mormont

Board Moderators
  • Content count

    38,306
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

2 Followers

About mormont

  • Rank
    Council Member
  • Birthday 05/10/1972

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    St Andrews, Scotland

Recent Profile Visitors

31,103 profile views
  1. There's nothing to say that Robert might not have done this, at some point in the future, if he took the notion (or if Cersei did, or Joffrey did). But as at the time of the books, it makes a great deal of sense. Robert still needs someone at Dragonstone with a firm hand and unquestionable loyalty. His throne is not yet secure, and DS is symbolically important to any Targaryen loyalists. It would be a centre and a target for them in any rebellion. Giving it to an adolescent boy would be folly. Asking Stannis to mind it for Joff would be a risk. Stannis' loyalty is not unbreakable: even if it was, other noble lords would see such a snub and wonder if the King will do this to his brother, what he might do to them. That provides fuel for rebellion, too. So: the short answer is, security.
  2. Another Wenger-inspired thread title, I see.
  3. Trump had no political base, because he was not a politician. He largely hijacked his support from other Republicans. I think you're either wrong, or using the word 'base' in a weird way. However, the main point is that Trump's primary support was not very much like Sanders' primary support. Sanders had a national reputation as a progressive politician and built on that with a strong grass-roots organisation built in a short space of time. Trump tweeted a lot. Sanders' base was energised in that they went out and campaigned and attended caucuses and organised. Trump's base watched TV and bought baseball caps. Sanders' base were enthused about the possibilities of his radical social reforming policies. Trump's base enjoyed being told that everything was someone else's fault. Comparisons between these two campaigns are tempting, like the idea that if you only read enough internet comments you've actually learned something: but likely to be riddled with errors and problems, like the idea that if you only read enough internet comments you've actually learned something.
  4. [mod] Please knock off the interpersonal bickering. It doesn't achieve anything but work for the mods. If you're angry at someone, if you have a personal beef with them, if you feel the need to blow off steam - do it elsewhere. Don't post it here. [/mod]
  5. The trouble is, you just introduced two pretty subjective defences that mean this sort of standard would never really be consistent. It's much easier for refs to be consistent about a standard like the current one, which admittedly requires a distinction between 'careless' and 'recklessly endangering' but that's an easier standard than having to judge the player's intent as well as his chances of winning the ball. (In any case, the Laws are clear that winning the ball or not is irrelevant to whether a challenge is a foul, so the latter shouldn't be a consideration.) Yeah, but those pundits also talk about 'he won the ball' as if it was a reason not to give a foul (see above). Most football pundits don't bother to read the actual rules of the game they're commenting on (and in many cases played professionally). Their views on most refereeing decisions should be treated as a comic turn, not serious insight.
  6. Len Wein has passed away. Very sad news. http://www.dccomics.com/blog/2017/09/10/len-wein-1948-2017 He's one of those guys whose contributions to comics get overlooked, but the significance of his work as a creator and editor is massive.
  7. Fair enough. But your claim not to be inclined to read minds etc, is not particularly tenable IMO. All human beings do that. Sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly. Trump's behaviour as President so far suggests that anyone who saw extremist dog-whistles in his campaign speeches was reading them correctly. His past and present behaviour very strongly indicate racist beliefs.
  8. You're doing it again. Someone calls you out on an inconsistent position, and you hit the panic button and start accusing them of all sorts of outrageous things. This isn't a personal grudge: how could it be? I have nothing against you personally whatsoever. I don't know you and don't care about you. I'm just pointing out that your claims here are untrue, at best. You made a claim about not believing that dog-whistling exists. But you absolutely do believe it exists, as your previous reaction shows. What is this, but an accusation of dog-whistling?
  9. But... you did exactly that the last time I responded to one of your posts. You went off on one, going on about how because I was a mod I was 'signalling' that it was 'open season' on you simply by criticising you, accusing me of saying things I hadn't actually said, ascribing nasty motives to me and so on.
  10. This is a weird objection if only because nobody, including the clubs who shut the window early, is pretending that it will.
  11. And Farage is also showing his colours: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/07/nigel-farage-to-address-far-right-rally-in-germany Right-wing fuckery, not just an American problem.
  12. What's the effective difference between this and what they've actually done, ie closing the domestic transfer window earlier? The only difference I can see is that this is more formal. I don't think anyone involved is kidding themselves that this will have any effect on other countries, by the way. They may hope that eventually those countries will come to a similar arrangement but since the leagues don't all start at the same time, there will always be some issues.
  13. [mod] People, if posts have been deleted, they are gone for a reason. Take a hint and don't respond to them, directly or obliquely. [/mod]
  14. It's similar, but more extreme. In NI for many years not only the NI team but in fact Association football itself, as a sport, was identified with Unionism and Britishness. Many NI Catholics nowadays support Eire: but thirty years ago, they didn't follow football at all. It was regarded as a 'garrison sport' (reference to the British Army garrisons). NI Catholics followed traditional Irish sports instead - Gaelic football, or hurling.
  15. Hot takes from ten years ago, get 'em while they're stale!