The Dew Drop Inn Virtual Rugby Pub

First topic message reminder :

Welcome to the virtual rugby pub - a place where you can come in for a sly beverage and discuss whatever's on your mind, or just eavesdrop on the regulars if you fancy a break from all the rugby chat.

The only rule in this pub is one of mutual respect for everyone in it, oh and no defacing the Tommy Bowe photo on the bar. That's a banning offence

So pull up a chair....what'll it be?

greybeard wrote:I think that makes you an anarchist, Notch

Wouldn't it make me an anarcho-syndicalist?

Now to be fair, I've got a lot of good friends in the Socialist Workers Party, and they're very naive people- albeit the only real politically minded people I meet with their heart in the right place. But that's not for me, I'm too cynical to believe thats going to lead anywhere worthwhile. But the people I know who are actively anarchist and involved are rather out of their trees to be quite frank

This is a good review-

http://www.gameplanet.co.nz/playstation/games/167405.All-Blacks-Rugby-Challenge/previews/137662.Rugby-Challenge/page1/

greybeard wrote:

Glas a du wrote:I'm surrounded by lefties! Tell you what do it again and it down what you actually think not what you think you're supposed to think.

That's a bit unfair, isn't it? Should I assume that you got your score by some means other than answering honestly?

Possibly, but it was tongue in cheek. I do think though that we have a halo polishing tendency when it comes to this sort of thing. That is why Labour were miles ahead in the polls in 1992, but when it came down to it, people voted differently.

I have to say I don't like "politics" one ounce. I feel it brings out the worst in people.

One of the best things to come up in the previous review is that Rugby Challenge has the players names in the international teams, and probably the likenesses as well. Just not the kits and the logo etc.

red_stag wrote:I have to say I don't like "politics" one ounce. I feel it brings out the worst in people.

Everythings political Stag. You can't hide under a rock and ignore it.

red_stag wrote:I have to say I don't like "politics" one ounce. I feel it brings out the worst in people.

Politics is a wide ranging term. Depends what you are referring to when you say "politics".

red_stag wrote:I have to say I don't like "politics" one ounce. I feel it brings out the worst in people.

It can be quite similar to religion sometimes. Political affiliation tends to follow family lines and people believe quite strongly in it because they were born into Labour/Conservative/Fine Gael/Sinn Fein family. When it gets like that I take a step back.

I'm happy to admit I haven't a clue what party my parents vote for.

Politics is there when you go to the Doctor, send your kids to school, take a look at the tax on your paycheque. It's all informed directly by politics.

Notch wrote:Everythings political Stag

My point exactly. Issues are fine. But "politics" is an incredible vague term. Its a nothingness, a series of fancy names to justify our opinions, beliefs and motivations. If you ask me what I think should be done about something and why I will tell you what I think.

But I think that people get incredibly aggressive, confrontation, snobbish and hung up about political ideals when in reality everyone just wants to be happy.

Economic Left/Right: -2.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.90

I think I'm drifting towards the Centre....

red_stag wrote:

Notch wrote:Everythings political Stag

My point exactly. Issues are fine. But "politics" is an incredible vague term. Its a nothingness, a series of fancy names to justify our opinions, beliefs and motivations. If you ask me what I think should be done about something and why I will tell you what I think.

But I think that people get incredibly aggressive, confrontation, snobbish and hung up about political ideals when in reality everyone just wants to be happy.

Happy in what sense? Happy that your family is safe? Happy at someone else's expense? Happy you're able to get that bread you really like?

MBTGOG wrote:

red_stag wrote:

Notch wrote:Everythings political Stag

My point exactly. Issues are fine. But "politics" is an incredible vague term. Its a nothingness, a series of fancy names to justify our opinions, beliefs and motivations. If you ask me what I think should be done about something and why I will tell you what I think.

But I think that people get incredibly aggressive, confrontation, snobbish and hung up about political ideals when in reality everyone just wants to be happy.

Happy in what sense? Happy that your family is safe? Happy at someone else's expense? Happy you're able to get that bread you really like?

I'm not getting into this. I have long felt politics is unsuited to this forum. I'm given my opinion already.

Yeah, I never put a label on myself. I just try and make up my own mind on things based on the available evidence.

Once you start labelling yourself as something and letting that drive your beliefs you're putting the cart before the horse.

From research and deduction, it looks as though it is only South Africa that won't have any of its players in the game.

red_stag wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:

red_stag wrote:

Notch wrote:Everythings political Stag

My point exactly. Issues are fine. But "politics" is an incredible vague term. Its a nothingness, a series of fancy names to justify our opinions, beliefs and motivations. If you ask me what I think should be done about something and why I will tell you what I think.

But I think that people get incredibly aggressive, confrontation, snobbish and hung up about political ideals when in reality everyone just wants to be happy.

Happy in what sense? Happy that your family is safe? Happy at someone else's expense? Happy you're able to get that bread you really like?

I'm not getting into this. I have long felt politics is unsuited to this forum. I'm given my opinion already.

I'm asking what you class as happy. That's not politics.

MBTGOG wrote:I'm asking what you class as happy. That's not politics.

It does if your definition includes any of the words "monster", "raving" or "looney"

Economic Left/Right: -0.75
Social Libertatian/Authoritarian: 0.82

Aww man I thought I was more right wing than that. How very disappointing. Here how did everyone answer the woman and careers question?

Willy,

It said mothers not women. That should give you an idea how I answered it.

MBTGOG wrote:From research and deduction, it looks as though it is only South Africa that won't have any of its players in the game.

Thats a serious achievement if they have managed to get all the rest.

red_stag wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:From research and deduction, it looks as though it is only South Africa that won't have any of its players in the game.

Thats a serious achievement if they have managed to get all the rest.

They'll have fake players in all the national sides but you can put the real players in from the club/provincial/regional teams in. It's just they don't even have the South African Currie Cup/Super Rugby licences.

They do have the US team which is quite an interesting move.

MBTGOG wrote:Willy,

It said mothers not women. That should give you an idea how I answered it.

It completely ignored the existence of: single mothers, househusbands and women who make more than their partners.

That should give you an idea how I answered it.

Notch wrote:
European politics has never been more right wing. It will be interesting to see how it changes over the next 20-30 years.

Cough, maybe edit that to say "... more right wing since WWII" . And even then you could argue the other way about the '50s and early '60s.

It's pretty easy to manipulate that test if you want to. Though if asked about politics I generally descibe myself as "socially liberal and fiscally conservative*" which generally confuses people for long enough to let me change the subject . So how do people see the Boks vs Wallabies game going anyway?



* Hence why I have few good things to say about the last UK Labour Govt, and even less good things about George W Bush. Running a fiscal deficit in a boom etc etc.

MBTGOG wrote:From research and deduction, it looks as though it is only South Africa that won't have any of its players in the game.

According to the first review Kiwi posted;

They don’t have the licence to the Rugby World Cup, Six Nations or Super Rugby Competitions. However, these are all still in the game. The names of the competitions are slightly different, but the player names and likenesses are all correct, but not all the kits are the official ones, only the teams they have licences for at international level

Seems to imply the teams they do not have licenses for at international level will still have the correct player names and likenesses?

MBTGOG wrote:Willy,

It said mothers not women. That should give you an idea how I answered it.

I'll be honest. I hesitated.

It sounds a bit like earlier Pro Evolution soccer games.

For example Patrick Kluivert was called "Orange 11" for the Netherlands. However you could take the Patrick Kluivert from Barcelona and put him into the national side.

"Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers."

That is the statement. It says that mothers may have careers but the family should be first and I certainly agree with that.

Why can't the father be the homemaker? The mother may have more qualifications and be able to get a better job. In that instance it makes more sense for the father to stay at home.

Besides, I think the reality for a lot of families is that both parents need to work to keep their heads above water. Even if only part-time.

Notch wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:From research and deduction, it looks as though it is only South Africa that won't have any of its players in the game.

According to the first review Kiwi posted;

They don’t have the licence to the Rugby World Cup, Six Nations or Super Rugby Competitions. However, these are all still in the game. The names of the competitions are slightly different, but the player names and likenesses are all correct, but not all the kits are the official ones, only the teams they have licences for at international level

Seems to imply the teams they do not have licenses for at international level will still have the correct player names and likenesses?

Only if they are elsewhere in the game and the South Africans won't be.

MBTGOG wrote:"Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers."

That is the statement. It says that mothers may have careers but the family should be first and I certainly agree with that.

I took it to be quite old fashioned. They "can have careers, but....". Even the term 'homemaker' is quite arcane.

Notch wrote:Why can't the father be the homemaker? The mother may have more qualifications and be able to get a better job. In that instance it makes more sense for the father to stay at home.

Besides, I think the reality for a lot of families is that both parents need to work to keep their heads above water. Even if only part-time.

It doesn't say either has to stay at home.

MBTGOG wrote:"Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers."

That is the statement. It says that mothers may have careers but the family should be first and I certainly agree with that.

This is why I didn't like the limit responses available. I would say that a mothers first duty is as a parent, as is a fathers, and either ones career may be the thing that pays for and thus allows a quality homelife. That means that by pursuing their career they may well be a better homemaker in reality, however the question infers that you can either have a career or be a homemaker, which I presume in this instance they mean by staying at home with the children.

As I said, the limited responses available mean that it is nigh on impossible to give an accurate reflection of where people sit by simply reviewing their answers.

right because everyone else has put their figures up:

Economic Left/Right: -5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.74


and with the mother's question I strongly disagreed with it. Why can't the father's be the homemakers? I though it a ridiculous question and it was phrased badly (as were a lot of the questions to be fair),

See blydi lefties.

"Women are uniquely equipped for motherhood"

Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

LDCPete wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:"Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers."

That is the statement. It says that mothers may have careers but the family should be first and I certainly agree with that.

This is why I didn't like the limit responses available. I would say that a mothers first duty is as a parent, as is a fathers, and either ones career may be the thing that pays for and thus allows a quality homelife. That means that by pursuing their career they may well be a better homemaker in reality, however the question infers that you can either have a career or be a homemaker, which I presume in this instance they mean by staying at home with the children.

As I said, the limited responses available mean that it is nigh on impossible to give an accurate reflection of where people sit by simply reviewing their answers.

My opinion on the question completely. The whole point of being a parent is family/home first and the career is supposed to help that not be the primary area of their life.

rugbydreamer wrote:and with the mother's question I strongly disagreed with it. Why can't the father's be the homemakers? I though it a ridiculous question and it was phrased badly (as were a lot of the questions to be fair),

Thank you!

What's interesting about this question is the perspective people have on this. It never says that the mother is the homemaker instead of the husband yet that is how a lot take it.

It never says either career or homemaker, just which is more important.

Also, people see homemaker as stay at home mum but it is not the same thing either.

Sometimes you do just have to read a little closer.

MBTGOG wrote:My opinion on the question completely. The whole point of being a parent is family/home first and the career is supposed to help that not be the primary area of their life.

True, but the question singles out mothers, not parents. So the reader immediately has an impression of inequality, or at least I did.

Where are the father figures (note not actual fathers) in London? Where are the role models, the older boys or men? Why isn't anyone having a word to the wise?

"Where do you think the Police will come once the dust settles? Who do you think will suffer if you end up in gaol? You've had your fun, but isn't that enough?"

Now have your argument about who should do what in settled, middle class, suburban, nuclear families.

That's the thing Munsty, the wording of the question is ambiguous and leaves it open to interpretation.

Actually, is that the question I am talking about or the laws relating to the breakdown....

But Munsty that's your own personal take on the question, it doesn't mean I didn't read a little closer, just that I read something different in it than you did.

I thought it just a tad sexist, why single out mothers?

Careers can be just as important as being a homemaker in supporting a family, which is why I disagreed with the question. In fact the question itself just peed me off, which probably why I strongly rather then just simply disagreed with it.

I didn't 'strongly' agree or disagree with many questions. But that one was a 'strongly disagree' (oh, and all the religion ones )

But it's true that the questions themselves say a lot about us, not just the answers. Our own interpretations of what the question was can all have a vaildity but it means the answer does not have the intended effect on your score.

It also would say something about the people who posed the questions. They may have thought that question was quite cut and dried, but as we've seen there were a number of ways of looking at it.

Actually, I think this is an interesting way of looking at it, if you were to phrase that statement into a question, what would it look like?

I strongly agreed or strongly disagreed with nearly all the questions. I think they were only a handful were I was merely agreeing or disagreeing.

It also would say something about the people who posed the questions. They may have thought that question was quite cut and dried, but as we've seen there were a number of ways of looking at it.

The questions are phrased that way quite deliberately. They want to lure you into interpreting it your own way (hence the need for multiple possible interpretations) so that they can get a stronger response. It doesn't work if there are 100% statements you either strongly agree or disagree or 100% that you just agree or disagree with.

I thought it just a tad sexist, why single out mothers?

The reaction? How many people would have been really bothered if it said fathers instead? Not many I'd hazard to guess.

Notch wrote:I strongly agreed or strongly disagreed with nearly all the questions. I think they were only a handful were I was merely agreeing or disagreeing.

Not surprised in the slightest.

I dunno Munsty I just thought that particular question was old fashioned and incredibly stupid.

rugbydreamer wrote:I dunno Munsty I just thought that particular question was old fashioned and incredibly stupid.

I know you're probably getting more and more annoyed by me arguing to the other side but do you think of when you hear/see the term homemaker?

MBTGOG wrote:

rugbydreamer wrote:I dunno Munsty I just thought that particular question was old fashioned and incredibly stupid.

I know you're probably getting more and more annoyed by me arguing to the other side but do you think of when you hear/see the term homemaker?

Sarah Palin!