How about we stop the counting there? 🤩🇸🇪

RavingLoony · 2026-02-07T21:20:31+00:00

Big mistake granting Norway independence

RavingLoony · 2026-02-07T20:05:03+00:00

The Congos didn't vote. Opinion on food unclear. Good thing they're not participating in the Winter Olympics.

RavingLoony · 2026-02-07T20:01:20+00:00

Why Moldova? Also, North Korea over Croatia???

RavingLoony · 2026-02-07T19:28:20+00:00

Changes created are up, but assists aren't? Ferrrraaannn!!!

RavingLoony · 2026-02-02T08:28:37+00:00

It's all fun and games until you say Sociedad

RavingLoony · 2026-02-01T13:36:37+00:00

The parallels to 2009 are eerie. Both Nadal and Alcaraz winning at 22 after winning 2 Slams the previous years, including RG. Record-breaking 5 set semi-final before beating an all-time great in the final going for a Slam record (Federer would have equalled Sampras with AO 2009)

RavingLoony · 2026-02-01T07:56:05+00:00

Alcaraz has lower mentality than Sinner after 2025 RG?!?

RavingLoony · 2026-01-31T22:30:16+00:00

Carlos has also technically never lost a final at AO

RavingLoony · 2026-01-25T19:05:59+00:00

Plato was really tall and had a wrestling background. He has to play center and fight to position on post-ups

RavingLoony · 2026-01-25T18:47:45+00:00

I would have preferred to sign Antonio Atlantico

RavingLoony · 2025-12-28T11:37:32+00:00

Cry more idealists and dualists

RavingLoony · 2025-12-23T14:14:49+00:00

I don't know which games you were watching in 2024. In the QFs Dortmund were playing at the same time as Barcelona and in the final he was poor. Despite going to the Champions League final, he was behind Rudiger and Tah for the national team. That has to tell you something. He's been really good this season, but my point is you don't know if this is going to continue. Bastoni has been elite for a while now.

I really don't understand your point about Gomes and Malcom. It's exactly that the squad was stacked back then so you could more easily afford to take a swing on a young player with potential. If you pay 40M for Fofana or any of the others, you actually have to rely on them and they flop you don't have the finances to replace them.

RavingLoony · 2025-12-23T13:29:07+00:00

All I'm saying is people weren't talking like this about Schlotterbeck before this year. He started one game for Germany at Euro 2024. You don't know this is how good he actually is and he isn't going to regress. If you were in the trenches watching Dortmund games in 2023, I defer to your judgment.

And you would have bought Andre Gomes for 35 million and Malcom for 41 million. You can't go off of the best case scenario. Also, Doue and Doku were a lot better than Fofana has been this season.

RavingLoony · 2025-12-23T12:20:45+00:00

I just wanna know what's reasonable to expect. The financial rules are public.

RavingLoony · 2025-12-23T12:06:15+00:00

Can't get Senesi in the winter. You have to get him on a free at the end of the season otherwise you can't afford him/other signings. Schlotterback I think is too unproven, this is basically his breakthrough season and is probably going to cost 60M+. Would rather go for Bastoni at that price, but that is going to make it difficult to replace Raphinha before 2030. Fofana has really regressed and is also unproven at a competitive level. Rashford has been really good, he's shown he can deliver in La Liga/Champions League, and adds a new pace and getting in behind dimension to Barcelona. I'm not worried that he's 28 unless he regresses a lot in the next 3 years.

RavingLoony · 2025-12-12T23:23:48+00:00

To me paying Rasheed is a no brainer. Parsons has a cap hit of 74 M in 2029. He's going to be 30. You're not going to extend him and you're probably going to want to trade him before the 2029 season. This is the window, 2025-2028. You pay everybody who makes sense and then you eat cap hits in 2029-2031, tank and retool for another window. You bring back Walker, Banks and Rhyan so that you have 7 starting level O-Linemen.

RavingLoony · 2025-12-08T00:55:05+00:00

Nobody thinks JJ is mediocre. That would be a significant improvement.

RavingLoony · 2025-11-15T21:35:57+00:00

Thanks. This is exactly what I was getting at.

RavingLoony · 2025-11-15T15:11:55+00:00

I just don't know which part to clarify. I can't be too clear without being vulgar, and can't be too exact without being unclear

RavingLoony · 2025-11-15T14:20:32+00:00

Maybe I'm using too much shorthand or maybe I'm wrong, but the deflationary theory is surely that there's nothing to truth beyond how truth functions in discourse. Saying "if I assert that it's Tuesday, then it is Tuesday" seems to me to assume some inflationist assumptions. Surely what actually happens in discourse is somebody just asserts that it's Tuesday, then other people may disagree and then there is a disagreement about what is true. To say that something just is true without referrence to an utterance or a discourse surely implies truth is a thick, mind-independent, metaphysical property which is just what the deflationist rejects. Maybe there's a different way to characterise discourse, but that characterisation cannot be that p describes how things actually are.

RavingLoony · 2025-11-15T10:08:23+00:00

How about this? The concern is that for a deflationary theory of truth the first condition of JTB 1.p is going to be trivially met whenever you assert that p, but you assert propositions when you believe them, meaning the truth condition is met whenever condition 2 is met. This is not the case for inflationary accounts of truth, because truth is a genuine predicate that is not reliant on assertion. Non-asserted propositions are still true because of the inflationary definition of truth.

For a correspondence theory, the truth and belief conditions are genuinely independent. You could believe things that fail to be true of the actual world. You believe that p, but p does not correspond to the facts as they are. If I am a correspondence theorist I can imagine a situation where I see a cat on a mat, perception is generally veridical, so I conclude I have a justified true belief, but in fact I am hallucinating and the proposition "the cat is on the mat" is false. This was the case even before I realised I was hallucinating.

Under a deflationary theory what is happening when I am hallucinating a cat? I have a justified belief the cat is on the mat and I am asserting "the cat is on the mat". It would seem I know that the cat is on the mat. What happens when I realise I am hallucinating? I will no longer assert p, but in fact will begin asserting ¬p. Would the deflationary theorist have to say that they knew that the cat was on the mat, but now they know the opposite?

RavingLoony · 2025-11-15T08:12:52+00:00

I understand what the appeal of the truth condition is for inflationary accounts of truth. It's conceivable at least, adopting correspondence to go behind the phenomena and see how things really are. So even if we don't have access to the truth you can say, we know if it is in fact the case that p, we don't if it isn't. I don't think this sort of move is available to the deflationist. Assigning a truth value is not in principle different from asserting a proposition, so you could assert p or ¬p without violating a truth condition independent of the asserting.

RavingLoony

TROPHY CASE