Concacaf Nations League #1: Canada vs Curaçao- Thursday, 9 June, 7:30 pm PT / 10:30 pm ET - BC Place, Vancouver

[ddoouugg]

22 minutes ago, The Beaver 2.0 said:

True story: My brother, who is the same security guard mentioned above, started his career in forestry but lasted only a week or so.  On his first gig in the field (somewhere near Edson, AB) he was in the old growth on his own when he realized a bear had been tracking him for several miles.  He decided then and there he was not cut out for the job. (He did not come into direct contact with the bear, but he can verify that there was life in that there old growth forest.)

And that is the The Beaver's (mostly useless) contribution to this discussion.

Go Bears!

Edited June 11, 2022 by ddoouugg
better picture

[CanadianSoccerFan]

 

[Gian-Luca]

 

[Bdog]

4 hours ago, The Beaver 2.0 said:

FWIW, my brother is a security guard in town and does a lot of training of new recruits. Due to ongoing labor shortages, he says many of the security operators are hiring folks who are not suited for the job at all.  

And that is The Beaver's (mostly useless) contribution to this discussion.

On a positive note, I loved the Liberian dudes sitting behind us, waving their flag and shouting out to Davies on the two corners and goal. 

I've noticed a lot of very non intimidating looking people (to put it lightly) doing security these days, a lot of them have no idea what they're doing either. I saw Megadeth a few weeks ago and literally the second I sat down, the security guy told me I apparently jumped UP over a barrier to get to my seats lmao, I had to basically yell at him to fuck off. I guess everyone with long hair looks the same to him or something. The guy below me in the pit asked him how long he's been doing his job and he said it was his first day after working at Best Buy, I don't think he's suited to work a metal concert.

Also a security at a York game told us we were "too loud" before, does that make much sense? I feel like a lot of these new guys think they're cops or something lol.

[footballfreak]

1 hour ago, clamlinguine said:

Hahaha...yeah maybe. I prefer environments that support wildlife. That's my bias. You like to look at old, dying trees. For me, hydro dams are enemy #1, easy human access is enemy #2. Everyone is against pollution of course.

Dunning-Kruger effect in action. 

[clamlinguine]

1 minute ago, footballfreak said:

Dunning-Kruger effect in action. 

Did you read the "yeah...maybe " part? Kinda shoots down your little theory.

[clamlinguine]

30 minutes ago, footballfreak said:

Dunning-Kruger effect in action. 

Dunning-Kruger effect, in psychology, a cognitive bias whereby people with limited knowledge or competence in a given intellectual or social domain greatly overestimate their own knowledge 

 

Still confused?

[footballfreak]

24 minutes ago, clamlinguine said:

Dunning-Kruger effect, in psychology, a cognitive bias whereby people with limited knowledge or competence in a given intellectual or social domain greatly overestimate their own knowledge 

 

Still confused?

Nope. Not at all. Just working with the limited reactions available. Board could really use an eye roll emoji.

You don’t know what you are talking about re: old growth, and frankly you don’t even seem to know what old growth is. But you clearly have strong opinions about it and want to share your “knowledge” with all of us. That is textbook Dunning-Kruger. Saying “maybe” to couch your bad takes after the fact, before uttering more misinformation in the very next sentence, doesn’t somehow negate your overconfidence in ignorance.

 

[clamlinguine]

32 minutes ago, footballfreak said:

Nope. Not at all. Just working with the limited reactions available. Board could really use an eye roll emoji.

You don’t know what you are talking about re: old growth, and frankly you don’t even seem to know what old growth is. But you clearly have strong opinions about it and want to share your “knowledge” with all of us. That is textbook Dunning-Kruger. Saying “maybe” to couch your bad takes after the fact, before uttering more misinformation in the very next sentence, doesn’t somehow negate your overconfidence in ignorance.

 

😂You really think you're something.  Here's what I wrote just prior to your snide comment.

Hahaha...yeah maybe. I prefer environments that support wildlife. That's my bias. You like to look at old, dying trees. For me, hydro dams are enemy #1

 

Laughter... the word maybe... I prefer... even admitted bias! Just admit you improperly invoked Dunning-Kruger or maybe you don't understand the term.  Beyond that, please regale us with some old growth forest truth. lol

Edited June 11, 2022 by clamlinguine

[footballfreak]

4 hours ago, clamlinguine said:

c

Lame. Old growth forests are an unnatural anomoly anyway. The best thing that could happen environmentally would be for them to burn down so new growth and new life can take over.

Clearly demonstrates you don’t understand what old growth forests are at a basic level.

1) Literally no idea wtf unnatural “anomoly” is supposed to mean when referring to a a natural ecosystem.

2) A forest fire doesn't suddenly turn an old growth forest into a secondary growth forest. It’s still an old growth forest. One of the many benefits of old growth is it much more resilient to forest fires. Forest fires are a part of the system.

3) “so new life can take over” Old growth forests are constantly dying and being reborn. What are you even talking about?

 

3 hours ago, clamlinguine said:

I favour maintaining wilderness areas. Old growth forests are kind of sterile areas that are overdue to be burned down, naturally. But whatever, preserve away if you prefer pretty pictures to vibrant ecosystems. Myself, I'm ok with logging nowadays with the new standards and shutting down access roads thereafter. 

Old growth forests are particularly prized because of their greater biodiversity than secondary growth, but go on...

Reminder from above that forest fires are not the magic wand that destroys old growth. Human industry is. No activists are out there trying to protect old growth from forest fires. Nature takes care of that pretty well.

3 hours ago, clamlinguine said:

Hahaha...yeah maybe. I prefer environments that support wildlife. That's my bias. You like to look at old, dying trees. For me, hydro dams are enemy #1, easy human access is enemy #2. Everyone is against pollution of course.

“I prefer environments that support wildlife.” One of the strangest takes I’ve ever seen on this board, which is saying a lot. The clear implication is that secondary growth somehow supports wildlife better than old growth. It doesn’t. At all. Anyone who has ever gone hiking in secondary growth stands can attest to what a barren moonscape it is. So yes, whether you realize it or not, you keep saying things that have zero basis in reality.

49 minutes ago, clamlinguine said:

😂You really think you're something.  Here's what I wrote just prior to your snide comment.

Hahaha...yeah maybe. I prefer environments that support wildlife. That's my bias. You like to look at old, dying trees. For me, hydro dams are enemy #1

 

Laughter... the word maybe... I prefer... even admitted bias! Just admit you improperly invoked Dunning-Kruger or maybe you don't understand the term.  Beyond that, please regale us with some old growth forest truth. lol

I don’t think I’m something. I just don’t like people spreading misinfo. 

Feel free to watch it all for a primer.

[clamlinguine]

4 minutes ago, footballfreak said:

Clearly demonstrates you don’t understand what old growth forests are at a basic level.

1) Literally no idea wtf unnatural “anomoly” is supposed to mean when referring to a a natural ecosystem.

2) A forest fire doesn't suddenly turn an old growth forest into a secondary growth forest. It’s still an old growth forest. One of the many benefits of old growth is it much more resilient to forest fires. Forest fires are a part of the system.

3) “so new life can take over” Old growth forests are constantly dying and being reborn. What are you even talking about?

 

Old growth forests are particularly prized because of their greater biodiversity than secondary growth, but go on...

Reminder from above that forest fires are not the magic wand that destroys old growth. Human industry is. No activists are out there trying to protect old growth from forest fires. Nature takes care of that pretty well.

“I prefer environments that support wildlife.” One of the strangest takes I’ve ever seen on this board, which is saying a lot. The clear implication is that secondary growth somehow supports wildlife better than old growth. It doesn’t. At all. Anyone who has ever gone hiking in secondary growth stands can attest to what a barren moonscape it is. So yes, whether you realize it or not, you keep saying things that have zero basis in reality.

I don’t think I’m something. I just don’t like people spreading misinfo. 

Feel free to watch it all for a primer.

Good.  Content. Maybe you'll do better in biology than in psychology. I'll let you know. Guessing I'm heading for a dose of propaganda fit for a goalpost chain job.

[clamlinguine]

47 minutes ago, footballfreak said:

Clearly demonstrates you don’t understand what old growth forests are at a basic level.

1) Literally no idea wtf unnatural “anomoly” is supposed to mean when referring to a a natural ecosystem.

2) A forest fire doesn't suddenly turn an old growth forest into a secondary growth forest. It’s still an old growth forest. One of the many benefits of old growth is it much more resilient to forest fires. Forest fires are a part of the system.

3) “so new life can take over” Old growth forests are constantly dying and being reborn. What are you even talking about?

 

Old growth forests are particularly prized because of their greater biodiversity than secondary growth, but go on...

Reminder from above that forest fires are not the magic wand that destroys old growth. Human industry is. No activists are out there trying to protect old growth from forest fires. Nature takes care of that pretty well.

“I prefer environments that support wildlife.” One of the strangest takes I’ve ever seen on this board, which is saying a lot. The clear implication is that secondary growth somehow supports wildlife better than old growth. It doesn’t. At all. Anyone who has ever gone hiking in secondary growth stands can attest to what a barren moonscape it is. So yes, whether you realize it or not, you keep saying things that have zero basis in reality.

I don’t think I’m something. I just don’t like people spreading misinfo. 

Feel free to watch it all for a primer.

Exactly like I said. I am partial to wildlife habitat. This forest is great if you're a mushroom, but if you're an elk there's nothing there for you. Not even good for a chipmunk for crying out loud. But if you like old dying trees and fungus...fill yer boots. Hopefully a forest fire will rage through soon. 😂

Btw...you see the age of his logged forest example. Lots has changed since then. Are there plans to clearcut something out there? What's the issue? I hike through modern clear cuts and there's lots of wildlife thriving in the willows. Bear, elk, grouse, you name it. 

Edited June 11, 2022 by clamlinguine

[Unnamed Trialist]

I think anyone Canadian on the pitch who can beat defenders to both far and near post and hold their position, even when defenders arrive, deserves our admiration. 

[costarg]

17 hours ago, Obinna said:

Hamilton?

I think there was like 1 give and go that led to a goal, right?  That's the only flash i've seen of them combining, and they've had several chances.  I'd expect more considering how many games they've started together as attackers, especially when you consider the level of the opponents they've faced. 

I think i've seen David and Davies attack together as the front two once, and that was utterly terrifying for opponents (also vs the USA) 

Edited June 11, 2022 by costarg

[ag futbol]

On 6/10/2022 at 9:03 PM, clamlinguine said:

c

Lame. Old growth forests are an unnatural anomoly anyway. The best thing that could happen environmentally would be for them to burn down so new growth and new life can take over.

I always thought those 100 year old red woods would look good as my coffee table /s

[clamlinguine]

On 6/12/2022 at 12:14 PM, ag futbol said:

I always thought those 100 year old red woods would look good as my coffee table /s

Yeah yeah...put them through a planer before they burn down and send all that CO2 into the air. Very green idea!🙂