Yeah, its generally called 'Climate Change' now, because the scientists and statiticians who were previously calling it 'Global Warming' couldnt explain why temperatures have been going down in recent years, and so rather than reconsider their own belief system, changed its name instead.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Jeremy Tonks <[email protected]> wrote: > ** ** ** ** ** ** ** > > This is what I was reading… it’s seriously laughable – especially when you > actually read the original research. The press release is a total > fabrication!**** > > ** ** > > http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2011/111128JacobsWalnut.html**** > ------------------------------ > > *From:* **[email protected]** [mailto:**[email protected]* > *] *On Behalf Of *Marcus Chantry > *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:40 AM > *To:* **[email protected]** > *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]**** > > ** ** > > Stats can be made to support any agenda that a person wants to push. > Climate Change is the perfect example of how both sides can manipulate > statistics to support their own agenda. **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On 20/12/2011, at 08:36 , Jeremy Tonks wrote:**** > > > > **** > ************** > > You’ve missed the point Lee ;)******** > > ** ****** > > How much is he being paid?******** > > ** ****** > > I’m not sure 1 game without him this season gives us any statistical > validity?!******** > > I think I’d like to see which games he missed (as in opponents) as well.** > ****** > > ** ****** > > ** ****** > ------------------------------ > > *From:* **[email protected] <[email protected]>** [mailto: > **[email protected]**] *On Behalf Of *Morris, Lee SGT > *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:30 AM > *To:* **[email protected]** > *Subject:* [NSWolves] Karl Henry Stats [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]**** > **** > > ** ****** > > *UNCLASSIFIED********* > > Whilst on the subject of statistics, did anyone else see the Karl Henry > stats on Mol Mix?******** > > ******** > > Are these stats too much of a coincidence????******** > > ******** > > ******** > > *2010-2011 - With Karl Henry* > P28 ( + 1 sub ) > W7 ( 21 points ) > D6 ( 6 points ) > L16 > Pts: 27******** > > ******** > > *2010-2011 - Without Karl Henry** > *P9 > W4 ( 12 points ) > D1 ( 1 point ) > L4 > Pts: 13 points > > > *2011-2012 - With Karl Henry* > P 14 > W3 ( 9 points ) > D2 ( 2 points ) > L9 > Pts: 11 > > *2011-2012 - Without Karl Henry* > P1 > W1 ( 3 points ) > Pts: 3******** > > ******** > > ******** > > ** ****** > > *IMPORTANT*: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence > and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If > you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the > sender and delete the email.******** > ------------------------------ > > *From:* **[email protected] <[email protected]>** [mailto: > **[email protected]**] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy Tonks > *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:21 > *To:* **[email protected]** > *Subject:* RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] > [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]**** > **** > > I’m not going to put ****Sunderland**** in that basket for a few more > weeks yet…******** > > …and the wages statistics still tell me that Sh*te will fall on their > collective backsides sooner rather than later J**** > **** > > ** ****** > > ** ****** > ------------------------------ > > *From:* **[email protected] <[email protected]>** [mailto: > **[email protected]**] *On Behalf Of *Morris, Lee SGT > *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:15 AM > *To:* **[email protected]** > *Subject:* RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] > [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]**** > **** > > ** ****** > > *UNCLASSIFIED********* > > There lies the problem because first the Baggies and now ****Sunderland*** > * have nicked the obvious candidates...we have dithered too much....****** > ** > > ** ****** > > *IMPORTANT*: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence > and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If > you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the > sender and delete the email.******** > ------------------------------ > > *From:* **[email protected] <[email protected]>** [mailto: > **[email protected]**] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy Tonks > *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 07:13 > *To:* **[email protected]** > *Subject:* RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] > [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]**** > **** > > You raise good points Lee but you fail in the usual way… just who is it > that is going to replace MM?******** > > ** ****** > > ** ****** > ------------------------------ > > *From:* **[email protected] <[email protected]>** [mailto: > **[email protected]**] *On Behalf Of *Morris, Lee SGT > *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:09 AM > *To:* **[email protected]** > *Subject:* RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew [sec=unclassified] > [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]**** > **** > > ** ****** > > *UNCLASSIFIED********* > > So using this theory, West Brom are 8 places above where they should be, > simply because they found a bloody good manager to replace the dross they > had previoulsy....I rest my case.******** > > ******** > > Again using ****West Brom**** as an example, we were just about on equal > terms when they appointed their current manager whilst we continued to > battle along with MM.******** > > ******** > > Of course wages make a difference, as the table below shows, BUT the need > for higher quality should have been staring MM and Steve Morgan in the face > after the struggle last season...I blame Morgan for jumping the gun with > the stadium...rather than spending more on players, but I understand the > timing aspect re the economy......I blame Mick for the way we play...its > horrible sub standard stuff...I think I enjoyed the championship more.**** > **** > > ******** > > ******** > > ** ****** > > *IMPORTANT*: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence > and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If > you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the > sender and delete the email.******** > ------------------------------ > > *From:* **[email protected] <[email protected]>** [mailto: > **[email protected]**] *On Behalf Of *Steven Millward > *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 05:31 > *To:* **[email protected]** > *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew**** > **** > > I've taken my points on to Molineux Mix if anyone's interested > http://molineuxmix.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?t=66061 > > Here's some more interesting data in the table below. > > League rank is the position that the team finished in the league > Wage rank is the position forecast by wages > > You'll notice that wages are a great predicitor of league position. > 10 teams are within one position of their prediction. > 15 teams are within two positions of their prediction > 18 teams are within three positions of their prediction. > > I've sorted the table by the last column which is the difference between > the league and wage ranking. The teams at the top are the ones that > seemingly outperformed their resources. > > You'll notice all the "good" managers are near the top of the list: > Hodgson - Pulis - Redknapp - ********Ferguson******** - *McCARTHY* > > The way I see if you can say that *either* management is important and > Mick is a good manager *or* management is unimportant. > > There's no room to say that managment is important and Mick is a bad > manager because the facts don't support it. > > Team..........League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference > ****West Brom****..........11..............19................8 > Fulham................8...............11.......... ......3 > Stoke................13...............15.......... ......2 > Spurs..................5................7......... .......2 > Man Utd..............1................3............... ..2 > Wolves..............17...............18........... .....1 > ****Blackpool****...........19...............20........... .....1 > Arsenal...............4.................5......... .......1 > Everton..............7.................8.......... ......1 > ****Wigan****...............16...............16........... .....0 > ********Newcastle********..........12...............12............ ....0 > ****Bolton****...............14...............14.......... ......0 > ********Chelsea********..............2.................1.......... > .....-1 > ********Birmingham********.........18...............17............ ..-1 > ********Man**** ****City********.............3.................2.............. > .-1 > ****Liverpool****.............6.................4......... ......-2 > ****Sunderland****.........10................8............ ....-2 > Aston villa...........9.................6...............-3 > ****Blackburn****...........15...............12........... ....-3 > West Ham..........20................8...............-12******** > > On 19 December 2011 15:03, Paul Crowe <[email protected]> > wrote:******** > > Hughes’s Granny would be better than MM!******** > > ******** > > Maybe we should just enlist a local Gypsy as replacement for MM, as our > teams performance depends on luck and other dubiously explained factors, > nothing at all to do with the Manager and his coaching skills?******** > > ******** > > Paul Crowe******** > > Sales Manager - ****Asia**** Pacific******** > > ******** > > ConTech (Sydney Office)******** > > ******** > > ********PO Box**** 3517************ > > ****Rhodes**** Waterside******** > > ****Rhodes**** NSW 2138******** > > Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542******** > > Mob: 0406009562******** > > Email: [email protected]******** > > Website: www.contechengineering.com******** > > ******** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On > Behalf Of *Steven Millward > *Sent:* Monday, 19 December 2011 2:52 PM******** > > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew******** > > ******** > > Hold the front page. What a scoop!******** > > On 19 December 2011 11:09, Paul Hart <[email protected]> wrote:******** > > I spoke to my mate last night in Penn he heard Hughes was there. ******** > > ******** > > Well just have to wait and see. > > Sent from my iPhone******** > > > On 19/12/2011, at 11:05 AM, Steven Millward <[email protected]> > wrote:******** > > He dared to make a positive comment about Wolves and the filter kicked > him out. I've hacked it. > > Where is that rumour from?******** > > On 19 December 2011 11:00, Paul Hart <[email protected]> wrote:******** > > > Why were you bannned Matthew ? > Did you dare to ask for the head of MM > > Has anybody else heard the rumour > That Mark Hughes was at the Stoke > game ??? > > > Sent from my iPhone > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out.******** > > ******** > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out.******** > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out.******** > > ******** > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out.******** > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out.******** > > ** ****** > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out.******** > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out.******** > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out.******** > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out.******** > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out.******** > > ** ** > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out.**** > > ** ** > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > **** > ************** > > ** ** > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > -- Boo! Thick Mick Out.
