BBC Blog Network

User Profile

mwmonk

Listed below are comments made by mwmonk between Saturday, 19th July 2008 and Friday, 2nd October 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Some initial space notes 10:32pm on 02 Oct 2009 Is it therefore 'Geek' or 'GEEK'??
Rugby union's clean slate? 3:17pm on 01 Oct 2009 Dear Elboy,

Thanks for sharing that up to the minute news with us - 7 years old, and still relevant!! I thought you all believed that nothing in sport had ever happened before (or since) 2003 and the legend of dear old Johnny??

Obviously if you are bolstering your shambolic argument with something that old, there is no point in using it in the first place.

What next, a shock report on never giving up based on Rafa's teamtalk in Istanbul, or advice on when not to use a brolly based on Dutcssh Shhteve McLaren? Give up now, and go and buy some fake blood capsules.

If you bite one, people believe you are seriously injured, and your cheat coach will love you more!! Hooray (as they like to say down your way....)

No other sport in the world is as pompous and self-eulogising as Rugby Union, and when the chickens come home to roost, its fans just can't take it.

An eight week ban for trying to blind someone. Folly!!
Rugby union's clean slate? 1:09pm on 01 Oct 2009 Lots more nonsense from the Union fraternity - a troubled sport totally riddled with and lost in violence and cheating.

The idea that it is just the fault of the English RFU is sheer idiocy also; the whole sport needs to learn some hard, well deserved lessons from the League men - a properly tough, fair and clean sport, free from class bigotry, cocaine junkies, GBH and little Lord Fauntleroy's drinking champagne and whingeing that their expenses account isn't what it used to be!!

Take Union's TV contracts and media coverage away until its house is in order, that's what I say!!
Rallying the crowd 7:47pm on 13 Oct 2008 "At 10:24am on 13 Oct 2008, icetayoa wrote:
I have had a bet with my mates that John McCain is the next president of America.."

If I may offer a little advice, don't repeat that betwith a wider audience on BetFair or something like that, because you will lose money massively!!

Obama has an almost certain Electoral College majority, so even if the popular vote is as close as 2 or 3 % points, he will still win a mini-landslide in the election.

If he simply holds all the Kerry states, plus wins in Iowa and New Mexico, where he is way ahead by any calculation, he only needs 5 more EC votes to win.

If he then either wins anywhere else, like Virginia or Colorado, he wins the Presidency.

And he will almost certainly win one of the other states - in Virginia he is part of a super strong Democratic ballot featuring Mark Warner (the next Democratic Presidential Candidate in 2012 or 16) that will turn out a huge vote, that will wipe out the Republicans like in 2006.

In Colorado he has huge amounts of active, newly registered voters, outnumbering Republicans 3 or 4 to 1, all fired up by the Democratic Convention!

In Florida he is even winning the over-65 vote in the vital Tampa Bay area!!

Plus he raised anywhere up to $100 million in September, is outspending McCain on advertising 3 to 1 in EVERY swing state, and has bought 30 minutes of prime time television on all the US networks a week before the election, to broadcast an uncontested rebuttal of any McCain attack....

All in all, any sensible gambler can do nothing else but back Obama. FiveThirtyEight.com (who are uber-clever baseball statisticians and prediction analysts) currently give McCain a 6.2% chance of winning. You cannot waste your money in these hard times on a certain loser like that!!
Rallying the crowd 7:42pm on 13 Oct 2008 "At 10:24am on 13 Oct 2008, icetayoa wrote:
I have had a bet with my mates that John McCain is the next president of America.."

If I may offer a little advice, don't repeat that betwith a wider audience on BetFair or something like that, because you will lose money massively!!

Obama has an almost certain Electoral College majority, so even if the popular vote is as close as 2 or 3 % points, he will still win a mini-landslide in the election.

If he simply holds all the Kerry states, plus wins in Iowa and New Mexico, where he is way ahead by any calculation, he only needs 5 more EC votes to win.

If he then either wins anywhere else, like Virginia or Colorado, he wins the Presidency.

And he will almost certainly win one of the other states - in Virginia he is part of a super strong Democratic ballot featuring Mark Warner (the next Democratic Presidential Candidate in 2012 or 16) that will turn out a huge vote, that will wipe out the Republicans like in 2006.

In Colorado he has huge amounts of active, newly registered voters, outnumbering Republicans 3 or 4 to 1, all fired up by the Democratic Convention!

In Florida he is even winning the over-65 vote in the vital Tampa Bay area!!

Plus he raised anywhere up to $100 million in September, is outspending McCain on advertising 3 to 1 in EVERY swing state, and has bought 30 minutes of prime time television on all the US networks a week before the election, to broadcast an uncontested rebuttal of any McCain attack....

All in all, any sensible gambler can do nothing else but back Obama. FiveThirtyEight.com (who are uber-clever baseball statisticians and prediction analysts) currently give McCain a 6.2% chance of winning. You cannot waste your money in these hard times on a certain loser like that!!
A clever performance 6:05pm on 29 Aug 2008 Sarah Palin is a major mistake for McCain - she will implode on the run in to the election massively.

It will make it an incredibly close election slightly less close, and rebukes every question of experience on Obama's part straigt away. Palin has zero experience, and as McCain might well not make it to term two the question will be who is ready to lead for the next 8 years.
Olympic ideals survive Chambers challenge 3:49pm on 19 Jul 2008 Anglo_Celt:

I just think that no-one is that interested in your points, because you rant too much!!

If you allowed others to debate with you, you would hear many sensible points being raised.

I accept what you say, and can understand you opinions. It is just that you keep on belittling what others say, and when an erudite counter opinion to yours is raised, you go on the attack.

The zeitgeist in the country regarding Dwain Chambers is that he should have been allowed to compete - he has served his time and come back clean and stronger than everyone else in the UK, ergo give him a break, and everyone else who is in the same situation.

Unfortunately because you disagree you are not listening to, or understanding the counter argument. Those are fundamental rules of debate.

The UK is out of step with the rest of the world, and we need to change.
Olympic ideals survive Chambers challenge 3:07pm on 19 Jul 2008 Perhaps only Rugby Union is run by a more pompous set of bureaucrats than Athletics.

Never mind, the football season is just 3 weeks away, and we can then ignore all these poorly run, badly organised, stuck in the dark ages, minor (beacuse they do not want to be major) sports again....
Olympic ideals survive Chambers challenge 2:35pm on 19 Jul 2008 Unfortunately, I believe Chambers is not being punished for taking drugs in the past, he is being punished now for daring to stand up to the establishment and follow his dream.

If he had said, "Yes Sir, Sorry Sir, Thank You Sir" and tugged his forelock on the way out of the door, everyone would be hoping he would keep on improving and would be backing him to win at the World Championships or the Euros over the next few years.

Instead he is being bullied, pilloried and abused.

Britain has let itself down this week - we are a nation that accepts people do occasionally make mistakes, but this lynch-mob out to attack Chambers refuse to countenance that.
The dirtiest race in history 2:09pm on 19 Jul 2008 For anyone wondering what rule I fell foul of, it is this:

"Identification - For a defamation case to succeed, the defamatory statement must be seen to refer to the claimant, even if that was not the writer's intention. Leaving out someone's name is no guarantee of avoiding defamation, if there are other clues that could lead to their identification.

Not naming anyone can be equally problematic. For example, if you said that 'one of the authors of today's five top articles has stolen work from someone else', then each of the authors of 'today's articles' could argue that the statement could reasonably be taken to refer to him or her, and they could all sue for libel. However, if you said 'all BBC community members were crooks', then the category is so wide that no single member could say he or she was defamed"

I was guilty of the 'Not Naming Anyone' rule.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

mwmonk