Maximus Decimus
-
Posts
8,699 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by Maximus Decimus
-
-
Saw Shed Seven in Scarborough recently and they were awesome.
They seem to be having a new lease of life. So often a lot of these older bands look bored as doing their same hits again and again.
I never get that feeling with the Sheds.
-
4
-
-
What. A. Final
-
1
-
-
The World Cup of Darts is something that fans enjoy and definitely a bit different.
However, for some reason it is held in Frankfurt with a significant number of empty seats, and it has been for a few years.
They must have a deal because surely they could host it somewhere where they would appreciate it more.
-
57 minutes ago, gingerjon said:
Are they pretending this is somehow good for NZ soccer?
(I'm told that Auckland FC is quite a weird set up even by Oceania standards though not sure how or why. Either way, the best NZ players either play for NZ teams in the A League or outside NZ altogether).
One of those situations where technicalities and protocols end up with a ridiculous situation.
Oceania has a fully pro-league but because they enter the Asian Champions League they can only qualify through that route.
The end result: a semi-pro team called Auckland FC with crowds in the hundreds enter the World Club tournament when there is a full-time Auckland club with crowds of nearly 20,000 not eligible.
-
2
-
-
Talking of favourite archaeological places, I was really fortunate in my undergraduate degree to go on an archaeological trip to Turkey, where we went round a multitude of sites.
By far the most impressive was Oenoanda which was not a tourist site and at the time was completely unexcavated. Our professor led us on a trek up a mountain to what was a completely abandoned ancient settlement.
I've never experienced anything like it. There were crumbling walls, half an amphitheatre coming out of the ground, numerous statues, inscriptions and masses of broken pots. We were the only ones there and were free to explore. I could've stayed there for days. This was 20 years ago, and I'm not sure whether it is more accessible now but people have visited with video cameras.
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, Padge said:
Went to the Hippocrates Foundation Museum today and it had various surgical and medical devices on display and they explained many are still recognisable as what are used today, pointing out that a tool will reach its optimum development and then will remain in that form almost forever but with maybe little tweaks. A hammer from 2,000 years ago is immediately recognisable as a hammer, it may have had tweaks i.e. ball pane hammer, but its still a hammer. This helped when medical tools were found at Asklepieion to understand how much Greek early physicians knew and how skilled they were. Tying the tools to ancient texts helped archaeologists better understand what the text were referring to.
One of my favourite ever visits, was when I went to Naples museum on a day from a cruise. I had no idea it was where they kept a lot of the Pompeii stuff.
The thing that struck me the most was seeing the medical instruments and how precise they were but also how much they looked like modern examples.
-
1
-
-
Earlier in this thread they mentioned the classic Oldham-Hull KR 2nd division Premiership game. My memory is it from 1990? This was one of my earliest RL memories and I can remember it being pretty full towards the end of that game.
When they first said about bringing the 1895 cup to the CC final, I presumed it would be about boosting attendances and having it before the final.
I remember when Widnes got there and took a fair few. It was frankly just bizarre seeing a 90% empty stadium with one section rammed. I doubt had we got there again the year after we'd have taken as many.
I get the whole thing about promoting the women's game, but in reality I doubt more than a few hundred made the trip purposely for that game.
-
3 hours ago, turn it in said:
I’ve heard that they sold way more but the weather forced a few no-shows.
amazing crowd nonetheless.
Is it just me or has it been raining a lot this season in the NRL. Every week it seems to be a washout.
-
1
-
-
I'm lucky enough that my undergraduate degree was in Archaeology. My stock line is that it isn't as glamorous as Time Team makes it look. I helped to excavate Rushen Abbey in the Isle of Man, and found a goat skull that was hundreds of years old.
I was talking with a friend the other day about what we'd actually do if we won the Euromillions. After the year of holidays, you'd need something to get up for in the morning.
I suggested I'd help fund archaeological digs on the proviso that I could help out. I wouldn't want to run it, just be there helping out and seeing what was found.
Somewhere on the continent of course...
-
4 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said:
Indiana Jones got me interested!
Never seen him do any actual archaeology
.
-
On 06/06/2025 at 00:15, Cherry and White said:
Aaron Rogers joins the Steelers, First game against the Jets.
At least that's a guarantee he'll start well...
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, CanaBull said:
Always found it quite curious how sure people can be of their indecisiveness
Alan Partridge voice on: I used to be indecisive but now I'm not so sure...
-
1
-
-
On a slightly separate issue, I've always been interested in the Scottish system where they have 'not proven'.
Whilst I think it is a good qualifier in comparison to a not guilty verdict, I wonder what effect on the number of guilty verdicts. It gives jurors an extra option, and one where they can sit on the fence.
I'm so indecisive I'd probably take it every time.
-
1
-
-
So Erin Patterson has decided to take the stand which is huge news in this case.
Personally, I can't see the logic behind it. From what I've heard, I don't think the prosecution has proved their case. A lot of their evidence about when and where she got the mushrooms and why she might have had it in for her in-laws etc is flimsy at best. We're still where we were at the beginning, with a dodgy looking scenario but essentially no proof.
Her taking the stand is very risky because she both sides agree that she has seriously lied to police during this trial. Therefore, any explanations she comes up with will be torn apart by the defence, who will just be able to keep repeating how she lied before.
All I can think of is two possibilities: either Erin wanted to speak against her counsel's wishes, or they believe she has to convince the jury that she lied because she was scared and mortified rather than trying to cover up a murder.
After all, a lot of people I speak to about it still think her disposing of the dehydrator and then lying about ever having one is essentially proof of guilt. I think it can be explained if she was trying to avoid everybody thinking it was her fault, and maybe they've decided she needs to convince them of this.
-
7 hours ago, Cliff Promise said:
Whilst it was a fantastic game, I really hope Queensland can do something to try and stop a complete wash out.
I'm old enough to remember when NSWs dominance meant that the whole concept of Origin was under threat.
Were obviously 20 years on from that, and it is even more firmly ingrained in Australian culture than it was then.
However, I've always feared a period of NSW dominance, and we might be on the verge of that. Remarkably, there have only been 2 series this century that were a 3-0 washout but this one looks likely to be IMO.
What essentially killed the Ashes as a concept in Australia was the lack of competition. It's no fun when you're expected to win easy and you win easy. If NSW dominated for a few years, things might not be so rosy.
-
If only we'd persist with the War of the Roses it would be our State of Origin.
-
2
-
-
Vichy is the reason French RL isn't massive....
-
1
-
2
-
-
On a bit of a separate note, if we take the most generous scenario, that being that she foraged for mushrooms (which appears clear) and was not aware that they were deathcap mushrooms and then as a result it caused the deaths of 3 people, is she in any way still culpable?
After all, her carelessness would have caused the deaths of 3 people. Is there not a manslaughter aspect?
-
One of the things that interests me about this trial, is the mass public fascination aspect. On one of the podcasts I listened to, it mentioned a comparison with the famous Lindy Chamberlain case of the 1980s.
From talking to people, it amazes me how many people just presume guilt because of the bizarre nature of the deaths. The initial fact of 5 people being at the meal, 4 of them dying or nearly dying and her not being badly sick is enough for her to be guilty.
You then see this pan out when hearing how they view the rest of the evidence. The fact that she disposed of the dehydrator is because she did it, a text message where she expresses frustration with 2 of the victims proves she had a motive etc.
In my opinion, if you imagine a scenario where she had accidentally caused people to be seriously ill, it's not hard to imagine that you would try and hide evidence that makes it your fault even without it being on purpose. It would be pretty embarrassing to cause the deaths of people.
That's not to say I think she's definitely innocent, I don't. It's more that there is a bit of a witchhunt vibe to the way some of the evidence is viewed.
The ultimate key still remains whether they can prove that she ate infected beef, even if it was a small amount. If they can, I might be more inclined to think of it as a tragic accident where she got lucky.
-
I've been to a couple of BBL games (at Cheshire Phoenix) and my 8 year old daughter plays for a local team. I don't follow it closely but I know there's been a lot of strife this year.
They recently had to cancel a kids camp at Phoenix (which included a game) because there was a referee strike.
I'm not sure how true it is, but I've heard frustration about how the current clubs just want to preserve their own slice of the pie.
This guy talks about big plans and big ideas, and you'd have to think they were worth a punt. I went a playoff game at Cheshire Phoenix and enjoyed it but there was about 1000 there and barely hundreds watching on YouTube.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, John Drake said:
I don't think it can or should be compared with sport.
In most sports, there is a clear mechanism for participants to score more points than their opponents, whether it is goals in the back of a net, tries over the line, etc.
How do you judge which is the best song? It's purely a matter of personal taste.
I was in a room with four people watching on Saturday, and we all had different favorites, there was very little consensus, but we all enjoyed the show regardless.
The Italian singer, Lucio Corsi, said before the show: 'If you like my song, vote for me, or vote for someone else, I don't mind. Music is not a competition.'
Well said, that man. He had a great song, too. In my opinion.
I agree with you that Eurovision should be fun, but the elephant in the room cannot be completely ignored. If a few juries had voted in a slightly different way on Saturday night, Eurovision would have been embroiled in a huge existential mess. And juries 'voting down' a song that they think might overperform in the televote, to try and prevent it winning, is just as bad.
I don't want to watch that happen every year, and I don't want to see artists booed, no matter where they are from, either.
There is widespread cynicism about the veracity of the voting processes. Whether there is any substance to it or not, it doesn't matter, it will fuel ongoing controversy and also detract from the success of the winner.
If you can't trust the process, you can't trust the outcome.
Who wants that?
I've had to remove a few posts from this thread because they drifted into making overtly political points, which if I'd left them, would have generated even more of the same and it would have ended up being shunted into the politics forum.
Who wants that either?
It can't go on as it is. There are already rumblings from several broadcasters demanding changes.
Instead of tinkering with the voting system, to try and make it more balanced, more transparent, more apolitical, etc, which I think is a hopeless cause from the get go because any voting system will be open to question and open to abuse, why not just move on from it altogether?
Eurovision was created to bring countries together. It's motto is 'United by Music'. It does that fantastically well, until the voting starts! So, let's focus on the fun, the musicality, the variety, the difference, and celebrate that.
Watching artists from past years returning to the stage was much more entertaining than sitting through an hour or more of voting. Let's have more of that every year instead. Put the music first, give these artists a global platform to perform on, without the risk of having their career chances blighted by receiving the dreaded 'zero points'.
Eurovision these days is much more than a 3-4 hour show on one Saturday night. It goes on for months and the artists involved perform countless shows in front of packed, enthusiastic crowds all over Europe. I can't imagine for a second that would stop, if the voting (which everyone moans about anyway) was ditched.
As I said in my previous post, if you must have a 'winner', let the artists themselves decide, or just let the live audience in the arena cast a vote on the night, which would make grabbing a ticket for that even more of an attraction than it already is.
I understand the sentiment, but I think it misses how fundamental the competitive aspect is to the reason Eurovision is so big in the first place and continues to be big. As I said earlier, I'm sure for a year or two people would still tune in but it wouldn't take long before it became stale and just variety style performance.
Whereas you might have enjoyed the show with a like-minded group, I know not only would I have never got into it as a kid, but my kids wouldn't be interested if it was just a random show of countries singing songs. They love scoring the acts and seeing who might win, and my daughter danced around the room when Switzerland won last year. It is those happy family memories that will mean she tunes in when she's older, not the songs themselves.
The sport analogy isn't perfect, but it was used to demonstrate how fundamental competitiveness is to what makes it appealing. A game of football or rugby is actually quite boring when there is nothing on the line. The illusion of importance adds so much to a sporting event, and it does with Eurovision or even something like Britain's Got Talent. If BGT was just a celebration of British talent without the judges, it wouldn't have lasted a series.
As a teacher, I've seen how an event like Sports Day went from being competitive, to the idea that it could be just as good if it wasn't competitive, to going back to competitive again. Yes parents still came, and kids still took part but it was a shadow of what it was and the kids were indifferent to it.
I'm not really bothered how they pick a winner, as long as they try to make it as fair as possible. If that means they massively simplify it then so be it.
-
Doing away with the scoring would be a disaster. One of the things that makes it so special and so huge is that it is an international competition, there is nothing like it in entertainment.
I'm sure it would ride off its coat-tails for a couple of years, but it would pretty quickly lose a lot of its appeal as it just became a random music show of songs you've never heard of.
It's akin to saying let's get rid of league tables in competitive sport, and just let people enjoy a football match without the pressure that a league table brings.
The Eurovision is a bit of fun where you get to see who might win, as long as it's treated like that then it's easy to ignore all the other stuff.
-
2
-
-
The perennial question of what we do now will inevitably be asked. We seem to feel a mixture of sorry for ourselves (everybody hates us!) and moan about it being political while also moaning about how bad our entries our.
We do seem to be at somewhat of a disadvantage, but it's not because everybody hates us. I decided to take a look at Ireland's recent record and it is very similar to ours. We've both only had 3 top 10 finishes this milennium, and while we've had a lot of last places, they've only made the final 3 times in the last 12 years.
We both seemingly have a good record, but it is one entirely from a different time when Eurovision was completely different. Ireland's proud record of 7 wins, was when they would put a person up front to sing a nice ballad. The show isn't that anymore.
Whilst the rest of Europe seems more linked than we both do, for me it's about the songs. I said to the missus last night, when was the last time you thought the British entry was really good? There are usually a good few I like straight away, but Spaceman aside which I hadn't listened to until the final, I can't recall the last time I liked our one and wasn't trying to get it to grow on me.
-
8 hours ago, gingerjon said:
It won't be a bot farm but there is a section of the online sphere who prioritise voting for Israel and make sure to share with other people to do it.
I thought Israel had avoided being controversial by entering some wallpaper song that would deter votes but, turns out, some people really, really want to show solidarity and give the EBU the headache of an event in Tel Aviv again.
It's definitely something they're going to need to look at. They certainly dodged a bullet, Israel winning would have been an absolute disaster for Eurovision.
Last night was fun, but it was disappointing to get zero again in the public vote and it did leave a sour taste. The public vote adds excitement but it seems to favour a certain type of act.
Glasto 2025
in Any Other Business / Any Other Sports
Posted
The opposite can be true as well.
I used to quite like Wolf Alice until I saw them once at Glasto and they were incredibly dull and pedestrian.