Isegrim

It's a bit like one of Zeno's paradoxes. How many injuries does it need not to be considered bad luck anymore but incompetence?

I think he should be more than happy with the Cris award and retire.

Again, it is national managers who vote. Most of the national managers of the very small countries are just picking the allegedely big names. Very often a lot of nominations don't make any sense, sometimes players there are players on the shortlist who barely kicked a ball due to injuries etc.

Because it's the national managers of all countries who vote. TV certainly hasn't reached some of the nations yet...

Hoy, I'm still around you know. 45723[/snapback] Regularly around 5-6am by any chance, sending nasty PMs to people?

...unless they happen to be called Swindon Mag. 45708[/snapback] I do miss him nevertheless...

Q: Where did you park your car? [Ha, that's not the naughty stuff you wanted, eh!] A: I beg your pardon. That's not a question you ask a lady.

Maybe someone should ask Sepp B. at 5live about the meaning of the word greed...

Wit and sarcasm on here? Now you are joking...

I disagree, Gerrard's instincts are to attack and it's what he's best suited to. People seem to think just because he can put his foot in that he play well in the holding role. I reckon Lampard is a better attacking player too. Certainly for England in recent times. 45538[/snapback] I think what sticks out at Lampard's game is his constant efficiency. He is most likely to be involved in the decisive moments of a game. And his sense for getting in the right position is second to none. Gerrard is a very good player, but what stands out are rather those screamers he scores occasionally than his consistency... he is also good at reckless two-footed nasty tackles.

I see what you're saying but.... My view is that if they do include a factor for "likeliness to have an accident" which is based on the number of accidents someone has had in the past then they should consider all of the factors that actually produce those stats and look further than "less women have accidents". I think its the glib use of the phrase "women are safer drivers" that I object to - not because I don't think its true but because its basis is flawed imo and I don't think it should be applied to the cost on such an arbitrary basis. On the equality issue in general there have always been swings and roundabouts - not so common now but the differential retirement ages being a classic. 45161[/snapback] I can't speak for british car insurances, but here in Germany we have something called "no claims bonus". The longer you drive without an accident the less you have to pay. Beginners start at 190% of the standard rate. If they stay accident free the rate can down onto to 30%. And if SSR's statistic is right and people who drive more are more likely to be involved in an accident, they should pay more, don't they...

Mileage doesn't matter because it is a far too uncertain factor to insurance companies. Again, the calculation is based on how much insured events a caused by a specific group. It doesn't matter to the insurance company how often or how good someone drives, but if his insurance contribution covers the risk of an insured incident. Anyway, a terrible driver who uses his car once a year is much more likely that he covers his risk by his contribution than a good driver. 45109[/snapback] Yeah you've described how it works at present but I think mine and SG's point is that it should and future technology might facilitate it. 45114[/snapback] I don't think even with future facilites you'll be able a fair insurance system based on mileage. Look, insurances are basing their system on the cost of insured events. They therefore look how much money they have to acquire. The calculation is mostly based on a year, with insurants paying periodically (I don't think that's different in England). To get a fair system they now have to generate a system where the contribution of each insurant matches the insured events he causes as good as possible. Mileage doesn't fit into this system, because you have one parameter too much. You would have to base this system on insured events/year on one hand and insured events/mileage on the other hand. Well, you could change the system by crossing out the time factor, but then how to calculate the contribution so that they provide the insurance with enough cash constantly. Mileage is also a far too variable. Gender on the other hand is a static parameter. Renton is right, though. You could also base your calculation on other static parameters like race. That would obviously cause a huge uproar. Anyway, there exists an EC-discrimantion act that has to get implemented into national legislation. It prohibits every kind of discrimination of race, religion, gender etc. It is a big topic here in Germany (especially among privat law scientiest like me), because women right groups demand the act to be implemented as soon as possible, because they feel especially discriminated by one economical branch...and guess what...it's the insurance industry that is discriminating women in a lot branches due to their statistically longer life time. It's funny while those women are able to dig out loads of insurance sectors where they are discriminated, men do only come up with one...

Alex and Blaydon were a couple and have children named Benni, Adidas and Li3nz. They got divorced when Blaydon became a raver after Australia failed to get an automatic WC qualifying spot.

Mileage doesn't matter because it is a far too uncertain factor to insurance companies. Again, the calculation is based on how much insured events a caused by a specific group. It doesn't matter to the insurance company how often or how good someone drives, but if his insurance contribution covers the risk of an insured incident. Anyway, a terrible driver who uses his car once a year is much more likely that he covers his risk by his contribution than a good driver.

I think the insurance doesn't give a toss about a woman driving 1 mile every week to her hairdresser or a man cruising with his hairdresser the land up and down all day. They are just interested in how likely it is statistically that the driver will cause an accident... 45051[/snapback] So if I drove 140 miles a day, don't you think I'd statistically be more likely to be involved in an accident that my mother who drives 3 miles to get to work? 45060[/snapback] Mileage doesn't matter. If someone male who drives 1000 miles a day causes an accident every 1500 miles he statistically is still more accident prone than a woman that drives 5 miles a week and statistically causes an accident every 10 miles. 45080[/snapback] Hang on, you've lost me. Are you saying that insurances companies DO actually take into account how far you drive, or are you saying that the distance you drive has no bearing on how likely you are to cause an accident (fatigue for example, no?). I understand what you are saying about the statistics behind how per mile accidents happen, but I think you're ignoring the fact that you're more likely to crash driving longer distances than you are short distances. I'd also like to see the stats about how many accidents are on motorways compared to minor roads tbh. In my experience (and I hope I'm not gonna get labelled sexist for sharing my own experience here ) but most (not all) accidents I've seen looked to have been caused by females. 45086[/snapback] I just wanted to demonstrate that mileage doesn't matter, wether insurance companies do take it into account or not. Your last point is obviously your own (probably a bit clouded) experience. Insurance companies base their whole system on statistics. If all accidents were caused by women insurance companies would charge them higher than men. They just look how many of their insurants cause insured events. And if they see that of their female insurants less events are caused they make them pay less than their male counterparts. I don't know much about the English health system, but in Germany the same kind of discrimination can be found at health insurances. Women statistically get older than men and cause more insured events. That's why they have to pay more for their insurance than men.

I think the insurance doesn't give a toss about a woman driving 1 mile every week to her hairdresser or a man cruising with his hairdresser the land up and down all day. They are just interested in how likely it is statistically that the driver will cause an accident... 45051[/snapback] So if I drove 140 miles a day, don't you think I'd statistically be more likely to be involved in an accident that my mother who drives 3 miles to get to work? 45060[/snapback] Mileage doesn't matter. If someone male who drives 1000 miles a day causes an accident every 1500 miles he statistically is still more accident prone than a woman that drives 5 miles a week and statistically causes an accident every 10 miles.

I think the insurance doesn't give a toss about a woman driving 1 mile every week to her hairdresser or a man cruising with his hairdresser the land up and down all day. They are just interested in how likely it is statistically that the driver will cause an accident...

While he fuming at the "new type of slavery" ... isn't it funny that FIFA is the official partner of "Goal!", a film about a poor young guy coming to a club only to get sold on to a even bigger club rather quickly... Oh, sweet irony...

http://home.skysports.com/list.asp?HLID=31...ball_Home&f=rss

Even in England a day only has 24 hours...

Some other thing that was pointed out to me today (by a Greek bloke)... FIFA was selling so called Team-Series-Tickets, where you could follow all the games of the nation you applied for. Most series were sold out, and people had to pay straight away, even if they didn't know if their team will qualify. Now some teams failed (e.g. Greece) and people of those tickets will get a refund, minus a processing fee of course. So FIFA is pocketing in money from loads of sold tickets that never were valid anyway. And they probably made a huge interest profit as well...

Q: What drink would George Best never order? A: Haddaway.

Would be the most generous WUM as she donated to Ritchie's Tachetastic mission...

- 913,000 tickets went to open sale - 191,000 tickets went to the "FIFA family" i.e. associations not taking part (like Australia) - 440,00 tickets went to special guests, media and have been reserved as security contingency - 555,000 tickets went to sponsors and commercial partners - 389,000 tickets went to the German football association - 347,000 went to VIPs and boxes - 468,000 tickets go to the participating associations - 64,000 tickets go the the media rights holders Who needs football fans in the stadium, eh... 44565[/snapback] Fuck off! There are two wrongs in that statement. Firstly Australia will be taking part and secondly we haven't had a fraction of those tickets offered to Australians that want to travel, whether the team makes it or not. 44643[/snapback] Sammy mate, I think you've got anger management issues. 44646[/snapback] No Gemmill it's just short man syndrome. Actually I've been busting my hump to get tickets as I'm going for the month, whether Australia qualifies or not, so I know it isn't true. 44647[/snapback] Well as much as I now a quota of 6.5% (i.e. 191,000 tickets) has been reserved and will be distributed to the FIFA Family, how they will sold on then I don't know. And if in the (highely unlikely ) case Australia qualifies they have the same right as every participating association to a share of the quota of 8% of the tickets that have been reserved and will be distributed via the national associations after the final draw on December 9th.

Q: What is the best toxin to kill a rat? A: Poland.