Jump to content

Tom Erdenay

Members
  • Posts

    2,684
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Tom Erdenay reacted to Philippe Nguyen in The reality... does not exist?   
    Respuesta: The reality... does not exist?
    Brilliant idea, brilliantly presented. The forum needs more people posting this kind of stuff.
    I find this new view of reality very believable. All the evidence there makes sense, and it explains just about every peculiar phenomenon mankind has sought to explain, from scientists to the average daydreamer. There are a few (actually many) points that I want to mention...
    1) Divinity. It is stated and well-explained in the above article that the mind and all other minds and objects in what now turns out to be a purely subjective reality are all the same thing. This means that the information that determines the color of a rose or the size of a pebble is in fact the same information that dictates the workings of the human mind. If everything is connected like though, transpersonal phenomena as described above are possible via the undeniable transitive property: namely, that if a equals b and b equals c, a must in turn equal c. However, if it can apply to interpersonal relationships, surely connections can form between a person and an object.
    This is how telekinesis, such as bending spoons, as Talbot mentions, may be possible - because anything in the universe can control another, and vise versa. But this implies the possibility that a single mind can control much more than spoons and forks. If reality is in fact just a superhologram, and that all the information in it can be sent any way, there would have to be some way, albeit a difficult way, to control all things with the mind alone. Could there, then, be the possibility of divinity through somehow harnessing reality?
    2) Paranormal Phenomenon. Finally, an explanation for the supernatural? Under the circumstances of a holographic space-time, could poltergeists, demons, ghosts, and spirits be finally explained? From what I understand about apparitions, they exist in various forms, but primarily as entities unidentifiable under the visible light spectrum, at least most of the time, and that they are often "visible" as regions of warm or cold air and high electromagnetism strangely described as humanoid in shape and size. I believe that if indeed the above theory that all reality is but a projection of information in the form or energy and matter, it would be reasonable to attribute paranormal phenomena to peculiar, never-before-observed anomalies occurring in the communication between our perceivable reality and the source of all information. I'm not sure if the following explanation is logical or not, but I'll give it a try:
    Assuming that humans and all things around us are all the same, that we are in fact indivisible entities simply projected as separate entities, it could be that apparitions are merely mis-projections, quirks in the holographic continuum conjured by humans themselves. It is already stated that under this model of reality communication is possible between the mind and its surroundings. Could it be that ghosts really are just figments of our imagination, projected as if they were stuck between reality and non-existence? If information can dictate how the world works, the forming of apparitions could well be the result of deceased individuals accidentally projecting their specters onto reality. Sounds whack, and it may be straying a bit too far from scientific reason, though...
    3) Fundamental Forces of Nature. Under the predominant model of an objective reality, four fundamental forces are believed to dictates the workings of a four-dimensional space-time: gravity, electromagnetism, and weak and strong nuclear force. How do you see the superhologram model of reality affecting our understanding of these natural forces? Could there be additional forces to these? For long, physicists have debated the possibility of a Theory of Everything that would unite our understanding of all four forces, but that Theory of Everything has been quite near impossible to discover given currently accepted models of the universe. Perhaps there may be no forces at all, and that all the workings of universe can be united under some principle arising from this hologram theory?
    4) Reinventing the Wheel. It seems almost scary that there could be a source of all information that exists in the universe, that everything that has happened, is happening, and will happened, is dictated by the projection of a natural source. But it shouldn't be - man has long been looking for a substitute for the idea of an omniscient, omnipresent God. String theory, genetic engineering, and and now alternative takes on what reality is have all been poking at the haunting feeling that science is merely reinventing the image of God. Scary though indeed? Just something that I took note of while reading the article.
    I probably can think of many more things to say, but I'll leave it at that for now and maybe come back to this later.
  2. Like
    Tom Erdenay got a reaction from Philippe Nguyen in The reality... does not exist?   
    Does Objective Reality Exist, or is the Universe a Phantasm?


    In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science.
    Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations.
    University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.
    To understand why Bohm makes this startling assertion, one must first understand a little about holograms. A hologram is a three- dimensional photograph made with the aid of a laser. To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film. When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears.
    The three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose. Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.
    The "whole in every part" nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order. For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts. A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes.
    This insight suggested to Bohm another way of understanding Aspect's discovery. Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something.
    To enable people to better visualize what he means, Bohm offers the following illustration. Imagine an aquarium containing a fish. Imagine also that you are unable to see the aquarium directly and your knowledge about it and what it contains comes from two television cameras, one directed at the aquarium's front and the other directed at its side. As you stare at the two television monitors, you might assume that the fish on each of the screens are separate entities. After all, because the cameras are set at different angles, each of the images will be slightly different. But as you continue to watch the two fish, you will eventually become aware that there is a certain relationship between them. When one turns, the other also makes a slightly different but corresponding turn; when one faces the front, the other always faces toward the side. If you remain unaware of the full scope of the situation, you might even conclude that the fish must be instantaneously communicating with one another, but this is clearly not the case.
    This, says Bohm, is precisely what is going on between the subatomic particles in Aspect's experiment. According to Bohm, the apparent faster-than-light connection between subatomic particles is really telling us that there is a deeper level of reality we are not privy to, a more complex dimension beyond our own that is analogous to the aquarium. And, he adds, we view objects such as subatomic particles as separate from one another because we are seeing only a portion of their reality. Such particles are not separate "parts", but facets of a deeper and more underlying unity that is ultimately as holographic and indivisible as the previously mentioned rose. And since everything in physical reality is comprised of these "eidolons", the universe is itself a projection, a hologram.
    In addition to its phantomlike nature, such a universe would possess other rather startling features. If the apparent separateness of subatomic particles is illusory, it means that at a deeper level of reality all things in the universe are infinitely interconnected.The electrons in a carbon atom in the human brain are connected to the subatomic particles that comprise every salmon that swims, every heart that beats, and every star that shimmers in the sky. Everything interpenetrates everything, and although human nature may seek to categorize and pigeonhole and subdivide, the various phenomena of the universe, all apportionments are of necessity artificial and all of nature is ultimately a seamless web.
    In a holographic universe, even time and space could no longer be viewed as fundamentals. Because concepts such as location break down in a universe in which nothing is truly separate from anything else, time and three-dimensional space, like the images of the fish on the TV monitors, would also have to be viewed as projections of this deeper order. At its deeper level reality is a sort of superhologram in which the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. This suggests that given the proper tools it might even be possible to someday reach into the superholographic level of reality and pluck out scenes from the long-forgotten past.
    What else the superhologram contains is an open-ended question. Allowing, for the sake of argument, that the superhologram is the matrix that has given birth to everything in our universe, at the very least it contains every subatomic particle that has been or will be -- every configuration of matter and energy that is possible, from snowflakes to quasars, from blue whales to gamma rays. It must be seen as a sort of cosmic storehouse of "All That Is."
    Although Bohm concedes that we have no way of knowing what else might lie hidden in the superhologram, he does venture to say that we have no reason to assume it does not contain more. Or as he puts it, perhaps the superholographic level of reality is a "mere stage" beyond which lies "an infinity of further development".
    Bohm is not the only researcher who has found evidence that the universe is a hologram. Working independently in the field of brain research, Standford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram has also become persuaded of the holographic nature of reality. Pribram was drawn to the holographic model by the puzzle of how and where memories are stored in the brain. For decades numerous studies have shown that rather than being confined to a specific location, memories are dispersed throughout the brain.
    In a series of landmark experiments in the 1920s, brain scientist Karl Lashley found that no matter what portion of a rat's brain he removed he was unable to eradicate its memory of how to perform complex tasks it had learned prior to surgery. The only problem was that no one was able to come up with a mechanism that might explain this curious "whole in every part" nature of memory storage.
    Then in the 1960s Pribram encountered the concept of holography and realized he had found the explanation brain scientists had been looking for. Pribram believes memories are encoded not in neurons, or small groupings of neurons, but in patterns of nerve impulses that crisscross the entire brain in the same way that patterns of laser light interference crisscross the entire area of a piece of film containing a holographic image. In other words, Pribram believes the brain is itself a hologram.
    Pribram's theory also explains how the human brain can store so many memories in so little space. It has been estimated that the human brain has the capacity to memorize something on the order of 10 billion bits of information during the average human lifetime (or roughly the same amount of information contained in five sets of the Encyclopaedia Britannica).
    Similarly, it has been discovered that in addition to their other capabilities, holograms possess an astounding capacity for information storage--simply by changing the angle at which the two lasers strike a piece of photographic film, it is possible to record many different images on the same surface. It has been demonstrated that one cubic centimeter of film can hold as many as 10 billion bits of information.
    Our uncanny ability to quickly retrieve whatever information we need from the enormous store of our memories becomes more understandable if the brain functions according to holographic principles. If a friend asks you to tell him what comes to mind when he says the word "zebra", you do not have to clumsily sort back through some gigantic and cerebral alphabetic file to arrive at an answer. Instead, associations like "striped", "horselike", and "animal native to Africa" all pop into your head instantly. Indeed, one of the most amazing things about the human thinking process is that every piece of information seems instantly cross- correlated with every other piece of information--another feature intrinsic to the hologram. Because every portion of a hologram is infinitely interconnected with every other portion, it is perhaps nature's supreme example of a cross-correlated system.
    The storage of memory is not the only neurophysiological puzzle that becomes more tractable in light of Pribram's holographic model of the brain. Another is how the brain is able to translate the avalanche of frequencies it receives via the senses (light frequencies, sound frequencies, and so on) into the concrete world of our perceptions.
    Encoding and decoding frequencies is precisely what a hologram does best. Just as a hologram functions as a sort of lens, a translating device able to convert an apparently meaningless blur of frequencies into a coherent image, Pribram believes the brain also comprises a lens and uses holographic principles to mathematically convert the frequencies it receives through the senses into the inner world of our perceptions.
    An impressive body of evidence suggests that the brain uses holographic principles to perform its operations. Pribram's theory, in fact, has gained increasing support among neurophysiologists.
    Argentinian-Italian researcher Hugo Zucarelli recently extended the holographic model into the world of acoustic phenomena. Puzzled by the fact that humans can locate the source of sounds without moving their heads, even if they only possess hearing in one ear, Zucarelli discovered that holographic principles can explain this ability. Zucarelli has also developed the technology of holophonic sound, a recording technique able to reproduce acoustic situations with an almost uncanny realism.
    Pribram's belief that our brains mathematically construct "hard" reality by relying on input from a frequency domain has also received a good deal of experimental support. It has been found that each of our senses is sensitive to a much broader range of frequencies than was previously suspected. Researchers have discovered, for instance, that our visual systems are sensitive to sound frequencies, that our sense of smellisin part dependent on what are now called "osmic frequencies", and that even the cells in our bodies are sensitive to a broad range of frequencies. Such findings suggest that it is only in the holographic domain of consciousness that such frequencies are sorted out and divided up into conventional perceptions.
    But the most mind-boggling aspect of Pribram's holographic model of the brain is what happens when it is put together with Bohm's theory. For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is "there" is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality? Put quite simply, it ceases to exist. As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion.
    We are really "receivers" floating through a kaleidoscopic sea of frequency, and what we extract from this sea and transmogrify into physical reality is but one channel from many extracted out of the superhologram.
    This striking new picture of reality, the synthesis of Bohm and Pribram's views, has come to be called the-holographic paradigm, and although many scientists have greeted it with skepticism, it has galvanized others. A small but growing group of researchers believe it may be the most accurate model of reality science has arrived at thus far. More than that, some believe it may solve some mysteries that have never before been explainable by science and even establish the paranormal as a part of nature. Numerous researchers, including Bohm and Pribram, have noted that many para-psychological phenomena become much more understandable in terms of the holographic paradigm.
    In a universe in which individual brains are actually indivisible portions of the greater hologram and everything is infinitely interconnected, telepathy may merely be the accessing of the holographic level.
    It is obviously much easier to understand how information can travel from the mind of individual 'A' to that of individual 'B' at a far distance point and helps to understand a number of unsolvedpuzzles in psychology.
    In particular, Stanislav Grof feels the holographic paradigm offers a model for understanding many of the baffling phenomena experienced by individuals during altered states of consciousness. In the 1950s, while conducting research into the beliefs of LSD as a psychotherapeutic tool, Grof had one female patient who suddenly became convinced she had assumed the identity of a female of a species of prehistoric reptile. During the course of her hallucination, she not only gave a richly detailed description of what it felt like to be encapsuled in such a form, but noted that the portion of the male of the species's anatomy was a patch of colored scales on the side of its head. What was startling to Grof was that although the woman had no prior knowledge about such things, a conversation with a zoologist later confirmed that in certain species of reptiles colored areas on the head do indeed play an important role as triggers of sexual arousal. The woman's experience was not unique. During the course of his research, Grof encountered examples of patients regressing and identifying with virtually every species on the evolutionary tree (research findings which helped influence the man-into-ape scene in the movie Altered States). Moreover, he found that such experiences frequently contained obscure zoological details which turned out to be accurate.
    Regressions into the animal kingdom were not the only puzzling psychological phenomena Grof encountered. He also had patients who appeared to tap into some sort of collective or racial unconscious. Individuals with little or no education suddenly gave detailed descriptions of Zoroastrian funerary practices and scenes from Hindu mythology. In other categories of experience, individuals gave persuasive accounts of out-of-body journeys, of precognitive glimpses of the future, of regressions into apparent past-life incarnations.
    In later research, Grof found the same range of phenomena manifested in therapy sessions which did not involve the use of drugs. Because the common element in such experiences appeared to be the transcending of an individual's consciousness beyond the usual boundaries of ego and/or limitations of space and time, Grof called such manifestations "transpersonal experiences", and in the late '60s he helped found a branch of psychology called "transpersonal psychology" devoted entirely to their study.
    Although Grof's newly founded Association of Transpersonal Psychology garnered a rapidly growing group of like-minded professionals and has become a respected branch of psychology, for years neither Grof or any of his colleagues were able to offer a mechanism for explaining the bizarre psychological phenomena they were witnessing. But that has changed with the advent of the holographic paradigm.
    As Grof recently noted, if the mind is actually part of a continuum, a labyrinth that is connected not only to every other mind that exists or has existed, but to every atom, organism, and region in the vastness of space and time itself, the fact that it is able to occasionally make forays into the labyrinth and have transpersonal experiences no longer seems so strange.
    The holographic paradigm also has implications for so-called hard sciences like biology. Keith Floyd, a psychologist at Virginia Intermont College, has pointed out that if the concreteness of reality is but a holographic illusion, it would no longer be true to say the brain produces consciousness. Rather, it is consciousness that creates the appearance of the brain -- as well as the body and everything else around us we interpret as physical.
    Such a turnabout in the way we view biological structures has caused researchers to point out that medicine and our understanding of the healing process could also be transformed by the holographic paradigm. If the apparent physical structure of the body is but a holographic projection of consciousness, it becomes clear that each of us is much more responsible for our health than current medical wisdom allows. What we now view as miraculous remissions of disease may actually be due to changes in consciousness which in turn effect changes in the hologram of the body.
    Similarly, controversial new healing techniques such as visualization may work so well because, in the holographic domain of thought, images are ultimately as real as "reality".
    Even visions and experiences involving "non-ordinary" reality become explainable under the holographic paradigm. In his book "Gifts of Unknown Things," biologist Lyall Watson describes his encounter with an Indonesian shaman woman who, by performing a ritual dance, was able to make an entire grove of trees instantly vanish into thin air. Watson relates that as he and another astonished onlooker continued to watch the woman, she caused the trees to reappear, then "click" off again and on again several times in succession.
    Although current scientific understanding is incapable of explaining such events, experiences like this become more tenable if "hard" reality is only a holographic projection. Perhaps we agree on what is "there" or "not there" because what we call consensus reality is formulated and ratified at the level of the human unconscious at which all minds are infinitely interconnected. If this is true, it is the most profound implication of the holographic paradigm of all, for it means that experiences such as Watson's are not commonplace only because we have not programmed our minds with the beliefs that would make them so. In a holographic universe there are no limits to the extent to which we can alter the fabric of reality.
    What we perceive as reality is only a canvas waiting for us to draw upon it any picture we want. Anything is possible, from bending spoons with the power of the mind to the phantasmagoric events experienced by Castaneda during his encounters with the Yaqui brujo don Juan, for magic is our birthright, no more or less miraculous than our ability to compute the reality we want when we are in our dreams.
    Indeed, even our most fundamental notions about reality become suspect, for in a holographic universe, as Pribram has pointed out, even random events would have to be seen as based on holographic principles and therefore determined. Synchronicities or meaningful coincidences suddenly makes sense, and everything in reality would have to be seen as a metaphor, for even the most haphazard events would express some underlying symmetry.
    Whether Bohm and Pribram's holographic paradigm becomes accepted in science or dies an ignoble death remains to be seen, but it is safe to say that it has already had an influence on the thinking of many scientists. And even if it is found that the holographic model does not provide the best explanation for the instantaneous communications that seem to be passing back and forth between subatomic particles, at the very least, as noted by Basil Hiley, a physicist at Birbeck College in London, Aspect's findings "indicate that we must be prepared to consider radically new views of reality".
    Courtesy of Michael Talbot

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    This is being researched at this moment in Fermilab. Personally, this was mind blowing, but it also could explain quite a few things that can't be explained. Amazing.
  3. Like
    Tom Erdenay reacted to Stuart H in Official Liverpool Thread   
    Re: Official Liverpool Thread
  4. Like
    Tom Erdenay got a reaction from andyowls in Official Real Madrid Thread   
    Re: Official Real Madrid Thread
    That's pretty much the point - he's a good player, but he has been over-hyped by the British media. I do think that he's one of the best players in United and that he's capable of performing, but I what I do not think that's hes up there, with the best. Some other problems (like loosing his cool when the game doesn't go his way in important games and others) make him not the most attractive option for me.
  5. Like
    Tom Erdenay got a reaction from Longnose in Who are you? - the forumers interviews   
    Re: Who are you? - the forumers interviews
  6. Like
    Tom Erdenay reacted to Johnny C in Official Liverpool Thread   
    Re: Official Liverpool Thread
    I wonder why Carragher put a clause in his contract that stated that if there is going to be change in ownership that he gets a 2 year extension @ some higher/equivalent wage.
    Smart move on his part to put that in there as you are correct in that re-signing him to anything more than a 1yr contract IS NOT the stuff of NESV. And quite frankly it's not the move of someone who expects to be around on merit. Just something about it doesn't feel right. And I wonder how many other of these guys took the last year to re-write their contracts and hold the club hostage.
    Makes me think back to this summer at the lows of LFC' date='[/b'] and Reina signed a 6 year contract to stick around without the knowledge that a new owner was in sight. They should hand that guy the Captain's armband as soon as the next manager comes in.
    .
  7. Like
    Tom Erdenay reacted to Alurcard in Official Liverpool Thread   
    Re: Official Liverpool Thread
    All, you might find this interesting regarding the who's to blame for the situation...
    http://tomkinstimes.com/2010/10/crisis-part-one-hypocrisy-hodgson/
    http://tomkinstimes.com/2010/10/crisis-part-two-homesickness/
    http://tomkinstimes.com/2010/10/crisis-part-three-flawed-transfer-policy/
    Its a good, albeit long read.
  8. Like
    Tom Erdenay reacted to Chipolopolo in Tom's Comedy Corner [All Things Comedy]   
    Re: Tom's Comedy Corner [All Things Comedy]
    Hadn't seen this in ages.

    ur5fGSBsfq8
    And that led onto this, which i hadn't seen in ages too!

    y4CXY6TVBMc
  9. Like
    Tom Erdenay got a reaction from timesle in Busquests at 91? Surely a joke   
    Re: Busquests at 91? Surely a joke
    Well' date=' I've not done it because:
    1) This has already been discussed quite a few times.
    2) I've been rather busy and I tried to avoid writing a prolonged reply.
    However, I'd say you are much more of a stereotypical fan as you quickly jump into a bandwagon without most likely even watching enough. There aren't many people in this forum that follow La Liga more than I do (if any), so I do have a solid basis for my opinion and from what I've read, you do not. How unexpected
    You should know me more than that, Fercasti. You've seen me writing countless of times that attackers and flair players are overrated and most of the time they aren't the basis of the strong, winning teams. They're the mere outside of the Sculpture that everyone admires.
    I do not mind giving where credit is due and Zanetti with Cambiasso are true heroes even though they aren't grabbing the headlines. Redondo, Makelele - those were the warriors that helped their teams to success while not getting that much credit (just like other countless examples that I will not mention). However, Busquets is not one of them.
    First, let me go through why I don't rate him personally:

    He is constantly out muscled by a smaller, weaker players. That should never happen to a good DM, let alone all the time.
    While his role is primary just distribute the balls from the back, his distribution pretty much ends up as being a back-pass to Pique/Puyol and at rate rather occasions Xavi/Iniesta/Keita. There are lots of DM's who not only are completely solid and reliable at the back, but can also contribute to the flow to the game (Senna). Busquets, however, can not.
    If he's about to lose the ball, he will dive. A really poor example of professionalism.
    He's not a good keeper of the ball and under the pressure, is rather prone to lose it himself or misplace a pass.
    Don't get me wrong - he's not completely useless (as I probably would have said the same time last year), but he's still not good enough. He has actually improved from when he first emerged (a thing that I wouldn't have believed he's capable off), but that's not saying much. The best of him I've seen so far was in the World Cup where he has actually been pretty decent, but still not completely in place.

    So why is that he is actually playing for the strongest national team and club in the world? Here are the answers:


    Spain.


    1) Relationships - his family is rather influential inside the setup and can help him get into it.
    2) Del Bosque's tactics - he pretty much always uses between 3 tactics during his career and it always involves a DM. He usually uses the best one he has and in a sense, Busquets fits that a bit. However, remember the 2008 Spain? Pretty much same formation and tactics and mostly same players, but Senna was playing instead of Busquets. Why is that this Spain would utterly destroy any team in play and do so with a fashion and the one with Busquets seems to be lacking something?

    Barcelona.


    1) He's Catalan (product of their youth system) - they will always be preffered to non-Catalan players (Unless you're a certain Dutch or Argentinian player, but those were brought up through Cantera, so they technically count)
    2) Guardiola's favouritism - do you honestly believe that without it he would have made where he is? Pay attention also that a season when Barca won sextuple, Busquets wasn't one the main players (starting XI).
    Admittedly, I've not be able to watch any matches for 3 weeks now, but unless something magical happened to him, these arguments still stand.
  10. Like
    Tom Erdenay got a reaction from Runnin in Busquests at 91? Surely a joke   
    Re: Busquests at 91? Surely a joke
    Well' date=' I've not done it because:
    1) This has already been discussed quite a few times.
    2) I've been rather busy and I tried to avoid writing a prolonged reply.
    However, I'd say you are much more of a stereotypical fan as you quickly jump into a bandwagon without most likely even watching enough. There aren't many people in this forum that follow La Liga more than I do (if any), so I do have a solid basis for my opinion and from what I've read, you do not. How unexpected
    You should know me more than that, Fercasti. You've seen me writing countless of times that attackers and flair players are overrated and most of the time they aren't the basis of the strong, winning teams. They're the mere outside of the Sculpture that everyone admires.
    I do not mind giving where credit is due and Zanetti with Cambiasso are true heroes even though they aren't grabbing the headlines. Redondo, Makelele - those were the warriors that helped their teams to success while not getting that much credit (just like other countless examples that I will not mention). However, Busquets is not one of them.
    First, let me go through why I don't rate him personally:

    He is constantly out muscled by a smaller, weaker players. That should never happen to a good DM, let alone all the time.
    While his role is primary just distribute the balls from the back, his distribution pretty much ends up as being a back-pass to Pique/Puyol and at rate rather occasions Xavi/Iniesta/Keita. There are lots of DM's who not only are completely solid and reliable at the back, but can also contribute to the flow to the game (Senna). Busquets, however, can not.
    If he's about to lose the ball, he will dive. A really poor example of professionalism.
    He's not a good keeper of the ball and under the pressure, is rather prone to lose it himself or misplace a pass.
    Don't get me wrong - he's not completely useless (as I probably would have said the same time last year), but he's still not good enough. He has actually improved from when he first emerged (a thing that I wouldn't have believed he's capable off), but that's not saying much. The best of him I've seen so far was in the World Cup where he has actually been pretty decent, but still not completely in place.

    So why is that he is actually playing for the strongest national team and club in the world? Here are the answers:


    Spain.


    1) Relationships - his family is rather influential inside the setup and can help him get into it.
    2) Del Bosque's tactics - he pretty much always uses between 3 tactics during his career and it always involves a DM. He usually uses the best one he has and in a sense, Busquets fits that a bit. However, remember the 2008 Spain? Pretty much same formation and tactics and mostly same players, but Senna was playing instead of Busquets. Why is that this Spain would utterly destroy any team in play and do so with a fashion and the one with Busquets seems to be lacking something?

    Barcelona.


    1) He's Catalan (product of their youth system) - they will always be preffered to non-Catalan players (Unless you're a certain Dutch or Argentinian player, but those were brought up through Cantera, so they technically count)
    2) Guardiola's favouritism - do you honestly believe that without it he would have made where he is? Pay attention also that a season when Barca won sextuple, Busquets wasn't one the main players (starting XI).
    Admittedly, I've not be able to watch any matches for 3 weeks now, but unless something magical happened to him, these arguments still stand.
  11. Like
    Tom Erdenay reacted to BenReado in Forum Improvement | Rep Overhaul   
    Re: Forum Improvement | Rep Overhaul
  12. Like
    Tom Erdenay reacted to Smartdoc in Official Liverpool Thread   
    Re: Official Liverpool Thread
    Personally speaking I thought this game was crying out for a 4-4-2 or even a 3-5-2 (with our lack of full backs). We're basically looking toothless with an out-of-form misfiring Torres up front and it's clear to see that having N'Gog up front alongside him (regardless of what people feel about his level of ability) would take some of the burden off him (albeit not a great deal). What better opportunity would we have had to blood one of our promising youngsters at LB (Mavinga/Robinson) than a game against arguably one of the weakest sides in the league? Ok, perhaps Roy didn't want to risk a youngster, so why not play a 3-5-2 with a more attacking emphasis against a side which has already had two hammerings season? Instead we went for a tried and trusted 4-5-1 with a CB at LB, reluctant wingers and a front man again asked to furrow a lone path up front against the weakest defence in the league. Almost as if we were playing Barcelona or Chelsea trying to negate their attacking wide men and sitting back hoping to score on the counter
    Roy's not totally to blame I agree with that, but the vision of him sitting on the bench throughout the game as the game is passing us by is beginning to irk at alot of us fans. He just seems devoid of ideas and that is partially understandable as he is not blessed with an unlimited set of options on the bench. But to see him sitting on the bench with a forlorn look on his face for 90 minutes shows a distinct lack of passion. It's also mildly amusing (if I didn't laugh I would cry) that we got rid of the last manager because he was apparently "not a good man manager", "not motivational", "sat on the bench and didn't celebrate goals" and "had lost the dressing room" and yet here we are 7 games into the new premier league season and lo and behold, people are questioning the new manager in a similar fashion.
    The common link is of course the players. Quite frankly the club is now infested with several players who are simply acting like spoilt brats. Nearly all of them think they should be first-teamers and most of them go into a sulk when they aren't playing. It only takes one bad apple to spoil a batch of fresh apples and unfortunately we have a few bad apples at the moment. This disease then spreads accross the whole squad. Confidence and morale are at an all time low in my 25+ years supporting the club. There seems to be no sense of cameraderie amongst the players. Worse of all as Ray and others have pointed out, there's absolutely no passion or pride in wearing the shirt. Never have I seen so many players allegedly making noises about leaving the club as I have in the last year. 5 years ago, players felt they had made it by joining a club like Liverpool and would be fighting tooth and nail and ensure they get to remain at such an illustrious club. No player would have been making noises about leaving. Worryingly, we've now almost gone full circle and players are regularly looking to escape and that never bodes well.
    I can only hope that the Blackpool loss will sting some of the players into some action as it's absolutely shameful for a side who have so many established internationals to be performing so poorly. I honestly didn't think things could get much worse than last year, but at the moment we are the laughing stock of the football world. Embarassed is not a strong enough word to describe how I am feeling right now. If only some of the players could feel the same sense of embarassment and we might get somewhere. It's going to be a long hard season that's for sure
  13. Like
    Tom Erdenay reacted to burs in Official Liverpool Thread   
    Re: Official Liverpool Thread
    agger is a centre half and only played there because he is left footed
    and if a guy goes off injured in 3 of their first 4 games you do tend to worry a bit...
    is it better for the team that gerrard is CM and meireles RM or meireles CM and gerrard RM (where he was once a player of the season
  14. Like
    Tom Erdenay reacted to Neller in Official Liverpool Thread   
    Re: Official Liverpool Thread
    Its also the same system many of you guys said was a failure last season' date=' it had been "over used and figured out" by the opposition, it was "to negative" to use at home Vs teams (this was said in the BIG games) let alone tosh like Northampton.
    Expecting a manager to come in, get the team playing as a team and being motivated for the season ahead is not "unrealistic" its what you expect a new manager to do.
    I'm not worried yet about the league position or lack of wins, I'm worried (VERY) worried about how we look as a team, no I dont expect any of our players to run past 4/5 players and smash in goals but I do expect them to look like a team.
    You say we are a top 6 side, I would not be totaly against that BUT we dont even look anything like a top 6 side, we are playing like a team that is where we are currently.
    Even WBA should have got a result against us, Sunderland fully deserved better than they ended up getting if we was away from home I reckon we would have got smashed and even Nothamptons "draw" wasnt a smash n grab.
    I could accept some of this if Roy came out and assured us in some way but he looks totaly lost, scared and out of idea's already.
    Like Burs said, can you as a Liverpool fan EVER remember such a mass % of fans already starting to go against a manager? Liverpool fans are known for not doing this yet so many are already doing so, most people around the ground and during games are already grumbling about him.
    As I said previously, I won't fully judge him myself until hes had more time I just dont think this is the club for him, although I do hope he proves me to be a total idiot by making it better.
    There are just things already which should be in place (and would have been from a top manager)
  15. Like
    Tom Erdenay reacted to Jooles in TL: IRS 1st match up | ExiledScotInTheUSA versus Roko7   
    Re: TL: IRS 1st match up | ExiledScotInTheUSA versus Roko7
    Yeah, I was aiming for 'banter' rather than serious 'external comments'. Though you do raise an interesting point: If BC weed™ or Moroccan Black™ aren't sponsoring Phelps yet then perhaps commercialisation isn't as far-spread as you (convincingly ) lead us to believe? I'd stop there before you undermine all your hard work!
  16. Like
    Tom Erdenay reacted to Hamsik17 in UEFA Champions League Discussion thread   
    Re: UEFA Champions League Discussion thread
  17. Like
    Tom Erdenay got a reaction from CapTaiN-CraZy-CoffEe in The Official Valencia C.F. Thread   
    Re: The Official Valencia C.F. Thread
  18. Like
    Tom Erdenay got a reaction from dazinho in Busquests at 91? Surely a joke   
    Re: Busquests at 91? Surely a joke
    Well' date=' I've not done it because:
    1) This has already been discussed quite a few times.
    2) I've been rather busy and I tried to avoid writing a prolonged reply.
    However, I'd say you are much more of a stereotypical fan as you quickly jump into a bandwagon without most likely even watching enough. There aren't many people in this forum that follow La Liga more than I do (if any), so I do have a solid basis for my opinion and from what I've read, you do not. How unexpected
    You should know me more than that, Fercasti. You've seen me writing countless of times that attackers and flair players are overrated and most of the time they aren't the basis of the strong, winning teams. They're the mere outside of the Sculpture that everyone admires.
    I do not mind giving where credit is due and Zanetti with Cambiasso are true heroes even though they aren't grabbing the headlines. Redondo, Makelele - those were the warriors that helped their teams to success while not getting that much credit (just like other countless examples that I will not mention). However, Busquets is not one of them.
    First, let me go through why I don't rate him personally:

    He is constantly out muscled by a smaller, weaker players. That should never happen to a good DM, let alone all the time.
    While his role is primary just distribute the balls from the back, his distribution pretty much ends up as being a back-pass to Pique/Puyol and at rate rather occasions Xavi/Iniesta/Keita. There are lots of DM's who not only are completely solid and reliable at the back, but can also contribute to the flow to the game (Senna). Busquets, however, can not.
    If he's about to lose the ball, he will dive. A really poor example of professionalism.
    He's not a good keeper of the ball and under the pressure, is rather prone to lose it himself or misplace a pass.
    Don't get me wrong - he's not completely useless (as I probably would have said the same time last year), but he's still not good enough. He has actually improved from when he first emerged (a thing that I wouldn't have believed he's capable off), but that's not saying much. The best of him I've seen so far was in the World Cup where he has actually been pretty decent, but still not completely in place.

    So why is that he is actually playing for the strongest national team and club in the world? Here are the answers:


    Spain.


    1) Relationships - his family is rather influential inside the setup and can help him get into it.
    2) Del Bosque's tactics - he pretty much always uses between 3 tactics during his career and it always involves a DM. He usually uses the best one he has and in a sense, Busquets fits that a bit. However, remember the 2008 Spain? Pretty much same formation and tactics and mostly same players, but Senna was playing instead of Busquets. Why is that this Spain would utterly destroy any team in play and do so with a fashion and the one with Busquets seems to be lacking something?

    Barcelona.


    1) He's Catalan (product of their youth system) - they will always be preffered to non-Catalan players (Unless you're a certain Dutch or Argentinian player, but those were brought up through Cantera, so they technically count)
    2) Guardiola's favouritism - do you honestly believe that without it he would have made where he is? Pay attention also that a season when Barca won sextuple, Busquets wasn't one the main players (starting XI).
    Admittedly, I've not be able to watch any matches for 3 weeks now, but unless something magical happened to him, these arguments still stand.
  19. Like
    Tom Erdenay got a reaction from Chazza in Busquests at 91? Surely a joke   
    Re: Busquests at 91? Surely a joke
    Well' date=' I've not done it because:
    1) This has already been discussed quite a few times.
    2) I've been rather busy and I tried to avoid writing a prolonged reply.
    However, I'd say you are much more of a stereotypical fan as you quickly jump into a bandwagon without most likely even watching enough. There aren't many people in this forum that follow La Liga more than I do (if any), so I do have a solid basis for my opinion and from what I've read, you do not. How unexpected
    You should know me more than that, Fercasti. You've seen me writing countless of times that attackers and flair players are overrated and most of the time they aren't the basis of the strong, winning teams. They're the mere outside of the Sculpture that everyone admires.
    I do not mind giving where credit is due and Zanetti with Cambiasso are true heroes even though they aren't grabbing the headlines. Redondo, Makelele - those were the warriors that helped their teams to success while not getting that much credit (just like other countless examples that I will not mention). However, Busquets is not one of them.
    First, let me go through why I don't rate him personally:

    He is constantly out muscled by a smaller, weaker players. That should never happen to a good DM, let alone all the time.
    While his role is primary just distribute the balls from the back, his distribution pretty much ends up as being a back-pass to Pique/Puyol and at rate rather occasions Xavi/Iniesta/Keita. There are lots of DM's who not only are completely solid and reliable at the back, but can also contribute to the flow to the game (Senna). Busquets, however, can not.
    If he's about to lose the ball, he will dive. A really poor example of professionalism.
    He's not a good keeper of the ball and under the pressure, is rather prone to lose it himself or misplace a pass.
    Don't get me wrong - he's not completely useless (as I probably would have said the same time last year), but he's still not good enough. He has actually improved from when he first emerged (a thing that I wouldn't have believed he's capable off), but that's not saying much. The best of him I've seen so far was in the World Cup where he has actually been pretty decent, but still not completely in place.

    So why is that he is actually playing for the strongest national team and club in the world? Here are the answers:


    Spain.


    1) Relationships - his family is rather influential inside the setup and can help him get into it.
    2) Del Bosque's tactics - he pretty much always uses between 3 tactics during his career and it always involves a DM. He usually uses the best one he has and in a sense, Busquets fits that a bit. However, remember the 2008 Spain? Pretty much same formation and tactics and mostly same players, but Senna was playing instead of Busquets. Why is that this Spain would utterly destroy any team in play and do so with a fashion and the one with Busquets seems to be lacking something?

    Barcelona.


    1) He's Catalan (product of their youth system) - they will always be preffered to non-Catalan players (Unless you're a certain Dutch or Argentinian player, but those were brought up through Cantera, so they technically count)
    2) Guardiola's favouritism - do you honestly believe that without it he would have made where he is? Pay attention also that a season when Barca won sextuple, Busquets wasn't one the main players (starting XI).
    Admittedly, I've not be able to watch any matches for 3 weeks now, but unless something magical happened to him, these arguments still stand.
  20. Like
    Tom Erdenay got a reaction from Dougiehowlett25 in Busquests at 91? Surely a joke   
    Re: Busquests at 91? Surely a joke
    Well' date=' I've not done it because:
    1) This has already been discussed quite a few times.
    2) I've been rather busy and I tried to avoid writing a prolonged reply.
    However, I'd say you are much more of a stereotypical fan as you quickly jump into a bandwagon without most likely even watching enough. There aren't many people in this forum that follow La Liga more than I do (if any), so I do have a solid basis for my opinion and from what I've read, you do not. How unexpected
    You should know me more than that, Fercasti. You've seen me writing countless of times that attackers and flair players are overrated and most of the time they aren't the basis of the strong, winning teams. They're the mere outside of the Sculpture that everyone admires.
    I do not mind giving where credit is due and Zanetti with Cambiasso are true heroes even though they aren't grabbing the headlines. Redondo, Makelele - those were the warriors that helped their teams to success while not getting that much credit (just like other countless examples that I will not mention). However, Busquets is not one of them.
    First, let me go through why I don't rate him personally:

    He is constantly out muscled by a smaller, weaker players. That should never happen to a good DM, let alone all the time.
    While his role is primary just distribute the balls from the back, his distribution pretty much ends up as being a back-pass to Pique/Puyol and at rate rather occasions Xavi/Iniesta/Keita. There are lots of DM's who not only are completely solid and reliable at the back, but can also contribute to the flow to the game (Senna). Busquets, however, can not.
    If he's about to lose the ball, he will dive. A really poor example of professionalism.
    He's not a good keeper of the ball and under the pressure, is rather prone to lose it himself or misplace a pass.
    Don't get me wrong - he's not completely useless (as I probably would have said the same time last year), but he's still not good enough. He has actually improved from when he first emerged (a thing that I wouldn't have believed he's capable off), but that's not saying much. The best of him I've seen so far was in the World Cup where he has actually been pretty decent, but still not completely in place.

    So why is that he is actually playing for the strongest national team and club in the world? Here are the answers:


    Spain.


    1) Relationships - his family is rather influential inside the setup and can help him get into it.
    2) Del Bosque's tactics - he pretty much always uses between 3 tactics during his career and it always involves a DM. He usually uses the best one he has and in a sense, Busquets fits that a bit. However, remember the 2008 Spain? Pretty much same formation and tactics and mostly same players, but Senna was playing instead of Busquets. Why is that this Spain would utterly destroy any team in play and do so with a fashion and the one with Busquets seems to be lacking something?

    Barcelona.


    1) He's Catalan (product of their youth system) - they will always be preffered to non-Catalan players (Unless you're a certain Dutch or Argentinian player, but those were brought up through Cantera, so they technically count)
    2) Guardiola's favouritism - do you honestly believe that without it he would have made where he is? Pay attention also that a season when Barca won sextuple, Busquets wasn't one the main players (starting XI).
    Admittedly, I've not be able to watch any matches for 3 weeks now, but unless something magical happened to him, these arguments still stand.
  21. Like
    Tom Erdenay got a reaction from cainhoy in Tom's Library: I Reign Supreme (TL: IRS)   
    Re: Tom's Library: I Reign Supreme (TL: IRS)
    Just thought it was worth sharing
  22. Like
    Tom Erdenay reacted to cainhoy in Tom's Library: I Reign Supreme (TL: IRS)   
    Re: Tom's Library: I Reign Supreme (TL: IRS)
    I would very much enjoy being a part of this when room permits.
  23. Like
    Tom Erdenay reacted in Tom's Library: I Reign Supreme (TL: IRS)   
    Re: Tom's Library: I Reign Supreme (TL: IRS)
    This sounds a very interesting concept Tom, although I'm in debate most nights on various forums, I find that you can't reconcile with stupidity , people have their point of view, (which they are entitled to) but sometimes facts get in the way of a good tale.
    I am happy to debate anyone on things that I'm proficient on, namely, politics and religion and perhaps history, (although history is only written by the winners)
    Let me know more about it Tom.
  24. Like
    Tom Erdenay reacted to LiamSmith in Tom's Comedy Corner [All Things Comedy]   
    Re: Tom's Comedy Corner [All Things Comedy]

  25. Like
    Tom Erdenay got a reaction from craig in Right now I'm listening to... (no explicit or football themed songs)   
    Re: Right now i'm listening to...

    Tom Jones with The Cardigans - Burning Down The House

    VtknX95emMQ


×
×
  • Create New...