Jeremy what's the view on intelligent life on other planets? We seem to be discovering a lot that potentially host life. Seems a very big place just for us.
On 22/12/2011, at 5:02 PM, "Rog & Reet" <[email protected]> wrote: > Does that include the sun not getting rid of earth in approx 5 billion years? > > > > We’re getting a celestial message on Sunday morning. > > The tail of comet Lovejoy, is there a message in that name or what!!!!, can > be seen in the south eastern sky around 4:30am. > > It’s a wonder the usual flips and cranks haven’t started spreading their > bollix yet. > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Jeremy Tonks > Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2011 4:46 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > > > I would have thought that that meant that God put it here and no one else can > get rid of it… > > > > …just my reading of the text? > > > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Steven Millward > Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2011 4:40 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > > > the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved Psalm 93 > > the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved Chronicles > 16:30 > > > > I think that was the objection > > On 22 December 2011 16:34, Jeremy Tonks <[email protected]> wrote: > > I’m not convinced it does say that exactly? > > The Bible certainly gets lots of other things wrong: > > Eg it is naïve enough to talk about the sun going up and going down – I mean > how stupid and outdated is that? > > > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Steven Millward > Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2011 4:30 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > > > I stand by my analogy. It was written in the bible that the earth was at the > centre of the universe. No amount of scientific evidence could have > convinced the court otherwise. > > > > > > > > > On 22 December 2011 16:15, Rog & Reet <[email protected]> wrote: > > Oops, the perils of multi-tasking. > > That last line should have read. > > > > You can’t possibly be holding anything back as Galileo did, Kepler’s laws, > that would have helped prove his point. > > > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Rog & Reet > Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2011 3:39 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > > > Tell us it ain’t so. > > You can’t possibly be holding anything back as Galileo did, Kepler’s laws, to > prove his point. > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Steven Millward > Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2011 2:29 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > > > Maybe it's the event of the change that itself that it detrimental. New > person in, worries amongst players etc, gap when there is no manager. > > > > l feel like Galileo when he was accused of heresy for saying that the Earth > went round the sun and not the other way around. > > > > I realise that the view that the manager is of enormous importance to a > football team's performance is long-held and has been with you all probably > since childhood (it's not written in the Bible is it Jeremy?) And I know it > is hard to let go of, but all of the scientific evidence says that it's just > not the case. > > > > I've not nothing to gain from proving this, as based on this, whether we keep > Mick or change him makes bugger all difference. I'm just doing it in the > spirit of enlightened discussion. > > > > > > > On 22 December 2011 14:08, LEESE Matthew <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > But I didn't think managers could have a measurable impact on > results/performance? > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Steven Millward > Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2011 1:47 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > "Overall, these results suggest that on average, a change of manager that > takes place within-season tends to have an adverse effect on the results of > matches played within the same season" > > > > http://books.google.com.au/books?id=GxyG0XXdvR4C&pg=PA289&lpg=PA289&dq=effect+of+changing+football+managers&source=bl&ots=j3S4sq1oQA&sig=Z8SrIJJ3fNzaJGFiKBI6ppRGHrQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rJjyTqm4JMahiAfQ5ry1AQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=effect%20of%20changing%20football%20managers&f=false > > On 22 December 2011 13:44, Steven Millward <[email protected]> wrote: > > "So in the Premier League, at least, there is a boost for a short honeymoon > period and then performance dips back – and indeed slightly below the level > that it was before the club changed manager." > > "Overall, changing manager seems to have a negligible effect on how well the > club does over the longer-term. Indeed, if we look at the Premier League > since 1992, it would appear that clubs do rather less well once the initial > honeymoon period has passed than they did before changing their manager." > > http://www.wbs.ac.uk/downloads/news/2009/10/what-is-the-impact-of-changing-football-manag.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > On 22 December 2011 13:39, Steven Millward <[email protected]> wrote: > > "when looking at change [of football manager] events, contrary to theoretical > expectations, we find that change in the short term leads to a brief reprieve > in poor performance only for performance to deteriorate in the long term as > underlying weaknesses once again take hold." > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00668.x/pdf > > > > "Statistical evidence suggests that the gains from changing managers are > marginal, if indeed there are any at all" > > > > http://fifawcnews.com/news/footballs-short-term-hire-and-fire-approach-to-managers-suits-no-one/ > > > > Surely one of you doubters has a shred of factual evidence to disprove me? > > > > On 22 December 2011 12:48, Rog & Reet <[email protected]> wrote: > > Spurs were crap for a long time then they got Arry who of course made no > difference. > > > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Steven Millward > Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2011 10:43 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > > -- Boo! Thick Mick Out.
