Liam Fraser

[Obinna]

25 minutes ago, Bdog said:

Deleon's mindset is stupid and dangerous, if everyone had his anti vaxxer mindset we would end up enjoying this pandemic for even longer. Makes zero sense and sets an awful example as a pro athlete, at least most sports fans have no idea who he is and didn't see the quote.

lol you're going to want to stay away from Theo Fleury's twitter feed.

3 minutes ago, Dominic94 said:

Sounds like he’s just going to warm a different bench.

Isaiah Parente has exactly 0 first team appearances so far, at least according to wiki. Early days of course, so hard to draw much from that. Still, I think (or at least hope) they are bringing in Fraser with an expectation that he'll play. If he's merely coming in to replace Aidan Morris, it should be noted that he played 10 games last year in a shortened season. I sure hope Fraser plays at least that many games. Obviously he is behind Artur.

I just hope he can get a chance and run with it. 

Perry Kitchen apparently has a thigh injury, but not sure what the deal is on that. He's a player who Fraser would compete with directly that wasn't there last year.

[ag futbol]

I would not worry too much about DeLeon (anti-vax views aside).

With the exception of Delgado, Greg Vanney never really wanted to play anyone unless they where at least American Drinking age. And even then, they probably didn’t have his attention until they were in their mid 20’s. He’d happily trot out guys like DeLeon for 5/10 performances cause he couldn’t stomach the up-and-down nature of youth players. Never mind if they were down a goal at 5/10 was never going to get you there.

So the roster has a number of hold overs right now. I’d expect a lot of these guys to be moved out. Doesn’t look like Armas has anywhere near the same philosophy. 

it’s just a numbers game with Fraser. If Armas had arrived earlier maybe he would have got more burn. But right now, Fraser’s potential minutes are going to Priso and Okello and if I were the coach, not sure I’d see it any differently

[kacbru]

6 hours ago, Obinna said:

As for Liam Fraser being loaned to Columbus, I don't have a good feeling about that. Generally it doesn't go well when you get loaned to a team better than yours for playing time. We'll see though. Good luck to him!

In general, sure. For TFC, maybe not. 

[RS]

3 hours ago, Obinna said:

lol you're going to want to stay away from Theo Fleury's twitter feed.

Everyone should.

[LeoH037]

21 hours ago, Dominic94 said:

Sounds like he’s just going to warm a different bench.

He still has a better shot at playing time if he's not competing against Bradley/Priso/Okello

[Kadenge]

Can't understand why he decided to re sign with TFC after last season

[Dominic94]

1 hour ago, Kadenge said:

Can't understand why he decided to re sign with TFC after last season

He didn’t, they exercised their option.

[Shway]

1 hour ago, LeoH037 said:

He still has a better shot at playing time if he's not competing against Bradley/Priso/Okello

Delgado, Osorio.

All have and can play the holding position. Especially in the high pressure system.

[SpursFlu]

23 hours ago, Bdog said:

Deleon's mindset is stupid and dangerous, if everyone had his anti vaxxer mindset we would end up enjoying this pandemic for even longer. Makes zero sense and sets an awful example as a pro athlete, at least most sports fans have no idea who he is and didn't see the quote.

So shut up and dribble right

[king1010]

23 minutes ago, SpursFlu said:

So shut up and dribble right

He's free to say what he feels, and ppl are free to critique him for it. 

 

[TOcanadafan]

55 minutes ago, SpursFlu said:

So shut up and dribble right

There’s a big difference between speaking your mind on social/political issues vs. Speaking out against science (which is fact and knowledge based).  We wouldn’t be in this mess had politicians (and many in the general population) listened to the data and science community. 

[SpursFlu]

45 minutes ago, TOcanadafan said:

There’s a big difference between speaking your mind on social/political issues vs. Speaking out against science (which is fact and knowledge based).  We wouldn’t be in this mess had politicians (and many in the general population) listened to the data and science community. 

Yah its all our fault. Shame on us. Can't wait for those scientists to save us and give us our new way of life in order to save us from our dumb dirty self. "I need a hero!" Can't remember how the rest of that song goes but I think its from a movie in which the mayor banned dancing for everyone because someone died driving home from a dance.

Just a guy waiting for the scientists to save us so I can go watch a Whitecaps game. Tick tick tick

Edited May 1, 2021 by SpursFlu

[yomurphy1]

41 minutes ago, TOcanadafan said:

There’s a big difference between speaking your mind on social/political issues vs. Speaking out against science (which is fact and knowledge based).  We wouldn’t be in this mess had politicians (and many in the general population) listened to the data and science community. 

I piped up earlier because another commenter called DeLeon a prick and I now understand why.  I suspect none of us on this forum are well versed in the intricacies of mRNA vaccines. Your support of "science" is trust (or faith if you want call it) based, likely not a product of deep understanding.

Whatever hesitancy he has there's likely a lack of trust. That lack of trust may be well founded or not, I don't know the man and neither do any of you. If the goal is bring him to your side using the descriptors I saw (prick, stupid, dangerous) that is not a great way to do that. That said I suspect a little bit of petty cruelty on a random internet forum won't effect the man at all. 

I encourage and have encouraged friends and family members to get vaccinated in spite of some hesitancies. That discussion always starts with asking where they've gotten information, how long they've felt a certain way, and to really spell out their fears.  It does not begin with calling them pricks.  

But yes I like Liam, he's got talent but needs an extended run of games. Hopefully Columbus works out. 

[jordan]

[Bison44]

3 hours ago, SpursFlu said:

Yah its all our fault. Shame on us. Can't wait for those scientists to save us and give us our new way of life in order to save us from our dumb dirty self. "I need a hero!" Can't remember how the rest of that song goes but I think its from a movie in which the mayor banned dancing for everyone because someone died driving home from a dance.

Just a guy waiting for the scientists to save us so I can go watch a Whitecaps game. Tick tick tick

This brought to you by the guy saying his region in BC had had its CO-VID peak and was close to herd immunity last April.  

[TOcanadafan]

2 hours ago, yomurphy1 said:

I piped up earlier because another commenter called DeLeon a prick and I now understand why.  I suspect none of us on this forum are well versed in the intricacies of mRNA vaccines. Your support of "science" is trust (or faith if you want call it) based, likely not a product of deep understanding.

Whatever hesitancy he has there's likely a lack of trust. That lack of trust may be well founded or not, I don't know the man and neither do any of you. If the goal is bring him to your side using the descriptors I saw (prick, stupid, dangerous) that is not a great way to do that.

But yes I like Liam, he's got talent but needs an extended run of games. Hopefully Columbus works out. 

I agree that insulting someone is not the best way to convince them to change their thinking - and here is a more positive article that suggests strategies to sway then ‘non-believers’: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-best-evidence-for-how-to-overcome-covid-vaccine-fears1/

But I suspect that people get emotional/outraged because someone’s  ‘lack of trust’ (which also coincides with believing the rhetoric of anti-vaxxer crackpots who know nothing about the science of vaccines) can have an effect on the health and lives of other people.

So go ahead, don’t use a cell phone because you don’t trust either that you’ll die from the radiation or that the government is spying on you, but when your actions effect the lives of others, then expect some backlash.

And I too hope that Columbus works out for Liam. 

[lenny]

8 hours ago, yomurphy1 said:

If the goal is bring him to your side using the descriptors I saw (prick, stupid, dangerous) that is not a great way to do that.  

I could be wrong but I'm guessing the "goal" of someone posting on this forum probably isn't to convince Nick DeLeon of something.

More likely the goal was to describe Mr. DeLeon's actions accurately, in which case I believe they've been successful.

[Obinna]

14 hours ago, TOcanadafan said:

There’s a big difference between speaking your mind on social/political issues vs. Speaking out against science (which is fact and knowledge based). 

Like someone mentioned, there is a lack of trust, but framing that lack of trust as being "against science" is interesting, because he never said he was against science or didn't believe in it, he just said vaccines and pharmaceutical medications were not for him.

I have never met someone with vaccine hesitancy who was against science. It is all about personal risk versus reward. If your risk from the vaccine is greater than your risk from the thing you are vaccinating against, you're obviously not going to get vaccinated.

From that perspective his attitude makes sense.

10 hours ago, TOcanadafan said:

But I suspect that people get emotional/outraged because someone’s  ‘lack of trust’ (which also coincides with believing the rhetoric of anti-vaxxer crackpots who know nothing about the science of vaccines) can have an effect on the health and lives of other people.

You hit the nail on the head. The outrage comes from fear, but hopefully it works itself out with time, as those of us getting vaccinated become less fearful knowing we have an increased level of protection.

Anyways, the club responded to all of it very well. They respected his right to choose, while at the same time making it clear where they stand as a club, which is in support of the vaccines.

From a PR perspective that was the right play.

Edited May 2, 2021 by Obinna

[archer21]

On 5/2/2021 at 7:23 AM, Obinna said:

Like someone mentioned, there is a lack of trust, but framing that lack of trust as being "against science" is interesting, because he never said he was against science or didn't believe in it, he just said vaccines and pharmaceutical medications were not for him.

I have never met someone with vaccine hesitancy who was against science. It is all about personal risk versus reward. If your risk from the vaccine is greater than your risk from the thing you are vaccinating against, you're obviously not going to get vaccinated.

From that perspective his attitude makes sense.

You hit the nail on the head. The outrage comes from fear, but hopefully it works itself out with time, as those of us getting vaccinated become less fearful knowing we have an increased level of protection.

Anyways, the club responded to all of it very well. They respected his right to choose, while at the same time making it clear where they stand as a club, which is in support of the vaccines.

From a PR perspective that was the right play.

I hate that I’m finally being goaded into one of the Covid threads but here we go.

The section that I bolded is why he’s “against science”. Anyone whose opinion is based on the science would not think their risk from the vaccine is greater than their risk from the thing they are vaccinating against. 

[narduch]

Fraser loan to Columbus is official.

[Unnamed Trialist]

4 hours ago, archer21 said:

I hate that I’m finally being goaded into one of the Covid threads but here we go.

The section that I bolded is why he’s “against science”. Anyone whose opinion is based on the science would not think their risk from the vaccine is greater than their risk from the thing they are vaccinating against. 

I know someone in Spain, a wonderful colleague, who has polio. Because she is part of a generation in Spain that missed on the vaccines since Franco, apart from being a bloody dictator, also decided he was smarter than science in the mid 1950s. 

Of course he did not have a conscience so could care less about those thousands of individuals who have had to spend their lives with an extreme disability. 

Then, of course, since the Salk vaccine was invented in the early 50s, plenty of Spaniards got their kids shots privately, because the hypocrisy of a dictatorship enables that sort of mentality.

How much do you want to bet that 99% of those being "skeptical" got their polio shots when young and never have had to imagine what it means to have two good legs?

Maybe you can translate this...

https://www.publico.es/actualidad/polio-cincuenta-negligencia-del-franquismo.html

 

Edited May 3, 2021 by Unnamed Trialist

[Obinna]

5 hours ago, archer21 said:

I hate that I’m finally being goaded into one of the Covid threads but here we go.

The section that I bolded is why he’s “against science”. Anyone whose opinion is based on the science would not think their risk from the vaccine is greater than their risk from the thing they are vaccinating against. 

That's not necessarily true (and I hate that I am now keeping this side topic lingering, as Fraser's move is now official and we should focus on that), because one could fully understand how vaccine technology works without being down with it. Just because you can't fathom how someone could understand how vaccines work and be afraid of them doesn't mean other people see it the same.

Understanding the basics of vaccine technology is not rocket science. Some people simply don't want to take the risk of an adverse reaction, which is incredibly small (especially with traditional vaccine technology). Others are scared enough of whatever they are vaccinating against that it's a risk worth taking without thinking twice about it. 

He never made any mention of anything close being "against science", so we are putting words in his mouth.

Edit: besides, saying he is "against science" is kind of dumb, because it's just a vague statement that makes him sound like a Neanderthal, which I am sure is the point. But really though, what does that even mean? That he doesn't agree with or believe or doesn't understand the concept of your immune system mapping out a live or attenuated virus? Does he not comprehend statistics and thus can't grasp how incredibly unlikely it is that he'll have an adverse reaction? Is the issue biological science or statistical science?

These are rhetorical questions obviously, but I am sure I have made my point, which is that mockingly saying someone is "against science" is really nothing more than a lazy smear. Anyone who attends college has to do basic biology and probably some sort of statistics course, so unless he flunked out of these or somehow skipped them, I am certain he has the mental fortitude to understand how vaccines and medications work and the risks and rewards, but he simply (for reasons he hasn't clarified) chooses not to partake in them. 

In my experience, it is often the people without a science background who make vague and lazy statements like "against science". As someone with a science degree, it drives me nuts. You see the same thing with earth and environmental sciences. People without science degrees always cry "oh you don't trust the experts on climate change, you must be against science", as if science wasn't about asking questions and testing assumptions...grrr

People drive me nuts sometimes.

End rant and happy Monday

Edited May 3, 2021 by Obinna

[archer21]

1 hour ago, Obinna said:

That's not necessarily true (and I hate that I am now keeping this side topic lingering, as Fraser's move is now official and we should focus on that), because one could fully understand how vaccine technology works without being down with it. Just because you can't fathom how someone could understand how vaccines work and be afraid of them doesn't mean other people see it the same.

Understanding the basics of vaccine technology is not rocket science. Some people simply don't want to take the risk of an adverse reaction, which is incredibly small (especially with traditional vaccine technology). Others are scared enough of whatever they are vaccinating against that it's a risk worth taking without thinking twice about it. 

He never made any mention of anything close being "against science", so we are putting words in his mouth.

Edit: besides, saying he is "against science" is kind of dumb, because it's just a vague statement that makes him sound like a Neanderthal, which I am sure is the point. But really though, what does that even mean? That he doesn't agree with or believe or doesn't understand the concept of your immune system mapping out a live or attenuated virus? Does he not comprehend statistics and thus can't grasp how incredibly unlikely it is that he'll have an adverse reaction? Is the issue biological science or statistical science?

These are rhetorical questions obviously, but I am sure I have made my point, which is that mockingly saying someone is "against science" is really nothing more than a lazy smear. Anyone who attends college has to do basic biology and probably some sort of statistics course, so unless he flunked out of these or somehow skipped them, I am certain he has the mental fortitude to understand how vaccines and medications work and the risks and rewards, but he simply (for reasons he hasn't clarified) chooses not to partake in them. 

In my experience, it is often the people without a science background who make statements like "against science". As someone with a science degree, it drives me nuts. You see the same thing with earth and environmental sciences. People without science degrees always cry "oh you don't trust the experts on climate change, you must be against science", as if science wasn't about asking questions and testing assumptions...grrr

People drive me nuts sometimes.

End rant and happy Monday

What I mean is that people think they’re smarter than the people who spend their lives working on things. If the vast majority of scientists and doctors think that the benefits of the vaccine far outweighs the risk, then why would I think that I know better? 
 

Also, yes if you look at the numbers, they do back up that the risk of the virus is worse than that of the disease. I’m not sure how someone can look at the numbers of deaths worldwide from Covid vs the number of adverse reactions from the vaccine, and come to the conclusion that they’d rather not be vaccinated. So yes, I’d say those people are not able to comprehend statistics, or are just so biased that they intentionally ignore them.

[LeoH037]

oh my we're still on that topic? 🤣 I guess now's a good time as any to jump back on... I mean, ya'll can imagine how disappointed I was when I didn't grow an extra limb or something of sorts after getting my 1st shot, so bashing on anti vaxxers seems like a good way to vent that frustration... now, where were we... something about doctor google?

Edited May 3, 2021 by LeoH037

[Greatest Cockney Rip Off]

3 minutes ago, LeoH037 said:

oh my we're still on that topic? 🤣 I guess now's a good time as any to jump back on... I mean, ya'll can imagine how disappointed I was when I didn't grow an extra limb or something of sorts after getting my 1st shot, so bashing on anti vaxxers seems like a good way to vent that frustration... now, where were we... something about doctor google?

No extra limbs for me either after my first jab, although my mobile now picks up a 5G signal and I keep getting Microsoft pop ups.