if I had MS, though? I expect I would (albeit largely because when I was younger I enjoyed the effect) but that is an entirely different issue.

I have a feeling that you are more inclined to give more credence to underground opinions rather than the mainstream. That's fine, but always test your sources. And also do the 'if this then else' thing - if an idea is correct what are its implications, and is there any evidence to refute as well as support the idea? And what is the provenance of the evidence (I give greater credence to peer reviewed publications, albeit I realise they may not be correct, so I give greatest credence to replicated findings, and findings that predict other outcomes that have been tested and shown to be most likely correct - this is known as the 'scientific method'). If the idea seems unlikely this is normally because it is false, but if it is potentially important it will be tested by others.

Excellent post.

 

[ShandyH]

Again: just examples and obviously it is possible to discuss the details of each example forever, especially if we dive into personal experiences - "I've never met someone who.. / We were..." - but again the subject here is believing that mainstream media is more knowledgeable or true just because it is mainstream, which is something I strongly disagree with, yet the "you've got information on the internet from a non-popular source!" thing keeps popping up.

I dont have credence in any particular direction. Whenever it is possible I try to check interesting things against multiple sources and try to see why the one providing me with information would want people to recieve the message. If for example The Sun, The Sunday Times, Fox News or New York Times wants to tell me I should be pro-war, I will obviously question the source because I know that their biggest shareholders are the Vanguard Group and BlackRock who are also the big shareholders in various arms production groups - a clear conflict of interests, making these sources unreliable in this regard. Same goes for the underground - as an example, if they think vaccines are a sham and then try to sell me some pills or something, its an indicator (often among many) they are not reliable.

I dont trust mainstream media and I dont trust underground media, but I would also not label one as more trustworthy than the others, they all have agendas. I have world views and they all come from dusty old books with quotes, documents and often boring as **** logs over this and that, usually confirmed by multiple men, preferably who hated each other. Not flawless but I feel it is as close to finding the truths I can come. The modern world, mainstream or underground or anything in between, knows too much about public relations and human behaviour and how to lie, manipulate, falsify... **** all of them.

What the hell are "world views?"

It strikes me you don't trust anyone or anything you read. Is that a healthy position to be in?

You don't trust the media telling you Putin is a ruthless warmongerer? And vaccines are questionable? Are you cleverer than the huge teams of specialists that opine and actively deliver solutions around this work? This kind of attitude is utterly destructive and extremely dangerous. Absolutely astonishes me that some people think this way or are paid to lie to the world by their paymasters. Fun job.

 

[Easy 10]

Your music example is weak. The only people who think rock and roll is the work of satan are folk who already believe the earth was created by god in 7 days, 6000 years ago. I have been up to my cerebellum in music since the 1960s and I have never met anyone who thinks music is the work of satan.

You are Kevin Bacon, and I claim my £5.

 

[Swansman]

What the hell are "world views?"

It strikes me you don't trust anyone or anything you read. Is that a healthy position to be in?

You don't trust the media telling you Putin is a ruthless warmongerer? And vaccines are questionable? Are you cleverer than the huge teams of specialists that opine and actively deliver solutions around this work? This kind of attitude is utterly destructive and extremely dangerous. Absolutely astonishes me that some people think this way or are paid to lie to the world by their paymasters. Fun job.

Worldview is apparently the English word.

No I dont trust anything I hear and not half of what I see. Obviously this only goes for politics etc, private life is a different fiver.

I dont trust the media telling me is and also not the part of media telling me he isnt. Vaccines are questionable, question everything. I'm not necessarily more or less clever, but definitely not corrupt. Are the specialists corrupt? They may or may not be. And yes it is possible that my attitude is "destructive" and "dangerous", as has always been the case with opinions and perspectives outside the Overton window... something you should celebrate rather than fear or get astonished by.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You are Kevin Bacon, and I claim my £5.

Lori

 

[BadFish]

Generosity of spirit? Because I think there is an interesting mind in there? Because I like a challenge? Because it helps me understand my own perspective by re-examining it? Because I have a pile of essays to mark and I really don't fancy it? You decide

I'm here while avoiding writing one

Returning to University study after a long time (Autism Studies - you may be interested to know) and lots of wheel spinning at this stage, hoping for some traction . . . any day now

Any tips?

 

[BadFish]

Again: just examples and obviously it is possible to discuss the details of each example forever, especially if we dive into personal experiences - "I've never met someone who.. / We were..." - but again the subject here is believing that mainstream media is more knowledgeable or true just because it is mainstream, which is something I strongly disagree with, yet the "you've got information on the internet from a non-popular source!" thing keeps popping up.

I dont have credence in any particular direction. Whenever it is possible I try to check interesting things against multiple sources and try to see why the one providing me with information would want people to recieve the message. If for example The Sun, The Sunday Times, Fox News or New York Times wants to tell me I should be pro-war, I will obviously question the source because I know that their biggest shareholders are the Vanguard Group and BlackRock who are also the big shareholders in various arms production groups - a clear conflict of interests, making these sources unreliable in this regard. Same goes for the underground - as an example, if they think vaccines are a sham and then try to sell me some pills or something, its an indicator (often among many) they are not reliable.

I dont trust mainstream media and I dont trust underground media, but I would also not label one as more trustworthy than the others, they all have agendas. I have world views and they all come from dusty old books with quotes, documents and often boring as **** logs over this and that, usually confirmed by multiple men, preferably who hated each other. Not flawless but I feel it is as close to finding the truths I can come. The modern world, mainstream or underground or anything in between, knows too much about public relations and human behaviour and how to lie, manipulate, falsify... **** all of them.

What I don't understand here is why you are choosing between these two huge and diverse groups? MSM includes some utter dross and some quality journalism, as does the Underground, you can add social media in to this as well. To me the key to this isn't choosing between MSM and the Underground, more choosing quality journalism - no, . . . choosing quality information.

My suggestion to you is to sidestep the media altogether and go straight to the people that are, as experts in their field researching and using the scientific method and peer reviewing to find the answers to the questions you are asking. Surely this is the best system we have to find out the mythical 'truth' you are seeking?

I do concede that it is not perfect but it is the best we have to improve understanding. Especially if one ups their critical thinking skills and learns how to find the real quality in this area (I suspect you will have no trouble in this area).

Maybe instead of looking between the MSM and the underground, Google Scholar could be your friend?

 

[ShandyH]

Worldview is apparently the English word.

No I dont trust anything I hear and not half of what I see. Obviously this only goes for politics etc, private life is a different fiver.

I dont trust the media telling me is and also not the part of media telling me he isnt. Vaccines are questionable, question everything. I'm not necessarily more or less clever, but definitely not corrupt. Are the specialists corrupt? They may or may not be. And yes it is possible that my attitude is "destructive" and "dangerous", as has always been the case with opinions and perspectives outside the Overton window... something you should celebrate rather than fear or get astonished by.

So you're Russian?