The King is dead. Long live the King!

[um pahars]

The Wigley sentence is a cracker!!! Not even Sundance could come out with this view of how Rupes has been so unlucky with his managers!!

 

Do you still believe in Father Christmas Nick ??? :-) :-)

 

Thanks for highlighting that Wigley cracker;)

 

I gave up reading it after the first line when he couldn't even get right who Souness joined after he left us!!!!!!!

 

nickh has never been hot when it comes to facts;)

Edited 12 March, 2009 by um pahars

[PAULACZT]

Is this a fair assessment of how we got through managers?, IMO it is fair

 

Souness walked out, said to be unhappy at transfer budget, (RL denied that he had been told any budget) immediately walks into benfica job.No interview process just straight in..odd that

Dave Jones. Now tell me how RL could have kept him on? We have the Mc Donalds family centre, Ford acadamy (at that time) parents deciding whether to send their young lads to play in our acadamy, the players having their own kids, and then the Police drip drip of new offences being aimed at him. Even the fans who were supportive, in the main started to question as the 2nd raft of 10's of offences were published.No company would have been able to have kept him as manager, and at least we offered to support him during that time.Hoddle. Do i need to say more?

Gray. He had the opportunity to go with the rest who GH had taken away but turned him down as he was loyal to the club. RL rewarded that loyalty by giving him the job.i wasnt too impressed but there is nothing wrong in rewarding loyalty.RL was decisive in replacing him when things were looking bad.

WGS again he stated when he came that he would only be here for 3 years as he promised his wife so.WGS a man of his word carried that out.The news of him leaving destabilised the club and we couldnt get someone ready and it was all public , the results went on a steep decline, relegation form in fact.RL wished for GH to return, i like many others voiced our disgust.

Sturrock, was a brave/reckless decision similar to keane/Ince appontments.PS has statd recently that the pressure was too much for him and so he resigned.

Left again in the lurch Wigley was installed. He had rave reviews what he had achievedin the reserve set up, and glowing reports from the playing staff. Hit by a terrible run of injuries (a very unlucky period in time, 2-1 away at Arsenal in the injury time and van Persie hit a fantastic equaliser, Niemi injured pre the vital WBA game and his replacement makes 2 howlers and we only draw)he is replaced, perhaps too late but still over 20 games left.

HR an exciting appointment, the fans in the main were overjoyed we were to be saved, and should have been.

Basset/Wise caretaker. Showed nothing that they could improve things and after his outburst shwed why Wise would not be the man for us.

GB again welcomed by the fanbase.Left under LC again walked out on the club, no fault of ours.

NP taken on a short term contract(not immediately negotiated for longer by regime of time). Did adequate job, saved on last day, but united the fanbase.RL decides he wishes to use his own appointment

.

Jan under severe financial restraint, for long periods nearly worked.left too long before being nudges.

May I also respectfully add LC had 3 managers in less than half a season that makes his percentage even more ridiculous, so it is not quite as simple as you make out.

Wotte???

 

Just thought I would highlight some of the most unfortunately ironic prose ever on this forum....my word nick, did you actually read this through before posting??

[Tamesaint]

Just thought I would highlight some of the most unfortunately ironic prose ever on this forum....my word nick, did you actually read this through before posting??

 

I am just surprised that he didn't mention "medical grounds" in connection with Strachan's departure .... or conceding 5 goals to a team in a lower division in connection with Wigley.

[Wes Tender]

If he wasn't a Balliol man , I would think the latter. But someone as educated as him would surely not make such a mistake with his syntax.... would he?????

 

Somebody that educated would know that it was G K Chesterton, not C K.

 

Too many rum punches might produce such a typo though.

[PAULACZT]

Is this a fair assessment of how we got through managers?, IMO it is fair

 

Souness walked out, said to be unhappy at transfer budget, (RL denied that he had been told any budget) immediately walks into benfica job.No interview process just straight in..odd that

Dave Jones. Now tell me how RL could have kept him on? We have the Mc Donalds family centre, Ford acadamy (at that time) parents deciding whether to send their young lads to play in our acadamy, the players having their own kids, and then the Police drip drip of new offences being aimed at him. Even the fans who were supportive, in the main started to question as the 2nd raft of 10's of offences were published.No company would have been able to have kept him as manager, and at least we offered to support him during that time.

Hoddle. Do i need to say more?

Gray. He had the opportunity to go with the rest who GH had taken away but turned him down as he was loyal to the club. RL rewarded that loyalty by giving him the job.i wasnt too impressed but there is nothing wrong in rewarding loyalty.RL was decisive in replacing him when things were looking bad.

WGS again he stated when he came that he would only be here for 3 years as he promised his wife so.WGS a man of his word carried that out.The news of him leaving destabilised the club and we couldnt get someone ready and it was all public , the results went on a steep decline, relegation form in fact.RL wished for GH to return, i like many others voiced our disgust.

Sturrock, was a brave/reckless decision similar to keane/Ince appontments.PS has statd recently that the pressure was too much for him and so he resigned.

Left again in the lurch Wigley was installed. He had rave reviews what he had achievedin the reserve set up, and glowing reports from the playing staff. Hit by a terrible run of injuries (a very unlucky period in time, 2-1 away at Arsenal in the injury time and van Persie hit a fantastic equaliser, Niemi injured pre the vital WBA game and his replacement makes 2 howlers and we only draw)he is replaced, perhaps too late but still over 20 games left.

HR an exciting appointment, the fans in the main were overjoyed we were to be saved, and should have been.

Basset/Wise caretaker. Showed nothing that they could improve things and after his outburst shwed why Wise would not be the man for us.

GB again welcomed by the fanbase.Left under LC again walked out on the club, no fault of ours.

NP taken on a short term contract(not immediately negotiated for longer by regime of time). Did adequate job, saved on last day, but united the fanbase.RL decides he wishes to use his own appointment

.

Jan under severe financial restraint, for long periods nearly worked.left too long before being nudges.

May I also respectfully add LC had 3 managers in less than half a season that makes his percentage even more ridiculous, so it is not quite as simple as you make out.

Wotte???

 

Nick you have given me a real laugh tonight, but before I pop off to slumberland lets sum up your in depth analysis of our beloved saviour Rupert Lowe....

He is:

 

A protector of young players in the academy

A loyal chairman to his staff.

Decisive in replacing the aforementioned staff, that he has appointed, 'when things are looking bad'

Sometimes 'cant get someone ready, when its all public'

Sometimes makes brave/reckless decisions.

Gets left in the lurch a lot.

'Installs' reserve coaches.

Has unlucky periods.

Leaves it too late to replace people.

Has lots of 'walk-outs'

'Decides he wishes to use his own appointment' a lot.

Nudges managers.

 

To be fair...sounds like just the man we need!

[Daren W]

DOH!!! Go to the ack of the class as you have (once again - this is becoming rather frequent ) misunderstood/interpreted the post - possibly due to cutting the quote in HALF ...who knows... Nowhere have I said many cant distinguish between different points of view/arguments - I stated and its clear as day - that:

 

''The problem with so many on here is that if you say you support or are in favour of or even understand why - ONE thing was done in a certain way by a particular individual, everyone assumes you support EVERYTHING about that individual - some just dont seem willing or able to grasp that distinction... ''

 

See what I said there, 'grasp the distinction' between supporting someone wholeheartedly and supporting an element of what they represent.... and I stand by that, its why I and others are branded one thing or another because I happen to agree with some things and not others but that does not seem to stand in anyones way....

 

You do this time and time again UP, take a small snapshot of a quote out of context and twist and bend to try and undermine not an argument but the credibilty of the poster - which is kinda vindictive and a little sad that you feel its necessary to go down that route of attack in support of your POV... and suggestive that you have run out of rational argument?

 

Its actually quite sad that there is a mob mentality, as soon as someone comes on here and speaks in support of Lowe, there are many attempts to undermine personality, credibilty and a refusal to debate the issues rationally.... Which if anything undermines the point of this forum.

 

The point is Frank, I rarely see you chastising the likes of SundanceBeast and their wildly mis-balanced point of view but I do see you commenting on those fans who views are a bit more extreme in getting Lowe out. That's probably why you get tarred with the Lowe Luvvie brush.

In short, if you want to stay middle of the road then fine but if you keep veering to the right rather than the left, people are going to think you're a French driver rather than an English one...

[Frank's cousin]

And that is your problem, i.e. your constant use of the term many (e.g I doubt that will please many fans that want Lowe to fail so he can be kicked out again), when in fact nothing could be further fromt the truth.

 

It is your use of the term many that is actaully rather arrogant (and ignorant), as I doubt that there are many who want us to lose just so Lowe can be kicked out, and I also doubt there are many who think that just because you support one thing by a particular individual, they then assume you support everything about that individual.

 

Personally, I think the problem is more to do with how you perceive these posts, than the posts & posters themselves. You would do better to show some respect to the integrity & intelligence of your fellow supporters.

 

Why not provide a response that can be understood? I notice you ahve not actually answered any of the points... once again attempting to undermine it with semantics...How would you define many? from this thread the majority are trying to give NIneteen a kicking, the same as on EVERY thread where someone expresses the POV from the 'dark side' - remember this 'many' is a releative term as applied to posters on here - If its good enough for the 'antis' to suggest that because the majority on here have that POV thats its reflective of fans as a whole and representative of the fan base, it would likewise suggest if the 'majority' on here seem hellbent on stiffling debate with personal and at time juvenile rubbish, its fair to use the term. ;-)

 

Fine to called arrigant and ignorant, but if so it suggests the same for those making the sweeping 'anti' claims.....

[Mole]

Why not provide a response that can be understood? I notice you ahve not actually answered any of the points... once again attempting to undermine it with semantics...How would you define many? from this thread the majority are trying to give NIneteen a kicking, the same as on EVERY thread where someone expresses the POV from the 'dark side' - remember this 'many' is a releative term as applied to posters on here - If its good enough for the 'antis' to suggest that because the majority on here have that POV thats its reflective of fans as a whole and representative of the fan base, it would likewise suggest if the 'majority' on here seem hellbent on stiffling debate with personal and at time juvenile rubbish, its fair to use the term. ;-)

 

Fine to called arrigant and ignorant, but if so it suggests the same for those making the sweeping 'anti' claims.....

 

Any chance of a waffle free version?

[Frank's cousin]

The point is Frank, I rarely see you chastising the likes of SundanceBeast and their wildly mis-balanced point of view but I do see you commenting on those fans who views are a bit more extreme in getting Lowe out. That's probably why you get tarred with the Lowe Luvvie brush.

In short, if you want to stay middle of the road then fine but if you keep veering to the right rather than the left, people are going to think you're a French driver rather than an English one...

 

That a fair comment Daren. And I appreciate that you made it in such a balanced way. My response would be that When Sundance posted a while back, he seemed a just a tad... well extremely biassed, maybe it was his attempt to readdress the balance, but it was difficult to support it because the style and some of his points could easily be considered a wind up - I just stayed out of the resultant fray.

 

When Nineteen arrived, even if he was Sundance precviously, yup it was obvious he was fighting the Lowe corner from the off but it seemed more measured and thought out. I dont agree with everything he says, but I can see the logic in his argument. As I can see the logic in many of the antis argument when not resorting to the drivel such as 'hes a C***' - that does the antis no favours if looking to 'convert' the middle grounders or Lowe supporters - I just find it rather churlish that responses too often focus on insult, picking at the accuracy of oneliners and stats when these dont alter the principle or logic behind it, in attepmts to undermine the poster rather than debate the issue. UP tries that with me all the time, which would be funny if it didnt reduce the oportunity to learn and understand his perspective - this radicalisation defended as 'passion' just makes some a mockery of the whole argument - and thats true from BOTH sides.

 

TBH, I dont really care what anything thinks I am or believes about what or who I support, its just so feckin frustrating at times that the 'tag' just stops folk bothering to read and more importantly try to understand what you are saying - just respond with the undermining approach. Stops teh real debate and prevents both sides learning from each other.

 

I stand by the fact its not as clear cut as many (on here) would like to believe - I also think that in many cases our perspectives are at the very least influenced by how entrenched we are in the nostalgia that follows football - the desire to seize it back from the corporates, the money men and the world of buisness - those who see it fundementally as a community culture first and foremost. I cant argue and would not dream to against those ideals because in an ideal world I would want the same. I just have the opinion that its impossible to rekindle the past, if we want the benefits that go with the corporateization of the modern game - something that for a club of our size, ownership structure and lack of independent finance has to rely on to an even grater extent. It means decsions made in boardrooms are often at odds with what wise football fans and experts from within the game believe are the RIGHT decsions. Naturally, this does not defend genuine mistakes, but it is why I and others will defend some of the decisions because they see the logic behind them despite them being more commercially driven than footballing driven.

 

I guess that was my gripe when Wilde first came on the scene - he appealed to fans because a) they thought it was removing Lowe, but more importantly b) he made bold statements of gioving teh club back, football first in the agenda and all to be fuinded by the now legendary investors in the wings.... high sporting and football culture ideals but unrealistic in the corporate culture of teh modern game without having access to that funding. The same with Crouch, great and honorable statements that I am sure he genuinely believes in, but at the expense of what our modest means can maintain.

 

Instead we see points of genuine footballing interest eg the merits of Wotte and Pearson, turned into a Lowe v Crouch argument with Wotte and Pearson as the pawns in the game, followed by holes being picked in minoe stats to defend or attack Crouch and Lowe and we never get any closer acknowledgin the cons and PROs of either side.....

[Frank's cousin]

Any chance of a waffle free version?

 

Sorry forgot to do the cartoons for you to follow

[Mole]

Sorry forgot to do the cartoons for you to follow

 

That would be much appreciated.

[Nineteen Canteen]

You would do better to show some respect to the integrity & intelligence of your fellow supporters.

 

Using your usual methods I have lifted this comment from one of your posts.

 

Time the likes of Daren, Tame, Wes, Paula and yourself take your advice on board and people might feel it worthy to enter a genuine debate with you rather than be ridiculed for a few typos and 'rushed' grammar.

 

It seems to me the more intelligent / insightful comments from either side are probably posted by those with the least amount of time to check and re-check every post they make. Its a forum not a letter of complaint to your MP.

 

BTW on your cost cutting post you forgot to mention paying the staff wages. Cost cutting doesn't mean not spending anything.

[Tamesaint]

 

Time the likes of Daren, Tame, Wes, Paula and yourself take your advice on board and people might feel it worthy to enter a genuine debate with you rather than be ridiculed for a few typos and 'rushed' grammar.

 

 

Why don't you cut the length of your posts ?? If you spent more time checking what you wrote and less time banging on and on and on and on you wouldn't have to rush your grammar.

[Frank's cousin]

Why don't you cut the length of your posts ?? If you spent more time checking what you wrote and less time banging on and on and on and on you wouldn't have to rush your grammar.

 

All men truely know that length IS important ;-)

[Capel Saint]

That a fair comment Daren. And I appreciate that you made it in such a balanced way. My response would be that When Sundance posted a while back, he seemed a just a tad... well extremely biassed, maybe it was his attempt to readdress the balance, but it was difficult to support it because the style and some of his points could easily be considered a wind up - I just stayed out of the resultant fray.

 

When Nineteen arrived, even if he was Sundance precviously, yup it was obvious he was fighting the Lowe corner from the off but it seemed more measured and thought out. I dont agree with everything he says, but I can see the logic in his argument. As I can see the logic in many of the antis argument when not resorting to the drivel such as 'hes a C***' - that does the antis no favours if looking to 'convert' the middle grounders or Lowe supporters - I just find it rather churlish that responses too often focus on insult, picking at the accuracy of oneliners and stats when these dont alter the principle or logic behind it, in attepmts to undermine the poster rather than debate the issue. UP tries that with me all the time, which would be funny if it didnt reduce the oportunity to learn and understand his perspective - this radicalisation defended as 'passion' just makes some a mockery of the whole argument - and thats true from BOTH sides.

 

TBH, I dont really care what anything thinks I am or believes about what or who I support, its just so feckin frustrating at times that the 'tag' just stops folk bothering to read and more importantly try to understand what you are saying - just respond with the undermining approach. Stops teh real debate and prevents both sides learning from each other.

 

I stand by the fact its not as clear cut as many (on here) would like to believe - I also think that in many cases our perspectives are at the very least influenced by how entrenched we are in the nostalgia that follows football - the desire to seize it back from the corporates, the money men and the world of buisness - those who see it fundementally as a community culture first and foremost. I cant argue and would not dream to against those ideals because in an ideal world I would want the same. I just have the opinion that its impossible to rekindle the past, if we want the benefits that go with the corporateization of the modern game - something that for a club of our size, ownership structure and lack of independent finance has to rely on to an even grater extent. It means decsions made in boardrooms are often at odds with what wise football fans and experts from within the game believe are the RIGHT decsions. Naturally, this does not defend genuine mistakes, but it is why I and others will defend some of the decisions because they see the logic behind them despite them being more commercially driven than footballing driven.

 

I guess that was my gripe when Wilde first came on the scene - he appealed to fans because a) they thought it was removing Lowe, but more importantly b) he made bold statements of gioving teh club back, football first in the agenda and all to be fuinded by the now legendary investors in the wings.... high sporting and football culture ideals but unrealistic in the corporate culture of teh modern game without having access to that funding. The same with Crouch, great and honorable statements that I am sure he genuinely believes in, but at the expense of what our modest means can maintain.

 

Instead we see points of genuine footballing interest eg the merits of Wotte and Pearson, turned into a Lowe v Crouch argument with Wotte and Pearson as the pawns in the game, followed by holes being picked in minoe stats to defend or attack Crouch and Lowe and we never get any closer acknowledgin the cons and PROs of either side.....

 

Pretty measured post. On the whole I think Rupert Lowe has had his time and has run out of ideas at the club. He was an effective Chairman in getting the new ground from paper to a reality and very good at getting top cash when selling players, investing in training facilities etc. The main problem was setting up a plc to run the club. This has proved disastrous on many levels such as Boardroom wars (as we have and continue to see) with shareholders who cannot agree and all have different opinions of how they think the club should be run. This detracts any chance of outside investment and generally the club continually slides backwards rather than forwards. He has also managed to split the fanbase, has turned the official site into a 'spin' machine which has lot all credibility and sometimes his business arrogance gets the better of him as has been shown from time to time.

 

The reality is though is that the current structure of a plc running the club will not change unless firstly a consortium/rich individual us prepared to fork out enough money to buy the shares. Extremely unlikely. Or the club goes into admin which will most likely happen if Saints are relegated this season.

 

The only bright hope is if Wotte can keep us up and build and improve the team on a very limited budget and not forced to sell the better players in the squad. Otherwise we will go the same way as Crewe, Luton etc where they kept selling their best players, which weakened the team and they couldn't stay in the CCC.

 

So loathe/put up with/admire Lowe, although we as fans can rake over old ground, past mistakes/glories, nothing will change until one of the above happens.

[Daren W]

Using your usual methods I have lifted this comment from one of your posts.

 

Time the likes of Daren, Tame, Wes, Paula and yourself take your advice on board and people might feel it worthy to enter a genuine debate with you rather than be ridiculed for a few typos and 'rushed' grammar.

 

It seems to me the more intelligent / insightful comments from either side are probably posted by those with the least amount of time to check and re-check every post they make. Its a forum not a letter of complaint to your MP.

 

BTW on your cost cutting post you forgot to mention paying the staff wages. Cost cutting doesn't mean not spending anything.

 

Oh my god, you really couldn't make it up. Sundance Canteen going on about "genuine debate." Funniest thing I've read on here in ages...

 

Point Number One:

When you're droning on and on about the intelligence of other posters, it usually helps your cause if your own posts make sense and don't look like they've been written by a dyslexic twelve year media student. If people pick you up on your grammar, tough.

 

Point Number Two:

Genuine debate. Debate, genuine or cardboard cut out, usually involves the answering of questions; something you have gone out of your way to not do. Now it's either that you have no point to argue or you're not of sufficient intelligence to do so but it's mightily ironic (or moronic) that you're spending so much time pontificating about debate when you're doing your level best to avoid it...

Never mind, we do enjoy the cut and paste quotes...

[buctootim]

Oh my god, you really couldn't make it up. Sundance Canteen going on about "genuine debate." Funniest thing I've read on here in ages...

 

Point Number One:

When you're droning on and on about the intelligence of other posters, it usually helps your cause if your own posts make sense and don't look like they've been written by a dyslexic twelve year media student. If people pick you up on your grammar, tough.

 

Point Number Two:

Genuine debate. Debate, genuine or cardboard cut out, usually involves the answering of questions; something you have gone out of your way to not do. Now it's either that you have no point to argue or you're not of sufficient intelligence to do so but it's mightily ironic (or moronic) that you're spending so much time pontificating about debate when you're doing your level best to avoid it...

Never mind, we do enjoy the cut and paste quotes...

 

Wow. Even for a stringer your composition is really poor.

[Daren W]

Wow. Even for a stringer your composition is really poor.

 

Wow, that told me...

Are you two tag teaming me now? I'm not sure I could cope with two pedantic smart arses at once...

[Frank's cousin]

Pretty measured post. On the whole I think Rupert Lowe has had his time and has run out of ideas at the club. He was an effective Chairman in getting the new ground from paper to a reality and very good at getting top cash when selling players, investing in training facilities etc. The main problem was setting up a plc to run the club. This has proved disastrous on many levels such as Boardroom wars (as we have and continue to see) with shareholders who cannot agree and all have different opinions of how they think the club should be run. This detracts any chance of outside investment and generally the club continually slides backwards rather than forwards. He has also managed to split the fanbase, has turned the official site into a 'spin' machine which has lot all credibility and sometimes his business arrogance gets the better of him as has been shown from time to time.

 

The reality is though is that the current structure of a plc running the club will not change unless firstly a consortium/rich individual us prepared to fork out enough money to buy the shares. Extremely unlikely. Or the club goes into admin which will most likely happen if Saints are relegated this season.

 

The only bright hope is if Wotte can keep us up and build and improve the team on a very limited budget and not forced to sell the better players in the squad. Otherwise we will go the same way as Crewe, Luton etc where they kept selling their best players, which weakened the team and they couldn't stay in the CCC.

 

So loathe/put up with/admire Lowe, although we as fans can rake over old ground, past mistakes/glories, nothing will change until one of the above happens.

 

Think you have hit the mail on the head with PLC thing, because IMHO its sometimes why fans who probably agree on most things end up arguing...sounds confusing, but hear me out ;-). Sometimes, there is a debate where the PLC argument is raised - those anti plc present their case for why its a bad thing. I would suggest that there are actually very few who believe a PLC IS right for a club (the only advantages I see and like are the public access to audited accounts - we can keep tabs on them, and the opportunity for fans to own a small part of their club) - But these arguments come up against those who simply accept that we have it and cant as fans do anything about it (unless we buy up all the shares) and interpret it as an attack on the regime rather than the ownership structure itself - so two valid points yet subtly quite different being used by different sides of the argument and nobody being prepared to stop shouting or listen...

 

My take on it is perhaps a little simplistic - its less about the ownership structure and more about what they are doing - I am not fussed whether we are PLC, Ltd, partnership or cooperative if it meant we were wining and had success (although cooperatives tend to conjure up images of marxist or Trot student groups!)

[Capel Saint]

Think you have hit the mail on the head with PLC thing, because IMHO its sometimes why fans who probably agree on most things end up arguing...sounds confusing, but hear me out ;-). Sometimes, there is a debate where the PLC argument is raised - those anti plc present their case for why its a bad thing. I would suggest that there are actually very few who believe a PLC IS right for a club (the only advantages I see and like are the public access to audited accounts - we can keep tabs on them, and the opportunity for fans to own a small part of their club) - But these arguments come up against those who simply accept that we have it and cant as fans do anything about it (unless we buy up all the shares) and interpret it as an attack on the regime rather than the ownership structure itself - so two valid points yet subtly quite different being used by different sides of the argument and nobody being prepared to stop shouting or listen...

 

My take on it is perhaps a little simplistic - its less about the ownership structure and more about what they are doing - I am not fussed whether we are PLC, Ltd, partnership or cooperative if it meant we were wining and had success (although cooperatives tend to conjure up images of marxist or Trot student groups!)

 

The trouble is FC is that, if my understanding is right, an individual cannot just give a plc money, it would have to be a loan in which the club/plc would have to pay back. Also, as we have seen, it allows people who may not be best qualified to run a football club, the keys to the office.

 

As you say, the most important thing is what happens on the field of play. Lets hope Saints get back to winning ways!

[Nineteen Canteen]

Oh my god, you really couldn't make it up. Sundance Canteen going on about "genuine debate." Funniest thing I've read on here in ages...

 

Point Number One:

When you're droning on and on about the intelligence of other posters, it usually helps your cause if your own posts make sense and don't look like they've been written by a dyslexic twelve year media student. If people pick you up on your grammar, tough.

 

Point Number Two:

Genuine debate. Debate, genuine or cardboard cut out, usually involves the answering of questions; something you have gone out of your way to not do. Now it's either that you have no point to argue or you're not of sufficient intelligence to do so but it's mightily ironic (or moronic) that you're spending so much time pontificating about debate when you're doing your level best to avoid it...

Never mind, we do enjoy the cut and paste quotes...

 

In one post Daren you manage to confirm my previous remarks almost effortlessly although no doubt this was not a measured tirade. So by your logic, if you are dyslexic it's tough if people ridicule you for your bad grammar and spelling, what if there are even more serious reasons for people's mistakes in the composition of their posts, if mocking the dyslexic isn't bad enough?

 

Is it therefore moronic or intelligent if people like me choose to avoid debating issues with posters like yourself whose first line of attack is to question the validity of a person's opinions or intelligence by pointing out their grammatical errors quite so zealously. As I've mentioned before there is little point in trying to debate with some people whose views are so extreme and entrenched that they resort to abuse and ridicule when confronted with facts and opinions that they cannot retaliate with. [admin edit - sentence removed due to libel] It's another reason why I won't get drawn into a debate with you. I find you amusing and disturbing at the same time and hope you find the time to retract your comments about dyslexia.

 

You can find out more information from this site and there are a number of charities that would welcome your support through donations or simply collecting on their behalf.

 

http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/whatisdyslexia.html

 

Pity because if you had read my posts a few weeks ago with Wes and others then you would have witnessed me debating a path forward and both sides finding some middle ground. I find it difficult to understand why Wes has changed his tack with me again but to build bridges only to burn them again through ridicule and aggressive tirades goes to show that in a small way our fans are capable of disunity regardless of what goes on in the boardroom.

 

None of us are going to agree 100% about issues such as boardroom, players, managers, potential etc but it's the extremists who do the damage and most of those sit firmly with yourself. IMO you have no write (see what I did there) to represent the fans views in the Pink as it's a very very narrow minded band you represent. What do you call yourself? The Beautiful South? Now that is ironic.

Edited 12 March, 2009 by stevegrant
Libel

[Gemmel]

As I've mentioned before there is little point in trying to debate with some people whose views are so extreme and entrenched that they resort to abuse and ridicule when confronted with facts and opinions that they cannot retaliate with. .

 

 

:D:D:D:D:D

 

Are you psychsophrenic???

[Wes Tender]

Using your usual methods I have lifted this comment from one of your posts.

 

Time the likes of Daren, Tame, Wes, Paula and yourself take your advice on board and people might feel it worthy to enter a genuine debate with you rather than be ridiculed for a few typos and 'rushed' grammar.

 

It seems to me the more intelligent / insightful comments from either side are probably posted by those with the least amount of time to check and re-check every post they make. Its a forum not a letter of complaint to your MP.

 

BTW on your cost cutting post you forgot to mention paying the staff wages. Cost cutting doesn't mean not spending anything.

 

Yes, I'm pleased that you realise that this is a forum. It's a forum for opinions on every aspect of our football club. When a poster expresses an opinion on any matter, then of course they invite comment on that opinion from others. When somebody makes critical comments about others, then naturally they are inclined to respond as I am doing now to you, especially as you mentioned me by name as somebody you feel it is unworthy of entering a debate with purely, because I was critical of your typos or rushed grammar.

 

Dealing with the cause of your concern, you must realise as an intelligent person that it is not only what one says on a forum, but also the way that it is said that makes an impression, either good or bad, about a poster.

 

Although it is easy with a little assistance from Google to look erudite and well-educated by throwing in lots of pithy quotes from some of the best known authors, playwrights and philosophers, then obviously one is setting oneself up for a fall if there is a misquote or other error in one's source. By and large, those with a good grasp of the English language ought to be able to write something that is spelled correctly and makes good sense grammatically. But that does not mean that the point they are making is a good one, merely that it is conveyed in an intelligible manner.

 

Latitude is given to those who make sensible points and argue their position well, but whose grammar and spelling are sometimes faulty. I don't think Frank will mind me saying that he is the classic example of this. I have no problem at all with others who express views totally the opposite of mine, whether they use poor grammar and spelling or if their use of the language is exemplary, provided that they do so with courtesy and respect for others.

 

You feel that the most insightful and intelligent posts from either viewpoint are made by those with the least time available to check through their posts. This is typical of the sort of view that you express. It is just a feeling you have, possibly meant to inflame those posters you named, but having no actual concrete basis behind it. In fact it would more logically be the case that those who spend more time checking through what they are about to post, can simultaneously check that it makes good sense from the point of view of how it will be comprehended by others. It is possibly a very subtle way of saying "hey, I make typos and don't check my grammar, as I don't have enough time, therefore my opinions are amongst the most insightful and intelligent."

 

Personally, I think that you make this sort of comment because you feel that those you have named are perfectly capable of giving as good as they get from you, so you are making disparaging remarks about us as a defence mechanism.

[Wes Tender]

Pity because if you had read my posts a few weeks ago with Wes and others then you would have witnessed me debating a path forward and both sides finding some middle ground. I find it difficult to understand why Wes has changed his tack with me again but to build bridges only to burn them again through ridicule and aggressive tirades goes to show that in a small way our fans are capable of disunity regardless of what goes on in the boardroom.

 

 

I haven't changed my tack since then. I still believe that the club will not be unified while Lowe remains and ideally would like all of those who have been involved with the board these past few years to have no place on the board whatsoever, regardless of their shareholding percentage. The posts of Chairman and Chief Excecutive should be advertised forthwith and candidates interviewed by the major shareholders and the chosen ones would have a broad consensus behind them. In the interim, until the end of the season, Crouch should be invited onto the board. As far as I see it, that was what I proposed before and it is still my position.

[Frank's cousin]

Latitude is given to those who make sensible points and argue their position well, but whose grammar and spelling are sometimes faulty. I don't think Frank will mind me saying that he is the classic example of this.

QUOTE]

 

Oi! That's Wes off my christmas card list! ;-)

 

Nah dont mind you saying that - in truth its that when posting at work, time is a premium. I am also a useless two fingered typist so just type away quickly and dont bother with the spell check - I expect it annoys some folk, but for me its more important that the point gets across...which it does...sometimes ;-)

[Wes Tender]

Latitude is given to those who make sensible points and argue their position well, but whose grammar and spelling are sometimes faulty. I don't think Frank will mind me saying that he is the classic example of this.

QUOTE]

 

Oi! That's Wes off my christmas card list! ;-)

 

Nah dont mind you saying that - in truth its that when posting at work, time is a premium. I am also a useless two fingered typist so just type away quickly and dont bother with the spell check - I expect it annoys some folk, but for me its more important that the point gets across...which it does...sometimes ;-)

 

I did say that you made sensible points and argued your position well, usually in a well-balanced manner and also without spite and malice too.

[Daren W]

In one post Daren you manage to confirm my previous remarks almost effortlessly although no doubt this was not a measured tirade. So by your logic, if you are dyslexic it's tough if people ridicule you for your bad grammar and spelling, what if there are even more serious reasons for people's mistakes in the composition of their posts, if mocking the dyslexic isn't bad enough?

 

Is it therefore moronic or intelligent if people like me choose to avoid debating issues with posters like yourself whose first line of attack is to question the validity of a person's opinions or intelligence by pointing out their grammatical errors quite so zealously. As I've mentioned before there is little point in trying to debate with some people whose views are so extreme and entrenched that they resort to abuse and ridicule when confronted with facts and opinions that they cannot retaliate with. [admin edit - sentence removed due to libel] It's another reason why I won't get drawn into a debate with you. I find you amusing and disturbing at the same time and hope you find the time to retract your comments about dyslexia.

 

You can find out more information from this site and there are a number of charities that would welcome your support through donations or simply collecting on their behalf.

 

http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/whatisdyslexia.html

 

Pity because if you had read my posts a few weeks ago with Wes and others then you would have witnessed me debating a path forward and both sides finding some middle ground. I find it difficult to understand why Wes has changed his tack with me again but to build bridges only to burn them again through ridicule and aggressive tirades goes to show that in a small way our fans are capable of disunity regardless of what goes on in the boardroom.

 

None of us are going to agree 100% about issues such as boardroom, players, managers, potential etc but it's the extremists who do the damage and most of those sit firmly with yourself. IMO you have no write (see what I did there) to represent the fans views in the Pink as it's a very very narrow minded band you represent. What do you call yourself? The Beautiful South? Now that is ironic.

 

Are you actually ecouraging me to collect money for charity??

Rattling tins?

Oh the irony... And you wonder why I think you're a little bit dense?lol

To think of how you went off on a tangent when I mentioned cancer a few months ago and yet here you are getting on your high horse about dyslexia.. The irony is just delicious.

 

I'm laughing at you...

 

The reason I mentioned dyslexia is that I do genuinely think you have a problem understanding words. It's quite possible isn't it? I ask you to reply to a point and you don't. You instead go off on a ridiculous tangent with all sorts of cut and past nonsense on Dyslexia. Do you have a problem with the written word?

 

Oh, and for the record, my column in the Echo was alll about my opnion. I've never claimed to speak for anyone else but myself. Again, a problem understanding simple issues.

 

Perhaps you might have need for that link yourself.... lol

Edited 12 March, 2009 by Daren W

[Weston Saint]

Can we call a truce please. This is getting ridiculous and totally out of order. We are supposed to be debating football and it's ancilliaries, not posters faults and personalities.

 

Some of you are ruining this forum with your petty bickering.

 

If I had my way I would close this thread. It is no longer serving any purpose.

[Frank's cousin]

 

usually in a well-balanced manner and also without spite and malice too.

 

Well...er...must admit, when rattled, have been drawn into this... but have hopefully apologised afterwards... Football is a passionate thing, so its bound to elicit passionate argument and response, which is great, but as mentioned, for me what is more annoying is when things are 'deliberately' misinterpreted or 'half quoted and taken out of context' to try and undermine a poster, rather than a direct response to the actual point being made.

[stevegrant]

Are we done now, children?