₦airaland Forum

man city are useless!

see musa running circles around mangala & fernando

patwilly:
lol. the gods be with you my brother. peace.

may the gods of your ancestors be with you too.

patwilly:
And there he goes again, spewing sh!t like a lose Cannon. you are a very small boy coogar! in your little mind you are the Albert Einstein on Man utd. matters. this is a forum and I have as much right to quote and be quoted as you! You dont own this forum, neither does your father. Nobody has a monopoly of knowledge. you dont neither do I.

for mere mortals like you, i am your god. if we add the variable that you are autistic, then you should bow down & worship me day and night. you are a fool - i have had it up to here surf mannerless gits like yourself coming online to criticise opinion. if you don't like what i say, move past it & drop your own opinion. didn't they teach you e-manners in the mental hospital you currently dwell?

Sometimes accepting someone's else opinion doesn't make you stupid, it rather shows you are intelligent enough to appreciate circumstances backed by hard evidence. Rooney has always made more sense than Mata in whatever system Man U has applied since the latter came to the club. its as clear as daylight to any honest, discerning fan. that doesn't make him a bad footballer, just one probably not suited for the intricacies of play of both coach and teammates alike.. and oh dont go quoting statistics from those harebrained sites of yours because sometimes, statistics are like a bikini, they hide more than they actually reveal. I'm done with you. Be wise boy!

you are a tröglodyte....
you are the last piece of shyte i would gain something from. never knew you even existed until today - and from your utterances, it's hard to see any intelligent bone in your body. you are as useless as valencia's left foot!

mata has done very well in the little time he's spent here. it's funny how a player's stock rises while not playing. "if rooney had played yesterday, we woulda won 20-0". he played against leicester & contributed nothing. patwilly, if you marry a fool like yourself - you would add to the population of morons on the planet.

carefreewannabe:
Suddenly you remember what happened before January / February?

Liar!

i remember you now.
it just came to me - thanks to my eidetic memory. you were the woman in the submission thread. the one who vowed never to submit to any man till i laid out the principle.

you used to be bubbly & graceful - what happened to you? did you suffer a monumental heartbreak recently?

How many women? Two!

one chic working for the tax office was so mad at you she nearly placed a curse on you.

I haven't damaged my brain with too much weed like you.

weed is too cheap for a dude like me.
try harder....

You want to teach me?
After you claimed that life in Kuwait is better than in Germany?

germany is about to go bankrupt - haven't you been reading the news. the whole world is laughing at germany as we speak.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/1801663_imagescaq4q2x9_jpege17046760ad1c146f600d664fda234a3

https://persephonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/shirley-temple-giggles.gif

carefreewannabe:
I have known you for your outstanding talent at sciolism.

sciolism? i doubt you understand what that word is and if you do.....it applies more to you than anyone else on here. how many times have i warned you not to just go on the net & scoop out irrelevant links....

wait a bloody minute, weren't you the fatso that argued for weeks that women are discriminated against in nigeria concerning wages? nigerian women said they weren't discriminated against but you roared on cos of one stupïd link you were bandying.

Latest studies prove otherwise.
Tick tock Coogar your sperm is going bad.

i cannot help you then....
if the age of the study is your concern & not the proper steps taken to reach the conclusion then i have to leave you to it. i think my job here is done.

patwilly:
You'd do well to keep your mouth shut! I'm done keeping up with your pseudo analysis. Mata was in no mans' land yesterday. Rooney would certainly have made a difference and it is clear the team misses him . I know you dont like losing arguments but here's one you'd have to lose. Until the majority of us Man u fans are satisfied with Mata's contribution per game, you'd do well to keep low with the Rooney/Mata comparisons. I won't tell you again.

i have nothing to say to you other than the fact that you are a moròn. what effrontery - what gives you the right to quote me - are you a tröglodyte? do i even know you....speak to me only if you are spoken to.

what a rëtard!!!

RuuDie:
Abeg, abegm abeg don't start... LVG had 'em all too. He chose to sell them. So don't even go there, if you are satisfied with this pile of p00; leave it at that!

LVG had vidic & rio? or evra who had already made up his mind after united spent £28m on
the fat boy from southampton?

RuuDie:
@ coogar, elampiro.
Both of you have fair points.
Yes Rafael's positioning ensured Berahino was on-side. But Jones was the closest man to Berahino before that pass came and that 'charge-out' made the westbrom striker free, ultimately costing us that goal. If he had stayed in place, Berahino would not have had a 'free ride' straight to our goal!
Jones should have just maintained his position!

ruudie, jones came charging out & left 35 yards of space the opponent can exploit. berahino quickly occupied the space jones left behind & the rest was history.

if the other 3 had moved in unison leaving rafael only, then rafael is 100% at fault. however, jones wasn't setting an offside trap. he just charged out without communicating to the others thus leaving a big hole between rojo & rafael.

that type of defending is criminal.....

carefreewannabe:
I will GLADLY leave the animosity aside the day you learn to be less gender biased.
Until then all my efforts would be in vain. I tried talking to you in a nice way for years.

talk to me in a nice way for years? i didn't even know you in february. coogar's gender-bias angle is a reckless accusation. i give my opinion as accurate as possible regardless of gender. who gives a hoot about gender?

You are AGAIN showing how biased you are here. Why haven't you had the same objections when studies presented maternal age as a risk factor? Why haven't you questioned their methodology?

there was nothing to question - every man & his dog know that a woman is at a higher risk of birth defects if she leaves it too late. are you saying the level of risk is the same for both genders, since you don't want to be gender-biased?

carefreewannabe:
There are new studies that eliminated the age factor of mothers focusing on fathers with women younger than 35 and 30.

It is funny you didn't make the same objection when you quoted research on maternal age as risk factor.

let's leave the animosity aside....

show me that new study where the age of the mother was lower than 30 & where the behavioural attitude of the mother while pregnant was considered as well.

a drug-addict 19 year old babe is as likely to produce a child with a birth defect as a 60-year old woman. that is the point the research, not me & TV01, is stressing. the research itself exposed the flaws of the studies you posted, i did not.

carefreewannabe:
Your sources are older than mine.

Latest research has considered all these factors

Unlike you who only considers other factors when it comes to paternal age but never to maternal.

the source is not the problem but how accurately the experiment was conducted. were the other factors capable of causing birth defects controlled to isolate the older dads?

older dads most likely means older moms & since older moms are capable of producing kids with birth defects then the experiment is flawed. that's the point here as stated clearly in the research study.

carefreewannabe:
Educated people do.
As you can see the year of publication is very important in this context and as statistics can be manipulated the source should be even more important.

the year of publication means shyte in this context.....the steps taken to get the results is the crux of the matter.

How can an ignoramus understand it?
Really?
But it is right to make this conclusion for older moms who are rarely married to younger men.

this is the graph again, i can see you are struggling to cope with the pace of the duscussion....


[img]http://igniss.blog.hr/slike/l/autizam_sizofrenija_i_dijabetes_s_muskom_dobi.png[/img]

the red line is almost linear with a slight increase as the age rises. for the women(black line), there's a sharp increase after a certain age.

you better go & freeze your eggs before it's too late. genetically, you are already likely to birth an autistic child even if you have had a baby at 20......leaving it till 40 means you might be the first woman to give birth to a goblin.

carefreewannabe:
@bold

The sources you provided are older than mine.

Do you now get why providing a source is important?

who cares about sources?
all i know is statistics can always be manipulated to suit whatever agenda evil ewoks like yourself want to achieve.

it would be wrong to form a conclusion on older dads with older moms on birth defects. you have to keep the age of the moms lower than 30 to accurately see whether older dads are prone to birth defects & if yes - how much!!!

TV01:
Hmmm...

Although this study sounds plausible, I don't think I can objectively write of all the other studies. Even the last two links Carefreewannabee posted (not the Daily Mail ones), seemed scientifically conclusive that age was a factor in male fertility a lá sperm quality.

Maybe we should be looking for something more recent? Althpugh there seems to be a body of evidence to support age related deterioration in men - or are we quibbling over how much, not if?

TV

yes, we are discussing how much effect do older dads have on birth defects. there are other variables that weren't looked into in the older studies.

•the maternal age of the partner of the older dad
•prenatal care initiation,
•maternal smoking
•drugs during pregnancy.
•alcohol drinking during pregnancy

all these factors were not put into consideration in the older studies. they just plated statistics on the kids with the birth defects and the age of the dads.....they even ignored the age of the mothers. how's that accurate enough?

carefreewannabe:
@bold
So you really think medical researchers were so dvmb that they would not take the age of mothers into consideration?
Keep deceiving yourself but hurry up, your sp*erm is going bad.

yes, they ignored it....according to this research.


There has been a long-running debate about the association between paternal age and birth defects. Some studies have failed to adequately control for maternal age, and have suffered from high levels of missing paternal age, raising concerns over selection bias.

This paper analyzes an anonymously case-controlled dataset with 98% complete parental age data, originally collected to investigate the association between parental exposure to birth defects.

In our methods the cases and controls were matched on maternal age to within 6 months, and conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio associated with a 10-year increase in paternal age.

Our results showed the estimated odds ratio for a birth defect pregnancy associated with a 10-year increase in paternal age was 1.13, 95%CI (0.85, 1.52). There was no statistically significant evidence of an association between paternal age and birth defects, but the estimated association was positive. The size of the estimated effect is considerably smaller than the effect of maternal age.

carefreewannabe:
Coogar came to this thread and posted a diagram about the risks of down syndrome by maternal age and he was feeling like a genius but he was too re*tarded to think of other birth defects such as, for example, autism and schizophrenia.

you must have been born spiritually blind.

[img]http://igniss.blog.hr/slike/l/autizam_sizofrenija_i_dijabetes_s_muskom_dobi.png[/img]

on the graph says A S D(red line)

a = autism
s = schizophrenia
d = diabetes

TV01:
I don't agree with the bolded.
There is a biological clock for men - even if it's only in terms of the quality of their sperm. Although I see your point in terms of an absolute ability to procreate.
I'd also agree that a mans clock (and thus window) is slightly more favourable and probably more amenable to lifestyle change enhancements.
And as noted, a couple with two older partners has even more risks and potentiual issues along the procreation chain.
TV

this is the research results....


BACKGROUND: Although the association between maternal age and the risks of birth defects has been well studied, the evidence from population data linking paternal age with birth defects was limited and inconsistent.

METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of 5,213,248 subjects from the 1999-2000 birth registration data of the USA. Multiple logistic regressions were used to estimate the independent effect of paternal age on all birth defects and 21 specific defects groups after adjusting for potential confounding of maternal age, race, education, marital status, parity, prenatal care initiation, maternal smoking and alcohol drinking during pregnancy.

RESULTS: A total of 77,514 (1.5%) birth defects were recorded in the study cohort. The adjusted odds ratios were 1.04 (1.01, 1.06), 1.08 (1.04, 1.12), 1.08 (1.02, 1.14) and 1.15 (1.06, 1.24), respectively, for infants born to fathers 30-35, 40-44, 45-49 and over 50 years (test for trend, P = 0.0155),

when compared with those infants born to fathers aged 25-29 for any birth defect. Advanced paternal age was associated with increased risks of heart defects, tracheo-oesophageal fistulaoesophageal atresia, other musculoskeletal/integumental anomalies, Down's syndrome and other chromosomal anomalies.

Fathers under 25 years of age were also at increased risks of spina bifida/meningocele, microcephalus, omphalocele/gastroschisis and other musculoskeletal/integumental anomalies.

CONCLUSIONS: Infants born to older fathers have a slightly increased risk of birth defects. Young paternal age is also associated with slightly increased risk of several selected birth defects in their offspring. However, given the weak association, paternal age appears to play a small role in the aetiology of birth defects.

TV01: Just read through all the links. Interesting, although nothing new in an overarching sense – both men and women have optimal marriage/childbirth windows - but informative in the additional detail and the insight given to the hows and whys.

there's little or no truth in the biological clock of men. several other researches have proven there's no significant risk of down syndrome in men older age unlike the women. a woman's biological clock ticks 1,000 times faster than that of men.

[img]http://igniss.blog.hr/slike/l/autizam_sizofrenija_i_dijabetes_s_muskom_dobi.png[/img]

look at the red line(men) and black line(women). whose is worse?? there are hundreds of researches on the internet & in the cases where autism or down syndrome was found with older men, it was because the older men married older women.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12771769/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/6220960/?i=4&from=/19449414/related

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19449414/?i=8&from=/12771769/related

hollandis:
Do you reason at all?

your brain cells must be at the soles of your feet. contribute your own opinion & stop sniffing my own comments, doofus!

betterbest:
I didnt marry her to torment her. After the confession, i forgve her and we moved on but i never knw the thought will come back. Pls contribute constructively, I hope to find help here. The main issue here is that its just too difficult to forget the past.

and that is the reason you shouldn't have married her in the first place. you cannot complain - it's like you knowingly married a blind woman only for you to start complaining 2 years later that she cannot read. who does that?

you will have to build that trust in her. you chose to be with this woman. you made vows at the altar to be with her till death.... show some balls, be a man of your words.

incredibleone:
After 8 games: Moyes- 11pts Van Gaal-
12pts. Monies spent at same period.
Moyes- £27m Van Gaal- £152m. So
much for one point 😷"

moyes had vidic, rio, evra, kagawa, hernandez, welbeck, etc and he achieved nothing with them.

it's because of moyes we are in this mess in the first place. i would rather have the way we play now than the steamy pile of shytë moyes served.

leggo:
0 tackles
0 clearances
0 interceptions
Possession gained: 0 times
Possession lost: 9 times
Cost: £27m (rising to £31m)
Luke shaw first half stats

he's young just like januzaj
young players need plenty of time so they said......

freecocoa:
It's Africa aite but not Nigeria so I bet it would be a tad different than you think.
Answer me though, any chance of him getting laid there?

not a chance - if any attempt is made, it would constitute a good ground to have his custodial sentence converted into non-custodial. he's disabled!

AirborneLacer:
That's the point.

All his life, he's been competing against able-bodied athletes with thisame disability, shot Reeva with same disability, have been doing fine with same disability. Why now move away from the real judgement cos he is disabled?
With his money, he should be okay in the prison. The gang leader would do nada, Oscar just have to buy himself some protection for the next 5 years.

IMO, it's a fair judgement, if this was to be some broke disabled guy, dude would be getting 15 years imprisonment.

hehe!

freecocoa:
Story, I trust those men in there will find a way to get to him and even if they don't, confinement is punishment enough, I highly doubt he'd get the kinda treatment you trying to paint.

Like he's gon be gettin' p*ssy in there, duh!

this is africa, not obodo oyibo!
what kind of treatment would mikel obi get if he gets sent to prison. even the prison wardens would be queuing up to get oscar's autograph. he's a national icon in south africa.

SIRcumalot:
Let's stop inventing excuses for Mata he has played like crap and he'll be the first to admit.
At this rate I want Fellani to start the match against Chelsea at least if we don't get the Creativity that Mata Is supposed to produce we get Aerial presence and a better defensive job from Fellani.

put mata in the hole & he will excel....
it's as simple as that - i would still have mata behind 2-strikers against chelsea. fellaini can partner blind in the midfield.