Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

All the woke news that's fit to air or print

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

I've never heard of rounders, is there a professional league i could check out?

No, rounders is a kid's game that you only play until you are old enough and sophisticated enough to play cricket. I believe it is the game from which softball and baseball derive.

Quote

The game of rounders has been played in England since Tudor times,[1] with the earliest reference[1][8] being in 1744 in A Little Pretty Pocket-Book where it was called base-ball.[9] In 1828, William Clarke in London published the second edition of The Boy's Own Book, which included the rules of rounders and also the first printed description in English of a bat and ball base-running game played on a diamond.[10] The following year, the book was published in Boston, Massachusetts.[11]

Quote

The GAA version of rounders is very similar to softball, the main difference being that the game is played with baseball-sized bats, balls and field. However, baseball-style gloves are not allowed. The main differences between baseball and the Rounders England version of the game are that the rounders bat is much shorter and is usually swung one-handed; misses or strikes are not called, so there are no walks or strike-outs; each batter receives only one good ball and must run whether they hit it or not. Other differences include the posts for marking the bases, which should be wooden, and are preferably encased in plastic sheaths, the lay-out of the pitch, especially the location of the last base; and the bowler's arm motion, which is an underarm pendulum action, as in softball.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounders#Comparison_with_softball_and_baseball

 

Edited by Iceni warrior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

No, rounders is a kid's game that you only play until you are old enough and sophisticated enough to play cricket. I believe it is the game from which softball and baseball derive.

 

Cricket confuses me , you want to score runs, but runs don't matter if you hit wickets?. I have seen some amazing highlight catches on TSN though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Cricket confuses me , you want to score runs, but runs don't matter if you hit wickets?. I have seen some amazing highlight catches on TSN though

73dc1ebf4b79ea0975348284f2fba461--the-ru

I hope that clears it up for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

73dc1ebf4b79ea0975348284f2fba461--the-ru

I hope that clears it up for you.

How could it not, when it's expressed in a syllogistic form that would put Aristotle to shame

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

How could it not, when it's expressed in a syllogistic form that would put Aristotle to shame

 

For a more serious answer to your question. As briefly as I can put it.

In the 5 day game, or test cricket as it's known, for a game to have a result both teams have to have 2 complete innings.

The team who score the most runs is the winner. However, if either team fails to get all of the opposition out (take their wickets) twice then the game is a draw. This can be acheived by defensive batting where you protect your wicket rather than try to score runs or by praying to the Gods of rain.

Runs can be scored in 3 ways.

Hitting the ball and running between the stumps (wickets) placed 22 yds apart. Stopping before the fielding team recovers the ball and hits the stumps at either end of the pitch (also known as a wicket).

Hitting the ball over the boundary rope either after hitting the ground (a four) or without hitting the ground first (a six) similar to a home run.

When the bowler bowls too wide (a wide) or releases the ball after crossing a line known as a crease (a no ball).

A player can be ''got out'' in several ways.

The batsman can be caught out after either hitting the ball or ''nicking'' it to the wicket keeper.

The bowlers can hit his stumps (or wicket) knocking the horizontal stick known as the bails off the top of the 3 upright sticks known as the stumps (known as being bowled out).

The fieldsmen can hit the stumps while the batsman is running between the wickets trying to score runs or if he steps out of his crease while attempting to hit a ball. (Known as being stumped)

The batsman can knock his own bails off with his bat or any part of his body.

The bowler can hit the batsman's leg in front of the wicket if the umpire has decided it would have hit the stumps otherwise, known as an LBW or leg before wicket.

 

A bowler gets six balls (not counting no balls or wides) per ''over'' which are bowled from one end of the pitch. When his over is over another bowler comes over and bowls another over from the opposite end..

 

Simple really.

Edited by Iceni warrior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Iceni warrior said:

For a more serious answer to your question. As briefly as I can put it.

In the 5 day game, or test cricket as it's known, for a game to have a result both teams have to have 2 complete innings.

The team who score the most runs is the winner. However, if either team fails to get all of the opposition out (take their wickets) twice then the game is a draw. This can be acheived by defensive batting where you protect your wicket rather than try to score runs or by praying to the Gods of rain.

Runs can be scored in 3 ways.

Hitting the ball and running between the stumps (wickets) placed 22 yds apart. Stopping before the fielding team recovers the ball and hits the stumps at either end of the pitch (also known as a wicket).

Hitting the ball over the boundary rope either after hitting the ground (a four) or without hitting the ground first (a six) similar to a home run.

When the bowler bowls too wide (a wide) or releases the ball after crossing a line known as a crease (a no ball).

A player can be ''got out'' in several ways.

The batsman can be caught out after either hitting the ball or ''nicking'' it to the wicket keeper.

The bowlers can hit his stumps (or wicket) knocking the horizontal stick known as the bails off the top of the 3 upright sticks known as the stumps (known as being bowled out).

The fieldsmen can hit the stumps while the batsman is running between the wickets trying to score runs or if he steps out of his crease while attempting to hit a ball. (Known as being stumped)

The batsman can knock his own bails off with his bat or any part of his body.

The bowler can hit the batsman's leg in front of the wicket if the umpire has decided it would have hit the stumps otherwise, known as an LBW or leg before wicket.

 

A bowler gets six balls (not counting no balls or wides) per ''over'' which are bowled from one end of the pitch. When his over is over another bowler comes over and bowls another over from the opposite end..

 

Simple really.

If there isn't a puck/ball that needs to go in a net, it's beyond my comprehension.

Heck, shot three rounds of golf before I figured out I was looking for a hole in the ground. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

If there isn't a puck/ball that needs to go in a net, it's beyond my comprehension.

Heck, shot three rounds of golf before I figured out I was looking for a hole in the ground. 

It's true what they say about hockey players then?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Iceni warrior said:

It's true what they say about hockey players then?

 

Definitely true, we love to golf.

Now most of us have had a couple concussions before we start golfing. Coincidence? Who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2020 at 2:54 PM, SkyHigh said:

As I've said before in earlier discussions with you. Learn to argue without resorting exclusively to logical fallacies, and i may deem your incoherent rants worthy of retort.

Yup, you sure do know how to answer a question with another question or in other words avoid answering the question with foolish liberal emotional talk. But I will try again just for you.

So just where is the big threat to the world from losing a few glaciers that melt away. Are you starting to lose some property due to some rise in the sea level lately, that is if the oceans have risen all that much that would be noticeable. If so, you better try and sell your property now. And just why are you in such a liberal panic? I think that you should start to panic when all of the ice and snow in the Antarctica begins to all melt away. Simple questions. 

And if you are going to reply like you just did above, well stop wasting my time, and do what you do best. Avoid the question. My time is valuable. Over to you. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Iceni warrior said:

No, rounders is a kid's game that you only play until you are old enough and sophisticated enough to play cricket. I believe it is the game from which softball and baseball derive.

 

Are there losers or is everyone a winner? That sort of thing drives the unwoken even more bonkers than a carbon tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Are there losers or is everyone a winner? That sort of thing drives the unwoken even more bonkers than a carbon tax.

We were always taught that it's not about whether you win or lose but how you play the game. Good sportsmanship and enjoying yourself being the most important thing.

Very different from the second place is just the first of the losers attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2019 at 8:30 AM, Argus said:

I was thinking the other day, as I watched the first 'news' item on my local TV news, about advocacy journalism. The first, most important item of the day was a long piece about a group which gives presents to refugee kids and makes them aware of Santa Claus and how delighted these kids are to be here. This was followed by a piece on the food bank about how grateful people are to get free food. Meanwhile in the Globe, there's a long, long piece of advocacy journalism on the 'plight' of Muslim women in Quebec, where they're no longer allowed to wear their religious outfits if they want to work for the government. And the local paper has responded (apparently) to the growing number of people who like to write 'diversity is our strength' after crime pieces which are mainly about newcomers by removing the names of those accused from the stories. Mustn't let people get the wrong idea, after all, even if it's, well, factual.

There is a lot of hand-wringing. mostly by the Left, about why alternative sources of news have drawn more and more people away from the 'mainstream press'. And I would suggest the reason is advocacy journalism. This is something the media has indulged in for some time, but it's gotten worse and worse as the ideological beliefs of the media have moved further left. Once it's known you have an agenda, and start pushing themes to change people's minds, people begin to lose trust in everything you say, and wonder what you're NOT saying. This is not an idea which has evidently occurred to the Left, whose response is invariably to try to either ban those alternative sources, or pay government money to the existing ones so they can outspend the alternatives, or at at least control what the alternative sources of news say.

William Watson: CBC's The National brings Canadians all the news that's woke

The New York Times claims it provides “all the news that’s fit to print.” The National produces “all the news that fits in the very narrow ideological spectrum of downtown-urban wokeness.” There are four essential components to The National these days: something climate, something anti-Trump, something Lefty-heroic, and something Indigenous.

 

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/william-watson-cbcs-the-national-brings-canadians-all-the-news-thats-woke

Thus we see the Communist Broadcasting Network aka CBC begging for more federal subsidies in order to prop up their falling revenues.  Less than 1% of Canadians bother to tune in anymore and the corp announced that revenues are down by 37% this year.  Time to yank their license and de-fund this sad excuse for a public broadcaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, mowich said:

Less than 1% of Canadians bother to tune in anymore 

Could you please substantiate that statement with some evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Could you please substantiate that statement with some evidence?

No, they cannot cause its not true.  

CBC Radio One and its French counterpart ICI Radio-Canada Premiere are popular talk radio services. It is the most popular English-language radio format with 13% of English tuning shares while the French-language service has 17% of French audience tuning shares. Together, they represent 13.1% of all weekly average radio tuning hours. 

CBC TV has 19% share of French viewership and 10% share of English viewership, according to the CRTC.   https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/policymonitoring/2019/cmr6.htm#a1.4SmartSelect_20200118-125441_Chrome.thumb.jpg.e0ab775860d002127a16913702aaf431.jpg

 

Edited by dialamah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mowich said:

Gladly.

"The report indicates that CBC English-language TV ad revenue is down 37%, with less than 1% of Canadians watching local CBC newscasts at suppertime."

https://lakesuperiornews.com/Opinion/Trump-on-Twitter/less-than-1-of-canadians-watch

/facepalm... I'm sorry but this is only re-substantiates how ridiculous and stupid your statement was.  Why didn't you just show where the actual report says what you're saying? 

By all means please continue giving us good reasons to mock the entire premise of this thread (another ill-informed opinion) along with anyone who continues to be impressed by that opinion.

It seems, according to the vernacular of woken-ness, that you were talking/mumbling in your sleep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2020 at 11:39 AM, mowich said:

Thus we see the Communist Broadcasting Network aka CBC begging for more federal subsidies in order to prop up their falling revenues.  Less than 1% of Canadians bother to tune in anymore and the corp announced that revenues are down by 37% this year.  Time to yank their license and de-fund this sad excuse for a public broadcaster.

That ain't going to happen, pardner. Trudeau and his liberal leftist ilk needs the CBC to do their bidding for them. Harper, the pretender conservative, had a great chance to get rid of the CBC but he sadly did not. The CBC was never a fan for Harper or the conservatives, and Harper should have dumped them while he was in power and had the chance. But he did not. Some conservative, eh? Why does the conservative party call themselves conservative when they act more like liberals? All Harper did was that he just tried to appease and please some of those anti-CBC taxpayer's out there by cutting back on a few hundred thousand tax dollars from their CBC budget. Trudeau just gave it back to the CBC.

At least one can say that the liberals are not afraid to push their leftist liberal leaning programs and agendas, but the conservative party is not willing to do the same and push what should be real and true conservative programs and agendas. Instead, the conservatives will lean over backwards to try and please and get the leftist liberal vote. It will not work for them, but the fools cannot seem to have figured that one out quite yet. Conservative conservatives need to join Maxine Bernier and his real and true conservative party. Otherwise, the conservative party needs to stop calling themselves a conservative party. They should call themselves the liberal conservative party. That name would suit them well. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2020 at 3:51 PM, taxme said:

That ain't going to happen, pardner. Trudeau and his liberal leftist ilk needs the CBC to do their bidding for them. Harper, the pretender conservative, had a great chance to get rid of the CBC but he sadly did not. The CBC was never a fan for Harper or the conservatives, and Harper should have dumped them while he was in power and had the chance. But he did not. Some conservative, eh? Why does the conservative party call themselves conservative when they act more like liberals? All Harper did was that he just tried to appease and please some of those anti-CBC taxpayer's out there by cutting back on a few hundred thousand tax dollars from their CBC budget. Trudeau just gave it back to the CBC.

At least one can say that the liberals are not afraid to push their leftist liberal leaning programs and agendas, but the conservative party is not willing to do the same and push what should be real and true conservative programs and agendas. Instead, the conservatives will lean over backwards to try and please and get the leftist liberal vote. It will not work for them, but the fools cannot seem to have figured that one out quite yet. Conservative conservatives need to join Maxine Bernier and his real and true conservative party. Otherwise, the conservative party needs to stop calling themselves a conservative party. They should call themselves the liberal conservative party. That name would suit them well. :D

Hey taxme - good to see you in this forum too - always happy to see your insightful and on point comments.  Now I am off to CC to raise more hell.  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2020 at 12:33 PM, eyeball said:

/facepalm... I'm sorry but this is only re-substantiates how ridiculous and stupid your statement was.  Why didn't you just show where the actual report says what you're saying? 

By all means please continue giving us good reasons to mock the entire premise of this thread (another ill-informed opinion) along with anyone who continues to be impressed by that opinion.

It seems, according to the vernacular of woken-ness, that you were talking/mumbling in your sleep.

https://torontosun.com/news/national/memo-cbc-loses-in-the-billions-after-hnic-fallout

Memo: CBC loses in the billions after HNIC fallout

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is hemorrhaging billions of dollars after losing the rights to Hockey Night In Canada, according to an internal federal memo.

According to Blacklock’s Reporter, the television network is out more than $2 billion after losing the 12-year licensing rights to Hockey Night In Canada. The memo, which was obtained via Access To Information, contradicts claims by network executive that the HNIC contract was only worth a “few dollars.”

In a confidential report, the CBC claims it remains “the cornerstone of culture and democracy” despite the large loss in ad revenue.

“CBC Television lost its long-standing flagship sports broadcast Hockey Night In Canada which had been part of the broadcaster’s programming lineup for fifty-five years,” CBC staff wrote in a 2019 briefing note to then-Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez.

In 2013, Rogers Communications Inc. paid $4.2 billion for the HNIC rights, which runs until 2026.

The note stated the CBC’s annual ad revenue dropped by about $175 million, which equates to $2.1 billion over a 12-year period. Rogers allows the CBC to license games but without the lucrative revenue generated by advertisements.

Drawing more than a million viewers weekly, HNIC was once CBC’s highest-rated program. At the time, CBC execs claimed the losses were insignificant when Rogers picked up the rights.

“We have not lost hundreds of millions of dollars on the hockey contract,” then CBC head Hubert Lacroix said in 2015 testimony at the Senate communications committee. “We lost a few dollars.”

“When you look at the broadcasting rights and the cost to produce hockey, and the revenues on the other side, and when you look at it over six years, we didn’t make money on this contract,” Lacroix testified.

At the time, senators questioned Lacroix’s claim.

“If you can’t make money on hockey in Canada, I don’t know what you could make money on,” Senator Michael MacDonald (Conservative-N.S.) stated. “This was very poor management.”

Other ex-CBC executives saw the HNIC loss as disastrous.

“The loss of hockey is going to have serious financial consequences,” said ex-CBC exec vice-president Richard Stursberg while testifying to the Senate communications committee. “You not only lose the profits from hockey, you also lose your capacity to sell the rest of your advertising at reasonable prices.”

“The way you would do it is you’d say, ‘If you would like to have hockey, then you have to buy this dog over here that nobody wants.’ I would say, ‘But I don’t want the dog,’ and you would say: ‘I’m sorry, you have to take the dog if you want the hockey,’” Stursberg testified. “So, hockey is not only important in its own right, it’s important because it props up the rest of the advertising sales.”

CBC’s main revenue source is a $1.2 billion annual parliamentary grant. Last year, the network saw ad revenues drop by 37%, from $178 million to $112.5 million.

The briefing note to Rodriguez included a draft report from the CBC, which cited its “cornerstone of culture and democracy” claim.

“CBC continues to face financial pressures,” staff wrote.

Only the Communist Broadcasting Network could lose money in an inept attempt to broadcast hockey in Canada.  I am 100% onside with Erin O'Toole defunding this money losing PR wing of the liberal government. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, mowich said:

CBC loses in the billions after HNIC fallout

 

The article says:

They are out $2B in revenue over 12 years.

It also says that the contract would have cost $4B.

It sounds like Rogers overpaid and the CBC dodged a $2B loss.  I posted this elsewhere and there was no response from the CBC haters.  Also if you hate CBC but love Don Cherry, note that Rogers fired him after CBC gave him a pulpit for almost 40 years.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2020 at 12:18 PM, mowich said:

Hey taxme - good to see you in this forum too - always happy to see your insightful and on point comments.  Now I am off to CC to raise more hell.  :D

Cool man. ;) I saw your name over there. It sure is nice to know that there is at least another real and true conservative here on this website. I enjoy sparring with the "woke" ones here. It is truly an exercise in futility at times, but I am enjoying it. I have a right to my opinion and points of view just like they should be allowed to do also. I will not be silenced by them. Sadly, the feelings that I get from some members here is that I should have no right to my personal opinions and points of view. I must speak and be only "woke" or else. I guess that one must assume that they do not really believe all that much in freedom of speech, just their version of freedom of speech. I am "woke'" alright,  just not their version of "woke". Aw well. ;) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, taxme said:

Cool man. ;) I saw your name over there. It sure is nice to know that there is at least another real and true conservative here on this website. I enjoy sparring with the "woke" ones here. It is truly an exercise in futility at times, but I am enjoying it. I have a right to my opinion and points of view just like they should be allowed to do also. I will not be silenced by them. Sadly, the feelings that I get from some members here is that I should have no right to my personal opinions and points of view. I must speak and be only "woke" or else. I guess that one must assume that they do not really believe all that much in freedom of speech, just their version of freedom of speech. I am "woke'" alright,  just not their version of "woke". Aw well. ;) 

You have every right to your personal opinions and points of view.  Those whose personal opinions and points of view indicate that yours are ridiculous are also well within their rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The article says:

They are out $2B in revenue over 12 years.

It also says that the contract would have cost $4B.

It sounds like Rogers overpaid and the CBC dodged a $2B loss.  I posted this elsewhere and there was no response from the CBC haters.  Also if you hate CBC but love Don Cherry, note that Rogers fired him after CBC gave him a pulpit for almost 40 years.

Don Cherry was given the boot because he said something that appeared to be oh so politically incorrect for the crybaby leftist liberal elite establishment to handle. Don did not pick on anyone or any certain group. Don picked on everybody including white people. But the CBC needed something on Don to fire him because they were starting to have concerns about him and his political incorrectness at times and this now gave them their big opportunity to get rid of him. Don Cherry was just too politically incorrect "woke" for that other politically correct "woke" gang of leftist liberal censor crowds. They finally got Don and this has been nothing more than a "woke' tragedy and an assault on freedom of speech in Canada. I find that most Canadians are not "woke" but are fast asleep. Just my own personal conservative "woke" opinion and point of view. And that is my "woke' news opinion for today.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You have every right to your personal opinions and points of view.  Those whose personal opinions and points of view indicate that yours are ridiculous are also well within their rights.

Darn right that I have a right to my own personal opinions and points of view. But to some members here, they appear to believe that I should not have any rights to my personal opinions and points of view that differ to their's. I must speak "woke" only. Myself, I have found that many members have posted many ridiculous comments here, and that is their right to do so. Did I ever say that they did not have the right to post their own opinions and points of view? If I have do show me will you. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, taxme said:

Darn right that I have a right to my own personal opinions and points of view. But to some members here, they appear to believe that I should not have any rights to my personal opinions and points of view that differ to their's. I must speak "woke" only. Myself, I have found that many members have posted many ridiculous comments here, and that is their right to do so. Did I ever say that they did not have the right to post their own opinions and points of view? If I have do show me will you. :)

How do they plan to stop you, other than telling you where you are wrong?  Are they coming round your place with torches and pitchforks?  How did they know where to go?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...