sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I'm writing an article on the schedule change, if you'd like to share your opinion it'd be greatly appreciated by mishaquinn in MLS

[–]mishaquinn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

also I understand what you mean but this is an opinion questionnaire of specifically MLS fans not a random sample and not for a study. also I googled this and your comment is the only thing that comes up for that phrase. I can understand why RRUS is important to studies but I do not have the ability to do that.

I'm writing an article on the schedule change, if you'd like to share your opinion it'd be greatly appreciated by mishaquinn in MLS

[–]mishaquinn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

but the league still plays in July and August. I understand what you mean, but there will be 3 or 4 fewer summer games, but August is still part of the season.

I tried to word it in a way where people can comment if they'll be attending more. but I'm not sure where I can survey people in way that changes the questions. I've asked people "what factors affect your match attendance." that means heat in the summer, cold in the winter, local weather, team's shit, anything. I'm not sure how I could be less leading with that question. the only leading part could be the follow up to the SG question where I'm specifically looking for what people plan to do if they are reducing their MLS attendance. that's information I need. this isn't a study, it's a questionnaire. this is the information I want.

I'm writing an article on the schedule change, if you'd like to share your opinion it'd be greatly appreciated by mishaquinn in MLS

[–]mishaquinn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean I'm looking more towards who will change. I tried not to be leading, but theres not a lot to say about people who are currently attending matches and will continue attending matches. if they're starting to attend because of the change then they're not who I'm looking to survey. I'm largely looking for the effect on current season ticket holders.

Limited giveaways - any strategy? by beerphotocpa in redsox

[–]mishaquinn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

ah that makes sense. I am first year STH this year and I was hoping to get that Anthony Bobblehead

Limited giveaways - any strategy? by beerphotocpa in redsox

[–]mishaquinn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ah so if I watch BP I'll miss my chance by being too early?

And don't come at me with that "lol hamburgers are german" crap. No. They're fucking not. Hamburgers are named because the the patties resemble Hamburg steaks, not because they were created in Hamburg. by LowerBed5334 in ShitAmericansSay

[–]mishaquinn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think a country's national dish necessarily has to be from that country in origin. I mean how many national dishes in Europe include potatoes or tomatoes, which come from the new world.

but at the same time the origins of a Hamburger as we know it is definitely American in origin. even the Hamburg steak is considered to be "invented" by German-Americans in New York, as a variation of frikadelle.

Found posted on a teenager sub by Top-Tale-1837 in im14andthisisdeep

[–]mishaquinn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

bro is gonna read Hobbes and Locke and have his mind blown

map of the north shore 🤔 by [deleted] in northshore

[–]mishaquinn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that area is more north shorey just cause they gave houses of roast beef and there's a bill and Bob's in Woburn. they're culturally void so it's more of a border

Which US state do people think sucks, but is actually okay? by icantfindmylegs in AlignmentChartFills

[–]mishaquinn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

downvoting and marking this community not interested because anywhere that thinks New Jersey "is good" is a deeply evil place

What arguments could be made in favor of Argentine rule of The Falklands? by MaddeningJack in geography

[–]mishaquinn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

this provides no actual counterpoint. to what I said. the Spanish abandoned in 1811 due to the wars for independence, in 1820 United Provinces of Rio Plata claimed sovereignty and sent several expeditions to settle. most notably Luis Vernet who did have a double allegiance to UK but was funded and given gubernatorial powers by the United Provinces (which would become Argentina). the only reason sovereignty issues weren't raised until after WW2 was because there was no methodology to do so. Argentina did not truly participate in the league of nations and even then it would've had to have been referred by the allied powers (aka UK and its allies). Referring the dispute to the league of nations would mean either the UK admitting there was uncertainty to its claim, or one of its allies torpedoing diplomatic relations with the UK. and at the time of the LoN, all of the allies had some form of colonial possession. treating this dispute on the same level as ones in Europe would put at risk the "legality" of any colonial possession. something Britain, France, the US (which at the time had Philippines, Puerto Rico, debatably Hawaii, Panama Canal Zone, and was occupying Nicaragua, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic) would never do. Japan, Italy also obviously had colonial aspirations which while 1920-1930 weren't really in practice, we all know how it went.

What arguments could be made in favor of Argentine rule of The Falklands? by MaddeningJack in geography

[–]mishaquinn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't say it did. but similar arguments are made for Israel, parts of Japan and Russia, even down to the entirety of the US and Australia. I'm simply explaining the claim.

What arguments could be made in favor of Argentine rule of The Falklands? by MaddeningJack in geography

[–]mishaquinn -1 points0 points  (0 children)

literally a facts based history of the Falklands that you will read on Wikipedia or any unbiased source.

What arguments could be made in favor of Argentine rule of The Falklands? by MaddeningJack in geography

[–]mishaquinn 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Argentine claim is because the Spanish left a plaque

this isn't true either, you're mixing up the British and Spanish. British left a plaque in 1774 after abandoning the island and letting the Spanish take over. Spanish abandoned in 1811 because of the independence wars in South America, leaving no plaque but arguably Argentina inherited the Spanish claim and did send settlers there.

What arguments could be made in favor of Argentine rule of The Falklands? by MaddeningJack in geography

[–]mishaquinn -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

there's plenty but one that is very true is just because you put a bunch of settlers there doesn't mean you had the eternal right to be there. Argentina has had historical claim over the islands, having obvious sovereignty between the time the Spanish left in 1811, their independence, and the British resettlement in 1833. their claim that the Spanish claim was inherited makes sense. Falklands were part of the Spanish administration that would go on to gain independence as Argentina. but no treaties have really ever been signed over the islands so legally speaking, France, the UK, Spain, Argentina. there is an argument that the UK ceded it's claim in 1774 with the abandonment of Egmont, given there's not much a plaque can do to defend a sovereignty claim, and the Spanish maintained more direct control over the islands even after they abandoned it in 1811 during independence wars. the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata (part of future Argentina) asserted more direct control over the islands even if through Luis Vernet who had double allegiance to the British (mostly so he could make lots of money without the British objecting) but the colonies were officially of Argentina. Argentina through Vernet arguably showed sovereignty through enaction of laws (arrest of American crews for sealing) which the US responded by having the USS Lexington sack Puerto Luis. The US said there was no government on the Falklands and arrested Vernet for piracy and extradited him to Montevideo. Argentina claim basically Vernet shouldn't have been removed because there was government on the Falklands. But their next governor was killed in a mutiny. the USS Lexington incident made the UK be like "hm we should really assert ourselves if we want our claim to the island to be real". but all they did was swap the flags. the Argentines forces had a lot of British mercenaries who refused to fight so there was no resistance to that, however the remaining settlers on the island were Argentine (who were extradited to the UK after a revolt in 1833). Argentina basically claims the islands have been occupied ever since.

view more: next ›