Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

by oldshanker Sun 3 Feb 2013 - 8:56

First topic message reminder :

I agree Digs - what I was commenting on was not their lack of invention, but their lack of cohesion. They did not get the basics right, the least a back has to do is commit his opposite number, which becomes more important against the 'drift' defence, and then follow up and support. This was not happening yesterday, apart from Chris ashton on occasions.

I have not seen Goode play in his club matches, but on a number of occasions, he caught the ball deep, began to run, hesitated and then was caught without any support. I can't remember ever seeing Ben Foden caught like that. It is yet another sign of a lack of cohesion in the backs.

Of course, this probably is all due to the fact they are a relatively new squad and should come together the more they play together. But on the face of it, I think yesterday was a fair showing against a team that in my opinion is still there to be taken and will possibly only get one win in this series.

by SmithersJones Mon 11 Feb 2013 - 23:11

But that's where science and religion differ. Religion is dogma, unwilling and unable to be updated or improved. Science is never anything more than the best we've been able to ascertain so far, and actively seeks to be improved upon. That's not a failing of science, that's its beauty. It doesn't seek to be definitive, or at least accepts that it rarely if ever is. Even the possibility of neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light was recently given due consideration before being once again deemed impossible.

This link sums up for me why religion is so utterly wrong.

by oldshanker Mon 11 Feb 2013 - 23:21

Nice link SJ - but is blind belief in Science any different to blind belief in Religion?
Maybe there is even something in homeopathic medicine, afetr all, the Chinese have been perfectly happy practicing it for the last 5000+ years

by SmithersJones Mon 11 Feb 2013 - 23:30

Sorry, but no they haven't. Homeopathy was made up by a German in 1796. At that time, of course, we didn't know as much as we do now about molecular science and so didn't have proof that the level of dilution involved means there's no trace of the 'active' ingredient left in homeopathic medicines.

Chinese medicine also uses a lot of nonsense cures, most of which endanger rare animals, but also a lot of 'natural' remedies which contain similar ingredients to modern western equivalents - because they can be repeatedly and reliably proven to work.

by McLaren Mon 11 Feb 2013 - 23:34

shanker

It is not blind belief when there is evidence.

by oldshanker Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 6:45

I always knew that I would fast run out of knowledge and conviction when I joined this conversation. Think it's time to retire with a slightly bloody nose. Now where did I put that placebo?

by super_realist Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 7:49

Religion, at least the type that we are familiar with is merely 2000 years old. The Earth is in excess of 5bn years old.

Science can answer many more questions than religion can, and be proven with fact. Religion cannot do either of those things. Frankly, you'd have to be insane to believe it.

by barragan Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 8:12

though to be fair, the science concerning millions of years ago is only proven by internal logical consistencies of theories based on discoveries. not absolute fact as far as we present dwellers can know for certain. one thing is fairly certain in my mind, is that science does not have all the answers yet, and the overwhelming likelihood is that we know a lot less than there is to know.

by mystiroakey Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 8:16

Not saying the earth isnt 5bln years old but how the heck to they know this anyway.

These scientists are clever lads..

But it strikes me that to come to a conclusion of 5bil years isnt just based on 1 unproven theory but 100's!

I am sure odds are with them.. But there is so much learnt every day , and so many things dismissed that were thought of as fact before..

Science is based on odds(likleyhoods) more than anything surely- not fact!

by super_realist Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 8:22

Like I said Barragan, Science answers a lot more than religion, can go many millions of years further back and is based on proven theory and undeniable fact.
Religious theory cannot be proven in any way at all and has no fact whatsoever associated with it, therefore it's as mad to believe in God as it is in Tooth Fairies and The Loch Ness monster (ironically there is more evidence of that than God)

Oakey, Geology answers a lot of questions about the age of the earth.

by McLaren Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 9:44

ban

Not sure what your point is?

Religion thinks it can explain everything. Science continues to look for new knowledge on the basis it cant explain everything.

I know what I would rather go with.

by lorus59 Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 14:39

What about ghosts? Have any of you ever seen or felt the presence of one?

by mystiroakey Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 14:47

Have you lorus?

I mean i have had some odd experiences . but that was probally the acid..

by incontinentia Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 14:49

lorus59 wrote:What about ghosts? Have any of you ever seen or felt the presence of one?

I have sometimes had spooky dreams at night, and awoke to find myself covered in ectoplasm.

by lorus59 Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 14:52

I have never had any spooky experiences but don't a lot of people swear to their existence?

by mystiroakey Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 14:53

Crazy bats do yeah..

What about all the people that read stars and go to tarot readers and all that..

weird!

by lorus59 Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 14:55

I guess the question is would you stay the night alone in what could be called a haunted house?

by lorus59 Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 14:55

I guess the question is would you stay the night alone in what could be called a haunted house?

by mystiroakey Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 14:58

by golfermartin Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 15:26

lorus59 wrote:I guess the question is would you stay the night alone in what could be called a haunted house?

Yes!

by SmithersJones Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 16:22

Seriously, ghosts? How about goblins, fairies and the boogy man?

by dynamark Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 18:17

Theres a ghost of lorus by the look of it.
For what its worth my experience was school,sunday school,boy scouts and then starting to form my own opinions.I can remember when i decided not to go to sunday school any more and they came round to the house and held a conversation with my parents over the garden gate trying to gather me back into the fold.That sealed the deal for me.

by oldshanker Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 18:53

Excellent - even though I had no conviction of my arguement (bear in mind I have a single honours degree in Geology and my work is based very squarely around the laws of physics), the thread is still bumbling along.

While I fully agree that a lot of chinese medicine threatens animal species, what on earth made the first person look at an oyster and think yummy that looks tasty!!

by mystiroakey Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 18:57

oysters went posh food back in the day.

There were peasant food in london and they were grown in large numbers in the thames.. Obvious the quality of the oyster is directly attributable to the quality of water that they live in.. So i suppose back in that day they were very much peasant food!- but i think the norm back them was to eat them cooked.

by oldshanker Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 19:00

I'm fully aware of the history of oysters being peasant food in the past, but further back than that, someone decided to eat one and then persuade others to do the same. Why oysters, when they could have served mankind in a much better way and rid the world of slugs! vomit

by mystiroakey Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 19:03

oh we have eaten everything shanker- inlcuding slugs and things that killed us!! people got hungry!

its just oysters taste nice.. slugs dont- but snials certainly do an all!!

i suppose the reason slugs are not a delicacy is that they have no shell to cook or eat them i/fromn, its all abit slippery and all that.. it just doesnt work to well when cooking them

Snails are clearly better cooked in the shell! with loads of garlic butter- yum!

by Diggers Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 19:11

Jury's very much out for me on oysters tasting nice. Very much a matter of personal taste as Im sure chomping in a slug would be.
A fair bit of pretension about the whole thing for a lot of people I reckon though obviously some clearly do enjoy them.

by super_realist Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 19:57

Snobbery surrounds Champagne too. To my taste it is absolutely disgusting.

by mystiroakey Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 20:01

I love oysters and champagne - cant get enough..

There is no snobbery with good food, but hey i love cheap stuff as well, you also cant beat a decent czech lager or some chedder cheese!

if its good- its good..

by oldshanker Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 20:01

Snails are fine, slugs I've never tried (although my sister swears I used to eat worms when I was small), Oysters are as far as I'm concerned the devils work, tried some years ago when I was working in the catering trade. Evil wee sleekit beasties (sorry Mac I know that misquote will offend your traditionalist feelings). I am now allergic to them, likewise mussels, scallops, cockels etc. i.e. bivalves. No loss with oysters, but scallops!! Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread - Page 3 767733566

Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread - Page 3 767733566

by Shotrock Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 20:02

Raw oysters a go to appetizer for me ... my wife recoils at the thought of them however.

by mystiroakey Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 20:06

"I am now allergic to them, likewise mussels, scallops, cockels etc. i.e. bivalves. No loss with oysters, but scallops!! "

unlucky dude!! same thing happened to my mum! Sad

by super_realist Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 20:08

Oysters = Fishy Phleghm

by Hibbz Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 20:09

I've always been totally nonplussed by fizzy wine and I'd be staggered if most people who claim to love it could tell if it really was Champagne they were drinking or a cheaper version.

Oysters, snot in a shell.

by super_realist Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 20:16

Exactly Hibbz. People seem to think they have to like fizzy wine, like they have to like The Beatles.

If there is a toast to be done, I'll just have a Hoegaarden instead.

by mystiroakey Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 20:17

Hibbz

I have to admit that i feel a bit sorry for people with such narrow minds..

Life is for sampling and enjoying and I truely wonder what is wrong with people that make such childish remarks about high quality food, just because it isnt chips, beans and burgers. people that cant handle certain food and describe it as snot do not have class or a palete/

When I eat out in decent restuarants and you have them picky ones making squemish comments.. Jeas - I feel pity..

If you cant tell the difference between good champage and a cheap cava or presico then i feel for you as well. However the truth is there are plenty of cavas and presicos out there that I prefer to many bottles of champagne..

Its all about enjoying what you want without the boundary of having a stunted palete.. the typical english sentiment for food makes me cringe! Go to France or italy and things are so different!

by super_realist Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 20:20

Oakey, it isn't a case of not knowing the difference between quality and low quality champers. It's just that it I don't like it.

by Hibbz Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 20:25

Can I ask what it is that makes you think oysters are a "high quality" food?

Or how do you define a decent restaurant from an "indecent" one.

by mystiroakey Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 20:27

Some people may prefer cheaper wines. nothing wrong with that. What i feel sorry for is the people with stunted paletes.. and ones that cringe as certain foods!

Or snobs or inverted snobs an all..

Just like what you like and dont judge others.. But if you cant tell the difference between stuff the opinion is pretty worthless in my mind

by super_realist Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 20:30

Oakey, you're being a bit wanky there mate.

Who are you to say who has a stunted palate or not or to define what is the cultural zenith of food?

The sight of plenty of types of food actually makes me gag, it could be delicious but I know I'd spew if I ate it.

There isn't anything unique about the taste of oysters. They just taste fishy to me. WHile a snail tastes of garlic butter, and not snail.

by mystiroakey Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 20:30

Hibbz wrote:Can I ask what it is that makes you think oysters are a "high quality" food?

Or how do you define a decent restaurant from an "indecent" one.

I like oysters - i think they tatse nice.. Anything that taste nice and is a whole food is high qulaity food in my mind!. Basically the reverse to that would be proccesed junk!.

I would describe a decent restuarnt being one that is clean, presentable , serves quality food made from fresh and interesting ingredients and works with complementing flavours well.

I would describe an indecent one as a lapdancing club that serves bar snacks i suppose!

by mystiroakey Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 20:33

super_realist wrote:Oakey, you're being a bit wanky there mate.

Who are you to say who has a stunted palate or not or to define what is the cultural zenith of food?

The sight of plenty of types of food actually makes me gag, it could be delicious but I know I'd spew if I ate it.

There isn't anything unique about the taste of oysters. They just taste fishy to me. WHile a snail tastes of garlic butter, and not snail.

I take it your not a fish fan.. oysters are very unique in flavour to be honest.

Your right garlic snails taste of garlic - however its the complimenting texture that helps it along.

by super_realist Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 20:36

I very much like sea food. Its more the disgusting consistency of oysters that make me gag. Lots of foods are the same, mashed potato for instance. Rank.

by mystiroakey Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 20:37

Yep i understand that concept its the texture over the flavour that gets to you.

Not judging ya, sorry if i came across arogant

by Hibbz Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 20:39

mystiroakey wrote:
Hibbz wrote:Can I ask what it is that makes you think oysters are a "high quality" food?

Or how do you define a decent restaurant from an "indecent" one.

I like oysters - i think they tatse nice.. Anything that taste nice and is a whole food is high qulaity food in my mind!. Basically the reverse to that would be proccesed junk!.

I would describe a decent restuarnt being one that is clean, presentable , serves quality food made from fresh and interesting ingredients and works with complementing flavours well.

I would describe an indecent one as a lapdancing club that serves bar snacks i suppose!

So to extrapolate on your earlier comment, you think that people who don't like what you do lack class and don't have a "palete".

by mystiroakey Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 20:41

No i think people lack class if they call things snot and arnt willing to try new things..

As I said its not about what you like but the attitude and ignorance/lack of that determines class.. You came across like an inverted snob with your original comment. No different from a snob having a pop at someone for drinking lager or something!

by Hibbz Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 20:51

So because I don't like Oysters or Champagne and doubt people's wine tasting skills I lack class, don't have a "palete" and am an inverted snob.

What was it you were saying about judging people?

by mystiroakey Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 20:55

Why do you doubt peoples wine tasting skills hibbz?

You are the one judging 'people'. If your willing to judge and I dont agree i will judge you personally(not the general population) back! Because i am armed with your ignorant generalistic view

by Hibbz Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 21:00

I doubt them because of the existence of wine tasting courses.

The fact that these courses exist suggest that it's a skill that needs to be learnt and the fact that most people will not have been on these courses means they won't have the skill and hence will not be able to tell the difference between real Champagne and cheaper imitations.

by super_realist Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 21:02

Oakey, when someone says "Oysters are snot" they are not making a general sweeping statement, displaying a lack of a cultured palatte or being a food hethan. They are simply expressing an opinion. It doesn't mean they lack adventure, or dismiss food they don't like. They are basing it on their opinion gained from experience.

Can you imagine if we had to prefix everything with "I think" or add "in my opinion" to the end of every sentence?

In my early twenties I worked in the chef trade and soon got to know that not everyone will like what you cook, regardless of how good it is or how "cultured" their palatte.

Food is food, and because it has flavour and consistency and colour it will not always be to everyones liking.

Ditto, champagne, whisky etc.

by mystiroakey Tue 12 Feb 2013 - 21:07

Look hibbz- lets not confuse the issue..

It is only called champagne because it is produced in the champagne regions- Much of it isnt better than other sparkling wines..

There are many sparkling wines that taste closer to one champagne over another..

Many may get that wrong.

But when you drink alot of it and enjoy it you gain a palete for it. You are going to instinctively now how dry or sweet it is for instance, you will also understand the smoohtness and lightness or heayiness of the wine..

You dont have to have gone on courses to understand those simple basics.. Its all about experience!

You are right in the fact that many people arnt going to have a scooby.. and I personally would argue that hardly anyone could tell what is more expensive between a 100 pound bottle of wine or a 20 pound bottle of wine!!

but with the fizzy stuff it is alot easier- once you get past a 40 pound bottle though - i couldnt tell the diffence. But trust me i could tell the differnce between a 15 pound bottle and a 40 pound one..

just like most could tell the difference between a 4 pound bottle of wine and a 20 pound one!

by Sponsored content