spudski

As a ' trialist' for Yate...are City looking to put him out on loan into men's football?

Apparently the trialist Goalkeeper for Yate was Bristol City U18 GK Joe Duncan. Getting rave reviews for his performance last night and in previous pre season games. Allegedly City have high hopes for him.

Anyone else heard the rumour that Just Stop Oil intend to disrupt and invade the pitch at every FGRs home game next season?

'Often berate'...really? Please prove ' often'...or maybe I did it a couple times and it's stuck? If that's all you've got in response to being a complete **** towards someone just giving an opinion...because 'Kid is the know it all in tennis' is laughable. Wind it in mate ...you are making yourself look like an even bigger know it all. Maybe just say you follow tennis closely and have an educated opinion, rather than shouting down someone who's enjoyed the final, maybe has a passing interest and expressed an opinion. That would probably warm you to someone who has the same interest.

It was a great final. Both displayed class in defeat and winning.

I was back stage at one of the Bowie gigs at Milton Keynes via a Siobhan Fahey connection. Got to meet him and get autograph. What an awesome gig. Total legend. Having said that...U2 on the Joshua Tree tour were also phenomenal. Saw them on that tour and before at the Colston Hall when Bono walked the 'bar' waving his flag. Last memory waiting for tickets outside the night before, was outside HMV on Park Street, for INXS at the Victoria rooms where I got my Kick album fully signed and shared a drink with Hutch who was fully off his trolley. What a great front man.

I agree with your sentiments regarding Novak...but just read back your replies to someone who has an opinion on him not too disimmilar. He's not being offensive or even wrong. You look a right knob in your replies...making out you're the otib expert on tennis. Thankfully some don't reveal their hand on it. Maybe have a think, before you look an even bigger knob on the subject. Some have actually enjoyed the final and just expressing their appreciation. No need to be the know it all. ?

ND...love him on court and off. Great player...humble...fighter, respectful and true to his beliefs. Alcaraz...what a performance. Great discipline and determination.

And there's no need to be a dick in your original response. I wasn't being defensive...I was pointing out your argument was based on you knowing people who worked at CERN and had PHDs etc. I also know people in different Sciences with PHDs etc some aquentances, some close friends, where we have great debates regarding all subjects over a pint or two ...but I wouldn't use that as bench mark to judge myself. In doing so it simply negates and dilutes anything you say. I take any knowledge from all sources. I thought it was worth sharing as I agree with his views. CERN also have a YouTube channel with nearly 200,000 followers. Many institutes do. So to dismiss my ' knowledge' because it partly came from a YouTube source, shows how incredibly hypocritical your argument is...when you sight CERN as a great example...when they use the very same platform.

Taken from Harvard Education... Potential problems of peer review Because of how overwhelming the review process can be, the results are not always consistent between different articles and journals. Particularly, the decisions of reviewers can be inconsistent. One study showed that recently published articles, when resubmitted a few months later, are often rejected by the same journal – most of the reviewers did not detect that it was a resubmission, and the articles were frequently rejected due to “methodological flaws,” showing the volatility of reviewer decisions. This may be due in part to the disparities in opinions between reviewers, making it very difficult to submit a paper that will be liked by all of the reviewers. In fact, another study did a probability analysis and showed that it was so unlikely and unpredictable to get two reviewers to agree, that getting a paper accepted by both reviewers has a similar probability to throwing a dice. Additionally, reviewers are of course humans too! They will sometimes miss critical information in a paper or have personal biases when reviewing, causing dubious research to sometimes be published. Furthermore, another study shows that there may be a bias in favor of the institutions that the reviewers themselves are affiliated with. After all this work, published, peer-reviewed works can still be retracted, with one of the most notable examples of this being from a few decades ago, in which a paper was published in the Lancet that linked autism to vaccines (Figure 2). This paper was later retracted for many reasons, including data manipulation, low sample size, conflicts of interest, and countless other pieces of evidence contradicting the claims. As you can see, not every paper that is peer-reviewed is a mistake-free paper with good science. There is also a gender bias in selecting reviewers – despite a significant portion of researchers being women, women make up a much smaller fraction of reviewers. This survey observed that authors, regardless of gender, suggest mostly male peers as reviewers to their editors (Figure 3). Along these same lines, another paper determined that female reviewers are less likely to be chosen by peers than if a reviewer was randomly selected. This widespread gender bias may then lead to further biases in the review process. This same study showed that there are fewer female authors publishing than what is expected based on the population of female researchers, possibly due to a gender bias similar to the one present in reviewer selection.

Your response doesn't surprise me. ? As for your second paragraph...??? You sound like a small child ' Oooo I know someone who works at CERN...how many Masters or PHD do you know? Really...is that your argument ? ??? My dad's bigger than your dad...ner ner ner ner ner...kinnel ? With your closed mind, and the point the man was making...Is that fringe science is often where new theories and answers are found. Those only focussed on peer reviewed with closed minds will never progress outside of those theories. In the same way this man was dismissed...by peers who couldn't understand him. Seen as the best in their game at the time. Because he was different. But proven to be a genius and made huge steps in understanding and changing theories, that we now use. He changed everything, put his peers originally dismissed him. They even made a film about him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan

This is what Lambert is talking about. Findings by this man. Questioned by some. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto This man sums up the way we look at research science now perfectly.

We turned him down 15 months before we appointed him.

Very sad news. RIP Chris.

Here it is again to enjoy ?

From humble roots not forgotten ?

It's already been done :laugh:

Comment by Williams...' fastest group I've seen...ever'. Bodes well.

Me too...think it might have been used on a programme in the past.

And then it isn't :laugh:. This shirt will go up in value if you can get hold of one. https://talksport.com/football/1474317/new-arsenal-shirts-stopped-design-blunder/#Echobox=1687346204

No mate...like you I'm watching on TV. They just produce such a hypnotic melodic wall of sound that builds...the crowd loved them too it seems. ?

The War on drugs are kicking ass...what a sound ?

One band that's never played Glastonbury and still perform as well if not better than in their 'hey day' is Tears For Fears...would love to see them here.

Wait until they roll out Madonna next year...next level awful now. Really enjoying Cat Stevens.

Looking forward to The War on drugs, Editors and Blondie today.