Positives and Negatives: Munster V Ulster

[stickinout]

Surely he'll go to the land of the long white cloud!

True, but he could get it as Summer homework..............

[BuckRogers]

I'll not bother with the usual platitudes for Ferris, he is quite simply the best Ulster player of the professional era bar none. Peerless. I will however give some well deserved credit to Wannenburg and in particular Henry who was superb- re-watched the game yesterday and he was simply everywhere. His support play was excellent, his work at the breakdown also top-notch and he cleaned up a lot of crap ball too boot. Yes his YC was stupid but thats neither here nor there in the context of things now. Wannenburg will be a big loss going on his impact this season, he stuck his head where many might not stick their boot.

You could pick plenty of negatives but after a result like that it is largely a pointless exercise IMO.

The boys done good, they've got to an HEC semi-final for the first time since '99 and that is one hell of a result for a team that have suffered as much pain, change and upheaval n the last decade as we have.

Just hope that nobody gets ahead of themselves as Edinburgh proved by mugging Toulouse that they cannot be taken lightly, especially not when we are minus Afoa.

[Shan]

"We" won't overcome, largely because "we" don't want to completely close the door on the possibility that "we" could become "they"....

Indeed which is why I said replacing one shower with another. Animal farm scenario. No matter who you place in charge they will be corrupted by power and greed.

This is why eliminating representative (non)democracy is a necessary first step.

How the feck you eliminate natural human greed is another matter of course. Still with individual as well as collective responsibility being paramount and accountable management rather than political parties in situ things could be better...

Full direct democracy for a better world.


"The people can never willfully betray their own interests; but they may possibly be betrayed by the representatives of the people."

[Shan]

It was the Vikings. B*stards. Keep their flegs away from Ireland. Feckin' Danes. Getting the English a bad name.

Romani ite domum.

[AyeYerMa]

"We" won't overcome, largely because "we" don't want to completely close the door on the possibility that "we" could become "they"....

Indeed which is why I said replacing one shower with another. Animal farm scenario. No matter who you place in charge they will be corrupted by power and greed.

This is why eliminating representative (non)democracy is a necessary first step.

How the feck you eliminate natural human greed is another matter of course. Still with individual as well as collective responsibility being paramount and accountable management rather than political parties in situ things could be better...

Full direct democracy for a better world.


"The people can never willfully betray their own interests; but they may possibly be betrayed by the representatives of the people."

A slightly facetious comparison, but the people that run the lottery have repeatedly found through market research that the punters want a big jackpot & rollovers. Where you could have a situation whereby, (example no maths involved) a thousand people win a hundred thousand quid every week as an alternative.

You'd have a much better chance of winning a life changing amount of money, but you wouldn't be "rich". And people want to rich....

[Shan]

A slightly facetious comparison, but the people that run the lottery have repeatedly found through market research that the punters want a big jackpot & rollovers. Where you could have a situation whereby, (example no maths involved) a thousand people win a hundred thousand quid every week as an alternative.

You'd have a much better chance of winning a life changing amount of money, but you wouldn't be "rich". And people want to rich....

It is a good point. My point is that it is a pity people will sacrifice so much potential goodness for a 1 in a 100 million, at best, chance of making it big. Of the 7 billion people in this world there's probably less than 20 million who would be considered rich and of those you could count the ones not born into it reasonably quickly.

Everyone else will scramble for scraps for their lives and accept that others can keep them like this while benefitting themselves. Tis a shame that people wouldn't be happier just having all the things they need and a bit over and above.

But that is the nature of the human. Unlimited wants and desires.

[AyeYerMa]

A slightly facetious comparison, but the people that run the lottery have repeatedly found through market research that the punters want a big jackpot & rollovers. Where you could have a situation whereby, (example no maths involved) a thousand people win a hundred thousand quid every week as an alternative.

You'd have a much better chance of winning a life changing amount of money, but you wouldn't be "rich". And people want to rich....

It is a good point. My point is that it is a pity people will sacrifice so much potential goodness for a 1 in a 100 million, at best, chance of making it big. Of the 7 billion people in this world there's probably less than 20 million who would be considered rich and of those you could count the ones not born into it reasonably quickly.

Everyone else will scramble for scraps for their lives and accept that others can keep them like this while benefitting themselves. Tis a shame that people wouldn't be happier just having all the things they need and a bit over and above.

But that is the nature of the human. Unlimited wants and desires.

But then... If you're on the base rate of income based jobseekers in the UK, you're in the top 15% of global earners.

So it all gets a bit tricky as to what constitutes "rich".

[big mervyn]

Once you get above the level of basic subsistence it has been proved that feelings of wealth and/or priviledge are almost entirely dependent on the circumstances of those around you.

[Shan]

But then... If you're on the base rate of income based jobseekers in the UK, you're in the top 15% of global earners.

So it all gets a bit tricky as to what constitutes "rich".

Of course but what I'm really talking about is control. Comparing the differences between people who have next to nothing is all very well. However I'd prefer to concentrate on those who have the power to increase their vast wealth by directing our leaders to socialise private debt, among other things.

[Shan]

Once you get above the level of basic subsistence it has been proved that feelings of wealth and/or priviledge are almost entirely dependent on the circumstances of those around you.

Of course. We don't exist in a vacuum. People will always compare themselves to those in close proximity to them. This is why the 80's was different to now in Ireland, or in my part of it anyway. Almost everybody had f-ck all above the basics. Even though we had nothing we were in some regards happier. We also had much less of an idea of what was happening on a Global level. We hadn't the access to info then that we have now.

[big mervyn]

Tommy Tiernan does a great routine about how being rich doesn't suit the Irish

[ColinM]

But then... If you're on the base rate of income based jobseekers in the UK, you're in the top 15% of global earners.

So it all gets a bit tricky as to what constitutes "rich".

Of course but what I'm really talking about is control. Comparing the differences between people who have next to nothing is all very well. However I'd prefer to concentrate on those who have the power to increase their vast wealth by directing our leaders to socialise private debt, among other things.

so if you'r eunemployed in Eire you must be up in the top 2-3%

[Shan]

so if you'r eunemployed in Eire you must be up in the top 2-3%

It's relative though. The cost of living in Éire is scandalous. 196 euro per week won't get you far.

You have to factor in purchasing power to any discussion on wealth country to country.

I'm not suggesting things are as bad here as in many parts of the world of course. What I am talking about is how people are used to further the aims of others.

[AyeYerMa]

so if you'r eunemployed in Eire you must be up in the top 2-3%

It's relative though. The cost of living in Éire is scandalous. 196 euro per week won't get you far.

You have to factor in purchasing power to any discussion on wealth country to country.

I'm not suggesting things are as bad here as in many parts of the world of course. What I am talking about is how people are used to further the aims of others.

It still gets you quite a bit further than £63 per week.

And of course if you happen to live on the border yer feckin minted.

[Shan]

It still gets you quite a bit further than £63 per week.

Indeed. I'm not saying I am particularly happy about the nature of the welfare state. It is part of the problem. In my utopian ideal there would be no welfare except for those who really do need assistance through no fault of their own, the blind, handicapped etc. Everybody else would have both the opportunity and a requirement to contribute to society in a fair way which includes reward for responsibility. Everybody would pay a percentage of their income into two funds, one central and one insurance.

The central fund would be used to provide assistance to the aforememtioned folk who need it and also to fund things which have to be run by the state, policing, state security etc.

The insurance is to provide for your healthcare and pension. Unemployment wouldn't be a factor as the slack will be picked up by state owned commercial entities which have to be run efficiently to turn a profit. All state profits will go into reserve funds just in case of rainy days, rather than p-ssing it away through ridiculous welfare for the wealthy schemes as we currently have.

Everything else would be run privately.

Like I said this is purely a utopian ideal. It is also just a very brief overview. I have to do a lot of thinking and investigative work before I could even consider drawing up a reasonable plan on this one.

And of course if you happen to live on the border yer feckin minted.

I wouldn't say minted but they would certainly be in a better position than a lot of folk.